One thing I learned from being on the Supernatural message boards…is that I should never go on message boards for shows or anything else that I enjoy.
Another thing I learned is that quality may truly be in the eye of the beholder (beauty, quality, same thing).
I leave you with an open ended question. A question I just can’t come up with a definite answer for.
And that is…
What defines quality? Does success have any factor in it? Is it THE factor?
What I mean is there are stories out there I would consider very…bad. This question came to me after my last blog post and I’m struggling to find the answer. I’m sorry if I’ve asked this before (I have this strange feeling I have…).
Let’s take Twilight as an example. I’ve never read the books, so I shall just base this on the first movie,m which I did see, to be fair.
For me, that was a poor story. It was poor because it was unconvincing. I did not believe a girl that anti-social and quiet/moody was so well liked by her high school peers. I did not believe a 100 year old vampire was interested in a fifteen year old girl…unless he had some sort of mental retardation that stunted his maturity after he had been turned.
I did not believe vampires sparkled when struck by sunlight.
I’m not the only one. It’s almost a fact that everyone agrees with that Twilight is a badly written story.
Yet, hundreds of thousands of people LOVE Twilight. It made a lot of money at the box office. How can this be?
The same goes with books. I couldn’t get past chapter one of Eragon. And that had nothing to do with the story and everything to do with the writing itself.
I’ve written stories I’ve posted on fictionpress.net that I read now and cringe so hard I give myself a headache, and yet people had LOVED them.
The whole Supernatural debate is another one! I always believed I have good taste. Even when a story doesn’t work for me, I always feel I can tell if it’s good or not regardless.
Like Lord of the Rings.
I only got midway the first book before giving up on the wordiness of it, but I would never even for a second say LOTR is a bad story. I’d shoot myself first. It’s better to say I’m too stupid to completely comprehend and appreciate LOTR rather than say it’s lacking (same goes with Dune).
So I trust my mind to be able to tell the difference…for the most part.
But with Supernatural, it’s different. On this message board, I find the episodes I had loved, be bashed by others in a rather convincing way, but still with points I don’t agree with.
An outside critic gave Supernatural a harsh review and there are fans who say her views are narrowed minded because she’s a Castiel fan. And I’m wondering why does that make her views moot?
So I’m stuck. Am I also biased due to my love for a particular character? But does that matter? Even if I did love a certain character, what would that have to do with my ability to discern what is good or not, especially since I’ve loved the show since before the character was introduced?
Okay, let’s say it is all subjective then. It can be both good and bad at the same time since it all depends on the viewer.
Then what the heck are writers striving for? If it’s all subjective, why study the art of writing? Why read books upon books on how to create a bestseller when it’s all subjective anyways?
What are guidelines for when often they are broken and become meaningless?
What defines quality when it comes to storytelling? The novel/movie’s financial success? The awards given? The overall consensus? What?
These things and more are on my mind today.
Now they are on yours! Enjoy!