Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå enn da jeg var tenåring. - I tolerate criticism better now than when I was a teenager.

It does not usually mean “to accept” in the sense of agreeing with something (that would be akseptere), and it doesn’t mean “to like” (like, elske).

So here it’s about emotional/psychological resilience to criticism, not about liking it or agreeing with it.

Why is there no article before kritikk? Why not en kritikk?

In Norwegian, kritikk is often treated as an uncountable / mass noun, like “milk” or “advice”:

Jeg tåler kritikk. – I tolerate criticism (in general).
Han fikk mye kritikk. – He received a lot of criticism.

As with other mass nouns, you normally don’t use an article when talking about them in a general sense.

You can use an article in special contexts, but then the meaning changes:

en kritikk – a criticism (a specific instance, more formal/literary)
kritikken – the criticism (a specific, known criticism)

In this sentence, we mean criticism in general, so we use bare kritikk without en or -en.

Why is it tåler kritikk and not something like tåler av kritikk or tåler for kritikk?

Tåle takes a direct object in Norwegian; it doesn’t need a preposition:

tåle noe – tolerate something / endure something

So you say:

Jeg tåler kritikk.
Han tåler smerte.
Vi tåler kulde godt. – We handle cold well.

Adding a preposition like av or for here would be incorrect:

✗ tåler av kritikk
✗ tåler for kritikk

This is one of those verb–object patterns you simply have to memorize: tåle + direct object.

Why is it bedre and not something like mer god?

Norwegian, like English, has irregular comparative forms for some adjectives.

god (good) → bedre (better) → best (best)

You almost never say mer god. In comparisons you say:

Han er bedre enn meg. – He is better than me.
Det er bedre nå. – It’s better now.

In Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå, bedre functions like an adverb, modifying the way you tolerate criticism:

literally: I tolerate criticism *better now*

Using mer godt here would be wrong:

✗ Jeg tåler kritikk mer godt nå – ungrammatical.

What does enn do in this sentence, and is it always used in comparisons?

Enn is used after comparative forms (like bedre, større, mer, flere) to introduce what you compare with. It works much like “than” in English.

In this sentence:

Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå enn da jeg var tenåring.
= I tolerate criticism better now than when I was a teenager.

More examples:

Hun er høyere enn broren sin. – She is taller than her brother.
Det er dyrere enn før. – It’s more expensive than before.
Jeg har mer tid enn tidligere. – I have more time than earlier.

So yes, enn is closely tied to comparatives and introduces the second part of the comparison.

Why is it da jeg var tenåring and not når jeg var tenåring?

Norwegian distinguishes between da and når in past-time clauses:

da
– used for one specific period / event in the past
– often translated as when (at that time)
når
– used for repeated / habitual actions in the past, and for present/future
– can mean when or whenever

Here, da jeg var tenåring refers to that specific time in your life: your teenage years as a single, completed period. So da is correct.

Compare:

Da jeg var barn, bodde jeg i Oslo.
When I was a child (in that period), I lived in Oslo.
Når jeg var liten, pleide jeg å leke ute hver dag.
When(ever) I was little, I used to play outside every day.
(repeated/habitual; når is possible here)

In your sentence, we see your teenage years as one past stage of life, so da is natural.

Why is it tenåring without an article? Would da jeg var en tenåring be wrong?

After the verb være (to be), Norwegian often uses a bare noun (without article) to describe a role, profession, or life stage in a general way:

Jeg er student. – I am a student.
Hun er lege. – She is a doctor.
Han er far. – He is a father.
Jeg var tenåring. – I was a teenager.

So da jeg var tenåring = when I was (in the state of being) a teenager.

You can say da jeg var en tenåring, but:

it’s grammatically correct
it may sound a bit more individual / countable, like “when I was a (certain) teenager”, and is less idiomatic in this generic, reflective sentence.

In most natural speech, you’d say da jeg var tenåring.

Could I say Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå enn før instead? What’s the difference?

Yes, you absolutely can say:

Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå enn før.
– I tolerate criticism better now than (I did) before.

Differences:

enn da jeg var tenåring
– compares now specifically to your teenage years.
enn før
– compares now to some unspecified earlier time (could be your whole past, or just “years ago”, depending on context).

So:

Original: more precise: now vs. teenage period.
enn før: more vague, but very common and natural.

Is the word order fixed? Could I say Nå tåler jeg kritikk bedre enn da jeg var tenåring?

Yes, that word order is correct and natural:

Nå tåler jeg kritikk bedre enn da jeg var tenåring.

Norwegian has a V2 rule in main clauses: the finite verb usually comes in second position.

Two common options:

Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå enn da jeg var tenåring.
– Subject (Jeg) first, verb (tåler) second.
Nå tåler jeg kritikk bedre enn da jeg var tenåring.
– Time adverb (Nå) first, verb (tåler) second, subject (jeg) third.

Both respect V2 and both are natural. Changing other orders like:

✗ Jeg bedre tåler kritikk nå
✗ Jeg tåler bedre kritikk nå (this one can work but changes emphasis a bit)

has to be done carefully. The safest, neutral versions are the two above.

What’s the nuance difference between kritikk and kritikken in a sentence like this?

kritikk (no article) = criticism in general
→ what you have in the sentence: Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå ...
kritikken = the criticism (specific, known criticism)
Example:
- Jeg tåler kritikken bedre nå enn før.
  – I tolerate the criticism better now than before (e.g., specific criticism from colleagues, media, etc.).

In your original sentence, we are talking about criticism as a general phenomenon, not a specific batch of criticism, so kritikk (no article) is the most natural choice.

Could nå be replaced with something like nå for tiden or i dag, and would the meaning change?

You can replace nå with other time expressions, but the nuance changes slightly:

nå – now, at the current time (quite neutral)
nå for tiden – these days / nowadays (emphasizes a longer current period)
i dag – today (literally that one day; often metaphorically “these days” but can also sound more literal)

Examples:

Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå enn da jeg var tenåring.
– I tolerate criticism better now than when I was a teenager. (simple “now”)
Jeg tåler kritikk bedre nå for tiden enn da jeg var tenåring.
– I tolerate criticism better these days than when I was a teenager. (stresses a whole current period)
Jeg tåler kritikk bedre i dag enn da jeg var tenåring.
– I tolerate criticism better today than when I was a teenager.
(could mean literally “today”, or “these days” in some contexts)

All are grammatically correct; nå is the most straightforward and neutral.