The Arts section of the Feb. 20th Argus provided readers with two amazingly relevant articles. First, Ben Doleac’s review of “the Wrens’” album The Meadowlands (released September 2003) and Alexa Steinberg’s piece on Zadie Smith’s novel “White Teeth” (released in hardcover in 2000).

Ben Doleac titles his piece “Another great album you probably haven’t heard,” yet he refuses to go into detail about “the Wrens’” record label woes, instead saying “the unusual backstory has been told numerous times.” In the case of The Meadowlands, the backstory is an important part of what went into the creation of the album and should not be glossed over. If Ben can reasonably assume that “you probably haven’t heard” this album, then how can he assume that his readership has heard the numerous retellings of “the Wrens’” history? As for Ben, he admits “I’d never heard from them at all before,” which seems to be a recurring theme in the music he reviews.

Ben also refers to Robert Christgau as “his favorite record critic.” Christgau is a music journalist whose effusive review of Northern State in Rolling Stone led to the group receiving a record deal, which is about as negative a statement I can make about a record critic. He, like Ben, often comes across as pompous and uninformed. Ben’s review should focus on what he thinks about the record; not what Robert Christgau thinks about it. If Ben insists on comparing “the Wrens” to music his friend makes on his computer, on second thought, maybe I’d rather hear what Christgau thinks. Ben writes like someone who has seen “Almost Famous” one too many times, pumping out jargon filled sentences like “the band’s classic-rock influences boil to the surface with refreshing immediacy.”

He praises the record for what it’s not, instead of explaining what about that record is good. “The Wren”s are compared to “Guided By Voices” in order to illustrate what The Meadowlands does not sound like. Ben’s final paragraph includes a comparison between “the Wrens” and two other bands, “the White Stripes” and “the Strokes.” “The Strokes,” he mentions, have “various acolytes in our midst right here at Wes.” He then goes on to lambaste the above for being “chain-smoking irony-ridden leather-clad fashion-mag assholes.” As I read this, I could not help but think that this was directed towards somebody, which is entirely inappropriate. Nothing about Ben’s dislike for “skinny-tie hipster aloofness” contributes to this review. It does not help his critical authority, nor does it contribute to the objectivity that he ostensibly has as a critic. Here, he praises “the Wrens” not for what they are, but for what he thinks they do not represent.

Ben manages, however, to have a purpose to his writing. This is laudable, no matter how poor his execution in trying to express himself, when compared to Alexa Steinberg’s thoughts on “White Teeth.” I’m not sure what Alexa’s point was. Is this a review of a novel that has won so many accolades already? Is a review of a book that was so critically acclaimed upon release four years after the fact necessary? Is this what Alexa means by titling her column “Classical Culture?”

I do not think, however, that this is a review. Alexa talks more about the author, Zadie Smith, then the book itself. Aside from an anecdote about meeting Smith at a book signing, the article is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings and poorly phrased “insights.” Call me coldhearted, but I do not care what Alexa thinks that Zadie Smith recalls about the time she spent writing “White Teeth.”

I am most likely missing the point, but an article that so obscures its own point is unquestionably not well written. Is it too much to expect that columnists in the Argus ask themselves ‘Is what I just wrote semi-coherent?’ before they turn it in to be published? I have nothing against articles that read like bizarre diary entries, but if they must be published, please do not publish them under the auspices that they are anything but the author’s warped perception of how interesting the readers of the Argus will find them.

Both articles are filled with sloppy writing, confusing asides, and padded out with unneeded filler. I implore the editorial staff of the Argus to hold its’ columnists to a standard of writing higher than these two articles display.