The Uglier Truth--Critics

[patrickt]

I do distinguish between critics and reviewers. Critics simply criticize. A friend and I had a competition to see who could get to a local restaurant critic, a self-styled restaurant critic, first to listen to him savage a new restaurant. Neither of us ever had him praise, in the slightest, a new restaurant. He was so sincere in his nastiness that he didn't notice when my friend or I poked fun. "I wouldn't take my dog there." "You don't have a dog."

I rarely review books but I occasionally browse the reviews after I've read a book.Then I see reviewers quite differently from critics. I rarely criticize or review. I don't feel suited for the first or qualified for the second but I will give an opinion if asked.

[DiapDealer]

Sooooo... where we goin'?

[ucfgrad93]

I don't listen to critics for books, movies, restaurants, etc.

[DiapDealer]

Oh, I listen. I find some of my favorite books/movies through reviews where the reviewer was brutally trashing something.

Once I know a reviewer's habits, even one whose views/tastes are the complete opposite of mine can clue me in to things I might never have discovered otherwise. I have zero interest in agreeing or disagreeing with a review(er), I'm only interested in using them.

"Jonny Reviewbot hates it? I better buy it right now then! We never agree on anything."

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I have zero interest in agreeing or disagreeing with a review(er), I'm only interested in using them.

Indeed. A critic who pans everything is every bit as useful as any other critic, so long as they do so consistently, and give specifics about what they don't like. Used to be a movie critic on a local station in Los Angeles who liked some movies, disliked others, but was 100% consistent in having the exact opposite opinion from my own. I made a particular point of going to see any movie he have one star, and never missed.

I wish I could find a book or restaurant critic that consistent.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by patrickt

I do distinguish between critics and reviewers. Critics simply criticize.

A good critic critiques in their review. They don't just criticize.
However, someone playing an art critic on an episode of "Columbo" once said he got paid more when his review were scathing, so who knows...

[Fat Abe]

Never get into an argument with a critic. The dispute can last for years. When critics criticize each other, it can turn into fusillade of words flowing from newspaper and magazine columns, rat-tat-tat-tat. Who can forget the legendary war(s) between Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris? Any critic of note has a very deep knowledge of his/her field of interest. They can also rattle off facts and theories on a vast array of subjects. When John Simon begins his essay on Gore Vidal with the following rhetorical questions, you, the reader are prepared for stilettos to follow.

"Is he [Gore], as many claim, an essayist of distinction who has wasted his time writing undistinguished novels, plays, screenplays and, formerly, even teleplays? Or is he a novelist of distinction who can toss off a clever essay or write for the stage and movies merely to support himself in the style to which he has become accustomed?"


http://thecriticjohnsimon.com/paradi...of-gore-vidal/

There are always those who know more than you. To be in the sights of one of these snipers is not an experience any writer would cherish. My advice, duck. There is always a less intelligent person out there, and, maybe, he will like your book. Clearly, with readers being less accomplished than writers, the audience is very large, and I can assuredly state that someone will like your output. Possibly, grandma.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Never get into an argument with a critic. The dispute can last for years. When critics criticize each other, it can turn into fusillade of words flowing from newspaper and magazine columns, rat-tat-tat-tat.

Indeed. And the old Hollywood adage is "the only bad publicity is your obituary."

[teh603]

And here I thought the distinction was that critics gave an honest review, while reviewers were paid to give a good one.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by taustin

Indeed. And the old Hollywood adage is "the only bad publicity is your obituary."

"Fame then was cheap [ . . .] And they have kept it since by being dead."
-- John Dryden

[rkomar]

I would say that reviews are for consumers who may want to spend some money, while critiques are for literary types who may want to think about something. The first are about products, while the second are about ideas.

[Katsunami]

IMHO, there is a big difference between a reviewer and a critic.

Reviewers look at a product, and try do determine the good things, average things, and the bad things. Then they'll try to weigh them against each other, and decide if the product is good, average, or bad.

A critic most often just tries to find as many flaws as possible. They often don't even mention good sides of a product, or just in passing.

To be honest, I find critics to be very.... useless most of the time.

Read some reviews/critics about The Hobbit. You can *immediately* see who:

1. Only read The Hobbit
2. Read The Hobbit AND Lord of the Rings
3. Read The Hobbit AND Lord of the Rings AND the appendices
4. Read everything including the Silmarillion and maybe even The History of Middle Earth.
5. Read nothing.

The more people read, the better the reviews were, EXCEPT for people who didn't read anything and just commented on the movie without making parallells with the book(s); those were basically all over the place as is the case with many movies.

And of course you have the die-hard "The movie must follow the book to the letter or it's crap"-people, but they know nothing, IMHO. Many things that work in books don't work in movies, and the other way around.

[Pulpmeister]

In days not so far gone by, newspapers and magazines ran extensive review sections, and the reviews (critiques) were often by writers of considerable stature. In the UK, for instance, reviewers included the likes of Kingsley Amis, Anthony Powell, Graham Greene, (and in the US, science fiction had James Blish writing as Atheling Jr.) and so on. I have enjoyed some of their reviews of books I have read, and whether I agreed with them or not, I thought they were well written and thoughtful.

However, these guys were professional writers who could understand what the author was getting at, or trying to get at. And they were not paid by the publisher, but by the magazine or newspaper.

The art of the full review or critique has vanished from the newspapers, replaced by a picture of a cover and maybe two sentences. And the awful, awful addition "if you liked this you will like..."

(Which is bullshit. A reader can enjoy a single book by an author and dislike all the rest by that author, never mind similar books by similar authors in a similar genre...)

There is a huge gap between full reviews by professional critics and the "comments" on websites, comments which tell you nothing at all about the book, but a lot about the anonymous commentator.

Somewhere or another I have one of Pauline Kael's collections of movie reviews, which are tedious and long-winded but occasionally illuminating. But I got quite annoyed when she persistently described Cary Grant (Archie Leach) (in a lengthy discussion of his career,) as a cockney. Kael evidently thought cockney = working class. It doesn't; Grant was from Bristol, in the west of England. Cockneys are from east end London (traditionally born within sound of Bow Bells, the bells of St Mary-le-Bow in Cheapside.)

I'm not British, but even I knew that. Made me wonder what else she may have got wrong. Cast a considerable cloud over the rest of her reviews, I thought.

The art of the independent review, the critique, is in rapid decline.

[haydnfan]

It is amusing to see the OP fits his own description. He is scathingly attacking critics instead of reviewing them.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by haydnfan

It is amusing to see the OP fits his own description. He is scathingly attacking critics instead of reviewing them.

I was amused to see a critic responding.