Why write about literature Certainly not to be rewarded with money, fame, and love, as Freud suggested about artists, and not from any assurance of being widely read. General readers may dip into reviews of new books but seldom feel compelled to read literary criticism, especially now that books and writers are less central to American culture than they were fifty years ago. Even professors of literature rarely assign critical works to their students, much as they may borrow from them, since literature itself rightly fills out the syllabus. Critics confronting the other arts have the bracing challenge of translating paintings or string quartets or jazz performances into another medium; literary critics too often play a losing game of paraphrase as their language competes with the works they are describing. Criticism can do much to illuminate all kinds of art, but few works, even famously difficult ones, actually cry out for criticism. According to the passage, literary critics and art critics are different in which of the following ways I. Art critics can attract the attention of media, while literary critics cannot. II. Art critics and literary critics are faced with different readers.