Critics & Humans

I particulary enjoyed Walter Metz's John Waters goes to Hollywood article both because John Waters was my first favorite director (I think this was 1997?), and because of the revelation of Metz's critic/human complex which surfaces at the end of the essay.

I know this is sort of beside the point of the article, but bear with me... The instruction Metz leaves the reader with in the end ("...we also need to emphasize the ways in which we willingly and usefully participate in the romanticization of particular figures, especially of ourselves as critics with the authority to speak, as well as of hte directors about whom we speak") really, I think, succinctly illumes the poststructuralist notion of the critic. Metz seems to be trying to make space for the critic to romanticize the author (or in this case, the director); after all, this romanticism wouldn't be something which arose abritrarily, but from critical exploration and a resulting appreciation. Isn't this why, in the end, after all of the critical discussion in the essay, Metz in the end "proud" to touch the author? What's wrong with that? If Metz is only asking that critics cop to romanticizing authorship, that they admit it to themselves and their readers, it feels to me that the assumption is on the part of the readers then, believing critics are somehow not human, devoid of emotional response, and that what they write critically should represent their only thoughts on an author or piece... which seems to me might be unfair to both the author and the reader.