For some inexplicable reason, many of the modern literature critics are ****ing morons. First, you should know these same critics come up with these writing rules you learn in high school and college.
1. Show me; don't tell me.
2. Use metaphors to strengthen the theme.
3. Create a unique and understandable view.
These are just three of the things they push, but I've been surprised by just talking to some of these avid ****kickers. In particular, they criticize two writers with contradictory reasoning and self-righteous tone.
Nathaniel Hawthorne - I've read and talked to many modern literature critics, and they say Hawthorne amateurishly uses metaphors and symbolism. They say his symbols and motifs are too obvious.
Ernest Hemingway - People denounce Hemingway for using simple sentence structure and for being a "pig." This comes mainly from the female critics, who apparently have elongated periods or extra chromosomes.
What I find hilarious is that currently, after all these years of sharing to the world the secrets of writing, good writers of literherature are few and far between. Meanwhile, let's criticize writers who had talent and clear messages so we can feel better about being sterile, uninteresting **********s. I hate modern literary critics, and if you agree with the above criticisms, you're in for either crystal meth or a couple of heroin shots to go stardom.
I despise them also. When it comes down to it, it's only their opinion. I wonder how movie critics would compare in terms of 'nastiness' towards others. The most boring ones are the ones who mainly deal with academic literature. OH GOD how I hate academic writing in general.