The Stylings of Donna Seaman

In a round table of critics discussing their trade in Time Out Chicago, eight noted Chicago critics brought their unique perspectives from each of their specialties on why they are critics and what makes their work valid.

Right off the bat, book critic Donna Seaman, of Booklist and WLUW’s Open Books, validates that passion is of the utmost importance. It is one's "hunger," as she says, for what they are drawn to that will lead to gaining critical knowledge and an adventurous spirit to explore every facet of the topic. Passion is what leads to education which then gives you the expertise to criticize.

Together all the critics agree that knowledge and passion go hand in hand when critiquing work, but Seaman goes further to say that the passion and knowledge of others are also to be considered. Seeing the experience in a greater context and realizing the varying responses others will receive is important in order to give an all inclusive analysis. She says, “Everyone who reads a book, listens to a piece of music, and so on, experiences a slightly different work of art.” It’s true. Art as a medium is meant to be subjective, and while there a few solid details that can be validated as right or wrong, the rest of critiquing is just one person’s opinion.

As the conversation sways to the advent of the internet as a more frequently utilized medium of criticism, the argument of print dying along with writer’s paychecks dominates the discussion. But this is where Seaman brings up a point that brings forth optimism in the cyber world: “As print may go the way of the dinosaurs, there is more traditional editorial professionalism online.” She suggests that writers will be able to succeed and survive online as the same standards that once were held in print are adopted on the Internet for the new generation. While both print and online are trying to co-exist, it just ends up being more unrewarded work for the writers.

The informal nature of the web, all critics agree, allow for a longer monologue by the writer and then an ongoing conversation between critic and reader, something Seaman sees as vital, yet dangerous. The public confrontation is bringing forth a generation of critics with more courage than those born out of strictly print.

The discussion comes to a close with no closure on the print vs. web issue that so many writers have come to face and will continue struggling with in the future, and Seaman sees a place for both. She points out that many online writers are still finding a place in book form, anthologies and Web lit. When finishing up as moderator Kris Vire asks if those who still get paid for writing would “head to Blogspot and keep cranking it out” for free, the passion Seaman addresses in her opening words gets the best of her and she responds, “Yes, ‘fraid so.”

This brings all the critics to a similar conclusion: their passion and the need to review, whether being paid or not, will keep criticism alive.