Therefore, could a rational dissection of a story - thus totally negating the emotional content of the story - be desastrous to a story ?
And vice versa ?
Not to the story itself, but to the intention this story has (and maybe to the writer). The story remains what it was originally.
If a critic decides to leave out one part in his/her review, it doesn't say much about the story - it says FAR more about the critic: his/her priorities, fears, blockades etc.
If a critic decides to reveal these totally subjective points on purpose, it's ok. If a critic is so vain, conceited and self-righteous to raise his/her points up to an objective pseudo-axiom => it's plain embarrassing, non-professional and injust towards the story (and the writer). And here's the point where I, the reader of this critic, butts in and shakes my head in disbelief about this self-blindness and lacking self-reflection. I can't take the critic seriously anymore.
Sadly, I have to read reviews in my job, day for day (23 yrs now) - so, I developed a "read-between-the-lines" technique, to find out more about the story I plan to buy/not and brush off the ego-critic's layers covering it up. Wish, some critics would be more self-aware.
And if this critic (so much in love with him-/herself) is writer, too - I'm in deep trouble due to my inner blockades then, my aggravation. In this case, I ask a neutral colleague to take over, hoping, she can do that story more justice and she is able value the novel (or not).
Kiya
