Johann Hari wonders if professional criticism is coming to an end , pushed out by armchair critics empowered by social media. If so, he suggests, we would lose a great deal.
Critics do two things according to Hari. They provide “consumer advice,” and they help audiences grasp the deeper meaning of sometimes baffling works of art or literature. The first can be done by citizen critics on Twitter, Facebook, and the comment section of Amazon. The second, however, requires learning and space—something established critics are no longer getting. Magazines are cutting coverage, and where criticism is still published, it is now much shorter:
Kael’s famous review of Bonnie and Clyde was 7,000 words long. Most critics today are lucky to get 700; on Twitter, they get fewer than 700 characters. Indeed, their work is most regularly seen now through online review aggregators, where the words are stripped out and all that remains is a banal star rating.
If criticism is cut from all magazines and newspapers, Hari argues, “all that will be left to navigate us all through a roiling ocean of culture will be unpaid amateurs and advertising.”
I think Hari’s alarm is misguided. While the general trend is of diminishing space, he ignores contrary developments, such as The Wall Street Journal ’s expanded book coverage , The Chicago Tribune ’s new stand-alone weekly, “The Printer’s Row,” and the recently launched online-only Los Angeles Review of Books .
Why are these newspapers and media companies launching review sections or creating entire publications devoted to criticism? At RealClearBooks (another venture that bucks Hari’s trend), Mark Judge reminds us that reading is a contemplative activity and—via Thomas Merton—that contemplation is a natural (if sometimes thwarted) inclination: “Man was made for the highest activity, which is, in fact, his rest. That activity, which is contemplation, is immanent and it transcends the level of sense and of discourse.”
Criticism is one means of satisfying this need for contemplation, which is why I think it would take more than Twitter to dispatch of it. In fact, certain technologies, such as Amazon’s Kindle, makes reading long-form criticism easier, as Alan Jacob points out in his excellent The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction .
But what do other First Things readers think? Do you still read longer (plus 1,500 words) art, theater, and book reviews? Am I right in thinking these will always be around in some form or other?
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…