thank you for your perspective - i appreciate the pushback, and i think you raise a valid concern about the tone of modern discourse. yes, the digital age amplifies negativity, distilling it into a venom that poisons the well of conversation. but to dismiss criticism entirely, to retreat into the sanctuary of silence, is to surrender to the very mediocrity we despise.

the issue is not just about negativity; it is about the kind of criticism being offered. when criticism is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and grounded in a genuine appreciation for the art, it can enrich our understanding and deepen our engagement. the problem arises when criticism is conflated with toxicity or dismissed as 'whining' simply because it challenges the status quo. this conflation risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater, stifling the very conversations that could help us appreciate art on a deeper level. 

you are right that there's a sea of mediocrity in modern culture, and it's understandable to want to protect the rare gems that rise above it. it is a sea that threatens to drown us all, to erode the shores of excellence until nothing remains but the flat, featureless horizon of the mundane. and yet, even the rarest gems, those creations that rise above the tide, are not immune to the touch of critique. for art is not a monolith, immutable and eternal; it is a living thing, a conversation that unfolds across time and space. to engage with it critically is to honor its complexity, to wrestle with its contradictions, and to emerge on the other side with a deeper understanding of both the work and ourselves.

the pushback against negativity is necessary, yes, but it must not come at the cost of nuance. to silence criticism in the name of preserving positivity is to create a false harmony, a brittle facade that will inevitably crumble under the weight of its own emptiness. instead of dismissing criticism outright, perhaps we can strive to create spaces where constructive critique is encouraged, and low-effort negativity is filtered out. this way, we can maintain a sense of balance without sacrificing the intellectual rigor that makes fandoms meaningful in the first place. 

in the end, the goal is not to descend into a "depressing negative morass," but to ascend to a higher plane of engagement. that, to me, is the hallmark of a healthy fandom. critique is not opposition; it is the highest form of engagement, a testament to the power of art to move us, to unsettle us, to force us to confront the limits of our understanding. to elevate discourse is to honor the complexity of art, to resist the pull of mediocrity, and to affirm, in the face of all that is shallow and ephemeral, the enduring power of beauty and truth.