Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Critics




Ambrose Pierce, bitter as wormwood, never one to hollow his hat with thoughts of others, elevated his position in life by scything through the mundane principles of what he saw as dross. The question begs an answer, why?
Why would anyone write negative critiques of another’s works?  If you dislike them better to say nothing but praise that which you like. But Zen....

The answer is simplicity itself, it made him feel good about himself. By the reductive scratchings of his withering pen, he was able to decimate those whose talents he disliked. He was, in other words, a man who sought to promote himself by demoting others.
I bear no enmity to any critic, not even long dead Ambrose, but I do question their motives.  I wonder could it be that buried deep within them lies an author, a musician, an artist struggling to get out, that  they would like to have the talent of those they caustically criticise or is it perhaps they solicit intellectual  sanction?  Too often those seeking approval for their massive brains give free reign to their basest of instincts – ‘look at me I ain’t half good’.

Judging by all the self-styled pseudo-intellectuals on Facebook, Twitter and the blog-sphere I think it is the latter. Zen again....


.
.
.
Russell Cuts the Corn From The Brewers Whiskers.

1 comment:

Cara H said...

Bitter Bierce is actually one of my favorite authors. He was much more clever than most critics. He was not a happy man. Then again, he was not just an utter sourpuss.
I read "Alone in Bad Company," the biography written about him. He was a survivor of the American Civil War. He had horrific asthma, and sometimes sat up entire nights feeling as if each breath would be his last. He lost one son in a stupid gunfight over a girl, another to alcoholism.
No-one knows what happened at the end of his life. It's something of an ultimate cold case. His body was never found. If I had the wherewithal, it's a mystery I'd enjoy pursuing the answer to.