Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that a critic is much less useful than an author.



That depends entirely on what type of book is being wrote. If I write a history textbook that goes into intricate detail about the Time Slip of 1662 and the Lost Years, and the eventual Realignment that resulted in the Great London Fire, am I being more useful than a critic who points out that my history textbook is full of factual inaccuracies?


If I wrote a book on brain surgery, the critics would be much more useful than the author.


I'll take one responsible author with one harsh-but-knowledgeable critic over a hundred would-be authors without the ability to sift useful content from polemic criticism.


Well, I'll take the one responsible author now. Who are they?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: