The critic, the interpreter, the wanker.1 How I despise these know-it-all hypocrites. Always giving their opinion where it's not wanted, forcing it upon you, and assuming that you value their words, but very rarely, are they ever actually right. A thing of beauty, intricately woven, written with poise, painted so delicately, taking anywhere from an hour to a year to complete, can be destroyed by 15 minutes of writing by some two-bit hack, that rather then go out and make something of themselves, they spend their lives viciously dismantling all that others create. For a critic, beauty is merely a way of shattering people's dreams to make up for their inadequacies; your failure is their success. Yes they dress it up with humor and witticisms, but in the end it is what it is: criticism of your work.
Criticism has been around since the dawn of time. God was the first critic of course. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah, God, did not like it, he told them they were wrong and nobody listened so he burnt the towns to ashes.2 I was not actually present at the time, but I hear it was a hot time had by all. You just can’t argue with a critic that has the power to destroy everything. The real problem began when people began to criticise. They then attributed to themselves the title of ‘critic,’ meaning they saw themselves as powerful enough to pass judgment on others. In this respect it can be said that they saw themselves as gods.3
Now the planet is so overrun with critics that actual people are very hard to find. It is a common factor of life that one person can feel better by making others feel bad, but only a completely egotistical prat would actually make that their profession. You cannot even call it a profession, as it requires no real skill. No, it is merely an occupation and that suits critics perfectly as all it really does is occupy their time until they find something of value to do.
We can forgive the critic many things, but the main thing we cannot forgive is that they are usually wrong in their criticisms. Many is the time they have pronounced something pure and utter trash only to find the public absolutely adore the work. Take for example the film, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Now this film was attacked by every mainstream critic the second it hit the box office. The public, yes the proud and gullible public, they believed the critics and did not see the film when it was first realised, but today in practically every major city including Sydney there are screenings of this film every Friday night at around midnight. I have been present at one of these screenings and people dress up, get up and re-enact the entire film while it screens behind them. Not really my idea of fun, but they appeared to love every second of it. Other films that should have sunk without a trace the critics rave about, take for example the film Titanic, Spielberg’s version of course. Despite the rave reviews I have yet to find one person who loved every aspect of the film, the main complaint being that there was too much water and no intermission. If you bladder did not burst you might have been fortunate enough to witness Jack’s death, as for myself and everyone else, we were in the toilet.
Critics incorporate tacky slogans like Margaret and David’s star ranking from At the movies, or Siskil and Ebert’s two thumbs up system. Even the Wall Street Journal gives film reviews. Now I’m sure they are great with stock and bonds, but are they really qualified to tell me was a good film is. Siskil and Ebert I’ve heard of many times, but I’ve only actually seen one of their reviews. That was for The Horseman on the Roof. Now I haven’t seen the film, but I’m sure you’ve spotted the same inconsistency I have. A roof cannot support a horse, therefore our horseman, would be horseless and so just a man on a roof. I don’t know whether Siskil and Ebert missed this, but they still gave it two thumps up. I don’t recommend hunting it down at your local beta cord store, I think every copy has been burnt.
We all know the excuse critics use to validate their vagrant destruction of your creation: to help you improve. They believe you won’t know you are wrong until someone else tells you. While this is true it is also cruel especially if you are already aware of your faults. Both these types of criticisms are valid, because there is room for improvement and they are criticising you for your own benefit. It is the selfish critic I despise. The ones that cares nothing for your creation or you; the ones that seek only to destroy the creative flow. These are the god-like critics; they feel they are above the rest of us lowly mortals. Let’s look at the novelist critic, yes some critics’ span more than one field; it appears people can know nothing about many things now days. The novelist critic attacks a finished novel, the writer can no longer improve that book and the next one cannot be similar to it so any criticism placed on the novel is done solely to sell the product or to hinder sales. Occasionally the write or the publicist can employ the critic to give them better sales. This may or may not have been done with the novel The Secret, I have no proof as such but that book was certainly not Oprah-worthy, and I don’t even hold Oprah that high. Other such novelists can employ critics to give them a bad review, because we all know popular books are never considered to be the novel of the decade. I don’t know why this is so, it just is. Other critics, such as Margaret and David review for the purpose of gaining TV ratings from their competitors. This is beneficial because they review things you would never have come across in mainstream publication and film, it is also annoying because the items under review at very hard to locate if you actually find them interesting. One good thing about David and Margaret is that they rarely agree on anything, so going into the film you’ve seen reviewed does not biased you because you still have no idea what it is even about. Critics have no loyalties, David and Margaret swapped networks, they moved from SBS to the ABC and still act as if nothing has happened. Yes they are still on a community based broadcast, but how long till their pockets get empty and they start seeing stars in the big networks. No loyalty at all.
The internet has widened the field allowing anyone to take on the role of critic or reviewer as they so light-heartedly put it. Why say reviewer instead of critic? One reason only, because it does not sound like your sole intent is to crush someone’s creative juices. Site such as web log, live journal and writing.com allow the lowly mortal to review the work of others. These reviewers, however, are usually writers themselves and that is how they justify their right to review. Their work too, is up for scrutiny. The real critic, the one I detest does not put themselves up for judgment, they are not creative. They do not wish to be vilified by the public. Why not? Because after all the dirt they have dished up on others, it is unlikely they’d get a pleasant review and because they cannot create. They have no artistic talent and it is these people we turn to, we apparently value their opinion, why? Don’t answer that, I don’t want to know. Why is their opinion more important than our own, than my own? So many questions and I don’t know the answers. One thing is certain; we will go on listening to these people, believing what they say and passing that information onto others.
I am aware of course that this piece of creative flow is entirely hypocritical. How can I justify the problem of the critic without criticising them and then how can I stop myself becoming one of them? I cannot. To unmask the demon I must bare the mask myself, how else can I truly understand their ways. So yes, I’ve known the harshness of hurting others with my words and yes I have been wrong many times and no doubt will be wrong many more. I have tried to be honest in my criticisms, though being an excellent deceptionist has made it rather hard. I have very little moral fibre which made it quite easy to take on the role of a critic. I try to avoid focusing on myself, it is so much easier to find fault in others so the position of the critic is quite perfect, but I do have some moral fibre and I just can not bring myself to completely rip apart someone else’s work unless it is utter crap or unless I bare some unobvious insignificant grudge against that person. Guilt always gets the best of me in the end; very few critics survive if they feel guilt. Guilt is what you feel when you offend people, I can’t handle culpability, not many of us can, even those who seem to be able to are usually pining up inside dealing with what they have done to others, but critics seem immune. Their actions can make or break someone, but do they think about it? Do their thoughts on that alter what they reveal to the world? I wonder.
I may sound biased in my opinion, but I have no reason to be, it's a very rare moment when I leave myself open to "constructive" criticism. Another trait I share with the critic, yes I’m a coward, though I am slowly trying to overcome this fault. I've seen it happen to so many others. We all criticise the work of others. I know I do, but I do not put it up on display for countless others to view it and I certainly do not pretend to be an official on the matter. The critic, usually old and senile, though I do not wish to generalize, saunters around, playing cock of the walk, pretending to know what they’re talking about, taking pride only when quashing someone else’s hopes and dreams. They are devious, cunning folk, never hesitating before stabbing their best friend in the back, then sucking up the second their friend is facing them, and they all seem to have the same sly, evil smirk; hideous. These people disgust me, finding joy in the suffering of others. I find it quite sad that someone can devote their life, their entire being, to causing misery, what self-centered, egotistical prats. I'm sure they are nice people, far beneath that bitter, sinister exterior, these cruel blood-sucking leaches, festering in the dark, must have some friends, though who would admit to it; no self-respecting person I know. The critics lead lonely lives, surrounding themselves with pain and suffering, hoping that if they see people that are worse off, they can begin to feel better about them selves. Do I have proof of this? Of course I do not. I pity the critic, as do many others, but we must stop this now. We must, for their own good, begin to criticize the critic, pull them apart and analyze them. Reflect onto them what they have done to us for so long. If you want the truth seek it out for yourself, no ones opinion is more important to you than your own and at least then you will be able to live with yourself. If we can begin to treat them like shit, perhaps the knowledge might dawn on them, that their opinion is insignificant, unwarranted and unwanted. It is only then that they can hope to join society as respected pillars of the community. Critics are not a dying breed, they are mating and they are multiplying. They are spreading over the planet like a plague, if we don't do something to stop them soon, it will be too late. Do the world a favor, kill a critic today.4
1. I am aware the word wanker is probably inappropriate, but hey, prove me wrong.
2. Any similarities to any religions, living or dead are purely coincidental.
3. I have not asked any of them if they see themselves as gods, I just assumed.
4. Don’t kill anyone. Violence is bad.5
5. These points I feel needed to be explained but did not quite fit into the subject matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment