>Plot holes >Plot contrivances >Inconsistent characterization >Inconsistent worldbuilding >Inconsistent internal logic >Retcons
Are all examples of objectively bad writing and anyone who tries to insist that there's no such thing as objectively bad writing is someone trying to defend mediocrity
>plot holes
Yes, plot holes are objectively bad. >Plot contrivances
Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad. >Inconsistent characterization
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"? >Inconsistent worldbuilding
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"? >Inconsistent internal logic
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"? >Retcons
Retcons aren't objectively bad.
>Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad.
How? >Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a character acts one way then acts completely differently. >Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a world is told to work this one way and then switches up the rules or contradicts itself. >Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that is objectively bad writing. >Retcons aren't objectively bad.
How?
A plot contrivance is literally just something contrived to move the plot forward, it's in the name. Without plot contrivances, usually you wouldn't have a plot at all. >we need to go to the magical castle >alright, why aren't we already there? >because the magical castle is on the other side of the haunted forest. We'll have to travel
That's a plot contrivance. It's the reason why every story doesn't end in the shortest amount of time with no conflict.
Certainly, a poorly written plot contrivance is poor writing, but at that point you might as well just say "bad writing is bad writing."
The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes >that scene is out of character >I found it totally in-character >well I didn't >well I did
And you can just go back and forth on that with no progress made
Your last example is using something very obvious and clearly bad writing. Yeah sure, if a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that's bad
What is a show says he's weak to water, but still able to function if he's wet? And then you have a fight scene where he gets a little wet, is visibly weakened, but powers through and wins?
You're gonna have debates like >that's unrealistic, the water should have weakened him too much for him to win >no, it's totally consistent with his strength and determination
And nobody could be clearly right
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lastly is retcons. Retcons just mean "retroactive continuity," and it's an inevitability in just about any story that goes longer than one individual story. Comic #2 probably retcons some aspect of Comic #1.
All it is is, when a story develops, things that happened earlier will be reinterpreted in some way. It's not objectively good or objectively bad, it just is.
Like, in Batman 156, Robin Dies At Dawn, there's a random unnamed doctor. He's an utterly neutral character, he performs some scientific tests, and that's it.
Later, in Batman RIP, a new Batman villain was introduced named "Doctor Simon Hurt." They retconned it so he was the unnamed doctor from Robin Dies At Dawn was Doctor Simon Hurt, collecting information on Batman and implanting suggestions in his mind.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There's ways that you can make a story consistent without having to retroactively change what came before it. That's called bad writing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes >>that scene is out of character >>I found it totally in-character >>well I didn't >>well I did
No. If a character acts very consistently one way and then suddenly starts acting another way, then it is inconsistent, and objectively bad writing.
This is a reductio ad absurdum. The entire criticism of a plot contrivance is that it advances the plot in a bad and contrived way. There's ways to advance the plot without being contrived. Stop trying to be reductionist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>bad writing is bad
Brilliant insight
There's ways that you can make a story consistent without having to retroactively change what came before it. That's called bad writing.
Give an example of a series with zero retcons
>The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes >>that scene is out of character >>I found it totally in-character >>well I didn't >>well I did
No. If a character acts very consistently one way and then suddenly starts acting another way, then it is inconsistent, and objectively bad writing.
Oh you’re just repeating stuff now? Cool, makes responding easier
The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes >that scene is out of character >I found it totally in-character >well I didn't >well I did
And you can just go back and forth on that with no progress made
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Strawman
A plot can advance forward without needing to be contrived.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I love plots, I hate plot contrivances >I love buildings, I hate building materials >I love food, I hate ingredients
And so on and so forth
Literally every story on earth has plot contrivances. The only ones that don't are anti-stories. Like, My Dinner With Andre doesn't have any plot contrivances. Is that the only movie you like?
You seem to be confusing the general idea of plot points with contrivances, which specifically refers to points that feel immersion-breaking for one reason or another. They aren’t a broad term referring to plot points as a whole, but specifically a type of bad point. What exactly counts as “contrived” varies case-by-case, though generally it is because the point in question is either poorly introduced or explained, or because the point itself doesn’t seem to have a logical in-narrative basis. Using your example, a contrived plot would be something like: >we need to go to the magical castle >alright, why aren't we already there? >because the magical castle is on the other side of the haunted forest. >don’t worry guys, I know about a secret teleportation chamber that takes us straight inside that I’ve neglected to mention up to this point.
It advances the plot sure, but if there is no foreshadowing or reason to think this is a possible way the plot could develop, what is the audience going to think? Probably that the writer didn’t know how to get from point A to point B, and just ends up handwaving the whole thing instead of having taken the time planning it out. You are no longer looking at characters finding a solution, but the writer handing them one on a silver platter.
Plot holes are usually small details that can be interpreted in a variety of ways that the story didn't explicitly explain, but you can still usually gauge which interpretation the story itself goes with. This is usually the case for "inconsistent internal logic", as well.
>Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad.
How? >Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a character acts one way then acts completely differently. >Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a world is told to work this one way and then switches up the rules or contradicts itself. >Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that is objectively bad writing. >Retcons aren't objectively bad.
How?
>If a character acts one way then acts completely differently.
Can be argued to be character development. >If a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that is objectively bad writing.
That's a simplified example. Real examples of what could potentially constitute as an inconsistency usually leave a bit more room for argument.
To a degree, yes. Any artistic work has both objective (technical) and subjective (stylistic/thematic) aspects to it. In writing, the most obvious example of this is using the correct words, correct grammar, correct spelling, and other such things, but it also goes beyond that as even the construction of a story has objective/technical aspects to it. In drawing or painting, I suppose stuff like perspective, anatomy, and being able to draw the correct shapes would be the equivalent.
To the point of reaching a general consensus on the merits of a work or lack thereof? Sure. To the point where someone, somewhere won't still like it regardless? No, of course not.
You are being moronic on purpose. There's an easy way to identify if something is contrived or not. There's a difference between plot progression and plot contrivance. Plot contrivance is an attempt to move the plot forward with ridiculous events that have very clearly been forced by the writer. Again, you're playing reductio ad absurdum
And there's a difference between good ones and bad ones.
That's what I said. Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad. I then explained that a plot contrivance is literally just something contrived to move the plot forward, it's in the name. Without plot contrivances, usually you wouldn't have a plot at all. I conceded that a poorly written plot contrivance is poor writing, but at that point you might as well just say "bad writing is bad writing."
Now you say "there's a difference between good ones and bad ones." Yes of course! But if there are "good ones" and "bad ones," then they're not all "objectively bad" are they?
The entire post modern basis of subjectivity being god is fricking moronic. Bunch of limp dick philosophy majors made a qualitative framework by misinterpreting an out of context essay chapter (Death of the Author, it astounds me how many people haven't read the whole thing and realized that the chapter everyone fricking quotes is basically a theoretical mental framework(IE not how art should be universally viewed), one the actual author cites as having flaws in the first fricking chapter) that just so happened to make it easier for them to write essays about works of art.
When homosexuals say "art is subjective" they are ironically touting this flawed philosophical framework as objective fact. And noone points out the hypocrisy because a ton of people that paid a lot of money to get their degrees would all realize they're fricking worthless if it wasn't so.
>chapter everyone fricking quotes is basically a theoretical mental framework(IE not how art should be universally viewed)
How does this discredit Death of the Author? Art can still be viewed that way.
But subjectivity is not even about consciously applying DotA. It's simply acknowledging the fact that people will have different impressions of something based on their life experience. That is an objective fact. So whenever someone suddenly begins to act like they're le ebin objective critic, it's good to remind them that they are just a fricking sack of flesh basing their impression off their limited personal life experience.
>Art can still be viewed that way.
I'm not saying it can't, I'm saying disingenuous homosexuals like you keep pushing the meme that this one way is the objectively correct view of it, and whenever someone DARES come at it with a different philosophical framework(the idea of certain aspect of art HAVING objective qualities) you get little kickers in a twist and say they wrong you right, while both claims have the exact same amount of legitimacy. Your stance is just more inherently hypocritical, because you're saying everything is subjective, except your own view that everything is subjective.
Now kindly frick off to twitter, reddit, or community college, and take the opinions you are regurgitating back back to the mama bird that fed them to you.
Yes and no. On the one hand, subjectivity shades one “objective” truth no matter how much they try and escape it. It’s so common that in the writing world it is to be expected from everyone. No matter where you submit, who you show, or how many you deliver, you must expect your work to be subjectively viewed. There’s a reason the saying “third or fourth glass” is considered to be true.
But objectivity also exists to some degree. There are general rules/guidelines that we all seem to adhere to, and it’s obvious when someone breaks them without understanding them. The room is bad. Birdemic is bad. There is inherently some objectivity, even if he can’t quite define it.
It’s a hard to answer question. One the one hand, everything is subjective. Even writers/editors know this. As a writer, you know some editors will love your work, and some will hate it. Some will love it after their third glass of wine, and then hate it on their fourth. As an editor, you try and make the piece you work on the best IT can be. Not the best you want it to be. But your own bias will always seep through, no matter how careful you are, and you require the author to keep you in check.
So it means that all art is subjective and there is no objectivity right? No.
When you break things down to small bits, you find specificity. There are objective rules. They can be broken, but you need to understand them to begin with. Editors will point out misspelled words. That’s objective. (Unless spelled wrong on purpose to demonstrate an accent.) Or they will correct grammar, which is objective (unless it’s to show a characters lack of education.) So there is objectivity, but the moment you demagnify things, it gets really blurry really quickly.
So where does that leave movies and the like? You can talk subjectively as much as you like, and argue over broad points. But if you want objectivity, you focus in on elements that are smaller. The lighting, the cgi, the fight choreography, the narrative, etc. It won’t be perfectly objective, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and reach for it. You’ll also have to assume intent on behalf of the author, but that’s to be assumed. That’s even how editing works for fricks sake.
“Subjective” does not mean “without merit.”
Not all subjective opinions are equivalent.
>Plot holes
>Plot contrivances
>Inconsistent characterization
>Inconsistent worldbuilding
>Inconsistent internal logic
>Retcons
Are all examples of objectively bad writing and anyone who tries to insist that there's no such thing as objectively bad writing is someone trying to defend mediocrity
>plot holes
Yes, plot holes are objectively bad.
>Plot contrivances
Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad.
>Inconsistent characterization
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
>Inconsistent worldbuilding
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
>Inconsistent internal logic
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
>Retcons
Retcons aren't objectively bad.
>Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad.
How?
>Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a character acts one way then acts completely differently.
>Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a world is told to work this one way and then switches up the rules or contradicts itself.
>Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that is objectively bad writing.
>Retcons aren't objectively bad.
How?
A plot contrivance is literally just something contrived to move the plot forward, it's in the name. Without plot contrivances, usually you wouldn't have a plot at all.
>we need to go to the magical castle
>alright, why aren't we already there?
>because the magical castle is on the other side of the haunted forest. We'll have to travel
That's a plot contrivance. It's the reason why every story doesn't end in the shortest amount of time with no conflict.
Certainly, a poorly written plot contrivance is poor writing, but at that point you might as well just say "bad writing is bad writing."
The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes
>that scene is out of character
>I found it totally in-character
>well I didn't
>well I did
And you can just go back and forth on that with no progress made
Your last example is using something very obvious and clearly bad writing. Yeah sure, if a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that's bad
What is a show says he's weak to water, but still able to function if he's wet? And then you have a fight scene where he gets a little wet, is visibly weakened, but powers through and wins?
You're gonna have debates like
>that's unrealistic, the water should have weakened him too much for him to win
>no, it's totally consistent with his strength and determination
And nobody could be clearly right
Lastly is retcons. Retcons just mean "retroactive continuity," and it's an inevitability in just about any story that goes longer than one individual story. Comic #2 probably retcons some aspect of Comic #1.
All it is is, when a story develops, things that happened earlier will be reinterpreted in some way. It's not objectively good or objectively bad, it just is.
Like, in Batman 156, Robin Dies At Dawn, there's a random unnamed doctor. He's an utterly neutral character, he performs some scientific tests, and that's it.
Later, in Batman RIP, a new Batman villain was introduced named "Doctor Simon Hurt." They retconned it so he was the unnamed doctor from Robin Dies At Dawn was Doctor Simon Hurt, collecting information on Batman and implanting suggestions in his mind.
There's ways that you can make a story consistent without having to retroactively change what came before it. That's called bad writing.
>The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes
>>that scene is out of character
>>I found it totally in-character
>>well I didn't
>>well I did
No. If a character acts very consistently one way and then suddenly starts acting another way, then it is inconsistent, and objectively bad writing.
This is a reductio ad absurdum. The entire criticism of a plot contrivance is that it advances the plot in a bad and contrived way. There's ways to advance the plot without being contrived. Stop trying to be reductionist.
>bad writing is bad
Brilliant insight
Give an example of a series with zero retcons
Oh you’re just repeating stuff now? Cool, makes responding easier
The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes
>that scene is out of character
>I found it totally in-character
>well I didn't
>well I did
And you can just go back and forth on that with no progress made
>Strawman
A plot can advance forward without needing to be contrived.
>I love plots, I hate plot contrivances
>I love buildings, I hate building materials
>I love food, I hate ingredients
And so on and so forth
Literally every story on earth has plot contrivances. The only ones that don't are anti-stories. Like, My Dinner With Andre doesn't have any plot contrivances. Is that the only movie you like?
You seem to be confusing the general idea of plot points with contrivances, which specifically refers to points that feel immersion-breaking for one reason or another. They aren’t a broad term referring to plot points as a whole, but specifically a type of bad point. What exactly counts as “contrived” varies case-by-case, though generally it is because the point in question is either poorly introduced or explained, or because the point itself doesn’t seem to have a logical in-narrative basis. Using your example, a contrived plot would be something like:
>we need to go to the magical castle
>alright, why aren't we already there?
>because the magical castle is on the other side of the haunted forest.
>don’t worry guys, I know about a secret teleportation chamber that takes us straight inside that I’ve neglected to mention up to this point.
It advances the plot sure, but if there is no foreshadowing or reason to think this is a possible way the plot could develop, what is the audience going to think? Probably that the writer didn’t know how to get from point A to point B, and just ends up handwaving the whole thing instead of having taken the time planning it out. You are no longer looking at characters finding a solution, but the writer handing them one on a silver platter.
Do you even know what objective means? It isn't just an antonym for your personal definition of subjective. You fricking homosexual.
Plot holes are usually small details that can be interpreted in a variety of ways that the story didn't explicitly explain, but you can still usually gauge which interpretation the story itself goes with. This is usually the case for "inconsistent internal logic", as well.
>If a character acts one way then acts completely differently.
Can be argued to be character development.
>If a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that is objectively bad writing.
That's a simplified example. Real examples of what could potentially constitute as an inconsistency usually leave a bit more room for argument.
Poasting in a filler thread.
To a degree, yes. Any artistic work has both objective (technical) and subjective (stylistic/thematic) aspects to it. In writing, the most obvious example of this is using the correct words, correct grammar, correct spelling, and other such things, but it also goes beyond that as even the construction of a story has objective/technical aspects to it. In drawing or painting, I suppose stuff like perspective, anatomy, and being able to draw the correct shapes would be the equivalent.
I want to say no but the prequels are somehow objectively bad
No
Yes. You can establish a standard using your knowledge of the medium and then judge any individual work based on that standard.
To the point of reaching a general consensus on the merits of a work or lack thereof? Sure. To the point where someone, somewhere won't still like it regardless? No, of course not.
PIZZA ROLLS
I'm reading this whole thread in his voice, stop it.
I am being regarded as correct. All plots have contrivances
Are you trying to tell me that plot holes aren't objectively bad, or that plot contrivances are?
You are being moronic on purpose. There's an easy way to identify if something is contrived or not. There's a difference between plot progression and plot contrivance. Plot contrivance is an attempt to move the plot forward with ridiculous events that have very clearly been forced by the writer. Again, you're playing reductio ad absurdum
That's what I said. Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad. I then explained that a plot contrivance is literally just something contrived to move the plot forward, it's in the name. Without plot contrivances, usually you wouldn't have a plot at all. I conceded that a poorly written plot contrivance is poor writing, but at that point you might as well just say "bad writing is bad writing."
Now you say "there's a difference between good ones and bad ones." Yes of course! But if there are "good ones" and "bad ones," then they're not all "objectively bad" are they?
And there's a difference between good ones and bad ones.
Maybe in art where there are apparently no actual rules. But I'd say you can judge quality in practical work like engineering.
The entire post modern basis of subjectivity being god is fricking moronic. Bunch of limp dick philosophy majors made a qualitative framework by misinterpreting an out of context essay chapter (Death of the Author, it astounds me how many people haven't read the whole thing and realized that the chapter everyone fricking quotes is basically a theoretical mental framework(IE not how art should be universally viewed), one the actual author cites as having flaws in the first fricking chapter) that just so happened to make it easier for them to write essays about works of art.
When homosexuals say "art is subjective" they are ironically touting this flawed philosophical framework as objective fact. And noone points out the hypocrisy because a ton of people that paid a lot of money to get their degrees would all realize they're fricking worthless if it wasn't so.
>chapter everyone fricking quotes is basically a theoretical mental framework(IE not how art should be universally viewed)
How does this discredit Death of the Author? Art can still be viewed that way.
But subjectivity is not even about consciously applying DotA. It's simply acknowledging the fact that people will have different impressions of something based on their life experience. That is an objective fact. So whenever someone suddenly begins to act like they're le ebin objective critic, it's good to remind them that they are just a fricking sack of flesh basing their impression off their limited personal life experience.
>Art can still be viewed that way.
I'm not saying it can't, I'm saying disingenuous homosexuals like you keep pushing the meme that this one way is the objectively correct view of it, and whenever someone DARES come at it with a different philosophical framework(the idea of certain aspect of art HAVING objective qualities) you get little kickers in a twist and say they wrong you right, while both claims have the exact same amount of legitimacy. Your stance is just more inherently hypocritical, because you're saying everything is subjective, except your own view that everything is subjective.
Now kindly frick off to twitter, reddit, or community college, and take the opinions you are regurgitating back back to the mama bird that fed them to you.
Yes and no. On the one hand, subjectivity shades one “objective” truth no matter how much they try and escape it. It’s so common that in the writing world it is to be expected from everyone. No matter where you submit, who you show, or how many you deliver, you must expect your work to be subjectively viewed. There’s a reason the saying “third or fourth glass” is considered to be true.
But objectivity also exists to some degree. There are general rules/guidelines that we all seem to adhere to, and it’s obvious when someone breaks them without understanding them. The room is bad. Birdemic is bad. There is inherently some objectivity, even if he can’t quite define it.
It’s a hard to answer question. One the one hand, everything is subjective. Even writers/editors know this. As a writer, you know some editors will love your work, and some will hate it. Some will love it after their third glass of wine, and then hate it on their fourth. As an editor, you try and make the piece you work on the best IT can be. Not the best you want it to be. But your own bias will always seep through, no matter how careful you are, and you require the author to keep you in check.
So it means that all art is subjective and there is no objectivity right? No.
When you break things down to small bits, you find specificity. There are objective rules. They can be broken, but you need to understand them to begin with. Editors will point out misspelled words. That’s objective. (Unless spelled wrong on purpose to demonstrate an accent.) Or they will correct grammar, which is objective (unless it’s to show a characters lack of education.) So there is objectivity, but the moment you demagnify things, it gets really blurry really quickly.
So where does that leave movies and the like? You can talk subjectively as much as you like, and argue over broad points. But if you want objectivity, you focus in on elements that are smaller. The lighting, the cgi, the fight choreography, the narrative, etc. It won’t be perfectly objective, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and reach for it. You’ll also have to assume intent on behalf of the author, but that’s to be assumed. That’s even how editing works for fricks sake.
TLDR your mom is objectively fat, don’t (You) me