Back in college some friends and I thought it would be fun to take an English 480 course. If you aren’t aware, or don’t remember, 480 means an upper level elective and questionable academic value and guaranteed interest. This particular night class took us through Julia Cameron’s classic workbook The Artist’s Way. It’s a really excellent system for developing and maintaining your inner artist.
It also started some interesting conversations.
One discussion that has stuck with me was about critics. I think it’s Cameron who says that most critics are failed artists. Those who can’t do, teach; and those who can’t teach criticize. One of the professors expressed frustration that so many critics attempt to be as pithy as possible in their witty takedowns of someone else’s art. Given, I think the prof was/is a wounded artist.
Being a successful artist requires thick skin.
As someone who enjoys reading and writing reviews, I do think they should be as fun as possible when appropriate. Reviewers should be guides, and a tour guide at the Pigeon Forge Mystery Spot can be a little more lighthearted than the docent of the Holocaust Museum. It’s the reviewer’s role to inform potential audiences about material both in content and tone. If the book or movie in question is bad, the reviewer should show why it’s lacking as much as tell. If it's a good time, the review should give a little taste of what to expect.
Unfortunately, no one trusts reviewers anymore.
Most of us have learned by now that the critics’ score on Rotten Tomatoes isn’t worth the price of dumpster produce. Since it’s Hollywood’s job to sell movies, regardless of quality, we expect their marketing to always be positive. But somewhere along the line most reviewers joined the media marketing machine. Or, the movies are being made for them, the neighbors in the enlightened ivory towers.
A good critic is hard to find.
I’ve tried to draw a distinction between a reviewer and critic, though their roles overlap. The reviewer tends to provide surface level observations on quality, whereas a critic will dig into the deeper themes, technical details, and cultural significance of a piece. Most of the work I do is reviewing. Unfortunately, as with so much, both sides have become compromised by politics and grift, and social media has flooded the digital airwaves with grifters.
Liberal critics shill for everything woke. Conservative critics con their audiences into giving them money.
Once you see it, it’s impossible to miss. A new, politically driven version of a beloved IP comes out and you’re guaranteed a two hour livestream where witty analysts will complain for your pleasure. And if you send them a superchat they’ll read your complaint on the air. And all that’s accomplished between advertisements for their sponsors is anger and despair. These guys can go on for hours about legacy and lore, how it should have been done, and all the things fans love talking about. To give them their due justice, they know Story, what works and what doesn’t.
However, at the end of the day, they just want your money.
The only critic to whom I can really give a pass is The Critical Drinker, because at least when he isn’t giving biting commentary on the current state of the industry he uses his understanding of what makes a good story to write novels (I haven’t read any, but I’ll bet they’re pretty good). Razorfist is probably another, as is Jacob Airey.
Not that one needs to create in order to criticize.
No, there are a few reviewers and critics out there who aren't wannabe creators who will still call it like they see it, telling us what we really want to know. Over at Decider there’s John Serba, whose wildly funny reviews lean a little too left. I’m just too busy laughing to care. On the right there’s Christian Toto, a true film journalist. With both men, fairly judging the material on its own merits takes priority over political ax grinding.
Hopefully, you find some value in the work I do here and elsewhere.
But also, I really need to get back to my novel.
