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

[Mallus]

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.

Because I do. You've stated your belief that all art has an intrinsic value because of the artist's investment in it. I don't agree. That doesn't factor in my personal system of aesthetics, at all.

So now what do we do? We can drop the issue and go our merry ways, or we can try to establish some common ground where we can have meaningful conversation, even though we're starting with two mutually incompatible assumptions.

That's what I meant by "frameworks for discussion".

...unless your willing to accept that some peoples opinions are inherently superior to other peoples. Are you?

For the record, I believe some people's opinions are demonstrably better that others.

Did you not mean this when you said it?

Yes. Why would you think otherwise?

But for the moment, note this...to me "criticism" is different from degredation.

Criticism can be a rough business. But don't mistake the form of an argument for the content. I've of the opinion that there's as much incisive hostile criticism as there is baseless hostile criticism. I call this the "Just Becuase I'm a Jackass Doesn't Mean You're Not a Hack" Principle.

 

[Enforcer]

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.

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

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.

I think I wasn't clear on which was my opinion and which I was stating as objective fact. Awkwardness of phrases is totally objective: a sentence either sounds right or it was written by Paolini doesn't. There's no middle-ground. Books that contain awkward phrases, logic gaps, and blatant contradictions in the text are objectively worse than books that have non-awkward sentences, no logic gaps, and no blatant contradictions. One is clearly better written than the other, period. Books that introduce new material or take derivative material and put a fresh spin on it are objectively better than books that rehash the plots of 100 previous books in almost exactly the same way. Sure, someone may enjoy this kind of book, as they obviously do given Eragon's sales, but that's because they subjectively ignore the objectively bad writing in favor of whatever elements they subjectively prefer--maybe they like re-reading the same set of plot-points over and over again, who knows? And to make my opinion more clear: I subjectively hated Eragon, but one of the reasons I subjectively felt Eragon sucked is because the writing in it is objectively awful. I don't think anyone can say Eragon was better written than say Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice of Fire, regardless of which they enjoyed more. If someone were to say that Eragon was better-written, they would be objectively wrong.

And I guess what really boggles me when it comes to the "books can't be objectively bad" thing is that by the same logic no book can be objectively good either. Eragon is just as good as the Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire according to this line of thought, or Jessica Simpson is on par with Mozart (or the Beatles if we must stick with pop) and that just plain ain't true. At the end of the day one was crafted better than the other, one will have a deeper impact on culture. Yes, both had time, effort, and emotion invested in it, but one had superior results. There's a reason some books win the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer and others don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and it's because some books are just plain (i.e. objectively) better. The plot fascinates better, the characterization is better, and most certainly the quality of the writing (again, awkwardness, cliches, and plot holes are objectively BAD writing) is better.

Where does this line of thinking end? Is one athlete's performance not objectively better even though he/she won because the last place guy was enjoyed more by a few people? At some point, lines must be drawn, standards set (standards like "plot holes=bad" or "contradicting what you just wrote two chapters ago=bad") that can be agreed upon by everyone who will spend the time to think about what is good and what is not. I think we all prefer written sentences to not sound awkward and difficult to read through, and YES I believe that standard can be applied universally and objectively among readers of a given language.

We can all still have our guilty pleasures (I like Jerry Bruckheimer movies and TV myself--insert DVD, turn brain off, have fun!--but they're not Casablanca or Braveheart) but we can all recognize when a work of art, especially the written word, is crafted with more skill than another work of art. And with Eragon, the writing is objectively bad--contradictions, awkward phrasing, slow and sputtering plot, gaps in logic are all bad writing. Objectively bad. Anyone familiar with fiction can see that it's plainly bad and that other books are written better. I don't think I can make it any clearer. And if the response to my rant is "Who decides what's good and bad?" then my answer is "We do. Readers as a whole." And we have. Plot holes? Bad. Awkward sentences? Bad. Contradictions? Bad.

Find me someone who thinks these qualities in Eragon are good. I'll happily shut up.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If their purpose is to be enjoyed, and people enjoy them then yea it does make them good.

I totally disagree and it is doubtful that you could ever change my mind. This discussion is very similar to that of moral relativism. No one is going to convince anyone else of their position. All we can really do is state our positions and accept the other person's viewpoint.

 

[Merlion]

And if the response to my rant is "Who decides what's good and bad?" then my answer is "We do. Readers as a whole." And we have.

This is the part I'm not so sure about. I still see their being to much disagreement among both regular readers and so called "experts" for their to be some final, absolute objective scale. For instance the "expert" you quoated who while certainly mentioning Eragon's flaws, also called it a good work in the end. You disagree. So which of you is right?

Then theres the issue of all the books, such as Eragon, that so many many people enjoy so well and become so successful, and yet people want to claim are "bad". Now maybe this explains that..

We can all still have our guilty pleasures (I like Jerry Bruckheimer movies and TV myself--insert DVD, turn brain off, have fun!

However, I have trouble with this notion so many of you have of enjoyment being a seperate entity from quality. If you enjoyed it, as far as I'm concerned it was good.

Maybe not as well crafted as other works (yes, some things can be accepted as "better than" others by a majority, although that still has a subjective element), but my point is if you enjoyed it, it still has *value*

And again, there is that issue of purpose. What was the purpose of Eragon (for example)? Well I cant be totally sure not having created it or spoken to the one that did, but from what I've read I'd say that in that case at least, it was mainly intended to entertain, and to be enjoyed. And in that, it has succeeded for thousands (myself included so far).

Is it writen as well as the Lord of the Rings? No, its not.

Is it objectively awful? No, its not that either. At worst, its at the low end of the spectrum of that semi-objective scale of the general criteria of the craft of writting. And for the record, although I have no "credentials" beyond having read a great deal of fantasy fiction in my life, and having tried to develop my own writing skills for the past couple of years, I feel that certain aspects of the story were (or I should say are so far) quite well crafted.

And I guess what really boggles me when it comes to the "books can't be objectively bad" thing is that by the same logic no book can be objectively good either. Eragon is just as good as the Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire according to this line of thought, or Jessica Simpson is on par with Mozart (or the Beatles if we must stick with pop) and that just plain ain't true. At the end of the day one was crafted better than the other, one will have a deeper impact on culture. Yes, both had time, effort, and emotion invested in it, but one had superior results. There's a reason some books win the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer and others don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and it's because some books are just plain (i.e. objectively) better. The plot fascinates better, the characterization is better, and most certainly the quality of the writing (again, awkwardness, cliches, and plot holes are objectively BAD writing) is better.

I agree with your overall point. However, I have never personally read a book, or experienced any artistic work that was totally lacking in craft in all points of the general criteria of its medium.

I come back to Lovecraft again. He's not real great at dialogue or characterization sure. But he's an ace on mood, theme, description and various other areas.

Also note that while I am willing to agree that say for instance the kid that wrote Eragon is not, at this moment, as good a writer as Tolkien or Lovecraft or Stephen King, in any area, I think theres every chance he *could* be with additional practice.


See I'm a very positive person. I believe very strongly in the potential of all things and people. Of course I also realize that statement will now be ripped to shreds, but oh well.

 

[Merlion]

I totally disagree and it is doubtful that you could ever change my mind. This discussion is very similar to that of moral relativism. No one is going to convince anyone else of their position. All we can really do is state our positions and accept the other person's viewpoint.

About you and I, your probably right, although I'd love someone to explain to me how enjoyment and quality can be totally seperate things in a work created mainly to entertain...
However, I disagree about the discussion as a whole. The issues being discussed have many facets, and I think as long as I recognize when its probably not good for me to continue a certain sub-discussion, I will be able to learn a lot from it, at least for me personally.

 

[Merlion]

Because I do. You've stated your belief that all art has an intrinsic value because of the artist's investment in it. I don't agree. That doesn't factor in my personal system of aesthetics, at all.

So now what do we do? We can drop the issue and go our merry ways, or we can try to establish some common ground where we can have meaningful conversation, even though we're starting with two mutually incompatible assumptions.

That's what I meant by "frameworks for discussion".


For the record, I believe some people's opinions are demonstrably better that others.


Yes. Why would you think otherwise?


Criticism can be a rough business. But don't mistake the form of an argument for the content. I've of the opinion that there's as much incisive hostile criticism and there is baseless hostile criticism. I call this the "Just Becuase I'm a Jackass Doesn't Mean You're Not a Hack" Principle.

I thought otherwise, because what you said before, and what your saying now contradict one another.

However, and I dont mean this in an belligerent way, merely as a statement of fact, if you truly believe that some peoples opinions (and I dont mean professional knowledge about objective topics, like a car mechanics diagnosis of the noise in your engine, but actual, subjective opinions) are in fact better than other peoples, I dont think theres really much common ground for you and I to discuss on, unless you feel like explaining how someone could possibly believe that, or wether or not you realize where such chains of thought tend to lead (but that probably wouldnt be allowed here anyway)

It would also probably lead to my getting extremely upset. I do apreciate your input though after a fashion, and obviously your free to continue posting, but dont take offense if I dont respond. I want to continue this discussion overall, but the issues are very emotional for me so I have to do a little distancing...

 

[Enforcer]

This is the part I'm not so sure about. I still see their being to much disagreement among both regular readers and so called "experts" for their to be some final, absolute objective scale. For instance the "expert" you quoated who while certainly mentioning Eragon's flaws, also called it a good work in the end. You disagree. So which of you is right?

We're (the NY Times lady and myself) both right, we both agree that Paolini has poor writing skills. She subjectively likes Eragon despite those flaws, I subjectively do not. We both agree that the objective quality of the writing skill in Eragon is poor.

Then theres the issue of all the books, such as Eragon, that so many many people enjoy so well and become so successful, and yet people want to claim are "bad". Now maybe this explains that..

Oh, I like Jerry Bruckheimer, but it's bad. National Treasure? Fun, I liked it, but it's a bad movie. Everything's cliched, and basically it's a blatant attempt to capitalize on the DaVinci Code's success. There's nothing lasting or emotionally-provoking in it and the plot is advanced continuously through Deus Ex Machina (oh, Nicholas Cage just randomly knew fact XYZ again, how convenient). It's bad.

However, I have trouble with this notion so many of you have of enjoyment being a seperate entity from quality. If you enjoyed it, as far as I'm concerned it was good.

Maybe not as well crafted as other works (yes, some things can be accepted as "better than" others by a majority, although that still has a subjective element), but my point is if you enjoyed it, it still has *value*

And again, there is that issue of purpose. What was the purpose of Eragon (for example)? Well I cant be totally sure not having created it or spoken to the one that did, but from what I've read I'd say that in that case at least, it was mainly intended to entertain, and to be enjoyed. And in that, it has succeeded for thousands (myself included so far).

Yes, it succeeded in entertaining. Not entertaining me, as I gave up half-way through, but many others were entertained. And here you admit it's not as well-written as other books! Hooray! The difference between us is that you don't care as much as I do that it's not as well-written, which is 100% A-OK, but I did! Therefore, you finished and enjoyed it, whereas I gave up in disgust. We subjectively felt differently about the book, but objectively agree that it's not well-written.

Is it writen as well as the Lord of the Rings? No, its not.

Is it objectively awful? No, its not that either. At worst, its at the low end of the spectrum of that semi-objective scale of the general criteria of the craft of writting. And for the record, although I have no "credentials" beyond having read a great deal of fantasy fiction in my life, and having tried to develop my own writing skills for the past couple of years, I feel that certain aspects of the story were (or I should say are so far) quite well crafted.

My credentials are no more august than your own. If you say, "Eragon is not objectively awful," then I agree with you. If you say "the writing in Eragon is not objectively awful," I strongly disagree. Bad writing is bad writing is bad writing. The fact that many people like Eragon a lot despite the bad writing is their own subjective taste.

I agree with your overall point. However, I have never personally read a book, or experienced any artistic work that was totally lacking in craft in all points of the general criteria of its medium.

Neither have I. But if even if you hit a 50% it's still a failing grade. I don't want to be insulting and say that I have higher standards, because I'm not even sure that I do. But we do have different standards, and I'm confident in saying that I give writing skills more weight than you would, but please correct me if you disagree--you'd know better what your standards are than I would. Neither of us is subjectively right in the weight we give to writing skill, but I believe, as an absolute indisputable truth, that some writing is objectively better than other writing. And so, when someone asks on the boards if Eragon is good, I'll say, "I hated it, the writing skill is poor and the plot is cliched."

I come back to Lovecraft again. He's not real great at dialogue or characterization sure. But he's an ace on mood, theme, description and various other areas.

I agree with you completely. His writing is not objectively stellar, but it's damn sure subjectively fun.

Also note that while I am willing to agree that say for instance the kid that wrote Eragon is not, at this moment, as good a writer as Tolkien or Lovecraft or Stephen King, in any area, I think theres every chance he *could* be with additional practice.

I agree that he's not as good, and would further say he's not nearly as good. I agree that he absolutely could be a stellar writer with more practice. None of this makes Eragon well-written. I don't care how old he was. He could have come out of the birth canal with the finished manuscript, it doesn't make Eragon well-written. His next book could put Stephen King, Tolkien, George R.R. Martin, Tolstoy, and Homer to shame, it won't make Eragon well-written.

See I'm a very positive person. I believe very strongly in the potential of all things and people. Of course I also realize that statement will now be ripped to shreds, but oh well.

There's nothing wrong in being positive--I sincerely hope that Paolini develops into the greatest writer of his generation and that his works are treasured for decades if not centuries to come. Writers absolutely improve--George R.R. Martin's Fevre Dream isn't as well-written as his A Song of Ice and Fire. There was also 14 years in between the two...

If Paolini gets better at writing, good enough to match his passion for his stories, I'll read him. But he's not there yet, and the writing skills in Eragon were objectively bad, and thus I subjectively thought it wasn't worth finishing and returned the book to my nice co-worker who lent it to me.

After this, I'm done. I've said what I have to say (but feel free to respond, I've never cared about that "last word" garbage). I'm happy to agree to disagree, and reiterate my respect for your opinion.

 

[Merlion]

After this, I'm done. I've said what I have to say (but feel free to respond, I've never cared about that "last word" garbage). I'm happy to agree to disagree, and reiterate my respect for your opinion.

Well, I'm not sure what the point of your writing the post was if you dont plan to continue, and I dont think we need to "agree to disagree" (I hate that phrase with a burning passion), partially because I dont think we really and truly disagree on much. I am going to respond, and I wish strongly that you would respond to the response as your input has been among the most interesting, useful and well thought out I've had since I started this whole issue up.

She subjectively likes Eragon despite those flaws, I subjectively do not. We both agree that the objective quality of the writing skill in Eragon is poor.

I have two questions then. One, how exactly does this seperation of enjoyment from quality work? To me, especially if the work is mainly meant to be enjoyed, as most artistic works are even if they have other purposes as well, then if people enjoy the thing, its a good work. And certainly, it has *value*

Related to that, again if the work is enjoyed, even if one accepts the idea that their are semi-objective levels of quality in craft, and a work is on the lower end of that scale, what does it matter other than to mean the artist has room to improve and make his works even more enjoyable, by an even wider audience?

Oh, I like Jerry Bruckheimer, but it's bad. National Treasure? Fun, I liked it, but it's a bad movie. Everything's cliched, and basically it's a blatant attempt to capitalize on the DaVinci Code's success. There's nothing lasting or emotionally-provoking in it and the plot is advanced continuously through Deus Ex Machina (oh, Nicholas Cage just randomly knew fact XYZ again, how convenient). It's bad

All the things you mention are entirely subjective.

And here you admit it's not as well-written as other books! Hooray! The difference between us is that you don't care as much as I do that it's not as well-written

I agree, in a way...although to me its more simply that you didnt enjoy it and its nature was not to your taste, but it was to mine.

We subjectively felt differently about the book, but objectively agree that it's not well-written.

Not quite. I dont believe "well written" is entirely an objective thing, in practice. I did however say that it is not as well written as some others.

"Eragon is not objectively awful," then I agree with you. If you say "the writing in Eragon is not objectively awful," I strongly disagree

Whats the difference?

Neither have I. But if even if you hit a 50% it's still a failing grade

Here we disagree, if I understand what you mean. To me, for a work to be objectively bad, even just in terms of craft with value aside, it would have to fail all common criteria for its medium. Basically it would need to be unreadble. Because all those criteria are themselves still subjective, not objective.

But we do have different standards, and I'm confident in saying that I give writing skills more weight than you would, but please correct me if you disagree--you'd know better what your standards are than I would

I only have one real "standard" in terms of my own personal reading/watching etc...how much I enjoyed it.

There is another factor, one I dont consider exactly a standard...wether, and how much a work has some huge lasting impact on me...causes an epiphany, creates a totally new sensation, or becomes a permanent, large part of my mental landscape.

I can critique things based on the accepted standards of "good" writing reasonbly well, but they are essentially just a collection of commonly held opinions.

I agree that he's not as good, and would further say he's not nearly as good. I agree that he absolutely could be a stellar writer with more practice. None of this makes Eragon well-written

I wouldnt say its not well written. I'd say its not *as* well written as so-and-so. Its relative.

But he's not there yet, and the writing skills in Eragon were objectively bad

They objectively fit the common opinion of bad, rather.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, and reiterate my respect for your opinion

I dont think we truly disagree on much. You consider the commonly held standards of the craft of writing to be objective, which I only partially agree with, but your not trying to say works that dont fit those standards are worthless and anyone who enjoys them is deficient.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I call this the "Just Becuase I'm a Jackass Doesn't Mean You're Not a Hack" Principle.

That's the favorite thing I've read today! I want that t-shirt.

 

[Enforcer]

Well, I'm not sure what the point of your writing the post was if you dont plan to continue, and I dont think we need to "agree to disagree" (I hate that phrase with a burning passion), partially because I dont think we really and truly disagree on much. I am going to respond, and I wish strongly that you would respond to the response as your input has been among the most interesting, useful and well thought out I've had since I started this whole issue up.

"Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in." The point of my last post was that I was tired of spending time arguing this thread. There's objectively bad (and good, and average) writing out there, the end. I appreciate the compliments, however. The ability to have polite disagreements is a major asset to this site and a credit to the mods and the users alike.

I have two questions then. One, how exactly does this seperation of enjoyment from quality work? To me, especially if the work is mainly meant to be enjoyed, as most artistic works are even if they have other purposes as well, then if people enjoy the thing, its a good work. And certainly, it has *value*

Related to that, again if the work is enjoyed, even if one accepts the idea that their are semi-objective levels of quality in craft, and a work is on the lower end of that scale, what does it matter other than to mean the artist has room to improve and make his works even more enjoyable, by an even wider audience?

Good work adds something to the field, it advances the artform in new and unexpected ways, and it's technique is excellent. Enjoyable art is just that, enjoyable--the technique may have flaws, it may be cliched or overly derivative without adding anything fresh, and it won't stand the test of time. Also, I'd argue with the claim that all artistic works are meant to be enjoyed, some are meant to anger, to provoke, or to outrage instead.

All the things you mention are entirely subjective.

No. Copying someone else's work is not subjective. Cliches are not subjective. Using Deus Ex Machina because the writer was too lazy/stupid to actually advance the plot in a way that makes sense is not subjective. They're all signs of poor writing. I'll grant you emotion/thought-provoking though.

I agree, in a way...although to me its more simply that you didnt enjoy it and its nature was not to your taste, but it was to mine.

Except I didn't enjoy it partly because the writing was objectively bad. Whereas you were able to ignore that in favor of the story.

Not quite. I dont believe "well written" is entirely an objective thing, in practice. I did however say that it is not as well written as some others.

And I simply disagree. Further, my challenge to find someone who thinks Eragon was well-written stands--if everyone thinks Eragon was not well-written, it's not subjective anymore, but rather must be based on some objective standard. And again, well-written is mutually exclusive of enjoyable.

Whats the difference?

The difference is that the quality of Paolini's writing skills is objectively bad, whereas the story ideas and passion behind it are a matter of subjective taste. I subjectively hated those elements too, you did not.

Here we disagree, if I understand what you mean. To me, for a work to be objectively bad, even just in terms of craft with value aside, it would have to fail all common criteria for its medium. Basically it would need to be unreadble. Because all those criteria are themselves still subjective, not objective.

So then as long as a sentence is readable then it can't be bad no matter what? Forget Paolini, time to pull out some of the crap I wrote in 1st grade and get it published. You can read it, the sentences even make sense, but it's still objectively bad writing.

I only have one real "standard" in terms of my own personal reading/watching etc...how much I enjoyed it.

There is another factor, one I dont consider exactly a standard...wether, and how much a work has some huge lasting impact on me...causes an epiphany, creates a totally new sensation, or becomes a permanent, large part of my mental landscape.

I can critique things based on the accepted standards of "good" writing reasonbly well, but they are essentially just a collection of commonly held opinions.

And that personal standard that subjectively chooses to ignore writing skills when judging a book is fine. That doesn't erase the existence of an objective standard for writing. As for the "collection of commonly held opinions," so is every objective standard ever, from science to writing skills. Your problem seems to be that the standard for writing skills is based on widely-accepted human opinion...so is every objective standard there is, even hard scientific fact. Why do you think there's a scientific method? Everyone just randomly decided to go about experiments the same logical, unbiased way?

I wouldnt say its not well written. I'd say its not *as* well written as so-and-so. Its relative.

Well, based on the objective standards for writing, you would be wrong. Awkward sentences=bad writing, plot holes=bad writing, cliches=bad writing. The fact that you liked the book regardless says something about your subjective standards, it doesn't make the book well-written.

They objectively fit the common opinion of bad, rather.

That's what the objective standard is, widely-held common opinion. No robots decided this, human beings did. As a culture, we've created objective standards on what is good and bad writing, Paolini doesn't meet the standard. You may not like the objective standard, but it's still there regardless.

I dont think we truly disagree on much. You consider the commonly held standards of the craft of writing to be objective, which I only partially agree with, but your not trying to say works that dont fit those standards are worthless and anyone who enjoys them is deficient.

Well, we certainly disagree on whether Eragon sucks or not. I can't remember another time that I've absolutely refused to finish a book because it was so bad.

But yeah, there's an objective standard for the craft of writing, and you don't like it. I won't argue anymore whether or not there is an objective standard. There just is, I can't explain it any better. And no, I don't think any book that fails that objective standard is automatically worthless. But, it is automatically poorly-written.

However, the beauty of the objective standard is that people who don't want to waste time on books that aren't well-written can be forewarned if they wish (man do I wish I had read the review of Eragon before I started, but I was being polite to my co-worker who I had hooked on A Song of Ice and Fire).