I’ve seen bits of Worley’s material and he strikes me as somebody who wanted to cash in on “Every Frame a Painting,” but with several extra layers of pretentiousness and a predilection to tell instead of show. He has more in common with Pop Culture Detective or Mauler than any real critic.
It’s nice that he can express himself like that, but to me he’s no better than what Plinkett did. He too is giving his “opinions” with a college essay level of critique. It’s a Leo Bloom-like attachment to the author and refusal to consider what the contemporary world around the author and revisionist scholars perceived the work to be. Either that or it’s a less successful version of what Peter Bogdanvich did with Orson Welles, much to Pauline Kael’s dismay.