Friday, April 22, 2011

Critiquing

I've been spending some time reading book reviews. I often do this after reading a book. I'll read what other people thought of it and see if I agree or disagree. Sometimes people bring up problems with a book that I didn't notice, and it clouds my judgment. Other times I wonder what the heck they are talking about. And still other times, I find their standards so incredibly narrow and subjective, I wonder what the point is in communicating with anyone about what is quality and what is not. I have several issues with the the ways in which people criticize, and I'd like to lay them out here, if I can manage it.

First of all, and I have mentioned this before, anachronisms. I've been reading a piece of historical fiction which makes easy use of modern speech. People complain about anachronisms in historical and fantastical works, as if they are the worst form of writing imaginable, and I have to wonder if these people are out of their minds. Have they read Shakespeare? The characters of the 11th and 12th century spoke in a language that was several centuries outdated in Shakespeare's time, and you expect writers to write like them? Anything that is not horribly convoluted and nearly unreadable in our day is an anachronism, if we're trying to depict the 12th century. One critiquer pointed out a sentence in this book that said, "this place was a real dump," and proceeded to compare such a statement to a medieval knight pulling out a flat screen tv. It's just a stupid way of judging material. The former is a reasonable interpolation of the language of the time into the way we speak today, while the latter is just ridiculous. You really want to read about people who can't speak modern english, jabbering to each other with words we would never use and omitting words that they would never use, despite the perfect functionality of them for communicating to us?

Anyway, I also find that some people complain vigorously about plot constructions or character building or language use, without any clear idea of their own ideal. One commenter will complain that the writing is horrible, without feeling, and bland, while others will praise the same writing as evocative and moving. I have been able to find no discernible standard for these judgments. Some people will complain that there are not enough similes or metaphors, while others complain about the ones they find. Thousands of people read books and think themselves worthy critics, able to objectively and succinctly communicate a proper analysis of this or that work, and yet it all comes out as arbitrary nonsense. It is one thing to say what your own experience of reading was like, but when it comes to criticisms of the author as a professional, people can be incredibly arrogant. Sometimes I agree with the judgments people make, and other times, I want to slap them and shout - "Hey! He's not a bad writer. Maybe you're just a bad reader." People rarely conclude that there must be something wrong with the way they read.

My last yet significant complaint is in the area of character development, especially in the form of "cliches" and "one-dimensional." I rarely hear anyone explain what they mean when or why it bothers them when characters in a book are "one-dimensional" or if they are all cliches. As for cliches, I have to ask what it is they are looking for. What kind of characters do you want to read about? You can complain all you want about the cast of heroic do-gooder, plucky comic relief, bitter rival, self-centered egotist, pious stoic, and angry ruffian, but what are you looking for? Are people under the impression that characters in a story should have no personality, or do they want some kind of ridiculous alternative to the spectrum of human behavior? The fact is that there are people in life who are manipulative people, consistently. There are people who are heroic. There are cynics, optimists, comedians, stoics, egotists, and a plethora of other "cliches," and to write about people who are not any of these things is just stupid. And here's the catch: these same critiquers, who complain about one-dimensional characters, seem to get upset when a character does or thinks anything inconsistent with previous behavior. They want characters who experience a multitude of emotions and are haunted by several competing desires and live complex and difficult lives, but have them do anything out of character and it's the worst character work they've ever read. The obvious problem with this is the irony, but there is more to it. Human beings are not always complex. They are not always experiencing a multitude of emotions, and they often find it difficult to change their behavior. Human beings fall into behavioral patterns which subsist and strengthen over time. The problem is, there is no way to please people. If you explain everything about a character, they'll complain there's no mystery. If you don't, then they'll say things don't make sense. If a character is consistent, he's a cliche. If he's inconsistent, then he's not believable. A villain is either too evil or too weak and wishy-washy. And the worst part is... there's NO STANDARD. There's nothing but headstrong opinion, just dying to be heeded, yearning to be recognized.

And...

it...

drives...

me...

nuts!