Critics

I’ve never cared about critics, whether of books, art or movies. It’s just that (one) guy’s view, isn’t it? Who cares what he thinks? To be fair, well known critics (by that, I mean the ones whose names get published in the papers) run a risk: criticize an SRK movie and the poor guy may be out of a job. And would any well known critic ever call Dan Brown’s next novel crap knowing that it will sell a few million copies anyway?

Ok then, how about anonymous critics? Like the ones on the Internet. Are they any better? Well sure, they could be more honest than well known critics. But it turns out that an analysis by Google shows that after the first few reviewers, the next set either conform to what the first set said or end up responding to the first reviews rather than voicing their own view. Which sort of skews the whole collective opinion rating we see online (puts that 4.5 out of 5 rating in a whole new light, doesn’t it?).

Was Seth Godin right when he wrote:

“For me, the opinion of any single critic is becoming less and less meaningful as I choose what to view or engage with. And the aggregate opinion of masses of anonymous critics merely tells me that the product or content is (or isn't) mass-friendly.”

Does all this mean that hearing/reading someone’s review is just a waste of time?

Not always. I did find one scenario where others’ review proves useful. That’s when Amazon’s algorithms mine the reviews and come up with their “People who liked this book also liked” recommendations. I have discovered quite a few books using that feature and rarely been disappointed.

Come to think of it, isn’t that what we really want to know when we read a review? Will I like it? Not whether I ought to like it? Not whether someone whose tastes may be totally different than mine liked it. Amazon sure nailed it on that count.