AvatarSpirit.Net
Dec 06, 2019 09:06 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
ASN Mainsite: AvatarSpirit.net
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « previous page next page »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should the comics be considered canon?  (Read 29681 times)
plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #25 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:01 pm »

Also - the comics are good, polls show that the majority of the reader base is pleased with them, what you are seeing is a very vocal minority.

You're basically saying, "You guys have an unpopular opinion", and then implying that unpopular opinions are somehow inferior or invalid. That's perfectly fine until yours is the unpopular opinion. You're also implying that, if something is popular or well-received, then it is "good" or of good quality. "Goodness" when talking about creative works is based on completely subjective criteria, so any argument made with regards to the quality of a creative work other than "It was good because I liked it," seems meaningless and impractical. So no, something isn't "good" just because a bunch of people say it is.

I am not "implying" anything, I am replying to

well from what i've read about the promise on here i probably wouldn't like it

Where he assumes that the opinions shared within the forum are a consensus of the majority, which is in fact false, what he is observing is a reaction of a vocal minority. If he is basing his opinion based on observation on the majority, as he is thinking he's doing, then he should consult a better source.

I agree.

I have neither said nor implied anything you are talking about, what is happening right now is that you are putting words in my mouth to make whatever statement you wish to make.

You went on to say "The comics are "good"..." and then you went on to say why they were good.

Quote
Also - the comics are good, polls show that the majority of the reader base is pleased with them, what you are seeing is a very vocal minority.

You equate popularity or something being well-received with goodness. I'm pointing out that that is an illogical argument. Unless, of course, you're willing to argue that everything in popular culture is "good" because it is popular or well-received (reality television, pop music, fashion trends, internet memes, social networking, etc..). So while your response to UnownLegend is appropriate, you finishing thoughts came off as a passive-aggressive attempt to handwave negative opinions about the comics. You say it isn't, and there is no reason to disbelieve you. I just assume everyone on here is being passive-aggressive when they make these types of unsubstantiated arguments.

But I am sorry for putting words into your mouth.

Quote
Personal Canon isn't an actual thing. There's Canon, which is exclusively determined by Word of God creators/writers/copyright holders, and then there is Fanon.
And there are Star Wars fans who deny the existence of midichlorians. As long as my private pleasure comes into play I'm the person who decide what is good enough.

You don't get to determine what is "canon" just because something is not "good enough" for you. This attitude, which is so pervasive in fandom, smacks of some kind of fan-entitled "royal authority" over copyrighted materials that fans just don't have.

Are we off-topic? -_-;
Logged

nukilik
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3621

I tried!


« Reply #26 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:04 pm »

Fanon has a very specific meaning for me, being that it's extraneous information added to a pre-existing world that was not agreed upon by the creators.

Where as personal canon, well that's just a stopping point. Like pretending 3rd ed D&D didn't happen. It doesn't add anything to what's come before, it just omits what came after.

I fail to see the difference in principle, unless you're claiming that "fanon" needs to have a certain number of people supporting it. Like "Fire Lady" is personal canon until 500 people start believing in it, then it becomes fanon.

 I think plastroncafe means that any unofficial addition made by fans is "fanon". And that in his/her oppinion it's different from ignoring any specific official material and pretending it didn't happen, hence "personal canon".Going by that I'd say a more suitable name for this "concept" would be "selective canon"
« Last Edit: Oct 15, 2012 04:07 pm by nukilik » Logged
Mr Grieves
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 10494



« Reply #27 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:06 pm »

While were off topic, does anyone else feel that people say 'HEADCANON ACCEPTED' way too much?

I just think with the amount of headcanon people are accepting nowadays, there's gonna be some serious head continuity issues somewhere down the line.
Logged
Loopy
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 32220


I'm Loooooooopy!


« Reply #28 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:09 pm »

I think "This ship sails itself!" is far more over-used, but yes. Tumblr has completely ruined online communication and killed originality.
Logged

plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #29 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:13 pm »

^ I think plastrofancafe means that any unofficial addition made by fans is "fanon". And that it's different from ignoring something official and pretending it didn't happen, hence "personal canon"

I know. It's a very popular argument that tells me that people who make it do not understand what the industry term for Canon actually means. I'm saying there is no such thing as Personal Canon. Personal Canon is an oxymoron. There's Canon, and then there are your ideas and thoughts that are not canon because they have not been approved by the copyright holders. In order for something to be Canon, it has to be approved or endorsed by the controlling Word of God for whatever property one is talking about.

While were off topic, does anyone else feel that people say 'HEADCANON ACCEPTED' way too much?

It's practically an internet meme.

I think "This ship sails itself!" is far more over-used, but yes. Tumblr has completely ruined online communication and killed originality.

Which is why I don't read my dash. The echo chamber-like reverberation of nonsensical rebloggings gave me a headache.
Logged

Loopy
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 32220


I'm Loooooooopy!


« Reply #30 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:18 pm »

On the other hand, the original term of "canon" was used to designate writings that were considered to be part of a religion's bible, the stuff that's explicitly "divinely inspired" as opposed to mere mortal writings. And as religions fractured into factions, each one had their own canon and approvals.

As always when you pervert a word, the way "canon" is applied to something with a single copyright holder means we're losing some of the original complexity, but I suppose the existence of a personal canon is no more troublesome than the idea of a one-true-no-competition canon.
Logged

Mr Grieves
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 10494



« Reply #31 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:20 pm »

While were off topic, does anyone else feel that people say 'HEADCANON ACCEPTED' way too much?

It's practically an internet meme.

But most memes were, at some point, sort of able to be considered funny :/
Logged
plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #32 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:22 pm »

On the other hand, the original term of "canon" was used to designate writings that were considered to be part of a religion's bible, the stuff that's explicitly "divinely inspired" as opposed to mere mortal writings. And as religions fractured into factions, each one had their own canon and approvals.

As always when you pervert a word, the way "canon" is applied to something with a single copyright holder means we're losing some of the original complexity, but I suppose the existence of a personal canon is no more troublesome than the idea of a one-true-no-competition canon.

It isn't troublesome at all. I just take people to task for little nitpicky things because I can. Plus, people don't know who to use words in the proper context. But mostly because I like nitpicking to get attention.

While were off topic, does anyone else feel that people say 'HEADCANON ACCEPTED' way too much?

It's practically an internet meme.

But most memes were, at some point, sort of able to be considered funny :/

I wouldn't know about that. The only memes I've ever thought were funny were lolcats and Comedian Amon. Mostly, the humor behind them is well over my head.
« Last Edit: Oct 15, 2012 04:24 pm by plushu » Logged

Eire
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 740


Visitor worlds apart

648718851 eireika2@yahoo.com
« Reply #33 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:23 pm »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Personal Canon isn't an actual thing. There's Canon, which is exclusively determined by Word of God creators/writers/copyright holders, and then there is Fanon.
And there are Star Wars fans who deny the existence of midichlorians. As long as my private pleasure comes into play I'm the person who decide what is good enough.

You don't get to determine what is "canon" just because something is not "good enough" for you. This attitude, which is so pervasive in fandom, smacks of some kind of fan-entitled "royal authority" over copyrighted materials that fans just don't have.

Yep, certainly I have no rights to pick up what I like. Waiting for you to call the high court, that somebody doesn't enjoy copyrighted material and prefer to stick with base of the story. Bible, Lucas, Rowling, Toriyama, Disney and L.M.Montgomery had and have to deal a hordes of fan dismissing pieces of their works, so it's time for ATLA to make a place among the greatest.
Logged

Per aspera ad astra, man!

"I judge, lord, that ten thousands of nacked maidens make less impression than one"
Loopy
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 32220


I'm Loooooooopy!


« Reply #34 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:26 pm »

On the other hand, the original term of "canon" was used to designate writings that were considered to be part of a religion's bible, the stuff that's explicitly "divinely inspired" as opposed to mere mortal writings. And as religions fractured into factions, each one had their own canon and approvals.

As always when you pervert a word, the way "canon" is applied to something with a single copyright holder means we're losing some of the original complexity, but I suppose the existence of a personal canon is no more troublesome than the idea of a one-true-no-competition canon.

It isn't troublesome at all. I just take people to task for little nitpicky things because I can. Plus, people don't know who to use words in the proper context. But mostly because I like nitpicking to get attention.

Isn't that what I was just doing? Cheesy
Logged

plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #35 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:34 pm »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Personal Canon isn't an actual thing. There's Canon, which is exclusively determined by Word of God creators/writers/copyright holders, and then there is Fanon.
And there are Star Wars fans who deny the existence of midichlorians. As long as my private pleasure comes into play I'm the person who decide what is good enough.

You don't get to determine what is "canon" just because something is not "good enough" for you. This attitude, which is so pervasive in fandom, smacks of some kind of fan-entitled "royal authority" over copyrighted materials that fans just don't have.

Yep, certainly I have no rights to pick up what I like. Waiting for you to call the high court, that somebody doesn't enjoy copyrighted material and prefer to stick with base of the story. Bible, Lucas, Rowling, Toriyama, Disney and L.M.Montgomery had and have to deal a hordes of fan dismissing pieces of their works, so it's time for ATLA to make a place among the greatest.

Your soapbox is blocking my view. :b

On the other hand, the original term of "canon" was used to designate writings that were considered to be part of a religion's bible, the stuff that's explicitly "divinely inspired" as opposed to mere mortal writings. And as religions fractured into factions, each one had their own canon and approvals.

As always when you pervert a word, the way "canon" is applied to something with a single copyright holder means we're losing some of the original complexity, but I suppose the existence of a personal canon is no more troublesome than the idea of a one-true-no-competition canon.

It isn't troublesome at all. I just take people to task for little nitpicky things because I can. Plus, people don't know who to use words in the proper context. But mostly because I like nitpicking to get attention.

Isn't that what I was just doing? Cheesy

Yes, you were doing it, sexily. <3

---

Quote
Should the comics be considered canon?

Yes, because the only people can can say what is canon have concluded that these comics are canon. It seems like the questions has been answered.
Logged

Mahaanus
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 1380



« Reply #36 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:54 pm »


You went on to say "The comics are "good"..." and then you went on to say why they were good.

Quote
Also - the comics are good, polls show that the majority of the reader base is pleased with them, what you are seeing is a very vocal minority.

You equate popularity or something being well-received with goodness.

Because this is what the basis of the topic is about, the first post passes judgment based on popularity, should we pass judgment on that we have a pretty good reception overall.

Also

Sad but true. Sometimes I wonder how that can be when we're supposed to be the supportive "fanbase". Guess we're the "tough love" type :/

Supportive Fanbase is a myth.

Of course!
Logged

Recent events have drawn me out of my hole.
Loopy
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 32220


I'm Loooooooopy!


« Reply #37 on: Oct 15, 2012 04:55 pm »

You act like none of us would give money to bring the original ATLA team back together for more animated projects. Tongue
Logged

plastroncafe
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 524


plastronc
« Reply #38 on: Oct 15, 2012 05:04 pm »

^ I think plastroncafe means that any unofficial addition made by fans is "fanon". And that it's different from ignoring something official and pretending it didn't happen, hence "personal canon"

I know. It's a very popular argument that tells me that people who make it do not understand what the industry term for Canon actually means. I'm saying there is no such thing as Personal Canon. Personal Canon is an oxymoron. There's Canon, and then there are your ideas and thoughts that are not canon because they have not been approved by the copyright holders. In order for something to be Canon, it has to be approved or endorsed by the controlling Word of God for whatever property one is talking about.

Bolded emphasis mine.
I'm sorry to inform you, but you're not taking me to task. I'm well aware of what the word "canon" means. Proof of that could be easily found in the opening of my initial response to this thread, along with the fact that I qualified "personal canon" with the word "personal," so as to differentiate it from "canon."

Heck, I even said we could agree to disagree, but you're clearly not up for that either. Why agree to disagree when it's so much more attention getting to be condescending.

Someone would not be breaching copyright to ignore the comics. They would not be creating fanon. They would merely be ignoring a medium they don't happen to appreciate. There's nothing wrong with that. The assumption that there is, is just the other-side of that Entitled Fan Coin you brought up.

There are supportive fan communities out there, but...this is apparently not one of them.
« Last Edit: Oct 15, 2012 05:17 pm by plastroncafe » Logged

<=======================================

           Get out of the Bison's mouth, Sokka.

=======================================>
plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #39 on: Oct 15, 2012 05:27 pm »


You went on to say "The comics are "good"..." and then you went on to say why they were good.

Quote
Also - the comics are good, polls show that the majority of the reader base is pleased with them, what you are seeing is a very vocal minority.

You equate popularity or something being well-received with goodness.

Because this is what the basis of the topic is about, the first post passes judgment based on popularity, should we pass judgment on that we have a pretty good reception overall.

I suppose you can do whatever you want. I'm just arguing semantics.

I'm hoping this isn't an attempt to support your statement that the comic is good because it's popular. I'm not even arguing it's popularity because it seems like most people enjoy it enough to keep buying it or, at the very least, are morbidly curious about it. And I'm not arguing it's quality, or lack thereof, since "quality" is a subjective term. But there's no correlation between popularity and quality. You can't argue that it's "good" because a lot of people like it because there is nothing substantial to support that argument. That is literally all I am saying. Your assertion that it's "good" because most people like it, as just as absurd as OPs original implication that most people are unhappy with the comic because complainers hijack every topic related to it.

^ I think plastroncafe means that any unofficial addition made by fans is "fanon". And that it's different from ignoring something official and pretending it didn't happen, hence "personal canon"

I know. It's a very popular argument that tells me that people who make it do not understand what the industry term for Canon actually means. I'm saying there is no such thing as Personal Canon. Personal Canon is an oxymoron. There's Canon, and then there are your ideas and thoughts that are not canon because they have not been approved by the copyright holders. In order for something to be Canon, it has to be approved or endorsed by the controlling Word of God for whatever property one is talking about.

Bolded emphasis mine.
I'm sorry to inform you, but you're not taking me to task. I'm well aware of what the word "canon" means. Proof of that could be easily found in the opening of my initial response to this thread, along with the fact that I qualified "personal canon" with the word "personal," so as to differentiate it from "canon."

Heck, I even said we could agree to disagree, but you're clearly not up for that either. Why agree to disagree when it's so much more attention getting to be condescending.

You just answered your own question. But honestly, I don't find that telling someone that "Canon" doesn't mean what you think it means to be condescending. I'm just saying "that's not the proper use of the word in this context." Not every disagreement is a personal attack.

Someone would not be breaching copyright to ignore the comics. They would not be creating fanon. They would merely be ignoring a medium they don't happen to appreciate. There's nothing wrong with that. The assumption that there is is just the otherside of that Entitled Fan Coin you brought up.

All I'm saying is, nothing you come up with is Canon because you don't own that property, and you just don't have that authority. If the mere suggestion that fans don't have authority over creative works is this off-putting, then I'm sorry... I've had to accept canons for shows that were, frankly, just terrible. I'm not accusing anyone of "breaching" copyrights or doing something "bad". But in order for something to be called "canon" using the industry term, one needs to have the backing of the property holders to do so. In context, "Personal Canon" is in direct contradiction to what the term "Canon" actually means. It's just a fan created term, and I wasn't trying to be condescending when I said it was an "oxymoron". However I may not be using that term correctly. Still searching for a better word...
Logged

Mahaanus
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 1380



« Reply #40 on: Oct 15, 2012 06:07 pm »


You went on to say "The comics are "good"..." and then you went on to say why they were good.

Quote
Also - the comics are good, polls show that the majority of the reader base is pleased with them, what you are seeing is a very vocal minority.

You equate popularity or something being well-received with goodness.

Because this is what the basis of the topic is about, the first post passes judgment based on popularity, should we pass judgment on that we have a pretty good reception overall.

I suppose you can do whatever you want. I'm just arguing semantics.

I'm hoping this isn't an attempt to support your statement that the comic is good because it's popular. I'm not even arguing it's popularity because it seems like most people enjoy it enough to keep buying it or, at the very least, are morbidly curious about it. And I'm not arguing it's quality, or lack thereof, since "quality" is a subjective term.

While I'm not passing judgment based on popular opinion there are objective ways to judge a story.

We can safely say that a story is shallow, badly written or hard to read.

Princess Mononoke is a story which explores complex themes and gives a two-way resolution, Kung-Fu Panda is a story in which a good panda beats an evil tiger, it never raises question about character motives or explore anything more complex than "punch the bad guy". Thus we can safely say that Kung-Fu Panda is a shallow story.

You can analyze punctuation, grammar and pacing and reach to the conclusion that a story is badly written - because the writer knows nothing about the English language. 

Shakespeare is a hard read, in order to understand the stories you have to have some understanding of literature and experience with previous work. Similarly the Silmarilion with it's many names, locations and pacing is a hard read. You can safely NOT give these works to a novice reader.

There are objective ways to judge a story, which doesn't mean that you can't dislike a good story or like a bad one. Despite it's good cinematography, hard questions and interesting story I dislike Blade Runner, despite the shallow actions scenes, predictable plot and horrible character development I enjoy The Expendables.

Whatever we like or dislike a story is up to our personal taste, but there are objective ways to judge.
Logged

Recent events have drawn me out of my hole.
Loopy
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 32220


I'm Loooooooopy!


« Reply #41 on: Oct 15, 2012 06:16 pm »

Even those objective ways are subjective, though. A good panda beating an evil tiger with no discussion of character motives can be using archetypes, icons, and metaphors to explore deeper themes of conflict. Shakespeare uses complex language and rhyme to dress up fairly simple and shallow stories, and there's a reason why Romeo & Juliet is often adapted for kids. The Silmarilion, for all its story complexity, can be criticized for its dry style that even experienced and intelligent readers can't find engaging, up to the point of calling it a failure of storytelling.

I'm not saying I agree with those viewpoints; I think a lot of critique is academic garbage. Personally, the only standard I apply to a story's "quality" is internal consistency in terms of plot, themes, and style, and even that's independent of whether I like something. But not everyone is going to agree with me on that.

So no, there's no such thing as objectivity. To quote the Acts of Caine: "It's always personal."
Logged

Mahaanus
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 1380



« Reply #42 on: Oct 15, 2012 06:37 pm »

Even those objective ways are subjective, though.

No they aren't.

A good panda beating an evil tiger with no discussion of character motives can be using archetypes, icons, and metaphors to explore deeper themes of conflict.

Yes, it can, but Kung Fu Panda doesn't, which is why it's a shallow story.

Shakespeare uses complex language and rhyme to dress up fairly simple and shallow stories, and there's a reason why Romeo & Juliet is often adapted for kids. The Silmarilion, for all its story complexity, can be criticized for its dry style that even experienced and intelligent readers can't find engaging, up to the point of calling it a failure of storytelling.

So we agree that both Shakespeare and The Silmarilion are hard reads and inappropriate for new readers?
Logged

Recent events have drawn me out of my hole.
Loopy
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 32220


I'm Loooooooopy!


« Reply #43 on: Oct 15, 2012 06:44 pm »

On that superficial level, sure. I disagree that Shakespeare requires "some understanding of literature and experience with previous work." I think the only thing that makes it hard is its obscure language, and all the modern reading in the world isn't going to make the use of defunct wording and idioms suddenly clearer. It's a language matter, purely. Likewise, I don't think the names, locations, and pacing are primarily what make the Silmarilion a hard read; it's the fact that the chosen style is a "dry" variety that focuses on fanciful language and obscure description that makes people put it down so quickly.

But those are just my objective opinions.
Logged

plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #44 on: Oct 15, 2012 07:01 pm »


You went on to say "The comics are "good"..." and then you went on to say why they were good.

Quote
Also - the comics are good, polls show that the majority of the reader base is pleased with them, what you are seeing is a very vocal minority.

You equate popularity or something being well-received with goodness.

Because this is what the basis of the topic is about, the first post passes judgment based on popularity, should we pass judgment on that we have a pretty good reception overall.

I suppose you can do whatever you want. I'm just arguing semantics.

I'm hoping this isn't an attempt to support your statement that the comic is good because it's popular. I'm not even arguing it's popularity because it seems like most people enjoy it enough to keep buying it or, at the very least, are morbidly curious about it. And I'm not arguing it's quality, or lack thereof, since "quality" is a subjective term.

While I'm not passing judgment based on popular opinion there are objective ways to judge a story.

We can safely say that a story is shallow, badly written or hard to read.

Princess Mononoke is a story which explores complex themes and gives a two-way resolution, Kung-Fu Panda is a story in which a good panda beats an evil tiger, it never raises question about character motives or explore anything more complex than "punch the bad guy". Thus we can safely say that Kung-Fu Panda is a shallow story.

You can analyze punctuation, grammar and pacing and reach to the conclusion that a story is badly written - because the writer knows nothing about the English language. 

Shakespeare is a hard read, in order to understand the stories you have to have some understanding of literature and experience with previous work. Similarly the Silmarilion with it's many names, locations and pacing is a hard read. You can safely NOT give these works to a novice reader.

There are objective ways to judge a story, which doesn't mean that you can't dislike a good story or like a bad one. Despite it's good cinematography, hard questions and interesting story I dislike Blade Runner, despite the shallow actions scenes, predictable plot and horrible character development I enjoy The Expendables.

Whatever we like or dislike a story is up to our personal taste, but there are objective ways to judge.

Specifically, how does one objectively judge a creative work to be good? I think it really comes down to this for me: I need something a little more scientific than A Bunch of People Say It's Good So You Should Be Convinced. (Not saying you should provide this. it's just what I need. If there isn't actual science involved, then it's just opinions being batted around.) If there is no scientific formula for determining the quality of a creative work, then it really boils down to a bunch of people telling other people what they should think is universally good based on what could quite possibly be an utterly arbitrary system of measurements.

An objective judgement of creative works always seemed like an illusion to me. We aren't computers, and critiquing creative works, or consuming them isn't like doing math. We're influence by it based on our own personal experiences. So I don't understand how something that effects us on a personal level, or doesn't effect us because we can't relate to it, can be discussed in a completely objective manner.

I respect that you have a set of criteria that you use to determine what is good and what isn't. We all have a set of criteria we use to judge the media we consume. There's a good chance our criteria isn't the same. So, and this is a serious question, who's to say who's criteria is "acceptable" and who's isn't?

As an aside, I didn't care that much for The Expendables. It was okay as a once-watch, but heh... Ironically, all the Man Movie junkies told me it was "the best action movie of all time". But I found many other actions movies to be far more enjoyable.


Shakespeare uses complex language and rhyme to dress up fairly simple and shallow stories, and there's a reason why Romeo & Juliet is often adapted for kids. The Silmarilion, for all its story complexity, can be criticized for its dry style that even experienced and intelligent readers can't find engaging, up to the point of calling it a failure of storytelling.

So we agree that both Shakespeare and The Silmarilion are hard reads and inappropriate for new readers?

I would just like to say that just because something is a challenging or difficult read, doesn't necessarily make it a good read. Like I said, "good" is a subjective term. Someone can read a literary work and acknowledge the writer's strengths, and even admit that they can see why other people like it, but still not think it a good work simply because it wasn't good for them. That's the operative phrasing I'm using. Something is good to me because it's good for me. I like it because I enjoy it. Anything I enjoy is good for me because it makes me happy. So, it's "good".
Logged

Mahaanus
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 1380



« Reply #45 on: Oct 15, 2012 07:11 pm »

^I don't think you completely understood what I'm saying.

Whatever you LIKED something is up to your personal preference, but you CAN judge a piece of literature, cinema, video game, etc. in objective manner. As I've said, I dislike movies that are objectively good - Blade Runner, while I like some that are pretty bad.

Keep in mind, neither me, nor Loopy have said that "being hard to read" is a justification for calling it good, that's snobbery. A piece of literature can be hard to read AND be horrible on all sides at the same time.

Now about what those objective criteria are and more in-depth analysis on them - I'm not doing this now. It's 3 in the morning, we're on the Avatar forum and that's a theists that could go up to 50 pages on it's own. 
Logged

Recent events have drawn me out of my hole.
plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #46 on: Oct 15, 2012 07:22 pm »

^I'm just saying, there isn't science involved, so I think the criteria--whatever they are--are all bunk.
Logged

Mahaanus
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 1380



« Reply #47 on: Oct 15, 2012 07:29 pm »

^I understand the appeal of having everything be subjective. It validates your opinion, it gives you authority, it allows you to speak on the same level as someone who has spent years working on the field and most of all it protects you from being wrong, but that's simply not true.

I'm not saying it's wrong to like or dislike some things, I won't judge you on them and if someone do, he's an ass who thinks too highly of himself. Fangirl over Twilight, fanboy over Madden 2012, rock on to Linkin Park, do what you like, but there ARE ways to judge something that are universal.
Logged

Recent events have drawn me out of my hole.
plushu
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 3708

157% PIANDAOIST


« Reply #48 on: Oct 15, 2012 07:38 pm »

^This is pretty much a word-for-word response I got from an English professor I had back in college. Kinda creepy...
Logged

Loopy
Never Gonna Give Yue Up

Offline Offline

Posts: 32220


I'm Loooooooopy!


« Reply #49 on: Oct 15, 2012 09:50 pm »

The only thing universal is mathematics. Even translating computer programming languages can have minor variety based on the compiler.
Logged

Pages: « previous page next page »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines LLC
MySQL | PHP | XHTML | CSS