Criticizing the Critic

It begins with a simple no. Ambling around to a small disapproval until the head rears and the whole idea/concept is utterly rejected/disregarded. Devoid of any taste it was, says the head. To the utter dismay of the hapless victim, he realizes, he’s just been harshly criticized. The victim with his head hung low, trudges away, mourning the loss and wondering where he had faltered. The onlookers, having got nothing else to do in their lives, these pitiful souls, they run up to the grieving victim, offer him their condolences and in a typical fashion denigrate the critic for his words. After all, critics are useless people and nobody really needs them anyways, isn’t it?
In this world where everyone has an opinion on everything under the sun, it becomes important as to whose opinion would you listen to along with whether the opinion makes any sense to you or not. Criticism in some sense can be taken as an individual’s opinion. What is absent though amongst all the opinions floating freely in the upper atmosphere is sound logic. This is what separates criticism from general opinion. Criticism is always accompanied by logic and reasoning. The whole thought process behind the judgment is clearly enunciated. Like everywhere else here too there are two sides of the coin. On one hand there is healthy criticism and on the other destructive criticism.
While the former appreciates the topic at hand and uses a mild tone to highlight the negatives, the latter uses a harsh tone and focuses mainly on the negatives. Magnifying the faults while completely ignoring the positives, Destructive Criticism takes shape out of circumstances. Sometimes warranted and sometimes not, it forms an integral part of a critic’s arsenal. To many critics it sometimes becomes a savior, an assertive call to let the prey know who the real king is.
But where lies the fun/excitement? One might wonder why critics do what they do. Can it be all that fun to poke fingers at others and highlight their shortcomings? Good questions i.e. if you don’t know what criticism is all about. Criticism is not about highlighting the faults. It’s also not about talking down to others. Criticism is an art. It takes time and a lot of thinking goes into it. You have to delve deep into the individual’s mind and come up with a theory, a theory which supplements your judgment. A critic has to analyze the thought process of the individual involved by taking clues from his work. Criticism without the logical theory backing it is as bland and phony as a toy phone placed in a phone booth.
Not only does the theory provides credence to the critic’s judgment but also eliminates the basis for counterarguments. Any good critic, worth his words, will always put up an unbiased/impartial view to his readers. He delves into positives along with negatives of the issue at hand. Critics can be harsh and blunt at times but that is the need of the hour. Critics recognize the importance they hold and what weightage do their comments carry amongst the general public. Their continuous efforts make everyone around them perform at his level best by projecting the faults as possible scope of improvements.
At a time when even a small disagreement can lead to acrimony in some cases enmity, being a critic takes a hell lot of courage. Being a critic is no walk in the park, critics are ironically the guys who get the most criticism for their work. But often, it is borne out of sheer resentment rather than sound logic. Nevertheless it’s something they expect out of others too, whom they criticize to take it on the chin and work to remove the inadequacies. All the victims of criticism should thus instead of grieving sit up and analyze the faults and rectify them to earn the praise of everyone….. even the critic.