[ SECRET POST #1959 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[xanykaos.livejournal.com]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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?

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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