|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
I know a lot of us are confused or upset about this last episode (myself included). Overall after watching it twice I want to say I liked it a lot, maybe more so the second time. I'm really only upset that some people didn't die and mostly about Bran's story and what his role to play was, I agree I think there needs to be some more explanation.
I think before you get mad over it or say its bad we should wait for the conclusion of the season.
It is not much time, but I feel there is a chance that some explanation will be made for Bran that is somewhat satisfying and won't waste him or his potential powers. It may be hoping for too much, but why not.
|
On May 01 2019 02:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 02:04 -Archangel- wrote:On May 01 2019 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2019 01:38 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 01:23 VHbb wrote:
Well why warging into a dragon if you can warg into anyone?
Just warg into Cersei or someone else and end the war, no?
I don't buy it, I hope they don't have him warging into one of the remaining dragon to do something badass.
I don't think Bran has to *do* something epic to justify his character, though I hope the crows in last episode have some meaning. He doesn't have to do anything "epic", but he really should do something to justify following this character for 8 seasons. What has his role been? Telling us how the White Walkers came to be? Not really overall important (especially since it had no bearing on defeating them). Warning of the Night King? Jon already knew about him from Hardhome and other places. If the only point of his character was to tell everyone about the Phantom Menace trick and to be bait... I might honestly frickin scream. He didn't even need to be bait really. Arya could have sneak attack stabbed the Night king anywhere else. At this point the entire Brann storyline has basically been useless. Well Arya could not backstab NK anywhere as NK would not come there in person if Bran was not bait. Unless you wanted the show to have an even more ridiculous scene where Arya jumps from Jon's dragon to NK and stabs him there.. Not unreasonable he would have walked in just like now when the battle was won. And to be fair. Arya divebombing off of a dragon would have made about as much sense as her teleporting from off screen now and certainly looked cooler.
Why would he need to walk in? There is nothing of import in Winterfell for him if Bran is not there. Zombies and other WW murder everyone and raise new dead and they move on to South. It is not like he needs Winterfell to spend a night there or pray at its Heart tree. If they would just have him randomly walk in so Arya can backstab him that would be even more stupid.
|
On May 01 2019 04:04 bertolo wrote:
I know a lot of us are confused or upset about this last episode (myself included). Overall after watching it twice I want to say I liked it a lot, maybe more so the second time. I'm really only upset that some people didn't die and mostly about Bran's story and what his role to play was, I agree I think there needs to be some more explanation.
I think before you get mad over it or say its bad we should wait for the conclusion of the season.
It is not much time, but I feel there is a chance that some explanation will be made for Bran that is somewhat satisfying and won't waste him or his potential powers. It may be hoping for too much, but why not.
Yeah I still have the stance that it's one of my favorite produced episodes of the series. As a standalone thing I really really enjoyed it, but in terms of writing and fitting into the series as a whole I think it had a ton of problems, but we'll see with the last few episodes.
|
On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media.
You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective.
|
As for the whole episode I am mostly sad that they solved NK problem in one episode after WW finally started moving south. As I wrote earlier in this topic, I was mostly afraid that WW problem would be solved before last 2 episodes of this season. For something that the show/books opened with, it is a shame that it ended like this.
Also as much as people made fun of Snooke in new Star Wars movies that ended up as a stupid pointless bad guy, WW and NK are now worse in my eyes.
|
On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective.
You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too?
I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker.
|
On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker.
The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
|
On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall?
Sure! It's a simple calculation.
First, calculate the number of screentime hours dedicated to the plotline. Add in the number of characters directly tied to this plotline who have no other direct purpose in the story other than this particular plotline. Add .5 * any character who is mainly tied to this plotline but has some relevance elsewhere in the story. Add to that the amount of money that was put into marketing this plotline as something important.
Then, calculate all the actual points of resolution that came from this plotline. In this case, that would be 0 since we have no more information about anything related to the Night King, no conclusion to the 3ER storyline, no major character developments that wouldn't have happened in a different sequence (Theon and Jorah would have sacrificed themselves if enemy was the NK or Cersei), and apparently no direct impact on the world whatsoever despite the fact that this was supposed to be the end times.
Now, multiply those two numbers together. You'll note that 0 times anything is often 0, so the narrative quality of the ending of the Long Night storyline was 0.
|
On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker. The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
|
On May 01 2019 04:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker. The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists. How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
|
On May 01 2019 04:42 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:41 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker. The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists. How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance. I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
|
On May 01 2019 04:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:42 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 04:41 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker. The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists. How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance. I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question. I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash."
"Yeah it is bad, I agree."
"WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
|
Well if you only talk about "good and bad" then yeah, it is binary. In truth the quality of a work is on a spectrum, people use "bad" and "good" for convenience.
Why any sort of 'objectivity' in art exists? Because humans studied art and through that academic and popular discourse we figured out what works and what doesn't work (and everything in between). No there are no 100% rules, but there are techniques and an understanding of what these techniques will create in the audience for the most part.
Appreciating art is a skill in itself as well, kids will like basically anything which isn't too slowly paced, only with more experience that will change, people learn about it in school, they consume more and more different things, and thus a better understanding of it builds.
So yeah, it is not inherently objective, but that isn't required either for having a qualitative assessment of it.
|
Simply that a story can
- be enjoyable for someone (subjective)
- respect some rules / canon (objective)
and the two are not necessarily correlated
And repeating "bad writing" and "lazy writing" seem to imply a subjective opinion on the story based on some objective rules, which is a bit misleading.
E.g. I enjoy Bran's character even if apparently he violates some basic rules of storytelling (to be discussed more, but let's give it for true), does it mean that is character is badly written?
To me, no, it means that he does not respect some rules that might help in writing out a character, but he ended up interesting anyway.
To you, yes, because you don't find his character story compelling or good enough.
|
On May 01 2019 04:50 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:47 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:42 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 04:41 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 03:27 Plansix wrote:
People should avoid using the word “objectively” when talking about personal enjoyment or critiquing any sort of art. It does not make your argument stronger and can imply a basic misunderstanding of critical theory and the purpose of critiquing art as a persuasive argument. The goal of critique is never to convince anyone that a particular reading is the “right” reading. If you read criticism of narrative in movies and books, they don’t talk about good or bad writing. Writing is effective or ineffective. Focused or scattered. Good or bad is insufficient to describe if the writing serves the work. Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them. Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker. The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists. How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance. I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question. I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time. "This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH." I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
|
On May 01 2019 04:55 VHbb wrote:
Simply that a story can
- be enjoyable for someone (subjective)
- respect some rules / canon (objective)
and the two are not necessarily correlated
And repeating "bad writing" and "lazy writing" seem to imply a subjective opinion on the story based on some objective rules, which is a bit misleading.
E.g. I enjoy Bran's character even if apparently he violates some basic rules of storytelling (to be discussed more, but let's give it for true), does it mean that is character is badly written?
To me, no, it means that he does not respect some rules that might help in writing out a character, but he ended up interesting anyway.
To you, yes, because you don't find his character story compelling or good enough.
I don't see how you could claim that something can violate basic rules and not be bad. If one goes to a marathon and bikes the whole thing, you could say subjectively they are smart for going faster and easier, but they are objectively not following basic rules.
In storytelling, when you break the rules you basically either end up with storylines that don't make sense or ones that don't go anywhere. And it can be an amusing journey, but if it was pointless in the long scheme of things, then all you were doing was padding your word count in order to make something seem more voluminous than it really was. And ASoIAF is not that.
|
What does a marathon have to do with telling a story? It's a comparison that makes little sense 
Of course you can violate basic rules and not be bad!
I don't even know what the basic rules of writing a story are, and I can still tell if a show is enjoyable, I like it, or not, and for which reasons..
|
On May 01 2019 05:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 04:50 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 04:47 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:42 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 04:41 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 03:34 Requizen wrote:
[quote]
Alright, then the writing ineffectively brought conclusion to a storyline that was page 1 in 1996 and ineffectively utilized a character that has taken up hours of screentime by having him do nothing against the exact threat that he was built up to stand against. It made the entirety of Bran's arc effectively pointless by having him do nothing he was aiming to do in the only storyline in this web that he's connected to, and effectively left us with half a dozen story threads that will never be answered until GRRM writes the actual conclusion to them.
Objectively bad is quicker to write, though. And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker. The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists. How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance. I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question. I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time. "This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH." I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter. Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash. So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what?
Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad.
It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
|
Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing
but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
|
On May 01 2019 05:09 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 05:02 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:50 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 04:47 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:42 Requizen wrote:On May 01 2019 04:41 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote:On May 01 2019 03:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
And wrong, since the quality of narrative and prose are subjective. In the world of critique of, the only incorrect take is that one point of view is the “true” point of view. The use of the word objectively is anathema to the discussion of art and applying critical theory to works of media. You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective. You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too? I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker. The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists. How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance. I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question. I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time. "This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH." I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter. Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash. So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective. I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what? Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad. It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
If you enjoy them, how they be objectively bad? What does that even mean? Are you saying your enjoyment doesn’t have value? How can trash be bad when I say it with such endearment and joy?
What you are trying to articulate is that trashy pulp has lacks substance beyond the entertainment you derive from it. It isn’t thought provoking. It doesn’t challenge you or expand your world view. It just entertains you, which has its own merit. Like icecream, which one should not eat all the time. Because it is trash. But sometimes trash is good.
On May 01 2019 05:10 VHbb wrote:
Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing
but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
“Bran’s story line didn’t work for me. The route they went with him was to generic and the actor did all the heavy lifting, while also being able to put in any sense of mystery behind his new powers. It was really frustrating because I can see a version of the story that I like, with that actor, but it just wasn’t there. Which only compounded how much it bothered me.”
For me, framing an argument like that is much stronger than using the word “objectively bad” because no one can dispute its validity. It isn’t persuasive, but no one can say it isn’t a thoughtful articulation of what didn’t work in the Bran story line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
