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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enforcer" data-source="post: 3124599" data-attributes="member: 396">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 <s>was written by Paolini</s> 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.</blockquote>

Verification