The Definition of Well Written Page 8

Quote: Marc P @ December 6 2010, 1:32 PM GMT

I hope I won't irritate you with another soundbite - but art isn't a science. Of course one can be objective, but not always about ones own subjectivity,

View original

Marc, I definitely appreciate that view and in any number of other conversations, I'd be making the same point.

What I had hoped to do in this conversation was discuss something beyond the subjective. Or rather to ask if it was possible, and what it might look like, if we tried to define something normally thought of as subjective.

I sometimes feel like I'm trying to have one conversation and everyone else is having another. I'm trying to apply serious critical analysis and most other people seem to keep saying "it's subjective - there's no point to trying to analyse it!"

But, like Sisyphus, I will persevere!

The trouble is the boulder will fall on your head one day!

Quote: zooo @ December 6 2010, 1:43 PM GMT

And you tell other people off for being condescending!

View original

Zooo - seriously? Is it not ok to defend myself from his condescension?

Why aren't you telling him off for his presumption and condescension?

Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 1:48 PM GMT

I'm trying to apply serious critical analysis and most other people seem to keep saying "it's subjective - there's no point to trying to analyse it!"

But, like Sisyphus, I will persevere!

View original

I never said it. Lets see what happens in tonights episode.

Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 1:49 PM GMT

Zooo - seriously? Is it not ok to defend myself from his condescension?

Why aren't you telling him off for his presumption and condescension?

View original

I'm not telling anyone off! I was merely pointing something out.

Again you ignore my point, I was defending myself and yet you chose to "merely point out" my flaw rather than my attacker's.

Oh for god's sake. I give up.

I just re-read the post J. Lazzard was talking in general terms. I can see how you might think it was aimed at you - but from what I can see it is more aimed at a theory based approach to creativity.

Quote: zooo @ December 6 2010, 1:56 PM GMT

Oh for god's sake. I give up.

View original

No don't.
It's getting funnier by the minute.

Quote: Marc P @ December 6 2010, 1:57 PM GMT

I just re-read the post J. Lazzard was talking in general terms. I can see how you might think it was aimed at you - but from what I can see it is more aimed at a theory based approach to creativity.

View original

Correct.

The key to creativity, in my view, is flexibility ... being continuous open to new unexpected directions and connections. Comedy is all about unexpected connections - joining things together, from different unusual categories, that are normally kept apart. Therefore that desire to analyse, and pin it down, is particularly detrimental to creative activity in comedy - you really are killing the living butterfly and dissecting it. If you've boxed it up in a neat theory, you are directly opposing this open-ness, this freedom to move, to change the direction, which is the life-blood of genuine laughs.

so anyway.... back to our line of inquiry.....

We were asking if there was a way to measure the quality of a character, and in turn, can that measuring stick, whatever it may be, be used to help write a definition of "well-written"

also, should ratings be used as any kind of indicator of the quality of writing?

Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 2:04 PM GMT

should ratings be used as any kind of indicator of the quality of writing?

View original

No. But is is a good indication is that writing is popular.

Popcorn, anyone?

Quote: Nat Wicks @ December 6 2010, 2:14 PM GMT

Popcorn, anyone?

View original

Quote: Wistyish @ December 6 2010, 2:04 PM GMT

The key to creativity, in my view, is flexibility ... being continuous open to new unexpected directions and connections. Comedy is all about unexpected connections - joining things together, from different unusual categories, that are normally kept apart. Therefore that desire to analyse, and pin it down, is particularly detrimental to creative activity in comedy - you really are killing the living butterfly and dissecting it. If you've boxed it up in a neat theory, you are directly opposing this open-ness, this freedom to move, to change the direction, which is the life-blood of genuine laughs.

View original

Wisty - Thanks, as always for yoru thoughts! always look forward to what you have to say.

You've made similar points before and I've disagreed before... but I'll do it again!

How is analysis detrimental to creative activity in comedy?

First, I'd say that understanding how things work is beneficial to any endeavour. How could it not be?

Second, The assertion that applying theory to something "boxes" it up seems hard to prove. I think it enlightens and deepens our understanding of it.

Third, I'm talking about understanding something that's already been written - not writing a new thing. I'm looking back at work and asking how do we describe it's qualities. Not saying that a writer must use a formula to create new work.

But I do want to take a minute and thank you for your sincerity - I really appreciate that you're willing to engage in the debate!