The Value of Art, or, "Bad" is in the Eye of the Beholder

[Enforcer]

I haven't read the books yet (my 10 year old has read them twice). However, the statement that he shouldn't cry because he is the hero makes no sense to me. I just spent 3 days and 2 nights chaperoning 5th grade students (yes, I know Eragon is older...), and one of the activities on this field trip was a ropes course. The kids that walked those 20 minutes 36 feet above the ground with no fear learned nothing, and didn't impress me. The kids that were crying, and terrified, and yet still made it to the end of the ropes course are my new heroes. Maybe, just maybe, Eragon is more of a hero because of his crying/fear/immaturity than some hero that just knows he's a hero and has no fear/growth.

(disclaimer, I have not read the books)

Having been a camp counselor for years and years, I agree that it's more impressive to triumph over fear and emotion. The kids that pull it off you remember for the rest of your life. Your real life, that is. In fiction, however, especially fantasy fiction, I think it's required for the hero to be heroic at least once somewhere in the first half of the book. But frankly the crybaby attitude of the main character isn't as egregious as the poor writing, it just made it worse. (Did I mention that I really didn't like Eragon? I can tell you how I really felt about it, without the kid gloves, upon request )

 

[Wild Gazebo]

In a more serious vein, discussing art is tough. It is all subjective. No absolute authority or priviliaged frame of reference exists. However, that doesn't stop people from having informed opinions. And it certainly doesn't stop people from constructing frameworks that make informed and meaningful discussions possible.

To resort to crude analogy, I don't need to be able to state my absolute position in the universe in order to give someone directions to my house.

Yep.

 

[Storm Raven]

I dont believe any creative work is without some basic value. Writting a book, painting a painting, making a movie or composing a piece of music all require thought and effort, and general the person puts a good deal of emotion into its creation as well. To me, this imbues the work with a basic value that is independant of anyone's opinion of it, or any set of criteria applied to it.

This is where you go wrong. Thought, effort, and emotion do not create value. It is quite possible to put lots of thought, effort, and emotion into a project and produce nothign of value as a result. Just because I worked really hard to move a pile of bricks from the barn to the shed doesn't necessarily result in any value, especially if what was really needed were for the bricks to be moved in the opposite direction.

Similarly, with a creative work, working hard and sincerely at it is no guarantee that the finished product will be worth anything. In point of fact, most creative work is valueless, because it is so ubiquitous. Only skilled effort creates something better than the run-of-the-mill crap that is so common. Like I said befor, to quote Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap".

 

[Merlion]

As one of the people who bashed Eragon (and has no problem using the word "sucks" to describe it), let me elaborate on why, I feel, it sucks.

The writing is inconsistent: Remember when he first gets the spiffy sword? To paraphrase, "It felt like an extension of his arm." Later, when he actually has to fight, the sword isn't like an extension of his arm, "it's as unwieldly as a club." What? Well is the sword balanced and easy to use or not?!? If the guy who wrote the book had said when the kid first got the sword that it was "surprisingly light and well-balanced, but without any training, it was as useful as a club to Eragon" or something along those lines, it would've actually made sense. But instead, as a reader, I had to jump back in the book to confirm the glaring contradiction. I think this is an example of objectively bad writing: you can't say one thing and then say the opposite just because, "Oh yeah, I'm gonna put in some cool sword-training parts with the Obi-Wan guy in the next few chapters, so Eragon should have a reason not to use the really cool sword that's like an extension of his arm right now. Hmm, now it'll be useless like a club, yeah, that'll work!"

The Eragon character also evokes the wrong emotions from me: I gave up on the book around the 30th time Eragon cried like a baby (yes, I'm exaggerating, but man did that boy cry a lot). Maybe other readers felt sorry for him and thus became more fond of the character and the book, but I wanted him to grow a pair and shut the hell up. Unsypmathetic on my part? Absolutely. Subjective? Yeah, probably. I also found Sansa Stark from George R.R. Martin's books (which I love) to be insufferable (although in the latest one she seems to be growing a spine, which is a nice development).

So why do I love A Song of Ice and Fire and hate Eragon? Partly because of the authors' decisions about who those characters (Sansa and Eragon) are supposed to be. It's okay for me to find Sansa Stark to be a useless twit who causes untold ruin for her family...she's supposed to be a useless twit who causes untold ruin for her family. Eragon on the other hand is supposed to be the first person in decades capable of freeing the kingdom from Captain Evil...crying every ten minutes doesn't really fit with that. Now, my preferences are more complex than this (Martin's writing has a maturity that "the kid" simply doesn't have, his sentences are tighter, his descriptions more vivid, his characters are far more three-dimensional, and his plots actually surprise you while still making sense when considering previous events of the storyline), but hopefully I've given you some idea of why I feel the way I do.

See, I have absolutely no problem with all of this, for one major reason. Because you are stating it as your opinion, how you feel, and your reaction to and assesment of the story. I dont even care if you say "it sucks" if you then procceed (as you have done) to say "in my opinion" or "for me".

I even agree to some extent with your assesment of some of the flaws (although their existence as flaws is also subjective, since the things you and I found weak in the writing others may enjoy)


My problem is those who claim a work as worthless and bad for EVERYONE just because they dont like it, and/or that anyone who does like/enjoy it is somehow deficient.

Even though I'm not the person you said this to, yes, yes I absolutely do believe this with every fiber of my being. I'm sure Jessica Simpson (or this kid who wrote Eragon, or Uwe Boll, etc.) spends time, effort, thought, and feeling on her music, and it certainly makes a lot of money (hell, even Uwe Boll makes money after taxes are taken into account), but that doesn't mean that her music isn't absolutely worthless in my increasingly-less-humble opinion

But your aknowledging it as your opinion, not an iron clad fact, which makes it much more palatable to me.

The fact that the writing is cliched, logic is only temporarily present, and many phrases are awkward are, however, objective complaints

The middle one could be seen as objective. And the first one may be objective, as far as wether its cliche or not, but since many people enjoy cliches, I dont consider it a flaw neccesarily. The last, awkwardness of phrases, seems somewhat subjective to me.

 

[Merlion]

I'll give an example. When writing dialogue, it is considered better to use he said/she said instead of words like "exlaimed" and "threatened."

Thats debateble. I've seen people "in the know" who say the oposite, or at least that "he said, she said" shouldnt be used *to* much because it becomes too reptitive.

Now, you can say that you love dialogue that explains in minute detail what it means. That's fine. But, that has nothing to do with whether something is written well. I'm talking about the written word and the craft of writing. Is it subjective? Well it obviously isn't objective, but so what? There's a gray area in between. If a critic says a text has weak dialogue, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, whether you enjoy reading it or not.

Yea, that might be a reasonble thing to say, although I think saying it has weak dialogue *in his opinion* would be even more reasonble.

However, saying as many do that a work is "bad" as in without value or merit, based upon criteria that of neccescity are subjective, as you have even said, is not a reasonble thing to say.

Take B Movies. B Movies are pretty bad. Just because people can enjoy them doesn't make them good

If their purpose is to be enjoyed, and people enjoy them then yea it does make them good. Now they may still be "bad" in terms of some peoples (or maybe even most peoples although I have doubts about that) idea of how the craft of filmaking should be done, but all that is is a personal opinion, no matter how many people agree with it.

 

[Merlion]

Heh... a fantasy/science fiction reader who doesn't believe in bad writing is a little like a sailor who doesn't believe in the sea.

In a more serious vein, discussing art is tough. It is all subjective. No absolute authority or priviliaged frame of reference exists. However, that doesn't stop people from having informed opinions. And it certainly doesn't stop people from constructing frameworks that make informed and meaningful discussions possible.
.

Your right, and I've never said otherwise. It should however prevent people from claiming the exact oposite...that its all objective, and that a privileged frame of reference does exist.

Those frameworks are just opinions. they may be popular ones, perhaps, but they are still opinions.

 

[Merlion]

I believe in bad writing. For most eople giving a clearly suported opinion on something is not that easy. It is far less brain power to go: That Rocks!! or That Sucks!!. I don't see how one can take these as fact though, though it may be a fact for the person writing it.

when the person writing it claims that its a fact.

 

[Merlion]

This is where you go wrong. Thought, effort, and emotion do not create value

I dont see how they cant in terms of subjective persuits like art.

is quite possible to put lots of thought, effort, and emotion into a project and produce nothign of value as a result. Just because I worked really hard to move a pile of bricks from the barn to the shed doesn't necessarily result in any value, especially if what was really needed were for the bricks to be moved in the opposite direction.

This is not an especially good analogy, for a wide range of reasons. One because its using a task with an obviously objective and easily measurable goal (get the bricks to wherever) compared with a subjective effort whose goal is also subjective.

Only skilled effort

Who decides what skilled effort is, and how? In any sense other than for them, in their own opinion?

 

[Mallus]

when the person writing it claims that its a fact.

You know these claims are inherently false, so why let it bother you? (Just like I know your claim that all art has intrinsic value based on the effort that went into it is inherently false )

So this isn't about the act of criticism at all is it? This is only about etiquette.

 

[Merlion]

You know these claims are inherently false, so why let it bother you? (Just like I know your claim that all art has intrinsic value based on the effort that went into it is inherently false )
.

I dont see how anyone could possibly think that, let alone know it. How someone could believe that the time and thought put into a work of art can be meaningless just because someone doesnt like it, or it doesnt fit certain criteria is beyond me for several reasons.

Some people are going to like it, but others are not, so it cant be objectively good or bad on that basis, unless your willing to accept that some peoples opinions are inherently superior to other peoples. Are you?

Likewise, any set of criteria put down to measure something as subjective as art is basically going to be a set of opinions, so we run into the same issue.

Did you not mean this when you said it?

In a more serious vein, discussing art is tough. It is all subjective. No absolute authority or priviliaged frame of reference exists

So this isn't about the act of criticism at all is it? This is only about etiquette.

Its about both those things, and several others besides.

But for the moment, note this...to me "criticism" is different from degredation. Its also different from assertions that the entirety of a work is without value or merit because of someone's opinion, or the opinions of someone else that they respect for whatever reasons.