Posted on
September 18, 2010 in
The Sixth Rule of Criticism: All criticism is autobiographical. Criticism reveals at least as much about the critic as about his subject.
Recently a candidate for election as judge, a guy whom I consider a true friend and whose back I have always had, interpreted my listing of candidates for the various Harris County judicial benches (before I added the note at the top of the post) as a “dual endorsement” of him and his opponent. I wouldn’t have endorsed his opponent under any circumstances, and I thought my friend knew this. Instead of realizing that or at the least calling me to ask, he started complaining to others that I had endorsed both him and his opponent.
I was dismayed by his response. If I had done what he thought I had, it would have been a betrayal. Had I not made it clear to him that I had his back? Had I fallen down on the job somehow?
Or were his complaints self-revelatory criticism? Often the critic reveals things that he would prefer the world not know.
A corollary of the Sixth Rule of Criticism is Nedlog’s Rule: In any ambiguous situation, how a person thinks he is being treated is the way that he would treat others were the situation reversed. People who blame see blame everywhere; betrayers see betrayal. Never ever trust anyone who accuses you falsely of lying. A guy who always has his friends’ backs will always assume—even in the face of a great deal of evidence to the contrary—that his friends are acting in his best interest.
And so I assume that my friend will always be on my side. But I’ll make sure he knows that thinking I won’t always—even when he is wrong—be on his, is definitely not cool.
So how are we to interpret your criticism of his criticism. What should it tell us of you? That you are too defensive? Hmmm.
That that would even occur to you says something about you. . .