For the critic, the author does not exist; only a certain number of writings exist.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The greater part of critics are parasites, who, if nothing had been written, would find nothing to write.
A literary critic is someone who can't write, but who loves to show he would have been a wonderful writer if only he could!
Critics, at least generally, want to regard works of fiction as independent entities, whose virtues and failures must be reckoned apart from the circumstances of their creation, and even apart from the intentions of their creator.
I have never believed that the critic is the rival of the poet, but I do believe that criticism is a genre of literature or it does not exist.
It seems this is an age of clever critics who keep bewailing the fact that there are no works worthy of criticism.
A critic should be taught to criticise a work of art without making any reference to the personality of the author.
A writer without a reader doesn't exist.
A true critic ought to dwell upon excellencies rather than imperfections, to discover the concealed beauties of a writer, and communicate to the world such things as are worth their observation.
Sometimes literary critics review the book they wanted you to write, not the book you wrote, and that's very irksome.
You do not become a critic until it has been completely established to your own satisfaction that you cannot be a poet.