In lurking in the comments section on websites, YouTube, and Reddit most critical discussion breaks down because the participants don’t have a shared an agreement or rules governing their interaction. They may have community guidelines of expected civil behavior, but that’s not the same thing as rules for engaging in critical discourse. Three years ago, I started testing the waters of literary criticism. Two years ago, I took a deep breath and dove in headfirst into the deep end. In all that time, I’ve read dozens of books and articles and not once have I seen anyone talk about rules for interaction. It seems like every single reviewer and critic out there is saying what they want, when they want, and putting their thoughts into the world with the attitude of, “Come at me bro!” And critical discourse devolves into the equivalent of a shouting match of who can intelligently poke more holes in another’s premise the fastest. As I’ve explored criticism from both the geek community as well as the literary and academic community, I’ve become more and more convinced of the need for critics to develop a list of “rules of engagement.” That is, a set of guidelines for others to follow in order for critics to know which people in the discussion are acting in good faith and which are just trolling.
I’ve developed The Four Pillars of Criticism as both the “rules of engagement” for The Geek’s Guide to Literary Theory and as a template for other nerds and academics to consider for their own guidelines of interaction. These pillars come from an amalgamation of ideas from more than a dozen books by some of the smartest people writing about writing in the latter part of the 20th Century and the first part of this one as well as my own belief that, like the art itself, discussions of art should serve to enrich the human experience. I understand not everyone feels this way about art or criticism, but that’s how I feel about it. To that end, that’s this website will approach both articles and discussions. For those who don’t like it, feel free to start your own website and make up your own rules.
A final note before I get into The Four Pillars of Criticism: We do not expect everyone to agree on everything posted on this site. The greatest art sometimes comes from a place of disagreement. To paraphrase something one of my Lit Theory teachers said, “Most of us come to writing to solve the problems of previous generations of writers.” However, with The Geek’s Guide to Literary Theory, I want to encourage people to consider how they engage in discussion at least as much as what they chose to discuss. We expect everyone to consider at least three of these pillars when interacting with articles and others on this site.
CURIOSITY
This is the first pillar. Without true curiosity, what’s the point in exploring art in the first place? Now, curiosity is a double-edged sword. Some people are curious about the things they love in order to be right, to prove how smart they are. This is equally prevalent in geek circles as it is in academia. Gatekeepers about in both communities. Both communities will always have those who feel it’s their right to judge who should or should not be welcome in the hallowed halls of what they feel is the “correct” way to be an academic or nerd. Those who embrace curiosity for those purposes will find little tolerance for those antics here.
For the true critic, curiosity is the beginning of exploration. The true critic begins with a question, not hoping to find an answer, but instead, hoping to discover new, previously unconsidered questions. In exploring those questions, the critic hopes to find even more questions. Eventually, answers will come, but only after a long journey down a twisting and turning rabbit hole of new ideas. This curious critic will include the most interesting questions in their work because they will want others to consider those questions, exploring them from different angles, and presenting new thoughts, which might very well lead to new questions. This is where true critical dialog begins.
RESPECT
To criticize means to judge. We are making judgments on art, and those judgments are subjective. Part of the nature of criticism challenges or disagrees with the art being examined. It’s far too easy for such examination to turn into a hate fest of nerd raging. The comments section everywhere abound with this kind of vitriol. The true critic approaches their work with the utmost respect. This includes the art being examined and their explorations and questioning of that art. Respect is vitally important when the critic comes to a deep disagreement with the art they are exploring. How can we expect people to respect our work if we are not in turn respectful of the works of others? How can we engage in constructive discussions with our fellow critics when we disagree without remaining respectful throughout all points of the conversation?
KNOWLEDGE
Can we truly criticize from a place of ignorance? It seems like the internet is full of that; however, this idea should be abhorrent to the true critic. Knowledge should be the foundation for all of our inquiries of art. This doesn’t have to be formal education, but the critic should not only possess a firm understanding of the subject of their critique, but also of the manner in which the critic is making the critique. This includes any and all lenses of critical theories that the critic plans to use in the examination of a work of art. This also includes some understanding of the medium of that art, the accepted conventions within that artistic school, and, if possible, the intentions of the artist the more knowledgeable a critic is, the better questions a critic can ask, which leads to a deeper exploration. Then the critic is better able to speak of the work explored with assurance and authority as well as better prepared to respond when challenged.
ENGAGEMENT
True criticism is an art unto itself, and critics should be open to, even invite, exploration and questions from their peers. This is where I feel most critics fall short. In so much of my reading, it seems that critics want to put their thoughts into the world and expect those thoughts to be accepted without challenge or question. The true critic invites discussion, discourse, and debate. In turn, the true critic seeks out the criticism of others and engages with the fullness of their curiosity, respect, and knowledge. If critics expect artists and consumers of art to take criticism seriously, then we — that is critics — should hold ourselves accountable to the higher, more demanding standards than we do to the artists whose work we explore.