Anti-Climacus

Via connections forever lost to the internet and my browser history, I came across a piece on the changes to television criticism in the last several years. It argues that the increasing reliance on the recap has damaged criticism for the worse, and that the future of TV criticism is and should be a move away from that format. And so far as it goes, there may be merit to this argument. As a general statement of principles to apply in criticism, it's not very good.

For example, I'm not sure the author understands what objectivity means:

2) All criticism should be subjective, personal, and unique.
F*** objectivity when it comes to criticism. Seriously. There’s a difference in being able to look at a piece of television objectively and writing about it as such. Instead of hiding personal biases, opinions, and history, these should be part of the critical process. In order to differentiate yourself from other critics, readers should be able to feel that whatever they read from you comes from a place of truth. Whether or not they agree with your assessment is largely irrelevant, and out of your control. But the authenticity of the piece is something you can absolutely control. Owning up to one’s shortcomings is just another way of providing context to the review. Above all, people should be able to identify a piece by you with the byline removed. By letting yourself into the piece, you’re giving yourself a voice online. Trying to be “objective” will only make you sound like everyone else. And who wants that?

Objectively speaking, this is a fog. First of all, subjective criticism is the 'in' thing these days; Sepinwall and the AV Club are built around the personalities of their respective authors and not their abilities to see things about a TV show that others do not.* Second, I find it dubious as a general proposition that a subjective viewpoint means that one's writing will come from a 'place of truth.' A 'place of opinion' seems more likely. But the biggest problem with this suggestion is that it looks to turn criticism into the bad old Pitchfork-style music criticism, in which the reader gets a 600-word anecdote about the author and the beginning of the review, and very little time is spent actually describing the thing being reviewed. Great if the purpose of the review is to highlight the personality of the critic, but I am relatively certain this is not the best use to which criticism can be put. I suspect the real subject of this article is not "how to write better TV criticism" but "how to become a semi-famous TV reviewer," given that the overall tone of the piece has a lot to do with marketing and branding and very little to do with the process of watching and reflecting.**

And, look:

The last thing you want to do is create work that will try and appeal to everyone. If you do that, you’ll be the “Terra Nova” of television criticism. And trust me, you DO NOT want to be the “Terra Nova” of television criticism. That way lies shame and cock-blocking dinosaurs. It ain’t pretty.

The problem with Terra Nova is not that it tries to appeal to everyone. It's that it failed. Trying to appeal to everyone was never a problem for the Beatles, or Steven Spielberg, or (to amp up the critical cred) R.E.M. because they all succeeded. Trying to create something without making it appeal to everyone, at least hypothetically, is how you end up with that Lou Reed-Metallica record.


*I don't especially care for the work of Alyssa Rosenberg, but at least cultural criticism + the politics of culture is something other, and more objective, than the usual.

**Except advocating, in a non-specific way, that people do more reflecting.