The case for criticising the tendency to simply discuss the merits of an appreciated work is that the analytical sight of the pertaining individual is confined by the limits of his or her self-centredness, seeing only a need to explain what impresses upon personal taste. That which follows seemingly suggests that perhaps the better and less egocentric way of demonstrating your ability to be a critic is–instead of talking about what one likes–to talk about why one did not like something: exploring nice things is a conveniently selfish approach in criticism, unlike the arduous task of understanding why a bad work is bad.
Yet what follows after the identifying the flaws of a “bad” work has to be the suggestion of improvements. Should a bad work be bad, its original intentions is unachieved and is doomed to be concealed by the ambiguity of failure. Offering suggestions of improvement–which are meant to remedy the failure and reveal how the achievement of a desired goal could have been possible–is based upon the assumption that the original intention is understood, and that assumption is contrived ultimately by the selfish preference of a critic after that critic has selected one preferred interpretation of the original intention out of the many plausible possibilities. Ironically as it appears, perhaps even the most “constructive” of criticism of disliked works is the byproduct of selfishness, let alone fan rage and hatin’.
So if you would not mind, let me go back to loving my shows like Nanoha for I will not even bother talking about shitty stuff like those featuring adult females with disgusting mammaries! Children are the best!
