SoT - Legend of the Seeker

[nquixote]

Oh, it was about time for the "we're all different, everyone has different tastes, and it's all subjective" spiel. I am amazed it came so late, really. I am not getting into another "nobody can decide what's good and what's bad" argument. Yeah, amazing as it may be, some people do know better than others. It's not a crime to claim so, it's only a risk, cause if you don't, you end up looking stupid. But so far nobody is doing anything to disprove my words, the only thing I see are knee-jerk cliche "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, I HAVE A RIGHT TO LIKE WHAT I WANT!!!" reactions.

Nah, you're wrong. Tastes are subjective, it's impossible to prove that one book is better than another. Our statements of disgust and contempt at Goodkind are purely statements of opinion.

That said, Goodkind is still Teh Sucky Sucksuck.

 

[Davis Ashura]

Roland, we both know you're opinions are untrustworthy. I mean, c'mon, you can't even spell Elric. And, you actually read EVERY word of Goodkind's novel's until Faith of the Fallen. We both know you didn't skip or skim like a rational person would, either.
I gave up after Temple of the Winds, but will admit to having a fondness for Wizard's First Rule, but none of the others.
What does that say about you that you actually read ALL the way to the midpoint even though you'd already developed a hatred of the series.
Buddy, what the heck were you thinking? And being young , dumb, and full of...naivete doesn't count as an excuse or explanation.
Just throwing in my little firebomb, Roland. Fire away.

 

[Davis Ashura]

But so far nobody is doing anything to disprove my words...

Roland, isn't it incumbent upon you to prove that he sucks. You're asking for those who defend him to prove a negative, or am I reading that sentence incorrectly. If I am, what did you mean?

 

[Roland 85]

I am sorry, Radone, I can't do anything. You are too right for me this time

nquixote - Nah, I'm not wrong. Tastes are subjective. Quality isn't.

Edit: It is pretty easy to prove he is not crapy, and that is by presenting examples of good writing, structure, characterization - ANYTHING. The beauty of it is that I can then say it's just a flux, and they have to find ANOTHER one ^_^

 

[Davis Ashura]

Edit: It is pretty easy to prove he is not crapy, and that is by presenting examples of good writing, structure, characterization - ANYTHING. The beauty of it is that I can then say it's just a flux, and they have to find ANOTHER one ^_^

You mean I'd have have to quote from Wizard's First Rule to prove a point of subjectivity? Aw man, no thanks. That's just sooo mean. What are you studying in grad school? They physiology of pain?

 

[Industrious1]

I do not like Sword of Truth. At all. However I could care less if someone else does enjoy it.

 

[Roland 85]

You mean I'd have have to quote from Wizard's First Rule to prove a point of subjectivity? Aw man, no thanks. That's just sooo mean. What are you studying grad studies? They physiology of pain?

Classical violin actually Also, just got offered a contract with one of the local orchestras a couple of minutes ago, so happy face -> ^_^

And no, this is not a point of subjectivity. Characterization, structure, language - those things are objective. You could subjectively like/dislike them regardless, but in and of themselves they are easily recognizable as good, bad or mediocre.

Bait: of course, I'd be tremendously surprised if any fan of Goodkind is actually capable of presenting an actual example in their defense of him...

 

[Davis Ashura]

Congrats on your new gig, Roland. First jobs, especially for something you've worked hard much of your life can be special. They can also be a slap in the face and let you know the truth of the real world, but don't let me rain on your parade.
As someone who liked Wizard's First Rule, you can tell by my excellent grammar in the post you quoted that I'm very much NOT up for that challenge.
I think you should start a new thread, Roland, in which you cite a short passage and explain why it is either good or bad based on objective criteria. I'll have to admit that I don't by into an objective criteria for art, but maybe you could prove me wrong.
I can accept that there are criteria that certain people will claim as objective, but when I think of objective, I think of math or science: something that exists regardless of your thoughts and rationalizations on the subject. For instance, you might be deeply committed to creating a machine that flies. Your math and physics in the construction of the device may be entirely correct based on knowledge at the time. However, if that math/physics is not also correct with regards to external, objective truth, you won't fly.

 

[Roland 85]

Nah, that's a wrong approach. The hard science concept of "objective" is different than the art one, but an art one does exist. Unfortunately I am more of a "talking the talk" kinda guy, but I will send a link of this discussion to Trip, and he will be MORE than happy to oblige you. He recently did such a thing with a paragraph from Interview With the Vampire, explaining why it is not only badly written, but also extremely inexact in terms of visualization.

 

[quajack]

Awesome that you got the violin offer, Roland.

 

[nquixote]

Nah, that's a wrong approach. The hard science concept of "objective" is different than the art one, but an art one does exist. Unfortunately I am more of a "talking the talk" kinda guy, but I will send a link of this discussion to Trip, and he will be MORE than happy to oblige you. He recently did such a thing with a paragraph from Interview With the Vampire, explaining why it is not only badly written, but also extremely inexact in terms of visualization.

You can ask questions like "Did this piece of art produce the intended effect?" or "Did this piece of art evoke a strong emotional reaction?" or "Did this piece of art stimulate novel efforts among other artists?"

But none of those observables is a widely agreed-upon measure of quality.

 

[Roland 85]

The first one could be, depending on the intended effect. Also, a use of language that is clear and doesn't have unintentional ambiguity is objectively better than one that is unclear and could be misinterpreted.

 

[nquixote]

The first one could be, depending on the intended effect.

So do all stories that inspire people beyond the author's expectations lack "true quality," because the inspiration was unintentional on the author's part?

What if someone writes a book or a song that people "mis"interpret, but the "mis"interpretation is something that people find extremely meaningful?

Also, a use of language that is clear and doesn't have unintentional ambiguity is objectively better than one that is unclear and could be misinterpreted.

So intentional ambiguity (Joyce, Faulkner, Kafka) is OK, while unintentional ambiguity reduces "true quality"? So if Joyce had intended his novels to be quite clear and simple, and had just been such a mental spazz that Ulysses confused most people, then his novels would be crapola???

I just don't get it. Or buy it. If I tell you the Flaming Lips are the best band on the planet (note: they are), how can you prove me right or wrong? You could argue that the Flaming Lips often have out-of-tune vocals. But suppose I don't care? You could argue that the Flaming Lips' song meanings are not as widely understood as the Flaming Lips would like. But suppose I don't care?

Opinion and fact are just two different animals entirely.

 

[Evil Agent]

I don't think Terry Goodkind is the worst author in the world. I think his writing is passable. After all, I read the first few books and enjoyed them at the time (although I've heard that the quality deteriorates in the later volumes).

I think his real shortcomings are his unoriginality, and his personal views/opinions. This is why I dislike him so much now.

Oh, and:

If I tell you the Flaming Lips are the best band on the planet (note: they are), how can you prove me right or wrong?

I'm seeing them live next month. Can't wait!

 

[Industrious1]

I remember seeing the Flaming Lips on Beverly Hills 90210 (the original) when I was just a young buck. Wish I was at the Peach Pit that night

 

[Gizmo]

But so far nobody is doing anything to disprove my words

I disproved your laughable statement that people who think Goodkind is a decent writer can't appreciate 'better' writers. It was truly one of the most absurd things I've heard on a Goodkind topic. But keep on clinging to that laughable idea that I've already destroyed and heaps of Goodkind fans have destroyed considering their taste in other work.

 

[Roland 85]

You are boring and repetitive, and I will be ignoring you now

So do all stories that inspire people beyond the author's expectations lack "true quality," because the inspiration was unintentional on the author's part?

What if someone writes a book or a song that people "mis"interpret, but the "mis"interpretation is something that people find extremely meaningful?

Obviously no story that truly inspires could be without any quality. But if the inspiration was unintentional, you have to ask yourself, did it occur due to some of his qualities, or was it a simple chance?

So intentional ambiguity (Joyce, Faulkner, Kafka) is OK, while unintentional ambiguity reduces "true quality"?

Quite so, yes ^_^

So if Joyce had intended his novels to be quite clear and simple, and had just been such a mental spazz that Ulysses confused most people, then his novels would be crapola???

Uh, I gather you haven't read Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake? I mean, the chance of those books turning out the way they are through anything but painstaking determination and genius concept is akin to the proverbial room full of chimps typewriting Hamlet by random chance. I mean, you are giving me an absolutely absurd "what if" situation that just does not compute, so obviously I can't answer your question. Btw, to add something to the "quite so" line - intentional ambiguity is not in and of itself a measure of "good quality". A work of literature could be intentionally ambiguous and still gloriously bad. But when I say "unintentionally ambiguous", I mean the most basic linguistic level - simple words that do not connect entirely right and give unclear meaning that the reader has to "translate" mentally. Case in point - Ann Rice and most writers of fantasy ever

I just don't get it. Or buy it. If I tell you the Flaming Lips are the best band on the planet (note: they are), how can you prove me right or wrong? You could argue that the Flaming Lips often have out-of-tune vocals. But suppose I don't care? You could argue that the Flaming Lips' song meanings are not as widely understood as the Flaming Lips would like. But suppose I don't care?

You are suddenly giving me examples to my own claims. Thank you for that, but I don't suppose it's intentional. Yes, if you don't care about out of tune vocals, then by all means - don't care. Your subjective love for the band is unaffected by their lack of pitch. BUT their objective quality in terms of pitch is lower than that of a band whose vocals aren't out of tune. This is the difference between fact and opinion - the one you mention in the next quote, and one I also mentioned on this page or the previous one. Also, there is no such thing as a "best" thing. Anywhere. Ever. (apart from anime and Cowboy Bebop, but we won't go there) The more your knowledge of a certain field broadens, the more ridiculous the concept of "best" becomes. Best in what? Best how? Best for whom? How do you even measure "best"?

Opinion and fact are just two different animals entirely.

In so much deed. In fact, I've been known to state the same thing. Over and over and over and over again.

 

[Gizmo]

Cool, I'm done proving you wrong anyway.

 

[Pvt]

Classical violin actually Also, just got offered a contract with one of the local orchestras a couple of minutes ago, so happy face -> ^_^

And no, this is not a point of subjectivity. Characterization, structure, language - those things are objective. You could subjectively like/dislike them regardless, but in and of themselves they are easily recognizable as good, bad or mediocre.

Bait: of course, I'd be tremendously surprised if any fan of Goodkind is actually capable of presenting an actual example in their defense of him...

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim (yourself). This is simple logic.

 

[Roland 85]

Actually, there are two sides here, making claims. I claim that Terry Goodkind is a terrible writer. The other side claims he isn't. Considering that the popular opinion in this board is on my side, I can't see why I should be the first to defend my claims