Charcharo said:
Fox12 said:
Charcharo said:
Fox12 said:
Charcharo said:
Fox12 said:
I could maybe sympathize, if I thought Sad Puppies had a case.
The thing is, they claim that their trying to support talented writers that don't get any attention. And the creator himself lamented never getting a nomination, claiming that it was due to politics. So I read their stuff. It's utter garbage. None of them can write. If they don't get nominated, it has nothing to do with politics. I think they're just bitter, especially the creator.
It doesn't help that they're complaints are embarrassingly stupid. The creator just complained about how he'd rather have flash gordon style adventure serials, as opposed to anything high minded. He sounded like a simpleton. Meanwhile he formed a slate of writers, and tried to push through a block voting system to support certain writers based upon things other then writing merit. So whose obsessed with politics here? He's a bitter, failed writer that's taking his frustrations out on the establishment.
The best that can be said is that they aren't actively sexist/racist/insane like the Rabid Puppies and Vox Populi.
Truth be told, I havent read anything of theirs.
But on this very site I have seen someone think the Witcher novels were bad... and on FB I also encountered someone that considered most of the tried and tested literature of any genre as shit... Tolkin, GRRM, Sapkowski and even effin Cervantes...
I did not even...
So yeah, basically... I dont know. It is not that I discard the possibility they are bad authors, but I have seen supposedly erudite people trash classics, cult hits or generally awesome literature... and it made me sad.
This is fair. Quality is at least somewhat subjective. I'm not crazy for the Witcher books myself, for instance, and GRRM is a mixed bag.
They're all Shakespeare compared to Larry Correia, though. Yeesh. His writing is, like, Resident Evil 1 bad. Which is fine until he tries blaming other people for his problems. I just despise their view on literature.
My issue is that, if the Hugo's weren't political before the Sad Puppies got involved, they certainly were after.
Exactly. Your opinion really.
You can say something YOU love or like and there is a real chance I might not like it as much (or at all).
Of course, this defense works when you are a person that reads a lot... I can take your opinion as different but equal only if it is informed as mine and respectful.
More or less. But I think it's possible to respect something as objectively well written, even if you don't like it. I don't care for James Joyce, for instance, but I concede he's a talented author, and I think literature has benefited from his work. I can also enjoy something like Toradora while understanding that it's not some kind of great masterpiece. It's just a good piece of entertainment.
Objectively, I don't think the sad puppies presented great writers, and I can safely say that Larry Correia was terrible. It is my opinion, but I think there's a difference between an empty opinion and an educated opinion with reasoning behind it. Objectively, the work they seem to support would represent a regress in quality.
I have no notion of the sad puppies, but "objectively good writing" as a term really grinds my gears.
I can get there being a divide between what is the classics and cult hits, the good ones, the mediocre and the shit tier. To a certain extent that is.
But I cant really go and compare works I deem in the same category all that well. Especially since, I have talked to several different people (3 of whom say they actually have literary education and the 1 of whom is ACTUALLY a writer) and their opinion on what is good and what makes something GREAT... is not the same.
For the record, I have a background in literature, and intend to publish a novel. That's not a big deal in itself, of course, but I do have an understanding of the process of writing and analyzing literature.
Look, there are a lot of different groups with different views on literature. Medievalists, modernists, post modernists, ect. Respecting that, I keep a pretty loose definition of good literature. But objectively, there are certain things you can look for as far as literary criticism goes. Psychological realism, fluid dialogue, lack of adverbs, solid pacing, use if narrative voice, lyrical prose and sound, understatement vs overstatement, ect. Different writers have different strengths and weaknesses, and critics tend to emphasize the aspects of literature they like best. That's why literary critics can never agree on "fine literature." Medievalists and linguists love Tolkien, while modernists lose their shit over Ulysses. That's all well and good, and I'm open minded enough to love all of literature. But if a writer tends to be poor and clumsy in all areas of literature, then there can be a general consensus on the quality of a work.
So, I can say that something is objectively good, even if I don't like it, because I can recognize the skill, passion, and work that went into something. I can also recognize something as bad, if it has poor prose, is filled with logical inconsistencies, plot holes, conveniences, simple characters, ect. In that sense I think some things are somewhat objective.