Interrogating Texts

We are travelers when we choose to engage another man's idea; we take what we have and we leave with more.  This creates a dichotomy, a division between objective and subjective; however, neither are truly separate.  We carry the subjective with the objective even as we attempt to keep them a part.  It's difficult to separate the idea from the way it was expressed.

Who Are We?
I've always expressed great admiration for the critical style of Roger Ebert.  He brings so much of himself into every review, leveraging his own Catholic upbringing, his politics, his life to further illustrate his admiration or contempt for a film.  While emulating traditional review formats is likely a recipe for disaster when attempting to constructively critique our peers - we're close to their projects and ideas, in a place where what we'll say can be heard - it speaks to the fact that who we are and where we've been not only inform our reactions but offer those reactions credibility, oftentimes a necessity when wading through others' sweat and tears.


So What Then?
I had a teacher in high school who told me that, especially in the era of psychology, that we as people often look at each other as glorified computer programs, built out of if-then statements that differ from person to person.  If a man punches me in the face, then I punch him back.  If a man punches me in the face, then I flee. If a man punches me in the face, then I could really go for some chocolate.  This is all enforced by that classic truism: "Actions speak louder than words."  His issue was that it then discounts the third dimension:  Why? We have justifications for the things we do and we should have justifications for the things we say.  Why?  Why?  Why?

I'm inclined to agree with him.

When we're in a position to critique, we should always attempt to do so constructively.  So we ask why of ourselves and the author.  Did you find their idea disrespectful?  Why?  Do you believe there are concern due to it being a long term project?  Why?  We can't just say it won't work, nothing is gained.  It's not construction because nothing is gained, moved forward, built.

So...What?
We have to be ourselves when we critique something; it's what makes our viewpoint special.  But we also have to be fair; objective and subjective in the same sentence.  If we had an emotional or any kind of reaction really to a piece or an idea, we need to explain why we had it, in a way that the other person can learn something.  We need to be fair to the idea and true to ourselves.


But maybe I'm wrong.  If I am, tell me why.