The boundary between reality and mind is often blurred in judgment; the human mind is not wired to precisely understand where the objectivity of the external world ends and where the mind, with its valuations that it believes to be very precise and impartial, presents its personal narrative of reality. Would my judgment of the mentioned films have been different if the recent events had not occurred? Who cares. A theorist of critique, language, culture, and literature named Tzvetan Todorov, whose writings are readable unlike most academic critics, states that for the majority of people, there is not much difference between a cookbook and a literary book. He adds that true literature has very few readers; Samuel Beckett printed his last books in two hundred copies. Literary critique has even fewer readers. Todorov's favorite field is the critique of critique or critic's critique, which, according to him, has even fewer customers than all the rest. Serious film critique also falls under this last category. On April 8, when the prestigious Pulitzer literary, cultural, and journalistic awards were given, Stephen Hunter, the film critic of the Washington Post, was not left out. This witty and eloquent critic, who has very readable novels and non-cinematic critiques, says about film critique: 'My job is to write a good text. The opinion one gives about a film may be right or wrong; everyone has an opinion that deserves attention. My real goal is just to write a good article. The only thing I offer for sale is the power of imagination, which is a small and insignificant product.' Hunter admits that his opinions sometimes resemble those of a grumpy old man, but he says: 'I am kinder and softer than to be a real grumpy old man.' Abu al-Fadl Bayhaqi, the owner of one of the most precise, beautiful, and fluent prose in Persian, who was also a conscientious bureaucrat and historian, laments in his historical book that when he returns to his bureaucratic and secretarial work on Saturdays after the Friday holiday and a day off for his pen, he finds his pen weaker and less accurate than the previous week.
The Fat and the Bone of Critique, or What is Called the Postscript
The article discusses the blurred lines between reality and perception in critique, referencing theorist Tzvetan Todorov and film critic Stephen Hunter. It highlights the challenges and diminishing readership of literary and film critique, emphasizing the subjective nature of judgment in the arts.
👥 Key Players
📰 What Happened
The article explores the blurred lines between reality and perception in critique, discussing the diminishing readership of literary and film critique through the perspectives of notable critics and theorists.
- Tzvetan Todorov argues that true literature has very few readers and critiques have even fewer.
- Stephen Hunter emphasizes that the goal of critique is to create engaging text rather than to provide definitive judgments.
💡 Why It Matters
📚 Background
Critique in literature and film often reflects broader societal values and tensions, especially in contexts where artistic expression is regulated.
🏷️ Entities Mentioned
Translated from the original and edited for English readers. View original source →
Translation confidence: 85%