Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3122582" data-attributes="member: 10397">You misunderstand. Again, I'm not talking about not pointing out the flaws. I'm talking about not doing it in an acidic, dismissive way. Avoiding words like &quot;crap&quot;, &quot;suck&quot;, &quot;worthless&quot; etc. Simply point out the flaws for what they are.&nbsp;Hmm. I dont claim to know your mind or intentions, but here is what I take from this statement, please correct me where I'm wrong.The first thing that strikes me is it seems to be at odds with the value of originality...you seem to be saying that in order to write objectively &quot;good&quot; works a writer needs to stay within the style or subject that is currently &quot;in favor&quot; with the &quot;literary community.&quot;Next, by &quot;literary community&quot; I assume you mean the &quot;experts?&quot; People with &quot;education&quot; etc? If so, although I dont discount it, I dont neccesarily see such individuals views as anything more than opinions, much like anyone else's opinions.Nextly, and maybe most importantly, it seems that you are saying that the &quot;objective&quot; standard of &quot;good&quot; writting depends mainly on the times. Whatever the &quot;literary community&quot; decides is &quot;good&quot; at a given period in time is the criteria.Then what about Poe? He was not well liked by critics during his life, but is now considered a &quot;Great Writer&quot;. How did this come to be? And if the criteria for &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; writting depends on the times, how can it be objective?&nbsp;No not exactly. I feel the time and effort spent on it, and the thought and feeling put into it, gives it value regardless of anyone's opinion about it (including the opinions of people who are considered &quot;experts&quot;)&nbsp;But these things are objective. And they are, as nearly as I can tell, the only objective standards that can be applied to creative works. Because any other standards are simply opinions. They may be opinions of people who have studied the subject in question, but they are still opinions. How else can you define the &quot;quality&quot; of something as ephemeral as a story? (and the same really applies to all art forms, to anything that doesnt have a specific, physical purpose to fulfil, like a tool).&nbsp;Here we go with he &quot;suck&quot; again. I mean this in a purely literall, non-agressive way, but who are you, and who is *anyone* to state that the creation of someone else mind &quot;sucks&quot; in any sense other than your not liking or enjoying it?And if people do enjoy these &quot;sucky&quot; works that have great popularity and fianancial success...how can they be said to suck, if the bring enjoyment?Which leads me to a question. What do you think the general purpose or purposes of creative, artistic works is/are?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merlion, post: 3122582, member: 10397"] You misunderstand. Again, I'm not talking about not pointing out the flaws. I'm talking about not doing it in an acidic, dismissive way. Avoiding words like "crap", "suck", "worthless" etc. Simply point out the flaws for what they are. Hmm. I dont claim to know your mind or intentions, but here is what I take from this statement, please correct me where I'm wrong. The first thing that strikes me is it seems to be at odds with the value of originality...you seem to be saying that in order to write objectively "good" works a writer needs to stay within the style or subject that is currently "in favor" with the "literary community." Next, by "literary community" I assume you mean the "experts?" People with "education" etc? If so, although I dont discount it, I dont neccesarily see such individuals views as anything more than opinions, much like anyone else's opinions. Nextly, and maybe most importantly, it seems that you are saying that the "objective" standard of "good" writting depends mainly on the times. Whatever the "literary community" decides is "good" at a given period in time is the criteria. Then what about Poe? He was not well liked by critics during his life, but is now considered a "Great Writer". How did this come to be? And if the criteria for "good" and "bad" writting depends on the times, how can it be objective? No not exactly. I feel the time and effort spent on it, and the thought and feeling put into it, gives it value regardless of anyone's opinion about it (including the opinions of people who are considered "experts") But these things are objective. And they are, as nearly as I can tell, the only objective standards that can be applied to creative works. Because any other standards are simply opinions. They may be opinions of people who have studied the subject in question, but they are still opinions. How else can you define the "quality" of something as ephemeral as a story? (and the same really applies to all art forms, to anything that doesnt have a specific, physical purpose to fulfil, like a tool). Here we go with he "suck" again. I mean this in a purely literall, non-agressive way, but who are you, and who is *anyone* to state that the creation of someone else mind "sucks" in any sense other than your not liking or enjoying it? And if people do enjoy these "sucky" works that have great popularity and fianancial success...how can they be said to suck, if the bring enjoyment? Which leads me to a question. What do you think the general purpose or purposes of creative, artistic works is/are? [/QUOTE]

Verification