Quote

A lot of critics are lazy. They don't want to look closely and analyze something for what it is. They take a quick first impression and then rush to compare it to something they've seen before.

Telescopes and microscopes bring to our view the otherwise unseen and unknown.

As authors evolve and try to trace the precedents that have shaped their work, it sometimes becomes a matter of identifying the shadowy figure in the back row of the mental photograph, or of grabbing at the tail of a memory that's just slipping out the window into thin air.

I have always been fascinated with those who try to look over the horizon and see things that are coming at us.

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.

I think critics are very useful. But I think that they, in a way, betray their position when they stop people looking for themselves.

Judgment is very easy, but I think, on the whole, professional critics maybe see too much, and compare too much, and forget the joy of actually looking and contemplating for its own sake.

Critics have a job to do. I understand that. It's not just to criticize. They're trying to interpret art for the public.

I've encountered a lot of people who sound like critics but very few who have substantive criticisms. There is a lot of skepticism, but it seems to be more a matter of inertia than it is of people having some real reason for thinking something else.

The development of the telescope, together with increased knowledge of things, brought men to see that the earth is not what man had once thought it to be.