data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0743b/0743babbdbb124e98ad5fccfd46b1dd19c6f0695" alt=""
Nor was contemporary poetry more appreciated in the 1950s. According to John Press in The Chequer'd Shade (London: OUP, 1958), Stephen Spender stormed out (in protest) of a poetry reading being held at a Foyle's literary luncheon when Lord Samuel took the occasion to attack "the vice of obscurity" ruining British poetry, and read out, with evident distaste, a poem by Dylan Thomas, starting "A grief ago..." - such distaste still evident today among many English poet-critics.
A new acclaimed book by fellow-Montrealer and music critic, Carl Wilson, on the music of Celine Dion, has taken the subject of distaste in a fun and fascinating direction - he loathed her work, and sets out to comprehend why she is still loved by millions. Perhaps, as he argues, criticism needs "the bad" in order to have a "good" and justify its own role. Perhaps taste and critical evaluation are hardwired into us, or merely lifestyle choices, or - well, I am still reading, but it is an engaging study in experimental aestheticism.
Comments
Braving pop-culture schmultz like Dion in an intelligent light, and in a way that is open to the possibility of conversion is rare, and shows integrity. I think, when I get the time, I will go and read Wilson's book. His approach has its parallels in the film world with the likes of Stanley Cavell and J Hoberman. The world really needs more critics like that, who, while being at heart sophisticated, are willing to truly, properly engage with all works - and I mean all works. This is true "objectivity, if such a thing exists. It is a thing I hope to strive for when writing about film, etc.