![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaunthieA couple of days ago, an article on Huffington Post caught my eye. (No, I'm not a regular HuffPo reader, but I do poke around there occasionally.) It was an article on literary criticism, specifically about young adult lit crit and how it is dominated by women. The author made this statement, which I believe can be applied to all areas of literary analysis, not just kids books:
"But the role of the critic is not to make people feel good, to distribute hugs and goodwill all around; it is to contextualize and examine the role of a particular book, to evaluate its success as a work of art, to demand of both author and reader a certain accountability, and to hopefully open up a conversation."
Okay. So far I'm following this. The author goes on to accuse YA literary criticism as lacking "a certain intellectual rigor," which is an interesting thing to say. But instead of providing examples of insufficient analysis, the author then conflates YA critics and reviews with the blog readers who react to said reviews in comments, and lumps them all into some kind of soft, squishy, can't-be-held-accountable bucket. Without any proof or introducing any evidence or even factual data. She essentially equates women with being nice, and being nice with being intellectually dishonest and/or incapable of genuine analysis.
And the conclusion takes the cake:
"This cult of niceness is at its heart a pernicious kind of misogyny, one enforced almost exclusively by other women. As the incomparable New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis noted: "I am an equal opportunity critic. I will pan women as hard as men. I've had testy people imply that I should go easier on women's movies. I find that incredibly insulting. Are you kidding me? I don't want to be graded on a curve. None of us want to be a good woman writer." By caving in to an unwritten code of conduct that promotes a false sense of community over honest discourse, we're not doing ourselves any favors."
No, you should never go "easier" on anyone or anything just because they're "X" (whether X is gender-related, race-related, or whatever you like). No, I never want to be graded on a curve. However, there is absolutely NOTHING that says you cannot be intellectually honest, objectively critical, and nice. This article author seems to subscribe to an idea that in order to be "equal" to men, women also have to "pan as hard as men." To which I reply, in the immortal words of Wil Wheaton:
Don't be a dick.
Specifically, don't be a dick just because you don't have one. (And yes, I am being deliberately crude in response to the infuriating suggestion that I have to compensate for my lack of male genitalia by taking on the worst aspects of the testosterone-fueled pissing matches that pass all too frequently as modern criticism. It's called irony.) The strum and drang of the Internet to the contrary, you don't have to be angry or confrontational as part of being critical. You can make sound intellectual arguments without calling people names, getting personal, or being dismissive. You can, in fact, be both nice and accurate, polite and pointed, delightful and deliberate. Women don't have to be mean to be meaningful, any more than men do.
Frankly, I think the world of literary criticism (and the Internet in general) could use with a great deal more politeness and niceness as well as honesty and rigorous intellectual discourse. All this name-calling polarizes us, gets in the way of genuine discourse and understanding of multiple viewpoints. (When was the last time you saw an honest intellectual discussion in the comments section of your local newspaper, no matter how neutral the news item?) And niceness, in and of itself, is not a sin. Failure to be honest is a sin. The two do not have to equate.
Grrr.
"But the role of the critic is not to make people feel good, to distribute hugs and goodwill all around; it is to contextualize and examine the role of a particular book, to evaluate its success as a work of art, to demand of both author and reader a certain accountability, and to hopefully open up a conversation."
Okay. So far I'm following this. The author goes on to accuse YA literary criticism as lacking "a certain intellectual rigor," which is an interesting thing to say. But instead of providing examples of insufficient analysis, the author then conflates YA critics and reviews with the blog readers who react to said reviews in comments, and lumps them all into some kind of soft, squishy, can't-be-held-accountable bucket. Without any proof or introducing any evidence or even factual data. She essentially equates women with being nice, and being nice with being intellectually dishonest and/or incapable of genuine analysis.
And the conclusion takes the cake:
"This cult of niceness is at its heart a pernicious kind of misogyny, one enforced almost exclusively by other women. As the incomparable New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis noted: "I am an equal opportunity critic. I will pan women as hard as men. I've had testy people imply that I should go easier on women's movies. I find that incredibly insulting. Are you kidding me? I don't want to be graded on a curve. None of us want to be a good woman writer." By caving in to an unwritten code of conduct that promotes a false sense of community over honest discourse, we're not doing ourselves any favors."
No, you should never go "easier" on anyone or anything just because they're "X" (whether X is gender-related, race-related, or whatever you like). No, I never want to be graded on a curve. However, there is absolutely NOTHING that says you cannot be intellectually honest, objectively critical, and nice. This article author seems to subscribe to an idea that in order to be "equal" to men, women also have to "pan as hard as men." To which I reply, in the immortal words of Wil Wheaton:
Don't be a dick.
Specifically, don't be a dick just because you don't have one. (And yes, I am being deliberately crude in response to the infuriating suggestion that I have to compensate for my lack of male genitalia by taking on the worst aspects of the testosterone-fueled pissing matches that pass all too frequently as modern criticism. It's called irony.) The strum and drang of the Internet to the contrary, you don't have to be angry or confrontational as part of being critical. You can make sound intellectual arguments without calling people names, getting personal, or being dismissive. You can, in fact, be both nice and accurate, polite and pointed, delightful and deliberate. Women don't have to be mean to be meaningful, any more than men do.
Frankly, I think the world of literary criticism (and the Internet in general) could use with a great deal more politeness and niceness as well as honesty and rigorous intellectual discourse. All this name-calling polarizes us, gets in the way of genuine discourse and understanding of multiple viewpoints. (When was the last time you saw an honest intellectual discussion in the comments section of your local newspaper, no matter how neutral the news item?) And niceness, in and of itself, is not a sin. Failure to be honest is a sin. The two do not have to equate.
Grrr.
