The Problem With “Mid” as Criticism

[{"_key":"304f6f56444126fa7b8e5860dc3e718a","_type":"block","children":[{"_key":"ap7uYcD3gJJyJ0KlpD7Wbl","_type":"span","text":"<h2>Meaningless Noise</h2>\n<p>“Mid” is not analysis. It’s a shrug disguised as judgment.</p>\n<p>In recent years, “mid” has become the default verdict for anything that fails to inspire immediate enthusiasm. Games, films, albums, entire studios — all flattened into a single syllable that pretends to be insight while offering none.</p>\n<p>The word feels decisive, but it’s hollow. It communicates boredom without explaining <em>why</em>. It gestures at disappointment without articulating standards. And in doing so, it replaces criticism with noise.</p>\n<h3>Cultural context</h3>\n<p></p>\n<p>Calling something “mid” is easy because it asks nothing of the speaker. No reasoning. No comparison. No taste revealed. It’s criticism without vulnerability — and that’s precisely why it spread.</p>\n<h2>The Illusion of Authority</h2>\n<p>“Mid” carries an implied authority. It sounds final. Dismissive. Above the work it judges.</p>\n<p>But that authority is borrowed, not earned.</p>\n<p>Historically, criticism has always been tied to <em>position</em>. A critic had to stake a point of view: explain their framework, their values, their expectations. Whether you agreed or not, you knew where they stood.</p>\n<p>“Mid” removes that obligation. It pretends to be objective while hiding the subjectivity entirely. There is no standard behind it — only vibes.</p>\n<p>And vibes don’t scale.</p>\n<h2>Criticism Requires Effort</h2>\n<p>Real criticism is labor.</p>\n<p>It means engaging with a work on its own terms. Understanding what it tries to do before deciding whether it succeeds. Separating personal taste from structural failure. Explaining <em>how</em> and <em>where</em> something falls apart.</p>\n<p>“Mid” shortcuts all of that.</p>\n<p>It allows the speaker to opt out of thought while still participating in judgment. In practice, it turns discussion into a performance of detachment — a way to signal taste without exposing it.</p>\n<p>That’s not critique. That’s social positioning.</p>\n<h2>When Language Collapses, Discourse Follows</h2>\n<p>Language is infrastructure. When it erodes, everything built on it becomes unstable.</p>\n<p>When every disappointment is labeled “mid,” nuance disappears. The difference between flawed ambition and safe mediocrity vanishes. Between systemic failure and isolated missteps. Between something that bored you and something that genuinely failed its audience.</p>\n<h3>Flattened language</h3>\n<p></p>\n<p>This flattening is especially damaging in games, where systems, pacing, mechanics, and audience expectations are deeply intertwined.</p>\n<p>A game can be mechanically solid but thematically empty. Ambitious but undercooked. Conservative but polished.</p>\n<p>“Mid” erases those distinctions.</p>\n<h2>The Cost to Creators</h2>\n<p>For creators, “mid” is feedback without information.</p>\n<p>It doesn’t tell developers what didn’t work. It doesn’t signal where friction occurred. It doesn’t distinguish between design disagreement and execution failure.</p>\n<p>Criticism is valuable because it creates a feedback loop. Lazy language breaks that loop.</p>\n<p>Worse, it normalizes disengagement. If the dominant mode of response is dismissal, creators are encouraged to either chase extremes — spectacle or outrage — or retreat into safe repetition.</p>\n<p>Neither outcome produces better work.</p>\n<h2>The Comfort of Distance</h2>\n<p>Part of “mid”’s appeal is emotional distance.</p>\n<p>To call something bad requires conviction. To call something mid requires nothing. It’s safe. Non-committal. You can always claim irony later.</p>\n<p>This mirrors a broader cultural shift: the preference for irony over sincerity, detachment over investment. Caring is risky. Explaining yourself is vulnerable.</p>\n<p>“Mid” protects the speaker from both.</p>\n<p>But culture built on distance stagnates.</p>\n<h2>Not Everything Needs to Be Brilliant</h2>\n<p>Here’s the uncomfortable truth: a lot of things <em>are</em> average. And that’s okay.</p>\n<p>Not every game needs to redefine its genre. Not every film needs to be profound. Competent, well-crafted, forgettable work has always existed — and always will.</p>\n<p>The problem isn’t acknowledging mediocrity. The problem is refusing to articulate it.</p>\n<p>Calling something “competent but uninspired,” “mechanically sound but creatively conservative,” or “ambitious but unfocused” actually says something.</p>\n<p>“Mid” shuts the door instead.</p>\n<h2>Critique as a Skill</h2>\n<p>Criticism is not just opinion — it’s a skill that improves with practice.</p>\n<p>It requires:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Comparison</li>\n<li>Context</li>\n<li>Vocabulary</li>\n<li>Willingness to be wrong</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Reducing all negative response to a single word discourages that development. It trains audiences to react, not reflect.</p>\n<h3>Criticism as labor</h3>\n<p></p>\n<p>If we want better games, better films, better art — we need better criticism.</p>\n<p>And that starts with better language.</p>\n<h2>Do Better</h2>\n<p>This isn’t about banning words or policing slang.</p>\n<p>It’s about responsibility.</p>\n<p>If you disliked something, say why. If something failed you, explain how. If a work bored you, interrogate that boredom.</p>\n<p>Words matter because they shape how we think. Lazy language produces lazy discourse. Lazy discourse produces stagnant culture.</p>\n<p>You don’t owe anyone praise.<br>\nBut if you’re going to criticize — <em>mean it</em>.</p>\n<p>Say more than “mid.”</p>"}],"style":"normal"}]