Critics receive such a bad reputation, for the fact that no one really wants to hear a bad review, however, how will we know if the pizza place nearby might give you the stomach flu or the workers do not wash their hands? If this was in the early 1900s, how would they know if their ground beef contained rat and human flesh?
The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, is of the most famous gut-wrenching reviews in the nation, criticizing the unsanitary practice and contamination of the meat packing industry in the US. His review led to the formation of the FDA that continuously criticized and raised the standards for food quality to what we have today. This cycle of continuous criticism helped improve both the FDA in their analyses and the meatpacking industry in terms of meat quality. The practice of criticism is a cycle and is essential to improvement, but criticism can have many flaws and it can be improved through criticism itself.
Criticism’s negative connotation takes away from criticism’s real meaning. The first definition of criticizing by The Merriam Webster Dictionary is the “the act of criticizing usually unfavorably” and it includes the connotation, characterized by “usually unfavorably”. However, the denotation of criticism is “the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature”. Criticism is the art of evaluating and analyzing work and it is not constrained to any of these suggestions below, but they may help improve future critiques.
Stereotypical forms of criticism are constrained in a way to be “usually” unfavorable. This is a singular point of view of criticism and is illogical in the way New Critics were in my blog post, Illogical logic. I referenced an award-winning author, Percival Everett, and his Poem “5” and “6” in his re:f (gesture) (Everett 69,70). I mentioned that these poems attack New Critics, a group of critics that revolutionized criticism to follow set laws. Everett attacks their constrained point of view of criticism by revealing that there are many ways that logic can be applied to the same piece of work and they all can be considered right in their own accord. His work also shows that neglecting all other forms of logic and even dismissing them is illogical because different facts can be focused on more than others, meanwhile, leading to conclusions just as logical. The New Critics’ followed a set of laws for criticism, but these laws constrain the possible analyses that can be created. Much like an unfavorable critique, New Critics created a societal norm/law for criticism, but it is a narrow and singular mindset that constrains criticism to one of the many forms it can take.
Criticism can lead to different outcomes, which is why the subject should be critiqued in its purity. A more enticing reason is to prevent yourself from being embarrassed when giving your opinion on something, then being exposed that all your facts are mixed up. To prevent this, it is best to find the primary source, the raw data or live feed, because individuals are liable to form their own critique and assume ideas from primary sources. Although these assumptions may be extremely close to what the data that they interpreted, it can be severely wrong. An example would be when the Ozone layer, the layer of the atmosphere that protects us from most of the sun’s most harmful electromagnetic waves, was reported to have a hole from being deteriorated by CFCs. There was no “hole”, but rather a massive decrease in the Ozone layer. This discrepancy led to an ongoing fight to ban the emission of CFCs for a year, but if the data was not incorrectly assumed by a secondary source, the ban of CFCs should have been immediate. Secondary sources can be reliable at times, but the authors are subject to their own interpretations and may steer off from the original source. It would be better to find the original source and not risk the potential humiliation.
Finding a good source is ideal, but understanding it is even better. This may seem rudimentary, but you do not know every single piece of vocabulary and lingo in the world. The piece of work may include words you have never seen before like in Percival Everett’s re:f (gesture), the word “central septum” in “I smell your sex, pressing through the outer nose, filling my upper and central septum” (Everett 51). The central septum is the piece of cartilage and bone in the nose that separates the two nasal pathways and without this definition, it would have led you to an incomplete observation and therefore an incomplete critique. When this fact is considered, it helps the reader visualize the scent flowing and interacting with their nose. A critique will be incomplete when the observation is incomplete.
The author’s intent is just as important as the piece of work. Similarly to a comedian doing standup comedy, they may make a slightly offensive joke, in which they thought was satire, but if the joke was taken to heart, it would have been offensive. To the comedian, it is comparable to a South Park quote “It’s not mean if it’s hilarious”, but to another, it could just be mean. These polarized points of views, being right or wrong, are similar to the connotation of a critic, attacking without giving consideration of the potential comedy that is there.
There are times when individuals abuse their justification, and they cross the hazy moral line, but their scenario and point of view should be considered. When it is in the case of a comedian doing standup, the audience is expected to hear jokes, some potentially offensive. A comedian typically does not have any harmful intent and they typically joke about most controversial subjects. However, the opposite can be true, but before criticizing the comedian, try to find their intention. Sometimes it will seem clear that they were intending to offend you, but it can all be a misunderstanding and that misunderstanding can lead you to say something hurtful to them.
The line between good and bad is hazy, and which is why it may be difficult in forming an opinion. An opinion can sway on both sides of the line, so it may be helpful to utilize the skills and information that you have to see where you stand. The internet is a great source to see other people’s critiques and find information that you never knew about the topic. Those resources around you can be your structure to extrapolate and critique. The structure may be complicated to find, but even fecal excretions can be structuralized with humor. It is called scatological humor and it can be linked with humor from the most obvious ways, like what can be seen in South Park’s More Crap episode (this episode may not be for people with weak stomachs), to ways that are obvious but hidden, like making fart noises with your armpit. The link is there, and even when it is weak, it can be supported with what you experienced, or what you learned.
Outside sources can help you structuralize an opinion, and it can also prevent you from over-structuralizing. Structure is a concept that our minds created to help bring order and make things easier. It can help create a critique, but it can also hinder one. The idea of structuralism itself has multiple pieces of evidence and can make you believe that structuralism is everywhere, but other outside sources can make you think otherwise when you see the chaos in warring countries or the uncertainty in asylum seekers. Structure can be evident in many aspects of our lives, but it cannot be extrapolated to all aspects of life. There are many other points of views and situations that can knock down the structure you had, but instead of them discouraging you, you can factor them in as a counter or supporting argument. A critique can be built off opposing views even when they break down your point of view.
A critique should be concise, but it should be thoroughly supported. People say to keep things short and simple, but at times, it will lead to confusion and miscommunication. Even when all the suggestions above are considered, your critique should not be a short ultimatum. It will cause a lack of understanding of what you said because people will not know what you know or think, and they will criticize the lack of detail even if they agree with you. Keeping it too short and simple will also cause misunderstanding because the English language is very complicated. You can think that in your head it came out crystal clear and there should be no other way another person should have come to a different conclusion, but a comma, a pause, or a slight overexaggerating can change what you meant to its complete opposite. A lack of detail can cause much more miscommunication than you think.
Criticism is a cycle that improves both parties. Many different flawed criticisms were analyzed and with each flaw critiqued, it was a step closer to becoming a better critic. Criticism can be improved by being open to another point of views and finding a new piece of information. The internet provides for endless resources, but this vast quantity is not the problem, the quality is. With all the information in the world, a critique can be endless, but keeping it too simple will cause misunderstanding. Criticizing will continue to further improvement.