Now, a lot of critics missed the boat on Tolkien when he first came on the scene, or have overestimated various writers that have come and gone. But on the aggregate, yes, literary critics know literature.
Did a literary critic run over your dog or something...?
The issue, fundamentally, with all professional critics is that they are people who, as a job, have to digest media whether they like it or not, and have to digest it all with an eye towards creating a review with some sort of take on it (usually on a deadline). This leads to deeply loathing things that are simply not their cup of tea and that a normal reader, viewer, etc. would have simply set aside or hurry through if they had a comparable initial dislike; excessive critique of details because they can think of little to say about the work as a whole; getting frustrated with works that simply don't inspire a good angle for commentary; excessively engaging (positively or negatively) with works that do offer an obvious angle for commentary; and being hyperaware of what has been done before and how often and hence likely to place too much value on originality over actual quality. With books, where the time investment is quite substantial, all these tendencies are exacerbated considerably as the frustration factor if they are not having a good time with the book is amplified considerably. And, even under the best of circumstances professional criticism involves digesting media in a way very different and alien to how the intended audience would (unless it is the sort of pretentious and inbred work for whom the critics are the primary intended audience).
Heh. Tell me about it. I LOVED Thomas Covenant when I first read it. Devoured the books. All sorts of stuff stuck with me over the years and my view of Monks are STILL based on Cords.
