Practically, anyone can claim and/or is able to become a critic but very few are gifted to write and create.
Practically, anyone can claim and/or is able to become a critic but very few are gifted to write and create.
The difference between a critic and a writer has got an endless debate over history. Critics claim that they are able to discover the merits and demerits of writers. On the other hand, writers believe that they are creative and better than the critics. A Greek philosopher referred to the critics as(( they are mules, neither horses nor asses)).
A critic is someone who can distinguish and judge the good from the bad, an expert in a particular field so that he can evaluate any work in his field.
Good question dear Dr. Mohanad Hazim, thanks a lot.
I fully agree with Dr. Amir W. Al-Khafaji, Dr. Hazim Al Dilaimy and Dr. Nihad Mohammed's answers.
But I add :
1- The difference between them is simple where every critic is a writer and not necessarily every writer is a critic;
2- The real critic criticizes the work and does not criticize the person;
3- The criticism may be constructive and can also be destructive.
Kind regards
When we read any article or publication ,we read with in the line with our own thinking phase .
It is not necessary that all though we may read the views of critic it is not necessary we should accept there views as we have our own line of action
This is my personal opinion
When a new book is published, it is usually followed by reports (to newspapers) to the press by "critics" who judge the merits /demerits of the book. Afterwards, readers can decide whether to buy it or not to buy it based on what the critic wrote about it. Without a critic's report you don't know how good is the book.
I think that the relationship between the writer and the critic is not a teacher's relationship with a student, but rather an integrative way in which the critic puts his hand on the imbalances in the text, to draw the writer's attention to things he does without realizing that there is a defect, which ultimately leads to the best literary output.
Critic sees more of the negative part of others but writer is more objective in his/her work. .
That the importance of criticism lies in the convergence of the critic and the writer at a point where the first may see what the second does not see, to illuminate the way beyond the text. .. The role of the critic after the writer, to be a magnifying glass see what is behind the text, but the writer sees details provided to the recipient, through the idea focuses on it, and does not notice that it focuses on many of the ideas in the way towards the main idea.
I think ... Monetary work does not address emotions, but is stripped of everything that is personal to focus on the techniques of work in the structure of narrative, unfortunately, nowadays it is rare to find a writing that opens the eyes of the writer on the techniques of his work.
The relationship between the writer and the critic must be integrative ... but we emphasize that some critics deal with the book, while the role of the critic is to move away from personalization ... It is assumed that the critic addresses the text objectively, putting his hand on the negatives and referring to And focus on them, because of the incentive payments to the writer
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing