How to be a BookBecoming a book
Becoming a reviewer
Critique is a condemned and condemned action, because every case when a critic raises his stick or hits the keypad, he has (or should) a ill sense of malice. Critique is a parasitic process that is not only dependent on the activities of others (most work that one client does not do or designs the building), but also on the greater activities of others.
Before you can make a movie or make a movie, it may take a few weeks or years to make a movie or make a movie, a few lessons or a few working nights to make a reviewer (a long and serious research is another thing overall). Reviews, however fast they are written, may well have an awkward sense of aphorism or clarity that is lacking in the work under examination (criticism is at best an aesthetical philosophical practice in a journal or is in itself a literature performance).
Adverse critique is as much an imperative of the nerve system, the mind, as part of the work of the critic, a duty to the reader. However, the fact that negativism is used both to salvage one's own mind and to gain one's own living, is all the more cause for opponents to question their own judgements, to regard their own responses as a decisive part of what is under their own observation, reassessment and scepticism.
It is essential for reviewers to recognise their work as the individual company that it is. When critique is the transformation of the second ( "the judgement of the critic") into the primordial, then the judgement should be evaluated again. Critique, if it is of any value at all, is above all self-criticism. It' an unpractical and hard thing for reviewers.
It is also a cause why it is inappropriate for selfish critic to strike her chest with proud of the negativity. That is Silverman thinks so, and so does Dwight Garner, who in the Times last weeks written in favour of adverse critique. Quoting and lauding Silvermans posts, Garner says what we need more of now that news paper book sections such as Glacier Shrink and Disappear are magnificent and prevailing and punitive critics who perceive enough to pick out the votes that are important for legitimate commendation, abuse enough to remind us that not everyone gets or earns a Golden Star.
It seems to me evident that a character who appears in the open with his trousers down is prone to severe injury or friendly help, whether his work is good or not. MILLANY may be right (as far as I know) that the knowing that he has a good work makes it easy to bear a resulting act of ferocity with stoical reserve, but that does not warrant the ferocity.
It is certainly true that performers do well to disregard malice and just keep going (Daniel Mendelsohn recently told me on Twitter that Euripide has written "The Bacchae" in reply to his cartoon in Aristophanes' "Thesmophoriazousae"), but reviewers cannot have it both ways - it is naive to think that bad criticism has no influence on the psyche or career of performers, and reviewers should consider what it needs to get away from them.
It' s as stupid to complain about bad critique as it is to complain about snork or joke orarcasm or just simple quirkiness. So we are - so I am - and malice is as inseparably linked to critique as it is to the world of families, government, business, playgrounds and the arts themselves.
The inexorable nature of the arts - their depiction of violence and danger, their enthusiasm for the negatives, the destruction, the repulsion and even their incarnation - is one of their determining characteristics. It is not necessary for a critic to be kind (programmatic kindness is itself a different kind of self-distortion and self-punishment and is at least as hypocritical as self-justifying meanness), but they must know where they are.
There is no special way to criticize, not to use techniques and not to suggest a sound, any more than with music.