Criticism and Published Material

fearn · 31st May 2006, 03:27 PM

Speaking as another author (although not on swords), I'll respectfully disagree with Valjhun's opinion that criticism is great.

Criticism is simply criticism. On the bad side, it can be a cover for personal (aka ad hominem) attacks, it can be simply wrong, or it can be useless. My favorite example of the last one was a comment I received on my master's thesis draft all too often from one person: "It's wrong. Fix it." If I was lucky, he would at least point an arrow to what offended him, without saying why it did. Given that there were all sorts of possible wrong choices but only one right choice, it took months to get what he wanted. Another reviewer got through the same process by sitting down with me for 30 minutes and explaining what he saw as problems and what he thought I needed to do to fix them. That 30 minutes vs. months dichotomy stuck in my mind. But I digress...

On the positive side, criticism identifies legitimate problems, and ideally (in my opinion), it offers better alternatives. Personally, this last is my favorite, although it can be misinterpreted as egotism on the part of the critic. All too often, something might be objectionable, but there might not be a better option. A critic making the effort to come up with a better alternative can discover that, and shape his comments accordingly.

Finally, criticism can stem from an honest difference in opinion, as Rivkin noted. These are fine, although they can get tedious when they are repeated, especially for years (as in many academic battles).

Obviously, I prefer to see more useful criticism, but that's my bias. There's plenty to disagree with here.

My 0.02 cents,

F

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

31st May 2006, 03:27 PM	#10
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Speaking as another author (although not on swords), I'll respectfully disagree with Valjhun's opinion that criticism is great. Criticism is simply criticism. On the bad side, it can be a cover for personal (aka ad hominem) attacks, it can be simply wrong, or it can be useless. My favorite example of the last one was a comment I received on my master's thesis draft all too often from one person: "It's wrong. Fix it." If I was lucky, he would at least point an arrow to what offended him, without saying why it did. Given that there were all sorts of possible wrong choices but only one right choice, it took months to get what he wanted. Another reviewer got through the same process by sitting down with me for 30 minutes and explaining what he saw as problems and what he thought I needed to do to fix them. That 30 minutes vs. months dichotomy stuck in my mind. But I digress... On the positive side, criticism identifies legitimate problems, and ideally (in my opinion), it offers better alternatives. Personally, this last is my favorite, although it can be misinterpreted as egotism on the part of the critic. All too often, something might be objectionable, but there might not be a better option. A critic making the effort to come up with a better alternative can discover that, and shape his comments accordingly. Finally, criticism can stem from an honest difference in opinion, as Rivkin noted. These are fine, although they can get tedious when they are repeated, especially for years (as in many academic battles). Obviously, I prefer to see more useful criticism, but that's my bias. There's plenty to disagree with here. My 0.02 cents, F