Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[tectak]

Is interpretation a valid form of critique?

If I may offer a slight critique of your question
(supposing I have interpreted it correctly),
I'd say that saying that "critique" possesses a
"form" is very akin to interpreting interpretation
as critique.

The question I think you meant to state (again
supposing I have interpreted your question correctly)
is more like: 'If you interpret "interpretation" as
"critique" aren't you implying that "meaning" is
a type of grammar that may be correct or incorrect?'

It's reductio ad absurdum time in the pigpen!

Critique necessarily requires interpretation;
interpretation does not necessarily require critique.

P.S. My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

Yes...there are predictable points in this which lead me to rephrase the question....I knew this would happen before I posed it.
Here goes.
Is interpretation a valid SUBSTITUTE for critique?

In other words, is it enough for "crits" to ONLY interpret a piece of work whilst excusing themselves from any other comments on the grounds of inadequacy?

It seems to me that more and more ( I am almost guilty but I hope I have reigned myself in) we are getting speculative analysis, pretentious imaginings and hoplessness hopefully shared, instead of suggestions leading to poetical betterment....whatever that is. I only know what it isn't.

I conceed that the teen-angst, depressives, drug-abusers, self-harmers and, as someone else called them, crazy people, will always walk among us-- and long may they do so -- but I am not sure we do any of us a service by what ultimately becomes psycho-analysis by proxy.

As for the reducto ad absurdum tendency, I believe that this is symptomatic of the concern I am expressing...but of course, such concern is wide open to interpreatation. Now tell me I have a typo...thank god for that!
Best,
tectak

---

Is interpretation a valid form of critique?

If I may offer a slight critique of your question
(supposing I have interpreted it correctly),
I'd say that saying that "critique" possesses a
"form" is very akin to interpreting interpretation
as critique.

The question I think you meant to state (again
supposing I have interpreted your question correctly)
is more like: 'If you interpret "interpretation" as
"critique" aren't you implying that "meaning" is
a type of grammar that may be correct or incorrect?'

It's reductio ad absurdum time in the pigpen!

Critique necessarily requires interpretation;
interpretation does not necessarily require critique.

P.S. My favorite example of trying to pass off
interpretation as critique is when some idiot
complains that a piece of writing is too much
like prose to be a poem.

Yes...there are predictable points in this which lead me to rephrase the question....I knew this would happen before I posed it.
Here goes.
Is interpretation a valid SUBSTITUTE for critique?

In other words, is it enough for "crits" to ONLY interpret a piece of work whilst excusing themselves from any other comments on the grounds of inadequacy?

It seems to me that more and more ( I am almost guilty but I hope I have reigned myself in) we are getting speculative analysis, pretentious imaginings and hoplessness hopefully shared, instead of suggestions leading to poetical betterment....whatever that is. I only know what it isn't.

I conceed that the teen-angst, depressives, drug-abusers, self-harmers and, as someone else called them, crazy people, will always walk among us-- and long may they do so -- but I am not sure we do any of us a service by what ultimately becomes psycho-analysis by proxy.

As for the reducto ad absurdum tendency, I believe that this is symptomatic of the concern I am expressing...but of course, such concern is wide open to interpreatation. Now tell me I have a typo...thank god for that!
Best,
tectak