don't wanna hijack ivy's "writers you think are bad" thread, however, i do think it's interesting and i do have Thoughts about it
yes why bother writing a good essay when you can write a bad one― ivy.
this is genuinely interesting to me, because i've been writing bad essays for most of my life
for most of my life i've had this compulsion to write. and while other people can get by by writing my little pony fanfiction - which is, i think, an _excellent_ use of a person's creative talents - for whatever reason i keep writing _critical essays_.
a lot of them are bad
i didn't write them _for_ anyone in particular - just wrote them because i felt like i had to. why both writing a bad essay when i could write a good one?
sometimes i work really hard at writing, work really hard at it and write something that is probably good. i don't feel a sense of _satisfaction_ about having done it. mostly i'm glad to be done with it.
what i can never figure out is what the fuck to _do_ with my writing
the thing that amazes me about oyler is that she actually went to all the work to get her work _published_
lots of different people can write, but like. even getting to the _point_ where one can be reviewed is...
i kind of agree with the idea that "no one should be popular"! i'm not a big fan of the concept of "popularity". particularly writing something where...
the idea of being a "bad thinker" particularly connects with me. the parallel to being a "bad writer", which to me suggests writing as a _craft_
i think i kind of understand what's meant by someone being a "bad thinker" - someone who starts with a premise and reaches a conclusion that's either irrelevant or just plain wrong. it might be that "thinking" in that way is a craft the way writing is a craft.
i guess that's where my attempts at critical essays come from... the way i write is a sort of aid to structuring my thinking. when i try to figure things out in my head it doesn't always go so good. when i write things out on paper it's easier to come up with meaningful conclusions. meaningful to me, at least.
-
it's the idea of criticism _itself_ that gets me. so i'm writing for myself, but who else? as a critical writer, i'm highly sensitive to the power of criticism. i even surprise myself sometimes with my lack of resilience. i haven't read this oyler person's work. it reminds me of a video essay i watched about... i think it was about the Hobbit video game. i transcribed the part of it that resonates me, that helps me remind myself that writing isn't a bad thing, even if i'm a bad writer, even if i'm a bad thinker. i'm just gonna paste it here... i think it says things better than i could.
I'm not sure a culture where we respond to failure with anger and hatred is such a good thing.Creating things is hard. Do you know what happens to most things people create? Nothing. Nothing happens, because most people never share their creations with the world.
Creating things is hard, and it can be particularly hard to keep going in spite of that. It can be hard to deal with the constant fear of failure, the prospect of disappointing yourself or other people, and the pain of not making something as good as you want it to be and believe yourself capable of.
I think this kind of fear of failure and self-doubt probably holds many people back in life. I think that's a great shame, because the number one way to make something good is usually to fail a bunch of times. Unless you're very lucky, failure is the best teacher you will ever have. Failure is useful. Failure is necessary. Failure is normal. It is a part of creation, and if we want people to create good things - games or otherwise - failure should probably be allowed.
So maybe we should avoid vilifying it.
-
ok, and i'm still a _critical writer_. that's what i do. it is so _easy_ to vilify. i've seen so much writing that's truly bad. that's without even bringing bad thinking into it. i don't think people do bad things _because_ of bad thinking. i think bad thinking is a manifestation of something else, something that's not fundamentally intellectual in nature. i'm not sure how relevant that is, though? one's _motive_ for bad thoughts, bad actions, doesn't necessarily matter... what matters is the results.
critics, i guess... i feel like part of what i do is make arguments for what those results... _ought_ to be. like, there is a _should_ implicit in all criticism. it promotes the critic's particular set of values. all of this talk... vulnerability, radical acceptance... and yet my work is fundamentally driven by my values. criticism is rooted in a lack of acceptance. while i can appreciate the vulnerability someone displays by saying something wrong... it doesn't alter that wrongness. sometimes it doesn't matter that a person is wrong.
to me a lot of the time it doesn't matter to me that someone is wrong, that someone is a bad thinker. there was that thread on cerebus... dave sim is someone who i would classify without hesitation as a "bad thinker". he reaches conclusions of staggering wrongness. certain sorts of wrongness - either qualitatively or quantitatively - are effectively immune to criticism due to their distance from the would-be critic's worldview.
if i'm gonna criticize, i'd prefer it to be criticism of work like sim's. a sort of inquiry into _otherness_. i'm inclined to think that it's bad criticism to write about something one doesn't understand, but there's _so much_ about this fucking world i don't understand. criticism for me isn't a debate on the merits of a work or lack thereof. it's making sense of the insensible. it's, often, me shaking my head and saying "Why was this published? Who's the audience for this shit?"
"nobody should be popular"... i think what i agree with most about that is that i have this very radical sense of egalitarianism about me. it's not entirely healthy - the fundamental motivation is my belief that nobody should be having a worse time than me. i don't think the belief itself is _wrong_, though. it is, in some sense, unjust when bad writing is exalted. the injustice is, well. the existence of _critics_. people who say "this is good", "this is bad". the problem is that, well... everyone's a critic. in the early days of the internet, these libertarians would say "the answer to bad speech is more speech". patent nonsense. just as nonsensical, i think, is any idea that the answer to criticism is more criticism.
-
i guess i write criticism because i need to, because it's one of the best ways i can think of to express my values. the thing about criticism is that no matter one's intent, it does, i think, bend towards personal conflict. i'm in favor of conflict, honestly. it's difficult for me to do conflict well. i got a tendency towards the performative. that kind of thing cheapens criticism, in my book. well, at least... it goes against my current values.
i think it's important for bad writers to have the opportunity to become better writers, and bad thinkers to have the opportunity to become better thinkers. that mindset is... difficult for me to cultivate.
― Kate (rushomancy), Tuesday, 9 April 2024 19:55 (two weeks ago) link