Reviewers, Critics, and Literati

Recently, I’d read a post about critics, and it kinda struck a nerve. Though I had a bit to say in my comments, I’d not discoursed on my thoughts about the need for critics. I thought it, too, might take of a bit of time, then, yesterday, thought, huh, why not post about it.

Much of my comments centered on the ideal versus the practiced. In practice I’ve found that most critics outside of my university days seem to attack and tear down, rather than try to really understand and probe a piece of writing and its meaning (of course, that could also be a sad reflection of the state of publishing…but I’m thinking not…). Again, I admit, I’m not what I’d consider “well read.” I read a fair amount, and even widely, but I’m certainly no Marc Schuster. Now, I have no literary degrees (B.S. in Physics with an astronomy emphasis; minor in German, though was one class shy of a dual minor, in Philosophy), am largely self-taught in the world of writing, but I have a reasoning, critical mind. Though I never “used” my degree in the outside world, it taught me something most valuable:  critical thinking.

Okay, it taught me all kinds of theory and cool, astronomical stuff, but it also taught me how to think.

And all the philosophy courses I took also honed my critical facilities, though, in truth I must admit that I’ve always been one to take up a discussion and debate my way in, around, and out of paper (and plastic!) bags. I love discussion. Love thinking. In high school, one of my nicknames was “the Philosopher.”

So, when it came to others foisting their unbidden opinions on me, I’ve never been one interested in them [in this respect:  which books I should read and what they’re “about”]. I felt I would make up my own mind on whatever it was I wanted to read, or watch, or listen to, and not have someone else hand me their opinion on the matter. After all, that was what book covers were for, right? I also didn’t want to be influenced by their opinion when getting into whatever it was I read or watched.

But, this is a multi-edged sword (just run with it…).

Creativity.

Creativity is rampant and part and parcel to life. Wherever there is anything, someone, or All That Is, will create a variance to said “standard.” It is the way of life. So, if someone—anyone—does anything in life, there will be another out there quick to comment. And this means for good or ill.

Time.

In an age where we all actually have the luxury of time like never before, we find ourselves inundated with ever-more leisurely pursuits. We have, perhaps the argument can be made, too many choices. So…we subcontract out. We allow others to do some or all of the work for us. Reviewers, critics, friends, Romans, and countrymen/women.

Human Nature.

It is Human Nature to look at the world and impart our perspective, our interpretation to it. You might say it is our fundamental right to do so. It is what being Human is all about. Living life. And in living life, we have to make decisions. We have to reason, conclude, interpolate, summarize, and assimilate. All this and more. It is…what Humans do.

Needs.

One might well say that “needs,” by definition, are not relative. They’re must-haves, or they’d be called, well, something else—like wants. But, in the realm of “needs,” there is the innate need to grow in whatever it is we’re doing. If we’re building a mouse trap—we strive to build a better mouse trap. Creating a book—write The Great <insert nation> Novel. But while most to many of these needs perhaps orbit around individuals, I feel there is a larger, gestalt, or en masse need of Human Nature to actually better itself. And when anyone individually does anything…it translates into or over to The Whole. Since Humanity is made up of all of us myopic individuals, how can our actions—however perceived as minute—not affect us all.

So, okay, I’ve rambled on here, but how does it all impact the need for reviewers, critics, or the literati in general?

We are not perfect. We’re Human. But, subconsciously or consciously…we try. For the most part, I argue, we mean well. When we attempt to wrap our heads around concepts, ideas, to then try to express those to others not so innately inclined, we help them to understand those same concepts. Help them to learn and to grow. In the process, we’re expressing portions of our beings “built” to do whatever it is we’re doing.

Reviewers, critics, or any other “–ati,” are expressing portions of their beings that beg for attention (not “Hollywood” attention, but “physical, in-this-moment,” Life expression). They are expressing the creativity of life itself in examining life itself, and turning that back on itself in a learning and growing capacity. Even the much ballyhooed Amazon reviewers are doing the exact same thing, “though with smaller words.”

All—each and every one of us—are trying to figure out what it means to live and to grow in our physical existence, how to best express ourselves. Now, in the process, some will come off as abrupt, condescending, arrogant. Those involve more personal learning experiences for the parties involved, whether as the instigator, direct target of a review, or as a much-removed party simply reading the review “from afar” (it will affect you—why is that? How will it? What emotions are invoked?). I do believe in the metaphysical (I studied the philosophy of religion in my university coursework, as well as on my own), and everything is tied to everything else. That’s my opinion; it doesn’t have to be yours. But when it comes to declaring whether or not critics are a necessity, you might as well debate whether or not a flower is needed.