Critics who do the weekly recap, I find that kind of absurd. That's like reviewing chapters in a novel.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Most books reviews aren't very well-written. They tend to be more about the reviewer than the book.
A good review from the critics is just another stay of execution.
Sometimes literary critics review the book they wanted you to write, not the book you wrote, and that's very irksome.
Why do I do this every Sunday? Even the book reviews seem to be the same as last week's. Different books same reviews.
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.
A reviewer's lot is not always an easy one. I can remember flogging myself to finish Harold Brodkey's 'The Runaway Soul' despite the novel's consummate, unmitigated tedium.
I reach my readers regardless of what the critics have written.
Writing is exhilarating, but reading reviews is not. I've been really devastated by 'good' reviews because they misunderstand the project of the book. It can be strangely galvanising to get a 'bad' one.
I wouldn't call myself a 'literary critic,' just a book reviewer.
I don't read the critics.
No opposing quotes found.