Your example of ‘bad’ things eventually leading to something positive is different. I don’t think under any measure anyone would say that the Hamas massacre is ‘good’ or positive in any way. Of course it might, we hope, lead to a lasting 2 state solution and ultimately peace. But that doesn’t make will never make the original event good in any way. If only humans were more capable of making decisions before the nadir was reached but alas it is rarely the case.
As coincidence would have it, I recently addressed this subject as part of my first Substack post, where I make the point: to the pure, all things are pure; therefore, there can be no such thing as 'bad' art, only some things we prefer over others, and this shall forever resolve itself entirely as a matter of individual choice. It's perplexing, but I voted no to your question! However, we can be objective about 'good' versus 'bad' in the context of popularity, and it follows that a good judge needs to calibrate their gauge against their learning experiences of what's popular. I struggle with Dostoyevsky, but it would be absurd of me to describe it as 'bad' writing when it's brought such joy to others! In the absence of an opinion poll, perhaps it would just be prudent to think of our 'best' as our 'favourite'.
Tricky one. I'd say writing can be objectively good if you believe that anything can be objectively good or even objective; also that whatever may be deemed objectively good about a piece of writing is closely interconnected with many kinds of subjectivity. For example, a piece of writing may be objectively good for a certain audience (or even a single reader) in certain particular respects for a certain period of time. One criterion I think I use when judging a piece of writing (and, yes, I do judge) is, oddly enough, whether it moves me, to tears or laughter or wonder – highly subjective emotions.
Alexander Pope recommended putting a new poem in a drawer for nine years. If you still like it then, you can consider it objectively good!
I'm interested by your ranking of your own work in this way, Ros, especially as for me the Marlowe Papers is truly one of a kind. I really enjoyed Nothing Becoming; I'd be surprised (and pretty impressed) if the trilogy was able to surpass the MP in my estimation. Jamie.
As much as it might be desirable to think that there is an objective way to categorise 'good' versus 'bad' writing, ultimately, it can only be a subjective interpretation based on subjective criteria. For instance, some people might think great, big long sentences are 'bad' then a novelist will turn that on its head and make the most of them and it becomes part of their style and suddenly because it breaks a rule it becomes 'good'... I am not trying to imitate that here! :-) -- and, then if you go along with the idea that there is good and bad writing then it becomes problematic who decides -- another F.R. Leavis who would have consigned Charles Dickens to the literary bin?
Your example of ‘bad’ things eventually leading to something positive is different. I don’t think under any measure anyone would say that the Hamas massacre is ‘good’ or positive in any way. Of course it might, we hope, lead to a lasting 2 state solution and ultimately peace. But that doesn’t make will never make the original event good in any way. If only humans were more capable of making decisions before the nadir was reached but alas it is rarely the case.
As coincidence would have it, I recently addressed this subject as part of my first Substack post, where I make the point: to the pure, all things are pure; therefore, there can be no such thing as 'bad' art, only some things we prefer over others, and this shall forever resolve itself entirely as a matter of individual choice. It's perplexing, but I voted no to your question! However, we can be objective about 'good' versus 'bad' in the context of popularity, and it follows that a good judge needs to calibrate their gauge against their learning experiences of what's popular. I struggle with Dostoyevsky, but it would be absurd of me to describe it as 'bad' writing when it's brought such joy to others! In the absence of an opinion poll, perhaps it would just be prudent to think of our 'best' as our 'favourite'.
Tricky one. I'd say writing can be objectively good if you believe that anything can be objectively good or even objective; also that whatever may be deemed objectively good about a piece of writing is closely interconnected with many kinds of subjectivity. For example, a piece of writing may be objectively good for a certain audience (or even a single reader) in certain particular respects for a certain period of time. One criterion I think I use when judging a piece of writing (and, yes, I do judge) is, oddly enough, whether it moves me, to tears or laughter or wonder – highly subjective emotions.
Alexander Pope recommended putting a new poem in a drawer for nine years. If you still like it then, you can consider it objectively good!
I'm interested by your ranking of your own work in this way, Ros, especially as for me the Marlowe Papers is truly one of a kind. I really enjoyed Nothing Becoming; I'd be surprised (and pretty impressed) if the trilogy was able to surpass the MP in my estimation. Jamie.
As much as it might be desirable to think that there is an objective way to categorise 'good' versus 'bad' writing, ultimately, it can only be a subjective interpretation based on subjective criteria. For instance, some people might think great, big long sentences are 'bad' then a novelist will turn that on its head and make the most of them and it becomes part of their style and suddenly because it breaks a rule it becomes 'good'... I am not trying to imitate that here! :-) -- and, then if you go along with the idea that there is good and bad writing then it becomes problematic who decides -- another F.R. Leavis who would have consigned Charles Dickens to the literary bin?