Yes? Then you are not alone. According to this TIME article, 29,000 people agree. I breathed a sigh of relief when I read it because I thought so, too. The problem was, according to Haruki Murakami, it is one of the most important novels of his life and I take Murakami very, very seriously. So you can appreciate my dilemma here.
The problem of subjective nature of art in general and literary criticism in particular is very well demonstrated by this XKCD comic. (I can reproduce it here because XKCD is not paranoid about copyrights, unlike the big Hollywood companies, but that's a topic for another day.)
It hits the nail on the head. There are no definite criteria for literary criticism. If you don't 'get' a book, then the implied assumption is that something is wrong with you. Maybe you are not 'cultured enough' to understand it. Again, this is a gray area. Sometimes, to understand and appreciate a particular art form, you need to delve deeper into the history of that particular movement. In order to appreciate it, one has to go deeper into the reasons as to it's history, the inherent rebellion nature etc.
During the last century the definition of what constituted as an art itself underwent major transformations. Movements like modernism, avant-garde sought to redefine the reference frames that were held onto quite rigidly for so long. An excellent early example is Manet's famous painting Le dejeuner sur l'herbe - The Luncheon on the Grass - where Manet broke all conventions by placing a nude in a conventional setting as mundane as a family picnic. Later experiments by numerous artists were more complex and often difficult to interpret.
Much has been said about various art movements in the twentieth century. One of the main themes emerging from many of these movements was that the aesthetic experience - some may call it spiritual, like what you feel after watching a beautiful sunset - that one is supposed to get from the art was itself called into question. This was in complete contrast with the earlier art. You did not need a six month art appreciation course in order to be awed by Sistine Chapel. In the last century, it looked as if the more important thing was how clever and unique one can be in breaking out of conventions. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult from a viewer's point of view to decide if the artist is really a genius or a fake.
For an extreme example of this dilemma, look at what Ayn Rand says about James Joyce1
Woody Allen, on the other hand, is much more flexible. He appreciates the originality but makes a conscious choice to stick with the conventional. His comment on Samuel Beckett is telling
-----
1. The Art of Fiction - Ayn Rand.
The problem of subjective nature of art in general and literary criticism in particular is very well demonstrated by this XKCD comic. (I can reproduce it here because XKCD is not paranoid about copyrights, unlike the big Hollywood companies, but that's a topic for another day.)
It hits the nail on the head. There are no definite criteria for literary criticism. If you don't 'get' a book, then the implied assumption is that something is wrong with you. Maybe you are not 'cultured enough' to understand it. Again, this is a gray area. Sometimes, to understand and appreciate a particular art form, you need to delve deeper into the history of that particular movement. In order to appreciate it, one has to go deeper into the reasons as to it's history, the inherent rebellion nature etc.
During the last century the definition of what constituted as an art itself underwent major transformations. Movements like modernism, avant-garde sought to redefine the reference frames that were held onto quite rigidly for so long. An excellent early example is Manet's famous painting Le dejeuner sur l'herbe - The Luncheon on the Grass - where Manet broke all conventions by placing a nude in a conventional setting as mundane as a family picnic. Later experiments by numerous artists were more complex and often difficult to interpret.
Much has been said about various art movements in the twentieth century. One of the main themes emerging from many of these movements was that the aesthetic experience - some may call it spiritual, like what you feel after watching a beautiful sunset - that one is supposed to get from the art was itself called into question. This was in complete contrast with the earlier art. You did not need a six month art appreciation course in order to be awed by Sistine Chapel. In the last century, it looked as if the more important thing was how clever and unique one can be in breaking out of conventions. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult from a viewer's point of view to decide if the artist is really a genius or a fake.
For an extreme example of this dilemma, look at what Ayn Rand says about James Joyce1
A writer who is not laughed at, but taught in universities as something very serious, is James Joyce. He is worse than Gertrude Stein; going all the way to the ultimate in nonobjective writing, he uses words from different languages, makes up some words of his own, and calls that literature.It is clear that Rand is evaluating Joyce solely in terms of rigid frame of Romanticism on which her own novels were based, but the question at the root is quite clear. You ask yourself, "Is it just about being clever or is there something deeper in it?" Of course, people have written volumes on how to decode Joyce, but that means you have to read 10 additional books in order to understand what Joyce is saying. In the end, you ask yourself, "Is it worth going to all this trouble?"
Woody Allen, on the other hand, is much more flexible. He appreciates the originality but makes a conscious choice to stick with the conventional. His comment on Samuel Beckett is telling
I’ve seen Beckett, along with many lesser avant-gardists, and many contemporary plays, and I can say yes, that’s clever and deep but I don’t really care. But when I watch Chekhov or O’Neill—where it’s men and women in human, classic crises—that I like. I know that it’s very unfashionable to say at this time, but things based, for example, on “language”—the clever rhythms of speech—I really don’t care for.The last part is the most important. What do you care for?
-----
1. The Art of Fiction - Ayn Rand.





