Critical Condition: Donna Seaman's Approach to Reviewing

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.”