Democracy? Nah, not for us ta
Via Norm, via Clive Davis:
Richard Schickel, who is apparently a "distinguished film writer", has written this not-too complementary piece about bloggers reviewing:
Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book... I don't think it's impossible for bloggers to write intelligent reviews. I do think, however, that a simple "love" of reading (or movie-going or whatever) is an insufficient qualification for the job. That way often leads to cultishness (see the currently inflated reputations of Philip K. Dick or Cornell Woolrich, both easy reads for lazy, word-addicted minds).
And we have to find in the work of reviewers something more than idle opinion-mongering. We need to see something other than flash, egotism and self-importance
Both Norm and Clive have decent things to say on the matter, but if I could add my tuppence worth...
Criticism is a democratic activity. It is 'a good thing', surely, to have reviewers who bring learned criticism to the latest film/novel/whatever, highlighting its social significance and its fitting into this or that school of film-making (or whatever).
It is also essential to have the other side of the coin - 'normal' people who just simply enjoyed a good romp, and want to spread the word.
Why can't potential cinema goers hear these voices as well - which are judgements often by bloggers nearer to their taste than professional film reviewers?
On all of these attacks on bloggers (including the Melissa Kite/Iain Dale saga which has been getting right-wing bloggers' knickers in a twist for a while now) there seems to be one uniting theme. People who get paid to write for a living don't like people doing as good a job for free. Well, forgive me if I have little sympathy with them....
Cory
