Wes's comments about his poetry workshop and the student reacting
to his poem about christian Hypocrisy clearly fall into the realm of
useful criticism and discussion.  I've been following this
discussion about criticism and all the jargon, and after reading his
comments I finally realized where the distinctions were for me.  If a
critic approaches a work with an honest desire to learn and
understand it, then I think it's very hard, perhaps impossible, for
that critic to rile me.  I may disagree with her/him, but I'll at
least give them a chance and hear them out.

    What bothers me is when someone assaults a text to force their
own ideas on it. (I'm thinking specifically about a teacher who told
us outright lies about the authors to get us to accept her political
ideas)  I don't like it when people try to bend a text to fit their
theories, (I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw of a young man reading the
Bible, telling his father "I'm looking for passages to support my
preconceived notions") and I especially detest when someone is writing
or talking just because they like the sound of their own words.
(Something some of you may feel I'm doing now)

    Ultimately, I find myself drawing the line at the critic's
intentions.  If they want to learn, share and pass on knowledge and
understanding, then all the jargon is a valuable tool.  Whatever
they say will have some value.  If, on the other hand, they just want
to show off how smart they are, then most of what they say will be
little more than showing off the size of their dictionary and ego.

        Matthew Miller