Sinking or Swimming

In an interview with Lit Hub (for its "Secrets of the Book Critics" series), Madeleine Schwartz asserts that 

Broadly speaking, the internet has been terrible for book criticism and book critics. Book reviews have been shuttered and magazines have folded. It’s nearly impossible to make a living writing criticism, which in turn means that authors with books out can only sink or swim. The excitement about new online venues has been heartening, but unless the economics of reviewing changes, the profession only has about five years to live. . . .

Perhaps Ms. Schwartz is predominantly thinking of the low, or absent, payment book reviewers can expect when she claims "the internet has been terrible for book criticism and book critics," although she would then be referring mostly to the latter. However, that entirely legitimate concern does not at all justify a claim that the internet has been damaging to criticism, considering either its quality or its visibility. Literary blogs and online book review sites, as well as some online literary magazines, have over the past 15 years greatly supplemented the serious discussion of new books that previously took place solely in print newspapers and magazines. (These sites have also made possible a complementary discussion of not-so-new books that did not much exist at all in the newspapers and magazines.) They have also enhanced the coverage of translated books, which still get minimal coverage in print. There are in addition many more longer-form reviews and extended critical essays than were ever allowed to appear in other than the most resolutely "intellectual" of print magazines. Anyone who thinks the shuttering of newspaper book reviews has diminished the availability of informed criticism devoted to the purposeful consideration of books and literature just doesn't know where to look.

It is almost certainly true that "It’s nearly impossible to make a living writing criticism," and equally true that some of even the best of the online book review publications don't pay their reviewers, a regrettable state of affairs. Further, it is arguably the case that the internet was terrible for writers whose primary review outlets were the newspapers and magazines that scaled back if not eliminated books and arts coverage--as well as other "frills"--because their readership in general declined in competition with online media. But the general nostalgia expressed by critics like Schwartz for the golden days when critics could make a living from writing print-based reviews and literary journalism seems to me misplaced, if not an outright fantasy. I am unaware of many general-interest book reviewers and critics--even the iconic ones, from Edmund Wilson or Elizabeth Hardwick in a much older generation of critics to John Leonard or Helen Vendler in a more recent one--who were able to subsist on reviewing alone. Most had teaching jobs or worked in editorial or publishing positions. Perhaps some could use book reviewing to supplement income from writing books.

The sum of money paid for newspaper and periodical reviews, however, surely could not alone support a professional career in criticism. Even today, it is hard to imagine that the few hundred dollars a book review might provide could be sustained consistently enough to actually contribute a great deal to a "living" as a critic (an actual critic, and not a lifestyle journalist or ersatz book publicist). To say the least, I am pleased when I receive payment for reviews and criticism I write. But I never thought that writing literary criticism was a lucrative career move, and I don't believe that criticism will die in five years. Some things are worthwhile in and of themselves and don't require affirmation  through their market exchange value.

Comments

[Edward Champion]

As someone who caught the tail end of the "good ol' days," in which I was (at one point) kneecapped to a mere 350 words per title for a paid review, I think Ms. Schwartz's priorities are entirely skewered. Thanks to the Internet, my Modern Library essays have allowed me the freedom to write and deeply research titles that would never get this kind of attention outside of the LRB or the NYRB (and even then, the "greatest hits," many of which have been ignored altogether, would only get assigned if these longform outlets were feeling especially generous). I've managed to answer some deeply geeky questions that would probably never have been pursued (such as the identity of the reviewer who called INVISIBLE MAN "a literary race riot," a question that, until I became curious, was unanswered for decades). Intellectual rigor and off-kilter writing style, even before the Internet, was never the secret ingredient to financial lucre. And anybody who seriously believes this and upholds this as some halcyon truth is a fool.

[Lisa Hill]

Yes, spot on.
Quite apart from anything else, there are now niche review sites covering not just translated fiction, classics and backlists, but also the literature that was previously always swamped by US and UK publications. My LitBlog focusses mainly on Australian and New Zealand literature; I read others that review Canadian Lit, or Women's Fiction; PoC; and the vast variety of books published on the African continent that had next to no coverage in the print media.
As you say, 'anyone who thinks the shuttering of newspaper book reviews has diminished the availability of informed criticism devoted to the purposeful consideration of books and literature just doesn't know where to look". And it's not hard to find: the worthwhile reviews aren't found at online booksellers or social media, and Google mostly ignores us because they'd rather promote commercial sites - but we all read each other and all of us provide a blogroll of other reviewers providing 'purposeful criticism'.