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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1310275" data-attributes="member: 812">*contemplates SynapsisSynopsis' post*Whoah. If nothing else, I feel a lot better about my tendency to obsessively go through other people's posts and find every single point I could possibly disagree with. I do worry about the possibility of us ever being in the same room together, though.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />That said, it's clear from your post that we're using different meanings for the word "entertain." Let me be more clear (since, frankly, I think I'm the one with the nonstandard usage):By "entertain" I mean "delight, inspire, thrill and/or provide new and valuable insight into life, the universe and everything." There should be no question of "mere" entertainment.Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe are indeed tremendously entertaining. I consider Finnegan's Wake one of the great con-jobs of literary history, so let's leave that aside, shall we?I'm going to continue to use the word "entertain" on the understanding that I'm using it to mean the above. If you'd prefer I use another term, I'm open to possibilities. Let us avoid tedious arguments about terminology. In favour of tedious arguments about critical theory.So now for my turn to behave in a frighteningly obsessive/compulsive manner:On the one hand, we have the new definition of entertain, which possibly addresses this point for you. On the other, I'm not very happy about the term "failing wholesale". What does that mean?I'll happily agree that a story may fail me and succeed for others -- there being no end to reasons why that may be (not least of which might be that I'm wrong), but I will not agree that a story must succeed regardless of my opinion, if most other people think it succeeds.Sometimes everybody else IS wrong. If you're not capable of believing that, you're not capable of original thought.Well, not anyone in the publishing industry, I am compelled to point out.You seem to be confusing narratorial identity with actual authorship. I'm not aware of any reason to doubt, for example, that Lord Byron wrote Don Juan. The question of who's speaking in that work and what that may mean in the arena of interpretation is certainly a complex one, but the question of who John Murray mailed the cheques to is not. When I say the teller of the story has failed, I mean the guy who cashed the cheque. He got paid, so he's on the hook.You'd have to provide some pretty spectacular evidence to convince me on that one. You'd have to demonstrate, for example, that said culture was unable to produce successful artistic works at all -- and I'm not aware of any such culture on this planet.Well, possibly Edmonton.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Seriously though, are we going to pretend that, say, the United States is to blame for Jackie Collins? That she emerges from the cultural context in which she writes is obvious, but that doesn't mean that the work was spontaneously generated out of American culture.Or at any rate, if you want to say that it did, knock yourself out, but in explaining why her books are so much different from, say, Steven Brust's, you're going to need to discuss the elements of their genesis that are distinct -- and the primary one of those is going to have to be Ms. Collins herself.Not from me. You're free to say whatever you like. And if you can back it up, I might even be convinced. It's happened before. At any rate, I'll certainly listen to your arguments.Of course it isn't true. It never has been and it never will be.Relativism is a refuge for people who can't formulate opinions but need to view themselves as opinionated.I feel like my meaning got turned inside out in all this -- and I concede that it's probably my fault. Let me try again:When somebody attempts to create a plot twist, and the audience sees it coming, and the story's impact is lessened thereby, somebody has failed to write as well as they could have. And the audience is less entertained than they otherwise would have been. Had the plot twist been more difficult to see coming, all other things being equal, the success of the work would have been greater.It's perfectly simple to create a plot twist that nobody can guess -- I can announce at the end of my story that all the characters are in fact sentient cheese wedges and surprise the audience completely. THAT I agree has nothing to do with writing well, or entertaining.I hope it's clear that under my expanded definition of "entertaining", there is indeed a necessary connection to writing well. A well-told story is an entertaining story -- the terms are synonymous.I find this a curious statement. There are indeed many forms artistic success can take that have nothing to do with telling stories.The success of an oil painting, for example, need have nothing to do with telling a good story. Likewise a symphony, or a pop song. Sculpture. Poetry.But I'm not talking about these things. I'm talking about story-telling. Are you trying to say that the artistic success of a story has nothing to do with telling stories, let alone telling them well? I sort of doubt it, but I'm genuinely confused by this statement of yours.I don't think I said (or once again, didn't intend to say) that great works of the past can no longer be properly understood. I meant to say simply that one reason we are sometimes not entertained by a given work is because its virtues fall outside of our current frame of reference. This may or may not have anything to do with our distance from the work in time. I chose time-related examples only because they were the first to come to mind, but I don't mean to make a statement on the way tastes change over the years.That Shakespeare is more popular than ever means only that our society's common frame of reference makes it easy for us to appreciate the virtues of his work.The opposite? Some critics would advocate we have to acquire a frame of reference in which the plays become less entertaining?Let me be more clear. If we wish to enjoy a story that falls outside of our current frame of reference, we must acquire a frame of reference that allows us to appreciate that story's virtues. Acquiring that frame of reference is largely the same process as "learning to appreciate" the story in question.I think you're confusing the fact that I think I know better than all the critics in the world with the notion that I'm a subjectivist.I may be confident, but I'm not a subjectivist. I'm serious. I think my opinions are the correct ones -- I do not attempt to pretend that "since they're purely subjective nobody can tell me they're wrong." Or rather, I don't think the fact that they're subjective (as all opinions are) relieves me of the need to defend them or means they can't therefore be wrong.A friend of mine has a statement about beliefs that I think is applicable, belief and subjective opinion sharing certain qualities:I hold the beliefs I hold about storytelling because I think they're true. Given that, I consider it essential that I constantly challenge and assess them, and improve them when I find them lacking. I am appreciating your assistance in this effort.Poetic. But rather beside the point. We aren't chasing after horizons and we aren't trying to recapture some lost understanding. That we can't "go back" is immaterial.All that matters is can we learn to appreciate stories that operate according to notions of story-telling outside our frame of reference? And the answer to that is of course we can. People do it all the time. It may be a complex process, there may be dozens of layers if you like, but if you're going to say it's impossible to learn how to like stories that fall outside our current frame of reference, well, you're going to need to provide some heavy evidence.Now that's just downright unfriendly.Are you saying there are objective standards of artistic success? Please show me them, I'd be very interested. Of course there are not, and there never have been (outside of France, anyway). The appreciation and discussion of art is dependent on the subjective reactions of indivduals to the work.But that doesn't mean we cannot make categorical judgements. That doesn't mean that good and bad cease to exist. You're getting a trifle melodramatic here, don't you think?The fact that our opinions about art are subjective does not mean we cannot have meaningful discussion about them. It does not mean that we are barred from making categorical statements about art. It only means that we must keep in mind that all our categorical statements are subject to change, should new ideas and approaches arise.Rather than trying to force me to accept one position or another, offer me your own. If you think that the discussion of storytelling success can be run on purely objective terms, I'll be surprised, but more than willing to listen. If you think some degree of subjectivity must be allowed, then why are you badgering me about it?The notion that thought must be completely objective or completely subjective is rather naive. Surely as more or less rational beings it falls upon us to be constantly assessing our conversations, picking out the subjective opinions that are only expressions of our taste and trying to analyze the objective truths we manage to hit upon. It's never all one or the other.Looking over this whole debate, it seems to me like we're disagreeing on a couple of key points: the meaning of the word "entertainment" (for which I apologize but I hope my new definition helps you to understand what I'm getting at -- and possibly brings us to agreement on the nature of the "responsibility" for artistic success or failure) and the subjectivity of artistic opinions (on which subject I'm not at all sure as to what position you're putting forth, and so remain uncertain as to whether or not we agree). My central point remains: when a story fails to entertain me, I am correct to say that the storyteller has failed. This does not absolve me from any responsibility to examine my own appreciation of the story and make sure that my lack of enjoyment does not result from a missing or inadequate frame of reference, but the job of the storyteller is to entertain me, and should she fail at that, she has failed.</blockquote>

Verification