Don Hall: A good critic should have some knowledge of what it is he is criticizing, but everyone can qualify. Opinions are like a**holes and all…

Donna Seaman: Passion first and foremost. You must find consolation in the art you dedicate yourself to and devote your critical attention out of hunger for what books or music or, literally, food grants you. One must be receptive and adventurous, while also sustaining enough distance to see the work in context.

Chuck Sudo: I concur. That should be the one thing we can all agree on here, is to have a passionate interest in the particular field you’ve chosen to be a critic.

Anne Holub: If we’re talking good critic and bad critic, that’s an even more complicated issue. And one that is in the eye of the beholder.

Mike Sula: A troubled childhood…First and foremost, I’d say the ability to communicate well. To be a good critic—passion it is.

Kris Vire: Is passion more important than education?

Donna Seaman: Initially, but passion must lead to discipline and immersion. Expertise is gained from sustained attention.

Don Hall: I think passion and education go hand in hand. If you’re passionate about theater, you’ll likely educate yourself about it.

Anne Holub: You have to have a passion for it; otherwise, you’re simply not going to bother.

Chuck Sudo: Expertise is gained from sating your curiosity, then realizing there’s still more to learn.

Donna Seaman: Yes. One must also have the urge to share one’s enthusiasms. To advocate. To be clear about what it is that matters in a work of art.

Sam Jones: Formal education is probably not more important than passion, but knowledge of the medium you’re criticizing is.

Anne Holub: Right, and since most subjects are constantly changing and growing, it’s likely going to be a lifelong pursuit.

Jim DeRogatis: In as (allegedly) democratic an art form as rock & roll, it is true that literally everyone is a critic. The difference between a good critic and a bad critic is the ability to put into words the reasoning behind those opinions. And there education can be helpful, but it can be as informal as simply being a voracious reader.

Chuck Sudo: Or, if you’re talking about food and drink, as simple as going to that one hole-in-the-wall restaurant you’ve long avoided because of preconceived notions.

Mike Sula: Or just being aware of your preconceived notions.

Don Hall: In order to appropriately criticize, a dollop of self-awareness is necessary—knowing your own prejudices, etc.

Sam Jones: Critics are like statistics—what they say is almost meaningless without the underlying story.

Donna Seaman: Ongoing self-education is essential.

Jim DeRogatis: And education is another word for journalism: If you have a perceptive young reader, you can send him or her out to critique something without having a deep knowledge in the subject, so long as he or she does the journalistic homework beforehand. You need not have gone to Juilliard to critique the Rolling Stones, or to have heard all of their 40 or so albums. But you’d better get the facts right when you come back and write up your emotional reaction to the show.

Donna Seaman: Everyone who reads a book, listens to a piece of music, and so on, experiences a slightly different work of art. A critic has to be able to imagine many responses, and see the experience in a greater context.

Jim DeRogatis: Why is that important? Do you really want to know how an 11-year-old experienced Hannah Montana?

Donna Seaman: Writing is always about exposing the workings of a mind, even a tween with bad taste.

Anne Holub: I want to know how the 11-year-old’s parents experienced paying for those tickets!

Sam Jones: We come to trust critics by reading them—that’s how we have traditionally gotten the story.

Kris Vire: Context is essential, I think. A good critic can’t only judge something on its own merits; they have to place it in a broader context for the reader.

Anne Holub: Donna, are you saying critics have to like everything? Can’t they hate things?

Donna Seaman: Yes, trust is crucial. As is integrity. So, no, we won’t like everything. But when you slam something, you have to be sharp and precise.

Don Hall: Or at least as sharp and precise as what you’re slamming...

Sam Jones: I like to say I’m an Arnoldian rather than a Johnsonian—“find the best and make it known,” rather than “stop him before he writes again.”

Jim DeRogatis: Anyway, there’s a difference between journalism (recounting the 11-year-old’s reaction to Hannah) and criticism (recounting mine). All I feel obligated to do as a critic is give my own honest opinion, place the artist in the greater context and give the reasoning for my thinking as clearly and hopefully entertainingly as possible.

Kris Vire: How do we decide which critics we trust?

Mike Sula: Same as with anyone—getting to know them.

Don Hall: Read them—see if your opinion coincides.

Chuck Sudo: One thing I’ve learned in this continuous on-the-job training is that, even though I sometimes wear the mantle of a “critic,” it’s still an opinion.

Chuck Sudo: A more informed opinion, but an opinion still.

Anne Holub: I think you start off by identifying with a critic’s viewpoint…then you work at how each article that follows gels with your beliefs (or if it doesn’t, how it can convince you of thinking otherwise).

Donna Seaman: Right, a track record. Critics who stay with it, who remain open without compromising standards.

Chuck Sudo: And you pick up from the ones you trust that they’ll always be level with their analysis.

Jim DeRogatis: I don’t read Web critics to see if they agree or disagree with me. Just to see if they back up their opinions and are fun to read. The track record is irrelevant.

Donna Seaman: Fun to read is essential, yes. But you know, staying power brings a gravitas.

Kris Vire: So is it important for readers to develop an ongoing relationship with critics they like?

Sam Jones: Yes, Kris.

Jim DeRogatis: Critics they like—as in critics who confirm all their own groovy opinions?

Jim DeRogatis: I like a lot of critics I’ve never agreed with about anything! I like them because they’re good writers and they back up their opinions. Then I say they’re idiots.

Donna Seaman: Well, in an ideal world, Jim, we hope readers like to be pushed.

Don Hall: I have a relationship with critics I think are hacks as well…

Kris Vire: That’s true. There are a lot of critics I read because I enjoy disagreeing with them.

Anne Holub: It’s the same relationship you have with good friends. Sometimes the disagreements are more fun than the agreements.

Sam Jones: There is that great frisson when someone else gets something you thought no one else did.

Jim DeRogatis: Absolutely, Sam. But even better when he or she puts into words something you couldn’t quite grasp yourself.

Donna Seaman: It’s good to read writers with different perspectives. A sharpening stone.

Chuck Sudo: But there are those critics you read because you know you’re getting a train wreck…

Donna Seaman: I’m always hoping for clarity. The best criticism is rich in unexpected connections.

Don Hall: “Rich in unexpected connections.” Nice.

Jim DeRogatis: I agree, Donna. Though it can be overdone. Like when Greil Marcus tries to make connections between Dylan and some medieval philosopher...

Donna Seaman: Oh, yes, the overreaching…

Jim DeRogatis: Overcompensation, one rock academic I know called it. Trying too hard, either to seem intellectual, or to stay hip. Which is why you have 60-year-old white guys claiming Lil Jon is a genius.