Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,178
|
Criticism (very long)
I wanted to start a new thread to set forth my thoughts about criticism and insults, and how they are and aren't related. The main point I want to make is that contrary to an opinion I have detected on the forums, and recently seen expressed explicitly, criticism and insults do not go hand in hand. Actually, they are at cross purposes. The reasons for this will become obvious as we look at what criticism is, and isn't.
The short version: A critique is not an attack.
1. Criticism focuses on the writing, not the writer.
The purpose of criticism is to offer insight upon writing. The addressee is often the writer, but the topic is the writing. The hope is that with poorly developed aspects of the writing revealed, the writer will be able to improve his skills and his writing. Therefore, a good critic criticizes writing, not writers.
This is a naked insult: "You are a bad writer."
This is a thinly veiled insult: "Your writing is bad."
This is a criticism: "The writing in this story is bad."
I will argue below that even the third one is pretty poor as criticism (for other reasons), but the former two have the obvious, and most likely only purpose of hurting the feelings of the writer (or appealing to the debased sadism of certain consumers, in the case of professional critics). They do not serve the legitimate purposes of criticism.
2. Criticism is analytical, not vitriolic.
If our purpose is to calmly and helpfully analyze the writing, our tone should be clinical. There is no place for vitriol in good criticism. The best that can be said of it is that it doesn't add anything. Rather, it wastes time and space in a type of writing (speaking of the criticism, here) that to excel, must be exact, and ideally is terse.
In point of fact, derogatory comments detract substantially from criticism. This is because when we criticize someone's work, and especially if the criticism hasn't been asked for, we walk a fine line with that person's feelings. If we hurt or anger the person, they will not take the point, and they are likely to reject the entire criticism without regard to its content (and rightfully so). There is no need to make this delicate balance more difficult by inserting nasty remarks.
Part of the difference is in the force of wording. You know you're reading an attack, and not criticism, when you see a lot of words like "completely", "totally", "incredibly", and so forth. These words do not contribute any analytical value. The connotation of the chosen words is important too, though.
These are words used in vitriol: terrible, boring, simplistic, wrong, hackish
These are words used in criticism: lacking, unexciting, plain, inappropriate, ordinary
This is a pointed insult: "Your characters are totally lame and flat."
This is a criticism: "The characters do not show careful development."
3. Criticism is informative, not merely negatory.
This should go without saying, but in order for a writer to improve his writing, it is not enough for him to know what is bad writing. He must know what is good writing. Therefore, good criticism does not simply tell him what aspects of his writing are bad - it tells him how they might be better. Let's take an example that involves technical aspects of English.
"The Royal Guard are legindary for their skill with the unique saerath, or 'singing death'. A saerath has a long haft with a curved blade appended to each end. Just like spears, the Royal Guard can attack in two or even more ranks, due to the long reach of their wepons."
This is a malicious attack: "Your grammar sucks, and you need to learn to use a spellchecker. You don't even know the meanings of the words you are using."
This is a useful criticism:
"There are a couple of mistakes in spelling which would have been caught by a spellchecker. A few other comments. Where it says 'Just like spears, the Royal Guard...' the grammar or semantics is funky. What you mean is that just like spearmen, they can attack in multiple ranks. I think you should run the meanings of 'haft' and 'append' through an online dictionary, too. You might want to choose different words."
It will not answer as a defensive of the putative critic to say that the second example takes more time to write. Any kind of analysis, of which literary criticism is one, takes a certain amount of time and effort. If the critic doesn't put that time and effort in, his response is meaningless, and gives us cause to doubt not only his substance as a critic, but his intentions as a person.
4. A complete critique is never, as a practical matter, one-sided.
Even a relatively short piece of writing is abundantly multifaceted. Therefore, although it is possible, in theory, to have a piece of writing about which there is nothing good to say, we shouldn't expect to see them very often (or perhaps ever).
When a criticism of an entire work has only negative things to say about that work, and not even one good thing, it reveals a lack of analytical insight, or a failure of desire to exercise that insight. I think we may be forgiven if we also consider it evidence of mal-intent.
5. A strong criticism is instructive, not punitive.
Someone quoted another poster in one thread saying that "The best criticism is the fiercest one." The wording here is a little ambiguous, but it is possible to read it in such a way that I can agree with it. The most thorough criticism, and therefore the criticism which has, in principle, the most potential to be beneficial, is the criticism that does not curtail its own scope in view of interpersonal concerns.
Let's say that you know a person has been attacked several times for using anachronistic language. It's tempting to simply leave this question out of the analysis when critiquing their work, for fear of hurting their feelings. If you ask me, that is a perfectly legitimate choice, and in many cases the best one. I can concur, however, that it compromises the thoroughness of the critique.
However, thorough does not mean condescending or cruel. A critic is not a retributor. A person commits no moral transgression by writing badly, and he does not need to be punished or trained not to write badly. There is nothing wrong with writing a story or poem that is less than stellar, and anyone who does not enjoy the work, can simply refrain from reading it. When another person chooses to offer a criticism of the work, that person either implicitly affirms an intent to be helpful, or unconsciously reveals an agenda to be hurtful.
Never let anyone tell you that what they are really doing by deliberately hurting you is try to help you.
6. The critical mien.
If you read everything I have written above, the essence is this: the good critic is interested in assisting, not detracting or pontificating.
The truth is that a lot of critics have a nasty and arrogant attitude, for reasons which in my view have to do both with psychology and with certain problems with how art fits into our society. I would love to get into this, but this post is already getting very long.
In any case, the bad attitude manifests itself most clearly in the opinion that if you can't write something which is good, you should not write anything. In this view, the critic whose scathing remarks impel an unskilful writer or a writer without much potential for broad appeal to stop writing entirely has done a service to that person, to other people, and to art. In its less extreme (or simply less honest) form, it holds that it is noble for an educated writer to intentionally leave a less proficient writer's pride stinging. The customary excuse is that this pain will encourage the writer to do better in the future.
Scratch the surface, and you will quickly find out that the authority actually has no faith that his victim will ever become a "good" writer. His world view will only appeal to men lacking any generosity of spirit, or hope for more than a world in which complacent better-thans dictate magnanimously to grateful never-wills. Perhaps more to the point, it is patent nonsense. Art is making love to the world - not a military drill parade. It touches the deepest and realest parts of our being. This sort of authoritative attitude is very useful for producing men willing to kill and die for their masters. It is useless for attuning the soul to beauty or training the hand in the artful expression of her form.
I have often heard wounded authors defend themselves from unprovoked attacks by saying that their imperfect works must be tolerated as a means to an end, i.e., improved writing in the future. I demur to this, because to me it misses the point, and looks dangerously like courting the attacker's crappy attitude.
Let me state this clearly and without qualification: Regardless of whether it is skilful or naive, your writing is worthy and good.
Did you get something out of writing it? Did you enjoy it or get a catharsis, or otherwise benefit from the process? Then it is good. Did you enjoy reading it over again? Then it is good. Did even one other person get something out of reading it? Then it's not only good - it has attained the gold standard of art.
Don't tolerate attacks from people who have arrogated themselves to a position above you. That goes for the ones who have "qualifications", and double for the ones who don't. It goes triple for the ones who insist strenuously that they do, but never reveal whether they are telling the truth or not because their commentary is always confined to poorly disguised insults. And for crying out loud, don't thank people for attacking you.
Drake
|
