The problem, as I see it, comes down to discernment and judgment, objectivity and prejudice.

I hold a degree in literary and critical studies. This has prepared me for putting forth strong analyses on just about any subject. It has formed in me a critical mind, capable of understanding the difference between taste and truth, the ability to create rational arguments based on the irrational subject of aesthetics.

Thus, when I decide to form an opinion beyond like or dislike, I tend to discover reasons, right or wrong, but well-founded reasons for the stance I take. People will often accuse the critic or skeptic of pedantry or cynicism, but that is not always the case; rather, most critics I know have already considered the other side of the argument, and provided clear information to support their own side, while refuting — not negating — the opposing view.

The new female-led Ghostbusters, the politics of Hillary v. Trump, even just a minor criticism of a board game or theatre piece, these all seem to lead to the critic being hated for simply stating a well-reasoned opinion. “Can’t we just like what we like?” come the cries. The answer is “Of course,” but with the addition that you could also demand better. What if instead of wading through the cloudy murk of poorly thought-out concepts designed to put butts in seats, you could actually find the things you want without wasting your time on pablum? What if the worst art of the future was better than the best art of the past? Progress: it is what drives my every action.