The Ultimate Parasites

The Ultimate Parasites

The critic is the ultimate parasite. Recall a parasite is one that receives nourishment at the cost of another. If those who can’t do, teach, then those who can’t do or teach, are critics.

You’re out with a group of people in the woods. It starts to rain. You take the initiative to build an lean-to, by stacking branches against a fallen tree and throwing on a poncho you thought to bring from home in case of rain. Everyone’s hero, right? Well, if a critic pollutes your ranks, s/he will be the first one in the shelter pointing out the holes to everyone else. S/he will then discuss some alternate designs of impromptu tents that have worked well in the past, and where your design differs from solid tent making techniques. After your tent making skills have been discussed, s/he will then attack you personally and question your shelter making credentials. Was is a valiant first attempt, or yet another failure in a string of emergency bivouacs? By the time the rain ends, people will be emerging from your structure, dry and warm, yet treating you with distrust and disdain for ever allowing them to be lured into your half-assed, unsafe lean-to. The critic, making sure that the rain has stopped, emerges last, basking in the glory that comes with being such a useful member of the group. The group is once again safe until food runs low, and someone offers to share a homemade dish with all present. Is it organic? Is it delicious? Or is it typically uninspired middle American slop? This looks like another job for the critic!

The critic is an absolutely useless appendage on the hand of creativity, especially in the low-brow arena of popular entertainment. Do you really need someone to interpret the new Chris Farley movie for you? How about an Internet site? To me the Internet is just a bunch of assholes reviewing each other’s review sites. A trillion new magazines have tried to build content around ripping on “Jimmy’s Booger Site” or some other nonsense. Instant material. What complete bullshit. I mean, a lot of the cut-downs are funny, but this ain’t Shakespearean drama or French Poststucturalism. This is idiots like me who are already being pretty heady to assume anyone is interested in this crap in the first place. Do you need a filter, or can you look at this yourself without some semi-intellectual windbag justifying his or her job by attempting to analyze it?

Why would a critic waste time commenting on others if they could make something for themselves? They can’t do shit, and that’s why critics need to pump themselves up by feeling the rest of the world needs their loser viewpoints. I can look at something and say “yay” or “nay”, I don’t need your opinion. People in general are complete idiots anyway. Why should I care what their reactions to certain things are? Most reviewers are more interested in making themselves seem cool than giving others a fair shake, and thus aren’t even true to the job they’ve tried to undertake.

But with all that’s available out there, don’t we need some sort of guide to help us find the things we like and not waste our time on crap? Personally I don’t give a shit where you go. The Internet is cool because any Jackie can get something up for the world to see. It’s an absolute shitstorm of chaos, beautiful in its ugly non-uniformity. If you want someone to organize, classify, analyze, and evaluate, your world for you, fine. Four stars or five stars? Appearance, content, design, professionalism, relevancy to today’s climate? Fuck it. And fuck you for caring. The critic is the one at the orgy counting orgasms and rating genitals while the rest of us are screwing our brains out. I don’t care what you can say; what can you do?