BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

I think you're missing the larger issue here: Criticism of art--any type of art--is subjective in nature. As such, there can be no objectivity in criticism or analysis of it. It is subjective to its core--you cannot make it unsubjective. Thus, any framework that is created to break down a literary work for "analysis" is subjective and based on the reviewer's (and/or the framework creator's) own subjective biases.

There are large numbers of people out there who find the "classics" tedious, overwrought, and outright boring. All the analysis that goes into those works is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. It's curious that people who read the works now are determining what the author "really" meant when he wrote this or that, absent any notes or proof from the author backing that up. It's just silly, self-important hogwash for a group of self-appointed "experts" who feel their opinions are more important than others' based on their own self-developed criteria. Again, a giant, self-licking ice-cream cone. And then these self-appointed experts feel empowered (again, by themselves) to tell the rest of us what is "good" and what is "bad" in literary terms because they have deemed it so.

Art is personal. If someone feels it is "good", let them.

Uzique wrote:

my criticism of dan brown has nothing to do with any formal criticism.

the 'art is subjective' statement is true, but to a point. it can be used to the absurd extreme.

if a 4 year old scribbled on a piece of paper with crayons, would you say it made a 'good' picture?

when dan brown writes a 'book' using the most similarly-rudimentary of techniques, i feel at liberty to say it is not a 'good' book. it has nothing to do with the higher, intellectual and self-licking cones of 'proper' art criticism.

Is that 4-year-old a savant?

Dan Brown's style is hardly comparable to a four-year-old's scribble on a paper, regardless of how snobbish you want to get. Obviously, tens of millions of people in the world disagree with you. Thus my point.

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

my criticism of dan brown has nothing to do with any formal criticism.

the 'art is subjective' statement is true, but to a point. it can be used to the absurd extreme.

if a 4 year old scribbled on a piece of paper with crayons, would you say it made a 'good' picture?

when dan brown writes a 'book' using the most similarly-rudimentary of techniques, i feel at liberty to say it is not a 'good' book. it has nothing to do with the higher, intellectual and self-licking cones of 'proper' art criticism.

Is that 4-year-old a savant?

Dan Brown's style is hardly comparable to a four-year-old's scribble on a paper, regardless of how snobbish you want to get. Obviously, tens of millions of people in the world disagree with you. Thus my point.

the scribble is to a painting what a monosyllabic, single-clause sentence is to writing. rudimentary building blocks.

i think i'd be fine with dan brown's writing style if it wasn't for the pseudo-intellectual, conspiratorial bullshit that he writes about. it seems mad for people to consider that 'entertaining' or in any way 'sophisticated' when it's such twoddle.

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

my criticism of dan brown has nothing to do with any formal criticism.

the 'art is subjective' statement is true, but to a point. it can be used to the absurd extreme.

if a 4 year old scribbled on a piece of paper with crayons, would you say it made a 'good' picture?

when dan brown writes a 'book' using the most similarly-rudimentary of techniques, i feel at liberty to say it is not a 'good' book. it has nothing to do with the higher, intellectual and self-licking cones of 'proper' art criticism.

Is that 4-year-old a savant?

Dan Brown's style is hardly comparable to a four-year-old's scribble on a paper, regardless of how snobbish you want to get. Obviously, tens of millions of people in the world disagree with you. Thus my point.

the scribble is to a painting what a monosyllabic, single-clause sentence is to writing. rudimentary building blocks.

i think i'd be fine with dan brown's writing style if it wasn't for the pseudo-intellectual, conspiratorial bullshit that he writes about. it seems mad for people to consider that 'entertaining' or in any way 'sophisticated' when it's such twoddle.

Sophisticated is a subjective term. As is entertaining.

What you consider entertaining and/or sophisticated could be completely un-entertaining and unsophisticated to someone else. What makes your opinion of what is sophisticated any more valid than theirs?

Jenspm wrote:

I enjoy the stories he tells

Jenspm wrote:

He is not a good writer

Those two statements do not synch.

FEOS wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

I enjoy the stories he tells

Jenspm wrote:

He is not a good writer

Those two statements do not synch.

Of course they do, I enjoy Miley Cyrus' music*, but that doesn't mean she's a good singer.

*May not be true.

Uzique wrote:

yes, they do. they really do.

people have always enjoyed low-brow, cheap, smutty entertainment. it requires little thought. TV is the zenith of this form of popular entertainment.

i prefer for my books to stay within the realms of the moderately sophisticated, interesting and enriching.

there is definitely nothing incongruous about 'enjoying' the stimulation provided by worthless literature.

here's a massive case-in-point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_&_Boon

yeah, I kinda mix between Dan Brown-esque books and the more sophisticated ones, depending on my mood.

I enjoy the latter, but sometimes (read: way too often ) I just cba and go over to something a little more simple (ie- Dan Brown, John Grisham)

FEOS wrote:

If you enjoy a writer's stories, then that writer is a good writer for YOU.

No, he's a good story teller.

FEOS i think you're conflating the book as a popular entertainment and the book as a (literary) artform. there's a big dichotomy between the two in modern, 20th century-> culture. the rise of mass publication and cheap, affordable prices has given rise to the commodity of easy-reading novels and mindless fiction, but the domain of 'literature as art' or 'literature as culture' is still very much prevalent. that's the 'art' that academics and old-dons at Oxford like to talk and get excited about. enjoying the books of dan brown is basically the same as enjoying prime-time television; the only difference is that the bitesize, thoughtless and simple entertainment is communicated to you via a different medium. that's the realm of 'books' that i'll never care to explore: airport fiction, toilet literature, reader's digest tosh.

Jenspm wrote:

Here's how I see it:


Good Story Teller: Has a fun and entertaining story (subjective)
Good Writer: Uses the language well, knows his genre, etc. (objective)


It's like when you write an essay at school. It's the latter that is graded, because that's the part that is objective.

this is essentially the same distinction i am drawing, in identifying two different 'types' of modern literature:

-the book as commodity; popular fiction; mainstream entertainment; mindless yet 'fun'.
-the book as art; intellectual, meaningful, cultured; niche entertainment; engaging, possibly even challenging, yet rewarding.

no 'effete snobbery' is inferred in making that distinction, not any more snobbery than there is in seeing a difference, and accordingly treating differently, the forms of the hollywood blockbuster and the art-house movie. and if you still fail to see the difference, and the importance of treating and viewing these forms differently, on the uncompromising stance that 'it's all art, it's all subjective, therefore it's all the same: good or bad' then you're being nothing short of naive.

Last edited by Uzique (2009-11-03 11:16:59)

from twitter- shitmydadsays:

"Everybody loves that Da Vinci code book. Bullshit, it sucks. I read it. It's for all the dummies."

There's a lot of snobbery in writing.
Hardy and Dickens are 'well-written', apparently, but dreary as hell.
Wilbur Smith is gripping but low-brow english, and his books all have basically the same plot.
I couldn't give a toss, I'll read what I enjoy reading.

What irks me is technical stuff which is badly written, tiring to read and ambiguous.
'Pistolsmithing' By George C Nonte is an interesting read for example.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There's a lot of snobbery in writing.
Hardy and Dickens are 'well-written', apparently, but dreary as hell.
Wilbur Smith is gripping but low-brow english, and his books all have basically the same plot.
I couldn't give a toss, I'll read what I enjoy reading.

What irks me is technical stuff which is badly written, tiring to read and ambiguous.
'Pistolsmithing' By George C Nonte is an interesting read for example.

I try to avoid literature written in the age when authors were paid by the word. I don't enjoy reading other peoples bullshit. Never write two words where one will suffice.