[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 13 KB, 207x300, The_Flight_to_Lucifer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19221904 No.19221904 [Reply] [Original]

I'm starting to think being a creator should be seen as a prerequisite to be able to criticize.

>> No.19221932

It isn’t. A good reviewer should be able to analyze and present a piece well enough for the critique to be noted and dismissed if the reader so chooses.
Bloom is like Roger Ebert. They know the material, have an opinion and can describe why they feel the way they do.
A writer needs to focus on his craft, not critiquing of his/her peers

>> No.19221996

>>19221904
It's an unfortunate fact that being a good critic of something can preclude (though not always) creativity in said area. Because criticism as an art makes you so self-conscious of the creative process that you begin to lose what is intuitive and free-flowing in the artist. Schiller talked a little bit about it according to Freud, how critics are uncreative because they are too harsh on themselves, don't allow themselves to follow silly and absurd ideas which actually are essential to the writing process. I sort of feel that I might never be a writer in that way, that my way of thinking has becoming too rational and self-evaluative to let myself become an artist.

>> No.19222012

>>19221904
Nah. Writer-critics and critic-readers are important as they both look at literature in different ways; but having only writers doing criticism (which is already a symptom of a diseased literary space) can be harmful to a literature, specially when they read not for reading's sake but as a way to further propel their own writings. Specially now, when readers are becoming rarer and rarer, critic-readers are very important.
Plus I don't believe that criticism is opposite to creation, literary criticism, being a form of essay, can be beautiful.

>> No.19222036

Critics are worthless.

>> No.19222798

>>19221904
The ability to create and the ability to analyze and criticize are completely different though.

>> No.19222824

>>19221904
Nah, for a creator to attempt criticism of other's work necessarily corrupts their own production.

>> No.19223136

>>19222036
This

>>19222798
Right. One is valuable, the other is worthless.

>>19221932
The fact that Bloom's and Ebert's creations were so abysmal makes me question whether they really knew the material at all.

>> No.19223319

>>19223136
>The fact that Bloom's and Ebert's creations were so abysmal makes me question whether they really knew the material at all.
I think there's a very strong case to be made for the fact that a critic's opinions should always be taken while being fully aware of the art they've tried to create themselves; John Updike is a good example, he'd written several good novels and had very strict principles when it came to reviewing other books, and it shows.

>> No.19223682

>>19221904
the top chess players get good at chess by analyzing previous games, not by playing them. So if critics were really good at analyzing novels, they should also be good at writing novels, but they aren't, hence good novelists are better critics than critics.

>> No.19224193

>>19222036
>>19223682
Critics want to derive "meaning" from a work, but without going through the creative process themselves. Better off ignoring critics, and listen to author interviews instead.

>> No.19225342

>>19223682
name one good novelist who is a trustable critic. they are all biased as fuck. most deal in two categories. A. writers who inspired me. B. hacks.

>> No.19225852

>>19225342
>critics are biased as fuck, most deal in two categories. A. Writers who are good. B. Writers who are bad.

>> No.19225860

>>19225342
>name one good novelist who is a trustable critic
nabokov, updike, gass, forster

>> No.19225862

>>19221904
>should be
All that's necessary to be a cook is that people eat your swill
What you "think" on a shitposting site don't mean fuck all, but here's your (you)

>> No.19225972

>>19225860
>nabokov
>trustable critic

>> No.19226056

>>19225860
Nabokov is not trustable lol he's opinionated at best