Do you think it tortures book critics that they will never be the star. they will never be special...

I don't think there is too much intersection going on. Someone who loves writing, won't waste their time writing about the works of others, while someone who loves analyzing and writing about their opinions, is clearly not too interested in writing their own work.

>People who love writing don't write about others even inadvertently because they live in a vaccuum

>ven inadvertently because they live in a vaccuum
Is quite different from actually making a career out of writing about others.

If you like playing football, you might enjoy talking about it too, but you sure as fuck won't choose to become a sports writer or a commentator instead of a player.

And that's why your writing is shit.

>choose to become
chosen to become, rather.

...

There were several quite successful writers in the past who also engaged in literary criticism – you don't seem to be particularly well read if this strikes you as an oddity.

Cliff, on the other hand, is a likeable hack. Likeable, because of his friendly, inviting, masculine mannerisms – like a cool older brother, who seem to have his shit together. A hack, because of his shallow, unoriginal, copy-paste parroting excuse of a review – like an annoying younger sister, who shows no signs of an internal monologue and soul searching.

He's got a great gimmick going on, so good for him. I for one found his latest review of Lautremont laughable; literary citing facts about the author from wikipedia, only to proceed by reading an original analysis of it from someone else's blog.

>Do you think it tortures book critics that they will never be the star.

Actually, no. I think critics are motivated by different things than writers. Being a failed writer doesn't automatically grant you the capabilities to critique literature. If you've ever read decent literary critique there's much more going on than "waah i couldnt get published".

Maybe they are more interested in the culture and community of the art-type as a whole, and have no plans on seeing themselves a part of it. Perhaps the very aesthetic of evaluating and categorizing works is what drives them.

It's true though that I can never take a reviewer seriously as a content creator. I could never see Cliff being published, or any other reviewer of any other format. JG Keely, a very strict voice in evaluating genre fiction, once published a chapter of his own writing, and it was pure steampunk nonsense that seemed to flout all the rules he himself set down. It's like they've sold off too much of themselves that the magic goes from them.

>masculine

There's nothing masculine about him. Watch his France blog video thingy. He's a fucking skinny dork with short pants.

It's easier to praise works that are universally deemed great than it is to critique a solid work. I can go in reading Dickens knowing his works are "classics" and fall into the mindset that what I'm reading is truly great, and push aside any kind of criticism because, hey, who am I to question this literary master?

The problem is casual criticism of books, like you'd see on booktube, is often something like "so and so held very sexist views and this is problematic because..."

Praise and criticism can be thoughtful or lazy. So I would'nt say one is easier than the other

The line between artistry and criticism was effaced with Barthes, Derrida et al

Unwatchable.

Sam Johnson, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Hazlett, Charles Lamb, John Ruskin, Walter Pater.. this trend begins much earlier in English. In French it begins in earnest with St. Beuve, Charles Baudelaire...

This past year he has become a lot more self-aware about his reviewing and mannerisms. He probably browses Veeky Forums. He's a nice guy despite the stuff Veeky Forums hates him for; I really dig his positive attitude.

people like this always rise to the top. see chris stuckmann. the c student at play

fair point
I guess I was thinking more the distinction between "theory/criticism" and "literature"

criticism with intent to destroy is hacky

criticism with purpose to understand is useful

writing books to answer a question is useful

good criticism is a necessary step in finding the next answer, be it the writer or critic who is doing the criticism.

if criticism is not useful (aka doesnt provide narcissistic supply as you describe), then what is the purpose of critical thinking?

critic with reddit spacing is ?

dude who gives a shit about formatting is ?

I'm just memeing you pal. carry on my wayward son

i fuckin hate the internet atm. 90% noise to signal ratio.

go back to school/uni you children, get off my lawn.

that;'s a fuckin ancient camera in her hand btw

Absolutely. Abso-fucking-lutely. Critics are the worst kind of people. Any critic of a subjective art, who does not have a similar level of experience actually doing that art, is simply not qualified to judge it. There are some academics who might have some knowledge of it but should still not be taken seriously. "Criticism" in the sense that the critic simply dissects what the artist is portraying is different, that's actually extremely helpful, but these fat faggot professors in their sweater vests with an unathenticated autographed copy of The Da Vinci Code from eBay on a shelf next to their framed diploma who trash starving artists from their ivory towers just to feel superior are trying to fill their emptiness with hatred, and they deserve e lifetime of despair that they're digging themselves into with their own actions. Death would be too good for them.

If a work of art has a profound impact on at least one soul, even if it is just the artist himself, then it's priceless.

I WANT TO TORTURE ALL THE BOOK CRITICS >>
I WANT TO TORTURE ALL THE BOOK CRITICS >>
I WANT TO TORTURE ALL THE BOOK CRITICS >>

Keep fighting the good fight, user
Don't let them discourage you

>fat faggot professors in their sweater vests with an unathenticated autographed copy of The Da Vinci Code from eBay on a shelf next to their framed diploma who trash starving artists from their ivory towers just to feel superior
lol what the fuck

He's young, retarded and quite clearly mad at someone. He can't even get his strawmen right, that the fuck.

Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. If you're not in 100% agreement with what I said, you clearly have zero experience creating true art from your soul, in which case you should just leave this board, and maybe even reconsider why literature is a hobby for you. If you're not in it for the art to touch your soul then you're probably in it to feel intellectually superior to others. Please, please, please, I beg you, buy an industrial strength 9-inch nail gun, put your penis and testicles on a cinder block, unload 5-10 nails through your genitals and the cinder block, then jump into the ocean and sink to the bottom and die.

>HUURRR look ma im beein edgy on Veeky Forums agin hehehuehe

Shove a fire hose up your asshole and have someone near the button turn it on

that academic friend quoted ezra pound

>If a work of art has a profound impact on at least one soul, even if it is just the artist himself, then it's priceless.
including Milk & Honey?

Stop being this edgy. It's edge to a corny degree.

We get it. You genuinely appreciate art and the hacks of the world annoy you. Cool. Stop posting like such a heated teenager about it, your very hot take on the situation is heat enough for one thread.

>If a work of art has a profound impact on at least one soul, even if it is just the artist himself, then it's priceless.
Every worthwhile project changes you as an author. For me it did with Tales Untold, although I'd hope more people would read it. I think it's an absolute masterpiece.

This'll be my last message on Veeky Forums
Goodbye

modernism was already happening 30+ years before greenberg published the first of his little essays
the reason his fame obscures most contemporary artists is probably because fine art is at an all time low regarding its projection and social value. nobody gives a fuck

If a man has access to the hose, why not turn it without the help of somebody nearby?
What would prevent him from pressing the button on his own

It's not like any of us here on Veeky Forums is ever going to produce anything of any literary value, so all we can do is critique those that do...

contemporary art is shit because it's less relevant than its own critique

can't make out what it is

this but unironically

I read the NYT book review, most of them are stuck-up and have no idea what quality is. When they talk about "classics," they're some third-world name that I've never heard. Many articles insult Trump as if by mandate.

>He doesn't realize that critics are the true artists.
Get some sleep, op