We Should Be More Critical of Our Criticisms

[Kannik]

Hear hear! In my view, there is a distinction between an opinion, a review, and a critique. And while language and everyday parlance can be squishy, it's good to recognize and hold them separate. We don't always have to engage in each of them -- it's alright to just state your opinion if you liked something or not! -- collapsing them especially in that "I didn't like it, so therefore it must be poorly made, and I will therefore use this as a cudgel against others" / "I like this, therefore it must be excellent, and I will take a sword against anyone who says otherwise," is not productive in the least.

And I really like this notion/suggestion of occasionally doing a critique of our critiques and of our likes/dislikes. I mused about this a couple of months ago and wrote this: "And in that way, critiques have this interesting, dual nature. On the one hand, a critique is distinct from whether we like or dislike something. While a critique may include whether we like it or not, but during the bulk of the critique we aim to stand outside of ourselves in that regard in order to consider the work from all those [other] lenses. Yet, at the same time, to make a critique is to put ourselves on the line, vulnerable. Vulnerable, as we have to open ourselves up fully to the work to engage it without the filter of “like/dislike”. And vulnerable too because to make and share a critique is akin to the vulnerability that comes from making and sharing that art to the world. We’re putting ourselves on the line. It’s not an unassailable gut feel. And any gut feels we have we both bear it and examine it and take ownership for it."

Partially that's the whole notion behind the idea of "guilty pleasures" too, right? While we probably shouldn't actually feel guilty about it (or, worse, shame), it at least is a recognition that this thing we like isn't necessarily well done but it still speaks to us such that we love it anyway. Maybe that's a good first step for people to begin to understand and explore this distinction?

 

[Kannik]

I'm not sure I entirely agree re: only listening to "peers" though - critics sometimes really have interesting or informed opinions, and sometimes really dumb or weirdly unqualified-seeming ones, but it depends on the critic and what they're criticising.

This is one of my most favourite things about many of the critics/media analysis people I follow regularly, where I may not agree with everything they are espousing or where their conclusions led them, but as they are doing it in a long-form show-me-your-work kind of way (some of them VERY long form ), I always get something out of that journey. Often something opens up for me, or I deepen my appreciation for something, or it dampens my enthusiasm for another thing, or I recognize a connection I hadn't before, or...

And for certain, sometimes these have made me reconsider my take on a piece of art. I may not still like it, but my view always broadens.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't have them jumbled. I've been speaking English for over 50 years. I know what the definitions of justify and explain are. The nuanced distinction being made here doesn't matter in context.

I disagree, but okay.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I disagree, but okay.

Not going back to try and parse this discussion, but usually the common-sense approach of trying to use two words in a similar context is helpful.

Two interrogatories:

1. Explain your actions.
2. Justify your actions.

Do those two questions carry the same import? Do they have the same connotations? I mean, I don't use words much, but IMO, I think that the two are used differently.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't use words much.

Bwahahaha!

... but you make good points.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm responding negatively to the idea that critics know better than everyone else and should be listened to or deferred to.

For the record, that's not what I was arguing. I was saying that people who have a lot of experience with X or Y often have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion of something, even if I disagree with their opinion on said thing.

If I don't like a Western, I think there's still value in hearing thoughtful analysis from someone who's seen hundreds of them. I'll likely understand more about what the movie was responding to or referencing, or hear about works that did similar things that I might want to seek out.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How did that limit even come about? Like, I heard somewhere that it somehow goes back to alphanumeric pager technology, which seems ridiculous to me. That's like having a limitation that's a holdover from carrier pigeons or the pony express

Twitter was originally built to use the SMS standard, which -- at the time -- limited messages to 140 characters.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What's "proper" Mexican food is a matter of debate here in the United States though I think there's universal agreement that Taco Bell isn't it.

Ironically, Glenn Bell started off by 100% ripping off a well-respected Mexican restaurant that was kicking the crap of his nearby burger stand.

At a certain point, though, he and his successors clearly decided it wasn't worth putting that kind of effort into things going forward.

 

[Mercurius]

I am an engineer now, but long ago in another life I got a degree in English Literature. Once of things that I have always carried forward from that education was the idea that it is important -- required, even -- to think about what you think about things. When conducting analysis or criticism, it is insufficient to just say how you feel about a thing. You need to interrogate why you feel that way, and determine if it is a function of the thing, or something of yourself.

In looking at how we discuss things (not just here, but broadly, and especially online), the thing that seems to be missing is introspection and analysis of our impressions and feelings. We like that movie or dislike that game or love that song or whatever -- but very rarely do we really consider WHY we feel those things about those works. Moreover, it is fairly common to get defensive or disengage when pushed, rather than take a challenge as an opportunity to really reflect on the opinion we just expressed.

I know not every piece of art needs a dissertation every time we express an opinion, but it would be nice if we would sometimes spend more time asking ourselves why we reacted to a work the way we did.

It is a fair point, though I think the situation is far more complex than simply "asking ourselves why we reacted to a work the way we did."

One axis of complexity: There are different ways to interpret our findings that depend upon what "languages" we know - aka, hermeneutic frameworks. Literary criticism is one such language, but there are many others - and people versed in one might not be versed in others. The field of psychology includes dozens, or even hundreds, of such languages, each with different "dialects" (e.g. Depth psychology, then Freud vs. Jung, then traditional Jungian vs. Archetypal, and on and on).

Many, even most, people who specialize in one type of hermeneutics (whether formally or not) tend to see everything through that lens - including the hermeneutics of other people. This is where a lot of conversations break down already: "I hear why you don't like the Thing, but you're wrong because it doesn't make sense within my own worldview." Etc etc. It is even common that a person completely disregards another's interpretation because they don't like their preferred hermeneutics! You can see this in-fighting especially within fields (e.g. Freudians vs. Jungians).

That touches upon the problem of (over) specialization: If we're really good at a thing, we might neglect to develop other capacities, and often "wrongly" interpret something in a way that it wasn't meant to be interpreted. Or as Maslow famously said, if the only tool we have in our toolbox is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

A relevant example might be science fiction and fantasy. They are two distinct literary lineages, that usually express very different tones and themes. The over-simplified version is that SF is often more left-brained, analytic, and allegorical; fantasy often more right-brained, mythic, and symbolic. Both should make sense within their own logic, but they have very different logics (and it gets even more complex with sub-genres, different styles, and specific creators and stories). Tolkien talked about this (though not in reference to SF) when people asked him what his stories "mean" - what the allegories were. He detested that, and sort of blithely said he was just trying to write good stories (though I think it is much deeper than that).

One final note. This is related to specialization, but people have a story about themselves and then explain/justify their feelings based on that. Often our stories involve inflated personal experiences to quasi-universal status, so that we see and interpret everything through the lens of "me." Sometimes that basic "me-ness" is unexamined. This can be a hard knot to un-tie, and has a lot to do with intrapersonal intelligence and maturation. We don't interact on an even playing field, in that regard.

All that said, I think we can bypass a lot of the inherent problems by co-creating a space of mutual respect and nourishing openness of being, both in ourselves but also in others (to the degree that we can). And this includes agreeing to disagree, and being friendly--or at least respectful--of people we disagree with, even if we find their views on something to be deplorable. If we have that openness, then we're also open to the fact that we're never omniscient and also able to see a person's "essence" to some extent, over specific beliefs they have. I've known plenty of lovely people who had what I consider to be "backwards" views, and also people who had more sophisticated views that I agree with that were interpersonally rather nasty human beings.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Ironically, Glenn Bell started off by 100% ripping off a well-respected Mexican restaurant that was kicking the crap of his nearby burger stand.

At a certain point, though, he and his successors clearly decided it wasn't worth putting that kind of effort into things going forward.

There's a strange modern concept of expertise that makes it seem like the choice is "All or Nothing".

Either experts need to be heeded 100% of the time or soundly rejected.

Both attitudes are obviously horse-hockey. The opinions of experts should be listened to and given weight, but you don't have to agree with them! They can be wrong! But if you listen to them and consider what they say, you'll find that they're generally right much of the time and even when they're not right in their conclusions, there's enough information in their process for you to learn something. Or in other words, they're generally worth listening to, even if you disagree. And the more that experts agree with other experts, the more likely it is that they are ultimately correct. But it's STILL not 100%. But something being less than 100% does not make it 0%.

(I mean the above as a collective "you", not @Whizbang Dustyboots, who I'm sure already knows all of the above).