Asking a working writer what he thinks about critics is like asking a lamp-post what it feels about dogs.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Writers are lampposts and critics are dogs. Ask lampposts what they think about dogs. Does the dog hurt the lamppost?
I've learned not to attach personal feelings to critics who review your work. It's their opinions, their perceptions - it's a very subjective thing, and you can be hurt.
Critics have a problem with sentimentality. Readers do not. I write for readers.
I don't know what to say about literary critics. I think it's probably best to say nothing.
My whole life, I wanted to write. What validates you as a writer is the adulation of fans... and I've got that... 'Animal Review' is pretty well-known.
When somebody asks me what I do, I don't think I'd say critic. I say writer.
If you have too good a time writing hostile reviews, you'll injure not only your sensibility but your soul.
The best critics do not worry about what the author might think. That would be like a detective worrying about what a suspect might think. Instead, they treat the reader as an intelligent friend, and describe the book as honestly, and as entertainingly, as possible.
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.
Writers have opinions - that, in part, is why they write. Therefore they have strong likes and dislikes.
No opposing quotes found.