My Thoughts on Leon Wieseltier’s Thoughts on A.O. Scott’s Thoughts on Thoughts

I interviewed A.O. Scott a few weeks ago for GQ. Like Leon Wieseltier, I read Better Living Through Criticism and knew the book doesn’t take a moral or aesthetic stance, and that bothered me. I thought, though, it was alright. There could be a distinction between critics like Wieseltier, who keep aesthetic standards based on moral principles, and critics like Scott, whose aesthetic standards shift based on what they’re looking at and where the consumer/critic stands in life.

The latter is a form of service journalism, meant to help readers figure out what’s worth spending their time. Scott’s critical education is rooted in Mad magazine and all the other stuff he talked about in my interview with him; Wieseltier learned with Irving Howe and Isaiah Berlin. When Wieseltier wrote “Scott is not a fighter, he is a man on the scene,” I didn’t think it was an insult, though Wieseltier meant it as one. The book, living up to its title, is a service for the reader: it discusses the history and methods of critics and teaches that you, reader, can and should think the way Scott does, and probably already do think Scott’s way yourself.

I took it for granted that there is a difference between those two forms of criticism. Or, at least, that Scott practices the latter in his Times review. I haven’t reread enough of his New York Review of Books or Lingua Franca articles to say whether or not they’re more Timesian or Wieseltierian New Republician. Regardless, Wieseltier, on premise, does not make such a distinction. Rigor of thought, and adherence to moral and aesthetic standards with that rigor, is paramount. You can’t just snack on The Danish Girl and Hail, Caesar! — or for that matter Kant and Rilke — and move on. You have to stand for something! You have to be moved! You have to change your life.

Better Living Through Criticism is not a challenging book. It doesn’t challenge the reader to change their life. It merely skillfully calcifies what is already known. There’s nothing to disagree with because there is little that is new. Scott’s point is that not much has changed between Aristotle and Slate.com, except the changes rooted in economic models of art. And even then, the fundamentals are intact. Not much can change.

Wieseltier doesn’t hedge. That’s not his style. But he should give Scott some credit. In writing about Boyhood, he showed that he has a capacity to be moved: “my critical impulse seemed to collapse, along with my ability to find the boundary between art and life.” I can’t fault him for not being a personal essayist and saying just how.

On the other hand, does Wieseltier even believe what he is saying? When he listens to Rihanna, is he thinking about her aesthetic principles? I’d venture to guess no. Why can’t we do the same with movies?