Blogocentric Formulations

A Critic's Case for Critics Who Are Actually Critical

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/a-critic-makes-the-case-for-critics.h...


I really enjoyed reading this article today, as being critical is something that I struggle with constantly. Those of you who have received reviews from me may find this hard to believe, but it's very difficult for me to be critical when I'm giving feedback to others. Maybe it's just the kind of person I am, or maybe it's the fact that I'm a writer myself and know who devastating it can be to face harsh criticism. Whatever the reason, I often find myself "going easy" on the work of other writers... and I'm particularly guilty of filling in a review with compliments that I don't always 100% believe. Maybe it's the way I was raised, being taught that criticism should be preceded and succeeded by compliments in the wonderfully formulaic model for constructive criticism. Regardless of the reason behind it, I often find myself writing things like, "I thought it was a really unique idea, but..." or "Your characters were really engaging, but..." when I don't really think it's a unique idea or that they're engaging characters at all; I simply needed something positive to say before that "but," after which I can criticize whatever larger issue I had with the writing. After all, when you have a 2-to-1 compliment-to-criticism ratio, it can be very difficult to keep coming up with compliments when it's an average piece, let alone when it's a piece of writing you find particularly lacking.

One of the passages from the article that really stuck out to me was:

The sad truth about the book world is that it doesn’t need more yes-saying novelists and certainly no more yes-saying critics. We are drowning in them. What we need more of, now that newspaper book sections are shrinking and vanishing like glaciers, are excellent and authoritative and punishing critics — perceptive enough to single out the voices that matter for legitimate praise, abusive enough to remind us that not everyone gets, or deserves, a gold star.

On the one hand, I'm terrified at the prospect of being an "abusive" critic. I completely agree that not everyone deserves a gold star, and I detest the modern practice of participation ribbons and the "everyone's a winner" mentality that I feel devalues truly exceptional achievement. But I hate being the person to look at someone's work - to know what a writer invests in that work - and to tell them, "I'm sorry, but this just isn't very good and I don't have a whole lot of positive things to say about it."

I really want to strive to be a better reviewer. I don't necessarily want to be meaner or harsher... but I do want to be more honest and stop coming up with compliments I don't truly stand behind just to couch the criticism because I feel that twinge of guilt when I know I'm about to say something that will be disappointing and discouraging. Garner ends his op-ed with the following: "Until you work up the nerve to say what you think and stand behind it, young critics and fellow amiable tweeters, there’s always the advice the critic George Seldes gave in the title of his 1953 memoir: “Tell the Truth and Run."

Unrelated... now who needs eyes on a new story they've written? {e:runs_away}