On the other hand, I have to ask: is someone like Shakespeare only considered great because the consensus is that he is? I have never heard anyone outside of Thespian pseuds (hello Patrick Stewart and Tom Hiddleston), Uni professors, and lit students deify the man.
Is there a way to know if Shakespeare was the goat via a means similar to the scientific method, or is it all just a regurgitated opinion by brainwashed people?
Any attempt to scientifically break down art in such a way tells you fricking nothing. No, you cannot box it into quantitative objectivity.
The fact that you want to is a bad sign of something you still need to grow out of, and so is your instinct that works universally praised for centuries must secretly be actually shit and only (You) have the clarity of vision to see.
theres a difference between a professional critic and a book reviewer for the la times.
most 'critics' are shills and fueled by money to review chick fic, serious critics aren't going to be found in the papers.
study literature and you'll know why shakespeares great. he was better than his contemporaries and most of the playwrights that followed him.
you can probably find individual plays better than some shakespeare plays but shakespeare was consistently good throughout his oeuvre.
>theres a difference between a professional critic and a book reviewer for the la times. >most 'critics' are shills and fueled by money to review chick fic, serious critics aren't going to be found in the papers.
This is the answer you are looking for OP. If you want literary criticism, you have to look deeper.
I'm not tryna sound like a boomer but people get offended way too easily these days, people are only getting softer, and being too harsh on someone's writing could have consequences unironically.
Roblox noob tier
because they get canceled or their careers ruined if they accidentally say something isn't good then find out a POC or lgbt (god forbid it was a troony and you say it was anything less than magical) or other type of freak wrote it.
I'm not tryna sound like a boomer but people get offended way too easily these days, people are only getting softer, and being too harsh on someone's writing could have consequences unironically.
because they get canceled or their careers ruined if they accidentally say something isn't good then find out a POC or lgbt (god forbid it was a troony and you say it was anything less than magical) or other type of freak wrote it.
because they get canceled or their careers ruined if they accidentally say something isn't good then find out a POC or lgbt (god forbid it was a troony and you say it was anything less than magical) or other type of freak wrote it.
It's bought legacy tactic.
The other day I saw a non-IQfy chart mentioning a work I've never heard nor saw anyone discuss before, even other replies were amused by it. I looked it up and the wikipedia page said that it was "extremely" popular, influential and considered an instant "cult classic" upon release.
Of course it was completely forgotten and buried, but in ten years when anyone looks it upon they are gonna take that at face value.
My mom has a solid filter for contemporary fiction: if a book’s review are only from other authors, it is probably bad. Which, I think, points at the issue with the writing community at large today. It is so incestuous among publishers and authors that Heaven forfend your criticism disrupt the status quo of the sisterfricking polycule hivemind. This means critics must write the same drivel penned by other authors, if they want to avoid being blackballed in the literary world.
Because everything is a circle jerk, booktubers are a community for example, and so are the critics in journals and magazines, they don't want to upset the stablishment because they don't want to be left out of it.
What do you think works best for them? Suck off some mediocre turd and get invited to premiers,events and get free copies of books or to be actually critical of something? Besides that, God help you if you somehow critize something made by a POC or letterspeepo
anything like a literary community does not exist today, so critics are at most a branch of the publisher's marketing department, because everyone realized nothing except sales really matters.
>critics are getting less cruel
bullshit. The publishing industry is built on nepotism. It's all one big circle jerk where everyone is reviewing either their nephew's or their girlfriend's (or sometimes both) latest novel. Reviews are fake and gay as rotten tomatoes scores.
Everything has been criticized and said about classic books. The only job of a critic would be to review modern books, and 99% of modern books suck ass, so they are forced to lower their critics.
Because literature is rated largely for appealing to politics or a particular demographic rather than aesthetic value. Critics are cruel but mainly if the work is problematic etc
This is not true btw. Perhaps it might hold some truth for Americans but not for the rest of the world. There have always been very few critics though and I really doubt the writer of that article or people on this board would know anything about them.
Literary criticism depended on the existence of a canon with which works can be compared to and measured against, or that can be used as an interpretation key. Even experimental and otherwise innovative novels were measured in this sense, even if by via negativa. We do not have that anymore. The canon has been deemed a bunch of Dead White Males and while there are still some sacred cows, you're disincouraged to use them as your measuring stick - you need to see things through the view of women, people of color, trans people, and whoever isn't sufficiently "represented" by the canon.
The closest thing to a measuring stick by which to evaluate literature among polite society now is "representation", "decolonization" etc. The more you affirm these things, the more protected your book is against what would otherwise be a critic's bitter tongue; they can even dislike your book, but they need to say it in the nicest way possible. Such a standard is very shallow, though, and everyone knows it. But it is the only standard that is really "taken seriously" in public conversation, so you can't go deep in other places where you could really vivisect the work.
Other than the obvious "people are overly sensitive nowadays", I think it's clear that "professional" critics simply don't know anything about what's required to make a book (or any kind of art) nor how to evaluate a work based on the writer's technical skill or talent instead of its politics or personal opinion. On top of that, people consider that liking or disliking something is part of a work's quality instead of something separate that has nothing to do with the author or the work.
Because criticism is now directly linked to publishing, marketing and has become sullied due to the cross-pollination with "reviews" which are themselves often too subjective, superficial and anecdotal to be taken seriously.
If you want to nip this problem at the bud without upending multiple industries, allow critics to criticize each other without fear of being blacklisted. There is no other solution. Discourse is a human right.
>morons fall again for typical humanities sensationalism
The Economist and every single other shitty American "culture" outlet have been proclaiming the death of everything related to the humanities, without any real knowledge of anything regarding the humanities, and you homies, in your ignorance, fall for their bait once and once again.
I don't care much for critics. Who cares if 1 million people say a book sucks? It should be about if (You) get something valuable from it.
On the other hand, I have to ask: is someone like Shakespeare only considered great because the consensus is that he is? I have never heard anyone outside of Thespian pseuds (hello Patrick Stewart and Tom Hiddleston), Uni professors, and lit students deify the man.
Is there a way to know if Shakespeare was the goat via a means similar to the scientific method, or is it all just a regurgitated opinion by brainwashed people?
Scientific method? Anon, stop thinking like a cuck. Read the fricking thing and figure it out.
Any attempt to scientifically break down art in such a way tells you fricking nothing. No, you cannot box it into quantitative objectivity.
The fact that you want to is a bad sign of something you still need to grow out of, and so is your instinct that works universally praised for centuries must secretly be actually shit and only (You) have the clarity of vision to see.
theres a difference between a professional critic and a book reviewer for the la times.
most 'critics' are shills and fueled by money to review chick fic, serious critics aren't going to be found in the papers.
study literature and you'll know why shakespeares great. he was better than his contemporaries and most of the playwrights that followed him.
you can probably find individual plays better than some shakespeare plays but shakespeare was consistently good throughout his oeuvre.
>theres a difference between a professional critic and a book reviewer for the la times.
>most 'critics' are shills and fueled by money to review chick fic, serious critics aren't going to be found in the papers.
This is the answer you are looking for OP. If you want literary criticism, you have to look deeper.
Future writers (Melville and Milton, for example) praised him.
Shakespeare coined the first "I did your mom" joke in his play Titus, which is widely considered one of his worst plays.
Think about that next time before opening your mouth you filthy moron.
News article of Roblox reader tier
Roblox noob tier
Roblox veteran tier
Roblox sys admin tier
Native robloxian tier
I'm not tryna sound like a boomer but people get offended way too easily these days, people are only getting softer, and being too harsh on someone's writing could have consequences unironically.
Both of these are correct.
because they get canceled or their careers ruined if they accidentally say something isn't good then find out a POC or lgbt (god forbid it was a troony and you say it was anything less than magical) or other type of freak wrote it.
What's going to happen? WHAT? Buahh I lost buh job buhhhhh.
Because nobody reads them anymore and they have embraced being industry shills.
When women took over the publishing industry and most fiction writers and readers became female.
I have no idea who those two women are. They sure have conquered fiction.
It's bought legacy tactic.
The other day I saw a non-IQfy chart mentioning a work I've never heard nor saw anyone discuss before, even other replies were amused by it. I looked it up and the wikipedia page said that it was "extremely" popular, influential and considered an instant "cult classic" upon release.
Of course it was completely forgotten and buried, but in ten years when anyone looks it upon they are gonna take that at face value.
My mom has a solid filter for contemporary fiction: if a book’s review are only from other authors, it is probably bad. Which, I think, points at the issue with the writing community at large today. It is so incestuous among publishers and authors that Heaven forfend your criticism disrupt the status quo of the sisterfricking polycule hivemind. This means critics must write the same drivel penned by other authors, if they want to avoid being blackballed in the literary world.
Nabokov was the only good critic.
Because everything is a circle jerk, booktubers are a community for example, and so are the critics in journals and magazines, they don't want to upset the stablishment because they don't want to be left out of it.
What do you think works best for them? Suck off some mediocre turd and get invited to premiers,events and get free copies of books or to be actually critical of something? Besides that, God help you if you somehow critize something made by a POC or letterspeepo
anything like a literary community does not exist today, so critics are at most a branch of the publisher's marketing department, because everyone realized nothing except sales really matters.
Because you live under the tyrannical rule of israeli space aliens.
>critics are getting less cruel
bullshit. The publishing industry is built on nepotism. It's all one big circle jerk where everyone is reviewing either their nephew's or their girlfriend's (or sometimes both) latest novel. Reviews are fake and gay as rotten tomatoes scores.
Everything has been criticized and said about classic books. The only job of a critic would be to review modern books, and 99% of modern books suck ass, so they are forced to lower their critics.
Because literature is rated largely for appealing to politics or a particular demographic rather than aesthetic value. Critics are cruel but mainly if the work is problematic etc
This is not true btw. Perhaps it might hold some truth for Americans but not for the rest of the world. There have always been very few critics though and I really doubt the writer of that article or people on this board would know anything about them.
Literary criticism depended on the existence of a canon with which works can be compared to and measured against, or that can be used as an interpretation key. Even experimental and otherwise innovative novels were measured in this sense, even if by via negativa. We do not have that anymore. The canon has been deemed a bunch of Dead White Males and while there are still some sacred cows, you're disincouraged to use them as your measuring stick - you need to see things through the view of women, people of color, trans people, and whoever isn't sufficiently "represented" by the canon.
The closest thing to a measuring stick by which to evaluate literature among polite society now is "representation", "decolonization" etc. The more you affirm these things, the more protected your book is against what would otherwise be a critic's bitter tongue; they can even dislike your book, but they need to say it in the nicest way possible. Such a standard is very shallow, though, and everyone knows it. But it is the only standard that is really "taken seriously" in public conversation, so you can't go deep in other places where you could really vivisect the work.
More women authors and more female critics with their pink reviews, saying stuff like 'powerful', 'emotive', 'slaying'.
Women, again, are to blame
Other than the obvious "people are overly sensitive nowadays", I think it's clear that "professional" critics simply don't know anything about what's required to make a book (or any kind of art) nor how to evaluate a work based on the writer's technical skill or talent instead of its politics or personal opinion. On top of that, people consider that liking or disliking something is part of a work's quality instead of something separate that has nothing to do with the author or the work.
they demanded everything to be israeli. now everything is israeli, so they only critizise us for not being israeli enough.
Because criticism is now directly linked to publishing, marketing and has become sullied due to the cross-pollination with "reviews" which are themselves often too subjective, superficial and anecdotal to be taken seriously.
If you want to nip this problem at the bud without upending multiple industries, allow critics to criticize each other without fear of being blacklisted. There is no other solution. Discourse is a human right.
>morons fall again for typical humanities sensationalism
The Economist and every single other shitty American "culture" outlet have been proclaiming the death of everything related to the humanities, without any real knowledge of anything regarding the humanities, and you homies, in your ignorance, fall for their bait once and once again.