Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Josephus]

@josephus
Ah okay. That's where the disagreement lies; I don't think there's such a thing as "high" and "low" storytelling, so there is no "lowest common denominator" to me. These people just lack sophistication in their tastes, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Lowest common denominator, defined with generosity, is simply the dudes that give the least of a crap regarding their entertainment. It's derogatory in most uses, but then so is 'elitist'. So while you can't dispute the factuality of there being a lowest common denominator, what you can do is dispute the notion that this is a bad thing - which you've done. Jerry Holkins of Penny Arcade and Reverend Robert Fulghum have the same thoughts regarding entertainment.

[ToonyMan]

I don't think it shows conventional literary analysis or "conventional wisdom concerning quality" to be flawed in any way since neither of them predict that people won't buy terrible books.  It only shows them to be flawed if you regard popularity or money earnt as the sole measure of quality of a work (which contradicts what you're saying about fanfiction).

Terrible in your opinion. Would you really tell people who enjoyed Twilight that they really didn't enjoy it?
My measure of "quality" is 100% personal. What I think is genius can be trite to someone else, and that's perfectly fine. It's not that it's popular that gives it "quality," but rather that the individuals who did enjoy it can claim that it has "quality" and they would be perfectly justified in such a claim.

If a majority disapprove of a work or action then I can still enjoy or do it?  How far can I go in this manner before people will stop me?

[Josephus]

If a majority disapprove of a work or action then I can still enjoy or do it?  How far can I go in this manner before people will stop me?

Depends. Is the work or action evil?

[ToonyMan]

Can we not say enjoying Twlight (or any badly received work) is evil?

[Leafsnail]

Terrible in your opinion. Would you really tell people who enjoyed Twilight that they really didn't enjoy it?

No.  Your definition of quality and literary analysis are both odd.  I would point to the reasons why Twilight fails to have literary merit (in itself, not as a thing to study and learn about current attitudes) and one could perhaps use analysis to explore the horribly sexist and backwards themes it has, or its lack of depth, or the flatness of the characters, or the numerous issues with the plot.  Neither of those have anything to do with enjoyment.

My measure of "quality" is 100% personal. What I think is genius can be trite to someone else, and that's perfectly fine. It's not that it's popular that gives it "quality," but rather that the individuals who did enjoy it can claim that it has "quality" and they would be perfectly justified in such a claim.

Maybe you should stop using "quality" to refer to a metric that's completely different to the concept of quality.

[Bauglir]

Wait, how is a measure of the effectiveness with which it accomplishes its purpose (to entertain) unrelated to the concept of quality?

[Putnam]

I think quality in this case is pertaining more towards literary value than entertainment value, of which Twilight is devoid of the former and rich with the latter (no matter who you are; picking it apart is fun!)

[kaijyuu]

Can we not say enjoying Twlight (or any badly received work) is evil?

It's evil like Harry Potter is evil.

Well, probably more evil due to the whole advocating horrible relationship practices thing, but still

I would point to the reasons why Twilight fails to have literary merit (in itself, not as a thing to study and learn about current attitudes) and one could perhaps use analysis to explore the horribly sexist and backwards themes it has, or its lack of depth, or the flatness of the characters, or the numerous issues with the plot.

If social commentary is all we care about with "literary merit," then an essay would be far superior than any story since it skips all the entertainment crap and gets straight to the point.

Maybe you should stop using "quality" to refer to a metric that's completely different to the concept of quality.

Give my odd metric a name and I'll use that instead. Value, perhaps?

[Leafsnail]

Wait, how is a measure of the effectiveness with which it accomplishes its purpose (to entertain) unrelated to the concept of quality?

They're not unrelated.  "Entertaining" is definitely an important element of quality.  But that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

If social commentary is all we care about with "literary merit," then an essay would be far superior than any story since it skips all the entertainment crap and gets straight to the point.

That's why I mentioned flatness of characters (as in: they are not like real people, inconsistent, terrible clichés), poor plot and lack of depth as well.  In addition a horrible (as in, actively harmful) message should clearly be able to drag a book down.

Give my odd metric a name and I'll use that instead. Value, perhaps?

"Ability to be popular".

[Bauglir]

Wait, how is a measure of the effectiveness with which it accomplishes its purpose (to entertain) unrelated to the concept of quality?

They're not unrelated.  "Entertaining" is definitely an important element of quality.  But that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Misunderstanding, then. I got a different impression of your opinion from the last post, my bad. Though I would argue that "quality" really needs an additional qualifier in most circumstances. Twilight is evidently high-quality entertainment. Very few works are high-quality all across the board of possible measurements. I'd claim that many of the traditional examples, in fact, don't qualify because they aren't entertaining to the population in general.

[scriver]

What the hell, Sucker Free City? You can't end like that. That isn't where the movie ends, that's where the third act begins. You can't just trick me to watch through 2 hours of decent-to-good movie and then not give me an ending. You've just made the whole rest of the film meaningless.

And the worst part is, now I can't get this so-so movie out of ky head, because there was no resolution! I'll just keep imagining how it could've ended, and how awesome it would've been. Damn it, I want my two hours back.

[miauw62]

Ugh, its annoying to have to end the steam procces with task manager just because it fucked up starting somehow.

[Bauglir]

Oh jeez, this sexual harassment training video has now started emphasizing how men and women communicate differently. I get that there IS a major social influence on that, so that there definitely is a difference as a consequence of that conditioning, but it'd be pretty nice if a video that claims to promote respect and equality between the sexes didn't go on about how women are "subtle" and men are "direct" as if it were a trait dependent on one's genitalia.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh jeez, this sexual harassment training video has now started emphasizing how men and women communicate differently. I get that there IS a major social influence on that, so that there definitely is a difference as a consequence of that conditioning, but it'd be pretty nice if a video that claims to promote respect and equality between the sexes didn't go on about how women are "subtle" and men are "direct" as if it were a trait dependent on one's genitalia.

Straight to the point.
_heh

[nenjin]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I need to communicate with people, I wave my genitalia at them like I'm using flag signals.