We’re Called “Critics” For a Reason

Only saying you like things excludes you from the ranks of critics. It means you’re a glorified journalist.

Merriam Webster:

1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique

b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances

2: one given to harsh or captious judgment

Origin of CRITIC

Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to discern or judge, from krinein
First Known Use: 1588


Recent Posts



Criticism Isn't Free


CR is dedicated to thoughtful, in-depth criticism without regard to what's commercially appealing. It takes tens of hours each month to provide this. Please help make this sort of writing sustainable, either with a subscription or a one-time donation. Thank you!





8 Comments

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Agreed, but dude, you’re stomping this point a lot.

@vfrancone Beacuse it’s necessary. Most of the published criticism are fluff pieces.

I think what’s missing from this debate is the observation that reducing it all to a choice between tough criticism and fluffy puff pieces creates an artificial duality. There are pieces of tough criticism that are incredibly shallow and stupid (as stupid as mindless praise), and there are pieces of criticism that gloriously celebrate the work that they explore. Criticism is neither good nor bad as a function of whether it damns or lauds — it is good or bad as a function of whether it aspires to say the essential in a beautiful way, regardless of what judgement it levels.

    Exactly. The tone here is the tone of any half-intelligent political debate. Ideologies and binaries as opposed to dialogues towards goals.

    Good criticism is criticism that tells you something core about what a work is doing, and how. Both a negative review and a positive review do that. (I think I let “review” slip in because that may be what we’re really all talking about in the first place.)

@Arturo: I realize this, but this is Scott’s umpteenth post on the subject. And again I agree with him, but after a while the discussion of what makes a critic and who deserves to be called one, lacking “dialogues toward goals” as P.T. Smith mentioned, makes those screaming “I am a critic; this person is not” sound a bit desperate, arrogant, and even callow. Worse, they begin to resemble the academics who denounce creative criticism.

There may be an influx of quasi-criticism in our 21st century, sure, but good, informed readers surely can see the difference between a critical essay and a fluff piece. They always have and they always will.

That being said, keep up the great work, Scott.

Critics, man. Critics never got nothing nice to say. You know the one thing I notice about critics, man? Is critics never ask me how my day went.

Jerks.

LADY CHATTERLEY'S BROTHER

Two long essays of 10,000 words each on sex in—and out of—literature . . .

The first essay dives in to Nicholson Baker’s “sex trilogy,” explaining just what Baker is up to here and why these books ultimately fail to be as sexy as Baker might wish.

From there the book moves on to the second essay, which explains just why Spaniard Javier Marías does right what Baker does wrong . . .


THE LATIN AMERICAN MIXTAPE

5 essays. 2 interviews.

All in all, over 25,000 words of Latin American literary goodness.

3 never-before-published essays, including “The Digression”—a 4,000-word piece on the most important digression in César Aira’s career.

Shop though these links = Support this site

Copyright © 2016. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.