~~rec unto others as you would have others rec unto you.

[reenka]

it's not a surprise or anything, but i often ask myself why people in general seem to have such horribly poor taste in fiction. on the one hand, a number of the really popular authors are really good-- a number aren't. but the really good ones-- all those people who read them have taste, don't they?

what if they don't?
what if the things they find good about that piece of work aren't even -related- to the things -i- would enjoy about it? that's all i can come up with.
    if the rec is by a writer i think is brilliant, or by someone whose taste i know and whose intelligence i respect, i am almost never disappointed. i would've thought the intelligence bit would be enough, but it isn't. naturally, quirks in personal preferences have a lot to do with it, but i just can't help feeling bewildered at the stuff people think worthy of recommending.

but, a number of the stories -i- found utterly enjoyable, i wouldn't rec unless i knew the person i'm reccing to had similar tastes as me. for example-- among people i respect and whose opinions i know, there's a split opinion on rhysenn's `irresistible poison'-- and all the popular works, but sticking with that....
     for some people it's too sugary, too much romance or whatever. now, it's perfectly valid to think that. i mean, i know -i- am probably blinded by my complete love for romance, often of the starcrossed variety. it started when i was little and never went away. it's a personal quirk. i'm not about to defend the great intellectual worth of traditional romantic tropes, though i could try and probably get -somewhere-.

still, it's done very well, i feel, and that much, i feel confident in. it's a very good, symbolically rich, interwoven, well-paced traditional romance.
    or say, take maya's `underwater light'. on the one hand, i think it's brilliant and i think that's objective. but again, -what's- brilliant about it. to me, the dialogue, the humor, the characterization, is enough to make me adore it. but what if someone was looking for something completely different? what if they were looking for some sort of in-depth commentary on the human condition, what if they were looking for a serious dealing with all the unsavory aspects of malfoy-the-git? what if they were annoyed by snarky!adorable!malfoy and thought he was ridiculous?

i don't know what i'm saying, really.
i'm annoyed at continuously coming across people who praise stories i consider lame at best. i am also aware of what could be perceived as my hypocricy, because i would praise things without reservation that some people whose opinion i respect would see as lame. still, stories like `mind games'-- and i've only read barely a page-- make me cringe and say there's no way this is good or rec-worthy.

i mean, it doesn't suck or anything. it has interesting stylistic choices and it flows ok. but. maybe there are some characterizations i just refuse to accept (like some people might refuse snarky!charmer!draco), and superpowered-veela!draco is most definitely one of them. i read about his wings and i just want to run far, far away. i mean, hey, artistic license. they're allowed to give him wings. aren't they?

maybe i've been trained by the snarkier members of the fandom to look upon superpowered beautiful people with suspicion (even though they're usually mary sues). this draco smells like a mary sue from a mile away. and hey, for all i know, a number of the draco's i -liked- have been mary sues too. so. *sigh*
    this is just a rant. i don't think i've said anything worthy. but. i -am- continuously surprised (and even surprised at my ability to be surprised) by the junk people lick up as ice-cream. i mean, i think i can tell the difference between disagreements borne of "divergent tastes" and just-- lack of taste. and it try to say-- but it doesn't mean you're -stupid- if you can't tell what's good or bad objectively and go around reccing things that are just plain bad. well. um. gah. i can't hold on to that nicety. yes. as well as being unable to not consider their understanding of certain characters (um. draco) suspect. *sigh*
~~
it's not worthy of my time to snark at plebe!fics, is it ><;;

EDIT: um. i wound up liking the story. it's too insane not to enjoy on some sort of demented level. taking it seriously, it sucks ass. but it's cute seeing harry having his repressed sexuality described as a physical object. muwahahaha.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

i think in PoL it's all that "veela silver" thing going on. i mean i'm not saying he's veela (and i don't -think- he is in vm either, though um... i could be wrong ^^;; er...)
also that the veelas seemed to know something about him and why he's immune to them.
gahd that seems like an eternity ago, the whole atmosphere was so different...
but yah i'm just saying it's a fic that has draco associated with veelas, somehow.
it doesn't really matter how, i wasn't really saying he's got superpowers :D ahaha that'd be funny.

um. ok, so everyone thinks writing quality is completely subjective.
hmf. i'll just be the lone ranger then.
i'd say it's -mostly- subjective but that we aren't SO different from each other that we can't decide on anything as a group-- as "readers" through the ages, as human beings responding to a common stimulus.
if you say that -because- we're talking about our feelings, it's subjective, then yes.
but because those feelings can be reproduced and you can see patterns and degrees of precision and innovation in the production of those feelings, as well as a certain wide-spread appeal-- that is, great art tends to affect 95% of viewers in some positive way, whether prepped on not. i -think-.
anyway, because of that, you can say that by uniting our subjectivity you can achieve a certain "reality".

so it's not so much "objective" as just, real. as in, i don't just think `hamlet' is good. that's not entirely subjective. in my own reaction, that's my subjective opinion.
but it's -also- an opinion i can explain-- by using technique, language-use, theme resolution, innovation in story-telling, and so on, as guide-lines.
it's also an opinion that others would -share-, if they used those guidelines.
anyway, something like that. maybe i just want to believe it's true, that there is some standard, some reality to the beauty of writing/art that's outside of my own head.

even if it's just in our collective heads as humans, that's ok.
i feel i -share- this appreciation and that makes it more than purely subjective.
there are two ways to judge art: one would be pure emotional response it evokes.
two would be analysis of its structure, movement, innovation, symmetry, evocativeness, width of vision, wit, visual power.

um. it's like-- every listener of mozart re-creates his greatness within their own hearts and minds.
and in fact there would be no way to know he is great if there wasn't every individual critic, reacting with amazement and awe in turn.
but in a meta sort of way, we still can detach ourselves and see that he fits into a -pattern- of greatness-- his music possesses certain -qualities- that make it great.
a part of me thinks it's a valid question whether or not, if we fed an endless amount of data as to what makes a great piece of art into an artificial intelligence, if it would be able to create a masterpiece.
probably not. but still, i think that's partly due to us not being intelligent enough to really gather all the data.

there -are- cultural norms but they don't need to brainwash everyone. and anyway, the story in question is totally plebe and not on any grand level where it's great but only for a small audience of subjective readers.
that story was just plain awkward. it had good points that i noticed. but the first chapter especially was particularly cringe-inducing.
i refuse to believe the badness of unimaginative, stilted, unbelievable-premise writing exists solely in my head...~:)

~reena, who can't seem to stop talking about this ^^;

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's not completely subjective at all. Most people can tell what crap writing is, it's just that people are able to concentrate on the good bits and blank out the bad bits to differing degrees. I'm incapable of ignoring bad bits, even if there are good bits there, so I'm considered a tough critic.

Well, that's my theory anyway. If everything was subjective, how would we ever agree on anything? How could we ever even explain our enjoyment of technique to anybody else?

(I have such a strange feeling that this theory of mine on writing is, in some way, all of a kind with my distaste for socialism. I know not why.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

yeay~! lasair agrees with me, and all is right with the world :D *bounces*
yah, i'm with you on the blanking out bit. otherwise i'd probably be a pretty tough critic too (because i notice myself blanking out stuff often enough). instead i'm like, this cuddly nice person who can also be snarky >< ahahah at least that's how -i- see my critiques :D
i've never actually torn anyone apart. takes too much mental energy anyway, heh. concentrating on bad writing makes my brain hurt.

yah, but as for the "but we agree on pieces of writing"-- i think some people would say that that's because we, as readers, as alike, our tastes are alike by virtue of our personalities being alike somehow.
so then we like similar things, and understand things similarly.
so it's sort of a coincidence borne of kinship, or something like that.

heheheh ~:) not that i believe that could explain it, but i'm just saying there's more to it than agreement, if you wanted to prove objectivity in literature. wah. heheheh i think i'd enjoy it if i proved it if only because it would piss off some post-modern theorists :D
and, wah~! you trust my recs~! *bounces*
*feels warm and fuzzy*

eeeee~ :D