Curiouser and Curiouser: A New Series. By Christopher Patterson.
Welcome to: It actually wasn’t hated upon release. Or was it?
You might have come across a Wiki page that said your favorite novel wasn’t actually liked upon release. But, thankfully, this new, smarter generation set things right and noticed the clear disrespect. Usually, you’ll see this shameless sentiment applied to The Great Gatsby or Wuthering Heights. Of course, when you look into contemporary opinions, it’s a more complex story. No, people in the 20s’ weren’t unable to catch the blatant message of The American Dream, rather, they transcribed their visus in different forms. Reading is an experience best served refreshed, so the critic’s job is to find a sui generis pathway to the gallery. Not to address what modern reviewers so cheaply do (‘it was great’ or ‘I really liked’), but rather:
“The Great Gatsby” is bedewed with rainbow drops sprayed from an atomizer of scented sentimentality.” – Helen E. Haines
Haines, like the best of her field, lacks a critic’s extraordinary passion for extraction of personality and instead leashes herself on the page, by beginning the review with modern violations. Will and unlikeable honor. Our heroine doesn’t value being universally read, having evoked that rare quality of a singular mind and aesthetic. Helen E. Haines is not an excruciating guide, hence a player for the page. She quotes generously, and puts her encapsulations with playful dictation. Haines initially informs the common reader that she is, in fact, possibly plain (In response to crystal clear and vomiting superlatives: ‘I don’t exactly understand what that means, but I refuse to be hypnotized by this verbal mesmerism’). Yet she at once refutes this by the mention of Gatsby through review of reviews, distinguishing herself and the criticism.
A common reader would suck up the superlatives given with no push back. Haines review is mandatory reading for someone who is not a freelance writer. But I am starting to look like one.
If you read any modern review, you see the usual problem: lack of critical prose and the disregard of the power of strong medicine. Read any review dated 1760 to 1887 and you will find a treasure trove of eloquent quotes and proper phrasing not present anymore. And when you read a review dated 1920 to 2025, you’re sure to find plenty of reviews sounding like synonyms of the next. This is not a case of idolizing older English, rather it’s due to the lack of honesty and harshness I see now. When you see the past, the common difference is ethics and violation. Many opinionators had no agreement. The laws they governed, their place of critiquing, was their own individualized playing field. They did not think ‘I enjoy, so it is good’ or ‘the characters are well drawn.’ If they felt a work went too far, they shamed it. Nowadays, anything goes and the people humiliating normally second-class art are brought down a notch in favor of suck-up applause. But you soon realize, with this treatment, nothing is provocative nor very interesting. And those who bullied works against their values shouldn’t be debased, rather they should be promoted and inspected. It’s more amusing to scrutinize a soul than to write it off.
People of the past frequently used the aspect of their modern sensibilities combined with genuine well-educated thinking to find a wholly unique mindset. If one was to discuss a simple tale of the day, the reviewer’s job would be to obviously reinvent the novel with their words on the page. Transform the text and recontextualise it, and furthermore, make the reader know the criticism their hearing is from Tristram Shandy, an opinion maker not ‘just some guy’. You may not always agree with the reviewer, but that’s not their job. Their mind should not be a respectable one, rather an interesting one. Of course, the writers weren’t selected for poor manners, but if they stood out and stood on their word. This could mean, to modern sensibilities, the review is erroneous because the writer is not socially respectable.
Instead, it should mean it’s a review by a Doris Lessing not a Victoria Lucas. If you can agree with everyone in a room, then nobody in that room deserves a voice. They’re all dead and soulless, and don’t deserve the right to make a word on the page. I am not suggesting being provocative should be the new thing, rather, being a polished thinker. The cult-like structures 20th century criticism established, should be burned alive in replace of a wild, wild west type of criticism that made 19th century literary criticism so reviving. Anything goes, meaning you’re constantly hit with new minds that challenge you. This reminds me of the introduction by Mark Twain:
This quote can be read by two different minds. One thinks it shows the constitution and order of the human soul. The writer has a motive, and you may like it or not, but respect must be placed on the bareness to which the opinion was stated. Another thinks there is now no plot of Huckleberry Finn, because you must respect the author’s wishes. And your mind and its narcissism must be extinguished in favour of ‘fair-criticism,’ without realizing all criticism is fair and not fair.
But this meandry introduction has been prolonged enough. Each post on this topic will be exceedingly in depth, relying on scholars, personal research, and dozens of citations from multiple languages (translations will be provided). If you are ready for the ride, follow along. But beware, those who join might not have “a second opportunity on earth.”
We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell your friends. BRWC is short for battleroyalewithcheese.
Trending on BRWC:
Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning – The BRWC Review
The Surfer: The BRWC Review
Final Destination: Bloodlines – Another Review
Lilo & Stitch: Another Review
NO COMMENTS
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.