As a writer myself, I'm wondering how subjective vs objective they all are. I've decided to ask students to put their names on the LAST page so I can read the papers they have to write, without knowing who they are. I tend to want some to do better than others. Do professional editors in the publishing business do the same? If they read a familiar name...do they automatically assume, which creates a false positive in what they read? Or, can they be truly objective no matter what? As I try to defend and define parts of my dissertation, I'm thinking of the surprising emotional ties that I have to what I'm working on. I know what and why I want to do what I'm doing. The objective (or is she?) reviewer had questions and asked for certain changes. The inner child defended with a chip the size of Texas. The critical researcher (forced to grow up, be a grown up, and face reality).....has accepted the challenge to write so clearly, there will be no questions asked again.
We are all critical of each other. Can we do so from the POV of love for other humans & empathy toward their struggle to convey what they hoped when they wrote what we're reading? Or, are we quick to hate, to judge, to slash & burn in the spirit of being able to just say whatever we want? Ricky Gervais did that during the Golden Globes. He's a funny guy & i appreciate his talent as an actor. However, I thought he was just mean and to me, that is not entertaining or funny. People said, 'but actors deserve his comical POV, that they are all egotistical rich people who can afford to be made fun of'. How do we know that for sure? How do we ever know for sure how each individual person will take a critique of their work or their person?
And, if we put ourselves in their shoes, would we welcome the negativity? Grow from it? Embrace it? Or, would we be offended by it? I personally am sick of people being rude, or mean, or nasty just because they can. What's the point in it? What part of our humanity allows us to think that this is OK? When I read a book, like it or not, I try to find what I like in it. I try to be fair. I try to walk in the shoes of the person creating the work. If I'm feeling mean (and as a human being, we all are at times), I simply don't say anything at all. It's not fair to my own character and it's not fair to the artist trying to produce their best work.
So, why do I want to try to keep this blog going? I'm not a tough as nails critic. I'm not a fire breathing loud mouthed dragon, trying to put someone else down in order to make my own candle burn more brightly. I'm not even sure if I could forge my own career as a fiction writer exclusively. I'm a human being with a passion for trying to bring back the positive. I walk in the light of love for wanting to be better. I want others to feel that there are people out there who really care about them. We don't have to be ass kissers in order to let someone know we admire their work. We don't have to prove ourselves to others with words only the kids in the Scripps National Spelling Bee would know. We just have to put ourselves in the place of the artist & try to find what we like. What we do or don't like are completely subjective, no matter what. Bottom line.
Advice to the artist: Love what you do. Be the character. State the story with the passion that you're feeling. It'll be good.
Advice to the critical world we live in and all who write about what others are writing: Remember that you are one with that writer above all else. We deserve a higher quality of life than to stoop so low as to be mean spirited or condemning of others, just because.
Humility is a quality that I admire. If our editors and critics can be humble, while also offering a kind and gentle critique.....our genre will gain in ample strides. If we stay in the darkness of petty, mean-spirited low brow jabs....we will not evolve as a field, as people or as artists. Stay to the lights...that is good juju.
Karen
