The "L" Word (Lazy) and Armchair Quarterbacking
Ok, so we can't engage in criticism, or award the Nobel Prize for one but not the other, because it's totally subjective?
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Yes that's totally what I was saying, you can't criticize or award anything ever.
My argument was and still is that "lazy" is a subjective criticism. You've done nothing to argue against that, since your only arguments so far have been to provide your opinion on two different sets of lyrics, and then make a logical fallacy (argument to authority) with the New Yorker, which is not immune from having subjective views on what constitutes good and bad literature. Indeed many of the established organizations for reviewing literature, music, movies and so on were created by people within those genres to give themselves credence. Many different organizations will have different rankings, different bars to pass and different opinions on what another agency has highly rated.
You can make fact-based arguments about grammar and spelling being correct or incorrect. You can make subjective opinion-based statements on the quality or workmanship of a piece of work. Beyond that, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Bob Dylan, not one specific song.
These agencies you're holding up do the latter.
[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] - I'm not following your argument.
As it happens, I don't agree that all criticism (beyond spelling and grammar) is subjective. But let's put that to one side.
Are you saying that, because all such criticism is subjective, we shouldn't engage in it? Eg there's no point in discussing whether Dylan did or didn't merit a Nobel Prize?
And if you're not saying that, then why is the description of work as "lazy" being singled out by you as impermissible? (As far as I can tell you're not arguing that it's an attack on the work ethic of the composer/author - which would be a point on which we agree.)
As it happens, I don't agree that all criticism (beyond spelling and grammar) is subjective. But let's put that to one side.
Are you saying that, because all such criticism is subjective, we shouldn't engage in it? Eg there's no point in discussing whether Dylan did or didn't merit a Nobel Prize?
And if you're not saying that, then why is the description of work as "lazy" being singled out by you as impermissible? (As far as I can tell you're not arguing that it's an attack on the work ethic of the composer/author - which would be a point on which we agree.)
A separate point: appealing to authority is not a fallacy.
Relevant to your post, the basis on which one criticises spelling or grammar is by appeal to authoritative dictionaries, style guides etc.
More generally, the fact that a leading critical magazine thinks that the notion of "lazy writing" has currency is a reason (obviously defeasible, but at present, as far as I know, undefeated) for accepting the currency of the notion; just the same as the fact that I read news reports from reliable sources about missiles being fired by North Korea is a good reason for me to believe those missiles were fired (I didn't see them myself).
As Bertrand Russell pointed out (among other places) in Problems of Philosophy (1912, I think), if we don't accept the testimony of others as a basis for warranted belief, we will have to be extremely sceptical about nearly everything (ie everything that is not warrntaed immediately by our own sense experience and our own worked-out deductions).
S
Sunseeker
Guest
And you may have just gained some insight into my mind.
In short: I'm not saying you can't criticize something, but opinion-based criticism, which is the stock-and-trade of many organizations that review literature, music and movies, are still opinions. They may have some grounded facts among them, but by and large their opinions cater towards a certain audience. And they are still subjective.
Calling something "lazy" is on the extreme end of subjective opinions. A well-established review agency like the Nobel Committee can be generally believed to have a well-founded and well-rounded knowledge of the technical side, as well as be trusted to have a reasoned subjective opinion.
The term lazy carries no such connotations. It's definition is at the whimsy of the speaker. You may think less than 10 hours of work is lazy. I may think less than 5 hours of work is lazy. The creator we're criticizing may have spent 10 seconds in creating a work we both consider "not lazy". At the end of it all, the term is too subjective to be appropriate for any sort of common discourse. That's my point. Not that you can't critique something, not that you can't use opinions to do it, but that some opinions are too opinionated.
I don't think "lazy" has the connotiations you suggest here, in this context. It's not about "hours of work" - as I said, I suspect many composers of "lazy compositions" are working pretty hard. (An example of lazy writing: the BeastQuest books my kids read. I assume these are being churned out by their near-anonymous authors at the rate of about one a day - no laziness in that respect!)
"Lazy", in the sense of "lazy writing" or "lazy composition" or "lazy design" means something along the lines of "displaying no technical ingenuity or craftsmanship; trite or predictable; intended to avoid confronting a compositional challenge". That's got to be part of the repertoire for people whose job it is to churn out lots of words in a short time. (And who aren't geniuses.)
I just found out about the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0]McGurk effect [/URL]which proves that you can not always rely on your own sense experience either.
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
There's nothing lazy about this nor am I attempting to stir the pot, so thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I also fully understand the arguments presented as I read them. Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them, but I understand them.
But also, those threads didn't start with the intention of having this particular discussion, and people viewing those thread were not coming prepared to talk about the fairness or appropriateness of various forms of criticism. Those threads derailed into that kind of conversation, which often became heated and as a result less objective.
Creating this thread gives a proper space to have these arguments in a more civilized, less defensive way.
And I do appreciate the various perspectives that have been shared. Personally, I tend to agree more with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in how I see the appropriateness of describing a work as lazy. But I do understand how others see that use of criticism and are triggered by it.
I just think what is more fascinating is how when someone uses that word, regardless of the context or the framing (at least in my experience on this forum and others) that people begin to focus on that rather than the underlining concept, or the words over the message. For example, in the Arcane Archer conversation, the poster was more concerned and venting on how that wording would effect gameplay, and in my case how I was arguing that the Tiefling UA broke away from typical conventions of subrace mechanics.
KahlessNestor
Adventurer
Yes. Venting. I wouldn't say he was concerned, because when given multiple instances of how the issue was already fixed, fixed several times over, in multiple venues, and at considerable cost to the company, he (and others) doubled down on the lazy argument. I mean, I had the AL guide with the errata in my hand even before I had the book! That was just a couple days' difference. That doesn't seem "lazy", that seems "conscientious" and "on top of things". Yes, it would be nice to have no errors, but plenty of books go out with errors, and we seldom see them fixed.
