[ SECRET POST #3332 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3332 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
(David Bowie)


__________________________________________________



03.
(Great British Bake Off for Sports Relief, Ed Balls)


__________________________________________________



04.
[Pokemon]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Star Wars: TFA]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Damian Lewis, Dick Winters, Band Of Brothers]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Daughter of the Lilies]


__________________________________________________



08.
[David Eddings]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Sengoku Basara]


__________________________________________________



10.
[JJBA]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Men In Black I, II, III]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[cbrachyrhynchos]

No, it's not all "opinions." Storytelling and writing are crafts with techniques that can be honed with practice, discussed, and critiqued. We can say that TFA had moderately good pacing on the plot beats, fair dialogue, modest character development for its constraints, and a nonsensical maguffin to push the characters forward.

We can also discuss whether that nonsense supports or undermines the central problem of setting up the climatic lightsaber duel. If you're going to break the rules it needs to be in the service of something, and not just to be edgy.

[ypsilon42]

Well, to a certain extent it is?

Of course their are rules; there are a lot of conventions in writing and film making (and really in all art forms) and they exist for a reason. But at the end of the day personal opinion always matters and it is not just a question of right or wrong. Otherwise there would be one single perfect story that followed all the rules and was beloved by everyone.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

90% of what happens in a critique session or editing session has nothing to do with "opinion." It's about craft, and the work is going to be evaluated on reasonably objective criteria. You don't see that in work like TFA because TFA is a rigorously polished product of experienced (or rarely, highly talented) professionals.

We're talking about writing and storytelling here, which has fuckall to do with popularity.

[philstar22]

I personally think that a lot of things talked about are more Subjective than critics would like to admit. Not all of it, but some of it.

[(Anonymous)]

For one thing, plot holes and macguffins are everywhere; people are just more forgiving of them depending on how well the story makes you forget or accept them, and that's the type of thing that's very subjective.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Not really. Good storytellers are like good magicians. If they do it right, the audience's attention is focused on the story and not on the shenanigans happening on the periphery. Both storytellers and magicians shop talk about exactly how to do it, rather than hope that simple earnest plodding will cover having half-assed it.

[ypsilon42]

I am not saying that there aren't some reasonably objective criteria; there are some movies that are objectively bad and there are some movies that are objectively less good than others. (No one is gonna claim that, idk, The Room is a good movie (other than so bad it's good)). But storytelling is also not entirely clear cut. Different people like different things, and they will classify different things as 'good', partially for reasons of personal taste, partially for their cultural background and partially for some other reason all together. There is no single set of rules that will create a Good Movie^TM.

And not to get too philosophical, but how exactly is decided what constitutes as 'good' if not by widespread appeal?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

And not to get too philosophical, but how exactly is decided what constitutes as 'good' if not by widespread appeal?

Well gee, it's not like we have 2,500 years of analysis across multiple cultures devoted to examination of stories in terms of their structures, themes, elements, fundamental execution, and relationship with the audience that just about any artist who works on more than a casual level participates in.

But storytelling is also not entirely clear cut. Different people like different things, and they will classify different things as 'good', partially for reasons of personal taste, partially for their cultural background and partially for some other reason all together.

"Personal taste" isn't criticism. It's superficial reaction. I love Star Trek, but it's never been the best written franchise (with the exception of Khan). I hate Lars von Trier movies but I can recognize what he's trying to do with them and admire how skillfully he does it as a director.

The point in talking about craft is that you want for the audience to love or hate the story for the story, not hate you because you half-assed that critical plot beat with a clunker of a scene that didn't do what you wanted.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

And for the record, I love TFA but I think it was burdened with franchise demands to reintroduce everything, introduce new characters, and set up the next movie in the franchise. I love ANH but dang if Lucas's tin ear for dialogue makes certain scenes flat.

[a_potato]

What are we talking about when we're talking about critique or editing? If we're talking about the sort of critique or editing that's likely to come out of a major publisher, then we're absolutely talking about popularity.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

No, first of all badly done crap doesn't get out of the slush pile unless you already have representation. Second, yes, editing is going to be grounded on mechanics and fundamentals, because nothing hurts your brand like releasing crap.

[a_potato]

Mechanics and fundamentals factor in, but you said that writing and storytelling have fuckall to do with popularity. I'm saying that they do. A major publisher will not accept something that does not either tie into something that's popular or have the potential to be popular.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

That's not how publishing works. Publishers take manuscripts they think they can break even selling, and even a major publisher is going to just break even for a majority of their catalog.

And yes, writing and storytelling have fuckall to do with popularity. The biggest market favors derivative work from established franchises while the best stories of the year often come out in secondary markets. Honestly, novellas, novelettes, and shorts seem to be stronger overall than novels right now.

[a_potato]

And what might a publisher think will break even selling?

I am friends with a published author. She's been venting to me for nearly a decade. Popularity, and potential popularity, matters, because what's popular is what sells. I'm not sure why you're arguing against that.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Something that plays to a specific market.

Popularity, and potential popularity, matters, because what's popular is what sells. I'm not sure why you're arguing against that.

Goalpost moving. We're talking about writing and storytelling, which have standards and techniques of craft. We're not talking about sales or popularity, which are primarily about marketing. We don't say that 50 Shades of Grey was a great story because it was well-marketed, and some of the best novels I've read lately had an initial print run of a few hundred.

And I work at a school of professional artists. Almost all of them can clearly define the standards of work for their fields, including the writers who are much more aggressive with the red pen than I am.

[a_potato]

It's not goalpost moving, because my position from the outset has been that major publishers are concerned with popularity.

I am not arguing that well-marketed stories are great stories. I am arguing only that what happens in a professional critique or editing session does not necessarily have to do with craft. '50 Shades' was published for a reason, and the reason was that its editors saw the potential for it to sell.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

It's not goalpost moving, because my position from the outset has been that major publishers are concerned with popularity.

Which again, has fuckall to do with storytelling and writing. So not moving the goalposts, a conversation that is both ignorant and irrelevant.

I am arguing only that what happens in a professional critique or editing session does not necessarily have to do with craft. '50 Shades' was published for a reason, and the reason was that its editors saw the potential for it to sell.

That's not a decision that's made in the context of a production critique. Professionals like to be paid after all. But by all means, tell us more about how we actually do our jobs, what goes on when we push things through production, and how it's all "opinion" and we should hire you to do it.

[a_potato]

Um. I don't think you should hire me to do anything. I just disagree with you about something.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, we can discuss the film in terms of the craft of storytelling, but... they're still opinions?

You know, like how Shakespeare scholars argue over which of his plays were the most well-written?