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

[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.

[rho]

The idea that she sells purely due to publicity is indeed ridiculous. Equally, the idea that good publicity and marketing has nothing to do with her success seems equally ridiculous to me. Good writing, good marketting, and just plain good luck are all factors in making Harry Potter the phenomenon that it is. The proportion of each involved is, of course, open to debate.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

Back to J. R. R. Tolkien:

It is my understanding that the English recently voted The Lord of the Rings to be the greatest English novel.

This tells me that one need not be perfect to be great, which is all I am saying, and which is all I have been saying. All great writers have flaws to greater or lesser extents. This, I argue, does not lessen their greatness.

[conuly]

So, greatness is determined by majority rule...?

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

Not at all. It was your friend who mentioned "consensus". Sometimes the public is slow to catch on, sometimes it catches on right away. My position is that I don't need the public to tell me what is great, just as sometimes the public is actually right.

[conuly]

But you haven't read the books. So you're assuming that the public is right about them being great. The Baby-Sitters-Club books were insanely popular for years, but I don't think anybody could accuse them of being great literature.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I've seen and heard more than enough to know they're great.

[conuly]

But you haven't, any more than the fundies have really seen and heard more than enough to know they're evil. Until you read the books for yourself, you have no place passing judgment on them or their author, good or bad.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I maintain that I have. Is my wife, who has read the first five and is currently reading the sixth, entitled to call them great? Because she does. Am I entitled to defer to her judgement? Because I do.

[conuly]

But I have read all the books as well (making me one up on your wife), and I do not call them great. So you are saying that you are allowed to call them great because other people do, but I who have read the books am not allowed to have and share my opinion on their supposed greatness?

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

You may certainly share your opinion. I simply disagree with it.

[conuly]

Except you don't. You say I'm wrong to hold it for the reasons I do, and that your view, which you got without reading the books, is better, because you can "recognize greatness".

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

ES: If you had the opportunity to rewrite any part of the series so far, what would it be and why?

JKR: There are bits of all six books that I would go back and tighten up. My feeling is that Phoenix is overlong, but I challenge anyone to find the obvious place to cut. There are places that I would prune, now, looking back, but they wouldn't add up to a hugely reduced book, because my feeling is you need what's in there. You need what's in there if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution in book seven. One of the reasons “Phoenix” is so long is that I had to move Harry around a lot, physically. There were places he had to go he had never been before, and that took time — to get him there, to get him away. That was the longest non-Hogwarts stretch in any of the books, and that's really what bumps up the length. I'm trying to think of specifics, it's hard.

ES: Any subplots that you think could have been left out, in hindsight?

JKR: I find it very hard to pinpoint any because I feel that they were necessary. How can any of us judge? Even I, until seven's finished, will not be able to look back really accurately and say, “That was discursive.” And maybe at the end of seven I'll look back and say, thinking about it, “I didn't really need to be quite so elaborate in that place there.” Until it's written it’s a hard thing to be accurate about. But certainly there are turns of expressions that irritate me in hindsight. There are repetitions that drive me crazy in hindsight.

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/aa-jointerview2.html

I think this proves that we're all right: she has been repetitive, she has written overlong, and, because she knows this, she is a talented writer. Greatness to me has always been defined not as perfection, but as a combination of plot, character, and spirit. I maintain she is great, whatever her flaws.

[conuly]

1. You haven't read her books.
2. I know my writing has some serious flaws. Massive ones, in fact. Knowing this doesn't make me a great writer. Would that it were the case....

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I said "talented". She knows enough to see her own fallibility. I then defined greatness in a writer as I see it, which is not based on knowledge of fallibility. I get the impression you just don't want to respond to what I've said.

Regardless, I know greatness when I see it. I have read enough of her work to know she is great. It's the same with Shakespeare. I have read less than ten of his plays, but I am sure the ones I haven't read are great too. I think what disturbs me the most about your comments is that you think one cannot tell in 50 pages whether someone is a great writer or not. Well, perhaps you cannot.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

"Fewer" than ten. And that mistake does not lessen my greatness as a writer.

[conuly]

If she were a great writer, you would've finished at least one book. You really can't judge within 50 pages if somebody is a great author. You simply *can't*. Among other things, people's skills vary. She may have been greater then than she is now, for example. But you don't know. You are trying to argue that you can judge her writing when, as you haven't read it, you cannot.

You're perfectly correct when you say I don't want to "respond to what you've just said". And I won't want to respond until you have read at least one book, the entire book, of hers. I don't discuss books with people who haven't read them. That is foolish, at best.