> The democratization of reading tastes has gone hand in hand with the demise of the critic, and with that, the idea of reading a novel because certain people w

> The democratization of reading tastes has gone hand in hand with the demise of the critic, and with that, the idea of reading a novel because certain people with discernibly good judgment think that the book is worth reading. This seemed wrong to me on a glance, and I wasn't sure why at first. I think it's the phrase "discernibly good judgment." When I look to see if I should follow any recommendation, whether from someone who is formally a critic or not, one of the first things I do is try to figure out if the person is admirable, accomplished, and — yes, if they have good judgment. To be frank, most professional critics fail that test. The best critics are typically those who are also accomplished, interesting people with a wide variety of interests and life experiences to draw on. Take George Orwell. Most people would agree he was an excellent writer and lived a very interesting life. He fought in the Spanish Civil War and was wounded by a fascist sniper. He turned out a number of classic works — 1984 spawned a whole set of metaphors and words that entered the English language. He's also an excellent critic of both literature and society. "Politics and the English Language" and "What is Fascism?" are both extremely astute reads that make you smarter. But when I look at most critics, they don't measure up at all to Orwell. They're often very privileged people, for whom political connections and politicking were of primary importance in getting their role as a professional critic — not anything like an objective standard of merit or accomplishment. Most of them seem, frankly, unaccomplished. So I'll listen to Orwell on literature and culture — an accomplished person with many insights — and I'll read carefully the reflections of Edward O. Thorpe when he talks about corruption in finance, or Peter Norvig when he writes on experiment design and critiques sloppy thought in the sciences. But the average critic? The author of the piece thinks they have "discernibly good judgment"? Why would he think that? It seems to be... well, frankly, false.