|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: It's funny you say it's easier, when it seems like I'm doing way more work than you here lol
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 03:02:04 pm EST (Viewed 130 times)
Reply Subj: No, it's just that its easier to start small fires than to put them out, which seems to be your modus operandi
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 01:11:23 pm EST (Viewed 215 times)
This is splitting hairs. As I mentioned in a previous debate on this exact same issue, a writer could hit every mark in terms of literary composition and 99% of people could still dislike it. Does that qualify as good or bad writing?
Your criteria is subjective, thus what you're asking me to satisfy is an illusion.
LGDB: No it's not splitting hairs. It's the difference between talking about the art itself versus whether you like it. And actually you've brought up a valuable kind of example to demonstrate. The very idea that you can recognize something as technically good i.e. that it meets all your criteria for a competently produced piece of work, and still not enjoy it personally . If you've ever had that moment (or if anyone reading has) where you think "okay, yes this is well written, I just don't personally enjoy it," then you're already observing the distinction I mean to indicate. It proposes there is already a set of criteria that we judge the competence of writing on THAT IS INDEPENDENT of our personal emotional response to it. (And as it happens just ignored it now because it's inconvenient for your position.)
And if 99% of people don't like something it's very unlikely that the work at hand is "hitting every mark of composition." If it were the case you'd want to go back and update those criteria. Or at least that would be a very strong indication to understand why the criteria didn't match people's feeling. Ultimately your criteria is meant to explain why a piece of work is enjoyed (let's say) most the time by most people (especially people for who the work of art is meant), not explain why it's should be enjoyed but isn't. But in context here that's not relevant, because as I've reminded plenty of times, Donny Cate's Thor and Aaron's Thor were and are big sellers for the company. They're almost always in the industry top 25 best selling comics and often the break into the top 10. So the better question here would be if they're so bad why do so many people buy them? If your answer is well those people are stupid or don't know get writing, that's pretty much a BS universal solvent of any argument against your position.
And my criteria isn't illusory. I'm asking you to provide criteria for what makes the writing good or bad and then show how examples or arguments for how the writing does or doesn't meet that standard. And YES even after you do that, we'll still very likely disagree, but that doesn't mean what I'm asking is unreasonable, or unclear. Again, would you like me to provide you some pieces of criticism that illustrate that standard so you don't' think it's illusory?
Evidence to fit WHAT criteria?
LGDB: The criteria here for evidence is talking about things in the work and not just feelings, your approval or disapproval of the work. And I've provided hypothetical examples of this already. I'll cut and paste here:
"So, as an example, I might criticize a piece of art by saying the dialogue is unrealistic. That's an objective claim about the text. Judging whether or not it's true is subjective in some sense, but the point is I've moved away from talking about my feelings about the dialogue (something no one could dispute) to a claim about the qualities of the actual text, i.e. that the way people speak in it doesn't faithfully capture how people speak in real life (and it's assumed the author means for it to be realistic.) And I can actually provide evidence and argument and so on for how and why the dialogue is unrealistic. Now... and this is important... I can never bridge the gap about whether people CARE if the dialogue is realistic. Someone may agree that the dialogue is unrealistic but still enjoy the piece. But a critic hedges their bets that their audience, reader, etc. shares the criteria, i.e. agrees that realistic value is something the piece should have or that unrealistic dialogue is off putting. Whether the piece should be one way or anther is up to the individual. Whether the piece IS one way or another isn't up to each of us."
Now you're being totally absurd
LGDB: You think questioning the validity of someone's evidence in an argument is absurd? Is the idea that a person you're arguing with, if they declare evidence it's automatically valid? No reasonable person thinks that questioning evidence is itself absurd, unless you think all proposed evidence valid and equally valid.
Of course it is. Whenever I meet one of your criteria for 'a backed up opinion', you add another qualifier that I must meet. That's moving the goal post. Your original point of contention bears no resemblance to your current one. You added those because I kept answering your challenges; starting more fires for me to put out.
LGDB: But I'm disputing you met the criteria. Other people can judge if you did or not. But I want to repeat it's absurd to say that disputing a persons evidence counts as moving the goal post. And in terms of wasting time, you're doing so much work here to avoid just indicating or rearticulating what you think your best argument is. Not some mass of various posts. In my experience when people have a good argument they usually use it.
Which is what? Evidence to satisfy which criteria? What is your end goal? I am willing to bet you can't answer the above challenge.
LGDB: I have. Here and elsewhere. An example of meeting the criteria is the example I provided above. What I'm asking is simple: Establish the criteria by which some piece of work is bad writing. Show examples of it being that. And then we'll dispute whether or not it's a coherent position and if coherent if it's an arbitrary one. My end goal is I think I'll be able to demonstrate that even if you try to be critical and rigorous your criteria is going to end up being arbitrary and most of the criticism will cash out as just disguised preference. And to be transport, this isn't some trick I can pull with just any piece of criticism. Some criticism is well evidenced and appropriately constructed even if I disagree with it.
So you agree that a critical opinion is the sum of the criticism and not the pieces, then you ask me for pieces. Do I have that correct?
LGDB: I'm not sure what you mean here. What I'm saying is that you have expressed any number of opinions over the years scattered across a bunch of different posts. But a good argument is not made by just taking all of them as a jumble as saying, "see? my entire critical opinion is all of this." What I'm asking is far more simple, and far more direct. What I'm asking you to do... and I think by now anyone reading this will see that this is what I've been asking for... is for you to provide your best argument for why ANY piece of writing by Cates or Aaron is in fact bad writing, and I'll try to demonstrate what I've been saying this whole time (i.e. that it probably just comes down to preference and personal feeling). Now you can indicate which one it is or I can pick or you can reproduce a new, cleaned up version of the argument here. I don't care which. The point is that this is a simple, reasonable ask that you appear to be finding ways to avoid. You provided a bunch of links to various posts. Are you saying they're all equally valid and compelling? If so I'll just pick one at random. That'll just make it easier.
Are you honestly telling me none of them are good arguments unless they're taken collectively and in their entirety? Like somehow your argument for why Cates is a bad writer is like the Vultron of arguments or a Pokemon thing where I have to catch them all to win? lol
---the late great Donald Blake
Posted with Google Chrome 96.0.4664.110 on Windows 10
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|