Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3766316" data-attributes="member: 22779">Which means that we are having a disconnect in terminology.  To me, critique has a very specific meaning and has very, very little to do with personal opinion.So long as bad is a value, I'd agree with that.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Note, I don't equate bad with valueless.  Lots of things are bad, but that doesn't mean they completely lack value.  Even poorly written prose can contain original ideas that can springboard other writers to better works.  Case in point:  Tolkein.  (I KID I KID!)Again, this is a major semantic gulf we're having, so I think we're pretty much talking about different topics.As was mentioned, taste is subjective and has very little to do with quality.  Big Mac's may be incredibly popular, but, I'd hardly say that they are higher quality than prime rib.  Brittany Spears may sell more albums than many other musicians, but, I'd hardly call her music better.Happens all the time.  Heck, look at the MASSIVE body of work that comes out every year critiquing Shakespeare.  New concepts and new ways of critiquing come and go.  As ideas change, so does our value system of judging a work.  Something that may have been panned by critics at the time can become lauded later.  Look at Van Gogh.  Didn't sell a painting in his lifetime.  Now he's considered a master.That's because authorial intent is meaningless.  Authors can be wrong about the meaning of their text.  Authors can lie.  Authors can be misrepresented.  And they can misrepresent themselves.  They can even change their minds over time about the meaning of a work.  Appeals to authorial intent have been discredited for a very long time.  Heck, earlier in this thread someone pointed to J. K. Rowlings stating that Harry Potter isn't fantasy.  Imagine for a second that this is true, that she really said and meant this.  Does that mean that Harry Potter no longer belongs in the fantasy genre?  Because, if you accept authorial intent, that's what you have to conclude.However, there is often a commonality of experience that can be explored.  And, again, just because experiences differ, doesn't mean that you cannot quantify elements of that experience.  Sure, it's a lot fuzzier than in medicine, but, that doesn't make it purely subjective either.I think one of the biggest disconnects here is the idea that if something is bad, then it has no value.  That's not true.  Star Wars is a bad movie.  It's cliche, hackneyed, poorly acted, poorly written, derivative, the works.  Yet, it spawned the Summer Blockbuster, some of which have been great movies.  So, something that is objectively bad can be subjectively enjoyed and can still have lots of value.Try watching the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and tell me that again.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Or Hawk the Slayer.  Or Dungeonmaster.  Or reading a Gor book.  Listen to any number of one hit wonder 80's bubblegum pop bands.  The list goes on and on.  It can't possibly all be good.</blockquote>

Verification