The Importance of Critique
Are we just saying "it good/it bad" over and over again?
Critique is everywhere. Whether it is about films, books, art, music, politics, or the latest pair of trainers. Everything is critiqued all the time and on the internet it is encouraged. The easiest content is critique and because of that most critique is dogshit. Whether it is someone stating they don't like a new album but without reasons or the critique being positive because 'the themes are good' while ignoring the craft and quality underpinning it. There is plenty of poor critique but not only that there appears to be two types of critiques, the first is how you felt about it and how it matched your taste while the other is focussed on the merit of the work itself, if such a thing is possible. Which leads to the question: What are we doing when we critique, are we just saying 'it good' or 'it bad' over and over again?
No. A critique is not a simple statement of like or dislike. I can dislike a book or movie but appreciate it's well made or that the writing was nuanced and hard-hitting. Same as I can enjoy a terrible film (e.g. Escape from Tomorrow). While any attempt to improve Escape from Tomorrow would prove a Herculean task impossible for one man alone, other works can be improved and often in ways the creator is unable to see. Now whether a creator wants to change their work is up to them and maybe they are including a Persian Flaw. That aside critique allows an artist, a lab tech, or a manager, to improve faster than their they could with only their own self-examination.
A creator can be blind to the flaws, or successes, of their own work and a second pair of eyes helps to spot these in order to reduce the former and replicate the latter. Many creators are hyper-critical of their own work and while useful to know where you are going wrong it can also backfire into thinking everything you produce is a steaming pile of rubbish. That may be true when starting out but after hundreds and thousands of hours of practice it won't be. Yet the creator is too close to the work and while we can stuff it in a drawer and wait a few months or years to see the work in a new light a quicker way is to give it to someone else to evaluate. Most big name authors have a small circle of beta readers, people who read their stories and comment on elements of craft, how the story resonates, the emotions felt during particular scenes and chapters, characterisation, plot holes, what works and what doesn't, allowing the writer to redraft and improve their story. This intimate critique is immensely helpful opening up the author to mistakes they didn't see before or knowing where they have struck the right chord.
Wider critique, typically from strangers, fans, critics, etc. can also work in this way and should do. It's important to remember you, as the creator, are not the work. The “negative” comments are not personal attacks and the “positive” comments are not an excuse to be egotistical. This is important for the critic to know too so as to not pull their punches. The aim is to encourage improvement, whether it be to create better art, to write better books, to shoot better film, to make better food, and much, much more. It is about the craftsmanship unique to us as creators and that critique will help draw out those improvements that we might otherwise miss entirely.
Criticism is not inherently negative, that is a bizarre corruption from massified society spewing any random thought out onto the internet 99% of which is exceptionally low resolution comments and ideas with zero, or even negative, value. Comments that start Twitter arguments lasting days that amount to little more than insults. Are there day long Twitter spats that are useful, yes, but they are usually hidden away in some niche group with more polite tone (though not always). Criticism is about encouraging the refinement of ideas, getting the creator to strike out into a novel tangent, and developing something unique to them. The aim is positive.
With a wide enough audience it is inevitable you will receive differing critiques. What worked for one person might not work for another and the style that one loves another hates. That's fine and should be expected. The worst response is apathy. Here, you as the creator need to decide on a direction. You can't please everyone and you shouldn't try as the result will be bland and unoriginal. A common critique of Joe Abercrombie is that his work is 'too dark', 'too violent', or 'has too much swearing'. That's his style and he has his fans who like it. Any critique should be about how he can improve in his style of choice, how he can master his unique ways of telling a story, not how he should change to suit the sentiments of others. You wouldn't complain about an Italian restaurant that served pasta, you would review the restaurant based on the cuisine it aimed for and whether the food accomplished that goal, or not. Critique is not about personal preference, it is not the like and dislike you experienced, it is about the work itself. It is objective to the work. I don't like superhero films but I can appreciate The Dark Knight is a good film and would assess it on its own merits rather than my preferences. The vast majority of critique now is simply 'I like it, it good' or 'I don't like it, it bad' and that requires me to know you, to understand what you like and don't like, in order to assess whether I will like or dislike it or whether I think you know good storytelling from bad. Whereas a critique on the merits of the work I can use, or enjoy, without needing to know you.
Assessing a work on its merits is often tangled up with whether we like the work or not and finding something you enjoy but find many problems highlights the two ways of reviewing something. Often times the reason we like a film or book is because it is doing something we like well. For instance I enjoy the John Wick films but I also recognise that Keanu Reeves's acting can be a little wooden at times, that the action scenes can be a too long, and the world-building is excessive and at times nonsensical, but I still enjoy it. Or Kill Bill, what is the point of bleeping out Beatrix's name in the first film? It doesn't add anything and the mystery of her name (which you can hear through the beep anyway) does not alter the story. It would have made more sense for The Bride's to never come up in the first film. (For the opposite point of view see here.) It is difficult to parse out where the line runs between critique and personal taste and the two will get muddled up much of the time. Just because a work is of poor quality doesn't mean you have to dislike it and just because a work is good doesn't mean you have to like it. In the same vein a film you like isn't necessarily good nor a film you dislike inherently bad. These two types of review, what you personally felt and the merit of the work, often become entangled but there is a difference and most reviews contain both in varying measures.
While it might be important for you as a writer to know your audience likes your latest work you also need to know whether you have managed to improve since your last book and whether you've added something new to the shelf or rehashed something that came before. Originality is difficult to reach but through considered critique and a commitment to craft it can be achieved.
Critique is a crucial aspect of improving in your work, whether art, science, or cooking, etc. It should focus on the work as it stands and the creator needs to consider whether the critique makes sense to them, their style, and their aims. Not all critique is good critique nor is it useful but it is vital to improving in your craft.