"horribly dull," or the expression "quite alarming," which young ladies,
I think, have now happily forgotten, and the equally silly use of the
word "howling" by young men. Such expressions mean absolutely nothing,
and are destructive of intelligent conversation. A man was being tried
for a serious assault, and had used a violent and coarse expression
towards the prosecutor. "You must be careful not to be misled by the bad
language reported to have been used by the prisoner," said the judge.
"You will find from the evidence that he has applied the same expression
to his best friend, to a glass of beer, to his grandmother, his boots,
and his own eyes."

4. _Criticism should be strong_.

I hope from the remarks I have previously made it will not be supposed
that I think all criticism should be of a flat, neutral tint, or what may
be called the washy order. On the contrary, if criticism is not strong
it cannot lift a young genius out of the struggling crowd, and it cannot
beat down some bumptious impostor. If the critic really believes that a
new poet writes like Milton, or a new artist paints like Sir Joshua, let
him say so; or if he thinks any work vile or contemptible, let him say
so; but let him say so well. Mere exaggerated language, as we have seen,
is not strength; but if there is real strength in the criticism, and it
is proportionate and appropriate, it will effect its purpose. It will
free the genius, or it will crush the humbug. A good critic should be
feared:

"Good Lord, I wouldn't have that man
Attack me in the _Times_,"

was said of Jacob Omnium.