There's no such thing as "good writing" and "bad writing", there's just the things you like, and the things you don't.
Ah, yes, complete subjectivism—the literary theory of a child, or a narcissist.
Let’s call it “artistic competence,” then. There’s such a thing as technical skill in crafting art that’s separate from an individual’s enjoyment. Coherent structure, plausible and consistent characterization, execution of scene transitions, etc. don’t guarantee that a person will “like” a work, but they exist nonetheless.
And certainly, sloppy pieces of shit may supply someone’s dream ship, and that’s all that matters to them, or one scene strikes an emotional chord based on some random childhood memory while the rest of the plot makes no sense, or a character is just so darned cute that inconsistencies of characterization go unnoticed.
One: "Technical skill" is a straw man in this discussion, this was about whether things can be intrinsically called good and bad, not skillfully executed.
Two: Skill itself is arbitrary. "Skillful execution" even more so. Those are nothing more than social conventions. Call that complete subjectivism or whatever, the point is that you're still trying to systematize things into good and bad based on arbitrary values. Which is foolish.
But it’s not an accident or random subjectivity that certain works consistently are perceived as being more effectively executed than others.
I thought we'd got over that debate way back when Duchamp started calling his ready-mades art.
And seriously, that argument is as flawed as can be. There's a million real-world examples to show this, and unless you only surround yourself with like-minded people, you're gonna have to realize that this effective execution you speak of is a fallacy.
last edited at May 25, 2020 8:24PM