In A crisis in literary criticism ? at Moby Lives Ellie Robins discusses Winston Manrique Sabogal's interesting piece from El País, Radiografía de la crítica literaria -- which includes contributions by several English-writing commentators, including Eliot Weinberger, Marie Arana, and Claire Armitstead.
As so often in these debates I think things get confused by the conflation of 'literary criticism' and 'book reviewing'. (The way I explain the difference: in a book review you shouldn't say whodunnit; in literary criticism you have to discuss it.) They are very different, and serve different purposes -- though inevitably there's some overlap. (In case it wasn't obvious: about 98 per cent of what you find at the complete review consists of book reviews, with only very small and occasional doses of literary criticism.)
Eliot Weinberger notes:
Sadly, however, Weinberger is right when he observes:
Lots more of interest among the responses in the El País-piece -- but as far as the concluding 'Reglas para una crítica equilibrada' I have to disagree with the first (among others): admittedly in literary criticism (as opposed to book reviewing) it's a bit more reasonable, but I'm against 'situating the author' and the like: the (individual) book is what matters, while the author and anything to do with the author is of, at best, secondary (and, indeed, I would argue: far lesser) importance.
As so often in these debates I think things get confused by the conflation of 'literary criticism' and 'book reviewing'. (The way I explain the difference: in a book review you shouldn't say whodunnit; in literary criticism you have to discuss it.) They are very different, and serve different purposes -- though inevitably there's some overlap. (In case it wasn't obvious: about 98 per cent of what you find at the complete review consists of book reviews, with only very small and occasional doses of literary criticism.)
Eliot Weinberger notes:
Estados Unidos no tiene la clase de suplementos literarios habituales en España y muchos otros países. Solo tiene una publicación periódica importante sobre crítica literaria: The New York Review of Books.But, of course, The New York Review of Books' ambit extends far beyond the merely literary -- and rather than a 'crítica literaria' I would consider it a journal of cultural criticism -- 'cultural' in the broadest (i.e. also political) sense. (I subscribe to it, but I do admit to frequently -- i.e. every time an issue arrives -- being annoyed by how far they stray from purely literary coverage.)
Sadly, however, Weinberger is right when he observes:
No puedo pensar en un solo crítico estadounidense a quien uno pueda recurrir ahora en busca de ideas.There are a handful of American critics whose work I'll certainly always read, but none whose work I don't have serious reservations about (so, for example, as I've frequently noted, I continue to be baffled -- truly baffled -- by James Wood's criticism). (Weinberger is always worth reading, but he's also a cultural, rather than literary critic .....)
Lots more of interest among the responses in the El País-piece -- but as far as the concluding 'Reglas para una crítica equilibrada' I have to disagree with the first (among others): admittedly in literary criticism (as opposed to book reviewing) it's a bit more reasonable, but I'm against 'situating the author' and the like: the (individual) book is what matters, while the author and anything to do with the author is of, at best, secondary (and, indeed, I would argue: far lesser) importance.