Standards of writing WAS:Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 142845

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> You are confusing the reader's personal taste with the author's
> craftsmanship or lack thereof. I work in the field of book publishing.
> I have a PhD in English. I know good writing when I see it and can
> produce it myself when called upon to do so. (If I didn't, I'd be
> fired.) And it has nothing to do with how I view the characters or
> what I think should happen to them. "Well-written" (determinable by
> specific criteria) is not the same as "satisfying" (a wholly
> subjective judgment).
> 


Absolutely and completely incorrect.  There is NO objective standard of 
good writing.  There are simply standards which have been politically 
agreed upon for the sake of the convenience of certain communities, and 
even those shift constantly.  Writing is by its very nature completely 
subjective, and therefore all judgments thereof are completely 
subjective.

Will Snape be punished?  As I say, if he is not then JKR is an 
extremely poor writer and has no idea how to craft a good story.  Is 
that a subjective statement?  Absolutely.

Are the characters in the Potter saga given layers of depth?  You, I 
think (and I may be wrong) would say yes.  Is that good writing?  You, 
I think, would say yes.  Is that a subjective statement?  Absolutely.

How many people agree with my position?  I don't know and I don't care, 
but the question is a matter of politics, not of objective standards 
that don't exist.  How many agree with you?  A huge number, I am 
certain.  But once again, that is a matter of politics, NOT of 
objective standards that do not exist.

I will even make many more subjective statements.  OOTP was a horridly 
written book that constitutes, in the main, one set of mistakes after 
another.  JKR's decision to kill Sirius was an extraordinarily bad one 
and bespeaks lack of creativity and enslavement to tired and boring 
traditions.  The first four books, on the other hand, were generally 
very well-written and bespoke a promise that has been sorely betrayed 
by the horrible and uncreative writing of the last two books.

Now, can I prove any of that?  Absolutely not.  Do I think it bespeaks 
a shift on JKR's part to bad writing that dips into the realm of 
extremely bad writing.  Most certainly.  Is good writing the same as 
satisfying writing?  Yes, it absolutely is.  Is what makes for good 
writing an absolute and inalterable subjective judgment?  You bet your 
bottom dollar it is.

In time the forces of politics will determine a consensus on JKR and 
her writing, just as they do all authors.  And over time that consensus 
will shift, just as it does with all authors.  She will go in and out 
of favor, just as Frank Baum and Charles Dickens and any number of 
others have done.  Her writing will be seen as good or bad, her work as 
well-written or poorly-written, according to the fashion of the time 
and the opinion of whoever is doing the analysis.  But in the end it 
will all be politics, because objective standards for such things 
simply DO NOT EXIST.


Lupinlore
>