It does not seem at all reasonable that, once the author is dead, under the justification of protecting the “rights” of his heirs, his work should remain almost inaccessible for seventy years, until it finally falls into the so-called public domain. Certainly, it does not seem to be in the author’s interest for his work to be subject to the whims of those who see it only as a means of earning a few bucks, and who almost always cause it to fall into oblivion just when it could gain greater repercussion, that is, in the years immediately following his death. Repeatedly, what we see are “heirs” opting for the best deal, that is, giving exclusivity to a mediocre publisher to print the works on cheap paper, with poor editing and higher profits. However, it is not uncommon for the publisher to also hinder distribution, which results in fewer sales and lower profits. All of this is very petty, and it is incomprehensible how it became normal, especially for the “heirs,” to use the author instead of honoring him, to harm him instead of promoting him…
It Is More or Less Inevitable That…
It is more or less inevitable that the poet who sets out to criticize other poets will value in them precisely the qualities he seeks to develop in his own work. Involuntarily, the spotlight falls on what attracts him most. For this reason, it is not uncommon for a poet’s criticism to reveal more about himself than about the author he is criticizing. And that is a very good thing. Almost always, the best parts of his criticism are those in which the poet forgets the role he is playing and lets his personal interpretation flow freely. When we compare them with other passages in which are pointed out aspects, or even authors with whom the poet-critic identifies less, the criticism, even if good, seems somewhat bland.
Perhaps No Work Has Yet Been Written…
Perhaps no work has yet been written documenting the deterioration in everyday relationships due to a justifiable aversion to companies, which crystallizes into a repellent reaction to any kind of initial approach. The man who, today, possesses a cell phone number and walks daily through metropolitan commercial avenues will have to develop an anti-company shield; otherwise, he will spend a good part of his day paying attention to them. And since these shrewd companies are always developing new ways to “humanize” their harassment, sooner or later the shield ends up turning against ordinary people. The phenomenon is there, its victims are flooding the streets, and anyone who could objectively justify the resulting lack of manners would deserve praise.
Literary Criticism Suffers From the Impossibility…
Literary criticism suffers from the impossibility of fully objectifying the criteria for judging works, with its judgments thus always being more or less based on personal preferences. So far, so good. The problem arises when the critic feels compelled to always present himself as objective, when it is clear that he often is not. This leads to a lot of unnecessary controversy, which could perhaps be avoided if the verbs “I think,” “I prefer,” and “it seems” were more common in criticism. The best thing, without a doubt, is to leave this field to those who are truly gifted, and find other ways, without ever presenting oneself as a critic, to express preferences and opinions.