Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidjohnstone | Hacker News Reader

We also do our best to be critical. It makes us look smarter.

"Negative reviewers were perceived as more intelligent, competent, and expert than positive reviewers, even when the content of the positive review was independently judged as being of higher quality and greater forcefulness." — http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402

View on HN

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

Interesting quote. Who is this "we", an actual critic? No, it's just a line from the antagonist in Ratatouille. It's not a critic's view of the profession.

I personally find people like Lester Bangs, Robert Christgau, Pauline Kael, and Eileen Jones incredibly enjoyable to read. Some "creators" like Wes Anderson actually went to great lengths to get Kael's opinion.

One-upper posters are annoying, but barbs disguised as blandishments like Ratatouille's bug me even more.

I'd guess the real "we" is the writer of movies speaking through the character about their perspective on critics. So it would be not the critic's view of the profession, but the criticized's view. In this instance, that seemed helpful.

Criticism, like music, can be done poorly by nearly anyone and have little meaning, or by someone who has trained and studied carefully. Consider the source, I guess?

By the by: Did you really just criticize my critical quote on criticism? Recurse you, RodericDay!

- Anton Ego, a character from the film Ratatouille (2007)

> from the film Ratatouille (2007)

Which was, incidentally, not a very good or meaningful Pixar movie whatsoever.

For those downvoting my comment, I would like to hear your opinion as to why you think otherwise.

I didn't down vote your comment, but I think ratatouille is one of Pixar's best films, and you made no attempt to justify your low opinion of it.

OK. I found the story weak, the characters relatively dull, and I don't really have any fond memories of any moment in the movie. There was really nothing that made me laugh. Note that I did not hate it, but I just found it very average.

And I liked many of other Pixar movies, some of which are among my favorites.

ah so you really don't like it? I thought your was a tongue in cheek comment since you just provided a negative critics of something just to prove that negative criticism is easy and painless.

Perhaps the HN community judged your comment not very good or meaningful whatsoever.

I don't even disagree with you, I just think the comment is unproductive. You're stating an opinion as fact, and not even giving your supporting reasons. And it's not even on-topic.

I actually thought the comment was brilliant satire, becasue you wee being critical of a comment about being critical

> In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.

It's not as easy at it seems. A critic needs to have experience, knowledge, and a certain eloquence in order to have any kind of power or influence. And a critic does take risks every time he writes a piece. Should he write something bad, he may lose his reputation and his following. A critic has to be consistent over time as well - one cannot say A and then B about the same time 2 years later. It's more challenging that it seems, and that is probably because this line was written by a movie script writer who does not like critics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com