Disdain for new fantasy

[Merlion]

And yet there are people that will voice their opinion on books they haven't read, movies they haven't seen, and so on. Is their opinion as valid as someone who has?

I wouldnt call that a real opinion of the work. Its probably more like a generalized opinion of similar works etc.

I dont really have any issues with any opinion of a work, unless and until someone tries to say their opinion is some sort of objective truth.

But if it was "good" to begin with, how do you know when and what to improve?

By my own personal standards, and the standards of others who read them. Edit: Also to me its not a thing of "good" and "bad". Its an issue of all creative works having inherent *value*. This value may or may not manifest for everyone, since everyone has different thoughts, feelings, needs and perceptions.

If something can be better than it was before, can there not be a point when you could have called it "bad"?

Flawed and incomplete, yes. Bad, as in lacking any sort of value whatsoever, no I dont think so.

If your story has incomprehensible grammar, glaring inconsistencies and a plot that makes no sense, can you call it "good" if even one person finds it entertaining?

What are the chances of anyone besides a small child producing a story that simultaneously has incomprehensible grammar, glaring inconsistancies, and a plot that makes no sense?

A work can have flaws that everyone or nearly everyone can agree upon, but that doesnt make it "bad", "worthless" or "crap." And as I said, I dont really see the liklihood of a literary work being produced by an adult possessed of basic language skills that is simply an incomprehensible collection of words or some such.

And it also, once again, depends upon the specific purposes of a work. I've read and seen stories/movies whatever that basically made no sense to me and that I didn't get anything from...but I figure they served some purpose for their creators and probably had positive effects on other viewers.

 

[Darth Shoju]

By my own personal standards, and the standards of others who read them. Edit: Also to me its not a thing of "good" and "bad". Its an issue of all creative works having inherent *value*. This value may or may not manifest for everyone, since everyone has different thoughts, feelings, needs and perceptions.

But what do you base your standards on? Where did you get them from?

What are the chances of anyone besides a small child producing a story that simultaneously has incomprehensible grammar, glaring inconsistancies, and a plot that makes no sense?

After reading amateur fiction on the interwebs, I'd say the chances are pretty good that adults can produce that kind of work.

A work can have flaws that everyone or nearly everyone can agree upon, but that doesnt make it "bad", "worthless" or "crap."

Hey I don't like tossing around "crap" or "worthless" either; those terms certainly rankle me when they are used. "Bad" is different for me (less offensive I suppose, somehow), although it does get used too liberally on the web.

Flawed and incomplete, yes. Bad, as in lacking any sort of value whatsoever, no I dont think so.

I think we are just waltzing with semantics here, so perhaps I'll let things be.

 

[Merlion]

But what do you base your standards on? Where did you get them from?
.

From myself. But I don't claim that they necessarily apply to anyone but me.

For instance, I tend to be bored by most "regular" drama, comedy and even action stories that lack supernatural/unusual elements. But I dont consider most of the things that bore me "bad", I just consider them boring, for myself.

After reading amateur fiction on the interwebs, I'd say the chances are pretty good that adults can produce that kind of work

But whats the intention or purpose behind it? Is it meant to be a sincere creative expression?

But then, how can one really tell?

I think we are just waltzing with semantics here, so perhaps I'll let things be.

Its more that for some of these things, there are no single, definitive, absolute and universal answers, at least not in terms of debate-logic.

I believe that all artistic/creative works have inherent value.

I believe that there are certain areas in which most people tend to agree that certain things are more or less enjoyable or useful, especially as far as storytelling. These are semi-objective elements, like plot, characterization etc. But even they are in the end subjective, and a story can have many flaws in these areas but still retain a great deal of value.

I think some works are made simply to be entertainment, without a lot of other purpose or intention behind them. Many of the works that people label "bad" fall into this catagory. They have no delusions of being masterpieces or of changing the world, they exist simply to give enjoyment and entertainment. But this is a value in itself.

I think rarely there are works that are created mainly just to be sold and that these could perhaps be considered the "least valuable" of artistic works. However, if they are enjoyed, then they still posses value and merit.

I think that works into which great love and thought are poured are on, for lack of a better term, a "higher level" than those that are produced mainly as a commercial commodity. But then, how does one tell them apart?

Like I said, there arent absolute answers and reconciliations for some of these things. A lot of it depends on the individual work. But the notion that some artistic works are simply bad in some universal objective way, to me basically boils down to either elitism or egotism in the end.

 

[Hussar]

Their opinion about a given work doesnt necessarily need to be informed by anything other than experiencing that work.

And there, we're just not going to agree. Sorry, cultural ties are extremely important to understanding a work. The well wrought urn form of critical thought has been pretty much buried since about 1960. Trying to critique a work in a vacuum leads to some very strange interpretations.

I dont see this as a problem, as the desire to innovate, grow and expand is pretty much built into most artists/creative types. I speak from experience as a writer in this...even though I dont accept the notion of objectively "bad" creative works, I still attempt to improve my own work within the framework of my own personal standards and those of my personal audience.

As I said, we aren't going to agree on this. You are claiming that so long as anyone says something is good, it is so. That unless 100% of the people claim it is bad, that it cannot be bad. To me, there is a world of difference between me trying to critique a work and someone who has made a life study of it. That person can not only tell me, in fairly objective terms, that work X is good, but also why beyond "I like it, therefore its good."

The tendency to conflate subjective taste with quality is very pervasive. Just because I like something doesn't make it good.

On the flip side, just because something is popular, doesn't make it bad as well. There is a danger, and you see this in music all the time, that as soon as something goes mainstream, it's no longer "good". Early fans talk about bands "selling out" and that new fans just aren't really fans. This is equally problematic.

But, in the end, I'm going state, I believe objectively, that Mozart writes better music than I do. Mozart is objectively better than anything I can do. I might not even like it that much, but I know that its better. Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King. Michaelangelo is a better painter than you are. (probably ) Etc, etc.

There are objective standards we can apply to a given work. Those standards will change depending on what we are examining, but, the idea that all standards are subjective, thus, equally valid is, IMO, wrong.

 

[Merlion]

And there, we're just not going to agree. Sorry, cultural ties are extremely important to understanding a work. The well wrought urn form of critical thought has been pretty much buried since about 1960. Trying to critique a work in a vacuum leads to some very strange interpretations.

I am not talking about "critiquing" it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do.

As I said, we aren't going to agree on this. You are claiming that so long as anyone says something is good, it is so

Nope. I'm stating that all artistic works have value.

That person can not only tell me, in fairly objective terms, that work X is good, but also why beyond "I like it, therefore its good."

And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient?

Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King.

Why? According to who? By what "objective" criteria? And if I like Stephen King better than Shakespear, does that mean I have somehow "inferior" "taste"?

There are objective standards we can apply to a given work

What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the "passing grade" can it fall, and in which areas before it is "objectively bad?"

Those standards will change depending on what we are examining

Then they arent objective. Unless maybe you are talking about say literature versus music versus painting or some such, but even then, the purposes of all those forms are pretty similar. Only the execution or means is different.

And I notice you give very little mention to the purpose and intent behind works.

but, the idea that all standards are subjective, thus, equally valid is, IMO, wrong.

If your talking about boat building, or medicine, or rocket science, then yea. Cause those things are objective and have totally objective results of succeeding or failing in their totally objective purposes. But art, by nature, is subjective. Its meant to be experienced, and everyone will experience it differently.

Just because I like something doesn't make it good

I am not talking about everything being "good", necessarily. I am talking about all artistic works having value, and the "good and bad" of it being subjective.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Merlion]

On a side note, I can't remember ever having experienced reading/seeing a book, story, movie or whatever that I felt was "bad" in the way that all of you talk about. I've seen/read plenty that bored me, or that I didnt care for. I've encountered some that put forth views that i disagree with, or even consider to be destructive or wrong. I've been irritated by ones that do things with concepts I am fond of that I don't agree with or like, such as portraying a certain creature in a way inconsistent with its roots.

I've even encountered specific things, actions or other issues in a story that I considered less than skilled writing/storytelling...most commonly in the context of television series some times having a character act in a way at odds with the character's established nature for no discernible reason.

And there are whole types of stories that I don't personally understand why anyone would be interested in them. But I understand that they still are, and that that is valid.

But I cant really remember ever feeling that an entire work was simply "bad", devoid of merit, in its entirety or near entirity.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I am not talking about "critiquing" it in any academic sense. I am talking about 1) people forming their personal opinion of it and 2) determining wether it has value and merit, which as near as I can tell, all artistic works do.

Value and merit aren't the same thing. Value is quite subjective, while merit implies excellence (and certainly not all art can be called excellent).

And then what happens if you don't like it? Your taste or intelligence are somehow deficient?

I don't think taste and intelligence are necessarily linked. Intelligent people can like things that are bad for them (smoking, for example).

What are they, who decides what they are, what happens when those people disagree? What happens when a work lives up to some of them, but not others? How far under the "passing grade" can it fall, and in which areas before it is "objectively bad?"

On that note, if we can agree that some works are better than others, if a particular work is inferior to nearly every other one it can be compared to, is avoiding calling it "bad" really accomplishing anything?

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Can anyone explain why if anything is derived from anime/WoW (even if it has a non-existent connection) it seems like there is opposition not based on the concept itself but from where it comes from?

For myself, it depends on the derived element, and where it is used.

In the 4E core books, I am opposed to any anime-style artwork. D&D has it's foundations in pre-rennaissance Eurocentric culture, and for it to have my approval it should stay there. I don't want factory-style art of young teen heroes with petite noses, big eyes, blue hair, and gargantuan bladed swords. It is so out of character for my tastes, it would actually affect my decision to purchase.

However, if the artwork looked more like Katsuhiro Otomo's anime I'd have far fewer problems.

As for WoW, it's not nearly as bad, primarily because it's effectively a watered down blend of anime and warhammer. I dislike many of WoW visual elements, but I'm nowhere as horrified by it as I am with the mass-produced anime drek I've seen.

Mechanics-wise (character classes, campaign elements, plotlines, etc) I have no compunctions whatsoever. Steal away. If it makes the game more fun so be it. Just keep the Eurocentric feel of the game. If WotC intended to include Naruto-style powerslingers, just save it for a supplemental book.

 

[Merlion]

Value and merit aren't the same thing. Value is quite subjective, while merit implies excellence (and certainly not all art can be called excellent).

Thats not how I understand the definition of either word, but ok. To me merit and value both imply more or less exactly the same things. And they are subjective, but as such all artistic works would still possess them, since there are going to be people who assign/experience value or merit from them, along with those that dont.

I don't think taste and intelligence are necessarily linked. Intelligent people can like things that are bad for them (smoking, for example).

Whats that got to do with what we're talking about, or my question?

If some works are objectively bad/worthless/without merit, it follows that anyone who feels that they arent has deficient taste, intelligence or something.

On that note, if we can agree that some works are better than others, if a particular work is inferior to nearly every other one it can be compared to, is avoiding calling it "bad" really accomplishing anything?

Well first, I'm not even sure about the some are better than others type. In the end, its really still subjective.

To me, some few works stand above their peers yes. But I dont really think you'd find a work inferior in any remotely objective way to everything else you could compare it to.

However, to answer your question a little more directly on its own terms, it depends on how your defining "bad." You guys seem to use "bad" to mean "I dont like it" or "not as good as the best of its kind."

Generally however bad means negative, lousy, worthless, failed, useless etc. And even if a work was inferior to all others of its kind, I dont think that would yet make it any of those things.

Works of art are works of art, and their badness or goodness is more or less entirely in the eye of the beholder, when it comes down to it, which means that no one can say "this is bad (or crap or worthless or failed or useless or whatever similar word you want to use)" as anything other than a statement of their personal opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If some works are objectively bad/worthless/without merit, it follows that anyone who feels that they arent has deficient taste, intelligence or something.

Taste is subjective, not objective.