Politicians despise current affairs critics; Painters despise art critics; Physiologists, physicists or mathematicians generally have similar feelings. The writer's contempt for critics is the deepest and, on the whole, the most reasonable. Reading, commenting and appreciating are all inferior jobs.
I had several serious conversations with houseman, and I still remember one time when we argued the above viewpoints. In his report entitled The Name and Reality of Poetry, houseman strongly denied that he was a critic. In my opinion, his negative way is extremely paranoid. He also expressed his appreciation for literary criticism in his report. All this confuses me.
At the beginning of this report, he quoted a passage from a speech 22 years ago:
Then he wrote:
I once felt that it was sad for a great scholar and an elegant poet to write these words. A few weeks later, when I saw him beside me in the restaurant, I boldly told him what I thought. I asked him if he really wanted people to take what he said seriously. I also asked him if, in his opinion, the life of a critic can be compared with that of a scholar and a poet. We spent the whole dinner arguing about these issues. I think he finally praised my opinion. It seems that for such a person who no longer refutes me, I don't need to publicize my victory. But in the end, his answer to the first question is "maybe not completely", and the answer to the second question is "maybe not".
There may be some doubts about houseman's feelings, and I don't want to claim that he is on my side. However, the feeling of being a scientist is beyond doubt, and I have exactly the same feeling. If you find yourself writing something "about" mathematics instead of mathematics, it is a sign of weakness and will naturally be despised by younger and more dynamic mathematicians. Now I write a book about mathematics, because like other mathematicians in their sixties, I no longer have new ideas, energy and patience to continue my professional work effectively.
Hardy is one of the best mathematical thinkers in the 20th century. He not only made great achievements in mathematics, but also found that he trained another great mathematician-Lamanukin. His colleagues recognized him as "a real mathematician, a pure one". This "confession" is a sad text he wrote when his mathematical creativity declined. When a person who is full of work enthusiasm and loves work can't work because of his age, he always feels very lost.
As for workers and critics, many people I contact admire workers and think they are doers, but they all sneer at critics. I also hold this view that doers are essential and critics may really be dispensable.
So I quite agree with the above statement.
Referee
/home.php？ Space and time. Uid = 255 & do = blog & id =18542.