A. O. Scott (1) (1966–)

I don’t know. I took notes on it, but a few days later it doesn’t leave me with a strong passion or memory; he said some smart things but ultimately I think you need a manifesto-strength thesis to make a book on criticism really work. It seemed like these were his collected thoughts from a career of criticisms, which while interesting, is not really five star book material, you know? The dialogues were the most interesting part; those seemed like the places where the author took his ideas furthest.… (meer)

While maddeningly all over the place at times, one of the best books I've ever read about why critics do what they do and the function they serve, and how criticism is a process we all engage in all the time. A.O. Scott's argument is far from a straight line and you'll wonder who the hell he is talking to at times or if he's pasted together four other books he was working on to make this one. But overall, I tried writing without a pen and after two chapters, I was already mentally underlining every 5 seconds anyway. Worthy of multiple re-reads, 10% to straighten out the crooked lines, 90% to savor and think about them.… (meer)

Reading Better Living Through Criticism gave me exactly the same cramped and unpleasant feeling that I got from reading Richard Dawkins's [b:The God Delusion|14743|The God Delusion|Richard Dawkins|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347220693s/14743.jpg|3044365]: I wanted serious inquiry and instead felt pummeled and bullied into a corner by poorly argued dogma.

At times Scott begins his argument about the uses of criticism with a false axiomatic principle--usually a belief that I don't ascribe to, but that Scott says I do ("everyone knows that critics are failed artists, and let me tell you why you're wrong to think so").

And sometimes he does the opposite, taking his own beliefs as universally accepted, because he thinks they're true, and not even bothering to tell me why I should also believe the same way.

So I as a reader end up feeling pushed around, not convinced.

I also resented the folksy/apologetic tone Scott adopts. As I read, I kept thinking: "if you want me to think about your ideas seriously then you need to take your ideas seriously, yourself." A critic who tries to sound dumb and average not only demeans himself but also demeans me as a reader.

The decision to write this book as a faux Socratic dialogue also failed, for me, because the questions asked in the dialogue are somewhat dopy and disingenuous. They reminded me of the questions you might find in a marketing brochure that are there to lead customers to buy your product and reject competing products.

Hence the dreaded 2 star review from me (2 stars being my least favorite read)--there is not enough meaty argument here even to hate this book to a one-star level; there is just enough to bore and to annoy.… (meer)