Writer vs Critic

File: simpsons 112.jpg (53KB, 460x647px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 460x647px

>>8377660

To do actual critiquing though means years and probably decades of study so you understand the topic you're weighing when you bring up a reference to something person A did and person B did better 500 years ago in a small town in portugal.

Ruskins don't come that often.

While writing anyone can take up freely as long as they have a feeling or understanding of the topic at hand and make it somewhat passable.

File: 1470280348988.jpg (59KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x480px

>>8377664
>providing legitimate criticism is easy

>>8377672
if legitimate criticism is difficult and requires a vast knowledge of the subject, surely it follows that legitimately good writing that is free of such criticism would be just a difficult to write?

>>8377672
>Ruskins

fucking gross

>>8377698

Most great writers had a healthy foundation of latin and greek so it's not that they aren't say as well studied as critics are. But they're in no way to require the same amount of knowledge outside of their immediate interest or field.

I'm more saying writing is almost of a spiritual nature and can be honed in different ways then a critics hand can traditionally be. A critic can feel the same way a writer can of a work and express the same words but he's deciphering, explaining, not so much being the creator of something totally original, but this isn't always the case of course, to stand out is to be original in some way or another.

They're both challenging but i'd pick writing over critiquing. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but the amount of great writers someone can count on their hands vs great critics shows how quickly critics are forgotten by time and just meld in with the rest of their generation.