Critics: Enthusiasts vs. Wits

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
In last Sunday's Book Review section of the NYT, Laura Miller reviews a collection of essays by New Yorker critic Anthony Lane, "Nobody's Perfect". She says:

"Good reviewers tend to fall into 2 categories: enthusiasts or wits. The first excels at positive reviews, the second at pans, and seldom do the twain meet in a single soul."

What do you think of this definition? Are you an enthusiast or a wit? (You don't have to be a reviewer per se, just a poster here.) And what about your favorite, least favorite or other well-known music critics--enthusiasts or wits?

Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

If you hate an album, the opportunities for humour are plentiful. It's harder to write a positive review that holds the attention, and gets across what it is that makes you love the record/live performance. Outright pannings are always the most entertaining reviews to read, but the real test of a writer is to make the reader want to listen to whatever is being reviewed. This is where the wheat is separated from the chaff. I don't really write reviews, so I'm coming from the perspective of a reader here.

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I am an enthusiast. And I know that it is much more difficult to write on an album you like than on an album you don't like. Fortunately I am not a critic.

alex in mainhattan (alex63), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

i think laura miller is full of shit, as most of the history of pop crit bears out.

jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony Lane is kinda full of shit, too. David Denby is worse.

Appolonian hatas and Dionysian Bangses. Wowee, it's a first-term Humanites seminar. "seldom do the twain meet in a single soul," eh? Let's find these seldom, gorgeous few and give them jobs!

Guess I'm a wit then.

g.cannon (gcannon), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

btw, how did Miller this construct use re Lane? W or E or both?

g.cannon (gcannon), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

It's true, music critics are all enthusiasts.

I think she said Lane is a wit when he writes about movies, but a literary enthusiast lurks within.

Ben Williams, Tuesday, 3 September 2002 19:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I am a twit.

Kris (aqueduct), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

The impression I get is that--very roughtly--she's trying to differentiate the kind of person who sees a movie or record as an object to be examined and the kind of person who sees it as a launching pad to demonstrate their writing chops. I think that's overstating things considerably, but I also think it's a useful and at least somewhat true division.

M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

At least as far as music writing goes, that is--I don't read enough movie writing to say whether that's true there. I also don't know the article in question so I may be way off base in my interpretation.

M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually yes, the whole thing seems much more meaningful if you ignore the raves vs. pans dichotomy posited in the next sentence. You really can isolate these archetypes, to a certain extent: as I read this, the enthusiast is the critic who sees his/her purpose as telling you what's valuable, while the wit wants to entertain you by striding skeptically out to the middle of the field and dramatically sorting the good from the bad, approving of the good and puncturing the bad. In ILM terms John Darn!elle is the ultimate enthusiast (on LPTJ, anyway).

Of course, all of this completely disregards "critics" like me, who are trying very hard to be as boring as possible. (Okay sorry that's a whiny joke but on some level lately I do want to try and write boring reviews, reviews consisting of nothing but short declarative sentences about what bands sound like and whether I like that or not.)

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know about the "seldom do the twain meet," though: still taking John as an example, his attitude over here is far more of a wit floor-sweeper one ...

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I think your 'boring reviews' thing punctures your own dichotomy, 'Bisco. i.e. you can combine the two simply by concentrating very hard and finding a lot in a specific artwork (enthusiasm) and at the same time finding what's good and bad in that artwork and saying so (wit). That's actually what I enjoy doing most - writing about things I'm equivocal on.

Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

From Miller: "At her best, Pauline Kael, Lane's illustrious predecessor at the New Yorker and the critic to whom he is doomed to be compared, was both, but she leaned toward the enthusiast camp. Lane, in his movie reviews at least, is decidedly a wit."

Sorry if these quotes sound pompous when taken out of context: the article is quite interesting when read in full.

I read the enthusiast as the type of person who is bowled over by the movie, book, etc. and whose quotes are pasted onto movie ads: "Remarkable! Groundbreaking! Breathtaking!" etc.; while the wit uses the space of the review to impress with their own cleverness.

Maybe this will clarify, again from Miller:

"The enthusiast tends to be too impetuous and undisciplined a writer to master the precise language and timing of the bon mot, and the wit is too intent on executing a flawless performance to risk affixing his heart to his sleeve."

Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Enthusiasts are more informative in small doses, but after a paragraph full it all sounds like biased adcopy fabricated by a overcaffienated quote-whore.
As someone who always preferred Lennon to McCartney, I have to say I prefer Wits. Tanya Headon is my personal Goddess! Sure, cynicism isn't healthy, but its a helluvalot more fun.

Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 23:19 (twenty-two years ago)

To those who wondered what the movie critic equivalent of Tanya Headon would sounds like try The Filthy Critic at BigEmpire.

Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 23:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Or www.mrcranky.com .

Nate Patrin, Tuesday, 3 September 2002 23:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Music writing that puts all its stock in false dichotomies like Lennon = wit = good and McCartney = enthusiast = bad sounds like biased adcopy fabricated by an overcaffeinated quote-whore.

That was kinda cynical. It was also kinda fun. Thanks, LCA!

Matt C., Wednesday, 4 September 2002 00:14 (twenty-two years ago)

This is kind of like Lisa Carver's sensualist versus sexualist debate. I like to come AND play, thanks!

Pete Scholtes, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 01:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, of course it's not a strict dichotomy. But I think the real difference in the wit/enthusiast dichotomy is how the critic engages with the material. Wits are detached; enthusiasts are engaged. The main purpose of a wit is to amuse; an enthusiast, to proselytize.

Thus, Laura Miller says that Anthony Lane is a wit when it comes to movies, because fundamentally, he's not really passionate about them. He doesn't have an agenda to push, he's not trying to persuade; whereas, if you ever read his literature stuff, it's instantly apparent that he's much more strongly involved.

This is why I think music critics are all enthusiasts. Music tends to play a much stronger role in people's sense of their identity than any other artform; music critics are usually fairly passionate, heavily invested in a particular sound or movement, wanting to convince you of its importance.

Name one music critic who's a wit (Tanya Headon doesn't count; far too relentless and serious about disliking everything)...

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Danny Baker, Steven Wells, Max Harrison, David Quantick, David Stubbs. There's five to be going on with.

Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't say I've ever gotten one iota of amusement out of any of that lot, but I suppose that's a matter of taste...

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Music writing that puts all its stock in false dichotomies like Lennon = wit = good and McCartney = enthusiast = bad sounds like biased adcopy fabricated by an overcaffeinated quote-whore.
I never said McCartney == Bad, I said I preferred Lennon over McCartney. Besides, we all know that Ringo was the Witty one.
Ben Williams made a very interesting point:
Wits are detached; enthusiasts are engaged. The main purpose of a wit is to amuse; an enthusiast, to proselytize.
but Lennon == Detached Proseltying?; McCartney == Engaged Amusement?


Warning: the opinions expressed by Lord Custos in this post may not reflect the opinions of Lord Custos.

Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm kind of out of touch with UK crits, but Steven Wells I just remember for tiresome rants, and haven't the rest all written for Q magazine for lengthy stretches? Or Sounds/Melody Maker? Not exactly bastions of humor, any of those...

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

OMG! Mrcranky.com R0X0R! Thanks for letting me know about that, Nate.

Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it helps if you just apply it to critics, not musicians, Custos...

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't say I've ever gotten one iota of amusement out of any of that lot, but I suppose that's a matter of taste...

What are you talking about Ben? You've never found Danny Baker funny? What about those "Danny Baker's Wackiest Throw-Ins Volume 7" and "Danny Baker's Zaniest Applications of the Backpass Rule" videos? A laugh a minute.

And Steven Wells would be funny if he was a completely different person.

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

The golden age of Melody Maker was great for both wit and enthusiasm. Neil Kulkarni, for example, wrote a legendary demolition of Ned's Atomic Dustbin but in enthusiast mode he could make you drool for music you'd never heard. Which reminds me, does anyone want to buy a barely used copy of Goodfellas by Show & AG?

Mike (mratford), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it helps if you just apply it to critics, not musicians, Custos...
With Cub Koda, Lester Bangs and that guy who formed the Lightningseeds all in bands, I don't think it matters. Everyones a critic these days, and they all have an urge to go "No! THIS is how it SHOULD be done!"

Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

This is kind of like Lisa Carver's sensualist versus sexualist debate. I like to come AND play, thanks!

Me too, of course. But I think that dichotomy exists within individual critics as well--when I write about dance music, it tends to be Enthusiastic, and when I write about indie rock, it tends to be Wit-based (not witty, exactly, I wouldn't make that claim, not that I can't be funny, but humor isn't the point as much as the detached viewpoint I look at it with). Or someone like Christgau: he's an Enthusiast about African music, a Wit about post-rave dance stuff. it's not a hard-and-fast dichotomy, but it's useful in a very rough kind of way.

M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Nah, he's a Curmudgeon about post-rave dance stuff

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe witty-crit (you heard me) ((as opposed to itty bitty witty crit)) occurs when the writing (and arguably, the writer) is the focus of the review. Maybe enthusiasitc-crit happens when the music is focus of the review.

dleone (dleone), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

enthusiasitc

why?

dleone (dleone), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

that's pretty much what I meant to say, except d_leone says it better.

M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

well, not exactly, but I go along w/it to a great extent

M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

What do you think of this definition? Are you an enthusiast or a wit?

I dunno. I do take pleasure in ripping a particularly bad album a new asshole, but I don't do it that often anymore -- I try to write about things I like, if I can help it. I guess I'm an enthusiast because I look on the bright side and make an attempt to draw on an album's strengths rather than make myself look like an asshole of the I WHO STAND ON A MOUNTAINTOP AND PROCLAIM THE TRUTH AND YOU ARE ALL SUCKAZ variety. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm particularly good at "enthusiast" writing -- I think my "wit" side has produced better results. But I'm afraid to be a wit; there seems to be a big anti-enthusiast backlash at the moment, and the so-called wits who are in cultural favor strike me as being very dumb, dilettantish, and ignorant.

Jody Beth Rosen, Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmmm...is it possible to be witty and enthusiastic at the same time?

Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Or you can clatter horrendously twixt the two stools and sound like a fourteen year old desperately trying to be cool.

Helloooooo, Ceefax pages 562-564.....

Mr Swygart (mrswygart), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:20 (twenty-two years ago)

...and me...

Mr Swygart (mrswygart), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

My favorite emblematic Christgau line is the one about the Tribe Called Quest anthology "convincing the viscera what the brain allowed"--that Tribe were a great band (I'm paraphrasing). But you don't often get the sense from his pans that the viscera and brain in question might be his alone.

I guess it all comes down to how secure you feel in your reactions to art, how much you consider your likes and dislikes bedrock upon which to play. But there's no dichotomy between the approaches you mention when it comes to loving and hating art. Kael's paeans and pans follow similar rhythms. She even gained a light touch with a pan in her late (underrated) years.

Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 5 September 2002 00:36 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.