[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 58 KB, 350x438, pretentious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
461631 No.461631 [Reply] [Original]

Can literature be objectively good? Or is the "good" derived from the reader's enjoyment?

That is, is there an objective criteria that can evaluate the worth of a piece of writing?

Pic semi related.

>> No.461635

>>461631
>Can literature be objectively good?

That's why we have the word "classic."

I hope /lit/ is mature enough to understand that just because YOU didn't like it doesn't mean it's god-awful.

>> No.461637

every second thread is basically asking the same question:

How can we gain objective knowledge when all we have is subjective perception?

Maybe there should just be a sticky with the most dominant science- and knowledge-theories on the front page.

>> No.461641

>>461637
Or maybe we should just talk about it again.

>> No.461647

>>461641
that is exactly what I don't want to do over and over again, especially not on an anonymous image-board.

>> No.461651

>>461647
What do you want to do over and over again?

>> No.461652
File: 287 KB, 332x1227, 1263960809343.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
461652

>>461635

>I hope /lit/ is mature enough to understand that just because YOU didn't like it doesn't mean it's god-awful.

A lot don't, and this is the primary problem with taking advice from /mu/ or /lit/. Just because you didn't enjoy or understand a book/album does NOT make it bad. But also people should understand that you are not going to love everything that everyone else loves. Meaning that if you go

>X book is bad because I didn't enjoy it

you fail, but if you go

>I just did not really enjoy X book

then your doing it right.

>> No.461665

>>461652

Your post is bad because I did not enjoy it.

>> No.461666

>>461651
nice try

>> No.461667

>>461637

I realize the difficulty of the question, obviously. But as

>>461635

said, classics do exist. I guess I'm curious as to if a common thread exists, something that makes those specific works timeless/classic.

And if so, what is it? I was thinking it might be easier to break it down into genres and go from there but I honestly have no idea.

I don't want a debate on whether it's possible or not. I just want to know what /lit/'s best guess is.

>> No.461669

>>461667
the question is not as difficult, but the answer takes a couple of sentences or paragraphs (depending on specifics and theory). And I do not feel like typing it out all over again.

>> No.461670

>That is, is there an objective criteria that can evaluate the worth of a piece of writing?

Money.

The more money a book makes, the more it is worth.

>> No.461677

The word 'objective' tends to confuse people. People treat it as though it means 'imposed from without' -- as though there have to be these abstract, extant criteria of goodness.

What it really means is simply that the judgment is not the result of one's own individual perspective. THUS, to say that something is objectively good might simply be to say that there is a broad consensus on its value as literature.

That is why I don't care whether the literature I like is considered objectively good: I'm secure enough not to seek those comforts.

>>461652

Language is about much more than simply what is said. To say that a particular novel "is bad" ought to indicate to you what is really meant by this: the implicit claim is that the person in question didn't enjoy it and, often enough, that person can provide a coherent account for their lack of enjoyment. I'm not sure why you think people should always qualify their statements with 'Oh, in my opinion...'

>> No.461680

>>461669

Hmmmm, ok. Well, even a short summary would work, if you have the time. *scratches head* Guess I just need to lurk more if this has been answered so often.

>> No.461684

>>461677
unnerved, impatient guy here:

not a bad job,
thx for clearing this op for all the sincerely interested once again.

>> No.461688

>>461680
well, I am cooking right now, so you gotta wait at least one hour.

I and a couple of other anons did type it out often, does not seem like it got very deep into lits userbase though, so just lurking longer might not help you outright.

>> No.461699

>>461688

Well I'll probably be randomly checking this thread until it disappears so if you do find the time at some point that would be awesome.

>> No.461767
File: 28 KB, 350x215, wrestlerpiper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
461767

>>461677

There's also a thing about people who read for pleasure a lot - they may read something that they know is crap, and they'll admit that it's crap, they may even lambaste it for being crap - but they still READ it.

I've read enough to know the difference between good writing and bad writing, but sometimes I just don't give a fuck.

Alastair Reynolds is a TERRIBLE fucking writer, but that doesn't mean I didn't finish Pushing Ice.

Yes, I READ TONS OF BADLY-WRITTEN CRAP.

>> No.462031

>>462027
3. While judging something as useful and pleasant is subjective in the first step, it is possible to come to an "objective" conclusion about it. In terms of literature this would be the concept of consensual objectivity. We can say that most people would consider pain as not pleasant, and therefore as "not good". But masochism shows that in certain contexts a minority of people find pain pleasant. Since it is not the case for the majority, you can deem pain as "not good". In literature it is a bit more complex, since you can not foster majorities to the same extent as with the simplified example of pain, therefore the concept of "good" literature is dependant on region, age-cohort, time-period, culture and gender.
When most people speak of "(objectively) good" literature, they mean something different. They orientate themselves at what has gained the most reputation of being good over time. Due to the economy of attention this concept of good is mostly academic and is shaped by mostly academic or semi-academic discussion of literature. The academic-consensus (if there actually was one on a certain topic) can change significantly over time, but it also keeps the evaluations of the past alive.
To come to an end: there can not and can be "objectively good" literatue at the same time. This objectivity has little (not nothing) to do with subjective feelings about it. Why people adhere to this is a different question. I started from scratch and did not get very far in this, I hope I helped you though.
Enter: the trolls!

>> No.462027

> Can literature be objectively good?
The answer to that question has several parts: 1. Definition of "good" 2. Definition of "objectively" 3. Conclusion
1. "Good" is a value ascribed to things pleasant and/or useful in a certain context. In regard to literature this would most likely mean that the content (plot, meaning) and the form/style is considered pleasant and useful. As everybody knows the criteria that have to be fulfilled in order for something to be deemed good are subjective.
2. "Objective" means that something is true, factual, real. One of the oldest philosophical topics is the reasoning of what actually posses this quality. Absolute objectivity can not be achieved by a (single) subject. There are verious concepts on how to create at least a working fiction of objectivity. By empirical experiment (we assume that empirical proof is sufficient to be a law. This does not work for everything: for a long time it was assumed that swans are always white, because nobody ever reported of having seen one with a different color, but with the exploration of the globe black swans were found) and by consensus, meaning that a fact can be disputed, but when the majority of people/scholars agrees that a thesis is true/valid (not proven wrong), it is something similar to an "objective" truth (which can be proven wrong over time, as forementioned example shows). While it is easy in some contexts to form such absolute truths (1+1=2) it is difficult when you can not measure something exactly or the measurement is disputed.

>> No.462032

>Can literature be objectively good?

Yes. All you have to do is learn how to grade and critique literature by its use of language, something a lot of morons fail to understand.

>> No.462037

>>461767
I wouldn't say he's a crap writer in general, just not much of a prose stylist. Doesn't mean he can't tell a good story.

>> No.462088

>>462037

He swiped enough from Heart of the Comet for that book, he couldn't at least see how Bear & Brin handled those gaps in story time deftly?

>> No.462111

oh dear not this again ... it pops up all the time on /mu/

yes, taste is subjective, but what is subjective is the sum-total of experiences and relations in one individual, so something being "good" has a social and cultural context.

>> No.462142

no

aesthetics is obviously a normative human practice.

however, there is no need to ask the question.

>> No.462251

>>462031

This argument is linguistic, has no relevance to one's subjective views unless you twist it out of context.

In other news, could you deduce an objective basis for a book's "good" based on the most basic universal human psychology of what is intuitively appealling/aesthetic? Obviously subjectivity and all that, but being as we are of similar objective matter, we should at least have small innate tendencies for certain items and utterances within literature (though that obviously gets skewed by standardised literary technique).

>> No.462270

>>462251
lolwut?

which argument are you talking about?

>> No.462276

>>461670
The Da Vinci Code is one of the greatest books of the last decade by that criteria.

>> No.462288

>>462276
by what criteria? maybe you got the references mixed up or something

>> No.462296

>>462276
> Due to the economy of attention this concept of good is mostly academic and is shaped by mostly academic or semi-academic discussion of literature.

Wow, I did not know that the DaVinci code was so well received by academical reviewers.

>> No.462327

>>462288
I meant to link to that post. If how much money a book makes its publisher/author/whoever is the only factor in how good it is, then the Da Vinci Code is one of the best books of the last decade.

(I don't think it was even a particularly good book, I'm just pointing out a flaw in the profit=quality statement.)

>> No.462410

>>461670
The red book and the bible would be the best thing ever by that criteria

>> No.462617

"Good," should be considered in the context firstly of what the author was attempting to do with their literature, and secondly how well they achieved what they were going for.

So, say some guy writes a steampunk novel with satirical criticism of the mechanics of capitalism, surrounded on the relationship between the main character and some dumb hipster bitch.

What you like/dislike is a separate matter. So, just because you hate steampunk and love capitalism, that doesn't have any bearing on how well the author achieved his/her original goals of thorough criticism/full relationships/good worldbuilding. So even if you hate the content, it's the execution overall that's most objective.

>> No.462625

>>462617
> implying the authors intent is always obvious to everybody

>> No.462638

inb4 Quality

>> No.462663

>>462625
How well they make their intent known is one of the factors. If it gets to the point, though, where one dipshit just can't recognize an obvious symbol or something, you need to rely on the greater perception.

Simple elements like the development of plot and characters are things that any well-executed novel has, regardless of the author's intent.

>> No.462681

props for using DaVinci code instead of Twilight

>> No.462922

Wrote out an excellent reply. Gave it a second though. Erased it.

Here's the gist:

No.

PS: Enjoyment doesn't always equate with good. I don't know of too many people who enjoy chemo, but it beats the alternative when you have metastasizing cancer.

PSS: "Classic" and "good" aren't exactly one and the same. A work is a classic because of the value assigned to it by past or present society and how pervasive it is. Imagine people in Shakespeare's day listening to all the dirty jokes in those plays being told "this is gonna be some of the most important lit in the universe." Riiiiiiiight