There is an odd phenomenon I have seen with some critics. This phenomenon is also why I changed course in my earlier work to create things rather than critique existing things, though I knew doing so doesn’t guarantee protection from the effects. It varies in intensity, but the basic idea is this; those who critique can not always create.
My recent IMHO piece about Aeon Legion noted this. Though the author is aware of the most common writing pitfalls, he still produced what I consider a sub-par story filled with the kinds of issues he would lambaste in his series of videos on poor writing. This is not the best example, though, as he seems at least partially aware his writing isn’t flawless, and makes occasional self deprecating jokes in his video series.
A much more extreme example can be found in Linkara. While he is known for critiquing bad comics, he also created one such bad comic. The title of the comic was Lightbringer, and centered around a superhero of the same name. I won’t get into the details of it, but the overwhelming consensus was it was bad. Real bad. The art was bad, the story was bad, the characters were bad. Yet, despite this, Linkara found very real success critiquing other comics. This was despite the fact that a comic he had previously created would be absolutely destroyed if he reviewed it.
Here is why I think this disconnect occurs. Consuming content and creating content are two vastly different things. A good analogy would be food. If you eat an expertly cooked meal, you may or may not know all the small details involved in making it. But what you do know is if you like it or not. A more discerning individual would also know if there is something specifically wrong with the food, or something specifically spectacular. You could know these things even while being completely in the dark on how to actually cook that meal.
This is not to say that knowing how to cook a meal has nothing to do with your ability to appreciate the meal. Far from it; it would enhance one’s understanding of the food and allow better articulation of what went right… or wrong. It would allow more focused and nuanced critique of the meal beyond what the average person could elaborate.
To offer a counterbalance to that, such an observation does not make the critiques of people without this expertise unimportant. Not everyone who eats a meal is a chef, so you still need to please the general public. Most importantly, it does not give a pass for people to say “Unless you can cook something better, shut up and be happy with it!” As stated before, even a person with no culinary training can say if something tastes bad and be completely correct.
With that explanation out of the way, a common thread I see with many critics is that they ironically shield themselves from criticism. Some of this is simple self preservation, as they are creating a brand to have their words taken seriously, and it is in their best interest to disagree with people who disrupt that branding. However, many go far beyond that and refuse to understand the very purpose of critique in the first place. It is not meant to tear down, it is meant to build up. Though the motivation of a critic could be anything from genuine goodwill to outright malice, the back and forth sharpens the minds of everyone involved, and creates better work in the future as the creators grow alongside their critics in their understanding of the medium.
That is an important note that critics are overlooking when they dismiss criticism of themselves. Not all criticism is equal, and occasionally there are critiques of a work that are either imprecise or downright wrong. Criticism is also something open to critique, after all. To use the food analogy again, it would be like if you ordered a steak dinner only to dump your glass of water all over it before trying to cut it with a spoon. Then, you complain that the steak was soggy and too hard to cut. Obviously, such complaints have nothing to do with the quality of the meal, and were caused by a fundamental inability to consume the meal as intended. The form this takes with movie reviews is missing plot points that are properly explained, leading to misunderstanding parts of the plot. Much debate can be had about how responsible a viewer is for understanding the plot if it is overly convoluted, but that is far outside the scope of this short article, and I believe most people would agree that the viewer is at least partially responsible for paying attention in order to properly enjoy the plot of a movie, book, or video game.
Recently, though, I’ve returned to thinking about the subject of criticism through prompts in various YouTube videos. As such, I’ve decided to be more upfront in opening dialogues where I critique other things, though I’m certainly not about to stop writing. In fact, I’ve been considering trying video creation, but that’s still in the brainstorming stages and a great deal away from anything ready for release. My concern of throwing stones while inside a glass house only really applies if I let myself become arrogant in my critique and attempt to deflect criticism. In reality, I think my work could use more honest criticism, as so far I’ve received only positive feedback online. I’m under no delusion my work is perfect, so if I’m serious about writing as an art form, I need to find out what I could be doing better.
That’s the general premise behind the IMHO series, and why I plan on reviewing on lesser known independent creations very soon. I hope we can build a community of mutual critique where people feel confident enough to not only post their work and receive criticism, but also give criticism to others as well.
This Post on Minds