The concept of there being "no fault to find" is of course somewhat impossible, since "fault" is entirely subjective in this context. So acknowledging that there is always fault to be found is the same as saying there is an obligation to find fault on the part of the critic, for that is the nature of the role. I don't think the critic is being "accused" of anything in the original remarks that occasioned this discussion. I think it was a more a matter of roles being examined. My follow-up was just pointing out that critics themselves can be as thin-skinned as artists. If a poet must accept the fact that they must respond with equanimity to the fact that fault can be found, then why shouldn't the critic have to accept the the same fact with equal calm. What's more, I hardly think that Siham was attempting to denigrate the reviewer or the review (not even Rick has done that), but rather to soothe the poet who has received the at least partially negative critique--a situation which, all rationality aside, can always use the soothing touch. Yet a good deed toward one, is so often interpreted as an "insult" to another. Such is life.
Nemo
|