Yesterday I wrote what I believed to be a measured, well-considered book review. Several folks felt it was snarky or mean or both, and this isn’t the first time my criticism of a book has had others scurrying for the tar and feathers and the “that’s not very Christian of you!” censure. I’m sure it won’t be the last, either, since when I look on Goodreads and Amazon I see that the standard form is to pass out five stars and effusiveness or to sit on ones hands.
I believe this is the readers’ version of “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”
While that is a very good rule for getting along with people I don’t really believe that anyone is served by that attitude.
As everyone who reads this blog knows, I’m cursed with a chronic affliction. No, not the RA or the Endo or the malabsorption/malnutrition or the Dercum’s. I’m talking about the INTJ personality.
INTJs focus their energy on observing the world, and generating ideas and possibilities. Their mind constantly gathers information and makes associations about it. [T]heir primary interest is not understanding a concept, but rather applying that concept in a useful way. … INTJs are driven to come to conclusions about ideas. Their need for closure and organization usually requires that they take some action.
To an INTJ like me, finding a way to improve something is one of the most useful services we believe we can offer the world. We don’t offer criticism to tear people down, to make people feel less-than or to be snarky. An INTJ’s criticism differs greatly from the snarky takedowns so popular at Television Without Pity and other places on the web. We don’t aim to make fun or to belittle but to say “in the analysis of this, here is how it can be improved.” And as often as we provide this “service” to others, we exercise it against ourselves exponentially more.
One of the biggest themes of my adult life has been the modulation of my desire to provide constructive criticism with a learned sensitivity to those around me. Believe it or not, because I desire to use my superpowers for good, the last thing I want to do is alienate those around me. After 6 years of blogging my words are now precisely measured, thoroughly considered and carefully constructed. It is a rare thing for me to make any comment or blog post without thinking it through thoroughly. In that way I try to communicate my thoughts on things without crushing the other folks. But apparently I still have a long way to go.
Now, when it comes to book reviews I must be very clear. You will only see an effusive five-star review from me when I truly mean it. When the book is so life-changingly delicious that I want to re-read it immediately. I admire the skill and perserverance of anyone who has finished a book (or can spell perserverance). But even if you are a good friend, I’m not going to give your book 5 stars unless it is among the best examples of that type of work. Reading and writing is what I do, what I take seriously. And I take it seriously enough to constantly be looking for ways to improve. So I’m sorry, fellow Christians, but I consider it part of my duty as a believer to use the tools God gave me in order to make this world a better place. That includes having our work as Christians be the absolute best we can do.
Just Another Pretty Farce 
I adore people like Milwaukee’s Mark Belling. He tells it like it is, and is critical of his own side’s missteps as the opposition. He is forever mistaken as a troll. A troll only seeks to tear you down. Belling simply sees the world and comments on it. If you agree with him, you appreciate his candor. The problems is if you disagree with him, people don’t say “I understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t happen to agree.” Instead, Belling is rude, gruff, a hundred harsher words.
I happen to appreciate clear, measured critical reviews. I read the review in question yesterday and thought it was helpful. (I happen to hate the ‘we’re all Christians so we must all like each other’s stuff regardless of actually quality’. That smacks of favoritism, which we’re not supposed to have any hint of, instead of elevating to a defacto default stance.)
In my opinion, say what you’re going to say, the way you say it. If people’s hides are too thin for actual critical writing, they can find ‘safer’ opinions almost anywhere else. (There is a place for safety, but we neglect to remember we have access to the full armor precisely so we can stand up in spiritual battle. If we can’t handle a review that isn’t full of flowers and unicorns and 5-star backslapping, how are we ever going to handle real spiritual attack?)
The opposition? Who is “the opposition” wrt literary criticism?
The emphasis in my point was on the virtue of commenting on the world the way it is rather than artificially elevating a work because we’re members of the Happy Christian Funtime Club. Katherine writes reviews that I find value in. (I’m avoiding your question because it rabbit-trails away from my actual point. To focus on the word ‘opposition’ in my argument is to miss the argument entirely.)
I took Johne’s use of “the opposition” to be referring to Belling’s commentary. I don’t know anything about Belling beyond what he says here, but I presume he is either a political or religious commentator.
For my money, the Opposition in literary criticism is best defined as “anyone who thinks Stephanie Meyer writes well.”
OK, maybe this is some Christian thing I’m not getting, since I’m not a Christian. But Coble posts about people saying that her review is too harsh, and your response is that a specific good writer is as hard on himself as he is on the opposition (or as hard on himself as the opposition is on him; it isn’t quite clear). You are putting literary criticism into an oppositional framework.
Then you say that people agree with this writer or call him a troll depending on whether they agree with him or not. Since this is still a response to Coble’s rumination on how she does literary criticism, it seems to further reinforce your understanding of lit crit as oppositional.
You finish up by talking about armor and spiritual battle. I don’t think I’m missing your point, but it’s possible that you may have missed getting to it.
I think maybe it is a Christian thing, because (not sure why I’m speaking for Johne) I took him to be addressing two things–> literary criticism and Christian conduct–that overlap at times but are still distinct.
There is a strain of thought within some Christian circles that believes any “negative” actions, from criticism to anger and even sometimes sadness, is sinful and antithetical to the Christian calling. We hear it phrased as “we should be building our brothers up, not tearing them down” or “failure to have joy is a failure of faith”. This is usually where the criticism of my criticism (no, the irony isn’t lost on me) comes from. I tend to see diff folks as having different callings. Author/artist Carole McDonnell, for instance, excels at a positive, constructive and encouraging spirit. I try for these as well but can’t fail to point out areas of possible improvement.
While I’m generally striving to avoid oppositional framework wrto other humans (ie. As a Christian I am not in opposition to people of other faiths; as a libertarian not in opposition to Ds or Rs), I think there is often so much opposition of ideals between different sectors of Christianity that oppositional framework is a part of our discourse.
Granted, “opposition” need not always connote negativity and often refers merely to placement.
You know what? It just occurs to mr right now that I’ve lost the initial train of thought and can’t refer back to it from the phone. I’ll probably have to clarify these thoughts further.
Essentially, though, I didn’t think Johne was trying to turn litcrit into a conflict scenario.
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.
Ah, gotcha. I think.
I should have mentioned that Mark Belling is a local Conservative talk show host, not an author. I invoked him because Katherine reminds me of him in that she seems to wrestle with having to explain herself (when her actual reviews are clear enough, to me) because she’s not politically correct or warm and fluffy or whatever. Belling is forever putting up with people who hate him for criticizing something they endorse. They mistake his criticism of that thing with specific hatred for them. They take it personally, which is a mistake.
There is a clear difference between criticism and unChristian snark. In Katherine’s case, identifying three observable (and thus avoidable) tropes isn’t snark, it’s help for all of us, should we ever decide to try our hand at that kind of literature. I appreciate that kind of clear, reasoned observation.
I thought it was one of your milder reviews 🙂