At one time, reading Henry James(and a few others) was considered one of the pleasures of being an Adult. Perhaps because he so analysed people and their actions in a complex worldly-wise manner. Perhaps in a manner in which one would analyze one's own life.

People making life choices makes for the most riveting novels.

I'm guessing he's not that popular presently.

Alternate explanation: Dickens was pretty good but sometimes a critic, even Henry James, is just someone who doesn't like stuff.

IANAEM, I am not an English major.

While I believe there is scant value in being a critic, a good point is nevertheless made: it should be made by practicing artists.

Elaborating on both points, as a practicing artist, paying attention to what you like is important as it shapes your tastes. Critique is useful only insofar as it allows one to create more of what perfectly embodies one's taste, whatever that may be. To be a public critic is to believe one's taste is superior. In my opinion, the only important taste is one's own to one, and should be cultivated by unabashedly following what you find intriguing.

If you're not a practicing artist, like what you like earnestly. Plenty will bemoan the state of the art crumbling, but there's a reason people still enjoy the greats of old to this day. What's good will persist.