The Art of the Critic | Hacker News Reader

The Art of the Critic

metropolitanreview.org

46 pointsbenbreen7 comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com