←back to thread

A Love Letter to People Who Believe in People

(www.swiss-miss.com)
377 points NaOH | 1 comments | 24 Apr 25 22:35 UTC | HN request time: 2.887s | source
Show context
HanClinto ◴[25 Apr 25 14:08 UTC] No.43793725[source]▶
This is so needed. This was a very encouraging article.

"Being a fan is all about bringing the enthusiasm. It’s being a champion of possibility. It’s believing in someone. And it’s contagious. When you’re around someone who is super excited about something, it washes over you. It feels good. You can’t help but want to bring the enthusiasm, too."

Stands in contrast to the Hemingway quote: "Critics are men who watch a battle from a high place then come down and shoot the survivors."

It feels socially safe, easy, and destructive to be a critic.

I'd rather be a fan.

replies(15): >>43793906 #>>43794073 #>>43794235 #>>43794376 #>>43794398 #>>43797022 #>>43797229 #>>43797763 #>>43797960 #>>43798310 #>>43798439 #>>43800608 #>>43801652 #>>43801753 #>>43801843 #
vunderba ◴[25 Apr 25 15:10 UTC] No.43794376[source]▶
> It feels socially safe, easy, and destructive to be a critic. I'd rather be a fan.

Trotting out absolute statements does no one any good. I could just as easily spin this on its head and say that it feels socially safe to always show blind enthusiasm for the latest trend lest you be labelled a "hater".

It feels like we're just redefining critic to be synonymous with cynic. There's no reason that you can't simultaneously be both fan and a critic of X.

replies(6): >>43794580 #>>43795747 #>>43796069 #>>43796789 #>>43797687 #>>43801767 #
MrJohz ◴[25 Apr 25 15:25 UTC] No.43794580[source]▶
In fact, the best critics of something are often its biggest fans. Roger Ebert, for example, wrote some pretty critical pieces, but nobody can deny that he was driven primarily by a love of cinema. Or take politics: I've seen people complain that left-wing commentators were too critical of Biden when they should have been criticising Trump, but often it's easier — and more useful — to criticise the things you like in the hope that they will improve, rather than spending all your time criticising something you don't like that will never listen to you.

That said, it's still important to take the time to sing the praises of something you like. If Ebert had spent all his time talking down bad films, reading his columns would have been painful drudgery (see also: CinemaSins, Nostalgia Critic, and similar attempts at film-criticism-by-cynicism). A good critic wants their target to succeed, and celebrates when that happens.

replies(3): >>43795805 #>>43796696 #>>43801816 #
1. atoav ◴[26 Apr 25 08:17 UTC] No.43801816[source]▶
Good observation: The biggest critics are indeed often the biggest fans — but funnily enough often just in a consumerist way.

If you listen to interviees with great writers, musicians, painters or actors you will often find it surprising when they tell you which other arrists they like. That is because the people making the stuff often have a much more open mind about what constitutes interesting and/or good writing, music, paintings or acting.

To me as an practitioner it feels at time that these "enthusiastic consumer critics" are incredibly bitter about not being able to live from the art they love like the ones they critique, so they carve out their niche and give themselves self-worth by playing a strong role in the field they love.

With good critics this love is the predominant message, with bad critics it is the bitterness.