Let's face it. It has an incredibly bad connotation. As a musing literary mind, criticism's bad reputation has me down.
Literary greatness revolves around criticism--not the "mean" kind, but the productive kind--the kind labeled "constructive criticism" in order to serve the terror that is misinterpretation-phobic clarity (a.k.a. political correctness).
Criticism is, in its truest form, dialogue. Dialogue about rhetoric--how people say things. We critique each other's rhetoric to form a better, more creative, more persuasive Argument or Idea 2.0.
Perhaps I stand more alone than I thought, but whenever I've submitted a paper to a teacher, the most valuable return item is the smear of notes and corrections made. While the paper is itself an accomplishment, isn't the progressive discussion over the writing far more valuable? How else would I know what to do better? How else would I involve ideas that differ and are perhaps more seeing than my own?
In order for me to be an integrated and valuable member of society, I must acknowledge that literature is only a member of and servant to society (and not the whole world itself, sigh). Still, they are parallel worlds: in society, honest discussion--yes, criticism--is the only path to a better way. We're all supposed to question and compliment and make suggestions to each other. That's why we're all here together.
So, I beg you, don't take it personally. And don't continue criticism's bad name. Let's separate "mean spirited" from "criticism" and try to do something remarkable together.
Please?
Fidelity - Regina Spektor
No comments:
Post a Comment