In the Globe Ideas section, Swen Birkirts argues for a centered approach to literary criticism, a guild of experienced critics who can make definitive cultural judgments. The blogoshpere, he says, is not that.

...many of the blogs venture a more idiosyncratic, off-the-cuff style, a kind of "I've been thinking . . ." approach. At some level it's the difference between amateur and professional. What we gain in independence and freshness we lose in authority and accountability.

Hmm. Establishment literary criticism itself has a mixed record. James Joyce was among the "Unintelligibles" according to contemporary critic Max Eastman. And as far as the role of "amatuers' goes, Chekhov and Shakespeare were both popular with the unenlightened masses before they were appointed by critics as cultural icons.

And then there's the damage that insular criticism has done to poetry. The blogoshpere may have saved poetry as popular art had it been around twenty or thirty years ago, and in fact may be doing so now.

It's not that I don't value print critics. Most of the literary criticism I read is in print form. And I recognize that that form is, unfortunately, shrinking. But that's the way it is. Bloggers are here to stay. Journalism is starting to adapt. Literary criticism has to do so as well.