the point where the critic goes "and here's why that matters" as like melisma in gospel music or the leap in dance, something that represents a kind of formal break with the rules of the game we're playing in order to gesture at the presence of what can't be constrained by those rules, the parts of life too charged or urgent to be absorbed into ceremony. of course, this break itself always risks becoming just another mannerism..
the thing is that this moment of running in to stop the game only works if we see the game itself as something important enough in its own terms to be worth breaking into. i think one reason i can feel averse to these gestures sometimes is that all of these forms - in fact every form outside of "business" - has already been so demoted as activity that the level of their normal functioning is assumed not to be of interest to anybody. the state of exception is valued in part because it confirms the suspicion that these things are not worth doing: we see an echo of our half-beliefs at the moment thee things are called into question, and perk up - the eventual resumption of the game meets with a shrug. the critic now feels obliged to interject in part so that the world at large knows they themselves don't take the role too seriously.
moments of normal functioning are themselves too quietist to serve themselves as interruptions to the state of exception in which they find themselves: there are forms we keep around just for the surly pleasure in throwing them aside. maybe if there's anything to take from business as usual it's that it's also useful to know when not to justify yourself.