Criticism

Criticism is more often understood as censure. “Don’t be so critical,” we hear people say, by which is meant, “Don’t be so judgmental.” Critics are therefore expected to pass a value judgment on the work they criticize. But this is not exactly what critics should be doing. In my opinion, the critic’s primary task is exegesis. The critic explicates; she excavates layer by layer like an archeologist and exposes the significance of the work under consideration that a casual reader or viewer is likely to overlook or ignore. Lesser works are less likely to fall in the critic’s hands because they provide less matter of interest to expose. Therefore, it is by not choosing to discuss certain works that the critic affirms the merit of the work she selects for discussion and by default belittles the works she ignores. It is at once nasty and futile, and totally uncalled for, to censure a work in publication, except when it is necessary to counter the prevailing but false favorable reviews. Negative criticism is useful most of all in the private discussion with the author of the work when the latter is disposed to listen, as in the teacher’s “crit” of a student’s work. Above all, the critic should eschew writing about a work she dislikes, or feel disinclined to like, by her personal predilection. Reasons for liking a work brings out more in the work; they interpret. Reasons for disliking a work may explain the critic’s taste but not the work’s merit.