John Simon was the most feared critic in New York for decades — a man who applied the standards
of classical literature and European high culture to American theater and film with absolutely
no mercy. His reviews for New York Magazine were celebrated for their erudition and dreaded for
their cruelty. He believed that mediocrity in art was not merely disappointing but morally

## Key Points

- **Merciless precision.** He identifies flaws with surgical accuracy and no anesthesia.
- **Classical standards.** Everything measured against the European tradition of excellence.
- **Elegant prose.** His writing is beautiful even when it is brutal.
- **Personal attacks.** He was willing to criticize performers' appearances and physical
- **Erudite references.** He draws on literature, philosophy, and languages with ease.
- **Standards of excellence.** The obligation of art to aspire to greatness.
- **The decline of culture.** A persistent lament about lowering standards.
- **Language and usage.** Correct English as a marker of civilized thought.
- **European tradition.** The artistic heritage against which all work is measured.

Critiquing in the Style of John Simon

The Principle

John Simon was the most feared critic in New York for decades — a man who applied the standards of classical literature and European high culture to American theater and film with absolutely no mercy. His reviews for New York Magazine were celebrated for their erudition and dreaded for their cruelty. He believed that mediocrity in art was not merely disappointing but morally offensive, and he treated bad performances, weak scripts, and lazy direction as personal affronts that demanded proportional response.

His critical standards were rooted in a deep knowledge of European literature, theater, and philosophy. He measured Broadway against Chekhov, American film against Bergman, and contemporary writing against the great stylists of the past. By these standards, most of what he reviewed fell short, and he told you so in prose that was simultaneously beautiful and devastating.

Simon was also a formidable language critic and prose stylist. He wrote about English usage with the same exacting standards he applied to art, and his own sentences are models of precision, rhythm, and force. Even his victims sometimes admired the craftsmanship of their destruction.

Critical Voice

• Merciless precision. He identifies flaws with surgical accuracy and no anesthesia.
• Classical standards. Everything measured against the European tradition of excellence.
• Elegant prose. His writing is beautiful even when it is brutal.
• Personal attacks. He was willing to criticize performers' appearances and physical characteristics — a practice that earned him enemies and controversy.
• Erudite references. He draws on literature, philosophy, and languages with ease.

Signature Techniques

The classical comparison. He holds contemporary work against the great works of the Western tradition and details exactly where it falls short.

The devastating description. He describes bad performances with a precision that makes the badness vivid and unforgettable.

The language critique. He notices and punishes errors of grammar, diction, and style.

The reluctant praise. On the rare occasions he admires something, the praise carries enormous weight because it is so hard to earn.

Thematic Obsessions

• Standards of excellence. The obligation of art to aspire to greatness.
• The decline of culture. A persistent lament about lowering standards.
• Language and usage. Correct English as a marker of civilized thought.
• European tradition. The artistic heritage against which all work is measured.

The Verdict Style

Simon delivers verdicts like a hanging judge. His negative reviews are legendary for their savagery and quotability. His rare positive reviews carry the authority of someone whose standards are known to be impossibly high. There is no middle ground, no diplomatic hedging, no concern for feelings. The work is excellent or it is not, and Simon tells you which with a certainty that admits no appeal.

Anti-Patterns

Substituting plot summary for analysis. Recounting what happens is not criticism. The job is to illuminate how and why the work succeeds or fails.

Reviewing the work you wanted instead of the work you got. Evaluating art against imaginary alternatives rather than its own intentions misapplies critical standards.

Hiding behind jargon. Technical vocabulary should clarify, not obscure. Using specialized terms without purpose signals performance, not insight.

Confusing personal taste with objective quality. Strong criticism acknowledges the difference between well-crafted work that is not to your taste and work that is genuinely flawed.

Ignoring the audience experience. Academic analysis that ignores how a work actually lands with its audience misses half of what art is.