And a post by rpeate

[conuly]

Because I don't want to retype anything, I'm linking directly to my reply.

While I disagree with him, his view on criticizing people seems thought out, so I thought I'd link to it here to see what other people say. Say nicely, I mean, I did promise to be respectful and all.

And I have a question, which I didn't think to ask him directly: How does one know if something is "great"? How can you say you recognize greatness if you don't define greatness?

I don't define it at all, so I don't have this problem, do I? I even refer to Alexander the Pretty Good.

Comments

[ratkrycek.livejournal.com]

rpeate reminds me of my Dad, a former English professor. I didn''t look to see if I could find out - is rpeate a professor?

My dad and I once got into a horrible argument about William Faulkner. I've come to enjoy him now, but I'd just been assigned to read a book of his in college and made the critical error of criticizing one of my dad's favorite authors without, he felt, being qualified to do so.

I felt pretty much the size of an ant by the time he finished his diatribe - in fornt of my then-boyfriend.

He later apologized for it, but it didn't do me much good, I don't think. It just made me more apt to hide my true opinions in the future, because, after all, where are my qualifications for darn near anything, right?

Maybe not so much - I'd rather 10o "fools" be allowed to state their opinions than one "expert" state his or hers and that his or hers should be the only viewpoint allowable - but, eh well. I guess there will always be people like that - and they, after all, are entitled to their opinions.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I plan to become an English professor, but the fact that you came away from my post with these other reactions is a bad reflection on my part. Everyone should think and say
whatever he or she likes. My main complaint was that Conuly dismissed Rowling as a writer for minor technicalities rather than the totality of her work. I don't care if Rowling uses "waspishly" 100 times. The stories are great, involving deep, likable characters in a rich, complex world. That is far more important, it seems to me. And it pisses me off to see anyone miss the forest for the trees.

My post was not clear because I am still irritated and annoyed by these injustices, as I perceive them to be.

[conuly]

I do hate that expression. Forests are trees! And we can categorize the forest by the types of trees in it. /tangent

As the rest goes, I don't actually dismiss JKR as a writer. If I did, I wouldn't read her work. But those little things... they aren't as little as you think. You might get fully immersed in her world and not see them, but for me, they pull me out of the world, in a jarring break back into reality. It's worse than having to take a pee break. Instead of going "ooooh, good burn", I go "waspishly, waspishly, wait... REALWORLD!REALWORLD! ABORT! ABORT!" and I have to begin getting into the book all over again.

[conuly]

Or, to give an example from my current favorite author, so you know I'm not being biased here :)

In "A Matter of Profit", Bell goes through the effort of creating a believable, multi-species universe. I even suspend my disbelief enough to avoid mentioning how unlikely it is that a UT would work.

And then she ruins it by making a bad commentary on the difference between "T'Chin" and "T'chin", as though any alien would have the same capital and lowercase distinction that very few human alphabets have. I have to skim that page every time I come to it, or I end up spending the next chapter feeling peevish and unable to go back to the story. It's like "let's just pull everyone out of the story and remind them there's a real world out there", and it's annoying, precisely because her world is a compelling one. I wouldn't care if her book sucked in every respect, but it doesn't, so the little thing matters a lot more.

[leora.livejournal.com]

This is why I don't really have an opinion yet... this is supposed to be one story told in 7 books, and I am waiting until I have read all 7 to say how good they are. But book 5 was sloppy. It was just sloppy. I am hoping book 6 will be a significant improvement. I felt that book 4 was done quite well, and it had a lot of potential for interesting development from it. But regardless, I want to see how book seven is, so I can see if the things that seem really poorly done are actually somehow justified or potentially clever. I doubt it, and book 5 is still weak in its own right, but I will wait to see.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

I would have to agree with you. Obviously rpeate would not apply such bizarre rules to other professions -- should nobody point out a craptastic paint job on a car because they don't paint cars, or a leaky faucet because they aren't plumbers, or admit the food is awful because they aren't a chef? Perhaps only perfect parents should be allowed to point out obvious child abuse? Preposterous.

Another aspect, of course, is that it's impossible to have decent *academic* debate/analysis/criticism if you only allow published authors to comment. Most great academics aren't published in the field they are gifted at comprehending, but rather in the academic/educational market. We'd have to ban professors, classes, even entire fields of study -- goodbye to gender studies, disability studies, cultural studies...anything that focuses on somebody that's trained in the background deconstructing a work in a field they aren't published in (i.e. nobody except children's authors could ever examine child lit).

Which, frankly, would be really dumb.

I also think it's nuts to claim that Rowling is anywhere NEAR "great" or anything close to it. She has great publicists, basically, and writes stuff that is simple-minded enough for the average television addict to enjoy. (That is not the same as writing clearly or simply; it's that her books themselves are more like movies or television shows, having some interesting plots but little-to-no depth.)

Okay, there's my rant for the moment. (I do not like mindless squeeing, and saying we shouldn't admit something has flaws...argh, there's more than enough blind fanboys/fangirls of everything out there, we need more people willing to do intelligent analysis, not just more fansheep!)

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

Obviously you did not read the comments to the entry, in which I said the post did not reflect my true feelings, in which I confessed I had been unclear, and in which I explained what I'd truly meant to say. I know this because you are responding to the original post without responding to those subsequent clarifications.

So, I mis-spoke, then I clarified. But my underlying criticism of Conuly's position remains, even if I didn't get around to it right away.

Rowling is great, your inability to appreciate that notwithstanding. She is on a par with J. R. R. Tolkien. Why? Because she has created a deep, broad, rich, and full world, characters that meet the same description, and plots that are as excellent as any. I really would like to know what motivates you to disparage someone of such genius. Could it be jealousy? Or simply ignorance? Anyone who thinks her work lacks depth just isn't paying attention.

If you're accusing me of "mindless squeeing", you can take a long walk off a short pier. I haven't even read the books, but I don't need to read them to appreciate their greatness, nor to see that you are missing it.

[conuly]

Whoa, wait a second.

I don't hold with people who tell me I shouldn't read a book when those people themselves haven't read that book.

I think this is the first time I've had to ask somebody to read a book before calling the author "great". Rpeate, I like you, but if you're thinking to complain about my complaints when you haven't read the books in question, then you lose, and we can't be having this discussion anymore. Maybe moggy wants to talk to you about it, I don't know, but I try not to talk too much about books with people who haven't read them, unless I'm trying to convince said people of the merits of the books.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I'm not telling you what you should or should not read.

I read the first 50 or so pages of her first book, enough to know she is a great writer. I told you that before, I am sure. You said that if I were to read more, I would come across the examples you found egregious. My whole point is that your cited egregious examples, based on what I know of the books, do not outweigh her greatness.

Before I retire for the night, I would like to note that at least this friend doesn't read very well at all, because he or she failed to note your stated request that your friends speak "nicely".

[conuly]

Fifty pages of one book does not enable you to pass any judgments on the greatness of an author. Nor does it allow you to criticize me for commenting on problems in that author's other books. If I wrote an essay for class and used one adjective to the exclusion of others, that essay would come back covered in red marks - even if my professor couldn't write, they could surely read.

I will tentatively agree that Moggy was not as nice as she could've been, pending a reply from her. I don't like accusing my friends of not being nice to my other friends until they actually flame people, which she didn't do. Last time I tried to tell somebody off for flaming my other friends, said other friend defriended me.

[rho]

In my opinion, good world-building does not equate to good writing. If all I was interested in was deep, broad, rich and full world's then I'd stop reading fiction altogether and just study this world, which has way, way more depth than any fictional word, and characters with more intricacies than any fictional creation.

I, personally, only care about the depth of the world and the characters to the extent that it's real enough for me to get caught up in it, and to sympathise with the characters, and most importantly, to allow the story to flow seamlessly. The plot, narrative and progression are the important parts for me.

This is why I find Lord of the Rings to be unutterably tedious. Tolkien spends so much time describing his rich and well-developed word that he tends to forget about moving the story along. There is a great story in there, but it could have been told in about a third of the space.

This is also why I loved the first few Harry Potter books. They were short and to the point, and told great stories. The world was there, in the background, so that everything rang true and was (mainly) consistent and believable, but it wasn't the focus.

And finally, this is why I've been underwhelmed by the last couple of books in the series. Rowling has become rambly and long-winded, and the plots have become thinner and looser. Having read book six, I'm now left in a position where I've more or less entirely stopped caring abut what's going to happen in book seven.

That I've seen, people tend to write about flaws that lower their enjoyment of the book in one way or another. I believe that these are all valid complaints, pretty much by definition, because enjoyment is entirely subjective. It would be a poor showing indeed if everybody appreciated exactly the same things.

Things like greatness for a writer tend to be measured by consensus of opinion. Everyone has their own personal greats, which move them while the rest of the world looks on, uninspired. We can start to say that a writer is great when we realise that there's a broad consensus amongst people (more specifically, I'd say that there's a consensus amongst people who enjoy appreciate the genre or type of writing in question).

Consensus building only works if contrary opinions are both allowed and encouraged. Otherwise, we tend to end up going around in circles, never seeing any sort of true consensus or true opinion.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I did list world-building as only one aspect of her greatness, the others being plot and character. I am sure that if and when I read the remainder of her material I will be able to rank her sentence construction and word choice up there with them.

I think there is an emerging consensus on her greatness, which does not require my voice. At the same time, I cannot abide what I see as unfair attacks. The idea that she sells simply due to publicity is ridiculous; no amount of publicity can sell $1 billion worth of a bad story. The public has to love, not just like it. I am not a Pottermaniac and I can see that.

There is no accounting for taste, but at the same time I know greatness when I see it, and this woman and her story are great. They may not interest me as much as they do others, but I have seen enough to recognize the greatness.

I hope you will always express your opinion, no matter what it is. I never meant to give another impression. My objection is to unfair attacks, not well-intentioned criticism.

[stranger-fella.livejournal.com]

How would you define greatness? i would define it as something a lot of people enjoy. I mean take for example the second movie 'The Klumps' i think was the name, where Eddie Murphy plyed all those charachters. I am pretty sure just about all the critics said it sucked, but hey - it was critic proof, the audience already knew the family. So greatness is pretty much whatever the person feels it is. I dont like Harry Potter because it does seem childish, but i will never tell anyone not to read it because i know that the world it creates is a good place to lose yourself in. And even if the writing is streightforward and simple, does that take away from it being great? No, it doesn't.

Take David Copperfield by Charles Dickens for example, it was printed in series, like 20 pages a chapter, it was pretty much meant for middle classes, it wasnt as nice and neat as some of the early victorian novels, but it sold, and people liked it. I can bet you money that the "high society" of that time thought same thing that it was childish, but more in a mental/economic status sence. And then a 100 years later we see how well developed the charachters are.

Now that i typed that i think that's what makes a novel/story great. The development of charachters, no matter the language (of course language has to be enough to keep the reader reading). Now that i'm done rambling and crawling on LJ instead of writing my term paper, i'll go get on that.

[ratkrycek.livejournal.com]

rpeate reminds me of my Dad, a former English professor. I didn''t look to see if I could find out - is rpeate a professor?

My dad and I once got into a horrible argument about William Faulkner. I've come to enjoy him now, but I'd just been assigned to read a book of his in college and made the critical error of criticizing one of my dad's favorite authors without, he felt, being qualified to do so.

I felt pretty much the size of an ant by the time he finished his diatribe - in fornt of my then-boyfriend.

He later apologized for it, but it didn't do me much good, I don't think. It just made me more apt to hide my true opinions in the future, because, after all, where are my qualifications for darn near anything, right?

Maybe not so much - I'd rather 10o "fools" be allowed to state their opinions than one "expert" state his or hers and that his or hers should be the only viewpoint allowable - but, eh well. I guess there will always be people like that - and they, after all, are entitled to their opinions.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I plan to become an English professor, but the fact that you came away from my post with these other reactions is a bad reflection on my part. Everyone should think and say
whatever he or she likes. My main complaint was that Conuly dismissed Rowling as a writer for minor technicalities rather than the totality of her work. I don't care if Rowling uses "waspishly" 100 times. The stories are great, involving deep, likable characters in a rich, complex world. That is far more important, it seems to me. And it pisses me off to see anyone miss the forest for the trees.

My post was not clear because I am still irritated and annoyed by these injustices, as I perceive them to be.

[conuly]

I do hate that expression. Forests are trees! And we can categorize the forest by the types of trees in it. /tangent

As the rest goes, I don't actually dismiss JKR as a writer. If I did, I wouldn't read her work. But those little things... they aren't as little as you think. You might get fully immersed in her world and not see them, but for me, they pull me out of the world, in a jarring break back into reality. It's worse than having to take a pee break. Instead of going "ooooh, good burn", I go "waspishly, waspishly, wait... REALWORLD!REALWORLD! ABORT! ABORT!" and I have to begin getting into the book all over again.

[conuly]

Or, to give an example from my current favorite author, so you know I'm not being biased here :)

In "A Matter of Profit", Bell goes through the effort of creating a believable, multi-species universe. I even suspend my disbelief enough to avoid mentioning how unlikely it is that a UT would work.

And then she ruins it by making a bad commentary on the difference between "T'Chin" and "T'chin", as though any alien would have the same capital and lowercase distinction that very few human alphabets have. I have to skim that page every time I come to it, or I end up spending the next chapter feeling peevish and unable to go back to the story. It's like "let's just pull everyone out of the story and remind them there's a real world out there", and it's annoying, precisely because her world is a compelling one. I wouldn't care if her book sucked in every respect, but it doesn't, so the little thing matters a lot more.

[leora.livejournal.com]

This is why I don't really have an opinion yet... this is supposed to be one story told in 7 books, and I am waiting until I have read all 7 to say how good they are. But book 5 was sloppy. It was just sloppy. I am hoping book 6 will be a significant improvement. I felt that book 4 was done quite well, and it had a lot of potential for interesting development from it. But regardless, I want to see how book seven is, so I can see if the things that seem really poorly done are actually somehow justified or potentially clever. I doubt it, and book 5 is still weak in its own right, but I will wait to see.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

I would have to agree with you. Obviously rpeate would not apply such bizarre rules to other professions -- should nobody point out a craptastic paint job on a car because they don't paint cars, or a leaky faucet because they aren't plumbers, or admit the food is awful because they aren't a chef? Perhaps only perfect parents should be allowed to point out obvious child abuse? Preposterous.

Another aspect, of course, is that it's impossible to have decent *academic* debate/analysis/criticism if you only allow published authors to comment. Most great academics aren't published in the field they are gifted at comprehending, but rather in the academic/educational market. We'd have to ban professors, classes, even entire fields of study -- goodbye to gender studies, disability studies, cultural studies...anything that focuses on somebody that's trained in the background deconstructing a work in a field they aren't published in (i.e. nobody except children's authors could ever examine child lit).

Which, frankly, would be really dumb.

I also think it's nuts to claim that Rowling is anywhere NEAR "great" or anything close to it. She has great publicists, basically, and writes stuff that is simple-minded enough for the average television addict to enjoy. (That is not the same as writing clearly or simply; it's that her books themselves are more like movies or television shows, having some interesting plots but little-to-no depth.)

Okay, there's my rant for the moment. (I do not like mindless squeeing, and saying we shouldn't admit something has flaws...argh, there's more than enough blind fanboys/fangirls of everything out there, we need more people willing to do intelligent analysis, not just more fansheep!)

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

Obviously you did not read the comments to the entry, in which I said the post did not reflect my true feelings, in which I confessed I had been unclear, and in which I explained what I'd truly meant to say. I know this because you are responding to the original post without responding to those subsequent clarifications.

So, I mis-spoke, then I clarified. But my underlying criticism of Conuly's position remains, even if I didn't get around to it right away.

Rowling is great, your inability to appreciate that notwithstanding. She is on a par with J. R. R. Tolkien. Why? Because she has created a deep, broad, rich, and full world, characters that meet the same description, and plots that are as excellent as any. I really would like to know what motivates you to disparage someone of such genius. Could it be jealousy? Or simply ignorance? Anyone who thinks her work lacks depth just isn't paying attention.

If you're accusing me of "mindless squeeing", you can take a long walk off a short pier. I haven't even read the books, but I don't need to read them to appreciate their greatness, nor to see that you are missing it.

[conuly]

Whoa, wait a second.

I don't hold with people who tell me I shouldn't read a book when those people themselves haven't read that book.

I think this is the first time I've had to ask somebody to read a book before calling the author "great". Rpeate, I like you, but if you're thinking to complain about my complaints when you haven't read the books in question, then you lose, and we can't be having this discussion anymore. Maybe moggy wants to talk to you about it, I don't know, but I try not to talk too much about books with people who haven't read them, unless I'm trying to convince said people of the merits of the books.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I'm not telling you what you should or should not read.

I read the first 50 or so pages of her first book, enough to know she is a great writer. I told you that before, I am sure. You said that if I were to read more, I would come across the examples you found egregious. My whole point is that your cited egregious examples, based on what I know of the books, do not outweigh her greatness.

Before I retire for the night, I would like to note that at least this friend doesn't read very well at all, because he or she failed to note your stated request that your friends speak "nicely".

[rho]

In my opinion, good world-building does not equate to good writing. If all I was interested in was deep, broad, rich and full world's then I'd stop reading fiction altogether and just study this world, which has way, way more depth than any fictional word, and characters with more intricacies than any fictional creation.

I, personally, only care about the depth of the world and the characters to the extent that it's real enough for me to get caught up in it, and to sympathise with the characters, and most importantly, to allow the story to flow seamlessly. The plot, narrative and progression are the important parts for me.

This is why I find Lord of the Rings to be unutterably tedious. Tolkien spends so much time describing his rich and well-developed word that he tends to forget about moving the story along. There is a great story in there, but it could have been told in about a third of the space.

This is also why I loved the first few Harry Potter books. They were short and to the point, and told great stories. The world was there, in the background, so that everything rang true and was (mainly) consistent and believable, but it wasn't the focus.

And finally, this is why I've been underwhelmed by the last couple of books in the series. Rowling has become rambly and long-winded, and the plots have become thinner and looser. Having read book six, I'm now left in a position where I've more or less entirely stopped caring abut what's going to happen in book seven.

That I've seen, people tend to write about flaws that lower their enjoyment of the book in one way or another. I believe that these are all valid complaints, pretty much by definition, because enjoyment is entirely subjective. It would be a poor showing indeed if everybody appreciated exactly the same things.

Things like greatness for a writer tend to be measured by consensus of opinion. Everyone has their own personal greats, which move them while the rest of the world looks on, uninspired. We can start to say that a writer is great when we realise that there's a broad consensus amongst people (more specifically, I'd say that there's a consensus amongst people who enjoy appreciate the genre or type of writing in question).

Consensus building only works if contrary opinions are both allowed and encouraged. Otherwise, we tend to end up going around in circles, never seeing any sort of true consensus or true opinion.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I did list world-building as only one aspect of her greatness, the others being plot and character. I am sure that if and when I read the remainder of her material I will be able to rank her sentence construction and word choice up there with them.

I think there is an emerging consensus on her greatness, which does not require my voice. At the same time, I cannot abide what I see as unfair attacks. The idea that she sells simply due to publicity is ridiculous; no amount of publicity can sell $1 billion worth of a bad story. The public has to love, not just like it. I am not a Pottermaniac and I can see that.

There is no accounting for taste, but at the same time I know greatness when I see it, and this woman and her story are great. They may not interest me as much as they do others, but I have seen enough to recognize the greatness.

I hope you will always express your opinion, no matter what it is. I never meant to give another impression. My objection is to unfair attacks, not well-intentioned criticism.

[stranger-fella.livejournal.com]

How would you define greatness? i would define it as something a lot of people enjoy. I mean take for example the second movie 'The Klumps' i think was the name, where Eddie Murphy plyed all those charachters. I am pretty sure just about all the critics said it sucked, but hey - it was critic proof, the audience already knew the family. So greatness is pretty much whatever the person feels it is. I dont like Harry Potter because it does seem childish, but i will never tell anyone not to read it because i know that the world it creates is a good place to lose yourself in. And even if the writing is streightforward and simple, does that take away from it being great? No, it doesn't.

Take David Copperfield by Charles Dickens for example, it was printed in series, like 20 pages a chapter, it was pretty much meant for middle classes, it wasnt as nice and neat as some of the early victorian novels, but it sold, and people liked it. I can bet you money that the "high society" of that time thought same thing that it was childish, but more in a mental/economic status sence. And then a 100 years later we see how well developed the charachters are.

Now that i typed that i think that's what makes a novel/story great. The development of charachters, no matter the language (of course language has to be enough to keep the reader reading). Now that i'm done rambling and crawling on LJ instead of writing my term paper, i'll go get on that.