Destructive Criticism

Oh, the things you can say on Twitter to get you in trouble. It’s really hard to mention that everyone online thinks they know everything. When one person is being harassed, it opens up to more debate about what is being thrown at the person who said the original tweet. The problem is a lot of reviewers, mostly readers, think they have the upper hand when it comes to fiction. Yes, they do buy books, and they do care about what they read, but they think in most cases, they are the arbiters of what good taste means. This is when the problem of having to remain open about learning what others tend to think is better. If someone is not going to hear what you have to say, it’s best to not talk to them. I made this mistake by opening up with “Criticism should be balanced” and it’s a rule. I guess this person must have become mad since she said, “Show me where this says this” and I should have just ignored her. This person wanted to fight and I felt like proving in a debate that I would not back down. This is the problem of having too much say online. People can attack you from any perspective and it won’t be “balanced.” If readers only prey on an author, leaving nasty comments in their amazon section, this is not balanced criticism. This is just shit posting, signs of “cancel culture” in the wings.

Balanced criticism requires you to know what the unspoken rules of fiction are. The writer is why you read them. It’s not because “you want a mirror cast back at you.” If you want a mirror, stand in front of it, and look at yourself. So, when the rules are certainly unclear to most people, they will turn violently against the person who says criticism must be balanced. The reader is selfish, in a way too. They think they have all the answers, and they must impose their BS on the rest of the world. The problem is: everyone’s right, and everyone’s wrong. Mostly they are just wrong, but in a world where we need readers, they can be right too. The problem is that most readers have only one way of thinking, and that’s because they have been spoon fed, or choose to eat only from one buffet tray.

Think about it as a buffet table. Sci-Fi is tofu. Horror is gelatinous cube of protein. Literary fiction is a grilled chicken sandwich. Everything can be consumed, but the problem is, no one truly gains weight when they eat fiction. No fiction is truly ever bad. The worse kind of readers will think they know everything, because they have one way of thinking. It’s a problem when the world thinks they are right, when only a few who have been on both ends of criticizing novels and being criticized myself. It’s a definition that knows no border, but the problem of having such a limited viewpoint, when having only one perspective, pretending that there are “bad” works of fiction, is why most readers rarely get the idea that they are wrong, to begin with.

People think they can criticize a novel because it’s different. Yes, they can, but they have to know that the writer who is writing differently probably has tried commercial fiction and it’s never worked out. You have to want to write the book that you want to read. Criticizing it for being different is not bad, it’s not illegal. The problem is nobody has to believe the reader either or reviewer who holds his phallic opinion on the subject. The idea that someone is already shit posting on author’s pages just because they don’t like it, is a proactive form of harassment. Destructive criticism is when the negativity is unbalanced, and when the criticism is not based in the work that they have read, and they fail to provide proof that the writer is bad, but merely acting from an emotional response, they have no real opinion that can be taken seriously.

The problem with literature being too much of a free for all to attack, makes the attacker seem like a violent oppressor of sorts. Opinions are not illegal. Some good criticism has helped me look back at my work and see the errors. Destroying someone’s life because you can’t seem to handle their opinion is what these attackers do all the time. Yes, we all have been overly “critical” at time but does this mean we right?

No. When concerning another’s work of fiction, we are rarely right at all. Trying to ruin someone’s life because you don’t believe in what they say is considered a good thing. When you approach someone with “your feelings aren’t facts” that pisses off everyone from here to China. South Park’s Band in China is one of them too. Destructive criticism is when it provides no real substance to the idea of the argument, and it’s just destroying the person and then targeted harassment leads into that topic of discussion. The reader, when bested by the author online, proves that they will act out in accordance with their own perception. They don’t want to see it from the author’s perspective, and maybe the author’s, sometimes, don’t want to see it from their end too. Mostly, in the insult culture of the Internet, an author must stand up to a hater and show them they won’t back down in their beliefs. Balance is what makes good criticism meaningful.

Destructive Criticism, has nothing to do with the work an author makes at all. The reader screams “Allah Akbar” and they put a bounty on the writer’s head. Yes, they can make fun or debate all they want, and the problem is, posturing is acrid and smells of dysfunction. It’s the idea that they have no real priorities at all, but they want the writer to write exactly how the reader feels. Most authors don’t feel the same way as readers do.

The writer must be their own entity, and the reader must exist for them. If they dislike something of another writer, fine, but don’t form coalitions to destroy people’s lives when you have no other life than but to attack people for their opinions. Wonder why someone hasn’t responded to you? It’s because they have blocked you, and the reader is still mad at that. Yes, it has become easy to bring people down for what they say, meaning twitter mobs.

But when the destruction of a writer’s life is started by a comment that he has made, it only means that it’s comment on what the difference between the self-destructive reader who thinks they are on a “jihad” in their opinion, and trying to destroy someone is easy, but most of it is because you don’t have to respond.

It’s a relentless persistence when the criticism is not only destructive, but it doesn’t allow any growth or change. They can’t look back on their criticism and take it back once it turns into a “jihad.” They are essentially butt hurt that there rantings are not taken as gospel. It’s hard for people to admit this. Honesty is a good thing in reviewing work. But when it becomes destructive to the point you pray for the writer to die and you have forgotten about their work, it’s become not a question of how good or bad literature is. It’s a witch hunt. It’s not about raising good points, but trying to start a mob to destroy what you say and discredit what you say and mean. If I write something totally offensive, I mean to be that way.

I will not apologize for how I feel or act. It’s a problem when readers have to commit to such idiotic beliefs. Socialism, for one. It’s fine for people to shit on my books, based on the fact that they do not like it. That’s freedom of speech. If I can learn from it, it’s fine. Some people sound like the adults in Charlie Brown and all we hear is the “wah wah” is the idea that they have their beliefs, but writers will work at their own pace. If people hate an entertainer they will pounce on them.

I think they can change, but this is clown world we are living in. Cancel Culture runs amok. Writing is about letting all the voices fall to the ground, and raise your own opinion higher. If people want to criticize, it’s fine. But the cancel culture attitude hovering over artists is that we can’t have an opinion over what people say to us. Yes, people are allowed to have opinions, and artists must make their art over the general opinions of what people say. Readers don’t control artists, and artists do not control readers. If people think that artists are a cancer, you have really not studied what makes art influential. Destructive criticism is across both sections of politics.

If destructive criticism must be taken seriously, Cancel Culture is the heart of what this issue truly means. Destructive Criticism can be met with humor and wit and intelligence. That can destroy Destructive Criticism, and help criticism grow out from within. It also means seeing what people see from the other side of the page. Humor is how people can grow, but no matter the problem, humor can always deflate. Anger makes you more attractive to the victim culture. If you say something humorous and you gain a hateful following, it must mean you have done something right.

That is the bright side of destructive criticism. You are the center of the hateful mobs eyes. You hold them in your hand. If they want to destroy you, accept it and laugh even harder. The point of destructive criticism is that these people aren’t trying to debate. The ranters don’t want to hear what you have to say anyway. The problem with what you see as ranting is that it can’t be based out of the problem in what you want to see anyway. They don’t want to hear what you have to say, but they want to destroy you from the inside. But it’s easier to laugh at someone and tell them in a grown up voice, “I can’t debate you unless you are going to stop lecturing me.” No one wants to be lectured, but if they are trying to use your words against you, just be an adult. Millennials do not like the word “adult” but it can be fun when you meet an ignorant person trying to critique you and what you know.

It’s fun to watch them devolve into the simplest form of ranting you can see. They want to rally people against you, but you see what you have to do. Stay calm and know that you can be the bigger person. You can ignore it, but it does make you wonder what you want to say to these people. They don’t want to listen, they just want to argue. Be the adult. Use phrases as “That’s not an argument” or mock them. In the online world, you have to stand your ground. You have to realize what you want to do, and is remain calm. “Move on them with age and experience before you start the sentence” as GZA said on Grandmasters.

The problem is that you can’t really debate the people you find loathsome, but in a way, you have to stand your ground. Destructive criticism can hurt the person criticizing you. It’s the realization that destructive criticism can not only hurt the person you are criticizing less, and hurt you more. Some are expert debaters and they don’t feel like this is the problem. It never is. Debaters know what they know and they are going to convince people through persuasion. Manipulation is making fun of people and thinking everyone is going to take your side. The problem is that you don’t really have the same level of expertise that most people have. It’s not like you wanted to fail when attacking the person, it means that the one who you want to afflict becomes the champion. You outwitted them by staying true to your argument and no matter what they say, it will never compress yourself to the swelling of the argument between you and the person trying to destroy you.

Diversion is not a part of the same thing, but you have to stick to what you want to say, and they will ultimately combust because you are trying to compose your thoughts first. Destructive Criticism is when someone is trying to attack you, but they look worse in result. It’s like ina. Video game, when you shoot the bad guy, but the bullet that kills your opponent bounces back and hits you, it means you are merely just going to hurt yourself in the process. The problem is that people think they have already learned so much that they can about you in a tweet. It doesn’t comprise what you have as a human being, and no matter what you have, it’s the problem of not knowing when to back down from an argument.

The idea that you have to continue the argument is flawed too. It’s a problem when you have to annoy the person even further, but they are just responded back with the same thoughts. You must keep your thoughts the same. Destructive criticism, without proper knowledge, always backfires.

The problem is that Destructive Criticism is like the tarot card, Knight of Cups. If someone is holding the criticism too personally, it will work out in the favor of the attacked, but if the attacker has enough wisdom to walk away and not pursue when the damage has been done, it can hurt them too. What Destructive Criticism proves is that it hurts everyone, but sometimes the attacker more. It’s not like there is a complete profile of Destructive Criticism, but it does make sure that you are merely not just the wronged, but if no one agrees with the accuser that you have done something wrong, it could make sure that the Destructive Criticism could fall by the way side.

If they had any good nature, they would just leave people alone, but people feel the need to express their opinion, no matter good or bad. What the problem is that people need to go back to finding a hobby that they can think about and forget about the idea of destroying people’s lives. The problem of associating such a power against people is what makes it a circular firing squad is that the accuser thinks he is doing good, but he is often wrong with most of their opinions. The problem associated with Destructive Criticism is that it doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. As long as the Internet is around, people will constantly try to destroy one another. It’s apart of a human foible. Even if they hide their identity, they are the reason why most of the attackers think they can tell people what they want, but it’s easy to avoid Destructive Criticism, just don’t respond.

In summary, Destructive Criticism can be avoided with balanced criticism. No one should ever apologize for what they say. Criticism should not be silenced, even if you disagree with it, and block them like adults. Sometimes, Destructive Criticism can hurt the accuser, and not just the victim. Finally, the best way to combat Destructive Criticism is when you can ignore it.

 

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Recent Comments



    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner