/lit/ - Literature

No. Saying any writing is objectively bad is pretty much saying that you know better than everyone else about writing and that you're say so has more authority over everybody else's. Which is stupid.

Can there be objectively bad OP? yes

>>13177607
There are two ways it can be bad
>no purpose
writing that fails to communicate emotion, fails to be informative and even fails to affect the author himself
>destructive
immoral writing that contributes to chaos, destruction and the erosion of civilization/complexity
Most writings are only objectively bad in a few select ways, it is rare to find a piece of writing that is completely and irredeemably bad in each of these ways like my diary

>>13177607
poopy doopy schloopy mcfloopy arrghhh whyyyyy nooo it is not yet time! ahhh my–

>>13177638
You can’t even metanarrative and it shows.

>>13177607
Writing has different purposes. No writing is inherently bad because it will always have some form of purpose or entertainment value.
See >>13178032
This would be objectively bad in a scientific paper, but it can still be valued for its funny randomness.

>>13178051
What about things like writing inconsistencies and plot holes?

this faggot wrote a poem, so yes
>>13177845

>>13178053
The same writing can be enjoyed by someone who cannot detect the inconsistencies. Some writing may be improved by leaving out boring explanations and letting the reader fill in the gaps with his own imagination. But some plot holes truly are bad in that they fail to convey the reality of the world that is being described, unless you were writing about a world that was illogical, in which case the plot hole wouldn't be a bad thing.

>>13177607
qeidmakoqldndjomwmspzmnwkfovnwkoqndiixmwoaolqopqplapqzmxmkjdnncjmvjsnbajqjkqorutwoxkneinzjcinvnaoqonrkzomqkzomcmwomzmfokemxoemzkiwmaooiqueueutuirowiwjdkkfjgjhshhhahanxnixiwjwnanxnnigmajhjrjeajqggeriNbwhtjdjaknwwkotuuamsmdnbdbqoznnenxnqonwbfnnswownnznejnrmtmfmxoqoeunfmyounanjsiwmamcnjcsugjammwnrkcaumfmaiienmwghtnamwjtmdjiqkntnthenzjwjjengndniggjaueisnzuuwjernsnwiwjrnxoinakwijdjsnthenskwkijnenhwuwntextwnanjeiqomanxjkqkwndjixconwuwiwmmqmsjigratskdkiaiwkamsmkdkeiwooqpallcifjmciemmgjwokwmamsjicnrnmqokamkcolwoifjsmkakkakrkieiakskmdm- this is subjectively good to me and therefore can never be objectively bad

>>13177607
The good is that which tends to existence, and the bad is that which tends to non-existence. The purpose of writing is to inform or entertain. Any writing that fails to reproduce itself to achieve these goals is objectively bad.

It should be noted that some writing may be bad to some, but if its purpose was to entertain other people, then it can still be good in that regard.

>>13178061
this logic seems sound to me. someone refute him

>>13178063
based snzuuwjemsposter

>>13177607

>>13177607
I think that writing can be objectively bad but that’s really just subjective, objectively (subjectively).

Overwrought metaphors that are stretched just enough to be uncomfortable, but not enough to seem intentional.

>>13178063
>babby's first thunderword
watch this:
Berobupermadaiitetrmponaatrebohlenadfesespeisparjoervabourespthtraoanmebjartmprebavochnapuuruveorabt!

>>13179182
Not laughed this hard in a while. Any more?

>>13178106
No

Yes. Anything that is boring or stupid.

>>13182801
>boring or stupid.

Those are subjective feelings, though.

>>13177615
>a primary schooler is as credible as Bloom

fuck it; I won't work on my writing because quality is subjective anyway

>>13177607
>MY WRITING ISN'T SHIT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>13179182
>stealing old reddit comments for (You)s
why are anons such pathetic parasites?
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gnpgs/he_had_a_dick_attack/c1oxme1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

>>13182845
>bloom is credible at all

>>13183046
name a better critic than Harold Bloom

>>13183094
me

>>13183113
Prove it.

>>13183094
josefina ludmer

>>13177607
>Can there be objectively bad writing?
Only a good writer can judge writing as good and bad or what might constitute good and bad. There are none here to ask, so you won't find a sufficient answer. Even if you find someone somewhere, they might not really know, so be sure to ask the right questions.

>>13177607
The concept "objectivity" only exists in the minds of human beings with emotions, a date of birth, a mother, a father, a mood they are currently in depending on the weather of where they are living..

>>13177615
This right here. Brainlets depend on credibility because they can't think.

>>13183356
All concepts only exist in minds. No mind, no concepts.
Your point is...?

>>13183356
Everything you just said is wrong.
We are equally correct.

>>13183368
There is no objectivity. There is only subjectivity, and the way our collective subjectivities (individual lives) approach any kind of 'objective' consensus reality is through whatever persists. Beauty is the engine through which life is grinded, and if it persists in the minds of god's children, it approaches a divine status as an immortal monument, an aggregation of the longing of millions of individual lives.
>>13183370
Correct or incorrect isn't really the point.

>>13183383
>There is no objectivity. There is only subjectivity
Are you not claiming that these statements are objectively true?

objectively all writing is bad because it is derivative and debased from the truth of self-present speech, the pure expression of the consciousness of sovereign individuals

>>13183383
>Correct or incorrect isn't really the point.
You are wrong. However you want to spin it, me and you both have equally justified beliefs.

>>13183388
I claim these statements as subjectively true to me and you, we english speaking 2019 earth dwellers.

>>13183391
Is self-present speech derived from anything?

>>13183398
this is your brain when you live inside of a paradox

>>13183420
You cannot step in the same river twice

>>13183429
Wrong.

>>13183429
Objectively wrong
>>13183435
Subjectively right

>>13183435
the sound of a gong (statement) is not the same as the sound of a gong (physical reality)

>>13183442
>>13183446
Maybe for you :^) but not for me.

>>13183454
nietzsche has a nice quote,
"there is your way, and their is my way, but as for the only way, it does not exist" paraphrasing

>>13183383
If there is only subjectivity, then that is the same as saying there are only subjects, and that the only things that exist are our minds. It makes more sense that there are objective truths that may be distorted by our subjective perceptions.

>>13183467
their are tiers of subjective reality. some subjective realities are very fast and short lived, some are longer and deeper, like telluric currents that abide beneath the crust whilst empires rise and fall on the surface. they are both subjective realities, but they co-exist.

>>13183460
objectively wrong

>>13183467
Indirect realism always leads to radical skepticism which always leads to subjectivism. You have to cut out the middle man like Berkeley did

>>13183474
no idea what you’re saying. Your words are a waste of effort anyway as your perspective cannot be objectively true under your belief system

>>13183485
jesus is one of many enlightened individuals, and all human beings have to potential to become just as much a conduit for the divine truth. we worship and idolize those who have realized the truth, but they are not existing in a separate sphere from humanity. they are humanity. Jesus was fully human, just like you. Probably masturbated too.

>>13183495
I don't really think you'd need to consult some book about 'objective truths' to desire more than anything in existence to pull your hand away from a hot plate. Things are happening, we blabber on simultaneously.

>>13183491
If you’re godless, maybe

>>13177607
XxXxX YoU teLl Mi XxXxX
>Yes

>>13183502
(my eyes seeing) ===> (thing I see) <=== (thing supposedly there)
>tfw my eyes won't ever see the thing supposedly there, only what I see

>>13183501
solipsism and subjectivism go hand in hand. You’re putting yourself in God’s position

>>13183526
'the thing supposedely there' is only their in relation to your eyes. it has no existence beyond that relationship. they are two features of the same process.

>>13183530
Then why is the object perceived in the first place

>>13183529
Well, everyone is in God's position, we're just pretending we aren't. That doesn't mean we don't all exist and don't have feelings and what not. Everybody contributes to the tapestry.

>>13183537
...?
"It loved to happen" ~marcus aurelius

>>13183530
I'm the anon you replied to. It seems you've already cut out the middle man. Read Berkeley if you haven't, you'd like him and he was far from godless.

>>13183556
I thought Berkeley claimed that objects do exist through God’s perceiving them

>>13183572
Berkeley thought there were minds which perceived ideas and that's it. No representations or any other form of indirect realism, only the "two featues of the same process" which Berkeley would call perceiving. God would just be the ultimate perceiver seeing things even when you don't look at them; making things like trees falling and making a noise even when no person or animal is around to perceive it.

>>13183596
What is God perceiving? Surely He is perceiving some thing

>>13183616
Like I said in my first sentence as a mind He'd perceive ideas.

>>13183398
Is it not objectively true that you are making that claim?

"subjective truth" is just belief

>>13183125
Impossible, there is no objective criteria.

>>13178032
This is objectively good

>>13184206
Prove it.

>>13178061
The existence of limited people does not make objective criteria impossible. Are you retarted?

isnt "writing quality is subjective" an objective statement

>>13184218
Prove objectivity exists

>>13184391
2+2=4

>>13184837
lol retard

>>13184837
>>13184844
kek. Subjectivists BTFO

>>13177607
Yes.

I could go and explain what are the elements of good writing, and the diference between an amateur and shakespeare.

Most of /lit/ fells into the same mental trap as /ic/ anime retards is my style faggotry.

bad writing, beyond grammar mistakes and typos, usually feature amateur writing, in the sense it lacks any technique or craft.
Poorly written subjects, no deep or original thoughs, cliche tropes, cliche descriptions, no use of all senses, static conflict, no philosophical background, is pretty clear their work is incestous with the most plebian forms of entertainment, usually anime or comics or capeshit or film.

Top tier writing and genius ones, basically can be described as acumulated life experience, knowlege of the writing craft, extensive use of compound sentences, use of niche vocabulary or several languages, extensive knowledge of tropes, use of anti trama plots, tridimentional characters, descriptions that uses all five senses, a didactic use of the work beyond mere fiction and entertainment, deep ideas based on philosophical tradition about a variety of topics.

Basically bad writing is a mark of being young and amateur, while good writing is a mark of being more mature and experienced at life.

>>13177607
yes

>>13177607
No. Through the very act of making one think "this was bad writing", the writing has already done its job.