Ok, once more with feeling
But A) even if you care about whether an effect was intentional or chance, what if other people don't care? And B) How can we ever know how much was intentional and how much was chance?
What people in general care or don't care about is completely irrelevant to my point. Whether they'll care or not, the effect does not change, and neither does the method of its inception. As for B, a work of fiction
does stray from the author's intentions sometimes, but that is usually less than the "genius creator of art" cliche would like us to think. Also, writers - especially writers of books that people debate - usually tend to express their intentions, be it in essays, articles, interviews, you name it. Besides, there is a level of professionalism and craftsmanship that - when reached - just doesn't leave too much to chance.
I think I didn't manage to convey my point...sure, those books are the way they are on purpose. But what if Joyce made them the way they are without realizing how good they would seem to critics? THAT's my point. A writer can put any stylistic element into a story intentionally, but cannot intentionally write a story that is sure to be embraced by critics, literature students, or any judges of quality.
Uhm, I severely doubt Joyce started writing with the intention to write a "good" book. He wanted to express something, to do something with the medium of literature, and I don't think it mattered too much to him what people would think of it. Again, you talk to me of the way a work is received, as if popularity (even among critics) is a measure of quality. Obviously a writer can't
know how "good" his book would be. So? What does that prove? How is this an argument against objectivity in art? A writer cannot intentionally write a "good" story, but that is mainly because "good" is just as general and meaningless as "best" (I'll talk about that later). He could, however, intentionally write with precise language (that does not mean "simple" btw), he could intentionally go into detail in his character building. He could intentionally decide to put sensory perceptions and innuendos, instead of writing "IT WAS SO VERY SAD!!!" when trying to express emotions. There are a thousand different ways in which a writer can intentionally do something, which in the end would make his work better than others. Objectively.
No matter how much "objective quality" (as you call it) a writer puts into a work, (s)he cannot ensure that his/her work will be judged to be of high quality, no matter who is doing the judging.
Not true. Because it
does matter who is doing the judging. The average Joe Reader is the kind of guy we've witnessed in this topic - The "WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, SAYING THAT SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN OTHER! WHY SHOULD YOUR OPINION BE MORE VALID THAN MINE, IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE, AND I WANT MY RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH!!!" knee-jerker person who - in most cases - has never read a single line about the process of writing fiction, has no particular interest in said process, and thus usually can't recognize the elements of what he reads. If you don't know
why you like or dislike something, you are obviously not qualified to judge anything literature-related, outside of just stating your preferences.
However, if you DO know why you like or dislike something, you can also weigh it against other elements of the work in question, as well as its goals, the writer's historical background in terms of place and literature field (if he is from another age), etc. etc. In the end, you have a clear picture of the work which has almost
nothing to do with your likes or dislikes. I've said this often - "good" and "bad" should not equal "like" and "don't like". I've disliked objectively good books, and I've loved some pretty crappy ones.
I can give you a solid argument which doesn't
prove the existence of objectivity in art, but it
does weigh in its favor. It is from my own field - professional music. No matter how many different schools in how many different ages you see, and if you take into consideration the general evolution of technique, the instruments and sensibility, it is astonishing how close opinions are on so many matters of style, phrasing and technique. No matter the personal quirks of the great musicians, there is a sh*tload of stuff they ALL agree on. And this area of "they all agree on" is what I call objectivity. It is not the same as scientific objectivity, nor could it be. But for the purpose of art, it is no less valid and stable. It's just harder to see, prove and accept, if you lack the apparatus.
Well, you can use the word "objective quality" to mean anything you want. You can use it to mean pink fluffy bunnies. But there's no rule out there written in the laws of physics that says that in-tune singing is any better than out-of-tune singing. Was Bob Dylan low in "objective quality"? Was Kurt Cobain? Was their out-of-tune singing simply outweighed in the cosmos' impartial calculation of "objective quality"? Or could it be that people actually liked the out-of-tune singing, that it had a synergistic effect with the other features of Dylan's and Cobain's music, that it actually worked for people?
There is a rule, written in the laws of physics, that does say, in point of fact, that out of tune tone-producing IS irritating. It is particularly irritating for people with perfect pitch, but even for those with relative pitch, it
is jarring. Many of the rules in music theory and acoustics just *are*, but they are axiomatic. Of course, being out of tune doesn't absolutely exclude being "good", as it could be intentional. Or it could be very slight, and the music could have other redeeming qualities that outweigh it. Makes it no less worse than being IN tune, unless it's some very special kind of music that actually
requires you to be out of tune (and yes, there are such cases, especially in late XX and XXI century music). I mean, it might be irritating, but this irritation could be intentional and it could serve a purpose. Although with singing it is WICKED hard to sing out of tune if you hear yourself being out of tune...
Btw, the voice being what it is, the occasional lapse in intonation is not necessarily "singing out of tune". It has to be consistent to merit such a description, and to become really annoying. And neither Cobain, nor Dylan are in that group. But singing, like any music, is WAY beyond just basic intonation, and it is not being in or out of tune that wins audiences.
How many times have we heard some critic or another say "This isn't music, this is just noise!", only to have said music become the darling of critics of a later generation, who praise its timeless quality?
That's a completely different issue, and it has a lot more to do with traditionalism and closed-mindedness on one side, and conformity and fashion on the other. Of course, quality does play a part, but it's a general rule that - where art and especially music (being the most abstract of the arts, and thus the most emotionally-tied) is concerned - true innovations, unless they are really pleasing (in which case they would hardly be true innovations as innovation requires a noticeable change, but I guess it
has happened) are accepted long after their actual creation. It just takes time (and a few open-minded people promoting, building over and imitating it) for any new concept to take root. If it has what it takes to do that, of course. But anyway, this is hardly a matter of objectivity/subjectivity, as there are way too many elements outside the art itself, that play a part in situations such as these.
OK, so if there is no "best", what do you call the work of art that is highest in "objective quality"? Take all fantasy books, write down an "objective quality" number for each (or a vector, with any norm you like), and won't the one with the highest "objective quality" be the "best"?
And if not, who cares about "objective quality" as a measure of anything?
There is no "best" because there is not ONE "objective quality". You keep talking about objectivity in terms of science. Go back and see the way I've described it in this post here. It is not a single point of judgment, but a web of interconnected points of reference - a lot of them - that vary depending on many different factors. It IS there, but it is not nearly as easy to grasp as 2+2=4.
Even if we only stick to one single genre, it is still completely impossible to find anything "best" there. Ok, so Steven Erikson's magic systems are a lot more flashy than Sanderson's. But Sanderson's are way better structured and a lot more stable in terms of internal logic. So which one is better? Those are both objective facts, but in terms of "better" it only matters what YOU personally like as a reader in your magic - logic or flashiness. But
then we find Scott Bakker's magic system. It is not as well structured as Sanderson's, but it is a LOT better structured than Erikson's, and arguably just as flahsy, if not more (even though it happens on rare occasions). What's more - it is a lot more poetically described, with not nearly so much pathos, instead opting for symbolic connotation ("unspeakable" words, "blasphemous" songs, etc.). That makes it more elegant and flowing, which amplifies the emotional effect it has - the flashiness. It is to Erikson's magic what a professional ice skater is to two kids playing at being ballerinas. So, if taken in isolation, it is "objectively" better. Of course, that means nothing in terms of likes or dislikes. For many people the pathos and LARGE APOCALYPSES OF MANY VARIETIES of Erikson would be much more appealing (as they are sometimes to me as well). That is why I say that popularity and/or personal feelings should not be the bigger part (as it is inevitable for them to
be a part) of judging a work of art.
Also you forgot that its not fiction at all!
