Are Critics Too Nice?

"Critics at the magazine have a history of not pulling punches. In 1939, Russell Maloney called "The Wizard of Oz" "a stinkeroo." "I did not care for Agatha Christie," Edmund Wilson wrote in 1944, after sampling the author's vast œuvre with "Death Comes as the End," "and I never expect to read another of her books." Pauline Kael was notoriously spiky; of the 1987 film "The Princess Bride," she wrote, "the movie is ungainly-you can almost see the chalk marks it's not hitting.""

"And, while she seemed to adore "Yentl," she called "Shoah," which is considered one of the greatest documentaries of all time, "a form of self-punishment." (She was wrong, but that's for another day.) Then there was the rock critic Ellen Willis, who had the temerity to trash the Woodstock festival, in 1969, and a few years later lamented, of David Bowie, that there was "nothing provocative, perverse, or revolting" about him, and announced plainly that "his more recent stuff bores me.""

Music criticism was once frequently sharp, combative, and willing to deliver blunt, uncompromising judgments. Mid-20th-century critics offered scathing reviews of popular films, literature, and musicians, exemplified by harsh assessments of The Wizard of Oz, Agatha Christie, The Princess Bride, Shoah, Woodstock, and David Bowie. The potential for disputatious cultural criticism has diminished over time, with criticism often losing its argumentative rigor. A contemporary music critic observes that critics have generally become softer, especially in music coverage, and traces a rise, fall, and possible return of edginess in music criticism.

Read at The New Yorker