Critics are not creators. They rarely write great novels, invent new technologies, or come up with a great business idea.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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 don't read critics, and I don't care what they say. You can't let them steal your soul. You do what the director and production is committed to doing. I just think it's terrible that critics have the power to keep people away from a good production.
Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did.
As for critics, one mediocre writer is more valuable than ten good critics. They are like haughty, barren spinsters lodged in a maternity ward.
I think critics are very useful. But I think that they, in a way, betray their position when they stop people looking for themselves.
If people aren't creating literature, there would be nothing for people to criticize.
Critics have a job to do. I understand that. It's not just to criticize. They're trying to interpret art for the public.
But I honestly don't read critics. My dad reads absolutely everything ever written about me. He calls me up to read ecstatic reviews, but I always insist that I can't hear them. If you give value to the good reviews, you have to give value to the criticism.
Sometimes literary critics review the book they wanted you to write, not the book you wrote, and that's very irksome.
There's no end to the inventiveness of critics, I tell you. Because they can't write fiction, they put their impulse into their analysis of work.