Roger Ebert has given me timely support to revive my spirit when it was failing. The trolls were attacking in force about a year ago and it wasn't fun any more, so I quit for a while. I wrote the essay below which he reprinted in his column. He called it:
"On the Worthlessness of Internet Snipers"

Criticism is of two kinds: praise and condemnation: approval or reproval. So many people have told me to ignore negative criticism. If only it were that easy. There are very few of us whose lives have not been deeply affected by negative criticism. Thomas Hardy stopped writing novels after Jude the Obscure was badly received by the critics. He had over 30 years' work left in him so the critics deprived the world of many great novels. John Keats was silenced by his critics and died believing himself a failure.

There may be a good reason for the profound effect of criticism. Mankind evolved in relatively small communities. The civilisation of the last 10,000 years has made hardly any difference to our DNA: the motivations which evolved before that still influence our daily lives, even though many of them are no longer relevant. Our deep response to negative criticism is, I suggest, a remnant of these primordial instincts. In primitive times being considered useless might be fatal. "I am a tainted wether of the flock, meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit drops earliest to the ground." -The Merchant of Venice. Act iv. Sc. 1. Who would want to be chosen for sacrifice or considered to be worth more as a source of protein?

Before there was law, social justice was based on honour. In some lawless communities, such as the inner-city gangs it still is: in such societies it is distinctly unhealthy to be unpopular. Whole societies have been based on manners, etiquette and honour. Alexander Pushkin fought 29 duels and was eventually killed at the age of 39 defending his wife's honour - and, by all accounts, it wasn't worth defending. In such duelling societies the critic had to consider whether his target might be a better swordsman or a better marksman.

Manners or etiquette were codes of social conduct designed to prevent the hurt disapprobation gave to others. In modern society -- particularly in Britain -- this has become inverted: politeness is now considered offensive whereas familiarity and insults between mates are a sign of affection.

This Internet age has given rise to the critical sniper - and snipers have always been the most despised of soldiers. The Internet critic is foulmouthed and illiterate - he hides behind a cloak of anonymity, he offers no products of his own making. The insults he issues have a playground quality. He says to others what was once said to him, believing that they will feel the same hurt as he did - and still does. And somehow this will compensate him. The abused has been sold on the benefit of becoming the abuser.

The only criticism that is valuable to others reflects universal truth, it is not merely an expression of the inner conflict of the critic, and needs must be practised by those most qualified and most altruistic. Negative criticism is often nothing more than boasting in disguise and, like most boasting, is just an outward manifestation of inner feelings of inferiority.

I read stuff.