This has been posted many times, but the words of Teddy Roosevelt bear frequent rereading: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the

This has been posted many times, but the words of Teddy Roosevelt bear frequent rereading: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." The critics often seem to be saying, implicitly, "_I_ could do it better". It's a claim of superiority. I guess it's beguiling, because criticism of this form is so much easier than genuine creation. I think many of the critics don't consciously realize this, since they've never created something of great worth, and have no idea how difficult it is. I've known very accomplished people who could be haters. But usually accomplished people seem to be appreciative of creative projects, and understanding of flaws (while wanting them eliminated). I think it's because they understand just how difficult it is to do good creative work. They know that someone can bring immense gifts and effort to bear on a project, and still have it go awry.