Text 1
Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language
newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has
been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.
It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average
reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts
criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number
of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today
is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable
for publication in general-circulation dailies.
We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper
reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century
and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and
stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which
it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics
of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they
covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their
learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted
to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling,
and were proud to be published in the daily press. “So few authors have brains
enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism,” Newman
wrote, “that I am tempted to define ‘journalism’ as ‘a term of contempt applied
by writers who are not read to writers who are.’”
Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville
Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester
Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known
solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime,
though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, a
stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to
be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of
writings on music is unknown save to specialists.
Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a
revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before
his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered
Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in
music criticism has been in headlong retreat.
21. It is indicated in
Paragraphs 1 and 2 that
[A] arts criticism has disappeared from big-city
newspapers.
[B] English-language newspapers used to carry more arts
reviews.
[C] high-quality newspapers retain a large body of
readers.
[D] young readers doubt the suitability of criticism on
dailies.
22. Newspaper reviews in
England before World War II were characterized by
[A] free themes.
[B] casual style.
[C] elaborate layout.
[D] radical viewpoints.
23. Which of the following
would Shaw and Newman most probably agree on?
[A] It is writers' duty to fulfill journalistic goals.
[B] It is contemptible for writers to be journalists.
[C] Writers are likely to be tempted into journalism.
[D] Not all writers are capable of journalistic writing.
24. What can be learned
about Cardus according to the last two paragraphs?
[A] His music criticism may not appeal to readers today.
[B] His reputation as a music critic has long been in
dispute.
[C] His style caters largely to modern specialists.
[D] His writings fail to follow the amateur tradition.
25. What would be the best
title for the text?
[A] Newspapers of the Good Old Days
[B] The Lost Horizon in Newspapers
[C] Mournful Decline of Journalism
[D] Prominent Critics in Memory
|