fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1959 ]

[ SECRET POST #1959 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1959 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 085 secrets from Secret Submission Post #280.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Eh, so long as you understand there's a difference between: "this is better" and "I enjoyed this more." Good writing/story-telling is what it is, the same goes for bad writing/story-telling. Enjoyment is another issue entirely.

But that's assuming there's such a thing as objectively good/bad, and I don't think there is, because people have different criteria for what makes something good or bad. Saying "so long as you understand there's a difference between: "this is better" and "I enjoyed this more." Good writing/story-telling is what it is, the same goes for bad writing/story-telling" just comes across as condescending and too much like "it's fine to have your opinion, as long as you realize it's wrong" to me.

There is such a thing as objectively good and bad. People have different criteria for what makes something enjoyable.

Twilight is bad writing. Plain and simple. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of looking at it both from a technical standpoint (the words used and the way she puts them together) and from a story-teller's standpoint (lots of dead scenes with no turn). I'm using Twilight because it's a thing that everyone knows, but on the other side, you can take Shakespeare. There are people who say Hamlet or Macbeth is bad, and what they mean is they didn't enjoy it. Shakespeare crafted his language to a point where he influenced the way we use in modern English, hundreds of years later. There's not a dead scene in Hamlet or Macbeth. (Not to say he didn't write a few bombs. A Winter's Tale is...well, not really one of his best).

There is such a thing as good story-telling, as a well-crafted sentence or paragraph, as a culturally resonating character or dilemma.

I see people check out crap every day, and they are genuinely happy to read or watch it. Hell, I watch a lot of crap myself, because it's fun. People enjoy "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" and some people, somewhere, I hear, may have even enjoyed The Love Guru or The Tooth Fairy 2 starring Larry the Cableguy. That doesn't make them good movies. There have been people unable to sit through Citizen Kane or Casablanca. That doesn't make those bad movies.

Hell, a plastic-wrapped honeybun is pretty enjoyable sometimes, but it's really not that good.

There's a difference between "good" and "enjoyable." There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not even telling people that they're wrong for liking something. It's the ability to step back and look at story objectively, as a craft and an art and barometer for our culture, as well as judging it's entertaining qualities.

This. I don't even have anything more to add because this was such a well crafted response.

I don't know, I just don't think it's that simple.

Whose standards are we using to judge whether something is well-written or not? I mean, isn't the most basic purpose of the written word to communicate an idea or invoke an emotion? Just because I don't like Twilight doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that it resonated with, and I don't think you or I have the right to say "yeah, well, you're wrong, because it's bad".

Maybe sentences aren't structured the way you would've done it or there are scenes that don't go seem to go anywhere, but you can't argue with Twilight's popularity. Obviously you could say people are stupid and like crap; it's not like it hasn't been said before, but I think it kind of proves that "good" subjective. *Some* people obviously think it's good, even if you disagree with them. They may not be able to say it's well-written based on a specific set of things that makes a book well-written, but they can say that in their opinion, it's good.

I just don't see what constitutes "good story-telling" or a "well-crafted sentence" or "culturally resonating character", because what makes those things good or well-crafted or culturally resonating? What criteria are we using to judge those things? "Culturally resonating" even implies that it's dependent on cultural contexts. Even if everyone in a given cultural group agrees that a particular story is "good story-telling" or that it contains "well-crafted sentences" (and I think it's unlikely there won't be at least a couple people in any given group that will disagree) doesn't necessarily mean that a group of people from a different culture will agree because each group is judging by a different set of criteria.

You can say "a plastic-wrapped honeybun does not meet my nutritional needs", which would may be objectively true, but you can't objectively say "it's not good" because your criteria for what's good is not necessarily the same as everyone else's. Just as you can say "Twilight is poorly written with a poorly told story when judged by criteria A and B" but you can't (accurately) objectively say "it's bad".

Whose standards are we using to judge whether something is well-written or not?

If you take English classes, writing classes, and study story-telling....you tend to learn what the standards are. They're not arbitrary.

but I think it kind of proves that "good" subjective.

No. It proves that enjoyable is subjective. It's been said before because it's true--popular doesn't make things good. Toddlers and Tiaras is popular. It's awful. People will read and watch crap, and make it popular, and that doesn't make it good. Want proof? This piece of drek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRnw7RGzq9I) gets checked out at least once a week. People put it on hold. This series? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WihBEfvkFA) People put it on hold constantly. They wait for the next one. It's popular enough that they've made, I dunno, seven of them at least? Popular doesn't mean good. Popular just means people will consume it. Fast food is popular, consumed en masse. It's not all good.

I just don't see what constitutes "good story-telling" or a "well-crafted sentence" or "culturally resonating character", because what makes those things good or well-crafted or culturally resonating? What criteria are we using to judge those things?

Then study it and find out. Don't just sit there and go: "well, I don't understand how that can be true." If you want to know what makes something a well-crafted story, then, by all means, learn. Robert McKee's Story (http://www.amazon.com/Story-Substance-Structure-Principles-Screenwriting/dp/0060391685) is an excellent resource for the basics and intricate detail of what constitutes a tightly woven story. Hell, if you go to your library and check the Lit Crit section, you can find even more resources. And while you'll say "it's subjective" the funny thing is that the core elements of what make a good or bad story don't change from person to person. Not even so much from culture to culture. That's why stories from other cultures, especially the important ones, can still translate and give us a greater understanding of a place or time other than our own. Because humans are human, and story-telling at it's best is supposed to be about that, not mindless entertainment. Matters of dialogue or pacing may change with the time or genre, but overall, the concept of story-telling is about humanity.

Writing. Is. A. Craft.

Like any other craft. You've got hobbiests, you've got professionals, you've got folks that just can't do it well but love doing it anyway, you've got geniuses. But it is a craft and can be (and is) studied like one.

A dress can be good or bad depending on the skill of the person creating it. Now whether or not you like a dress is a subjective matter, whether or not it appeals to your personal tastes, your favorite colors, your style. But if the hem is uneven and the seams are put together wrong and there's loose thread and shoddy craftsman ship, it is not a good dress. The same is true of writing. The same is true of art.

Good and bad story-telling are not subjective. That's why we have classics. That's why books win Pulitzers. Because there's a craft to it, and quality shines through.

Edited 2012-05-15 06:20 (UTC)

da

Disagree, and I think it's a bit silly to defend your position with "writing classes." The rules of writing are constantly changing, trends that are treated as absolute writing law come and go, and college writing classes - or wherever you're taking them, really - are only going to proclaim the latest fashions.

On one hand, I would agree that there does exist some semblance of a difference between good writing and bad writing. Technical, as in spelling and grammar, basic comprehensive storytelling and consistent characterization, for example. On the other hand, what defines writing as good, as previous anon said, IS arbitrary. I could very well argue that the ultimate goal of fiction writing is to immerse the reader into a story, invest them in my plot and characters, and tap into their imaginations for days after they've finished my book.

I could say that LOTR is dry and boring, and the writing is bad because it reads like a history textbook. The characters aren't genuine but act as mouthpieces for Tolkein's narrative, and the plot - when he gets around to moving it along - is predictable. Doesn't that make it bad writing? And if Twilight has such a huge impact on a reader, and the writing moved them in a way that leads them to obsession, isn't that then successful writing?

da

Who determines quality?

Quality is not objective. It's quality because it has been determined to be so by a certain proportion of people. If they woke up tomorrow and all decided they didn't like it any more, it wouldn't be quality any more.

I really just can't with the idea that "quality is objective, this is good/bad and that is a FACT". Each and every one of us has an opinion and the "definition", if you could even call it that, of what is good and bad is nothing more than the conglomeration of everyone's opinions on the work. Frankly I think saying "quality is THIS, it is a FACT and I happen to know how to define it" is rather arrogant.

Good/bad writing is an opinion, period. It is subjective, period. Writing classes help you learn skills that, if employed properly, will make it MORE LIKELY that readers LIKE your work, which is what defines you as a good author.

I have taken English classes and writing classes, and every professor I've had has had a different idea of what's considered good. Including one who thought the sole purpose of any piece of writing was to make the readers care about the characters and what happened to them, and if that was achieved, then all the technical stuff was a matter of style and personal taste. I guess in your opinion that makes him wrong?

Again, you're not saying who, in your opinion, gets the final word on what's good and what's bad. English/writing professors? Not mine, obviously, since none of them could agree on what makes something good. English professors you've had? What makes them any more an authority on the subject than anyone else? No matter how many English classes or writing classes someone takes, the professor teaching the class is still one person with an opinion like anyone else. And I don't know, maybe you've taken several classes from the same professor who taught you based on his/her point of view, or maybe you had a few different professors that happened to see things the same way. But none of mine did, and I'm not going to say any of them are wrong because they saw things differently.

I agree that being popular doesn't make something good. Because there's no such thing as objectively good. The fact that those things are so popular proves that some people consider them good. I don't think Twilight is good, I don't like Toddlers and Tiaras or Jersey Shore or the Real Housewives of Wherever, and I think Fifty Shades of Grey is awful. Those are all things that are immensely popular, and a lot of the time, I think most of what's popular is total crap. But you know what? That's my opinion. To several thousands of other people, those things are good. I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm the arbiter of taste and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

I'm not sitting here saying "I don't understand how that can be true", and I don't appreciate your condescending comment that I should "study it and find out" or the implication that if I'd only take some English classes I'd know you were right. Like I said before, I have studied English and writing, and I was taught that the great thing about any form of art is that there are no right answers because it's all subjective. Language is constantly evolving, and as long as you've conveyed the message you set out to get across, you've succeeded. Whether any one person will consider it good or not depends on their personal opinion/point of view.

Yes, there are the basic ideas of spelling and grammar and punctuation that make things easier to read and convey the author's message more effectively, but even those aren't absolute. Take The Road by Cormac McCarthy for example. The book has next to no punctuation and breaks all kinds of grammtical and structural "rules", but clearly it resonates with people on an emotional level.

I'm really not sure where you got the idea that what makes a story good or bad "don't change" from person to person, because if that were the case we'd all like the same things. Everyone has their own upbringing, worldview, memories, core beliefs, etc., that influence the way they look at everything. For every book that exists, there are going to be people who think it's good, people who think it's good, and people who fall somewhere in between. Who gives anyone the right to say that one of those groups is just wrong?

And I'm arguing that they are subjective. A book being a classic essentially just means it was really popular for an extended period of time, and you yourself said that being popular doesn't make something good. Books win awards because the people giving out the awards think they're good, obviously, but again, what makes those people's opinions any more valuable than anyone else's?

It's just not that simple.

people who think it's good, people who think it's good, and people who fall somewhere in between

and that second good should've said "bad", obviously

Writing is a craft, and there's a difference between style and skill.

It's like: some people like different styles of visual art, and none of those styles are really better or worse. But a picture that has, say, really inconsistent anatomy for its style, or unintentionally confusing perspective, or unfortunate color choices that clash with what the rest of the picture is trying to do, is going to be a less skilled work of art. Maybe a person has a strong preference for style A rather than style B, and might enjoy a technically weaker picture in style A more than a technically stronger picture in style B. Which is fine- it doesn't mean "oh, they can have their opinion but they're wrong", because the reason they prefer it probably comes down to the style, which is a totally neutral thing. It also doesn't mean that the flaws in the technically weaker picture don't exist, or that they're beyond criticism because some people like that picture better.

I'm not saying it's impossible to judge the quality of something based on a specific set of criteria. Obviously you could say Painting A is stronger than Painting B based on perspective/color choices/etc., but I don't think you could accurately say "Painting A is better than Painting B" because what makes something good or bad is subjective.

Painting A (http://millionsofmouths.com/diogenes/thm_edwinlandseerwhitebullterreiralexanderanddiogenes.jpg)

Painting B (http://www.derekmccrea.50megs.com/images/chihuawa%20dog%20painting%202.jpg)

If you honestly can't say which is better, I will call you a liar or fifteen years old. I'm not sure which.

Or hell, to make it personal: Painting A (http://xanykaos.deviantart.com/gallery/26334998#/dazag3) and Painting B (http://xanykaos.deviantart.com/art/TF2-Pyro-171740092?q=gallery%3Axanykaos%2F311207&qo=13).

"Obviously you could say Painting A is stronger than Painting B based on perspective/color choices/etc.,"

So instead of using the word "better" you're using the word "stronger." That's being weaselly with the English language. If a painting is the stronger of the two, it's better. The reason that certain criteria like perspective and color choice exist is because they work. You seem to have this strange idea that the "rules" for what make something good or bad are these arbitrary things that people came up with and then tried to follow. It's the other way around--the rules are based on what works, and they provide a springboard. That's why you'll hear first-year art students whining about how their stupid professors make them draw everything "their way" instead of letting the students work in their "own style." And then a year, two, three, four, ten years down the line, something clicks, and the students realize that the "rules" were never limits, they were guidelines, and they understand why they had to learn to do it like that. And then they go off and make their own stronger style from it.

That's how a craft works.

If a painting is the stronger of the two, it's better.

I don't follow.

I used the word stronger because that's the word the person I was replying to used.

Yes, those things might "work" for certain people. That doesn't mean that everyone will agree with those color choices or perspective. Maybe even the majority of people who view the painting do but that doesn't mean they're "right".

Yes, I have a "strange idea" that the rules are arbitrary because they are, at least in art (obviously there are other contexts where rules are not arbitary and following them is important). Just because certain things work for a specific group of people and they've decided that's how they should be done does not make their opinions any more valid than anyone else's.

I was taught that art, in all its forms, is subjective. It exists to entertain people, to make people think, to introduce a new idea, it exists for several different reasons. You can say how well a particular work succeeded at its goal within a specific demographic, but you cannot say it's "good" or "bad" without taking into account the fact that different people with different viewpoints interpret things differently.

all of this.

I think you're confusing taste with quality. If you have two paintings that are trying to accomplish the same thing, and one is more or less successful at it while the other isn't, that more successful one is going to have an edge when it comes to quality.

IRL, though, it's rarely "two almost identical things but one's technically better." Maybe you've got similar things that each make a different set of mistakes. More likely, the subject and style are just so different that you're not going to find another picture of a dog leaping off a pier or a pack of vampires playing baseball. It's not Twilight vs better Twilight/shittier Twilight, because you're not likely to find another thing that has all the subject and style bits that draw people to Twilight in the first place. That's why taste is subjective- because general quality really isn't the thing that's driving it, but that's okay. I mean, would you read a superbly-done manual for putting furniture together over a mediocre novel with your favorite subject and style in the world? Probably not. Sometimes a book with literary choices you like is super compelling, and a book with literary choices you don't enjoy practically is a furniture manual to you. It's silly to judge people for not preferring the furniture manual, so it's just as silly to judge them for not preferring the ~superior~ book when it's not what they're interested in.

Like, someone who really loves Trigun and Gargoyles but is meh about TF2 might prefer Painting A to Painting B in the example below. And that's okay! But even the person who made it can tell that Painting B is better.

No, I'm saying that taste is based on the subjective interpretation of what is and is not quality.

But those examples are based on the assumption that there is an objective standard for what is "good", and my argument is that such a thing doesn't exist. What makes the "superbly-done" furniture manual superbly-done? What makes the "mediocre" novel mediocre? You have to have criteria that you're basing these things on. Just saying one is "good" and the other is "bad" is not a valid argument.

If your criteria for "good" is "shows you in a clear, easy to follow manner how to put this piece of furniture together", then the furniture manual is obviously going to be "better" than the novel. But if your criteria for good is "a compelling story with interesting characters", a novel is most likely going to fit that standard better than a manual for putting furniture together. A manual for putting furniture together is completely different than a novel, and it's not really logical to judge them as if they were the same thing and proclaim which is "better". I'm not saying it's not possible to say which of two things is better when judged by specific criteria, I'm saying that deeming something objectively "good" or "bad" is not possible because what makes something good or bad is always going to depend on some set of criteria, and what that is will change from person to person.

da

this, but would also like to add: the concept of a "compelling story with interesting characters" is, in itself, also very subjective. I might be interested in different characters than you or find a different sort of plot interesting, or prefer the way author A constructs zir plot over author B.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I probably don't, but wanted to clarify that point.

To break it down a little bit more: you can judge a book by objective things like: number of pages/words/chapters, number of characters, how dynamic a character is (if you have a measuring tool for how much that character changed), etc. or even "number of people who like this book". None of those things is, in and of themselves, an indicator of quality. They're just stats. "Quality" is born of the opinions of those who read the book.

I agree, and I should've clarified. You're right, "interesting characters" is subjective too, because what makes a character interesting is going to vary from person to person. Like you said, there are objective things that can be measured, but "quality" is not one of them (at least not in art) because what is considered quality is up to the individual person's opinion/interepretation.

ayrt

I figured that's what you meant :) and I totally agree.

I think there can be an objective standard in quality if you look at how successful a thing is at what it's trying to do? A furniture manual with clear, comprehensible instructions and nice diagrams is better than a furniture manual that's barely comprehensible. A novel is better or worse depending on what it's trying to do. Things like "is it compelling" or "are the characters interesting" are at least partly down to taste, not quality, but there's a lot that isn't. There's consistency, and general guidelines for plotting and effective prose that are there because they work.

da

I'd say those "guidelines" are just tools that the author can choose to use if s/he wishes. They aren't an automatic shoe-in for "quality". If they were what would become of talent and practice? Just because many authors use certain sets of guidelines (though probably not exactly the same ones across the board) doesn't mean that's what determines quality.

If having rules in place means talent and practice don't matter, then anybody can be excellent at math without even trying. Oh, wait.

Things like "the characters are acting in a way that makes sense for who they are and what's going on", "the events in a given part of a story don't clash with the intended mood," "if a piece of text can't directly be attributed to a character that would have a bad grasp of spelling and grammar, it has correct spelling and generally appropriate grammar to the tone", "the setting itself doesn't give the impression that it revolves around the protagonist, unless there's a plot reason for why it actually does," "important plot threads aren't forgotten, even if they don't have closure by the end of the story," etc, those things actually do determine the quality of a story. If the mood's shitting off to a bunch of torture and murder in a supposedly light and fluffy story, or the author's sentence structure is nigh-incomprehensible, it's not going to be as good, sorry.

It's not going to be as good because people don't like it when it's done that way. That's why.

Also, the arts and math are very different things - math doesn't have "works" which people consume for enjoyment. It's a science. Of course there are rules and rights/wrongs. Science is concerned with facts. Art is not.

You don't think there's any real value in internal consistency and using the language in a way that the readers can make sense of? Really? People like these things because a story that's not intended to confuse is better enjoyed in a non-confusing format. I don't like the "consumer of media as creative collaborator" views, but I think a reader's experience IS a part of that work. It's not necessarily that (in an English-language work) proper English is better in itself, it's that if you don't want to confuse, it makes fucking sense to structure your prose within the bounds of how English speakers have been taught to understand words.

Of course it's different, but that's not the point- the point is that talent and practice still apply when strict rules exist, so they can still apply when looser rules that leave room for style and content exist. Also, certain math geeks I know would probably have something to say about the idea that math stuff is never an art.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #1959 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject