The greatest thing I learned from my crazy mania professor Eric Schwab (I'll say 'hello, eric schwab,' because I'd put him just barely in the self-googling half of the world) is that it is legitimate, nay, desirable, even, to read a text and not criticize it. Just take from it everything you can. You don't have to endorse it or support it or praise it...just use the text to see what you can get out of it. Go on. Whatever you want. Be selfish. Take from the text. Perhaps this wasn't how he phrased it, but he did come down hard on the frequent practice of reading with a mind toward ridicule.
Why do people so frequently read this way? I understand you get something valid out of criticism; you practice discerning valid arguments and therefore practice forming strong opinions and arguments of your own. Plus one for critique. Fair enough. But you lose so much. You, number one, get really tense and have that insecure satisfaction of gossip, especially when you critique poorly. You (and realize, of course, that 'you' always means 'I') feel like a dirty, dirty, bad person. And that's not a good feeling at all. "Sure, religious people: there's an invisible omnipresent being pulling all the strings and setting the world up so science can explain everything, but really science isn't the way to answer our questions because he's just testing our faith. Like he is when he kills tens of thousands of people in Asia. He's not cruel. Noooooo. He's just got a plan!" See. I feel dirty now. That's not good. Whereas if I legitimately consider the opinion (unlikely at this point; I've done a lot of that already), or just try to see how the impulse to believe in God reveals something about what it means to be human (very likely), I feel good. And satisfied. Try it! I think you'll like it.
So it feels bad to ridicule and good not to ridicule. You also get much better reactions when you don't ridicule. When you argue with an attitude, people get defensive and it sucks. You wind up in one of those arguments where there's no aim to prove or disprove the original point, you just find an objection to everything the other person says. Those arguments are frustrating. If you remain amicable and ask the person to explain his or her thoughts, you can present challenges and get the person to respond to them thoughtfully. People are much more likely to present their opinions fully and be receptive to constructive criticism this way. If you take the conversation in another direction, they'll be happy to go with you.
And you just get more out of it. You have the power to make the reading of the text or the listening of the speech as useful to yourself as possible. You can use it to explore the topic that means the most to you and resonates most with what was presented. It's a great, open opportunity. Go for it.
If the argument or information really just blows? Ignore it. Move on. Find something else. If there's absolutely no entertainment value, humor, decent points, food for thought, cute facts or anecdotes, consider the time you've spent reading a sunk cost and do something else.
Some people think it's weak not to criticize harshly if something's bad. Why? I don't think it's weak. It's being the bigger, more selfish man. It's doing exactly what you want. It's putting your remaining time to use that works for you. Excellent.
Unsurprisingly, this post is spurred because every negative comment written about my work hits me hard. This is the problem with going public, especially with a poor sense of what should be censored, a creative mind, and relatively little experience in the field. I'm fledgling. I'm learning. I'd appreciate if people criticized constructively...and I'm not convinced they get anything meaningful out of doing otherwise. I know I don't get anything out of that except a quick, guilt-ridden high. But, in my little utilitarian scheme, if it actually benefits them, I can't stop them. I can't stop them anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'd appreciate if people criticized constructively...and I'm not convinced they get anything meaningful out of doing otherwise.
First, there are some issues with word choice in this post. For instance, did you really have a "mania professor"? Take care with the distinctions between nouns and adjectives. Secondly, your pronouns are confusing. In your second graf you say that "you" means "I" -- why not just say "I"? And at the end of that paragraph, when you say "I think you'll like it," is the "you" still "I"? Strive for consistency, clarity, and also for specificity; for instance, what kind of "dirty," "bad," and "not good" do you mean?
Sentence fragments can be effective for evoking a certain kind of terse, conversational tone, but be careful not to overdo it. Too many fragmentary sentences can make a piece feel choppy, not to mention the fact that they undermine your self-presentation (since fragments, however effective they may be in moderation, are still non-grammatical).
While sarcasm can be very effective for your audience, the section in graf 2 where you put words into a hypothetical opponent's mouth is not an effective comparison. The reader has no context for who's supposed to be making this speech -- some transition would make the shift less jarring. Along the same lines, your own relation to this statement is unclear. You talk about how you would react to it if you considered it, then add that you wouldn't consider it, then claim that you already have. Finally, there seems to be a logical fallacy at work here, specifically the fallacy of faulty analogy. You never make it clear to your reader why this argument about God is analogous to the argument under discussion. This point isn't fundamentally fallacious, but your reader isn't getting enough information to understand why the comparison is apt (if it is). Try putting more of your logical process on the page for clarity. Don't leave it up to your reader to fill in the gaps. Once the comparison is clear, you should work also on effectively refuting the hypothetical argument; can you show why this approach is ineffective, rather than just calling it "not good"?
Finally, I think there's a fundamental logical flaw at work here. In decrying the practice of critical reading but simultaneously asking for fair critique, your reader is left with the sense that you are asking for positive feedback without negative feedback. If it is fundamentally undesirable to read critically, what kind of helpful commentary would you expect readers to give? You ask, in your final paragraph, that readers "ask the person to explain his or her thoughts," a fair and reasonable expectation for a critique. However, even if your opponents were offering critique rather than personal opinion, this request would be incompatible with your demand that they read without critical intent.
This confusion is, I think, not endemic to this piece of writing, but indicative of a more global unwillingness to distinguish between critique and personal insult. You're clearly young and getting your sea legs. That means you should be edited. It doesn't mean that others should refrain from reacting to your work, or even from expressing their opinions.
You asked for it. Did you really want it?
(By the way, my post wasn't about you, it was about Seed. You shouldn't have to have a "sense of what should be censored." That's what they have editors for, supposedly. The introduction to your piece was terrible and I'll gladly tell you why, but they should have told you why already. I didn't make it clear enough in my blog post that I blame the editors not only for the fact that they're hiring inexperienced writers, but for the fact that they're not able to wrangle those writers' pieces into shape. You are under no obligation to somehow mystically have more experience than you do. They're under obligation to edit a decent magazine. If they need to hire newer writers, they need to edit harder.
But you also need to take it.)
Hey, Jess. Thanks for taking the time to respond. A few things:
1. The post was in reference to people critiquing my articles...not my blog posts. I think I'll address many of your comments just by saying that this blog is pretty much entirely intended for my friends and not intended as actual op-ed pieces (you'll notice that many of them are personal or wildly undiplomatic). Of course it's public and anyone can come and read it, but it's not about publishing my work. It's about throwing out ideas in a low-risk environment. So I was asking for constructive criticism on my published stuff...which you actually gave in your post that my post was inspired by (not written in response to). I've mentioned that I'm sensitive when people call my work crap, and people have asked if they're constructive or meaningless. And I cite your post as constructive. Because that lead was an example of the over-the-top stuff that I looove (see, I can use many o's in the blog!) to do. You can see my new and notable headlines for more examples.
2. (Comments on paragraph one of your comment). I had a professor for a class called "Mania and Mass Psychology," which I regularly abbreviate as "Mania." (something my friends would know...and the blog's intended for me and them). I say "you" instead of "I" for a little bit of casual humor...don't worry, you're not supposed to actually laugh. Just pointing out that when people use "you" in this context, they mean "people in general," which is usually taken from the experience of "I." No, of course I would never make this kind of half, nay, quarter-joke in an actual piece.
3. Sentence fragments: I'd rarely include them in a published piece. I include them in the blog for that family guy-esque awkwardness that drags on for too long.
4. This was just an example of me making a criticism in a sarcastic tone. (Of course if you know me/have read other posts, you know I'm an avowed atheist and this will make more intuitive sense...more on that these posts are ramblings and not op-eds). The only place where I'm sympathetic to your concern is where I say "the opinion," referring to the opponents opinion (that God exists). That was unclear. (Recall: I don't edit these posts...I often don't spellcheck them)
5. On whether people should criticize or not. This part I'll take as a question rather than a criticism, because that's the way I would have phrased your post ("How do you reconcile this desire for constructive criticism and this demand not to criticize?" is what I would have said, following my own advice to question rather than immediately criticize). The piece here is written for the benefit of the critic, the person taking in some work. I generally believe it is to the person's OWN benefit not to criticize. It is to their benefit to take what they will and play off of the arguments. On the other hand, I, as a producer of work, would be happy to hear constructive criticism. I would never want to be the one criticizing, and I see little reason why others would either, but I am happy to take it.
Also, crucial to note on your last points, the last paragraph on my post was not intended as a conclusion for my argument but rather as a personal note: a motivation for why I decided to hit that topic tonight. Again, this probably comes across better if you know my stuff, follow the blog, see that my writing style consistently assumes you know me as a person.
And you never told me, on principle, what was wrong with that lead, although you've said twice that it was terrible/comically awful. It was supposed to be comical. It was supposed to make you half-chuckle at its absurdity/corniness. But it was also supposed to get you curious about the article. Did it fail to accomplish those or am I missing some broader principle about lead-writing? Is over-the-topness bad? Only bad when it takes up too much of the reader's time? I'd appreciate things I can learn from in the future, and not just mentions of flaws. Danke.
"Only bad when it takes up too much of the reader's time" is it exactly. The lede is fine in concept, but overdone in execution. First of all, I'm definitely not wild about the name Johnnie Ray, as it sounds more like a country singer than a gangster. Second, the dialogue is stilted ("I did not kill poor Mrs. Muller" -- it works only if you're imagining a 1920s Chicago ganster nasal accent, and you can't count on that). But I'm not convinced that you actually need dialogue to pull this one off. If your audience is familiar with the noir genre (and if they're not, see point 2) then you could actually save yourself time by simply invoking the typical lie-detector scene instead of thoroughly describing it. Less cumbersome, less room for lines that fall flat because you're trying to simultaneously write good science and bad fiction, and if the audience knows the kind of scene you're talking about, you can get a lot more mileage with directed stimulation of their imaginations than by setting the scene yourself.
If you were my student I'd also chide you about establishing exigence for your specific audience. The noir lede might be theoretically "interesting," but will it be interesting to the people you're trying to appeal to? Are they particularly interested in or familiar with the genre? Does it make them think that the topic is important and relevant, or just that you're clever?
Last thing: I did figure that you don't edit the blog. Most people don't. I do, but only because mine is sort of an academic/professional thing. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that your blog isn't published work, especially when it has your professional name on it. The pendulum -- even the Pulitzer pendulum! -- is swinging towards considering online publication (in the sense of "making public") to be publication (in its usual sense).
I'm very tickled that you actually had a mania professor. I was damn sure you meant "manic."
Oh, and I'm really annoyed at the Seed editors for missing "didn't you not know that the stomach has a pulse?" That's exactly what they're supposed to be for. They are PHONING it IN.
Cool, thanks for the specification. The dialogue read well in my head (and was edited a bit after I wrote it, which may have stilted the flow a little), and I find my head generally translates very well to the page, especially in terms of speech. The line to which you refer should have a smirking slur on "poor." Point taken on the name Johnnie Ray. I kind of like it, but it is pretty country singer. And I hoped this opening section would be amusing enough that people wouldn't feel like they were wading through it. Clearly this didn't hit the spot for you. I have no idea whether it did for anyone else. I guess you're mostly saying that it's a big gamble to take and one most writers will usually lose on. In any case, I think I got this particular indulgence out of my system and won't be writing any more long, more-fun-for-me-than-for-you leads.
For your second point, I do think film noir is pretty universally recognized and liked. I could be totally mistaken on that, but every time I've seen a comedy group ask for a film genre, people in college and in their 20s always suggest noir. I think most people have a good ear for the style. Again, maybe I've just encountered a particularly noir-prone group.
Your bit about just seeming clever is taken and registered. I don't think that's what I was doing here--I really did think most people would have a little chuckle reading it and then move on, interested in the science--but I do have a tendency to do that. I'm certainly not the only one...everyone from fifth graders discovering metaphor to Maureen Dowd shows off full force whenever they can. But it's good to be reminded that showing off should never be the point and should only exist in seemless integration.
While I think it's perfectly fair that I have something technically public that I consider to be "unpublished," I think you're right on the name point. I had only put up my real name recently, and it's coming down. It may take a day or two to propagate. If I publicized my blog in any way, then I would consider it published. But if you don't find it via clever search or my AIM profile, there's no way you're going to encounter it.
On your second comment...well, I have a response to that, but I don't want to post it on the blog. First dot last at gmail, if you're interested.
Also: what do you do? I'm curious.
Graduate student in English, for now anyway. A LOT of my time is spent critiquing writing. In fact, that's what I should be doing now.
Post a Comment