There's no point in blowing sunshine and rainbows up people's asses. If somebody has a bad idea, you're probably doing them a disservice by not making your criticisms of it indisputably clear.<p>That being said, criticism does not have to be combative and destructive - you can criticize someone's work, behaviors, or ideas without leaving them feeling lousy and resentful about it.<p>One of the most amazing things I've seen some of the people who've managed me do is give critical feedback without making me feel like I need to go on the defensive at all. They make criticism feel like a cooperative growth exercise, and that's really the best way to do it if you are finesseful enough to pull it off.
Funny; I agree with the conclusions of the article in general, but not in their specific case. As long as you're looking for "original and heterodox" ideas in the field of Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) criticism, an example I did not make up, you might as well be nice about it. This guy deals in subjective issues full time, being a critical ass is sort of silly when there isn't a right or wrong.<p>In engineering and science it's important to be critical and for all ideas to stand up to the sandblaster of truth. But in literary criticism? Seriously?
I was fortunate enough as an undergrad to be allowed to take several graduate creative writing classes; my time in those classes was by far the most important time I spent in college. The reason is because I became immune to criticism, or at least I learned to not take it personally, analysis the comments and use it to learn and grow. It's funny they mention the war-like atmosphere of the English program in this article because honestly, I've never faced harsher criticism than I did in those 3 classes.<p>I'm not sure if it's just the way we raise children in the U.S., or maybe it's because generally people like to avoid conflict, but it seems that a lot of people lack an understanding that criticism - at least good/valid criticism - is typically not personal at all, but rather someone trying to help you understand a short-coming. For whatever reason it's just easier to react with a wall than a light-bulb moment of 'wow, I never considered this before'.
The perspectives in the comments are more enlightening than the article. In some sense, the article sets up a false dichotomy. It's possible to be very critical while still being humble and empathic. But it's really easy to make criticism about yourself and your status in relation to the other rather than about the topic at hand. (cf. snark)
I don't understand the author's criticism of anonymity. To me it's the best way to receive criticism - a faceless wall that tells you what you need to be told. Sure, the power tends to be abused for cruel ad-hom attacks, but they're unsupported by weight of authority, so they tend to look weak.
This reminds me of the 4 types of people I have worked with:<p><pre><code> right wrong
+-------------+--------------+
nice | ideal | teachable |
+-------------+--------------+
jerk | tolerable | unacceptable |
+-------------+--------------+
</code></pre>
You better be right or nice, preferably both. Nobody should put up with jerks who are wrong.