 |
| Personal. Political. Provocative. Add-Free |
In the March issue of The Sun magazine, two readers’ letters jabbed each other on the Correspondence page. Both readers were responding to the same story in
the December 2010 issue. The author of letter A was moved to tears by the entire issue, but especially by the short story, “The Immortal Zelensky” by Boomer Pinches. The letter raves that Pinches’ “fine use of telling details was…a graduate course in writing, without being the least bit didactic or contrived or self-conscious.”
Letter B followed. Its author proudly reports to having read every poem, essay, or short story in The Sun for eight years. This reader even marched through those entries that failed to resonate, simply because “if it was in The Sun, it had to have some intrinsic value (reasoning of which I am also guilty)”; HOWEVER, author B continues, “The Immortal Zelensky” was “so self-conscious, awkwardly written, rambling, and uninteresting” that it was completely without merit.
You’ve got to love it! Two devoted, well educated, and articulate readers take away completely opposite opinions regarding the same collection of words on a page. It happens all the time, particularly in this literary magazine, which tends to push at conventional boundaries.
This dichotomy excites me because it demonstrates how there is no “right” and no “wrong” in the murky sphere that is art, thought, and opinion. Each of us responds to stimuli differently. Our backgrounds, our locales, our life circumstances, our ages, our genders, and an entire spice rack of other elements shape us and thereby shape our responses to what we see and what we read and how we think.
This reality is freeing. Each person who stumbles upon my blog will react differently. Some will judge my words callow and shallow, which is fine because others will find them perplexing, and someone may actually find a few of my words moving or helpful. But they are my words, reflecting my thoughts. These thoughts are all that I truly own in this life. And you, dear readers—your thoughts are your own! We share equal opportunity thoughts, no one individual’s ideas any more or any less important than the next person’s.
Rangewriter 
It is fascinating, isn't it? It makes me wonder what point the art and literary critics serve – their opinion can be countered by another critic's opinion – and in the end, who knows what to believe? That's where making up your own mind comes in … Ah, that's a good thing.
LikeLike
"…how there is no “right” and no “wrong” in the murky sphere that is art, thought, and opinion." You've touched the core of a place from where the world could either be hell, or heaven. Thank you for this lovely observation.Priya
LikeLike
SDS, I think the biggest service art and literary critics serve is to make the rest of us feel stupid. Therefore, I pay them little heed. Although, I do sometimes read their reviews simply to marvel at what they got out of what I saw or read.
LikeLike
Hmmm, Priya, perhaps we should develop that vein a bit more. I'm not so sure its a lovely observation now that you put it that way. ;-}
LikeLike
I apologize to my readers who have struggled to leave comments on my blog.I'm sorry, I haven't yet figured out how to resolve the issue. I will take the liberty of posting an email message that Charles from Mostly Bright Ideas was kind enough to leave:"Until recently, a select group of people were in charge of deciding what would get published, and therefore what would get read. In other words, they told us what was good, and worth our time. Activities like self-publishing and blogging have turned that approach upside-down, with stunning results. Would I ever have had the pleasure of reading Linda Paul's words and exploring her thoughts? I don't know. I'm just glad it turned out this way. I find many of your words moving, helpful, and much more'Thanks for your efforts and for your positive encouragement, Charles.
LikeLike
I, for one, am glad for literary criticism and for editors who employ critical thinking skills in their curatorial duties. As a reader, I don't have the time or inclination to sift through everybody's individual thoughts and feelings on every matter of minutia in the world, and I can't imagine who would honestly wish to be burdened with such a task. It seems a bit overly simplistic to say there's no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to creative output because, if this were true, artists and authors would have no compelling reason to hone their craft, leaving the world a much duller place. Furthermore, while the quality of a particular work is always apt to be judged subjectively, this hardly diminishes the need for the types of critical dialogue which often serve to elucidate meanings that might otherwise remain obscure.
LikeLike
John, you raise an interesting point about artists and authors honing the craft of their creative output. But I think that artists are inherently driven to hone their skills to communicate in better and more effective or interesting ways. I fear art and literature which has been created with an eye cast at critical reviews. That said, I don't always like the way artists present their ideas. But that is the capricious quality of art.Your point about the service that editors provide in sorting through oceans of creative output is well taken. I confess that I follow only a handful of internet writers because the amount of drivel that clutters cyberspace is staggering. I'm honored that you took the time to read my own drivel, John.
LikeLike
It probably is accurate to claim that no individual is "right" or "wrong" for reacting or not reacting to a piece of artwork; taste cannot be judged because it is subjective. Art, however, is often part of a larger dialogue, one that involves aesthetics, philosophy, culture. It seems to me that the role of the critic is often to discern where a work of art may fall in that larger dialogue, which may be precisely why their opinions hold little validity to many of us. That does not, however, make their perspective any less relevant to the population they serve. It just makes it less relevant to those who are outside of that dialogue.That being said, the ease with which people publish and produce "art" makes me wonder if we need those voices which will help us to wade through the tsunami of ordinary expressions that exist today. Most people who create art feel they are being original, special, deep, etc. Let's be honest and acknowledge they aren't all good. And if it all falls under the umbrella of art, one must wonder if art as a means toward knowing the world, knowing the human spirit, knowing life is coming to an end.
LikeLike
DebbieB, First, thanks for swinging by and taking the time to comment.Seoondly: "Most people who create art feel they are being original, special, deep, etc. Let's be honest and acknowledge they aren't all good." This is so true! However, I think this was a true statement even before our tsunami of expression existed. There have always been artists and writers whom critics have defended while I scratched my head over their attempts. I usually defer to my own lack of depth or education and assume that, while a work my fly way over my head, surely it has and will hit the target for someone else. That is precisely what is so fascinating, frustrating, and perplexing about art.We are exposed to so many more expressions of thought that it is overwhelming. But I don't believe that knowing life is coming to an end. I just believe that there are many more individuals trying to probe the vast outer limits of what we keep trying to define. I equate art to the mystery of life itself. We will never fully understand it till it is too late…and maybe not even then.
LikeLike