Critics. Hated by large swathes of the creative community, seen as jealous wannabes who want to tear down what they can't achieve or simply feared as the blade-wielding boogie men with the ability to slash a creative's hamstrings with the merest phrase. Trashing what they despise while blindly lauding what they see as worthy – either way painted in the pejorative. You know the way most of the adult population feels about Justin Bieber*.
It's safe to say critics can be described as maligned or fucking detested. People just don't seem to take to them, even outside of the creative community. If a critic or a reviewer says something a member of the public disagrees with, they become that whiny voice that you just want to put full stop of a slap on. I admit there are some television reviewers I feel that way about.
I don't hate critics, far from it, I think they perform a necessary service. They give guidance and help us pick our way through the whole 99% percent of bullshit swamp writing, films, television and games inevitably are. A good critique or review** is like an enthusiastic sprite hopping ahead of you, showing you the safe path, a bit like Dungeon Master only less fucking insufferable. You get a fine rewarding and fun experience when you take their advice.
Let's be honest, not all reviews are good†, and this, I think, is where people get the wrong impression about critics and reviewers. A negative review can be seen as a bad review and paranoia strikes, so you get situations like Kevin Smith having a big hissy fit because no one likes his films. Just because critics are lambasting what you're creating doesn't mean there's some kind of conspiracy against you, maybe what you should be doing is stop being lazy and defensive and take on board what they're saying, like a grown up, ya big baby. A good critique or review gives you that kind of feedback, except maybe the big baby bit‡.
People do tend to focus on hatchet jobs, though. Yes, they are amusing in a mean-spirited way, but they don't often help very much. I'm not saying every review of a piece of work should be handled like it's made of wafer-thin porcelain, that would be stupid, but in the midst of the chainsaw putdowns, maybe there should be some kind of rope thrown that hasn't been tied into a noose. Being a colossal cunt to a film or a novel or game might be easy and a lot of fucking fun, particularly if it's a real piece of shit§ it ultimately hurts creative community as a whole. It might seem that a lazy, sloppy mess of whatever deserves a whipping, and it does, but only up to a point. The carrot needs to go along with a stick, and not just to insert into the orifices of the offending creator.
I think it basically comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what the critic is – and that includes the critics themselves, sadly. It seems that some critics think their reviews must only concentrate on one aspect of what they are reviewing, an accusation that can be most easily levelled at literary criticism with the funny, but scathingly mean Hatchet Job of the Year Award that feels like it's applauding bludgeoning dickheadery. It feels like a race to see who can deliver the most withering verbal dagger possible, even seeing themselves as the final authority in all things within their sphere of knowledge. Not terrible helpful or educational for anyone, despite the entertainment value§§. So the creators kind of go to war on the critics, withholding things for review, or worse, paying tame critics to give glowing reviews to everything they put out, which is just as damaging and has become something of a standard, sadly. Creators and the people financing them have to learn bad reviews happen and bulking the reviews for shit products with glowing reviews only results in a decline in quality§§§, and so money.
I think the ideal review, from the perspective of the consumer, would involve two or three different critics of wildly different tastes all reviewing the same thing. At least then you'll know there's a chance one of them will share your taste in whatever. Not practical, but I didn't say it would be. The other alternative is not to rely on one reviewer and go looking around this wonderful internet thing you've probably been told about and find a bunch of reviews to gauge whether you want to put money down for whatever creative thing it is you want.
Ultimately creativity doesn't grow in a vacuum and releasing your darling creation into the world exposes it to a whole wilderness of opinions. At that's all critics and reviewers are espousing – opinions. Everybody needs to take a breath and recall that's what it is. It's just a load of opinions that you can take onboard or ignore. Just like this post, really.
* Yes, flying close to the wind, there. Risking the wrath of screeching mob of mid-pubescent girls. Don't worry, nothing's going to happen. People need to read the fucking blog first. And if you hope something happens to me, fuck you, your name's on the the list. As soon as I start my list.
** As in well-written, not positive, come on, keep up.
† See above. I don't want to be accused of not being clear. I might be accused of being shit at blogs, but I'll avoid being accused of lacking clarity. In theory, at least. I like those theories that make me look good.
‡ Sometimes.
§ Like The Human Centipede. Not offensive, just slow, badly made and virtually plotless. What I would say to the maker of that travesty is perhaps having ideas like that as central to the film isn't a good idea, perhaps as something used in the background.
§§ Do I seem to be sending mixed messages. Probably, but I can't deny a really well-written, witty, nasty barb can be funny.
§§§ Then there's the farcical situation of paid reviews on Amazon, which is just sad. Stop trying to confuse people into buying your sub-par shit, you fuckers!
Will
No comments:
Post a Comment