Martes, 20 de diciembre de 2011

Por alguna razón, mi mente relacionó estos dos textos.

1) Enrique Krauze sobre el deplorable estado de la crítica literaria en español (énfasis mío):

La crítica en los periódicos independientes y la mayoría de las revistas de habla hispana deja mucho que desear. Por lo general, las reseñas son meros resúmenes de las obras, elogios indiscriminados o acercamientos teóricos. Falta casi todo: compromiso, penetración, discernimiento, profundidad, horizonte, pero sobre todo valentía. Atreverse a opinar con fundamento si una obra es buena o mala y por qué. La crítica de cine o la deportiva es mejor. ¿Por qué no tenemos la crítica literaria que necesitamos? Intervienen varios factores: compromisos editoriales, institucionales y hasta amistosos.

2) Jonathan Chait sobre Paul Krugman:

The most remarkable attribute Krugman has brought to the Times is rudeness. The social niceties that accompany his exalted position are utterly lost on him…He understands that you can’t arrive at truth without explaining why mistaken beliefs are wrong.

Krugman makes a mockery of the prohibition against arguing with his fellow columnists, larding his columns with rebuttals to unnamed subjects who happen to believe things that were advocated on the Times op-ed page earlier in the week…Krugman’s favorite in-house target is David Brooks, a vessel for the respectable and generally mushy-headed conventional wisdom Krugman loathes. Last spring, Brooks wrote a column bemoaning the lack of civility in Washington, citing President Obama’s failure to invite arch-nemesis Paul Ryan for lunch. Krugman wrote mockingly in response, “The president, we were told, was being too partisan; he needs to treat his opponents with respect; he should have lunch with them, and work out a consensus.” The headline of Krugman’s column—“Let’s Not Be Civil”—neatly summarized his ethos. He is the man who was invited into the club and refused to be clubby.

Share