The Reviewer’s Fallacy: When critics aren’t critical enough

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Critics are always open to criticism.

Journalistic criticism is merely opinion legitimized in print. It's not important that one agrees or disagrees with any particular critic. But if you consistently agree or disagree with a critic, their criticisms are very useful. As an example, there used to be a movie critic who wrote for TV Guide. Her name was Judith Christ. I always disagreed with her. I soon learned that the more negative a review she gave a movie, the better I was likely to enjoy it! That is just as useful as a reviewer that you personally agree with. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

 

"merely opinion" - not necessarily. That's incredibly dismissive. 

Depends on the approach of the critic. Some just spout opinions, some give you reasoned arguments and use evidence and comparisons to support their point of view. 

Ultimately, it's still just the reviewer's opinion. Reasoned arguments, evidence and comparisons give rise to informed opinions, certainly, But for every review, positive or negative, there are are going to be people who disagree with the reviewer's conclusions. That's the basis of opinion.