Anonymizing a review of the new Taylor Swift album sends the wrong message

Open this photo in gallery:

The reviews of The Tortured Poets Department were dropping faster than you can count to 13 (look it up). Critics learned they would have to work double-time when Taylor Swift surprised the world, including her devoted fanbase, on Friday with the announcement that this, in fact, was a secret double album.

From The New York Times (the album lacked “the depth and taut structure of her best work,”) to The Atlantic (“a dreary muddle,”) the big and serious outlets weighed in on Ms. Swift’s latest autobiographical song collection and its many Easter eggs.

Globe and Mail critic Brad Wheeler courageously called the album not great, and noted that “there isn’t that one great song, nothing even close.” (RIP Brad’s mentions.)

But there was something different about the review posted by Paste Magazine, an Atlanta-based online entertainment site.

“Sylvia Plath did not stick her head in an oven for this!” it began. In a 3.6 out of 10 review, the writer did not hold back, calling the opening track Fortnight, for example, “a heady vat of pop nothingness” that “chokes on the vomit of its own opaqueness.”

But there was one thing that was held back. In a review that pulled no punches, the publication pulled the biggest punch of all: the writer’s name.

“There is no byline on this review due to how, in 2019 when Paste reviewed [the Swift album] Lover, the writer was sent threats of violence from readers who disagreed with the work,” Paste wrote on X. “We care more about the safety of our staff than a name attached to an article.”

It is highly unusual for a critic, or their editor, to insist on anonymity. Of course, Swifties – a notoriously rabid fanbase – may take issue with observations such as “it’s hard to not feel nauseated by the overlording, overbearing sense of heavy-handed detritus we’re tasked with sifting through.”

But if you’re a critic who dishes it out, you should be able to take the heat in response (minus threats, obviously).

It’s a really good review – but its achievements are completely nullified by the lack of byline. The writer states that women can’t critique Ms. Swift for fear of being labelled a “gender traitor,” and men can’t because they’ll be deemed sexist. But a critic must.

It would be so easy to slam anything anonymously (see: social media on the regular). Not to question the integrity of the writer – nor doubt the potential incendiary response by the Swift Army – but a reviewer has to have the courage to stand by their opinions. If you are fortunate enough to critique art for a living – or even a side hustle – you owe the world your identity.

I get it. There were more than 700 comments by Tuesday morning on that New York Times review, including: “Amazing that this writer feels that they are in a position to critique Taylor Swift’s lyrics or music.” Well, she (Lindsay Zoladz, in this case) is in exactly that position. That is her job.

Of course, it is maddening to spend years creating a work of art only to have some critic come along and annihilate it with what they think are clever words, worthy of many clicks. But that’s (partly) why we need to know who wrote the thing. Does the critic have an axe to grind?

Arts criticism is a job that comes with great privilege – and responsibility. I once thought of it as a discipline that requires the writer to be fearless. But doing it for many years taught me that that’s not necessarily the case: you might actually be a little bit afraid when you declare TTPD too long or uneven; or question whether Ms. Swift is churning out too much material. Or at least know enough to brace yourself for the blowback.

You might, ahem, live in a city with a relatively small arts community, and call out work you don’t think worthy, or artists who behave badly – despite the excellent possibility of seeing that person at the next opening night. Or the grocery store.

But you do it anyway. A critic must. It is, literally, their job. (P.S. Try writing about the Middle East or COVID restrictions.)

Critics should take the appraisal of an artist’s creation very seriously, perhaps to the point of feeling tortured. Reviews, which are subjective, can (and should) be challenged – but not with threats, or ugly, below-the-belt retorts, or anything else so severe that professionals question whether it’s safe to put their name to their views. Ms. Swift, no matter what Swifties think, would not approve. Damn, she might say. You need to calm down.