[ilds] Readings

Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Tue May 6 06:41:41 PDT 2008

Yes, a good point.  The trellis metaphor is particularly effective.  Good criticism is a genre unto itself and a kind of literature.  However, aside from Bloom, who is also one of my favorites, all of the "critics" listed below are writers/artists in their own right.  That is telling.  Another way to look at the problem is to ask, is Bloom with his pen the equivalent of Heifetz with his violin?  I don't know, but, sadly, I think not.  On the other hand, the musician/critic comparison may not hold -- the two professions being too dissimilar in terms of abilities.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Alejandro Adams <hungerist at hotmail.com>
>Sent: May 5, 2008 8:26 PM
>To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>Subject: Re: [ilds] Readings
>>Musicians are considered artists but art critics are not.  I think this 
>>disparity >has led literary critics to invent Deconstruction and even the 
>Mencken held that the impulse to make art was essentially a critical 
>one--or, rather, that the artistic impulse and critical impulse were the 
>same.  His argument is convincing.  Various shades of caveat 
>notwithstanding, I sense a lot of truth in that unpopular notion.
>And Harold Bloom: "Criticism is either part of literature or nothing at 
>all."  Indeed.
>Hard to explain Auden's letter to the editors of The Nation which praised 
>Agee's film criticism.  Auden disliked journalism and disliked cinema, yet 
>he eagerly awaited each of Agee's reviews.
>Clearly there are cases in which "criticism," "journalism," "literature," 
>etc., coalesce, and we are left with prose which moves or stimulates or 
>merely pleases us.  Gide's "diaries"?  Flaubert's "letters"?  Ford Madox 
>Ford's "travelogues"?  Ideally, form is not the soil in which writing is 
>planted, but the trellis over which prose shapes itself until the frame is 
>no longer discernible.

More information about the ILDS mailing list