On Tough Criticism
This has been on my mind for a few days and I’ve been unsure on how to approach the subject, but I decided what the hell… A large part of what I do is to provide students with the opportunity to have their work critiqued not only by me but also by their peers. For the most part students take a non-combative approach to criticism leaving the often-difficult work of dismantling a piece to me, which is understandable. On a few occasions I have had students that have reacted defensively to what have been tough critiques of their work and this got me reading up on the art of critiquing. During that process I found two perspectives that I tend to agree with.
The first is from an essay written by Jeffrey Di Leo in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled In Praise of Tough Criticism. Di Leo writes the following:
But when it comes to criticism, is compassion really preferable to combativeness? Does an upbeat style actually encourage positive tendencies in the profession? Is compassion an intellectual virtue? The answer to those questions is no. If a compassionate, caring form of criticism entails removing the “critical” from “critical exchange,” then I would rather see the field move toward a more combative, confrontational style—even if it means ruffling a few feathers.
I agree with the assessment. On most occasions I only get one semester to make an impact in my student’s work. It might seem like an eternity to the student but it really isn’t that much time. It is my job to move the student past conformity. I do not approach that, I don’t think, by trying to convince the student that I’m right but rather by trying to convince them that there are approaches to their story other than their own. I hope I help them understand that as writers and filmmakers they are required to think more and settle less. Sometimes this is an impossible task and it can get rough which is when the second perspective I found on the subject comes into play.
It comes from a blog called Your Screenplay Sucks (one of my favorite reads on the internet). Screenwriter and critic Bill Akers argues that as writers we need to learn to Accept the Body Blow. He argues
Know it’s normal, however, to WANT to stand up and shout that they don’t understand the genius you have laid upon the world… just don’t do it. Resist the temptation to raise your hackles. Breathe deep and imagine they are NOT swinging a great Conan-size bloody battle-axe at your head… take notes and become a better writer.
The purpose of critique is to create positive tendencies. My goal is for the student to leave the classroom after one term and be able to identify their mistakes on their own. It is not, as some students believe, to demonstrate how much greater a writer I am. In fact I tend to end each term by giving my students a copy of whatever it is I am writing at the moment so that they can critique me. This is for the most part a lopsided event because I still havent given them their final grade, but it allows them to see that no one gets it perfect right-off-the-bat and that as artists they have to be willing to accept that.
Sometimes a Good Notion 