I think there is a modern predisposition particularly in analytic, academic circles wherein criticizing a work is tantamount to somehow being "more superior" th

I think there is a modern predisposition particularly in analytic, academic circles wherein criticizing a work is tantamount to somehow being "more superior" than the work itself. This article reminds me of such ivory tower conceits. What I liked about Godel, Escher and Bach was that although it introduced some heavy concepts--it did so in a playful way. It opened many doors in relation to consideration of the world and the things in it that had been closed to me previously. I am sure I could find some way to suggest that the work is somehow "not as good as everything thinks". I can do that with any literature but such articles are more like flame bait. What I have to ask is "Did my engaging with the work leave me having a fundamentally different worldview? Did it broaden my horizons somehow?" In the case of this work, yes, it did. Everything else is a footnote to that experience.