You can tell that many people think criticizing something proves it's bad and the critic is smart.

When people dismiss a whole thing because they're quibbling over details or exaggerating imperfections, that just seems lazy and egotistical to me.

I'm a teacher. Any half-decent teacher is attuned to many wide spectra of possibility. A young violinist, for example, could be inexperienced and not very good at A, B, or C, but still talented and amazing at D through M.

Most people who proudly denounce expressive works, for example, do manage to point out a few items that aren't perfect. But they often seem rotten at spotting the value of challenging works and the various (obvious and unobvious) upsides to what they are so sure they rightly scorn as fatal flaws.

There's nothing quite like a vicious, badly written, brief, half-assed review declaring the stupidity and emptiness of a work that has inspired multiple brilliant writers through entire careers, and many others besides. For someone who happens to genuinely love that work, how exactly does the reviewer think their (shall we say) effort comes across? It's odd being told you're stupid for seeing many things another person missed - by the person who missed them. They could say this experience made them feel stupid (a thing I consider very respectable and relatable to say), rather than project that insecurity everywhere else. It's just a bad look to call others stupid when you clearly don't understand yourself.

These things aren't black and white. Any feature has functional and dysfunctional implications, and all of this varies with purpose, context, mood. The fatal flaw for you might be the spark plug for someone else. It takes a little humility to recognize this.

It's like certain reviewers (probably most, actually) assemble a checklist in their heads, and then they play whackamole with whatever they can grab, trying to feel good about themselves by pointing out "fatal flaws." Meanwhile the creators prove them wrong by putting those fatal flaws in stunning and enduring works, sometimes all the stronger for willingness to discard a narrow-minded checklist.

These people not only wouldn't spot a diamond in the rough. They try to destroy large, beautifully cut diamonds out of ego. Fortunately diamonds are hard and tend to survive petty hacking.