In our community Stopgamers Disputes constantly arise regarding criticism: what is critic? Why is it needed? Who has the right to criticize? And who is not? In this blog, I want to share my thoughts regarding these problems. This will be personally my opinion with which you can agree, and perhaps not. How paradoxically it did not sound, I would like to hear constructive criticism at the end. I hope after reading this blog, you will understand what I mean by this phrase.
And so, what is criticism? In the explanatory dictionary of Dahl, criticism is a search and judgment on the advantages and disadvantages of any work, especially compounds; analysis, assessment. And the critic is the one who criticizes; disassembler, proceedings; Drill, condo.
Oh, how many definitions and all accurate! After all, criticism is really different: it is useful (constructive) and useless (when the object of critics blaspheme or hypocritically praise).
What is useful constructive criticism? This is when they point out mistakes, they say that it is done well and what is bad, they give various recommendations and wishes, thereby fulfilling the main goal of criticism – to promote self -improvement of the author’s skills.
What is useless destructive criticism? This is when they just say that the author does not know how, everything is done poorly, at the same time, why and what exactly is not said. As a rule, such criticism comes from those who do not know how to do anything, just envies the author. Criticizing the author, these people amusing their pride, fill the inferiority complexes. There is also a reverse case of destructive, when critics praise the author, even if they did not like his creation. This is done with some selfish goals, for example, to attract the attention of the author, make friends with him, through it to get a share of fame. However, maybe a person just likes/does not like the author’s creation, he only briefly expresses it, without explanation why. In fact, in useless criticism, criticists express only their opinion. This type of criticism is useful only when ranking opinions, that is, the calculation of people who liked/did not like the creation of the author.
Who has the right to criticize? Any. But who can give constructive criticism?
First of all, professionals in the same field as the author. For example, directors for the director, writers for the writer (and the authors of the same genre) and so on. Those who know all the subtleties of creating creation. Those who themselves create something similar. This type can give a complete qualitative analysis of creation according to all criteria.
Secondly, people whose knowledge intersects with the subject of creation of the author or have extensive experience in working with similar works, albeit other authors. This type of critics can constructively criticize only one of his criteria for the work of the author, by which they themselves are well known. For example, the author wrote science fiction as he thinks. But the first, competent physicist or just a person who knows the school course of physics will break his fanty -torture to fluff. Or another example: the writer can criticize the plot of the film, games in terms of the plot of the story, logic disorders, etc. The third example is sommelier, people who have tried a lot of wines, and can evaluate guilt regarding the taste of other wines, the same brand. The second type of critics also include ordinary people, not specialists, but who have a certain life experience. And they may well object to the author of the film, that there and there he is wrong, it does not happen in life. An exaggerated example: in the film about farm breeding is shown how the rooster carries eggs, cucumbers grow on palm trees, uranium shines green.
Other types of critics can https://noverificationcasinos.co.uk/review/tikitaka-casino/ no longer give a construct. If a person does not understand anything in quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity, then how he can criticize the modern idea of the world? Only at the level: "I don’t like it and that’s it". Not more.
This is my answer to the questions posed. Perhaps I’m wrong. But then tell me what I’m wrong? Give a constructive answer. Otherwise it is only idle talk.
The best comments
Probably your second blog, which I read to the end. On the one hand, it is written very nicely, worthy of the wealth of speech, even a thought is. On the other hand, water with capital truths. It seems to be written wisely, but nothing is written. There are no ideas.
For me, for example, a person is sorting out in general, or not. If his opinion is interesting to me, I will listen to him, and draw conclusions in any case. Sometimes the gaze of someone who does not understand anything at all in the question can bring something interesting, something that others, those who are simply Asas in this very question did not even think about it. The view from the outside is always good. So criticism is interesting to me from those whose opinion is important to me. And it is their comments that are really warm and roads. That is, a dozen can say that “vow, continue in the same spirit, everything is fine” and only one will say that “this is some kind of shield”. But if this is someone exactly the one whose opinion is important to me, then I will adhere to this course.
Nobody canceled their point of view either. If I like something, it doesn’t matter why, then I will not even prove with foam at my mouth why, and look for facts, try to convince. I just like it, and it doesn’t matter why.
So.
If a person does not understand anything in quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity, then how he can criticize the modern idea of the world? Only at the level: "I don’t like it and that’s it". Not more.
NIS. Now they are “oh, I have not written a single book, no one needs my plebeian opinion. Better go to other topics. Oh, I didn’t even work in the game of the game, how can I evaluate games? I didn’t like the new Batlefield, but what I know? Yes, it is better for me to shut up with my unprofessional opinion, and go away. It is better to provide this honor to the Revuvens, those who have been working for several years, those who have awards ((lol) by. commentator) who can judge the game industry. Here I read the review, and I find out, a good game, or not very. Then you can judge. It looks like this project is from Mail.Ru claims Goti-2014. Oh yes, I love these non -stamped MMOs."
Normal criticism helps to understand its mistakes, to become better.Another business is heithee.I do not like those who have screamers about how others are wrong.Moreover, they also “teach” how to do, live, good, bad.
Manul, you’re right again. 100% right is not a thought, that is not a post, straight diamond of folk wisdom. You know, you really opened on blogs. Your talent almost gained full strength and the irrepressible wave of a nuclear explosion shines on blogs, making them better than bloggers. Continue in the same spirit
Kg/a … okay, not m, but still.
Manul, I tell you as a writer, criticism is useful for all.
Even if you are told the same, unforgettable: “kg/am”, then this is only an extra reason to cross the creative, and understand what g is there.
Starting to divide criticism into “criticism of useful” and “criticism is not used,” you roll into an asshole.
Here are my words do not have to be distorted. I wrote, everyone can criticize in accordance with their life experience and knowledge. About how the sky and the sun in the picture can be judged by everyone who saw the sky and the sun. But there is no blind.
In the same way, everyone can judge the theory of super -symmetry, but not everyone can adequately criticize it.
Well, I recently had a very wonderful example of this case here on another site. There was a man who wrote fan fiction, softly say, shitty (sorry May French) quality. But, for some reason, a bunch of Zhopoli was formed around him … ahem, “fans”, if not to say, “fanatics”. When at one point all this was all the same, he wrote a devastating criticism, but, in principle, criticism in essence. What did the author do? He intended, began to whine that he would rot, that critics were not, that he was only poured shit, and that he agrees to accept only tips that do not break his canon (read – do not hurt him in a characteristic physiological hole).
Yes, to agree with criticism or not is the right to criticized, but when you are indicated to objective mistakes many times, to pupate and say “go fuck” – terrible monoton.
February 9 marks exactly one year since my first appearance in blogs. As part of this event, I am arranging Manul-Rush.