2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!
I recently read 'A Rose for Emily'. I am a fan of Faulkner, pic related is one of my favourite novels, but I did not enjoy 'A Rose for Emily'. However, as a short story, I still believe that it's well-written and worth reading.Is it possible for something to be objectively good but not be appreciated, loved or enjoyed? Or is art (literature in this instance) ENTIRELY subjective and void of objectivity?
>>21289154"Well-written and worth reading" is still a subjective assessment. One can appreciate the craft of a well-written story while still not enjoying it for whatever reason. Why didn't you enjoy it? And why do you think it's worth reading despite that?
>>21289154>Is it possible for something to be objectively good but not be appreciated, loved or enjoyed? Valid question, but the word "objectively" is problematic. Not enjoyed by a reader (you)? - definitely yes. By most readers - sure. >is art (literature in this instance) ENTIRELY subjective and void of objectivity?Yes. Everything is devoid of objectivity, but that's a pointless argument to make as it snuffs out the discussion. We can agree on what general characteristics good (appreciated) art has, and then judge other art by the same criteria. Something will only be appreciated in the future as our values and cultures change. Have you had a different upbringing, lived in a different society, you'd form different options about a book. Thus, is this "objective goodness" transient and essentially intangible?
Read "Spotted Horses" its one on Faulkner's better short stories.