Henry Fielding Quotes

Now, in reality, the world have paid too great a compliment to critics, and have imagined them to be men of much greater profundity then they really are.

In many companies, the person who talks the best usually gets the job. I got snowed by a few of those people over the years. I still think communication is important, but I don't think there's always a correlation between being a great communicator and other virtues that make for a great leader.

If men were but to read the New Testament with the same tone and emphasis, with which they do other books, and were to keep out of mind the idea of its being sacred, they would be disgusted with the credulity, and the want of intellect, reason and judgment, that is apparent in it.

I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish to decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men.

I like it when someone tells me 'I don't agree.' This is a true collaborator. When they say 'Oh, how great, how great, how great,' that's not useful.

Great success in examinations does naturally not as a rule go with originality of thought.

I think one reason my books have found mainstream success is that they're written from a skeptical point of view.

One of the great mind destroyers of college education is the belief that if it's very complex, it's very profound.

If one knows only what one is told, one does not know enough to be able to arrive at a well-balanced decision.

A play should give you something to think about. When I see a play and understand it the first time, then I know it can't be much good.

Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted.

If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking.

I spent most of high school working on the debate team, probably at some expense to my grades. Being a member of the team was great training in critical analysis, organization, and logic.

I don't read the critics.

I don't read reviews. I find them very distracting, whether they're good or bad.

The critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.

No one in this world, so far as I know - and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.

I never read reviews of something I want to see.

I claim that all those who think they can cherry-pick science simply don't understand how science works. That's what I claim. And if they did, they'd be less prone to just assert that somehow scientists are clueless.

I'm not a writer, but I'm very good at editing. That's my specialty. I can read something and tell you everything that's wrong with it and what's great about it and what needs to change, but it's hard for me to organize my thoughts.

I'd rather see folks doubt what's true than accept what isn't.

We underrate their honesty and overrate their intelligence.

Don't pay attention to the critics - don't even ignore them.

There is but a shallow stream of thought in history.

Sometimes you look at the critics and say, 'Nobody else was telling me that, but you were.'