Metaphorical cookies are sadly not something that affects diets. I kind of wish they did, because then maybe people would stop wanting them for *gasp* *shock* being willing to face criticism on the internet. Like, I get that there's a huge generation gap between, say, people who have been in online fandom since the mid-90s and people to whom "internet" is largely limited to their social networks (FB, Twitter, LJ, Myspace, etc), where the possibility of coming across something undesirably negative is reduced because the key word is "social". But the (public) internet is not a safe place or space; I would even argue that criticism and negativity are the default state, because the medium provides for not having to look your interlocutor in the eye. Fandom is no safer -- that some fanbrats insist on acting like "fandom" is limited to their immediate sphere (i.e. what they know fandom to be) doesn't actually make it so.
it doesn't do anything useful Criticism of anything can be useful in itself, without outside influence or feedback, to the person doing the criticising. Criticism does not exist for writers alone. When you approach a thing from a standpoint of what doesn't work about it, you can learn things about a) writing (and how to do it), and, perhaps more importantly b) yourself. One of the most amazing essays I read last year was I Didn't Dream of Dragons (and the follow-up she wrote for white allies). While her main point has precisely nothing to do with concrit, I think these two essays demonstrate rather aptly that engaging in critical thinking about anything, whatever it was "meant" to do, is important and can be enriching to the critic. If someone ALSO wants to write down their critical thoughts and publish them, that is her right. The binary standard comes into these discussions because people inevitably come down on either one side or the other: should criticise, shouldn't criticise. Nobody ever wants to listen to the actual criticism; it's all about whether or not it's okay or not okay to engage in it. It's annoying.
If someone approaches fiction from a "The Author is Dead" perspective, even in a situation where the author is actually right there in your extended social circle, that is their choice and their right. Trying to take that away because the author wants full control over her work is just toxic. Also, even if there is no deep exploration of self involved, if someone is doing something for fun, that's useful too; fun is an important part of the human experience, and I think that as long as no one is being actively harmed, anything is fair game. And criticism, despite the shirt-rending and wailing fanbrats like to engage in over a passing "this doesn't quite ring true here" does no real harm.
no subject
it doesn't do anything useful
Criticism of anything can be useful in itself, without outside influence or feedback, to the person doing the criticising. Criticism does not exist for writers alone. When you approach a thing from a standpoint of what doesn't work about it, you can learn things about a) writing (and how to do it), and, perhaps more importantly b) yourself. One of the most amazing essays I read last year was I Didn't Dream of Dragons (and the follow-up she wrote for white allies). While her main point has precisely nothing to do with concrit, I think these two essays demonstrate rather aptly that engaging in critical thinking about anything, whatever it was "meant" to do, is important and can be enriching to the critic. If someone ALSO wants to write down their critical thoughts and publish them, that is her right. The binary standard comes into these discussions because people inevitably come down on either one side or the other: should criticise, shouldn't criticise. Nobody ever wants to listen to the actual criticism; it's all about whether or not it's okay or not okay to engage in it. It's annoying.
If someone approaches fiction from a "The Author is Dead" perspective, even in a situation where the author is actually right there in your extended social circle, that is their choice and their right. Trying to take that away because the author wants full control over her work is just toxic. Also, even if there is no deep exploration of self involved, if someone is doing something for fun, that's useful too; fun is an important part of the human experience, and I think that as long as no one is being actively harmed, anything is fair game. And criticism, despite the shirt-rending and wailing fanbrats like to engage in over a passing "this doesn't quite ring true here" does no real harm.