The First Postmodernist Novel

[Sitaram]

I believe that there are those who criticize only because they do not have the power to ban or suppress.

Of course there is such a thing as constructive criticism. The critic does not wish that you would disappear, or crawl off in a corner and die. The constructive critic wants to see you continue to express yourself, but in a manner which they deem superior.

I wrote in haste, which allows me to repent and edit in leisure. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that criticism is censorship inchoate.

We might examine St. Pauls passage, in one of the Epistles, regarding the gradual process that someone is reproved, corrected, but, if they do not change their ways, ultimately censored and excommunicated (and, in later centures, burned at the stake).

For me, this is an interesting and valuable topic.

We must have rules and conventions, in forums, schools, and societies at large. But those who do not conform are punished in some way, either with a failing grade, or a locked thread, or a court fine.

Where does one draw the line? When does friendly constructive criticism cross the line from a suggestion into a deman, and then a threat, and finally a consequence?

Total, absolute freedom, would mean, I suppose, no rules, no criticism. Certainly, those reclusive writers could find such freedom only in their seclusion and anonymity.

I suppose, in an odd way, praise is a reverse form of criticism, and something which can be used to control us, to direct us.

I certainly think that Sartre's rejection of the prize was his way to escape the golden chains of that reverse form of censorship; public acclaim and approval.

Look at those threads which discuss the best seller over the classic. The purchasing power of the public, and the best-seller lists, control various popular authors, who write only in a certain style, in order to insure continued income.

Consider Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung ("On Being Christian"). His books were not burned, but certainly he was censored and censured.

[blp]

I believe that there are those who criticize only because they do not have the power to ban or suppress.

Of course there is such a thing as constructive criticism. The critic does not wish that you would disappear, or crawl off in a corner and die. The constructive critic wants to see you continue to express yourself, but in a manner which they deem superior.

I wrote in haste, which allows me to repent and edit in leisure. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that criticism is censorship inchoate.

Even this seems to me to be taking it too far. As my post indicated, I actually think criticism and censorship are often antithetical. Since we're on the subject of postmodern novelists, have a look at Kathy Acker's Blood and Guts and Highschool in which she writes ludicrous, vicious, sometimes obscene descriptions of figures such as Jimmy Carter and Erica Jong. There's nothing constructive about these, but to suggest that they are 'inchoate' censorship is absurd. This is a writer revelling in and testing free speech. No matter how much she hates the people she's writing about, she's not trying to shut them up. The same might be said of much of Hunter Thompson's writing, especially Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

We might examine St. Pauls passage, in one of the Epistles, regarding the gradual process that someone is reproved, corrected, but, if they do not change their ways, ultimately censored and excommunicated (and, in later centures, burned at the stake).

Yes indeed. The process you're describing here begins with reproval, which is already authoritarian. Criticism, by contrast is part of a process of debate. Fear of this process that can lead to censorship.

We must have rules and conventions, in forums, schools, and societies at large. But those who do not conform are punished in some way, either with a failing grade, or a locked thread, or a court fine.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The various systems we're subject to can be just or unjust. Suck 'em and see.

Where does one draw the line? When does friendly constructive criticism cross the line from a suggestion into a deman, and then a threat, and finally a consequence?

Is it really so hard to work this out? Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me. The difference is simply between blandishments with a material inducement and those without: 'I really hate how messy your room is' or 'Clean your room or I'll take away your allowance'.

Total, absolute freedom, would mean, I suppose, no rules, no criticism.

No it wouldn't. That's my point. If everyone had total freedom from criticism, no one would have any freedom to criticise. Ergo, it wouldn't be total freedom.