The current state of fantasy literature

[Umbran]

In an attempt to keep the hijack localized, I'll reply to two people at once here.

Objectivity is subjectivity that withstands the test of reality.

You might want to go check a dictionary. Objectivity is what you get when you remove the opinions and feelings of people from your measurements. The speed of light in a vacuum is an objective thing. The quality or value of literature is not.

A great many people tend to claim that consensus equals objectivity. This is simply untrue. Consensus is mutually agreeable subjectivity. We may occasionally attempt to use consensus as a way to get our measure closer to objectivity. However, when those coming to the consensus are like-minded people with similar educations (if they are all literary academics and critics, for example) the attempt is of little value.

Artworks are not tested against "reality". They are tested against the human mind. Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.

James Joyce's Ulysses is objectively better than The Rats of Nimh even if I like it less.

If Ulysses were actually objectively better than The Rats of NIMH, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (Any person, regardless of age or cultural background. Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.

I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.

I can distinguish between personal appeal and quality. Can you?

Hm. Questioning my mental faculties is effectively an attack upon my person, rather than upon my position. Aside from being rude, it's a fairly weak rhetorical device. But, since you asked the question...

Yes. "Personal appeal" is a reasonably well defined but subjective measure of value based upon the opinions of a specific individual. "Quality" is a poorly defined measure. In this context it probably refers to the collective opinions of academicians, critics, and/or the mass market, none of which are objective observers.

Now, to return the favor - I can distinguish between objectivity and collective opinion. Can you?

There are books that are more sophisticated than others.

Sophistication does not equate to quality, except in the minds of those who happen to personally value or prefer sophistication. Thus, sophistication is a subjective measure.

[quote = The Mirrorball Man]That's not entirely true. The overall scope and ambition of a novel is an objective way to gauge, not its quality, but its potential to be good.[/quote]

See the above discussion of the term "objectivity". The scope and ambition of a work may be a vague measure of how likely it is to appeal to critics, or even to a large audience. That doesn't make it an objective measure or universal truth.

After all that nigh-scientific consideration, though, I think I can best sum up with a literary reference. Shakespeare, in fact - "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

 

[Particle_Man]

If Ulysses were actually objectively better than The Rats of NIMH, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (Any person, regardless of age or cultural background. Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.

I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.

I disagree. The fact that some people cannot recognize one book as objectively superior to the other does not make it fail to be objectively superior, just as the fact that some people think that the moon landing was faked does not mean that it fails to be an objective fact that earth people have walked on the moon.

It may be that there are no objective aesthetic facts, but the above argument does not make the case.

 

[Merova]

On the Beautiful Blue Danube

What a literary work attempts to do counts. Almost as much as how well it succeeds at doing it. Or perhaps more. I usually respond better to ambitious and audacious failures than to unambitious but well-crafted works [except in the case of Raymond E. Fiest].

Hi all!

I'm in disagreement with this "art vs. craft" thing. The whole concept of "High Art" with it's lofty creative premises as superior to "Low Art" with it's focus towards entertainment is false. Let's shift our focus towards the subject of Classical music for an example.

In social functions of the 18th century, incidental music played a significant role in the proceedings, be it for a courtly function or a night of "fireworks" in the park. Today we'd call such compositions "background" music, like to stuff you'd hear in elevators. However, back then, it was a vital part of a composer's trade. From this genre of music, we have such masterpieces as Handel's "Water Music" and Mozart's Serenade #13 in G major, "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik."

In mid-19th century Vienna, the waltz was all the rage in dance music. Yes, the maestros in their symphony halls looked down upon the "pop music" of the period, but in following generations the gems of the Vienna "waltz scene" were recognized as classics alongside their more "sophisticated" symphonic peers. Works such as Johann Strauss Jr.'s "Blue Danube" or "Vienna Blood" now receive the same reverence in regards to underlying artistry as the Grand Opera's of Richard Wagner.

So, here I've listed two types of music that are normally disparaged in terms of artistic quality, incidental music and dance music. Yet, the works of genius undertaken within these music subtypes have transcended their confines. Anybody who claims that Beethoven's 5th Symphony or Stravinsky's Ballet "Rite of Spring" are objectively superior because of their more lofty premises needs to take a music appreciation class.

I think this comparison is relevant to fiction as well. There is a bias against genre fiction, be it fantasy, romance or westerns. Yes, there is a lot of bad being produced in each of these genres, but that's just a reflection of Sturgeon's Law. The genius of each genre will transcend their restrictions, even if they are a Pokemon novel or Superhero bashfest.

Thanks for reading.

---Olivia

 

[nikolai]

Umbran, I really didn't want to kick off this "can we say that some books are better than others" row that periodically ignites on book threads. I think you can strike objective from my post, and the arguement that publishers are using mass marketing campaigns to push rubbish on people who don't know any better still stands.

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm going to be talking through my hat, here.

You'll fit right in, then!

I'm still treating the bruises left over from my scrap with reapersaurus on all these issues. Ouch. Reaper's got a mean left cross.

K. Objectivity vs. Subjectivity.

The simple fact is that there are NO objective standards of art. Sorry, folks, but no matter how obvious you may think it is that work X is superior to work Y, you can't claim objective superiority.

Just to take the example provided, I would argue that Mrs. Frisby and the Secret of NIMH is in fact a better book than Ulysses. But then I think Joyce is crap that's been foisted off on us by a bunch of jaded critics who wouldn't know a good story if it kicked them in their Gor-required anatomical regions.

Here's the thing. If I say it is an objective fact that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe, the only way people will agree that it's objective (leaving aside the question of whether or not it's true) is if it is possible to devise tests that will only produce a particular result if that fact happens to be true. If it's not possible to devise such tests, then it is not true that the idea is an objective fact.

Just because everyone agrees on a point of view doesn't make it objective. Just because it's TRUE doesn't make it objective.

It is not possible to devise such tests against works of art. Philosophers have been trying for all of human civilization and believe me, you are not smarter than their collective brainpower. If they can't do it, you can't do it.

One of the more amusing things about the objective/subjective arguments in art discussion is how both sides get used in order to weasel out of supporting one's opinion. I can claim that all opinion is subjective anyway, so why should I defend my position, or I can claim that the superiority of work X is an objective fact, and spare myself the effort of explaining why.

Forget about all that. State your opinion about the work, and explain why. The words "subjective" and "objective" are just red herrings in all this -- they don't add any value to anyone's opinions. You have to support your ideas if you want others to accept them. No support, no acceptance, and saying they're objective truths or subjective opinions won't change that.

On another topic entirely, I love how these threads spiral out into a hundred different conversations. More hijacks!

 

[buzz]

Those people would be talking through their hats, because there's no such thing as an objective measure of literary quality!

I would disagree wholeheartedly with this. It would be impossible to teach writing courses or do any sort of editing if this were true.

The lines between good art and bad art may be blurry, and they may even shift on occasion, but they're still there, IMHO.

 

[Emueyes]

Artworks are not tested against "reality". They are tested against the human mind. Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.

If Ulysses were actually objectively better than The Rats of NIMH, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (Any person, regardless of age or cultural background. Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.

I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.

Hm. Questioning my mental faculties is effectively an attack upon my person, rather than upon my position. Aside from being rude, it's a fairly weak rhetorical device. But, since you asked the question...

Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic instead of moderately off-topic.

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre.

 

[Emueyes]

Artworks are not tested against "reality". They are tested against the human mind. Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.

If Ulysses were actually objectively better than The Rats of NIMH, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (Any person, regardless of age or cultural background. Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.

I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.

Hm. Questioning my mental faculties is effectively an attack upon my person, rather than upon my position. Aside from being rude, it's a fairly weak rhetorical device. But, since you asked the question...

Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic instead of moderately off-topic.

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre.

 

[Emueyes]

Artworks are not tested against "reality". They are tested against the human mind. Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.

If Ulysses were actually objectively better than The Rats of NIMH, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (Any person, regardless of age or cultural background. Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.

I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.

Hm. Questioning my mental faculties is effectively an attack upon my person, rather than upon my position. Aside from being rude, it's a fairly weak rhetorical device. But, since you asked the question...

Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic instead of moderately off-topic.

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre..

 

[barsoomcore]

I would disagree wholeheartedly with this. It would be impossible to teach writing courses or do any sort of editing if this were true.

The lines between good art and bad art may be blurry, and they may even shift on occasion, but they're still there, IMHO.

You are confusing DEFENSIBILITY with OBJECTIVITY.

Subjective opinions still require defense, if they're to carry any "convincibility" -- if you want me to agree with your opinion you have to provide support and evidence and all that. Do that well enough and I will agree with you.

That doesn't make your opinion objective. It's still subjective. I just happen to agree with it.

It is possible to teach all sorts of things that do not possess objective criteria (martial arts, for example). It is possible to alter objects (edit a story, for example) so that it better conforms to local standards without needing objective criteria.

Get used to this idea: there are no objective standards in art. Your opinions on art have to stand or fall on their own merits, and if you want anyone to agree with you, you'll have to convince them yourself.