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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3112798" data-attributes="member: 10397">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. What I meant was, what does how the book got published have to do with its quality or validity? 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? 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? 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. And this criticical ability (of a subjective thing) consists of what exactly? According to who? 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. I apologize for misinterpreting. 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? So that makes it bad music right? Despite the fact that you enjoy it, because someone with accepted training dislikes it, its "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?</blockquote>

Verification