/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21233765]

Why is the ability to write "good literature" so thoroughly divorced from being a "good critic" of literature despite both being dependent on having a keen eye for what makes "good literature" work and recognizing what doesn't?

[Anonymous No.21233797]

>>21233765
A Good critic has to set aside his biases and views and do justice to the work he is reading. Meet the writer on his own ground rather than reprimand him for not showing up in your backyard.

A good writer, on the other hand, must be himself and cannot do without some arrogance. This colors their expectation from other writers. They tend to favor writers most similar to themselves.

Exceptions exist.

[Anonymous No.21233801]

the critic is like actaeon before he finds artemis, his hounds are critical reasoning and eloquence which hunt for him.

the master found the goddess, but loses speech and the hounds turn against him.

[Anonymous No.21234091]

>>21233765
A Good critic has to set aside his biases and views and do justice to the work he is reading. Meet the writer on his own ground rather than reprimand him for not showing up in your backyard.

A good writer, on the other hand, must be himself and cannot do without some arrogance. This colors their expectation from other writers. They tend to favor writers most similar to themselves.

Exceptions exist.

[Anonymous No.21234189]

Writers dont have a grasp on what good literature is in a general way, at least when they are writing. They only try to do something and dont stop working on it until it seems good to them.
Dont know about "good critics". If a critic is good it should mean that what they say its bad (literature, music, visual arts, etc.) would be appear as bad after you read what they say, even if you liked it before. I think that that almost never happens unless the critic only limits himself to a very specific area, like only "european coming of age novels from the XIX century", or "hip hop" as "an specific genre of popular music that started during the XX century in the US". Everything else are either cool or interesting interpretations or just half assed reviews that obviously tells more about the taste of that "critic" than anything else.
Bloom just presented a solid number of works that should be considered canon, which is ok, but idc about what he thinks about anything in specific.
At best a critic can tell you if something is being overrated and why, if you happen to be interested (and I think people should). But, honestly, his attack on Harry Potter is almost pathetic. Like, who cares?