Contrary to what you would expect, McDonald only briefly addresses the Internet's effect in the introductory chapter, though he does use the standard argument against untrained writers giving their two cents. He concludes the book on a hopeful note for the more traditional thinkers, and a disheartening note to those who have become entrenched in the cultural studies camp. 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. To defend themselves, postmodernists are declaring "the end of culture." If the title of McDonald's book belies his passionate defense of the field, his greatest success is prying criticism from the firm clutches of its most empowered opponents. You can't judge a book by its title.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
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)