Creative merit [thread split]

[murkrow]

Rowling a genius?

I think I'll stop writing forever now.

Heaven forbid I should challenge someone's views on good writing!

 

[Olba]

Re: celebrity attractions

Rowling a genius?

I think I'll stop writing forever now.

I think the sales of her books speak for themselves.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone ~120 million
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ~77 million
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ~61 million
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ~66 million
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ~55 million
Harry Potter and the Half-Blooded Prince ~65 million
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ~44 million
Total: ~488 million

And it's not like ideas like the Harry Potter just pop out every day. Specially since the total number of pages is in the thousands.

 

[Dissident]

Re: celebrity attractions

Hey, trillions of flies eat shit everyday, i think ill try it, it has to be good !











... sorry for that, im ashamed of myself...


.

 

[Olba]

Re: celebrity attractions

Hey, trillions of flies eat shit everyday, i think ill try it, it has to be good !

Well, sales numbers are the only objective ways to compare stuff like books and movies.

And in your case, it seems like you don't like it. Too bad, at least 20 million people would disagree with you.

If anything, I hope you've at least read one or two of the books instead of just nodding it off by saying that the main character is a teenage boy magician.

 

[murkrow]

Re: celebrity attractions

So you think the goal of a writer is to produce the most popular work?

Do you think 50 cent is a gifted musician because of his record sales?

I can give you several REASONs why the harry potter books are total crud, and none of those millions of readers could refute them.

 

[Kumori]

Re: celebrity attractions

And the sad thing is Murkrow, 50 cent's record numbers will continue to rise, while the incredible writers, and performers, in the rock/metal/classical fields will remain in obscurity.

 

[Dissident]

Re: celebrity attractions

If anything, I hope you've at least read one or two of the books instead of just nodding it off by saying that the main character is a teenage boy magician.

Maybe I will... when I run out of good ones

I was just pointing the flawed argument. I do recognize something great about those books: Many kids that otherwise would have never get near a book are reading pretty thick ones. If all those kids pick up the habit of reading and then move on to authors with more substance, then for me that lady earned her money and Im glad that Harry Potter exists. I have a LOT of more interestng things to read tho.

 

[Kumori]

Re: celebrity attractions

If anything, I hope you've at least read one or two of the books instead of just nodding it off by saying that the main character is a teenage boy magician.

Magician by Raymond E Feist is a brilliant novel, and the main character is a teenage wizard :P.

 

[murkrow]

Re: celebrity attractions

And the sad thing is Murkrow, 50 cent's record numbers will continue to rise, while the incredible writers, and performers, in the rock/metal/classical fields will remain in obscurity.

actually 50 cent retired when his last album bombed.

free market ftw.

 

[Jordan~]

Re: celebrity attractions

And in his place stand an army of equally talentless poetasters. Hurrah!

 

[Olba]

Re: celebrity attractions

So you think the goal of a writer is to produce the most popular work?

No. As a profession, the goal of a writer is to make money. In this case, Rowling is a successful writer. As a hobby, the goal of a writer is usually expressing themselves or putting time into something they like doing. Even in this sense, Rowling succeeded, as she has said that she's writing the story "for herself".

Do you think 50 cent is a gifted musician because of his record sales?

Sales just happen to be the only statistically accurate data we got. Therefore, it's the only data we can use to measure the success of it.

I can give you several REASONs why the harry potter books are total crud, and none of those millions of readers could refute them.

Well why should they? Obviously there will always be flaws in the plotline or subplots. And the readers don't have any reason as to why they should spend their time looking specifically for the flaws. Nor is there any reason why they should bother undoing them.

I was just pointing the flawed argument. I do recognize something great about those books: Many kids that otherwise would have never get near a book are reading pretty thick ones. If all those kids pick up the habit of reading and then move on to authors with more substance, then for me that lady earned her money and Im glad that Harry Potter exists. I have a LOT of more interestng things to read tho.

Oh, now I see your problem. The audience of Harry Potter is far from being "just kids". And it's not even aimed at kids. The themes are clearly not meant for small children. If anything, the audience of Harry Potter is diverse. Kids who just started school, teenagers in high school, university graduates etc. If that all can be summed up as "just kids" then surely there's something wrong with your definitions.

As for a book being interesting or not, those are subjective arguments. And arguing about subjective data is pointless, as it's always about how you see things and how others are wrong because they don't see what you see.

The diversity of the audience and the fantastic sales of the movies, the games, the books and all other additional merchandise is more than enough to prove that there's got to be something different about Harry Potter. Something that Dostoevsky or Kafka don't have. Surely, if you ask someone to tell you something about the lives of Harry Potter or Rodion Raskolnikov, much, much more people would be able to tell so much more about Harry Potter. And you know, Rodion Raskolnikov is the main character in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, which is pretty much seen as one of the best pieces of literature ever.

 

[murkrow]

The same arguments you're using can be attributed to anything that has been accepted lovingly by the masses.

The fact that something is widely accepted does mean there is something special about it, but that special thing is more than often a narcotic state of empty pleasure.

No one's understandings are furthered in the digestion of a Rowling book, she writes to entertain and only to entertain.

Among the reasons why her books are so unpopular is that they lack the conscious inherent is almost all other children's literature. Children's books are almost always designed to secretly teach, usually this is done through a moral like a fairy tale but it is also sometimes done by witty use of language like the phantom tollbooth or alice and wonderland. Children's books are designed to raise children into educated and well reading adults.

Rowling's books are part of the modern idea that children are to be treated and catered to in the same way as adults. Her books entertain children by dealing with simple ideas they can understand, telling simple stories and solving problems in illogical ways with minimal character development. Rowling's books are literary lollipop or macaroni with cheese, children love these things and sometimes even adults can enjoy them, but if they are all you eat you will grow fat, stupid and with no understanding of true nutrition or flavour.

Many adults are just as simple minded as young children and are also easily taken in by exciting yet empty stories. Many, many adults.

 

[Dissident]

Re: celebrity attractions

Oh, now I see your problem. The audience of Harry Potter is far from being "just kids". And it's not even aimed at kids. The themes are clearly not meant for small children. If anything, the audience of Harry Potter is diverse. Kids who just started school, teenagers in high school, university graduates etc. If that all can be summed up as "just kids" then surely there's something wrong with your definitions.

Murkrow put it very well there, not much more to add to that.
I just want to make clear that I never said that all people who read the books are kids, I said that for me what somewhat redeems the books is that kids may pick up the reading habit because of them. I know that grown ups read them too, thats fine, everyone owns their time and can use it in whatever they want. For me they fall short even as entertainment, its the same diference between laughing watching Benny Hills and laughing listening to Bill Hicks.

 

[Olba]

The same arguments you're using can be attributed to anything that has been accepted lovingly by the masses.

The fact that something is widely accepted does mean there is something special about it, but that special thing is more than often a narcotic state of empty pleasure.

But doesn't that apply to most things in most people's lives? After all, not too many bother to actually reason why something is good.

No one's understandings are furthered in the digestion of a Rowling book, she writes to entertain and only to entertain.

Well then surely we can say her writing must be a success, if her entertainment brought her an income of several millions.

However, I never said anything about it being a classic. For one, I cannot see Rowling still being the same as she is now, in 2028.

Among the reasons why her books are so unpopular is that they lack the conscious inherent is almost all other children's literature. Children's books are almost always designed to secretly teach, usually this is done through a moral like a fairy tale but it is also sometimes done by witty use of language like the phantom tollbooth or alice and wonderland. Children's books are designed to raise children into educated and well reading adults.

So unpopular? The least sold of her books sold over 50 million copies. Can you seriously call that unpopular?

I doubt unpopular books would have news of the release day of a new installment in the television. Or is the papers, for that matter.

Rowling's books are part of the modern idea that children are to be treated and catered to in the same way as adults. Her books entertain children by dealing with simple ideas they can understand, telling simple stories and solving problems in illogical ways with minimal character development. Rowling's books are literary lollipop or macaroni with cheese, children love these things and sometimes even adults can enjoy them, but if they are all you eat you will grow fat, stupid and with no understanding of true nutrition or flavour.

Hey, don't go insulting lollipops! They're good!

 

[Kuu]

Re: celebrity attractions

No. As a profession, the goal of a writer is to make money. In this case, Rowling is a successful writer. As a hobby, the goal of a writer is usually expressing themselves or putting time into something they like doing. Even in this sense, Rowling succeeded, as she has said that she's writing the story "for herself".

You capitalist bastard! The goal of a writer is to write great books! Repeat after me: life is not about money. Life is NOT about money. It only seems so because our socio-economic model forces us to do "money first, personal goals later (if ever)". Lucky is the one who does what he loves, and happens to get well paid for it. This hobby/profession false dichotomy makes me want to kill some managers... Guess I'll die a starving artist; no friends, no family, no money...

Maybe she started doing them for herself. But she got corrupted by the money. Book series suck. Movie sequels suck. Trilogies suck even more. TV series with many unplanned seasons suck. There are some exceptions, but that is the basic pattern...

Sales just happen to be the only statistically accurate data we got. Therefore, it's the only data we can use to measure the success of it.

But who's success? Certainly the marketers. But that doesn't make her a literary genius! Selling zillions of books does not make you a good writer, only a good salesman.

So that is your only measure of objective success? I can certainly find many objective reasons why it is flawed...

The diversity of the audience and the fantastic sales of the movies, the games, the books and all other additional merchandise is more than enough to prove that there's got to be something different about Harry Potter. Something that Dostoevsky or Kafka don't have. Surely, if you ask someone to tell you something about the lives of Harry Potter or Rodion Raskolnikov, much, much more people would be able to tell so much more about Harry Potter. And you know, Rodion Raskolnikov is the main character in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, which is pretty much seen as one of the best pieces of literature ever.

Yeah, the different thing is that Kafka or Dostoevsky wrote deeply thought provoking books. Harry Potter sells because it is novel and easily digestible (hence the wider audience). You said it: merchandise. Harry Potter is not literature, Harry Potter is merchandise.

I doubt that in 150 years Harry Potter will have the popularity that Dostoevsky's works enjoy today...

 

[Mischz]

But doesn't that apply to most things in most people's lives? After all, not too many bother to actually reason why something is good.

This thread specifically called into question whether her books had literary merit so yes, while not too many bother to actually reason why some things are good, we are attempting to (so it's not a good idea to use it as a reason to justify your stance ^^).

So unpopular? The least sold of her books sold over 50 million copies. Can you seriously call that unpopular?

I think he/she meant with the literary crowd.

-
I read the first book "Philosopher's Stone" but only because it happened to be on my student's table (tuition classes when I was in university). It had no impression on me so I didn't read the rest. No impetus to.

Is she a literary genius imo? No. Not even close.

 

[murkrow]

So unpopular? The least sold of her books sold over 50 million copies. Can you seriously call that unpopular?

I doubt unpopular books would have news of the release day of a new installment in the television. Or is the papers, for that matter.

My bad, meant to say POPULAR.

 

[Thomas Young]

Re: celebrity attractions

50 Cent is good lyrically, I'd love to see you write a decent rap verse that rhymes and makes sense at the same time. Jordan, I think not, so can it young one.

 

[ElectricWizard]

Re: celebrity attractions

You capitalist bastard! The goal of a writer is to write great books! Repeat after me: life is not about money. Life is NOT about money. It only seems so because our socio-economic model forces us to do "money first, personal goals later (if ever)". Lucky is the one who does what he loves, and happens to get well paid for it. This hobby/profession false dichotomy makes me want to kill some managers... Guess I'll die a starving artist; no friends, no family, no money...

I now respect you to some extent.

Also, 50 Cent may have retired (I'm going by what you said there), but that does not in any way mean that good artists are going to become recognized. Corporate fluff is still going to be far better known than even popular good bands, like Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath, and books like the Harry Potter or Twilight series will still be more popular than Lord Dunsany or Hesse.

 

[Jordan~]

Re: celebrity attractions

50 Cent is good lyrically, I'd love to see you write a decent rap verse that rhymes and makes sense at the same time. Jordan, I think not, so can it young one.

I do not claim to be a lyricist, he does. I can criticise his talent because he claims to have it. I have made no such claim.

 

[Decaf]

To take this argument away from sales figures I would like to state my view based on having read all the books.

Is she a good story teller? Yes. The stories pull you in once you are invested in the characters, but therein lies her weakness as an author. Its not Harry Potter that pulls you in because he is not a well written character. The setting is the character that pulls you in (take note that the setting was designed based on other people's works that are less well known for marketing reasongs... including a book who's main character is an English boy named Harry Potter). For some that's not enough and that's their prerogative.

So what do I mean by Harry Potter being a bad character? Why does that make Rowling a weak author? Harry Potter is a prop. Since we're on what is fundamentally an MBTI forum, take a moment to try to figure out what personality type Harry is. Experts have mused on this for a long time, and frankly its inconsistent. He's a character that changes depending on what story is being told, more like a book of short stories than a cohesive series. This will probably be the only time I ever say this... but the movies did a better job of character development than the books did.

I understand some of the reasoning to add different character elements jumbled together (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt in that it was intentional) but the end result is a bust. But if the result was based on something unintentional, then that rates her at best as an amateur novelist with professional status.

 

[Thomas Young]

Re: celebrity attractions

No, but you shouldn't criticise someone of having no talent if you can't get anywhere near his level. Just say you don't like the genre of music, or you dislike the person.

 

[Jordan~]

Saying I dislike the person would be worse than criticising their talent. And if I put some effort into it (I have no desire to put any effort into it) I probably could reach his level. It is not hard to write rhyming verse totally devoid of any kind of meaningful imagery or any other literary techniques that aren't transparent and shallow.

It's besides the point - whether or not I could match their talent has nothing to do with whether they actually have any. He has talent as a money-making puppet for Universal, I'll give you that. I suppose that you can't criticise anyone in the pharmaceutical industry when they release a drug without adequately testing it, resulting in it having an unprecedented negative impact on many people who take it - you are not a doctor, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[Thomas Young]

Its just how I think you feel about him, well if you prefer, its just not your bag. I believe you didn't criticize his talent you stated that he didn't have any at all. The point is you don't like his way of music but you cannot say he's talentless. Whether or not you can reach his level is irrelevant because right now you are NOT at his level and are therefore in no position to judge how much talent he has. You even saying that you could reach his level of lyrical delivery is laughable. Who said his music is devoid of meaning and imagery? you? these 'things' flying out your mouth are absurd. They can mean things to others, people like you need to get your words straight you are in no position to comment on rap music because I can tell from your foolish words and apparent overconfidence in your own ability, you know nothing about it young man. 50 cent and other people do live the lives they talk about, so to alot of people it has much meaning. Since you are not of a similar background, you wont understand it, this music is not for you and not meant to be understood by you. Just ease off the stupid comments in future... try sticking to stuff you do like its more constructive that way.

 

[Agent Intellect]

50 cent was barely half decent before he signed on with eminem, now his stuff is aweful. honestly, i could probably rap better then him, or at least write better lyrics. but not even comparing him to myself, but to other hip hop artists, he's garbage. people like him are exactly whats wrong with hip hop and i really can't blame people unfamiliar with it for hating it when people like 50 cent are representitive of it.

even Wu-Tang thinks 50 cent sucks

 

[Jordan~]

Good music will be universal, and not require a particular scene or background to be appreciated. While perhaps meaning is relative, literary device is objective: the lyrics are either rich in literary depth, or they're not. I like lyrics to be like poetry, and I like poetry to be very much unlike everyday speech - it can communicate so much more, that way.

 

[Thomas Young]

I disagree, I find alot of poetry far too pretentious. I like it when people say what they mean literally it communicates far better to me to just say what you mean without all the airy fairy sugar coating. Good music is not universal. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion? I do like the fact there's a story that I can relate to aswell. Not that I've lived it myself but I can totally understand the predicament of living in the ghetto.

 

[Thomas Young]

No, you could not rap better than him, that's a silly thing to say. If you don't like it you should say so, but his first album I'm sorry to say, was absolute fire!! I'm not a huge fan of Wu Tang anyway, I prefer harder beats than them. I do agree he has gone downhill since his first album, but that's true with most artists I think.

 

[Thomas Young]

But I'd like to add also, I think its just a black thing, most black people are into this music most white people are into their rock and other bandy-bands. To be honest, they all sing about stuff I don't relate to or care that much about, like the woe of being a teenage loser and all that... We put our point across in a different way I think white people tend to be lighter in their approach (no offence).

 

[Jordan~]

Good poetry in general will have a universally applicable theme, and use a plot or a description of some sort to expose that theme. While you may not be able to relate to the experiences being recounted, you ought to be able to relate to the underlying theme, e.g. the nature of loss, or the value of individuality. I'm not saying I can rap better than 50 Cent - if that was aimed at me - only that I can write better.
As to complexity in poetry, what one calls pretention is often simply what one cannot comprehend. Consider "John walks across the road" - a simple sentence that expresses a truth, that John walks across the road. The reader can consider, "Why was he crossing the road? Where was he going?" Compare this to "John hurries across the road" - this invites further questions, such as "Why was he hurrying?" As you deviate further away from the most basic form of the sentence, the amount of detail contained in the same number of words grows vastly. Indeed, I've written several paragraphs on a single significant word before. Furthermore, you can break away from the world of reality altogether, and communicate the plot or the description allegorically from a created reality, thus allowing the thick layering of extended metaphor, recurring themes, etc.
Take, for example, the song Emily by Joanna Newsom. At one point, she sings of the break down of order in her life (surely most people experience this, even if not in quite the same way?). Now, she could just sing, "I was in a right state, but then my sister came along and made it all better!" Instead, she sings:

"You came and lay a cold compress upon the mess I'm in;
threw the window wide, and cried and amen amen amen.
The whole world stopped to hear you hollering.
And you looked down and saw, now, what was happening:"

See the difference? The reference to a cold compress - a medical tool used to reduce swelling and pain - tells us the impact that Emily (the "you" mentioned) has on the narrator, as well as revealing something about the events that drew her before they're revealed (that they must have been "inflamed" and painful). Then there's the religious imagery, throwing the windows wide and crying "amen, amen, amen", suggesting how important and profound these actions were: it seems to the narrator that her sister is almost angelic in her restorative presence. The idea of her importance to the narrator continues with the suggestion that everyone stopped what they were doing to listen, which, while not literally true, shows how the narrator perceived the situation. Finally, we get onto the revelation of the actual event.
It's not pretention, it's art - conveying so much more detail in not much more space. A good poet makes every word critical.

 

[Thomas Young]

Wow take a breath! haha. ye ok you have a point but I have heard some of her stuff and yes Miss Newsoms is good at harp playing but the wording maybe skilled I don't find much room for it in the way I feel so I can't relate to it. Maybe its something to do with the tone of the whole thing I prefer a more gritty, straight forward and altogether more punchy delivery.

 

[Waterstiller]

But I'd like to add also, I think its just a black thing, most black people are into this music most white people are into their rock and other bandy-bands. To be honest, they all sing about stuff I don't relate to or care that much about, like the woe of being a teenage loser and all that... We put our point across in a different way I think white people tend to be lighter in their approach (no offence).

I agree with you to an extent. Most people who don't deal with oppression tend to be lighter and distanced from one-another. The ignored need to be unified, rallied, and made passionate on some level to promote social change. It only makes sense that their music would be so explicit; it is understandable that their music conveys the anger that not having a voice has.

I dislike this, however, and find it to be completely ineffective. It just separates the oppressors from the oppressed even further, which makes it easier for ignorance. Don't let the oppressors feel your anger.. let them know you're truly not any different from them and they can't ignore you anymore.



I'm not a critic anymore. I gave that up just recently. Now I try to understand the perspective of every musician and every listener as best I can. All I can do is try to communicate how certain works make me feel and why I'm in love with them.. because what I consider the 'best' is only relevant to me.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Good evening Ladies I tell you from the start
I'm hoping you enjoy my amusement park
There's lots of activities fun things to do
And I'll find my pleasure in pleasing you
Some rides go fast some rides go slow
You fear heights when I'm high hell yeah I'll go low
It tastes so sweet that sticky cotton candy
We get carried away we be startin a family
It's a perfect time for a magic trick
Girl you know it's no fun without the magic stick
Now watch me as I pull a rabbit out a hat
Then you can use the rabbit all over your cat
Applause now that's the first half of my act
Started out a pimp now I'm more like a mac
I don't need your paper just don't fuck with my stacks
(Oh it's like that?) Yeah it's like that

^see look, 50 cent can use metaphors too. what talent!

 

[Thomas Young]

That's not on his first album, but it's not a bad track tho haha

 

[Thomas Young]

I'm innocent in my head, like a baby born dead
Destination heaven
Sittin politic with passengers from nine eleven
The Lord's blessins leave me lyrically inclined
Shit I ain't even got to try to shine
God's the seamstress that tailor fitted my pain
I got scriptures in my brain I could spit at yo dame
Straight out the good book, look, niggas is shook
Fifty fear no man, Warrior, swingin swords like Conan
Picture me, pen in hand writin lines knowin the Source'll quote it
When I die, they'll read this and say a genius wrote it
I grew up without my pops, should that make me bitter?
I caught cases I copped out, does that make me a quitter?
In this white man's world, I'm similar to a squirrel
Lookin for a slut wit a nice butt to get a nut
If I get shot today my phone'll stop ringin again
These industry niggas ain't friends, they know how to pretend

That's a tight verse. 50.

 

[Agent Intellect]

some of the lines were decent in that verse, i'll admit, but then he had to fuck it up by adding some of those retarded vintage 50 cent lines

In this white man's world, I'm similar to a squirrel
Lookin for a slut wit a nice butt to get a nut

*shudders*

 

[Thomas Young]

haha, ye I agree that was pretty wack.

 

[Waterstiller]

The genius, as far as the marketability, of Hip Hop is in its competitiveness. Its roots are as much in the dignified aspects of our oral tradition as it is in the tradition of "the dozens" or "signifying". In Hip Hop, every emcee is automatically pitted against every other emcee, sort of like characters with super powers in comic books. No one wants to listen to a rapper unless they claim to be the best or the greatest. This sort of braggadocio leads to all sorts of tirades, showdowns, battles, and sometimes even deaths. In all cases, confidence is the ruling card. Because of the competitive stance that all emcees are prone to take, they, like soldiers begin to believe that they can show no sign of vulnerability. Thus, the most popular emcees of our age are often those that claim to be heartless or show no feelings or signs of emotion. The poet, on the other hand, is the one who realizes that their vulnerability is their power. Like you, unafraid to shed tears on countless shows, the poet finds strength in exposing their humanity, their vulnerability, thus making it possible for us to find connection and strength through their work. Many emcees have been poets. But, no, Ms. Winfrey, not all emcees are poets. Many choose gangsterism and business over the emotional terrain through which true artistry will lead. But they are not to blame. I would now like to address your question of leadership.

This was written to Oprah Winfrey in response to her dancing to a 50 Cent song on her show. The excerpt says what I want to say about the discussion between Thomas and Jordan. The entire article is absolutely beautiful.

 

[Thomas Young]

Ye that's niceley put, but confidence and positivity is the key to a good life, not wollowing in your own world of sorrow and feeling sorry for yourself. I do realise about the comic book thing I once compared the mainstream hip hop game to WWE wrestling. Although I know alot of it is bullshit and cameradery, it's entertaining, and I find alot of the stuff they say uplifting and inspirational too. I just take the good out of it.

 

[Jordan~]

And if one wants to wallow in a world of sorrow, feeling sorry for oneself? Not that I'm saying I do, just that you ought to define what a good life is. For me, it's doing nothing on the grounds that someone else made me. Also, this isn't what poetry is about. Exposing your emotions does not mean being miserable (though a lot of poets, e.g. Sylvia Plath [who's one of my facourites] are/were - this is probably more because their type has an inclination towards misery). There is such a thing as happy, uplifting, and/or inspirational poetry (Ms Newsom's Monkey & Bear, for example, which inspired me personally to make a life-changing decision). I would rather read about a universal theme (the nature of freedom in Monkey & Bear, for example) than about the kinds of things that happen in my life - mostly because those are pretty boring, or at least, certainly not in any way profound or deeply meaningful.
Anyway, are confidence and positivity really the keys to a good life? And if so, by whose definition of "good"?

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm not a critic anymore. I gave that up just recently. Now I try to understand the perspective of every musician and every listener as best I can. All I can do is try to communicate how certain works make me feel and why I'm in love with them.. because what I consider the 'best' is only relevant to me.

Yes, essentially there is no "universal" criteria except what we choose to prioritize.

Hence, any criticism of another work is simply describing what values we hold that the work is not aspiring to meet. Sometimes these values are widely held within the culture and so seem to be "universal" and can even be assumed to be within the culture but the fact remains that they invoked a particular assumed stance and that if the culture would radically change, those values might no longer be considered in vogue and thus relevant.

In any case, even the act of criticism assumes that the work being shared should be approached in terms of evaluating its failings or seeming inconsistencies. It's essentially a relic of Age of Reason thinking, where the whole can be understood by dissection. (And that is not an unuseful thing sometimes, it was remarkable helpful in scientific and anatomical pursuits, etc.)

But there are other more holistic approaches that are more positive in spirit, where you take a "sifting" approach and are looking for the points of connection with the artist/writer rather than focusing on the things you disagree with or don't like. The assumption there is that the artist has a message, and your goal as the listener/reader is to perceive that message.

(Or, taking it further in yet another direction, perhaps the work doesn't need to be evaluated as a consistent whole but simply used as a catalyst to see what it triggers within your own thought/emotional life.)

I guess I am just saying that criticism is but one approach, not the only approach, and while useful sometimes might not suit the needs of the audience.

 

[Thomas Young]

Wallowing in sorrow would be detrimental to that person as it is bad to dwell on negative emotions. A good life is to be positive but balanced, a neutral psitive attitude to everything you encounter, and keeping your mind in the immediate here and now and trying not to look back or forward as it causes anxiety to do so. Confidence and looking towards the good in every situation are the key to living a positive life yes. This definition is from past and present prophets of truth who are high in knowledge of the spirit and creation. Well... you asked

 

[Jordan~]

Looking forward and back and ignoring the here and now is a very iNtuitive trait. I hate to nitpick (I don't really), but that was an appeal to authority: Who are these prophets and why do I care what they say?

 

[Thomas Young]

No, I'm not saying to ignore the past, but do not dwell on negative experiences if they are not serving you well. The past can serve you in this way: If you fall down a ditch on a path and brake your ankle. You know the next time not to walk the path or avoid the ditch when you walk there the next time. This is how the past may serve you. Looking forward to something causes anxieties and throws you off course. But if you see things with cognition and percieve an event not turning out well (like a gut feeling) you should listen to that and deviate from that event. These prophets are people with great knowledge look up Billy Meier if you want to know more about the prophet of our times. He has great wisdim and can probably put the truth in far better and clearer ways than me.

 

[Dissident]

This guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier

Are you serious?

 

[Jordan~]

Okay, that explains some things.

 

[Waterstiller]

Hence, any criticism of another work is simply describing what values we hold that the work is not aspiring to meet. Sometimes these values are widely held within the culture and so seem to be "universal" and can even be assumed to be within the culture but the fact remains that they invoked a particular assumed stance and that if the culture would radically change, those values might no longer be considered in vogue and thus relevant.

In any case, even the act of criticism assumes that the work being shared should be approached in terms of evaluating its failings or seeming inconsistencies. It's essentially a relic of Age of Reason thinking, where the whole can be understood by dissection. (And that is not an unuseful thing sometimes, it was remarkable helpful in scientific and anatomical pursuits, etc.)

But there are other more holistic approaches that are more positive in spirit, where you take a "sifting" approach and are looking for the points of connection with the artist/writer rather than focusing on the things you disagree with or don't like. The assumption there is that the artist has a message, and your goal as the listener/reader is to perceive that message.

(Or, taking it further in yet another direction, perhaps the work doesn't need to be evaluated as a consistent whole but simply used as a catalyst to see what it triggers within your own thought/emotional life.)

Well said.


*lol* at Billy Meier.

 

[Devercia]

This guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier

Are you serious?

I could make Jung look just as crazy. Your an INTP. Ethos should be irrelevant.

 

[Jordan~]

Just because we're INTP doesn't mean we just nod and say "Yeah, okay!" to every loon claiming to have met people from the Pleiades.

 

[Thomas Young]

To Dissident, yes I am serious. To Jordan no it doesn't but my father who gained knowledge through meditation, also showed me the nature of creation. This was before I heard of Billy Meiers teachings, that incidentally go hand in hand with the teachings of my father who I might add knows nothing of Billy Meier. So these two things that fit together, plus, my own research shows this case to be true.
So having said that, Jordan I say to you I haven't nodded and said 'yes okay' without my own thinking and meditation. The more I researched it, and pondered the words, the more it made sense to me.
Its funny though, how people ridicule and call something crazy when they don't understand it or have never even looked at it with intelligence. How can you say this man is confused when it is you who are confused and don't understand?