In a recent piece for the New Yorker, Adam Gopnik analyses contemporary web criticism, breaking it into three camps: works written by those who argue that the web is an economically- and socially-destructive wildebeest, those who view the web as a liberating and ‘democratising’ influence, and those who believe the web is just the latest shiny toy we’re getting way too worked up about. He refers to these camps as, respectively, the Better-Nevers, Never-Betters, and Ever-Wasers.
The online ‘Ask the Author’ discussion is just fantastic: Gopnik fields questions from readers who fall into each of the three camps, and his responses are extremely reasonable and well thought-out. Says Gopnik in response to a question about his personal stand-point:
There is a kind of built in space between my actual emotions—which include a lot of parental fear about the loss of books, silence, space—and my evolving ideas, which recognize the “ever wasness” of it all. So I live now as a kind of Better-Never Ever-Waser, with forlorn hopes of seeing Never-Betterism proven true. I would love to believe that the substance is all that matters… but I shudder as I see the future, and am skeptical that we can make the change without losing something on the way. But I am game to go, as we all must be.
And in response to another question, from Brian Kimberling, on whether we should be reading and writing novels in order to better understand our new digital life:
It is, or was, the novelist to whom we turned for news on the texture of life—not news that stayed news, as I think Bellow said, but news that stayed alive. Who in recent fiction has tackled this particular stretch of texture?
Who, indeed?