On criticism

[Ninian]

You know, I was going to post this on my blog, but I decided more people would appreciate what I'm saying here and it'd be nice to filter it among folks who may or may not agree rather than just the select showing of my friends.

Anyways, just a thought about the nature of criticism and people's reactions to it. There was a time on MSF where I reacted pretty badly to criticism. It's because my critics, even ones attempting to be helpful (Zalabar comes to mind) usually lacked a degree of tact and I didn't really understand yet how badly I needed criticism. Though to be fair to myself, many of my detractors back in the day were just making noise because they found Aeternalae to be personally offensive and were taking out their frustration for not finding a similar voice to communicate their (apparently contradicting) vision out on me. But I digress from the topic, and I recognize that an increasing majority weren't even present for that.

The problem with the nature of criticism is that people rarely seem to find a happy medium when communicating it. All too often self-styled critics avoid using an appropriate level of tact in communicating their message, wanting to avoid "sugarcoating" it and detracting it. Ironically, the opposite is true -- if your medicine is too bitter, people will force it out of their system as soon as possible or even do the emotional equivalent of vomiting it up. A bad critic, even with good intentions, douses the flames of inspiration and can assassinate all but the hardiest of muses. A good critic, on the other hand, will naturally inspire those around them to strive for a higher standard of excellence than they may have.

I'd know, I've been both, especially in regards to the MSF site itself and the people who are responsible for updating it.


So what makes one a good critic, I think? One is that they know their boundaries and allow the one they're criticizing to set them. After all, they're the "end user" so to speak, they should be allowed to hear as much or as little criticism as they choose to hear. They're the sole judges of what's best for them, even if they're wrong. A good critic should be constantly asking themselves if their message is going to be interpreted correctly that provokes the least overly emotional reaction, for better or worst. After all, a critic is attempting to appeal to the rational side of a person, so if they care about whether their message will be heard they have to make sure it reaches its destination without touching the walls, so to speak. A good critic, having done this, will have communicated exactly what they feel a person's potential is, successfully contrasted it with their current state, and will have inspired that person to strive for that ideal (provided they agree with the critic's view of "ideal"). It's especially important for the critic to put some extra emphasis on letting a person know their strengths over their weaknesses so they don't come to the unfortunate and usually erroneous conclusion that they don't have potential or talent needed to succeed. However, a good critic must also not downplay their weaknesses so much that they ignore the (sometimes urgent) need to overcome them.


As you can see, it's a real balancing act. I think that's part of why Western society has so few decent critics as a whole -- we definitely live, as a whole, in a collective culture of extremes or embracing extremes. However, criticism is one of the few things in life that can never work in an extreme, not unlike rowing a boat (regardless of what flame wars occur on messageboards on whether one should exclusively level up the right or left oars).

I hope in the future I can be useful in criticizing different expressive mediums here, or setting a standard in that regard. For what her word in regards to me is worth, Kerina can back up my claim of being decent at it.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Getting to know people can help both ways as well, as either the critic or the one being critiqued. It wasn't long ago that I critiqued something that someone was sensitive about, but I talked to them in private and now I understand how to critique them better.

[scarplo]

No, not much to disagree with here, Akemi. You're calm, rational, and reasoned on this one. Clearly, you have been replaced by a pod person and the invasion is on. I shall get my gun.

It occurs to me that the only issue I could raise is one of likelihood. Ideally, one would be able to appeal to one's rational interests to elevate their work to a higher level by mutual idea exchange and reasoned discourse. Naturally, if that was the case, this topic probably wouldn't exist.

The dilemma is one of emotional investment. The more time one dedicates to an idea, no matter how foolhardy, the more it's well being is tied to their emotions, and the more they have difficulty extracting themselves from it. Add to that our wonderful ability to misread the intent, and something that should've been a joke becomes a deadly insult. And all it ever takes is that one misstep before someone decides someone else just isn't worth listening to whatsoever.

Tightropes aside, I do still feel that the most realistic possibility is not to coddle and protect the work, but to draw a clear line between it and the worker. Hate the sin, not the sinner, support the troops, not the war, etc, etc. This means sticking to professional analysis and being clear as possible about what works and what doesn't.

Like always there are no rules about how to do it. People are unique and ultimately what works for you probably won't work for me. But there is little wrong with keeping aware of what you are trying to do. It might make you rewrite a post two, three, or twelve times, but that is rather the point, in'n t?

So, whenever you, the editor/critic are going to speak, understand it is not your job to dig under every participle to find whatever freshly laid nuggets you can. You have a recommendations about an issue, a reason for communicating beyond exchanging pleasantries. Something about this piece makes you feel important enough to say something to it's maker.

It would help everyone if you knew what exactly that was.

Don't worry about offending. Worry about communicating. About reaching. About being clear, precise and understood. The rest of that stuff is on the other's ear, not your mouth. Likewise, don't worry about what comes from their mouth. Do not concern yourself with their tone or intent; whether they take your advice is their choice.

A final thought for those who will be critiqued, and since that's just about everyone, ya might wanna read closely. Never mistake a smug li'l get for an informed observer. One sees a show and talks about the things they say. The other talks about the things that will start a show. If a critique reaches you, shaped almost to a t for your enragement, odds are it was done with an eye to intimidate, exacerbate, and exert power rather than inform. Don't squirm, don't wiggle, and don't blink.

As Akemi will tell you, those all just get me to keep going. ^_^

Instead, either let it fall, or call their bluff. If they are like me, halfway into the essay they're going to write before they're a tenth of the way into the one they should be replying to, there'll be nothing of substance in their piece. Do not swing back, as that provides as much entertainment as the squirming. Simply ask them if they have anything relating to the topic. Should they present something, you have proven capable enough to wring wisdom from a fool. Should they not, then they have proven themselves unaware and ignorant, and may be made both in your eyes with little issue.