A pre-Oscars conversation on the merits and meanings of arts criticism

With Oscar Night only a delicious few nights away, the time seems ripe to discuss a topic that’s been on my mind, and in my household, lately.

No, it’s not the glamour or the tension, exactly. It’s not the films themselves or the stars or the topics or the plots. Or specifically, which were the best and why.

In fact, truth be told, it’s about books. And even more about arts criticism. And even more about individual judgment. And all of it may play into how you use and interpret the reviews you see of movies, music, books, plays and even restaurants, or anything else that people feel a compulsion to judge and want to talk about with others.

For me, this discussion began at home the other night. I read a fair amount beyond the newspaper and listen to lots of audiobooks. Often, when I look for a new book to read, I check out published reviews and, especially, check out reactions on the book-focused online platform Goodreads.com. When I finish a book, I return to the platform and offer a rating and sometimes a few thoughts about what I’ve just read.

Here enters the domestic tension. My wife finds my ratings system — well, she uses a variety of words. I’ll just say she finds it confounding.

I think it is perfectly precise.

As with many movie ratings systems, Goodreads uses a five-star ranking. Perhaps you’ll relate to this summary of a conversation regarding my policy.

She: So, why did you give that book a 3?

Me: Well, I see three stars as an A. Just to get a book published is an achievement, and a 3 says the product was perfectly acceptable, well done and reasonably entertaining or enlightening.

She: That’s ridiculous. It’s 5 is an A for excellent, 4 is a B for good, 3 is a C for average (which is basically what you’re saying most 3’s are), 2 is poor and 1 is failing. If 3 is an A, what’s a 4, a 5? There’s nothing higher than an A.

Me: I don’t see it that way.

She: You’re an idiot. How can you not? You’re just confusing people.

Me: No, it’s quite the opposite. How could you rate, say, “Empire Falls” by Richard Russo, who you know I love, the same as “The Old Man and the Sea”? Both books are great, but I can’t rate them the same. One clearly affects me more than the other and in different ways. I love everything I’ve ever read by David McCullough, but “The Pioneers” was no “John Adams.” You have to be able to make distinctions. If all you do is give every excellent book a 5, people have no way of knowing how to trust you.

She: Exactly. Everyone thinks 5-4-3-2-1, A-B-C-D-F. How are they supposed to know your stupid system? Oh, look, Jim Slusher gave it a 3! Let’s go out and buy 25 copies to give away at Christmas!

Me: The thing is, the numbers mean something different for everyone. So, obviously, sometimes, if I have time or feel especially strongly, I add a short review to explain my reaction.

She: And what about that one you just finished that you didn’t like?

Me: “Verity” by Colleen Hoover?

She: Yes, what did you give that?

Me: I struggled to heave it up to a 1. I had to give it something.

She (pounding her index finger onto her iPhone screen): A 1?! That book has an overall 4.5-star rank on 333,265 ratings on Amazon …

Me: It’s two and half million ratings on Goodreads. Similar rank, 4.32. I guess I’m just not in step sometimes with the general mood of the reading public.

She: You think? I think the word is “arrogance.”

Me: I try not to be arrogant. I know it must have taken the author a lot of work to think up all those scenes and write all those words, but I just had a lot of problems with her result.

She: So, you were right and two and a half million other people were wrong?

Me: Well, no. A few others gave it a 2. Some also gave it just a 1. There is no “right” or “wrong.” It’s a personal judgment. I’m happy to explain the problems I had with the book to anyone who wants to talk about it. That’s where the fun is.

Thus is revealed the critic’s dilemma.

The reader’s challenge — or the viewer’s or the listener’s or the streamer’s — is to decide whether a certain rating, or even the public’s weight of approval, merits one’s time and effort. Then, having made the decision, there’s a special pleasure in comparing one’s own rankings with those of others.

So, this Sunday, we’ll see what the majority of the movie-making and movie-watching elite selected as the “best” film achievements of 2023. But, we shouldn’t forget that plenty of classics — from “Smokey and the Bandit” to “Blazing Saddles,” “The Outlaw Josey Wales,” “Animal House,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” the list goes on — weren’t exactly Oscar “Best Movie” contenders. And some films highly touted in their time — Blake Edwards’ “10” comes to mind, which on the five-star scale, let’s be honest, was at best a three — have settled into obscurity.

The point is, if we’re not too, um, arrogant, it can always be fun to discuss them.

She: Well, “Blazing Saddles” IS a 5.

Me: See, we can agree on some things. And, by the way, so are you.

She: So am I what?

Me: You know. A 5.

She: Just a 5? Nice try. It’s your turn to make dinner.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on Twitter at @JimSlusher.