Years ago, even the ability to publish a byline in some URL
form was enough to constitute an author as credible. Now virtually anyone can
create their own website and broadcast their written word across the
planet—within seconds. This alone threatens the world of true criticism.
So, who can we trust? What defines a true critic? “One must
have the urge to share one’s enthusiasms,” Donna Seaman, a renowned literary
critic clarifies, “To advocate. To be clear about what is that matters in a
work of art.” Seaman describes her approach to reviewing the arts and its
challenges in a chatroom of top Chicagoan critics moderated by Kris Vire for
“TimeOut Chicago.”
The most crucial quality to qualify someone as a good critic according to Seaman,
however, is passion. “You must find consolation in the art you dedicate
yourself to and devote your critical attention out of hunger for what books or
music or, literally, food grants you.” There is no basis for critiquing any subject
area without any personal fascination for it, as Seaman conveys. Subsequently,
Seaman explains that with passion ensues absorption in that subject, which then
leads to necessary knowledge and credibility. “…Passion must lead to discipline
and immersion. Expertise is gained from sustained attention…ongoing
self-education is essential.” In other words, in order to be a suitable critic
in a certain field, one must be self-educated—something that should come
hand-in-hand with the enthusiasm for that subject.
Seaman herself may have a unique approach to criticism,
because contrasting to reviewing food or music, she essentially writes about
writing. By reviewing for print, Web and live assessments on the radio, Seaman
sees differences in her voice within her writings through each medium. She
states that the biggest dissimilarity within print is the role of the editor,
with constraints regarding length or form. “When I write strictly for the Web,
I do write a bit more informally…[Writing for print is] like writing a sonnet
instead of a stream-of-consciousness monologue.”
Though she may, on occasion, find herself somewhat
unrestrained, Donna Seaman underlines clarity at all times. “I’m always hoping
for clarity. The best criticism is rich in unexpected connections.” For
example, when a critic such as Rob Harvilla from Spin.com uses random phrases
such as “Valley-girl Desdemona” in attempt to capture Lana Del Rey’s
inexplicable façade, the outcome is not short of a truly encapsulating and
succinct two-word summarization of an entire persona. Seaman stresses that
reviews, no matter good or bad, must still be as concise and clear as any other
type of writing. “No, we won’t like everything. But when you slam something,
you have to be sharp and precise.” This comes from constant revision of one’s own reviews: “There is no writing, only
rewriting.” Simply, the more we hack away at our own ramblings, the more
to-the-point they become.
Everyone who is subjected to an art form, such as
literature, music, or theatre, experiences something completely different from
the next. Seaman explains that a critic must keep enough distance away to be
able to visualize the work in its own context: amongst other paintings, plays,
albums etc. Raising hairs among the other critics in the chatroom discussion,
Seaman also argues that one must review the work similarly in a greater context
of multiple opinions—not just their own. “Writing is always about exposing the
workings of a mind, even a tween with bad taste.”
