Some RJ Criticism

[GERand26]

Yes, Cinz, I think you are absolutely right.

[Cinz]

Oh, I thought I might add a critcism a fellow WoT fan had. It seems he outgrew WoT, as he now places RJ below Game of Thrones dude and Tolkien...

 

He finds RJ is too prudish and modest in his world. Not enough sex. He finds it a bit immature and dishonest as sexuality is an important part of a character.

 

I find RJ's subtle use of sexuality in the minds of his characters quite useful. It suits the way we aren't ALWAYS thinking DIRECTLY about sex. It's a part of the character that doesn't need to be explicit. That's just my opinion because sexual behaviours and thoughts are subtle, nuanced things in my mind. I don't need explicit sex to get a realistic sense of a character. All of RJs characters became extremely real to me.

 

Again it's subjective. Your perceptions of the way people are will shape how real a character is to you.

 

K. Bed time for me. *jumps off DM into oblivion*

[Ryrin]

Do I trust what was taught by my professors in the world's premiere public university system over a random unsupported opinion on the internet? Care to wager a guess on that one?

Yeah, I trust both the UC and CSU systems.

[Mats Spare Hat]

 

Do I trust what was taught by my professors in the world's premiere public university system over a random unsupported opinion on the internet? Care to wager a guess on that one?

Yeah, I trust both the UC and CSU systems.

 

 

Thirded..unless you're that Jordan Zumwalt character *slantey eyes

[GERand26]

Still waiting for the objective tests for good prose.

[Suttree]

 If you want to go on pretending the comparitive strength/weakness of say Don DeLillo's and Stephanie Meyer's prose is entirely subjective by all means go ahead. 

 

 

 

Do I trust what was taught by my professors in the world's premiere public university system over a random unsupported opinion on the internet? Care to wager a guess on that one?

Yeah, I trust both the UC and CSU systems.

Thirded..unless you're that Jordan Zumwalt character *slantey eyes

I'm just trying to figure out what on earth he meant by "the UC system, of all things". Is it a knock on CA or is there just a general aversion to higher education?

[Mr Ares]

So going back to subjectivity, it seems that's the heart of 'prose'. If you read analytically and pay close, conscious attention to where words are placed and where you would place them if you were RJ, then you'll see flaws and perfections others weren't seeing. In my case, I never once found myself questioning RJ or Harriet or the division of chapters. I was too damn busy laughing at Mat or worrying about that one thing that happened five chapters back. I was truly too immersed to criticise.

 

In my opinion, good writers manage to take you beyond their words and punctuation. In another person's opinion, a good writer is good only once judged against literary criteria. I suppose all it comes down to is what philosophy you have when it comes to literature. If reading is about enjoying a story, you would judge a writer based on whether you enjoyed his story -seems obvious, I know. If reading is about putting WORDS together in a certain way, you judge a writer based on the details of his writing. Good news is, nobody is wrong here.

There is a difference between what you enjoy and what is good. It is quite possible to find things that are objectively bad to be enjoyable - it's why we have the saying "so bad it's good." So the mere fact of you having enjoyed the experience of reading RJ says nothing about whether or not he was good. It also says nothing about why you enjoyed it. You were immersed. Why were you immersed? [Removed]

[GERand26]

Who's the arbiter of what's good? You?

[Mr Ares]

Who's the arbiter of what's good? You?

Wasn't what I had planned, but now that you mention it...

[Cinz]

 

 

 

Who's the arbiter of what's good? You?

Wasn't what I had planned, but now that you mention it...

Exactly what I mean. There is, unfortunately, no objective way to say what is good and what is bad. So those that do claim to have an objective measure, simply have a subjective measure with more detail.

 

I could tell you why I was engrossed and why it's my absolute favourite series, but that would just be my opinion. Just as any negative evaluation, by any measure, is simply an opinion.

 

The same fundamental questions come up in visual art. At the end of the day, if you like the way a painting looks and what it conveys to you, how can anyone tell you it's not art?

[Ace Sedai]

EOTW is the best written imo.

It's greatest strength is restraint.

I understand how difficult this would be to maintain throught the epic but EOTW was so compelling, it reeled everyone here in and kept us reading.

 

[Mr Ares]

 

 

Who's the arbiter of what's good? You?

Wasn't what I had planned, but now that you mention it...

Exactly what I mean. There is, unfortunately, no objective way to say what is good and what is bad. So those that do claim to have an objective measure, simply have a subjective measure with more detail.

 

I could tell you why I was engrossed and why it's my absolute favourite series, but that would just be my opinion. Just as any negative evaluation, by any measure, is simply an opinion.

 

The same fundamental questions come up in visual art. At the end of the day, if you like the way a painting looks and what it conveys to you, how can anyone tell you it's not art?

"Art" is a term used so broadly it's practically meaningless. So how can something be defined as art if art has no definition? Thus, it's easy and correct to say things are not art - but whether or not something is art has never said anything about its quality.

 

As for "just my opinion", even subjective values can be argued.

[EmperorAllspice]

 

 

 

Who's the arbiter of what's good? You?

Wasn't what I had planned, but now that you mention it...

Exactly what I mean. There is, unfortunately, no objective way to say what is good and what is bad. So those that do claim to have an objective measure, simply have a subjective measure with more detail.

 

I could tell you why I was engrossed and why it's my absolute favourite series, but that would just be my opinion. Just as any negative evaluation, by any measure, is simply an opinion.

 

The same fundamental questions come up in visual art. At the end of the day, if you like the way a painting looks and what it conveys to you, how can anyone tell you it's not art?

"Art" is a term used so broadly it's practically meaningless. So how can something be defined as art if art has no definition? Thus, it's easy and correct to say things are not art - but whether or not something is art has never said anything about its quality.

 

As for "just my opinion", even subjective values can be argued.

 

But what's good or not in a story can only be looked at on a case by case basis. Because whether they did something wrong is based on audience reaction and their own intention.

 

You can make up a bunch of rules and values that literature theory has, but if they're then expected to be the be all and end all of story structure then the world stagnates artistically and aesthetically.

 

If, say, it's said in Film theory that cuts lasting less than a second is bad form and shouldn't be done, does that mean that any film that has cuts lasting less than a second should be seen as inferior? Even if the result flows well and is impressive?

[Barid Bel Medar]

This thread has gone too far off topic. Locked.