Essay Sample on How to Write a Critical Analysis
Writing is intuitive, which is why it has not changed. To write effectively, we must know what we are reading. There is a spectrum of how we use and create our own critical analysis: it can range from a passing thought to a full blown analysis. Brooks and I believe how and why we write critical analysis is losing its sense of purpose—to a certain extent, he has a point.
Critical analysis does not need to be difficult and avant-garde for it to have purpose. As a writer, the ability to explain a difficulty is formulaically presented as impressive and worthwhile. The track that most critical analysis’s follow is for the purpose of being published—now we can see why these writers feel the need to be special. There are too many works being published for the sake of being published. So, the question is what makes their work special when published? There is a surplus of publications and your work needs to stand out, so write something down that’s different, difficult and perhaps too over your head that you don’t even understand. In the end, there could be awards, acclaims and ego boosts from other critiques themselves.
Writers feel the need to improve and explore deeper from their past works. This need for constant continued analysis deeper and deeper has caused some writers to not enjoy reading their own critical analysis. Yikes. So now we have another question: how is the audience supposed to enjoy reading a critical analysis if the person making the analysis does not enjoy it themselves? I think the current idea of writing a revolutionary piece that no one would think of or understand in order to be published does not allow for the general audience to connect to that piece. There is too much focus on the academic tone, difficult vocabulary and complex ideas that the writer hopes is niche enough to become published—sometimes I wonder if publishers truly understand what they allow to be published.
I believe humanity is missing from much of critical analysis today. The ability to connect emotionally with the reader is what drives humanity: this also allows the reader to connect easier with the piece when they can form an emotional attachment. If I were to write a critical analysis on death, I would not one-hundred percent focus my entire piece on empirical data critiquing why it happens. Instead, I would offer an analysis on why I think death happens and contribute something personal, such as an anecdote or story. So why does critical analysis steer clear of the emotions and the personal? Writers feel the urge to stay away from the personal because it is not respected as much. Emotional writing and connecting to the personal reaches beyond the acceptable norm that society deems appropriate. It is easy for critical analysis to remain dull and away from emotions, that’s why we see academic writing as the foundation for any critical analysis. Adding more humanity to a piece should not—even though I know people would argue it does—take away from the respect the piece receives. We as readers and writers of critical analysis need to change the biased nature that academic writing is seen with more respect.
Brooks and I agree again that continuing to accept academic writing as the only respectable form of critical analysis is dangerous. If we have these assumptions, critical analysis will continue to serve no one voluntarily, and readers will only engage with the piece out of a sense of duty. Critical writing and analysis need to become a collaborative enterprise: adding more gateways and instances for connections with the audience will come from the writer's inclusion of humanity connections. Whether that be through emotions, relatable stories, etc., we need to move towards a greater dialogism from the audience. After all, the audience should not suit ourselves or that publishing company, but the general public.
