You see when I am writing something, I can’t make a mistake. It is art, after all! Yet, on occasion I get responses from readers that point to annoying details of the story that I wrote. It is the kind of thing that shows that they have not read the whole story and have just picked at whatever they saw as an easy target. There there was some confusion that led to it being hard to follow or some such rubbish. Now isn’t it quite natural that I should take this with affront? After all, there is good reason: such a critic is acting in a manner that is both offensive and unkind.
Not only that, it is quite unnecessary! We should keep to the accepted norms of our society and say something nice. It is far nicer for someone to suggest how good it was, and how they loved it. After all, being offensive is something one simply cannot tolerate.
Quite right, you all say. Quite right. You fold your arms contentedly and know that as a writer, a good day’s work was done. After all, it was written and it was work and should be respected as such. After all, everyone has a right to be respected, don’t they?
The point is that people should, in respecting others, limit themselves to saying things that are nice. Where would we be without the common courtesies of life? Anything else but appreciation for my hard work is simply out of order. Others should know this, especially if they consider themselves grown up. Like the gossip about my cat, Mina. I didn’t intend the driver to speak about her in that way, actually in any way at all. But speak he did and frankly anyone who does such a thing should be well and truly disciplined. One cannot go infringing boundaries of this kind and expect to get away with it! They should respect life and that means not talking about others.
Or at least, not talking about others in a way that I get to hear about, okay? I don’t need it.
The Problem With Nice Criticism.
The problem is that criticism shows not only the person criticizing me, but the person who is criticizing me. For example, there are those limited to expressing themselves with “wow”. Or should that be “bow-wow”, like a dog barking? Is there a difference in the level of expression? If there is, why is the person not saying so, for a person can say things, the negative side is that they can also hide them from those they speak with.
A dog can’t.
There are those who say things like “you shouldn’t write like that because it’s not nice” which suggests that one must change to meet their own needs, rather than mine. The only problem is that in lacking the ability to describe the things they see, they can’t tell you what it is they’d prefer me to write.
Only we do have a responsibility that runs beyond the boundaries we may set for ourselves.
The Secret Of Nastiness.
Because the subtle secret is this: my friend who was so concise in isolating one element was also making it easy for me to discern. In isolating just this one element, they were sparing me much work in having to discern it for myself. Not only that, but in isolating one element for me, they have given me the opportunity to deal with that one element alone – and without the confusion of other issues that bubble up from the subconscious realms of our being.
It is for this reason that one ought listen to those who are brave enough to express something of real value. They may not say things one wishes to hear, but the key is this: if it is clearly stated without any demur, it will be genuine. Anything that speaks of “I think you might be” in using the expression ‘I think’ is saying that it might not be the case, only that they think it might be. In short, they doubt their own eyes. This applies more strongly to those who use surrogate methods to express themselves – a picture or a piece of music that speaks to them directly. Only they forget that their own interpretation may not be shared with others. There are those who have the perceptive ability to say “that’s a lie”. This is where one knows that their perceptions are limited to that of a severely myopic person who can barely discern day from night. That is to say, their ability to express themselves is a clear indication of the quality of their soul. If all one can see is day or night, entire regiments of artillery could pass by and they’d not be seen. But then, a dog wouldn’t notice either.
The clearest guide to this is how easy they engage in conversation. Any reticence implies they are less than willing to express themselves. For those who speak clearly will speak of what they perceive without any doubt. Such people will see clearly, and their Double will have dissolved – even if it is only for this area of their perception.
Which is the real point of this post.
The Consciouness Soul.
Because writers do not write for themselves. If they do, they ought not publish. If they can’t stand the heat, get out of the fire, as the saying goes. Not all people are as ready to accept criticism that is dangerously sharp, pointing to the very detail that they felt was wrong.
Because in pointing out my mistakes with such clarity and perception means being able to look at this area of one’s own writing style with an eye to both improving it and more importantly – knowing what it feels like when writing crap of the kind I wrote that day. I now send out the occasional chapter with elements that I know are unacceptable. Just to make sure they’re on the ball.
For what such people are doing is using the Sword of Michael. In pointing to one’s errors, it can hurt. Sometimes deeply. The reactions can be furious, believe me, it takes no small amount of courage to be honest. Not only that, he took one hell of a risk with our relationship. I have been suspended, kicked out, blocked or removed for saying far less. But tolerance and acceptance of other people’s views is as clear an expression of one’s consciousness soul as any, if but the breathing in rather than the breathing out.
But it also gives one the key to seeing when others are expressing displeasure in what they see because it is a challenge to their own comfort zone. Well now, that tells its own tale, does it not?