Jaquandor writes a nice piece on what we can learn from critics:
I read a lot of critics and reviews, because I think their writings are often informative. Critics are almost always very well-steeped in their chosen fields, so one can learn a great deal from them, about the history and development of the field, which works shaped the field and which might have, but didn’t (and thus went on to become “unjustly neglected masterworks”). But I’ve always been deeply suspicious of critics as judges of what is good and what is bad, because – – and there is simply no other way to say this – – they so very, very often get it wrong.
And what we likely will not learn:
Critics can tell us what they like, and they can do a better job than most of telling us why they like it. But when it comes to telling us what future audiences will like, they’re as lost-at-sea as the rest of us.
So, when Harold Bloom says something like:
“He is a man who writes what used to be called penny dreadfuls
When Bloom says that King writes “penny dreadfuls”, he’s saying that King’s work will be almost completely forgotten. Now, I personally find that unlikely in itself, but that’s not even my main point of contention: there is such a long history of critics being wrong about what will stand the test of time and what will not that I simply don’t pay critics any attention at all anymore when they start prognosticating, especially the Blooms of the world who foam at the mouth, as if on cue, whenever anyone dares to admire that which they despise.