People are more interested in reading bombastic ideas, whether they're positive or negative. Part of me has sort of lost interest in doing criticism because of that. I've always realized that criticism is basically autobiography. Obviously in my criticism, it's very clear that it's autobiography, but i think it's that way for everybody.
The deeper reality is that im not sure if what i do is real. I usually believe that im certain about how i feel, but that seems naive. How do we know how we feel?There is almost certainly a constructed schism between (a) how i feel, and (b) how i think i feel. Theres probably a third level, toohow i want to think i feel.
I guess it really didn't even dawn on me that you could be a rock critic as a job until i was maybe almost out of college. I knew criticism existed. I read rolling stone and spin. Siskel and ebert were on television. But i had absolutely no idea how to get that kind of life. And moreover, it didn't interest me that much. I just sort of read normal books growing up. I wasn't that media-conscious. I felt like the one thing i was able to do was to listen to a record and decide whether i liked it.