I scan the titles reviewed by the Onion AV Club through their RSS feed every week, and only click over there for things that look particularly interesting. I don’t regularly check their feature stories, which is why I’m a week late in noticing that they have an interview with Donald Westlake, one of my very favorite fiction writers, talking about his career, the writing process, and his best-known characters:
DW: This sounds like a joke, but in a way, I mean it straight: Dortmunder’s the most realistic stuff I do. Stark is much more of a romantic. The example that I’ve given in the past is, whenever anybody else’s gang goes to rob a bank, there’s always a place to park out front, but when Dortmunder goes to rob a bank, he has to park two blocks away and walk back. I submit that that’s much more realistic.
As a bonus, there’s a similar interview with Chuck Klosterman, one of my very favorite non-fiction writers:
People are more interested in reading bombastic ideas, whether they’re positive or negative. Part of me has sort of lost interest in doing criticism because of that. I’ve always realized that criticism is basically autobiography. Obviously in my criticism, it’s very clear that it’s autobiography, but I think it’s that way for everybody. Different critics go to different lengths to disagree with that sentiment, but ultimately, they’re the person experiencing this art, and whatever judgment or taste they use is internal, and says more about them than about the record they’re writing about.
It’s a good week to read The Onion.
I think Mr Klosterman needs to read better critics. It’s perfectly possible to base one’s critique largely on external referents and to make clear where a personal reaction intrudes. Michael Dirda on literature springs to mind, and WD Snodgrass on poetry. I also like Roy Edroso on movies — he’s very personal, but makes those connections very clear. All criticism necessarily says something about the critic, but it only says more about the critic than his/her subject when it’s done poorly.