Forum › Posts by aa1aa
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.
This is gibberish--a mish-mash of semi-Platonism (your hallucination that I'm talking about "objectivity") and half-digested post-modernism. The juvenile idea that "social conventions" aren't "real" indicates that we have nothing further to say to each other on this subject.
I did not write comments for a long time but this post made me write a serious comment first time ever. As a person who has devoted my life to education - PhD in one of the top schools in the US - I will make a comment about subjectivity from the perspective of science. A scientific fact is observable for all people and using experiments you can get the same result again and again over time. Only those ideas can be claimed as absolute true, and neither your fancy language nor your overly offensive comments cannot make the point you claim true. If and only if there is one contradicting case which is let's say my opinion asserting "this is a good writing", your definition of good writing cannot be universally correct and becomes subjective. I believe the definition of your good writing is false and further I propose a discrete claim that no one can define a criteria for all good writings accepted by everyone. If you can come up with a scientific, namely mathematical proof falsifying this, I would appreciate it and invite you to write a research paper on this ground breaking fact you have newly found. Else, your claims would not be perceived as absolute true by the community that is using science and objectivity as their primary tool. Meaning that you are just bullshitting according to some people and there is no way that you can claim otherwise. Speaking of narcism, you should check some psychology books or even wikipedia to learn more. I do not want to offend anyone but Cecile had some serious points in this discussion worth talking about science more.
I feel ya…
Oh a new manga i have started to like i... it finished?!!
so its cancelled huh ?
i couldn't imagine such a happy ending...