Criticism

Today on Twitter I saw a review of the TFM Book by Tucker Max. This interests me on several levels; mostly that I have read every book and story that Max has published and while his exploits are ludicrous and the humor is sophomoric the fact remains that Max is an accomplished author. He can enthrall a reader and delight with very visual descriptions of the things that he got into while in college. As an undergraduate student and a fraternity member myself I enjoy the party-based womanizing antics of such a man. And on another note TFM is a cultural movement that hits close to home for me. TFM (Total Frat Move) began a couple years ago as a website (www.totalfratmove.com) and has become a staple in fraternity houses around the country. Describing TFM is like describing my fraternity's ritual to the uninitiated. I would suggest reading it and seeing what they have to offer for yourself.

But, it wasn't Max's review (though it was positive) that interests me. What spawned this post was a quote by Max about literary criticism in general. He writes:

"I HATE critics who think that their opinion of a book should somehow become the defacto truth about the book. Bullshit. I cannot stand 50 Shades of Grey (yes I've read it), but millions of people disagree; OK fine. My opinion is valid for me, and wrong for them.

That is the problem with professional criticism. Critics stopped being relevant when they stopped writing to inform and contextualize, and when they started writing to signal who they are, to display their identity by their stance on what they are writing about. Criticism should never be about the critic, but that's what it has become, and that's why no one cares about professional criticism anymore.

I'm off my soapbox now."
(Taken from the full review at tuckermax.me)

I can see Max's point. Critics become popular and more successful and then their writing becomes less a companion to the original author's words and more about their own thoughts and impressions. It is akin to a music review in Rolling Stone becoming larger than the band's album or an art review that feels superior to the original painting. We should respect the original creator and appreciate his work. Right or wrong, good or bad is all subjective. The objective point is this: the book got published, the painting was commissioned and the album released. The artist made money doing what he loves and moves on. We bask in the afterglow below and in the words of my roommate Andrew, "respect the hustle." Without the original there would be nothing to review and criticism would not exist.

However, Max is not faultless here. I appreciate that his review was positive (I'll spare you the details, basically he was proud of the TFM guys for growing their brand and that he was tired of reading fratire stories as he claims he has moved on, yet he has published nothing new since Hilarity Ensues. Still rolling in the profits, eh Tucker?) The fact is this: Max's celebrity drew the TFM boys to ask him for a review. Without "inventing a genre" and making a movie and publishing several books no one would care what Max has to say about the story. TFM's readership will increase regardless if Max's review was positive or negative just because it is Max who wrote a review. Tucker's celebrity allowed him to speak intelligently on the book and is completely about the critic.

Similarly, when I wrote about John Updike's critical essays last semester those reviews were entirely about Updike. Reading these essays thirty-plus years after they were published I can assure you that I did not read them for insight into the author or the original work. I read them because Updike wrote them. Being a published author himself, Updike's words became paramount and larger than the work itself.

On another scale, my mentor D.G. Myers is a working critic and a professor. He gets advance copies of stories and chooses which to review. He become flooded with works and must wade through them to pick the best that are worthy of his ideas. This is where modern criticism lies and the reality that Mr. Max does not like: the fact that there are more novels published than competent critics to review them. Myers, to his readership, is a sort of "last word" on the books he reviews. He tells his readers what he liked and what he didn't as well as notes on the author and the prose overall. Because the readers trust his ideas and his expertise in literature, they take his decision into account when choosing books for their own shelf.

So, I agree with Mr. Max. The original work is what counts the most. We must give the author his due and respect that he has written something worthy of publishing. Without authors there are no critics. Many people have made careers and livelihoods offering their opinions on another writers words. But this is my divergent point: a modicum of celebrity and readership goes a long way. No one asked me or my fraternity brothers to review the TFM book. Why should they? We aren't published authors or respected writers. Tucker Max made his fortune writing outrageous stories about himself and his friends. The TFM gang respects his input and solicited him for a review knowing full well that the content of the review was irrelevant and a moot point. Just being able to connect the phrases "TFM" and "Tucker Max" gives the TFM Book legitimacy and creditably as readers of Max's works are more likely to pick up the TFM Book than readers of other genres. Money changes hands and everyone goes home happy. John Updike's criticism was notable not because of the works that he reviewed, but instead the works themselves became more important because Updike chose to write about them. Here too, TFM became more important because Tucker Max wrote about it.