In an age where everyone seems to have an opinion and their own personal platforms to share them, Pulitzer Prize-winning essayist and critic Andrea Long Chu explores what it means to have authority. As a result, is a bold and provocative exploration of criticism, popular media, and how Chu approaches criticism in her own work.

Michael Collina: What was it about criticism that first interested you?

Andrew Long Chu: I am a naturally contrary person, probably. I have strong opinions and I enjoy defending them, and I especially dislike when something receives praise that I think doesn’t deserve it. That’s the base, vindictive part of the answer. The more mundane answer is that, early in my career, people asked me to write book reviews, because there’s an endless supply of new books and it’s an easy way to find an excuse for an essay. So I wrote reviews, and then I wrote a negative review, and it seems that I’ve kept doing that.

What makes a piece of media—novel, film, or otherwise—a good candidate for critique? Are there any subjects that feel off-limits for you?

I like to find work that is worth thinking against. My training is ultimately philosophical in nature, and I’m often looking for something to help me develop an idea. Sometimes I’m told that this means I’m neglecting the book under consideration. But my first responsibility is to the reader of the essay, not to the artist or to the art. The essay has to be worth reading! That sounds trite but it’s much, much easier said than done. And usually, yes, I find that in order to do this, you have to expand the text, look at interviews, listen to podcasts, read promotional material like what you (you!) are reading right now. I don’t think the point is to be invasive. But if Rachel Cusk sold her $2.7 million house in Norfolk and that’s a matter of public record, then that’s just as much of an artistic reality as her brilliant use of quotatives in . There’s only one world, and everything lives in it.

How do you think the art of critique has changed? Has your own approach evolved as you’ve established more of a name for yourself?

It’s always tempting to say that criticism has gotten worse “recently," but I don’t really think that’s true, especially because critics have been saying this for almost 300 years. Sometimes people say that social media means that everyone can write a review, everyone can share their opinion. True to a point. But the real changes are material ones: decline of print, the advertising model online, the evaporation of staff positions. As for myself, I’d like to think I’ve become more judicious about how I use negativity. Attacking out of resentment or malice can provide some momentary satisfaction. But the real task is to attack out of love.