Bill Pirkle to Steve Schwartz:

>First, my question was sincerely put, despite that fact that there are
>certain questions, which by the very asking, imply insubordination to the
>established order - like "do critics serve the public good?".

That's the point.  There's, in my opinion, a misunderstanding about the
role of critics.  They are often considered as public "taste builders",
and all we suspect that they are very far from this whether because of
their intentions or, in some cases, because of their intellectual gifts.
If public good means "public instruction", the answer to Bill's question
is "no" or "not necessarily": very often the teaching of a critic is
indirect or reflect.  Tom Connor wrote about this (10/8/00):

>At times I would buy a recording, find it very satisfying, then learn
>a particular critic did not like it.  In the future a negative review
>from that critic could favorably influence me and I would take it as
>an indicator that I might like the recording.

In fact, there's very little that a critic may teach us that we can't
learn by listening by ourselves, reading and discussing (just as in this
list).  However, the answer is very different if "public good" means
"public amusement".  The role of critics becomes agreeable, indeed, if
we consider them just as persons who are giving us a testimony of their
individual sensibility: a testimony that admits itself as being legitimate
subject of criticism and analysis by other people, i.e.: a literary piece.

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]