Honestly - What is Eragon?

[takyris]

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.

Except that age has been the big selling point, even on this thread. As soon as anyone attacks the book's quality, the "but he's just 15!" response pops up.

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.

Really? Then you don't know much about the publishing industry. Getting an in with the publishers isn't exactly a level playing field. I mean, good for the kid, for using all his advantages, but let's not turn him into a big underdog.

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?

You are wrong. Saying that there is no such thing as bad writing is a gross oversimplification. If you really believe that, then any real conversation is pointless, because you're going to work the "Different people like different things" mentality, and by that logic, we can't really say that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, because even though the vast majority of the world can agree on a set of standard principles, somebody's going to insist that it gave him visions of Nirvana, so we need to say that individual tastes vary.

No.

Have you been to a writing workshop? No workshop is perfect, but you pretty quickly come up with some general aspects that you can use to judge writing. Voice, Plot, Characterization, and Setting are the easy big four, although there are others.

I am sorry if this bothers you, but yes, it is possible to say that a work is bad. Some people can enjoy bad writing -- for example, people without the critical ability to distinguish good writing form bad, people who haven't been exposed to good writing and have no other standard by which to judge, and people whose love for a particular element (say, dragons) is sufficient to override concerns about bad writing.

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.

No. It was bad. Sorry.

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"?

See above. Bad writing can still be popular, but popularity doesn't suddenly make it good writing. Also, the degree to which popularity is driven by market forces and the publishing industry is pretty well known to those who work in that industry.

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

Levity. If you read really really carefully, the fact that I implied that he has a shirt made of hundred dollar bills is not mean to be taken literally. It's my roundabout way of saying that while I wouldn't want my parents to have used their publishing connections to get my mediocre teenage book published, I'd probably get over that not-want if it meant that I had a whole bunch of money. Ten years from now, the kid will probably feel about like that. Assuming his writing improves, he'll be a bit embarrassed at Eragon, but glad at where it got him -- and what it got him.

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.

Oh no, I'm definitely saying it.

Well, not "mentally deficient", but "lacking in critical reading or appreciation skill for the fantasy genre". Doesn't make them bad people. I enjoy music my wife hates, because she's got a lot more musical training than I have. I am an infant compared to her in music appreciation.

If you got a lot out of Eragon, good for you. But yeah, it's a bad book. Either you're enjoying it because the author was 15, or you really like books about dragons (or orphan lads, or some other iconic fantasy element), or you haven't read a lot of fantasy, or you don't have the critical ability to distinguish good writing from bad.

 

[Merlion]

Really, at the moment, my belief that all artistic works possess intrinsic value is secondary to what I mentioned above, and which is true wether they have intrinisic value or not: that nobody can state that an artistic work is objectively "bad"; they can only state that it is bad in their opinion, bad for them.

Really, a person can only truly comment on how a work affected (or failed to affect) them; not on any objective qualities it may or may not have.

 

[Mark Hope]

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."

"Many people" can say whatever they like. Doesn't change my position that art's merit is subjective. You say it yourself right there: "A person cannot make an objective, absolute statement about a creative work's merit/quality. They can only express their opinion." At least we are agreeing on that now.

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?

Its merit derives from the subjective appreciation that others have for it. The more people who agree on that subjective merit, the more valuable it becomes.

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?

None of them!
It is subjective!!
Do you not understand what "subjective" means or something?
Trying to convince me to think something different on this subject is a vain effort, I'm afraid.

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.

This is just getting silly. You insist on an objective value to art. I reject any objective value to art. I don't agree with you. Deal with it.

To which I have agreed repeatedly...

Fine, great. That's my point. The rest of it is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.

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.

Yeah, ever. Shock. Horror. My philosophy is to do what I believe to be right and take the consequences of my actions. It has served me very well so far. If it ain't broke...

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.

You've misunderstood me here. I was saying that I don't get worked up about how I come across. I wasn't commenting on your behaviour. Do whatever you want. Rough with the smooth.

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 an issue for me, thanks. People can deal with their own feelings. I am not my brother's keeper.

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.

Not to me they don't, not always. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Life is a process of exercising judgement, in this no less than in anything else. Blanket definitions are of no use to me.

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.

Sigh. Merit=subjective. For the last time.

 

[Merlion]

You are wrong. Saying that there is no such thing as bad writing is a gross oversimplification. If you really believe that, then any real conversation is pointless, because you're going to work the "Different people like different things" mentality, and by that logic, we can't really say that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, because even though the vast majority of the world can agree on a set of standard principles, somebody's going to insist that it gave him visions of Nirvana, so we need to say that individual tastes vary.

Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is an objective thing. Its going to hurt you...thats a fact.

Likewise, a dull knife isnt going to cut anything, and a square wheel wont roll. These things are objective, not subjective.

Art tends to be subjective, as does entertainment and enjoyment. So, while a dull knife wont cut anything in your hands anymore than it will in mine, a book (or movie or painting) that you found dull and uninteresting, or that offended or irriateted you, I might find captivating or amusing.

Which of us is right? The dull knife is what it is; but thats harder to say about art.

Really? Then you don't know much about the publishing industry. Getting an in with the publishers isn't exactly a level playing field. I mean, good for the kid, for using all his advantages, but let's not turn him into a big underdog.

What I meant was, what does how the book got published have to do with its quality or validity?

some general aspects that you can use to judge writing. Voice, Plot, Characterization, and Setting are the easy big four, although there are others

Yes, those are the arenas you would judge it in. But what criteria do you judge it by? Who decides whats a good plot and what isnt? Who decides which Voice is better for which situation?


Also, what about writters who are excellent in one or more of these areas, but not so good in others? Lovecraft, for instance, isnt wonderfully gifted in the area of dialogue, and yet his skills with setting and mood are amazing.

And what about works that intentionally lack one or more of these elements, or that break various accepted "rules" of writting for artistic effect, or to send a message or create a mood?

I am sorry if this bothers you, but yes, it is possible to say that a work is bad

Its possible to say it. And its possible to feel it for yourself. But neither of those things make it objectively true for anyone other than you.

You didnt like the book, you felt that it was bad. Other people enjoyed it, and feel that it was good.

Who is right? and on what grounds?

Some people can enjoy bad writing

If they are enjoying it, it isnt bad. At least not for them. It may not follow the rules that in your opinion a written work should follow, but that has nothing to do with its value to anyone but you, or someone who happens to share the same opinion.

for example, people without the critical ability to distinguish good writing form bad

And this criticical ability (of a subjective thing) consists of what exactly? According to who?

See above. Bad writing can still be popular, but popularity doesn't suddenly make it good writing. Also, the degree to which popularity is driven by market forces and the publishing industry is pretty well known to those who work in that industry.

Your misunderstanding me...I never said anything about popularity. You say that (in your opinion, which is what it is) Eragon is a bad book. Yet, you also say you dont feel that people shouldnt read it, or that it should not have been published.

So I guess my question is, why? If its bad, people shouldnt read it right? If its bad it shouldnt have been published.

Levity.

I apologize for misinterpreting.

Well, not "mentally deficient", but "lacking in critical reading or appreciation skill for the fantasy genre".

How do you feel about the fact that there are more than a few people who consider any fantasy writting to be "bad" writting, and automatically without merit? Who believe that all fantasy is basically "mediocre teenage writting" as you put it?

I enjoy music my wife hates, because she's got a lot more musical training than I have

So that makes it bad music right? Despite the fact that you enjoy it, because someone with accepted training dislikes it, its "bad"?

Either you're enjoying it because the author was 15, or you really like books about dragons (or orphan lads, or some other iconic fantasy element), or you haven't read a lot of fantasy, or you don't have the critical ability to distinguish good writing from bad.

Actually I havent read it...I'm speaking philosophically about any and all works of art here, Eragon is just the one that brought the issue up. However I do thoroughly enjoy the works of Terry Brooks which you also apparently consider "bad" writting, and so I say this: Perhaps I enjoy them because to me, they are good and enjoyable, because his style appeals to and interests me, and because I find many of the concepts and ideas he presents to be interesting.


But my big question to you is, who exactly is it that decides what is "good" or "bad" writting, and what exactly gives them the right to make that decision for all of us?

 

[takyris]

Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is an objective thing. Its going to hurt you...thats a fact.

Actually, not true. There are several aboriginal traditions in which this would be a holy experience that would produce enlightenment or a dream state. Pain is much more subjective than western science would have us believe.

So by your logic, we can only talk about how hitting yourself in the head with a hammer hurts YOU particularly. It would be WRONG to apply a general standard of agreed-upon measurable factors to come up with a result.

What I meant was, what does how the book got published have to do with its quality or validity?

Nothing. My comment was in reply to someone saying (to Whizbang or Chain Lightning, as I recall), "Oh yeah? Well, what major books have YOU published?" in response to their less-than-stellar feelings for Eragon.

Yes, those are the arenas you would judge it in. But what criteria do you judge it by? Who decides whats a good plot and what isnt? Who decides which Voice is better for which situation?

People who understand how an apostrophe works. People who spell "writing" correctly. People who have taken literature courses in college, or writing courses in college, or cinema courses in college, or SOME kind of artistic appreciation course that helps you get past "Oh, some people like some stuff, and other people don't, so who's to say what's good?"

Also, what about writters who are excellent in one or more of these areas, but not so good in others? Lovecraft, for instance, isnt wonderfully gifted in the area of dialogue, and yet his skills with setting and mood are amazing.

Yep. It's not a perfect system. That's why I try to be specific when I review a book -- one book is going to appeal to people who love setting and don't care about dialogue, while another book is going to appeal to people who love characterization and can overlook a shaky plot.

If the negatives outweigh the positives, it's a bad book. That doesn't mean it can't be read and enjoyed. I've said multiple times that people can enjoy bad books. There are books I'd note as bad that I enjoy a great deal myself, because they do a bad job overall but a great job on some of my particular loves. They're niche books.

And what about works that intentionally lack one or more of these elements, or that break various accepted "rules" of writting for artistic effect, or to send a message or create a mood?

If you've done any formal study of literature, these kinds of questions are addressed. There's a difference between breaking a rule you know well and tromping all over a rule you've never noticed.

If they are enjoying it, it isnt bad. At least not for them.

If they can't differentiate their own enjoyment from an arguable, debatable, but ultimately existent standard of quality, then that's their problem.

And this criticical ability (of a subjective thing) consists of what exactly? According to who?

Okay. What I'm getting here is that we're talking from two fairly distinct points.

I majored in English and got my Masters in English as well. I've been participating in fiction writing workshops for about ten years. I've been working as a copyeditor, a marketing writer, and most recently a dialogue writer professionally since graduating.

So yes, actually, I can tell you whether or not writing is good. It's my job. It's what I'm paid to do. It's also what I do for fun in my free time.

If you want to play "Everyone's opinion is valid, and therefore we can't say whether any writing is actually good or bad," you're welcome to do so. But the proper phrase to use is, "I enjoyed it."

I can't tell you whether or not you enjoyed a book. But I can, and will, tell you whether a book was good or bad. If you want to argue with me on the subject, and I'm by no means infallible and make no claims to be such, feel free to start talking about plot and characterization and setting and voice. But "You can't prove that this is bad writing" goes by the wayside in Freshman English.

So I guess my question is, why? If its bad, people shouldnt read it right? If its bad it shouldnt have been published.

I have very specifically stated the opposite several times. People should publish whatever other people will pay money for. It's a free market.

How do you feel about the fact that there are more than a few people who consider any fantasy writting to be "bad" writting, and automatically without merit? Who believe that all fantasy is basically "mediocre teenage writting" as you put it?

I didn't put it like that, because I don't spell "writing" that way.

If you want to use the argument of genre to say that there's no objective standard of judgment, you're welcome to try. When I went to college, there were courses on Science Fiction, and there were people teaching Tolkien as great works, so it doesn't hold with me.

It is, in fact, possible to say that a given work is a poorly written example of its genre.

 

[ssampier]

I won't comment about the books. I haven't read the books, nor will I.

I do have to comment about the age thing. It's irrevelant, good or bad. Saying the author is 15 is like telling me the author is 35, 50, 76, or 43, it's not really revelant to me. Whatever the number is, I have no desire to either read or not a book based upon an arbitary figure.

 

[Umbran]

People who understand how an apostrophe works. People who spell "writing" correctly. People who have taken literature courses in college, or writing courses in college, or cinema courses in college, or SOME kind of artistic appreciation course that helps you get past "Oh, some people like some stuff, and other people don't, so who's to say what's good?"

You're effectively saying that folks without credentials cannot speak on the subject. Please keep in mind that these are not professional or academic forums - everyone has equal right to speak around here.

You may get paid for your criticism, but please note that the readership here is not paying you for it - at work there's an implicit agreement that you are an authority, but here you lack that leverage, and so you'll have to convince people, rather than claim authority as a right.

Why not try to be a bit more constructive, and work with people to pull the discussion to style and topics you prefer? You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and telling folks "I'm sorry, but you don't know enough to approch the topic" is very vinegar.

If they can't differentiate their own enjoyment from an arguable, debatable, but ultimately existent standard of quality, then that's their problem.

And if you cannot include reader enjoyment as a criteria within your own standards, are you any less limited than they?

When literary standards are not linked to reader experience, you get things like Finnegan's Wake being lauded as a "great work", though nobody can manage to wade though it, or understand the thing without reading a second book to tell them what they've read.

I can't tell you whether or not you enjoyed a book. But I can, and will, tell you whether a book was good or bad.

If "good or bad" is defined as matching a particular selection of technical qualities, sure. No argument there. However, if your technical qualities all say the work is bad, but loads of people like it, it is perhaps time to examine that list of technical qualities, and see if it is missing something. As noted above, the list of technical qualities ceases to be particularly useful if it becomes too disjoint from reader experience.

If you want to argue with me on the subject, and I'm by no means infallible and make no claims to be such, feel free to start talking about plot and characterization and setting and voice.

Just a moment ago, you effectively claimed authority to tell us if it was good or bad. Now you tell us that you are not infallible. It follows, of course, that your claim to authority in the matter needs to be questioned. In essence, you can't have it both ways - you cannot tell people they are wrong in the same breath as you tell them you may not be right. Well, really you can, but it's a terribly weak position.

If I might suggest, you'll probably find the discussion far more productive if you bill yourself as having an opinion - one based upon academic study and professional work, but an opinion nontheless. Allow people to decide for themselves how valuable that opinion is. Honey, rather than vinegar...

 

[Merlion]

Umbran, you basically just said most if not quite all of what I had been considering saying, until I decided to withdraw from the discussion due to how upset certain aspects were making me.


I believe I am going to bow out of this thread at this time anyway however for various reasons.

Mark Hope, I have found our little conversation to be most stimulating. I may start another thread about the overall topic of merit at some later point and perhaps we can continue then.

 

[takyris]

Hey Umbran,

You're effectively saying that folks without credentials cannot speak on the subject. Please keep in mind that these are not professional or academic forums - everyone has equal right to speak around here.

I didn't intend to say any such thing.

When I said that the book was bad, he didn't disagree with me by making an argument for the book being good. He said (paraphrasing) that good and bad are too subjective to use in any kind of objective way. When I disagreed, he asked who I was to disagree. I don't make a habit of flashing my credentials, but he did specifically ask what right I had to make the statements.

I've got no problem at all arguing politely about whether a book is good or bad based on actual evidence. I have all the problems in the world having every conversation turn into "Well, I guess different kinds of dentistry work for different people, and who are we to say which is better?"

That is definitely a touchy point for me, and I apologize, Merilon, for overvinegarizing as a result.

As a note, if we're using reader enjoyment as an example, though, the notes in this thread ranged from "ho-hum" to "couldn't finish", and Merilon himself was arguing from a position of not having read the book. I'm not sure that that lends itself to constructive discussion.

And finally, as I said in another thread -- if you enjoyed it while I didn't, you win. You got enjoyment out of a book, regardless of its faults, which is always a good thing.

 

[Mark Hope]

Mark Hope, I have found our little conversation to be most stimulating. I may start another thread about the overall topic of merit at some later point and perhaps we can continue then.

Yeah, it's been fun sharing ideas with you too. Catch up with you somewhere downstream