Discussion of fantasy/literature divide and levels of Brow-ness

[owlcroft]

Yet more odds & ends . . . .

No one that I've seen is saying any such thing, that "we need not expect, and are wrong to want, such things as plausible characterization or language less than stilted or wooden."

Well, that's a matter of fact, not opinion, and can be demonstrated. Here are just a few rapid-scan extracts from earlier in this thread:

• Fantasy is the literature of the imagination. "High-brow" literature is of another kind, another source; imagination is secondary, an affect, if you will. If you want to rationalize fantasy, to explain it with the rules of discursive reason, you start getting away from the essence of fantasy.
  
• My contention is that this sort of approach - judging fantasy by the same criteria as one would judge literary fiction - is misplaced
  
• Speculative Fiction can be just as relevant and just as powerful but it isn't defined by the same metrics as Literary Fiction and as such it shouldn't be judged the same way.
  
• I am arguing that fantasy requires a different kind of reading, a different kind of mind.
  
• Fantasy, on the other hand, speaks to the subconscious in a form that often seems crude and childish to the literati that is reading it as if it is (or should be) "proper" literature.
  
• Some seem to almost NEED Speculative Fiction to be analyzed in the same way Literary Fiction is which simply isn't possible as they are too different.
  
• For the metaphorical middle finger every epic fantasy writer puts up to the world of critical review. For the courage to write the stories they want to write regardless of how the world of academia and high brow criticism might view them.
  
• I don't think one can correlate the skill or talent of the author with the amount of intellect that is required to extract what the novel has to [offer].
  
• As I have said the further away from literary fiction a work of fantasy is the better.
  
• Secondary world fantasy allows for expressions of creativity that Literary Fantasy cannot touch because it doesn't have to play by the same rules.

I mean, look at this exchange:

Q: What terms would you use to distinguish more-capable readers from less-capable readers? Or do you posit that all readers are equally competent?

A: So a person is less competent if they do not read what you deem literature?

Is the answer even remotely related to the question? No. It is, in fact, a textbook example of begging the question.

Then there are things such as I balk at the assertion made by some that secondary world fantasy is inherently inferior. Granted mine was a quick review scan, but I found no such statement anywhere. If we take "secondary world" to mean--as Wikipdeia puts it under "fictional universe" (to which a search there for "secondary world" goes)--"a self-consistent fictional setting with elements that differ from the real world", then many of the greatest works of fantastic fiction are "secondary-world" fantasies. (And, curiously, not a few commonly thought of as such are, in at least one sense, not, that sense being that the author has depicted them as "our" world, something that includes Middle-Earth.) In any event, that "secondary-world fantasy is inherently inferior" is nothing I, or anyone I can recall posting here, has ever said. But the assertion that such a claim is being vigorously asserted is set forth as if it were manifest fact. When folks can't even get their facts--the actual who said what right here--straight, what future does an abstract argument have?

And there is The superiority I speak of is an arrogance. A looking down upon. An assumption of being better than everyone else. That type of attitude leads to pretentious behavior. The exclusion is implied. The delusion that one is superior and that any who do not agree or do not interpret in the same light are inherently inferior. Therefore "high-brow" is an elitist attitude or world view. Elitism seeks to surround itself with elitism. As such elitists tend to group together reveling in their assumed superiority. Another army of straw men, an ipse dixit claim that is far off the mark.

I tried three times to frame a paragraph here that speaks to the savage ferocity of that last quoted remark, and none came out well. So let me just point out that ferocity and leave it at that.

Molybdenum got it in one wih the observation that Owlcroft is not suggesting that reading should be done as an intellectual exercise, that each work should be some sort of social commentary, but that intellect is required to fully immerse yourself in the emotion and imagination and characters that the author presents. Which is often a form of escapism, but intellect is still required to achieve that escapism. And Randy (as always) also hit the nail on the head with I think saying you have to eschew the tools of criticism to read modern genre fantasy is a great incentive for lazy writing -- certainly it was for s.f. in its early years. I wonder if you could build a better, stronger argument around saying the critic/reader/whomever inclined to read critically may need to add more tools to his or her kit to adequately explicate the appeal and power of modern fantasy.

Nothing there seems to me "elitist", "arrogant", "snobbish", "pretentious", or any of the other terms thrown recklessly about by those who then complain of the level of the discourse and the insult value of posts.

One other point:

I tend to believe that "well-written" books are those that move a person, that make one keep wanting to read a book and turn the pages, books that are "alive", that speak to someone; of course the issue is more complex than that, but this will do . . . . This of course means that there is no such a thing as universality, but that is a given and only someone who is born and raised in a dominant culture can assume it . . . .

The jump there from premise to conclusion, covered by the tidy phrase "of course", wants a little closer look.

And now I have a ball game to watch . . . .

 

[Alchemist]

No one that I've seen is saying any such thing, that "we need not expect, and are wrong to want, such things as plausible characterization or language less than stilted or wooden."

Well, that's a matter of fact, not opinion, and can be demonstrated. Here are just a few rapid-scan extracts from earlier in this thread:

Umm, no. Those quotes are saying no such thing - that you "need not expect, and are wrong to want, such things as plausible characterization or language less than stilted or wooden." Maybe I'm missing something, but not one of those extracts are saying that, or at least not in the extreme light that you are trying to frame them in.

I will refer you back to my pizza analogy, which you (conveniently?) ignore. I am saying: Neapolitan pizza = fantasy; New York style = realist (or vice versa, if you want). I am saying, don't judge Neapolitan pizza by the same criteria that you would judge New York style. Of course there are commonalities, and you can judge the quality of ingredients, for example, but the configuration of ingredients is different, must be different, for they are two different kinds of pizza.

I would take this a step further and say that there aren't just two different kinds of pizza (or literature), but many - even as many as there are stories, and thus each story must be judged on its own merits. Does the story work? That is all that matters - it doesn't matter how it compares to other works, but how well it works for what it is.

 

[Eventine]

I would take this a step further and say that there aren't just two different kinds of pizza (or literature), but many - even as many as there are stories, and thus each story must be judged on its own merits. Does the story work? That is all that matters - it doesn't matter how it compares to other works, but how well it works for what it is.

Umm, but no. Pizzas can be compared (lower case l literature). Pizzas of a certain type can can be compared (genres). Pizzas from the shame shop bought on different days can be compared (different books by the same author).
But, yes, each pizza on its own should "work", and that is where I think subjectivity comes into its own: De gustibus non est disputandum. (This is where I suspect Owlcroft would argue for universal qualities of pizzaness* which are not subjective but qualitative, and the analogy starts to fail)


*That's the coolest word I've ever made up. I'm making pizza tonight to celebrate

 

[owlcroft]

Umm, no. Those quotes are saying no such thing - that you "need not expect, and are wrong to want, such things as plausible characterization or language less than stilted or wooden." Maybe I'm missing something, but not one of those extracts are saying that, or at least not in the extreme light that you are trying to frame them in.

Well, yes: no one is going to say in exactly so many words that they think implausible characterization or stilted or wooden language are desiderata; but when plausible characterization and language not stilted or wooden are set forth as reasonable criteria for fiction, of any kind, to meet to be considered good, the replies are all of the sort above: we don' gotta show you no stinkin' criteria.

If X, Y, and Z are set forth as criteria of quality for fiction and the reply is that fantastic fiction should be judged by different criteria, I, at least, take that to signify by very clear implication that neither X nor Y nor Z is being viewed as a criterion applicable to fantastic fiction.

What part of that do you disagree with?

 

[DurzoBlint]

It's the no-swords and no-fireballs-to-the-face thing that does it, I think. I've read one of his books (Yiddish) and have Cavalier and Klay and Final Solution and Summerland on the shelf waiting for me. Really liked YPM, see no reason why I shouldn't like the others.

Summerland was a lot of fun. I don't remember much about Cavalier and Clay.

 

[Eventine]

+1 for Summerland, my favourite Chabon book. No one has mentioned Gentlemen of the Road yet either...

(If anything, hopefully this thread has provided some good new reads for some people)

 

[suciul]

If X, Y, and Z are set forth as criteria of quality for fiction and the reply is that fantastic fiction should be judged by different criteria, I, at least, take that to signify by very clear implication that neither X nor Y nor Z is being viewed as a criterion applicable to fantastic fiction.

What part of that do you disagree with?

The whole premise of setting X, Y, Z by *you* - where *you* is not you as a person, but *you* as a group (universalist believers in general rules for fiction).

I (and many others) do not judge a book literature by *your* rules and that's my whole point.

We (as a collective) presented some other rules here and argued that say secondary world fantasy (and I would add sf and some mainstream
literature) fulfills them much better than the work you present and this is why they are more valuable to us and to lots of other people.

 

[Alchemist]

Well, yes: no one is going to say in exactly so many words that they think implausible characterization or stilted or wooden language are desiderata; but when plausible characterization and language not stilted or wooden are set forth as reasonable criteria for fiction, of any kind, to meet to be considered good, the replies are all of the sort above: we don' gotta show you no stinkin' criteria.

If X, Y, and Z are set forth as criteria of quality for fiction and the reply is that fantastic fiction should be judged by different criteria, I, at least, take that to signify by very clear implication that neither X nor Y nor Z is being viewed as a criterion applicable to fantastic fiction.

What part of that do you disagree with?

All of it. As far as I can tell, no one is saying that those elements are not criteria applicable to fantasy but that, at most, they aren't quite as important in and of themselves, and that fantasy is a different kind of creature than realist literature, which should be judged by a different configuration of criteria; meaning, all criteria present, but with different emphases.

Again, please refer to my pizza analogy. Do you agree with it? Disagree? If so, why?

If that analogy doesn't make sense to you, let's talk baseball (I noticed that you are a fan). The qualities that make a good baseball player are very different from those that make a good basketball player - just ask Michael Jordan who couldn't hit a lick in AA. Or look at someone like Prince Fielder and ask, is he a "good athlete" by the standards of basketball or tennis? What makes a good baseball player - a good hitter, in particular? There are certain qualities that all sports share, some more than others. But there are certain factors in baseball that just aren't that important in basketball, and vice versa.

My point is this: just as it is a mistake to judge a baseball player by athletic standards one uses to judge a basketball player, so too is it a mistake to judge fantasy by the exact same standards that one uses to judge realist literature, in the same configuration and with the same degree of importance. Now how differently fantasy and realism should be judged is another matter - I suppose we could have interesting conversations about that. Is the difference as great as baseball and basketball? Or is it more like soccer and basketball, where foot speed and raw athleticism are both very important? Or could it be - as I would maintain - that even different types or sub-genres of fantasy are different "sports"? Maybe adult fantasy is like baseball and young adult fantasy like softball? Etc. (Again, see Mendlesohn's taxonomy).

So again, I am not saying that the criteria you mention are not important to fantasy literature, but that the same configuration of criteria, and the degree to which they are important, is different depending upon the kind, type, genre, and sub-genre - and individuality - of a given work.

 

[AmethystOrator]

"Literature" is a word that simply means well-written books.

As Suicul already stated so succinctly, "what is a well-written book?"

Who here wants to argue that poorly written books are actually the greatest goal achievable?

I would guess that no one would want to argue that (though one can never be certain), however, I would expect that each person would judge what is poor according to their own criteria, thereby rendering the phrase meaningless. Imo there are a variety of factors that contribute to a person reaching the conclusion that a particular work is "good" or "bad", "well written", "poorly written", or an individual is "more-capable", "less-capable", or anything else. I feel that such judgements are inherently biased based upon the limitations in understanding and pre-existing prejudices of whoever is using them. Further, I believe that the majority of people are not disposed to the intense self-reflection that would be required for them to truly gain an understanding of their various preferences, prejudices and preconceptions.

I would refer you to Post #130 in this thread. Are you really prepared to admit that you know nothing? That you are ignorant? How many conflicting pov's can you truly entertain at one time? (And by that I mean truly entertain equally?). You seem to argue for your position quite vehemently if the tone of your posts are a true indication. If you genuinely believe that you are correct, does that not signal ignorance? The death of intelligence?

What in reality we are hearing is an argument that falsely supposes that "literature" is some sort of silly and artificial nonsense that real, salt-of-the-earth readers will have no truck with, which is a roundabout way of saying that well-written books are not admirable for being well-written, that books are only admirable if they feature either--as the case may be--lots of exploding spaceships, or lost of swords and magical fireballs, and that anyone who thinks else is a "snob".

In your opinion. It is a shame, imo, that this is the conclusion that you have reached from the posts of all who taken a different stance. I would disagree.

As to "making an effort to constitutively define the concept", this may not be complete, but I think it constitutes "an effort"; there are these, too, for the patient.

You provide some interesting links, which I am indeed reading, and giving consideration to. However, even if everyone else were to agree that these are the best standards to be used, I would still have definite concerns and issues with some of the content therein.

Sorry, I was under the impression that calling people who disagree with you "rude, arrogant and condescending" is what "rude, arrogant, and condescending" means.

It can be AN example, but even if it is, it would hardly be the only one in this thread. I purposely did not cite specific examples previously, as doing so can also be construed as a way to be rude, arrogant, and condescending.

Dear me. A cynical reader might think that diatribe to be rude, arrogant and condescending towards anyone who questions the writer's beliefs.

A "cynical reader" who is quick to assume and deficient in their understanding perhaps. I am not positive, as I cannot accurately put myself in the place of an individual such as that.

A less cynical reader, who is wise enough not to hastily jump to conclusions, would note my pointing out that those people in question might still be worth speaking with if not for the fact that they were so "derisive and divisive in their posts" and my emphasis on those who "seem quite content in their ignorance and unwarranted feelings of superiority" and ascertain that I have no problems at all with someone who "questions [my] beliefs", but instead have a problem with the lack of character apparent in the way that those individuals at question have chosen to express themselves.

 

[Randy M.]

I think we just came full circle, back to the validity of using the same tools to assess Literature vs genre fiction...

Lots of talk on somewhat different levels here - this is probably one of those discussions which would've planned out a lot differently if everyone was sitting in the same room.

I think you're right, though I'd add that part of the discussion is also about what constitutes pertinent argument. Also, maybe what makes for impertinent argument, though there seem to be more examples than description.

I would suggest that a large part of the disagreement here comes from the limitations of the medium: emails, bulletin boards and the like are tailor-made for brief statements, but not full discussion and argument. The medium isn't built for dissertation-length postings -- who would read them anyway? Yet the arguments for what does and doesn't constitute literature, what literature is and what it should be fills libraries, or would if libraries never threw out a book.

The best we can do here is scratch the surface, come up with a few general rules. Well-written is actually not a bad quality as long as we remember "well-written" covers a wide, wide range from the intricacy of Henry James to the stripped-down prose of Elmore Leonard, from the straight-forwardness of H. G. Wells to the bizarreness of Samuel Delany to the pared down prose of Octavia Butler, from the formality of Tolkein to the precision of M. John Harrison to the informality of Pratchett. Then there's the further issue of subject matter and how it's handled -- can women write convincing male characters? Can men write convincing female characters? Can whites truly depict non-whites? Can ...? Can ... ? Can ...? And for every example where a writer gets it right, there's one where a writer gets it wrong (and sometimes it's the same writer).

And remember, writers who are still revered didn't always care for the work of other writers we revere: Faulkner didn't care for Henry James, Moorcock takes issue with Tolkein, Chinua Achebe took issue with Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" on the basis of presentation of his homeland and people, and on and on. There are standards of writing, but no one is arguing that every reader has to agree with the standards or even see that writer X is/isn't up to the standards. (Then there's the issue of how some of the greatest writing you'll read thumbs its nose at standards and jogs off in its own merry direction.)

And, really, there is no shame in calling something "escapist": every generation has its escapist literature, some of which is strong enough to survive for generations (see also, Dracula, or Sherlock Holmes), a lot of which is not (anyone here read much Edgar Wallace nowadays? Robert W. Chambers' non-"weird" tales? E. Phillips Oppenheimer?).

And, really, there is no shame in calling something "literature": every generation has that, too, some of which is strong enough to survive for generations, a lot of which is not (see also Guard of Honor by James Gould Cozzens or most of the work by William Dean Howells or ...)

As for arguments about arguing, have fun with those.


Randy M.

 

[Psylent]

And for anyone who thinks that fantasy/sf isn't "smart" or "heavy" enough, if we of the top-percentile can find enjoyment and --gasp-- meaning in spec lit, why does that put a twist in your underwear? If you don't find enough fantasy that meets your personal criteria, do what I did, and what countless other authors have done, and write your own books. Otherwise, you're just barking at the moon, and the moon doesn't give a damn.

Just to be clear, you do realize no one in this thread has tried to say that fantasy/sf isn't smart or heavy, right? This thread is an intra genre fight not an inter genre fight. It started by talking about the (lowbrow) Hugo vs. the (highbrow) World Fantasy Award. owlcroft runs an entire website about great sf and fantasy which has a huge selection of books on it.

Please stop beating the strawman so vigorously.

You offered one point of view, others offered different points of view; I tend to believe that "well-written" books are those that move a person, that make one keep wanting to read a book and turn the pages, books that are "alive", that speak to someone; of course the issue is more complex than that, but this will do

So Twilight...Great book or Greatest book?

It is surprising to me that so many people are reluctant to actually believe that there are well written and poorly written books out there.

The interesting conversation in this thread is owlcroft and Alchemist's, but I'm thinking they are actually largely in agreement. Standard rules of good writing apply to fantasy, I think you both would agree. But obviously certain stories needs the emphasize changed. A horror story is going to need a new category (how well does it cause horror?) added to the standard ones of like characterization and prose.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

Just to be clear, you do realize no one in this thread has tried to say that fantasy/sf isn't smart or heavy, right? This thread is an intra genre fight not an inter genre fight. It started by talking about the (lowbrow) Hugo vs. the (highbrow) World Fantasy Award. owlcroft runs an entire website about great sf and fantasy which has a huge selection of books on it.

Please stop beating the strawman so vigorously.

Originally, yes, but the conversation has skewed several times. My replies were not intended to address every post in this thread.

I see no strawman to beat, because I don't see this thread as a debate which can be won or lost. It's hardly even a debate at all. It has largely been a conflict of beliefs which can neither be supported or denied except by your own perception.

Forgive me for suggesting that we simply enjoy the books at our disposal. Again, the moon doesn't care.

 

[AmethystOrator]

It is surprising to me that so many people are reluctant to actually believe that there are well written and poorly written books out there.

May I ask if you have ever genuinely wondered/considered if they might be right?

You introduced Twilight. I feel confident in saying that many people in the world would proclaim that to be a well written book. Would you agree that it is? If you do not agree, then why not? And why exactly should any of our classifications be superior to anyone else's? We can say that they are so, we can imagine reasons that make sense to us as to why they are so, but without truly understanding the reasoning of those who disagree with us, then how are our conclusions of any true validity to anyone but ourselves and potentially a limited number of like-minded individuals?

I copied the quotes that I did in Post #130 for several reasons. If you accept my implicit contention that Socrates, Machiavelli, and all the rest are worth listening to, then I would say that we should endeavor to never be surprised by another's reactions, but instead constantly be open to others' povs so that we might seek to better understand others, and in doing so ourselves. I believe that we should try to remember that we aren't blessed with omniscience and that this surprise is simply proof that we have not yet reached a true understanding of whatever foreign pov is in question and that such is perfectly normal.

Say that a book's central character is a librarian who delights in the study of old texts. If you give that book to a book reader whose personality and habits are in close accord to the fictional character then there would seem to me to stand a good chance that that reader would find the central character to be "relatable". However, if you subsequently give that book to an athlete who has not given any thought to books in a decade or more, then there would seem a high probability that that reader would find the main character to be "unrelatable". Would we call one of these readers "right" and another "wrong"? I would hope not, and if that were indeed the case, we would then have to endeavor to understand how different people can see the same thing in a different way.

I would contend that each reader is truly a unique individual and the degree to which a story is "well written" depends much on the personal lens through which each reader seeks to interpret that which they see. In a somewhat similar way, I recall well my time in grade school when the teacher instructed us to all look closely at our classmates and pronounce what color eyes they had. In my case, I had one tell me that my eyes were blue, while the next stated without hesitation that they were green. Another agreed with the second, but then a fourth said that they seemed much more greyish. By the time all 20+ students in the room had been polled I had been told "definitively" that my eyes were blue, green, grey, green-grey, blue-grey, and blue-green. Who among those people was "right"? Were not the color of my eyes a "fact" that could be definitely established? If you say so, what about all of those who disagreed with whatever the conclusion was? Similarly, I believe that I could say that a book is "well-written" but I would want to simultaneously then state that it is also not "well-written", as well as somewhat "well-written" and sort of "well-written" and "well-written" in some ways and places but not others.

Back to the original statement, I do "believe that there are well written and poorly written books out there" but that such a statement is purely based upon my own tastes, and that my tastes can vary and evolve and might have little to no similarities to anyone else's.

 

[Erfael]

I have trouble with the idea that how well-written a book is is completely in the eye of the beholder. That's not the case with pretty much anything in life. Some houses are built better than other ones. Some apples are better than other apples. There are qualitative differences between things. But I don't think that's based solely on taste.

Since you argue that an intelligent being should be able to hold different points of view in mind simultaneously, let me ask: Do you only like books you find to be well-written and only dislike books you find to be badly-written?

I don't find that to be the case for myself. There are plenty of books that I think are written very well that I don't like. There are plenty of other books that I think are really badly-written but other aspects of them carry them for me. I grant you that I probably like more of the ones that I find well-written and dislike more of the ones that I find badly-written. It seems to me like you're marrying "well-written" and "liked the book" when it doesn't seem like those two things are related.

 

[PeterWilliam]

I'm in agreement with Erfael here. I, too, see the issue as being a matter of degree rather than "well written" vs. "poorly written." Also, in the right frame of mind, I can be completely into Weeks' Night Angel series (i.e. not very prosaic, coarse, vulgar, action packed), while at other times I must have something more like Williams or Wolfe (i.e. slowly methodical and deliberate, while simultaneously loquacious).

 

[hippokrene]

That leads to another question for the forum. Whose opinion do you find more relevant? Authors or Critics?

If an author frequently critiques a work other than their own, then they are a critic. If they're just talking about a book or two they like, then they're not being an author or critic at the time. If they're judging books for an award, they're judges.

But those who read sufficiently for them to seek out and join a website like SFFWorld are -- I think I'm safe in saying -- generally among the top percentile of skilled readers.

I'm going to have to disagree. This website is frequented by people who like a certain genre. It says nothing about the intelligence or reading capability of the posters.

 

[AmethystOrator]

I have trouble with the idea that how well-written a book is is completely in the eye of the beholder.

I can respect that, but that doesn't mean that such is not the case. Again, I am open to be proven wrong or convinced of the opposing position, but it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps the most accurate truth might even be somewhere in the middle? We might gather a great majority to agree on just about anything, but their concurrence doesn't make their viewpoint "true".

That's not the case with pretty much anything in life.

Really? I don't know that I can think of "anything in life" where it isn't the case. That's just off the top of my head, so I could be overlooking something, but...

What is attractive; what is desirable in a mate; are mates even desirable; what is the essential nature of humanity; what color hair is most attractive; are cats or dogs better; what about guinea pigs, goats, spiders, etc.; are pets even desirable; is the sky really blue; what sort of music is the best; would we consider Beethoven intelligent if he couldn't balance his checking account; is it better to be strong or fast; to fight or live to see another day; if salt is found to be good for you one day and bad the next then which is it; is Star Wars or Star Trek better; what about Babylon 5 or Firefly or Stargate or Farscape or BSG; which comedies are funny and which aren't; is something funny if everyone but you says it is; what if they are only saying so in order to play a joke on you; can personality overcome looks; which TV shows were canceled because they weren't good and which were canceled because they were too good; what relation does popularity have to quality; if a character is relatable to me but not to you then which is the "reality"; is it really cold out if the guy next to you says it is but you are warm; what if he is twice your size; when is a politician successful and when are they not; what if they do many things with which you agree but one big one with which you don't; should your personal tastes really enter into that answer?

And so on. I can see where different people could make different cases for any of those questions, there are even some where I think that most people would come to the same conclusions (though I'm sure that we know of the potential for peril in listening only to the majorities), but if there is an objective answer to any of them then I haven't heard it.

Some houses are built better than other ones. Some apples are better than other apples.

How do we determine what is the primary criteria in our judgements? Our second, third, and however many more might be needed? Which criteria aren't important? Precisely how much weight is given to each one? What about irreconcilable opinions?

When building a house, how much importance is there in functionality vs. aesthetics? What about the building materials and what about the view? What if you have a "well designed" house that does not meet the needs of the intended occupants? An award winning design that gives no consideration to the fact that the owner is blind or in a wheel chair? What if most or all of these things are taken into account, but the house is built at the bottom of a hill that floods during the rainy season? What if it's "well built" and after the fact it's discovered that the proper permits were not, and cannot, be obtained? What if the future owner's primary goal is to keep costs down, but the builders spend exorbitantly to make the dwelling "well built" in every other way?

You have one person whose greatest good is soft apples because his teeth are going bad while the next places her greatest good on the apples being as crunchy as possible because that crunch is the most effective thing in evoking memories of the childhood that she spent with her now deceased mother? Which of these "wins"? A bruise or the mark of a worm may not be a big deal to some but can be so for others. Someone who doesn't care about pesticides vs. someone who does?

"There are qualitative differences between things".

That I would certainly agree with. But people can easily differ on what is "better", how important each factor is, whether certain factors are even important at all, etc.

"But I don't think that's based solely on taste."

I remain open to the idea that it's not, but I still must be convinced. Nothing personal there, but if we are going to establish a "fact", especially one that we will use in trying to construct a definitive criteria as to what constitutes "well-written literature" then I really believe that we should make an extra effort to take all the potential flaws into account. Obviously everyone else is free to disagree, but that's where I'm coming from.

"Since you argue that an intelligent being should be able to hold different points of view in mind simultaneously, let me ask: Do you only like books you find to be well-written and only dislike books you find to be badly-written?"

That's a fair question. Before anything else, please let me say that I use the system that best works for me and am not trying to convince anyone else to adopt it. I think that in a conversation such as this there is a different burden on those who are arguing for a position then there is for those of us who are asking for more proof or disputing it.

Speaking only for myself, I don't consider it terribly important to establish much more than whether or not I personally like a book, don't like a book, or feel mixed about a book. There are times where a certain element or two might stand out, and I can try to examine in more depth than I usually do the strengths and weaknesses of a particular work, but dissecting and prioritizing and making lists is really not the way that my mind works. A lot of people seem to enjoy such things, or find such efforts useful or valuable, and I have no objection to what works for them. But to the degree that I do such things, it is much much more on the subconscious level. I know that there are various factors that contribute to whether or not I "like" a book, but much as is the case with the various factors that go into who we might fall in love with, I don't attempt to figure them all out. I may ruminate on some, but I never expect to fully understand the totality of the experience.

If you would say that liking a book is not quite the same thing as falling in love then I might liken it to eating a stew. Some people simply judge the stew based on whether it is to their tastes or not to their tastes, while others might try to identify all of the ingredients and meditate on their freshness, the proportion to which each was added to the stew, etc. I expect that different people will take different approaches and don't try to judge whether or not one is "right" or "wrong" or "better" or "worse".

"I don't find that to be the case for myself. There are plenty of books that I think are written very well that I don't like. There are plenty of other books that I think are really badly-written but other aspects of them carry them for me. I grant you that I probably like more of the ones that I find well-written and dislike more of the ones that I find badly-written."

I fully respect that in your case your mind works differently, or somewhat differently. I can sometimes see elements of why people like, or might like, a certain work. I try to always be open to learning more, so as to try to better understand the way that other people's minds work.

It seems to me like you're marrying "well-written" and "liked the book" when it doesn't seem like those two things are related."

I'm still seeking to understand how we might arrive at an objective standard when the formulation of the definition of "well-written" seems to me, at least at this point, still mostly-to-entirely subjective.

 

[Psylent]

Originally, yes, but the conversation has skewed several times. My replies were not intended to address every post in this thread.

Or apparently, in the part I previously quoted, any of the the posts in this thread.

Forgive me for suggesting that we simply enjoy the books at our disposal. Again, the moon doesn't care.

This is the first time you've suggested we enjoy the books at our disposal in this thread. I have no idea what you mean by it. I consider Chabon as at my disposal as any fireball-to-the-face book.

I'm confused. What is the moon supposed to represent? Publishers, authors, readers? Because all three of those care deeply about what the readership thinks.

(lots of writing)

So basically you don't like well written and poorly written as phrases because they are not linguistically precise enough? Fair enough.

 

[Sparrow]

I fully respect that in your case your mind works differently, or somewhat differently. I can sometimes see elements of why people like, or might like, a certain work. I try to always be open to learning more, so as to try to better understand the way that other people's minds work.

I'm still seeking to understand how we might arrive at an objective standard when the formulation of the definition of "well-written" seems to me, at least at this point, still mostly-to-entirely subjective.

No-no-no.

It's only subjective when the person lacks experience and knowledge of the subject at hand. For instance, you can say "I really enjoyed reading Twilight", but no reasonably well-read and knowledgeable person can say, "Twilight is well written"... perception is indeed relatable and can be measured to a standard.
I haven't a problem with folks who enjoy trashy, poorly written books like Twilight and the Wheel of Time series. So long as they know the difference between trash and treasure their views can be taken seriously. Caveat lector, as it were. (I like to insert a bit of latin just to give my statements more ooomph ~)

Let's change the topic from books, to cars.
I've loved fast cars for as long as I can remember; for me it's no passing fancy, I know what makes them tick-- I am both knowledgeable and experienced when it comes to fast cars. That is not to say that personal taste and perception don't figure heavily on the matter, they do, but only that a certain objectivity can be had when discussing/debating performance automobiles. Like books, there are many variables when considering fast cars-- cost, reliability, aesthetics, ultimate performance, etc, etc. You can shuffle the various aspects around, place more importance on some than others, but in the end you can reach a general consensus... that is if all the participants know what the heck they're talking about.


It is not all subjective, and all things are not created equal.
Becoming a literate, well-read individual takes time and work, and it isn't always fun. And it won't come about if all you read is poorly written Fantasy & Science Fiction novels.
That's why when someone has the view that the mere act of reading is important, or "as long as a person is reading something it's better than reading nothing"... I just shake my head. If someone is reading a book like Mass Effect: Revelation, than they might as well be eating cheese puffs while playing video games.

 

[s271]

If someone is reading a book like Mass Effect: Revelation, than they might as well be eating cheese puffs while playing video games.

I can not agree. Brain functioning is completely different with reading and watching/playing. While reading brain had to recreate internal picture from long-term stored patterns and text clues. That's orders of magnitude more brainwork than just processing videoinput. In fact it's a simple form of abstract thinking. Reading complex, "good" literature is the next level of abstraction - it's patterns of patterns. Next level would be higher math.