Read on Twitter
I recently had a conversation with someone about my stance on Armond White. Here is what I will say on the matter. White, to me, was once a gifted critic with potential. I mean just look at old quotes from Cornel West and Pauline Kael on the man. Do you really think they would...
...praise White now? I highly doubt it. White was different and better critic when they praised him. At some point in his career, Armond White decided to create a career out of controversy because of his stagnant position as a critic. White’s favorite critic of all time was Kael.
As a result, White wants to be in the same league as Kael, yet he misunderstands why her writing is so brilliant and insightful. Kael was a controversial critic too, but she never searched for it like Armond. Whether you liked her or not, Kael was an honest critic.
I cannot say this about Armond White because he chooses to be more of a provocateur than a critic. Having an opinion is nice but acting like the superior individual is another. Armond has become a success because of his arrogance and intolerance.
Of course, Armond will say otherwise because he is the only “truth teller.” Armond is the kind of person who will say he is open to conversation, yet he will search tweets online and criticize anyone who disagrees with him.
Two years ago, Armond blocked me on here because I criticized his review of Jack and Jill. I found it to be a disingenuous case of contrarianism with no substance at all. As a result, this did not please Armond, so I was added to his long list of people blocked.
I am not going to lie. It feels like a badge of honor for White to block you for criticizing him. To summarize, Armond’s writing talent faded away many years ago and became a smug form of elitism.
