The reason, as we can easily predict, is the rise of postmodernist denial of the importance of the critic, the blurring of the lines between politics and literary analysis, and an overwhelming culture of relativism and the sublimation of the Western canon. McDonald invokes the Ratner effect, where a product rapidly loses credibility when the producer of the product insults its quality. A cultural ship is listless without a critic at the helm deciding where it should go, and such a ship requires a grand tradition place a new work on the map. This would explain the lack of unmitigated great works in the poststructuralist era; saying a work is a classic requires a bevy of other classics for comparison.
In his criticism of poststructuralist and postmodernism, at least, McDonald's analysis proves surprisingly poignant. He cites multiple cases where the blatant acceptance of political bias has hurt the critical realm, such as the appointment of the volatile Louis Kampf to the head of the MLA, the increased focus on studying mass media as opposed to more traditional art (regardless of the high culture/low culture argument). In the past decade most media critics have focused on the Internet and cut-and-paste culture as the main reason for the decline of critics. McDonald is brave enough to put the onus on those whose profession is supposedly intended to defend the craft.
McDonald runs into problems with his call for evaluative criticism on a universal scale. The main issue is McDonald's confusion of postmodernist lack of values with the ability to see art in a shade of gray. The Tradition is more flexible than McDonald gives it credit for, as works jump back into prominence and fall out of favor at a relatively rapid pace, considering the length of time a work has been around. Furthermore, it's not a bold postmodern statement to say that no work of art is an unmitigated success, as certain elements of a work will naturally be stronger than others. If McDonald's reasoning is to be taken to its natural extreme, every component of a work of art could be measured on the same scale as the components of every work of art, sweeping beyond differences in medium. I don't think such a rigid, rubric-like analysis of art would be pleasing to anyone, be it the artists, critics themselves, or public who is supposed to be absorbing critical opinion.
Article comments
1 - Kevin Eagan
"The tides are increasingly turning away from postmodern detachment and towards a world where students rediscover the arts from the bottom up. The increased focus on literary forms and the discovery of leading young authors, the rise of creative writing programs, and a return to mixing academic and journalistic sources of criticism are all signs that society is trying to redefine culture."
I have read that many of the principles that defined high modernism are coming back into academic circles. While I do not believe in a "rubric" approach to criticism, I do believe you have to judge things based on something cultural from the past, not just a 100% descriptive argument toward criticism.
As someone who is about to start an MA in English and American Literature, I welcome a return to a more prescriptive approach toward literary criticism. However, we cannot ignore or dismiss the importance of postmodern/poststructuralist theory, because it has shaped modern literature so deeply that to ignore it would be to destroy all of the progress and acceptance we have gained of other cultural views.
Hopefully, in a couple years we will have an approach to criticism that is accepting of cultural changes while cautiously defining what is good and bad in art. That will help cut through the ambiguity of postmodernism and reinforce the critic's role.
Excellent review!
2 - Natalie Bennett
This article has been selected for syndication to Boston.com. Nice work!
3 - Nigel Beale
"The Tradition is more flexible than McDonald gives it credit for, as works jump back into prominence and fall out of favor at a relatively rapid pace, considering the length of time a work has been around."
The reason works 'fall in and out of favour' is precisely because of evaluative criticism. McDonald criticizes academia for failing to provide this. However, without some agreed upon criteria, conversation is useless, which is what, as opposed to your extreme example, McDonald is calling for. In short, what is required is this:
"It is ... the task of criticism to establish principles; to improve opinion into knowledge; and to distinguish those means of pleasing which depend upon known causes and rational deduction, from the nameless and inexplicable elegances which appeal wholly to the fancy, from which we feel delight, but know not how they produce it, and which may well be termed the enchantress of the soul. Criticism reduces those regions of literature under the dominion of science, which have hitherto known only the anarchy of ignorance, the caprices of fancy, and the tyranny of prescription." Samuel Johnson: Rambler #92 (February 2, 1751)