Criticism is the best resource to improve something. Played a bad shot, let the veteran criticize you in the newspapers. Made a bad movie, enter, the film critic. Awful pop number, let Rolling Stone pluck your string.
Being a critic takes a lot of practice and a lot of time with the vocation. Like a literature critic, the author’s customer, a reader. I am not a reader, I hardly read two sentences before taking a break. But I’m definitely a critic. Because I love criticising. And today, I shall be criticing readers and the entire concept of reading and more.
There are many kinds of readers. Some read all the time, some sometimes and me. Some read fast, some read smart, some slow, some intently, and me. There are selective readers, pop readers, connoisseurs of literature, comic book readers, blog followers, people followers, combinations of these, and me. There are also seasoned readers, wannabe readers, genuinely trying readers and me, and some other miscellaneous types of readers (God are there a lot of readers! And me, of course.)
All these readers have opinions about everything they read. The question is, are some of them qualified to have opinions about what they read? Is there a structure to reading? A method? Does every reader follow a protocol that lies underneath the coolness and creativity? What if the protocol asked the reader to keep reading through the boring parts full of prepositions and twisted pronouns to eventually reach the wonderful world of interjections and rhetorics? How important is it to be a good reader to extract the best out of a text? It is as important as the text being good itself. It is important to be a good reader, to extract information out of mediocre text, or extract entertainment out of mediocre narration.
In the same vein, it is important to be a good receiver. At a restaurant for example, if they don’t use Serrano peppers but use Jalapenos instead, and you create a ruckus about it, it is you who’s spoiling the evenings of fifty other people along with yours, while knowing that there’s really no difference between the peppers except their cool names. A stressed out call-center will be more cordial if the callers are polite. Bad movies are always unintentional comedies. Bad pop songs are great for an annoying prank.
Critics generally speak and lead to constructive processes. Being a bitch and complaining about everything will lead to a less happier life for the critic, not the artist. “Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see…” A little broader mind and accomodating consumer will always do cordial business. And the waiter won’t spit in his chilli. All the best.
hmmm
A good writer can write a text, which can be interpreted in 10 different ways, and still stay true the essential text.
A good reader can read text, and interpret it in 10 different ways, along with the essential text.
As for Critics, they are meant to better the party by giving out suggestions, instead they just dive straight into complaining about why the party has no chips and dip.
Or as you’d complain about, Serrano peppers.
I like the “and me” part
“to extract information out of mediocre text, or extract entertainment out of mediocre narration”
This is important indeed..
But now I wonder, am I supposed to comment? :-/
@ Ashmita
Yes I agree. But criticising and disagreeing is just too much fun to let up. And Jalapenos are blander than Serrano! Almost as if they’ve been engineered to not be spicy. They just add color to food.
@ Preeti
Yes you are suppsoed to comment. And visit the page as much as possible. I like high values on the hit counter
There should be critics for critics too..And perhaps critics for those critics too..
I am open to salaries upward of 5.2 LPA
For each level of hierarchy that I handle. More seriously, critic critics are required. It helps if critics broaden critics’ minds and make the process a little more encouraging.
Did some one point a finger at you for criticising?
@ Pratap
No. I like criticizing, so that’s what I’m doing here.