Went through Chetan Bhagat’s comments on reviewers and critics. In terms of being contemptuous of critics, he is in august company, Satyajit Ray would write angry newspaper ripostes to bad reviews, much more trenchant than Mr. Bhagat.
The arguments were similar. Critics should keep their opinions to themselves, they are bad faith actors or just ignorant, unable to do anything productive except to tear down those that were.
As an artist of far less excellence than Satyajit Ray and of course Mr. Bhagat, I do concur somewhat in that some critics are indeed bad faith actors, who aren’t critiquing you because you produced bad art, but because they don’t like you for the person you are.
I have a few individuals who make multiple accounts ( I can see these accounts only review and rate my books) to make my Goodreads ratings drop. I have had reviews of my books in media where the focus is obviously on me rather than my work.
As a critic myself as also an author, I think I see both points. But I side mostly on the critics side. While there may be bad actors (they are everywhere), any public performance is legitimately subject to criticism. It’s the concomitant of putting something out publicly
That you have to be an author to critique an author or a film maker to critique a film maker or a cricketer to critique a cricketer is BS. A critic does not have to be “as good” or better than the object of criticism that’s not how it works
However a critic, by putting their work out there, is also subject to criticism, as to their intent and the content of their criticism, and they can’t, just like the artist, claim an exalted position.
Mr. Bhagat’s claim that he is not privileged is with respect I don’t buy. An investment banker, an alum of IIT and IIM, his privilege may be transparent to him (as privilege usually is) but it’s not that it does not exist
He hasn’t been deplatformed because he sells a lot. No question about that. And he has a fan base beyond comprehension. I don’t see why “critical approbation” is something that he would even strive for.
However the claim is different. What Mr. Bhagat is saying he is bullied by critics because his English doesn’t meet their “elitist” standards, that there is nothing fundamentally “lowbrow” about his stories.
As I have said before, there is nothing called good art or bad art. There is art that finds its audience and there is art that does not. Mr Bhagat’s work is such that his audience isn’t the kind that writes book reviews in papers.
Much of what passes for great literature is formulaic, perhaps even more than Bhagat’s sometimes, it’s just that it’s audience happens to be in positions of influence. And often it’s as much about the book as it is about the author.
