This was a good topic and I don't want to let the lack of response distract from the fact that this site needs more challenging, intellectually-oriented pieces such as this one. I haven't had time to read the essay yet, but I will soon and I'll offer some comments.

That is all.

THe money quote, "The snark review, according to Julavits, eschews a serious engagement with literature in favor of a sound-bite approach..."

You could put that down as the epitaph for a lot of commentary right now.

I like a good hatchet job, rant, or screed as much as anyone, but I really appreciate a review which tells me about the work on its own merits, with additional illuminating commentary as needed. Unfortunately, a lot of that is in short supply in most forums.

Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of read reviews only to go with a gut instinct in the end?

My inclination is to lean toward the uncivil reviewer, if he is telling the truth. I have friends, including a Pulitzer prize winner, who will not review books unless they can say something positive. That is not unusual among the literati. So, one gets faint praise, but praise just the same, for awful books. (One trick is to say something positive about some minor aspect of the writing or, if it is a collection, the one good short story or essay.) I can't argue against a counterweight to that trend. Besides, Rick Moody is an egotistical, self-indulgent, unaware, very bad writer.

Nor can I agree that consideration of popular culture is, in itself, evidence of decline. There is not a clear line between popular and elite culture, and never has been. (Most of Shakespeare's audience would not have been welcome to dine in a bourgeois home.) Anyone who can't see that Marvin Gaye's What's Going On is adept cultural criticism of the '60s and '70s is clueless.

One of the reasons cultural criticism is under attack is racism. Also, sexism, class bias and a general opposition to the Other, are involved. Many of today's public intellectuals are not aging white men who secretly, or not so secretly, are white and male supremacists, like Bloom. When folks start frothing at the mouth when they hear the name of Chip Gates or Cornel West, it is not because those cultural critics don't have deep insight into American culture. It is because:

*They are not 'supposed to' be allowed to speak. (The traditional remedy was lynching.)

*The persons complaining do not want to hear what they have to say because it represents cultural change they are opposed to.

Cotkin's take on the new outlets for cultural criticism is accurate. However, I would add some of the smaller literary journals and magazines such as Harper's, The Atlantic and Utne.

Last, a friend, a good writer who shall remain unnamed, did come close to meeting that standard of civility set by the public intellectuals of the '50s -- a fist fight. He spat on someone who disagreed with him at a New York party.