I'd kinda like to see him do so, because I like a lot of his crit, and I'd like to think he can practice what he preaches.

I'd like to see it too, but I don't think it's an obligation, or that it necessarily matters whether he could do it or not.

But really, he's a bad example because he's *not* the kind to gratuitously trash someone out of bitterness. If we were talking about some of the commentators whose reviews of Lost in Translation were 99% based on how jealous they are of Sofia Coppola, I'd agree.

I read his reviews more because I like the way he puts sentences together than because I actually agree with what he says especially often. I think a lot of people who complain about him have seen him more on TV, which I've literally seen maybe three times.

I'd be the last person to say that all critics are failed, bitter writers. But some of them sure as hell are, and some of them, good writers or not, are just power trippers.

Completely agreed, especially about the "power trippers" bit.

some of them, good writers or not, are just power trippers.

I think the power issue is really the distinction, for me. A baseball writer is not necessarily a failed pitcher. Some people get over these things and find new things they really want to do. Some people, on the other hand, want to live out their former glory or consider themselves failures if they cannot continue to play. The danger is when this second group of people gets the power to make decisions that affect games, lives, whatever. Being a baseball writer does not make you able to change the game in the immediate way that an umpire can.

I had a similar experience in high school with a few teachers. Some of them are trying to relieve high school since those were the best years of their lives (often these seem to be PE teachers...) Others, like one of my english teachers seemed to want to relieve high school and this time be "popular." She sucked up to the rich popular kids, gave them better grades than they deserved, made the class discuss their vacations, and was lenient when they didn't do their homework. My point is, I'm just wary in these situations because one person or one review that is negative can be discouraging. I know you all have thicker skins than this, but my mom actually quit writing a few years ago because she was so hurt by a few people in her class. Sigh.

LJ, that's a good point, and it's very true, about Ebert not being the kind to gratuitously trash. I think what I'm remembering is something Lillian Hellman said, about the theatre critic for the NY Times at the time she was writing her memoirs - she said that crit had reached a point where the only effect was negative. That is, a good review no longer brought people to the theatre, but a bad review did damage.

I'd like to think he can practice what he preaches.

I think it's a gift in and of itself to know it when you see it, miss it when you don't, and be able to explain both clearly.

Doing? A separate gift.

Signed,
Coached Improv For Years, And Can't Improvise

Doing? A separate gift.

Totally.

Thing is, we're specifically discussing a discipline that can make or break the careers, not of the person who is doing the critiquing, but of the person doing the creating.

Whole 'nother ballgame, there, the difference between a coach or teacher trying to impart knowledge, and critic/reviewer telling a million people "do not like this."

critic/reviewer telling a million people "do not like this."

Well, I think any critic/reviewer that tells people that sucks right off the bat.

Well, I think any critic/reviewer that tells people that sucks right off the bat.

yesyesyesyes. So do I. Which is why I flatly refused to review fiction for which I could find no resonance point.

Years back, when I was doing reviews for the Chronicle, I got sent galleys of the debut novel of a brand new acquaintance. I never mentioned this to her, BTW; so far as I know, she doesn't know now and since we're no longer friends and haven't been for 14 or so years, she doesn't need to.

And I loathed the book with a passion. The biggest issue I would have had to get around was that it was mystical Celtic fantasy: gnomes. Invisible elves. Great broadswords.

Well - okay. I am in the teeny minority of Tolkein-haters out there, but beyond that, this level of overdone magic (with fake-feminist overtones) makes my hair hurt. I read the thing, but by the time I'd reached page 50, my tum was in knots and there was no way I was going to be able to be fair about it. The fact that we shared an agent really put the tin cupola on it.

I sent it back to Pat and Alix and whimpered, and they passed it on to someone who loved the genre. And I always felt I'd done the only reasonable thing. Because just because I can't like the thing, what earthly right does that give me to tell the rest of the world they won't like it?

(BTW, I'm not talking about basic novels with a Celtic setting; I'm speaking specifically about magic and gnomes and whatnots. Can't abide the things. Basic novels with Celtic settings are fine, AU or otherwise.)

Oh, and I love my husband. Tour shirt:

[link]

or just saying "tfoo tfoo tfoo".

I really like this. I'll think it next time I compliment a baby (which I do a lot).

Ooooooh! I think I need to get a Weaver mug!!!