Bumping
I want to know about this too

>read 19th century critic
>they analyse the moral deficiencies of the author

I don't know what you mean by 'role', I can't relate to this term at all. What is the 'role' of an author? To write a novel? If so the 'role' of the critic is to write a critique of an author. Critics did then largely what they do now, albeit in a very different manner. The best way for you to compare modern critics to the ones of the past is to read the ones of the past. Johnson and Coleridge are the two greatest critics in history; either of those would not be a bad place to start. Ruskin was more of an art critic but immensely influential nevertheless. Pater and Arnold dominated critical writing in the 19th century. And from the early 20th, T. S. Eliot and A. C. Bradley are essential.

>>7978762

Oh, yes, and how could I forget Hazlitt.

Read pope's essay on criticism

>>7978762
When I say role, I suppose I mean role in the wider society, though I know that's not the right word for it.

In respect to autocratic Tsarist Russia where there was a lot of censorship to keep the people in check, you had authors and critics personally approved by higher-ups and assigned even by the Tsar himself, or individuals like Belinsky in the OP pic who was hunted down and arrested for propagating 'western' opinions which were basically a political crime back then. These dudes shaped society, at least the non-serfs. No one gives two shits about critics these days, so I find it interesting how it used to be done.

>>7978950

I see what you mean. I'm afraid I can't help you too much though. All I will say is I don't think there was a time when 'the masses' allowed themselves to be edified by reading the writings of a select elite, a class of sage critics. Literature, particularly poetry, has always been a quite far-removed domain from everyday life. People looked down on it, even during literature's various 'golden eras'. Look at how Shakespeare treats poetry and writers of poetry in his plays, for instance: it is seen as a trite, cynical aid to wooing, and often those who write poetry are seen as mentally weak. Consider also Sidney's "Apology", in which he answers, already in the 1590s, the charge of poetry actually being quite useless (something which is still very current). So I can't really answer your question in full depth, but I do think you'll be disappointed if you're hoping to find some halcyon era in which, as you say, "there were just one or two guys who people listened to if they wanted to know if something was good or if it was shit."

>>7978681
19th century was obsessed with morality in books. This was particularly common in Russia (literally all of their major books had a strong message). The writers came from a culture that considered this important and it's only natural that critics discuss and evaluate it as well.
You seem to dislike such approach, but it's either that or l'art pour l'art. You have to choose.

>>7978050
As a side note to the other posts: the goodreads reviews don't play a similar role to the traditional critic, or even the current actual critics. Goodreads reviews are just the masses discussing the work at hand in a new forum, true critics are still the ones whose work is actual criticism that is published/looked at as an expert opinion. Look at James Wood if you want a proper (good?) example in the modern era.