Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tsyr" data-source="post: 1333221" data-attributes="member: 354">Objective standards of good and bad literature are a joke. Plain and simple.I have to wade through the murky waters of academia on a daily basis, working towards a degree in english literature, and I came to that conclusion after about... oh... three months? Tops?The amount of times I, or my fellow classmates, have had discussions with various professors that went something like this are too many to easily count:&quot;This was a good book.&quot;&quot;No, it's bad. See, the author didn't do X, X, and X...&quot;&quot;But the book was good.&quot;&quot;Yes, but the writing was bad.&quot;&quot;I liked the writing.&quot;&quot;Well you're wrong. It's bad writing.&quot;&quot;Why is it bad?&quot;&quot;Because it didn't do X, X, and X.&quot;&quot;Why would doing X, X, and X make it better?&quot;&quot;Because then it would be good writing.&quot;&quot;Why would that make it good writing?&quot;&quot;Because it did X, X, and X. It doesn't right now.&quot;&quot;But how would doing X, X, and X improve the book?&quot;&quot;Because then the book would be good writing. Like book B, because it does X, X, and X.&quot;&quot;Book B was boring and the writing had no life to it.&quot;&quot;But it did X, X, and X. It's good writing.&quot;Repeat until someone gets sick of the conversation.To me, there is exactly one acid test of good writing: Does it endure. Anything else is subjective. It's just like these &quot;These movies are good&quot; lists magazines publish... I have a friend who swears that if you don't like movies on that list, you are simply, objectivly, wrong for not liking them. Hogswash. It's opinion. Maybe a guideline at best. Not immutable law.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tsyr, post: 1333221, member: 354"] Objective standards of good and bad literature are a joke. Plain and simple. I have to wade through the murky waters of academia on a daily basis, working towards a degree in english literature, and I came to that conclusion after about... oh... three months? Tops? The amount of times I, or my fellow classmates, have had discussions with various professors that went something like this are too many to easily count: "This was a good book." "No, it's bad. See, the author didn't do X, X, and X..." "But the book was good." "Yes, but the writing was bad." "I liked the writing." "Well you're wrong. It's bad writing." "Why is it bad?" "Because it didn't do X, X, and X." "Why would doing X, X, and X make it better?" "Because then it would be good writing." "Why would that make it good writing?" "Because it did X, X, and X. It doesn't right now." "But how would doing X, X, and X improve the book?" "Because then the book would be good writing. Like book B, because it does X, X, and X." "Book B was boring and the writing had no life to it." "But it did X, X, and X. It's good writing." Repeat until someone gets sick of the conversation. To me, there is exactly one acid test of good writing: Does it endure. Anything else is subjective. It's just like these "These movies are good" lists magazines publish... I have a friend who swears that if you don't like movies on that list, you are simply, objectivly, wrong for not liking them. Hogswash. It's opinion. Maybe a guideline at best. Not immutable law. [/QUOTE]

Verification