The Most Important Qualification for a Critic? Egotism

In an age where everyone can write their own reviews on the internet, a critic reminds us why not everyone can write a review.

It all boils down to self-importance.

The piece is hilarious when read one way; Richard Schickel spends the length of his piece bringing forth the names of famous critics, none of whom you've probably ever heard, with the exception of George Orwell.

What I found amusing about Schickel's column is that, for the most part, reviews are handled by either freelancers who happen to know the book/movie critic, employees doing some reviewing on the side, or college kids who are called "assistants."

I was one of the latter. And our movie critic sent me to a lot of movies, mainly the obscure ones that would only receive a 3-graf review. Only the movies, in other words, that the in-house critic wasn't interested in. This isn't to say I didn't ever get to review movies you might have seen. I reviewed some unmemorable Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and a slightly more memorable Richard Dreyfuss movie, but, for the most part, I reviewed the stinkers.

I was also probably the sort of reviewer Schickel wouldn't have liked anyway. I didn't quote from "famous" people and I spent my reviews discussing the assets and flaws of the film. Mainly, I asked myself, "Would a fan of action movies about vampires on motorcycles trying to take over the world like this movie?" If the answer was "yes," I wrote a more favorable review.

So, I admit I wasn't the best reviewer available. But I like to believe I gave readers what they wanted: a review which told them whether a movie was worth their five bucks (this was a long time ago).

Unfortunately for Schickel, this is what most people look for in a movie or book review. They don't usually look for a review that "requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities." I will admit that it helps if the critic knows the genre and has been in contact with a few other works by the author/producer/actor in question. But I would bet that the car mechanic who wrote 95 book reviews for his website makes the effort to be knowledgable and thoughtful about the books he reviews, too.

The problem for critics is one that pervades journalism: they take themselves and their work too seriously. This is understandable. If it took you four hours to write your review of a movie, you are obviously invested in it. But don't expect the guy who buys the next issue of Time to be as invested as you are. He's going to read your review and decide if your opinion conforms with his (in which case he'll go to the movie or buy the book) or not (in which case he'll do what he was planning to do anyway). It's not that it's wrong to care so much about what one writes, but given the temporary nature of newspapers and magazines, it might help if the reviewer took himself a bit less seriously.