Thought-Provoking Secrets of the Brain

May 31, 2014

I have never cared for the critique catchall term – Thought-provoking. This has been used many times to describe my writing. I’m fine with it. I don’t mean to be insulting toward any individual person who uses it. What doesn’t work for me is this – Who is this supposed to be thought-provoking for? It means that the critic is offering it up as something they felt was thought-provoking and then you should as well, right?

Let’s face it, readers, thought and his tag along friend provoke are not many people’s strong suits. I’d give Vegas odds that “Green Eggs and Ham” when stripped of rhyme has more depth of thought-provocation than most folks can handle.

Jayson Blair, remember him? You should, he was the journalist who resigned from The New York Times after it came to light he was fabricating and plagiarizing his stories. The NY Times of course washed their hands of him, but are we to believe that his case was a fluke. Hmm, thought-provoking isn’t it?

Anytime thought-provoking is used it implies that the reader has an insight into the speaker or author’s thoughts. These are things I find thought-provoking: M-theory, Escher’s ability at perspective, the delineation of body, mind, and spirit, Copland’s imagery evocation, and blending dogmatic religion with philosophy. So, if I tell you something else is thought-provoking you now have a basis for comparison. Context is key. I’ve read reviews by BIG name critics (who shall remain nameless for privacy) but some have worked for a certain previously named periodical *wink wink* They have used “Though-provoking” to describe a novel, but they have also said similar things about Twilight, 50 Shades, and worse. So, with that basis for comparison, what are we to conclude?

~Nick Shamhart