...On Critics, and Criticism.

[Bitter Jeweler]

An interesting article from the NYTimes, concerning book reviews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/a-critic-makes-the-case-for-critics.html?_r=1&hp

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.

 

[pgriz]

What!? and damage someone's self-esteem? The Horror!

Eh, it must be hard to live in a place where 100% are above average. Which can mean one of three things - 1) People have no clue what makes for good stuff and cannot distinguish it from bad stuff, or 2) Self-deception is the new normal (you kinda know it's not good stuff, but you promise not to tell), or 3) Getting along in a collegial spirit is more important than pointing out the fact that some stuff is just not good.

What do you think, Bitter?

 

[rexbobcat]

The problem with brutal honesty is that it's hard for a lot of people now to tell the difference between honesty and being an ass, even if it's blatantly obvious.

Such is the rise of political and social correctness.

Saying anything that could possibly have a personal negative connotation is evil.

Everybody is a winner. Remember that.

 

[pgriz]

Well, it is possible to be brutally honest, but still deliver that commentary in a way that the receicient will accept and learn from. What is often missing from the "brutal honesty" comments is some thought on the part of the advice-giver, on how his/her comments will be received, and how to deliver the message so that it will be accepted.

Back to the essence of the article that Bitter linked to: Without good criticism/critique, we end up in la-la land, where everything is marvelous, has a poor relation to the underlying realities, and performance and execution are less important that appearances and who you know. It becomes the world as you imagine (or want) it to be, and blinds you to the many things that don't fit in tidily into your personal narrative. It also diminishes the power of "standards", and long-standing conventions.

To me, good criticism is a form of debate, not to score points, but to examine somthing from all sides so to get a better understanding of it. An intelligent, respectful, but insightful debate is one of the most invirogating intellectual pursuits that one can have. Unfortunately, criticism is seen as an adverserial form of debate, where there are winners and losers, and the debators are subject to personal attack along with whatever ideas or events that they are exploring through the debate. So shying away from adverserial debate does not mean that there is no need for the inquisitive debate. As in another thread discussing context, we really need to dig deep behind too many things that we take for granted.