WHY CRITICIZING GREAT WRITERS IS LESS HARMFUL THAN CRITICIZING LESSER WRITERS.

WHY CRITICIZING GREAT WRITERS IS LESS HARMFUL THAN CRITICIZING LESSER WRITERS. I think that Judith Fleming in her review—rather than disparaging A Midsummer Night’s Dream—was highlighting the way that Shakespeare is breaking rules. The play, as she put it, “celebrates the power of theatre to move audiences in ways for which there is no accounting.” I was reminded of her review by the fact that I had written harshly about Flaubert. I think there is no harm—although considerable risk of being thought foolish—in expressing harsh thoughts about the greats.They can take care of themselves. On the other hand, there is the risk in criticizing lesser writers that people will be persuaded to enjoy things less, that their enjoyment will be diminished. As I posted a couple years ago: “I do not see what is gained by persuading people to dislike something that they like, even in the name of raising standards.” So I am led to the paradox in the caption: it is less harmful to criticize great writers than it is to criticize lesser ones.