I've just pootled across this diatribe against blogging book reviews:
"...in our present climate of criticism — a climate in which the Net has spawned a cacophony of gabble impersonating literary comment, palaver and vulgate enough to warp you. Literature has always had its leeches, except now the Net has given every one of them a bog to wiggle around in. This wouldn’t be any more of an issue than it is to ignore the wastrel on the corner dispensing pamphlets on anarchy, but as respectable print publications either prune their space for book commentary or else go extinct altogether, more and more criticism — like more and more of everything else — is migrating to blogs and social media sites. Young or new book readers looking for literary analysis are going to have an increasingly arduous chore of dividing the shit from the serious. Worse, the biddable and ovine will gravitate to the shit because that’s where all the buzzing is. If you’ve ever attempted to read a review on Amazon or on someone’s personal blog, you know it’s identical to seeking relationship advice on the wall of a public restroom."
If this is the best level of analysis the pro-critic can manage, no wonder they're being left behind.
The article is otherwise very good on the subject of The Craft of Fiction by Percy Lubbock. Lubbock's book is so good that I actually stock it (paperback, hardback) - a service probably more useful to Literature than many a bit of jargon laden, theory ridden waffle by a 'critic'!
I shouldn't allow myself to be wound up, but critics are supposed to have high levels of discrimination, and that's what you do online as you should do with print: you discriminate! I have no desire to lump all critics in the same group, and I know most are much more generous and balanced in their assessment of what goes on in the 'cacophony of gabble', indeed, there is probably someone beginning a PhD thesis on the subject of the influence of bloggers on literature as I write!