Honestly - What is Eragon?

[Merlion]

I think that creative works should be judged on their actual artistic merits

But then we have a problem. Who does that judging? How is the merit judged? What counts as having merit, and what doesnt? Is it based on what is or isnt commericially successful? If thats the case, than Eragon certainly has merit, and in fact many works of literature that are often considered sub par would in fact have more merit than many that are considered "classics"

We can only each of us decide these things for ourselves. Which is, again, just our opinion. You dont think Eragon has merit. Many people do. Who is right?

The answer is, it does have merit, but something can have merit, but not be enjoyed/appreciated by/fit the taste of everyone. Works of creativity dont even need to BE judged in the first place, except within the taste of each individual person. The fact that some people dislike a thing doesnt detract from its value to those who do like it.

This also raises another question as well...if as you say creative works have or lack some sort of objective merit decided upon by...you? Me? whoever? then does that mean that someone who enjoys a work that is decided to lack merit somehow lack something themselves?

I'm not interested in appearing to be likeable and I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest. And I'm not implying insults either. Where I don't like something, I say so up front. Anything else is coming from your own perceptions.

I was refering to your response to my statement that I dont feel I was as drastically different person at 21 than I was at 15. Your response was, as near as I could tell, an implied/indirect insult.

It's just your opinion that creativity on its own is deserving of merit, irrespective of the outcome. I don't agree. These are just our respective opinions. No facts there at all.

If I have the opinion that the sky is purple, does that make it so?

Some things are not subjective, they are objective.

Again, I'm just talking about Eragon here, along with my opinions on whether creativity is meritorious in its own right. That's not "everything" and that's not insulting or overly negative either

Well, everything that I have seen in this thread that you have put forth has been some combination of negative, highly abrasive, insulting or sarcastic. You have put forth a feeling of being someone who has little or no empathy, sympathy, or overall regard for other people, their efforts, or their works.

I may be entirely wrong, but that is the impression your posts are putting forth.

But if you can't make that distinction, or need to ascribe malice to me

One or two of your statements ascribe a little malice to themselves. Unless you make it clear that they arent ment maliciously...remember in this format we have only the actual word of what we say to go by...no intonation, no facial expressions to alter the impact of a statement.

And a good deal more of your statements even if not ascribing full blown malice to themselves, do ascribe a certain lack of regard for others feelings, and a certain degree of (intentional?) abraisiveness.

Now from what you've said you seem to be the sort who doesnt really care about feelings and probably believes that anyone who is offended or emotionally upset by anything anyone says is somehow weak or deficient, but most people have feelings, and can have those feelings impacted negatively by other people. Thats why we should take those things into account when interacting, simply to make everyone's lives easier...thats why ettiquette, manners and consideration exist.

 

[Mark Hope]

But then we have a problem. Who does that judging? How is the merit judged? What counts as having merit, and what doesnt? Is it based on what is or isnt commericially successful? If thats the case, than Eragon certainly has merit, and in fact many works of literature that are often considered sub par would in fact have more merit than many that are considered "classics"

We can only each of us decide these things for ourselves. Which is, again, just our opinion. You dont think Eragon has merit. Many people do. Who is right?

When it comes to creative works of art (like writing, or music, or painting) nobody is "right". That's my point. I can be as dismissive, critical or negative about Eragon as I like. And someone else can praise it to the heavens. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way. That's one of the reasons that discussion boards exist - for people like you and I to spout our baseless, subjective opinions into the ether.

The answer is, it does have merit, but something can have merit, but not be enjoyed/appreciated by/fit the taste of everyone. Works of creativity dont even need to BE judged in the first place, except within the taste of each individual person. The fact that some people dislike a thing doesnt detract from its value to those who do like it.

Of course it doesn't. Is anyone claiming otherwise? That's all this thread is - differing opinions on Eragon and creativity.

This also raises another question as well...if as you say creative works have or lack some sort of objective merit decided upon by...you? Me? whoever? then does that mean that someone who enjoys a work that is decided to lack merit somehow lack something themselves?

Where I have I talked about objective merit at all? Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that I am making comment on someone who does like that thing. That's just crazy talk.

I was refering to your response to my statement that I dont feel I was as drastically different person at 21 than I was at 15. Your response was, as near as I could tell, an implied/indirect insult.

Look, by definition you will have been an unmatured adolescent at 15. If you didn't go through a process of growth over the next 6 years as you became an adult, then I really do feel sorry for you. I'm not trying to belittle or insult you here. Those years are the crux of growth from childhood to manhood - the very definition of coming of age. I think it's a shame that you don't seem to have felt that.
(We could be talking at cross-purposes here, so take me at my word when I say I'm not wanting to insult you with this - but at face value the idea that those 6 years went by and you were still much like your 15 year old self at the end of it is a bit disheartening from where I am sitting).

If I have the opinion that the sky is purple, does that make it so?

Some things are not subjective, they are objective.

The colour of the sky is objective. Artistic merit is subjective. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Well, everything that I have seen in this thread that you have put forth has been some combination of negative, highly abrasive, insulting or sarcastic. You have put forth a feeling of being someone who has little or no empathy, sympathy, or overall regard for other people, their efforts, or their works.

You really are reading an awful lot into this. I have held forth my opinion on two topics, and two topics only. Eragon's lack of originality and the inherent value of creative work. That's all. I'm not dressing up my opinions in touchy-feely language, true, but that's just me. All the other inferences that you make are yours to make and I'm fine with that. But that's all they are.

I may be entirely wrong, but that is the impression your posts are putting forth.

I'll take the rough with the smooth. Some folks will take things as they come. Some won't. You can't please all the people all of the time.

One or two of your statements ascribe a little malice to themselves. Unless you make it clear that they arent ment maliciously...remember in this format we have only the actual word of what we say to go by...no intonation, no facial expressions to alter the impact of a statement.

Well, there's the thing. I'm under no obligation to qualify my posts as being anything other than what they seem to be. If you want to take them as malicious, then go ahead. If someone else wants to take them as something else, that's fine as well. This is just one conversation out of many - it'll all come out in the wash, as they say. You could argue that, by the same absence of intonation or facial expressions, it is equally erroneous of you to ascribe malice where there is nothing more than frank disagreement. But that's another topic, and not one that moves me to great emotion either way.

And a good deal more of your statements even if not ascribing full blown malice to themselves, do ascribe a certain lack of regard for others feelings, and a certain degree of (intentional?) abraisiveness.

Well, I don't agree with things that you've said and I'm not dancing around the subject. I guess that kind of frank approach offends you. So be it.

Now from what you've said you seem to be the sort who doesnt really care about feelings and probably believes that anyone who is offended or emotionally upset by anything anyone says is somehow weak or deficient, but most people have feelings, and can have those feelings impacted negatively by other people. Thats why we should take those things into account when interacting, simply to make everyone's lives easier...thats why ettiquette, manners and consideration exist.

Well, personal comments like those you've just made aren't really my bag. Trying to bait me with ill-conceived aspersions on my personality gets you a chuckle and a shrug, but not much more. You might want to lighten up a bit, though. Or, if you don't like what I am saying, just ignore me. I'm a big lad - I'm sure I'll get over it...

 

[Merlion]

When it comes to creative works of art (like writing, or music, or painting) nobody is "right". That's my point. I can be as dismissive, critical or negative about Eragon as I like. And someone else can praise it to the heavens. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way. That's one of the reasons that discussion boards exist - for people like you and I to spout our baseless, subjective opinions into the ether.

You said that creative works should be judged on their own artistic merits, which, to me, implies that they either have, or lack, some sort of objective merit that one can observe and verify. You stated this in disagreement to my saying that all creative works automatically have merit but that they may or may not hold interest or enjoyment for any given person.

But now your saying that merit cannot be objectively judged, which to me is in contradiction to what you said earlier.

From what your saying now, I'm not sure I understand then why you would disagree with the idea that all artistic/creative works have merit or inherent value, but that they may or may not suit the tastes of a given person.

Look, by definition you will have been an unmatured adolescent at 15

But see, thats not actually true. Physically, most 15 year olds are fully, or almost fully mature. And mentally and emotionally...well, those forms of maturity are mostly subjective...again I've known very "mature" responsible, sensible teenagers, and people in their 40s with no sense of responsibility or hardly any ability to function.

If you didn't go through a process of growth over the next 6 years as you became an adult,

In our culture, you legally become an "adult" at age 18. Thats because there has to be some sort of cut off, for legal purposes, where people start being responsible for themselves if they commit a crime etc.

Actually "adulthood" or real maturity may come sooner, later, or even not at all to a person. I've known mature, responsible, sensible 15 and 16 year olds, and people in their 40s totally lacking those traits.

Childhood has been considerably extended in our culture, over the past century or so...a hundred years ago, a 15 or 16 year old was considered largely grown.

This tendency in our culture leads to things like people thinking a 15 year old couldnt possible write a deccent novel...even for other young people...unless they are some sort of special prodigy (I know you didnt say that, but its what I was talking about when I said the things I said.)

Those years are the crux of growth from childhood to manhood - the very definition of coming of age. I think it's a shame that you don't seem to have felt that

I dont. I feel lucky....I've simply felt like *me* my entire life. Experiences have made some changes here in there in who I am, but age, the arbitary number, has not.

I'm not trying to belittle or insult you here.

Then I misinterpreted your intent, and I'm sorry for that.

The colour of the sky is objective. Artistic merit is subjective

Merit isnt subjective. Its objective. Taste and enjoyment are subjective, but anything someone puts work and thought into has basic merit to some degree, at least in terms of artistic endevors.

Trying to bait me with ill-conceived aspersions on my personality gets you a chuckle and a shrug, but not much more. You might want to lighten up a bit, though. Or, if you don't like what I am saying, just ignore me

To me, you seem to need a fair amount of lightening up. Wether its true or not, you project a feeling of negativity and cynicism, and a sense of lack of regard for others. All I'm saying is you might get more out of interactions from thinking how your words may sound from the other side. I realize its very possible that you do and either dont care how they sound, or think they sound fine...and maybe they do too everyone but me. I'm just saying what I'm getting is all

 

[Mark Hope]

You said that creative works should be judged on their own artistic merits, which, to me, implies that they either have, or lack, some sort of objective merit that one can observe and verify. You stated this in disagreement to my saying that all creative works automatically have merit but that they may or may not hold interest or enjoyment for any given person.

But now your saying that merit cannot be objectively judged, which to me is in contradiction to what you said earlier.

No, we seem to have a difference of definition for "merit" here (I was gonna bring this up earlier but, well, I couldn't be bothered, lol). From the outset my opinion has been that merit is judged subjectively. That's why I disagreed with you saying that all creative works automaticall have merit. From a subjective standpoint, they can't.

From what your saying now, I'm not sure I understand then why you would disagree with the idea that all artistic/creative works have merit or inherent value, but that they may or may not suit the tastes of a given person.

I understand what you mean. My point is that merit is not an objective concept. To you it is. Fair enough. That explains why we disagree on this.

But see, thats not actually true. Physically, most 15 year olds are fully, or almost fully mature.

No, they aren't. Synaptic pathways in the brain, for example, don't become fully formed until the early 20s.

And mentally and emotionally...well, those forms of maturity are mostly subjective...again I've known very "mature" responsible, sensible teenagers, and people in their 40s with no sense of responsibility or hardly any ability to function.

While mental and emotional maturity is partly subjective, that subjectivity is determined by your peers - a sort of objectivity imposed by the masses. As for emotionally stunted people in their 40s, I would argue that they're not representative of people in general - and not representative of you in particular.

In our culture, you legally become an "adult" at age 18. Thats because there has to be some sort of cut off, for legal purposes, where people start being responsible for themselves if they commit a crime etc.

Actually "adulthood" or real maturity may come sooner, later, or even not at all to a person. I've known mature, responsible, sensible 15 and 16 year olds, and people in their 40s totally lacking those traits.

Childhood has been considerably extended in our culture, over the past century or so...a hundred years ago, a 15 or 16 year old was considered largely grown.

This tendency in our culture leads to things like people thinking a 15 year old couldnt possible write a deccent novel...even for other young people...unless they are some sort of special prodigy (I know you didnt say that, but its what I was talking about when I said the things I said.)

Yeah, I get what you're saying here. My point remains that I'd expect someone to feel a sense of growth and maturation between 15 and 20.

I dont. I feel lucky....I've simply felt like *me* my entire life. Experiences have made some changes here in there in who I am, but age, the arbitary number, has not.

Fair enough. The arbitrary number, though, is a convenient handle to judge the passage of those experiences. And, for lack of any other benchmark, that what we have to go on. But like I say, I'm not taking shots at you here.

Then I misinterpreted your intent, and I'm sorry for that.

No need to apologise. Rough with the smooth .

Merit isnt subjective. Its objective. Taste and enjoyment are subjective, but anything someone puts work and thought into has basic merit to some degree, at least in terms of artistic endevors.

Hmm, yeah, we're back to our basic disagreement here I think. You and I differ here on a fundamental level. To me, effort is not enough in the larger artisitic arena. Results are what matter. And the fact that appreciation of those results is subjective only makes it harder on the artist. Which was the gist of my earlier point about "no free lunches".

To me, you seem to need a fair amount of lightening up.

That's funny, because this whole thread is an exercise in whimsy for me. Differing perspectives, eh?

Wether its true or not, you project a feeling of negativity and cynicism, and a sense of lack of regard for others. All I'm saying is you might get more out of interactions from thinking how your words may sound from the other side. I realize its very possible that you do and either dont care how they sound, or think they sound fine...and maybe they do too everyone but me. I'm just saying what I'm getting is all

Hey, no problem as far as I am concerned. As I've said, yeah, I'm not really bothered about how I come across. I'm sure it bothers plenty of people. And I'm sure plenty of others couldn't care less what I have to say. And maybe one or two agree. It's all much of a muchness to me. My feeling on these things is that life is too short to raise a sweat about this. What will be will be.

Hmmm, off on a bit of a tangent here.

So, about that creative merit in Eragon...

 

[takyris]

What have you written? Do you have a popular fantasy series?

No, of course not. I also don't have publisher parents with contacts throughout the industry to hawk my book for me as a birthday present.

I wrote novels in the 8th grade. I could have written even more if I didn't have to go to school. That didn't make them good novels, mind you, but neither does having your parents publish it for you.

The entirety of the hook for the series is "Look, he's only 15, and this isn't that bad!" He's the Charlotte Church of fantasy publishing. And yeah, I'm biased against that. I'm biased against "Hey, this is pretty good for a 15-year-old," because the great thing about writing is that it's a level playing field. You are as good as you are, regardless of whether you're young, old, rich, poor, a high-school drop-out or an Ivy League graduate. To imply that one should overlook bad writing and a bad plot because of the writer's age is insulting to the writer as well as the reader.

I've got a friend who went into a diabetic coma in the middle of writing her current novel. That was kind of a big wake-up call for her (she'd been undiagnosed until this happened -- late onset Type 1). I'm sure it affected her writing. I'm equally sure that if the book jackets were hawking her book as "Impressive, especially considering that the author is a young woman just diagnosed with diabetes!", she'd be pretty insulted.

There's an old saying that as an author, you have to write a million words of garbage before you really become a writer. I don't know how true that is, but I do know that I'm really glad that the four or five novels I wrote before age 22 will never see the light of day.

(That said, the author, sad as he is, can walk around in a jacket made entirely of hundred dollar bills, so I'm sure he's okay.)

I'm not saying that nobody should read this book. I'm not saying that the book shouldn't have been published. I read a great deal of fiction that I can objectively qualify as bad. (I usually call it popcorn, because that lets me look at myself in the mirror.) But I don't try to put it up on a pedestal. It's bad. It's not a unique novel with clunky writing, and it's not a strong retelling of the classic tropes. It's not new, and it's not good. The appeal is pretty much to people who want more Terry Brooks, or to people who are impressed by the fact that a 15-year-old can type.

 

[atom crash]

I found the first four chapters of Eragon to be highly derivative. My impression was that the author had played some computer RPGs, read the same fantasy novels I had, got out his trusty thesaurus and decided to give it a go. Basically, the same thing I did when I was his age.

I didn't find it particularly bad. Rather I found it uninspiring.

The trailer looks really flashy; I'm sure it will be a fun movie to watch. My wife and I might take my niece with us to see it.

 

[Merlion]

Hmm, yeah, we're back to our basic disagreement here I think. You and I differ here on a fundamental level. To me, effort is not enough in the larger artisitic arena. Results are what matter. And the fact that appreciation of those results is subjective only makes it harder on the artist. Which was the gist of my earlier point about "no free lunches".

When you say "results" what do you mean? Getting something out on the market (published, aired, hung in a gallery etc) and/or sales? Whats the difference or difference of importance between results and the apreciation of those results?

No, we seem to have a difference of definition for "merit" here (I was gonna bring this up earlier but, well, I couldn't be bothered, lol). From the outset my opinion has been that merit is judged subjectively. That's why I disagreed with you saying that all creative works automaticall have merit. From a subjective standpoint, they can't.

But the merit isnt subjective. At least not in terms of how I am using "merit". I think what your talking about is "quality", or as I've said elsewhere in the thread, enjoyability or taste. Wether a work is good or bad, enjoyable or not...its "quality", is subjective. But its "merit" or basic value to do the fact that someone put time effort and thought into it, is there no matter what.

No, they aren't.Synaptic pathways in the brain, for example, don't become fully formed until the early 20s.

The vast majority of 15 year olds are capable of reproduction, which has historically been the main yardstick of physical maturity. And I bet in ten or twenty more years they will discover that those "synatpic pathways" dont actually fully develop until the 30s, then 40s and on and on. Growth and development is a lifelong, and highly individual process. But any sort of on/off child/adult line that gets drawn is usualy arbitary and cultural, and it certainly doesnt amount to a valid/invalid line as many here seem to think.

While mental and emotional maturity is partly subjective, that subjectivity is determined by your peers - a sort of objectivity imposed by the masses. As for emotionally stunted people in their 40s, I would argue that they're not representative of people in general

There are huge numbers of people well into what out culture calls adult hood who clearly are not fit for the title...the make poor decisions that are harmful to themselves and others, and/or show a lack of ability to even take care of themselves sensibly. Now yes, most "adults" are able to take care of themselves fully, so no the ones who cant arent neccesarily representative of the majority, but there are a whole lot of them.

And the reverse is true as well. The teen-agers who fit the absurd sterotypes our culture has about them arent neccesarily representative of the majority either. And then theres the fact that most of those who fit said sterotypes do so because our culture encourages them too.

My feeling on these things is that life is too short to raise a sweat about this. What will be will be.

I'm not talking about "raising a sweat". But if your going to discuss something, you may as well do so with your full abilities.

And peoples feelings and reactions...and the effect that one has on others, is always something worth taking into consideration.

 

[Merlion]

No, of course not. I also don't have publisher parents with contacts throughout the industry to hawk my book for me as a birthday present.

I wrote novels in the 8th grade. I could have written even more if I didn't have to go to school. That didn't make them good novels, mind you, but neither does having your parents publish it for you.

The entirety of the hook for the series is "Look, he's only 15, and this isn't that bad!" He's the Charlotte Church of fantasy publishing. And yeah, I'm biased against that. I'm biased against "Hey, this is pretty good for a 15-year-old," because the great thing about writing is that it's a level playing field. You are as good as you are, regardless of whether you're young, old, rich, poor, a high-school drop-out or an Ivy League graduate.
.

I'm not sure I understand this. I agree entirely that age shouldnt have anything to do with it...it is as you say a level playing field.

But I'm not sure then why you seem to think who published the book has much to do with anything. Especially since his parents published the initial small release, but it was then discovered and accepted by Knopf.

To imply that one should overlook bad writing and a bad plot because of the writer's age is insulting to the writer as well as the reader.I read a great deal of fiction that I can objectively qualify as bad

Ok heres where I have a problem. What you mean is, writting you don't like. As I've been saying, there really isnt such a thing as "bad" writting (or any other art). You cannot objectively qualify it as bad, because its quality, unlike its merit, is subjective. You didn't like or enjoy it. That doesnt mean its bad.Obviously, many people did enjoy it. So who then is right?

The answer is, both are right...for you it was "bad" for them it was "good" neither of which has anything to do with its merit, as a work that someone put time, effort and thought into.

I'm not saying that nobody should read this book. I'm not saying that the book shouldn't have been published.

You aknowledge that just because you didnt enjoy it doesnt mean it shouldnt have been published or others shouldnt read it, which is good. So how is it that your not liking it makes it "bad writting"?

That said, the author, sad as he is, can walk around in a jacket made entirely of hundred dollar bills, so I'm sure he's okay

Um...you don't like the person's work, so he's "sad?"

The appeal is pretty much to people who want more Terry Brooks, or to people who are impressed by the fact that a 15-year-old can type.

Whats wrong with liking Terry Brooks exactly?

And you do realize that this SOUNDS LIKE (note I said SOUNDS LIKE, not that you definitely are, but merely that it sounds like) your saying people who like Terry Brooks or Eragon are at least artisitically, if not mentally, deficient.

 

[Mark Hope]

When you say "results" what do you mean? Getting something out on the market (published, aired, hung in a gallery etc) and/or sales? Whats the difference or difference of importance between results and the apreciation of those results?

The results are the degree and type of personal appreciation that the work evokes in me. Nothing more. Nothing less. You really need to understand this about my position. The value and merit of art is subjective in my opinion. That's all there is to it.

But the merit isnt subjective. At least not in terms of how I am using "merit". I think what your talking about is "quality", or as I've said elsewhere in the thread, enjoyability or taste. Wether a work is good or bad, enjoyable or not...its "quality", is subjective. But its "merit" or basic value to do the fact that someone put time effort and thought into it, is there no matter what.

I'm not going to bandy semantics with you. I don't agree with you that art has any kind of objective value that derives from it being a piece of creative work. Whether you choose to call that merit, quality or whatever, I see it as wholly subjective.
(The only objective elements are technical: Is this harmony in key? Is this brush stroke unintentionally blurred? Is this sentence ungrammatical? The rest is in the eye of the beholder).
We can go round and round on this if you like, but it won't get you anywhere as far as I am concerned.

The vast majority of 15 year olds are capable of reproduction, which has historically been the main yardstick of physical maturity. And I bet in ten or twenty more years they will discover that those "synatpic pathways" dont actually fully develop until the 30s, then 40s and on and on. Growth and development is a lifelong, and highly individual process. But any sort of on/off child/adult line that gets drawn is usualy arbitary and cultural, and it certainly doesnt amount to a valid/invalid line as many here seem to think.

There are huge numbers of people well into what out culture calls adult hood who clearly are not fit for the title...the make poor decisions that are harmful to themselves and others, and/or show a lack of ability to even take care of themselves sensibly. Now yes, most "adults" are able to take care of themselves fully, so no the ones who cant arent neccesarily representative of the majority, but there are a whole lot of them.

And the reverse is true as well. The teen-agers who fit the absurd sterotypes our culture has about them arent neccesarily representative of the majority either. And then theres the fact that most of those who fit said sterotypes do so because our culture encourages them too.

None of this addresses my point in the slightest. It's all very well put but is at a complete tangent to what I am saying (and I have to ask if you are intentionally evading the issue) - namely, that I would expect someone to experience a sense of growth between the ages of 15 and 21, indeed moreso at that age than at some later age. You can attempt to inflate the issue beyond that point if you want, but you're on your own in that regard.

I'm not talking about "raising a sweat". But if your going to discuss something, you may as well do so with your full abilities.

My point here is that life is to short to worry about how I come across to people. That doesn't prevent me from discussing something with my full abilities - the two are not necessarily connected. Not everyone is worried about their perceived image, you know.

And peoples feelings and reactions...and the effect that one has on others, is always something worth taking into consideration.

Not always, no. I'll be the judge of that - and right here, right now, it doesn't matter one little bit.

As for Eragon, I would expect that Paolini's writing would improve over time. In ten years time he might well look back on Eragon (or Eldest, or Elfpants or whatever part three is called) and recognise his work for the derivative, immature drivel that it is. And then go on to produce work of originality and merit. And I'd applaud him for doing so. Because as an observer of his creative efforts, it is my right to do so. Just as I am happy to speak my mind frankly and freely on the internet and be critiqued, ignored or appreciated, so should Paolini be prepared to publish his work and take whatever comes his way. Such is life. It is naieve to expect anything less.

 

[Merlion]

The results are the degree and type of personal appreciation that the work evokes in me. Nothing more. Nothing less. You really need to understand this about my position. The value and merit of art is subjective in my opinion. That's all there is to it.

Ok, first, this still supports one of my other points, that I maybe havent gotten across quite as well, which is this: A person cannot make an objective, absolute statement about a creative work's merit/quality. They can only express their opinion. Thats why I have a problem with people saying that a book or a movie or a painting or whatever is "bad" or "badly written/drawn whatever". Because that is only that person's opinion, and not a fact, and yet many people state it as a fact, and speak as though all artistic works are either objectively "good" or "bad."

I don't agree with you that art has any kind of objective value that derives from it being a piece of creative work

Then what exactly does its merit derive from? A person spends time, effort, energy, puts thought and emotion and care into something...so, if that doesnt give it some degree of inherent value, how then does it aqquire value to give some sense of recompense for the the effort put into it?

Now you said this:

The rest is in the eye of the beholder

and this:

The results are the degree and type of personal appreciation that the work evokes in me

There is one problem however, well two in a way. One, the work itself exists independently of "the beholder" and two, it is beheld by many and each have their own opinion of it...so which one is correct? Which one matches the reality of the work as it exists apart from being observed?


Either a thing has merit, or it doesnt. And that merit cannot be determined by peoples opinions, because they will all be different and many will contradict. Therefore, works must either have or lack merit in and of themselves, seperate from any perception of them . But how then do we decide which ones do and which ones dont?
We dont decide. We realize that they all have merit or value but that there quality is subjective and a matter of opinion.

None of this addresses my point in the slightest

Yes, it does.

and I have to ask if you are intentionally evading the issue

No, I'm just explaining my stance as it is for me, as part of larger issues.

namely, that I would expect someone to experience a sense of growth between the ages of 15 and 21

To which I have agreed repeatedly...

indeed moreso at that age than at some later age

This part I disagree with, and it is the crux of the point for me. Our culture ascribes a greater importance to the patch of learning/growing/mature from about age 14 or 15 to somewhere in the early twenties, but I disagre with that ascription. I also disagree with the idea that any...or at least most...of the changes in a person based on age are as massive as our culture makes out.

You can attempt to inflate the issue beyond that point if you want, but you're on your own in that regard.

I'm not inflating, its just all a single issue in my mind.

My point here is that life is to short to worry about how I come across to people

Ever? or only on internet messageboards? Because I know that you know there are many, many ocassions where how we come across to people is extremely important to our lives. Job interviews spring to mind.

That doesn't prevent me from discussing something with my full abilities - the two are not necessarily connected

I wasnt saying they are...with that part I was refering to how, to me at least you seemed to be saying that I am/was/do get to worked up in/about this conversation. I was talking about how I'm not "raising a sweat" about it, I merely go into most things very wholeheartdly.

The only thing I've said you might want to "raise a sweat" about, is in regards to your professed lack of concern about how others percieve you, and more importantly about how you affect them by what you say and how you say it.

Not always, no. I'll be the judge of that - and right here, right now, it doesn't matter one little bit

People's feelings pretty much always matter. I was brought up to always have regard for the feelings of others, and to conciously (not neccesarily obssesively) be mindful of how my words and actions may affect others, be it emotionally or in some other way.

and recognise his work for the derivative, immature drivel that it is. And then go on to produce work of originality and merit

Now this is odd. You've repeatdly said that you feel a work's merit is purely subjective, and yet you are speaking of this particuarly works merits in a totally objective, and absolute manner.