[HN Gopher] The Art of the Critic
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Art of the Critic
        
       Author : benbreen
       Score  : 45 points
       Date   : 2025-05-29 05:55 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.metropolitanreview.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.metropolitanreview.org)
        
       | billfruit wrote:
       | At one time, reading Henry James(and a few others) was considered
       | one of the pleasures of being an Adult. Perhaps because he so
       | analysed people and their actions in a complex worldly-wise
       | manner. Perhaps in a manner in which one would analyze one's own
       | life.
       | 
       | People making life choices makes for the most riveting novels.
       | 
       | I'm guessing he's not that popular presently.
        
         | cafard wrote:
         | Considering the disappointing sales of the New York Edition, I
         | wonder whether he was ever that popular.
         | 
         | I find the earlier work much more readable than the later. John
         | Lukacs quotes somebody's quip about James's manners: James the
         | First, James the Second, the Old Pretender.
        
       | nyeah wrote:
       | Alternate explanation: Dickens was pretty good but sometimes a
       | critic, even Henry James, is just someone who doesn't like stuff.
       | 
       | IANAEM, I am not an English major.
        
       | hresvelgr wrote:
       | While I believe there is scant value in being a critic, a good
       | point is nevertheless made: it should be made by practicing
       | artists.
       | 
       | Elaborating on both points, as a practicing artist, paying
       | attention to what you like is important as it shapes your tastes.
       | Critique is useful only insofar as it allows one to create more
       | of what perfectly embodies one's taste, whatever that may be. To
       | be a public critic is to believe one's taste is superior. In my
       | opinion, the only important taste is one's own to one, and should
       | be cultivated by unabashedly following what you find intriguing.
       | 
       | If you're not a practicing artist, like what you like earnestly.
       | Plenty will bemoan the state of the art crumbling, but there's a
       | reason people still enjoy the greats of old to this day. What's
       | good will persist.
        
         | pickleglitch wrote:
         | I think this is a myopic view of critique. A good critic helps
         | potential consumers gauge the likelihood they will or won't
         | enjoy a given work, and offers insights that facilitate a
         | deeper engagement with the material. Of course one's own taste
         | is the final arbiter of enjoyment, and of course every critic's
         | own taste is going to flavor their criticism, but that doesn't
         | mean they must believe their own tastes are superior, or that
         | non-critics should take their views as objective facts, or that
         | the whole enterprise serves no purpose for anyone other than
         | practicing artists.
         | 
         | For example, if I watch a movie and don't understand it I could
         | shrug it off and forget about it and there would be nothing
         | wrong with that. But I could also go read critiques of the film
         | and maybe gain an understanding which makes my interaction with
         | the film more enriching, even if it doesn't necessarily change
         | my overall opinion.
         | 
         | I think it's true that critique can never be as valuable as the
         | work it examines, but art only becomes part of culture when it
         | is discussed by the culture. That is what critics are doing.
        
       | ahalbert4 wrote:
       | Vladimir Nabokov's opinions on various writers, culled from
       | Strong Opinions. (http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-
       | recommendations)
       | 
       | * James, Henry. Dislike him rather intensely, but now and then
       | his wording causes a kind of electric tingle. Certainly not a
       | genius.
        
       | miiiiiike wrote:
       | I've worked with professional [0] critics.
       | 
       | They're constantly workshopping their bad opinions. And, if you
       | try to straighten them out on a subject I can almost guarantee
       | that your words and arguments, the ones that they'll dismiss or
       | ridicule (usually verbosely) in the moment, are going to appear
       | on the page under their byline. Typically expressed in tone that
       | makes the reader feel lucky that they have decided to share their
       | holy knowledge with mere mortals.
       | 
       | Is what you're talking about in their field? No? Well they're
       | going to use the same tone and rhetorical tactics to talk about
       | the things they know nothing about.
       | 
       | Demonstrate that they're wrong in a way that's not useful to
       | them? Well, you've just made an enemy for life. Hope you like
       | receiving 9,000 word emails that could have been boiled down to
       | "How dare you tell me that I'm not perfect?" Why use 9 words when
       | you can use 9,000? Not getting the point? No worries, they'll tag
       | in three of their friends.
       | 
       | As a class, they were poorly paid people, personal lives in
       | tatters, with little knowledge or experience of the world, all
       | crawling over eachother to be see as the "thought leader". The
       | one who gets to tell everyone how the world is to be run.
       | 
       | To be famous.
       | 
       | The kind of people who, if you were stuck on a snowy mountain,
       | would burn down the shelter you're building (too slowly in their
       | opinion), complain that it's too hot, and the when the fire goes
       | out, attack you for letting it get so cold. "What happened to
       | that shelter you were building? It burned down? Well, how could
       | you let that happen?"
       | 
       | Don't even get me started on the lies and excuses (never.
       | ending.) While still maintaining a public reputation for "honesty
       | and transparency". It doesn't matter if it's true as long as you
       | keep saying it.
       | 
       | Ended up getting lawyers involved and maneuvered them into
       | putting every stupid thing that they did in writing before
       | walking away. They're still doing the same kind of stuff at about
       | the same level that were doing it 10-12 years ago. Self-limiting.
       | It's not even worth attacking them publicly, there's nothing that
       | I could do to them that they aren't already doing to themselves.
       | 
       | Learned a few things from the experience:
       | 
       | -1: If you have something to communicate, communicate it
       | yourself. Never allow anyone communicate an important message for
       | you unless you're standing right behind them.
       | 
       | 0. Don't try to help people if you need help yourself.
       | 
       | 1. Work with people who want to be known for what they do, rather
       | than what they say.
       | 
       | 2. Selfishness and myopia have no floor. You can set the bar for
       | success as low as possible and some people will still find a way
       | to blame you when they trip over it.
       | 
       | 3. End quickly. If someone acts in bad faith even once, it's
       | over.
       | 
       | [0]: Professional meaning that someone, somewhere, paid them
       | something for their opinion. Not to be confused with professional
       | conduct.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-05-30 23:01 UTC)