Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 1:27 PM GMTSo you're saying it's entirely subjective and there's no way of looking at more critically?
THIS!
No matter how you define 'good writing', all of the elements are still going to be subjecting, barring the physical writing (ie the grammar, syntax etc).
Believable characters? Subjective!
Funny jokes? Subjective!
Resolution and realision? Not always as subjective.. but still sometimes subjective!
I think there is a danger in analysis J. It can only be valuable, if it's firmly kept in its place. And often it isn't - it becomes the rules, the formula, almost the ideology - and anything that appears to deviate from it - such as The Trip - can be dismissed as a result. The paradox is, that however much the theory might inform us, we shouldn't automatically reject something that fails to follow these rules, because that very "throwing away of the rules" is what makes comedy work. So , I suppose, one can have a tentative list of rules for successfuly comedy - but this can only be one of a number of tools - not an overreaching structure set above the creative activity and governing it - tools that also have to include ones that can't be analysed in this way, and may even involve an unexpected bloody minded breaking of the rules, because this in itself can be funny.
Not sure how much sense this makes. But I think I know what I mean!
Quote: Nat Wicks @ December 6 2010, 2:26 PM GMTTHIS!
No matter how you define 'good writing', all of the elements are still going to be subjecting, barring the physical writing (ie the grammar, syntax etc).
Believable characters? Subjective!
Funny jokes? Subjective!
Resolution and realision? Not always as subjective.. but still sometimes subjective!
Nat! so nice to have you back 
Agreed "believable" will always be subjective.
So how might we measure a character's quality in a less subjective way?
Active vs. passive perhaps?
Thoughts?
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 2:29 PM GMTSo how might we measure a character's quality in a less subjective way?
Active vs. passive perhaps?
I don't think you can measure it objectively at all.
A definition of well written could be 'a majority aggreement based on subjective opinion of strengths in character, composition, dialogue and story".
I think what I'm trying to say that this kind of theory based "objectivity" is ok, as long as it's clearly contained within a subsuming "subjectivity" ... so it's just one possible subjective tool.
Quote: Wistyish @ December 6 2010, 2:28 PM GMTI think there is a danger in analysis J. It can only be valuable, if it's firmly kept in its place. And often it isn't - it becomes the rules, the formula, almost the ideology - and anything that appears to deviate from it - such as The Trip - can be dismissed as a result. The paradox is, that however much the theory might inform us, we shouldn't automatically reject something that fails to follow these rules, because that very "throwing away of the rules" is what makes comedy work. So , I suppose, one can have a tentative list of rules for successfuly comedy - but this can only be one of a number of tools - not an overreaching structure set above the creative activity and governing it - tools that also have to include ones that can't be analysed in this way, and may even involve an unexpected bloody minded breaking of the rules, because this in itself can be funny.
Not sure how much sense this makes. But I think I know what I mean!
I think it makes a lot of sense. But I think what I'm hearing is a kind of fear of how this analysis might be used. fear not! What I'm doing in a way is reacting against the same thing you are - the old formulaic analysis.
I want a new definition of well-written that allows for new and innovative formats.
If The Trip is well-written - how might a new definition be constructed which includes work like The Trip?
I don't want to get caught up in semantics but I definitely want to stay away froma list of "rules" What fun would comedy be if you had to follow rules?
I also want to say that I'm talking about the components of the script - not whether or not it's funny. There's an american show named Stella that I think is very badly written but still very funny.
Does that make sense?
Quote: JPM1 @ December 6 2010, 2:39 PM GMTIf The Trip is well-written - how might a new definition be constructed which includes work like The Trip?
The old definition is fine.
Should this thread now be moved to the Theorist's Discussion forum?
Surely it is well written if it achieves the writers aims. A writer might produce something for any number of reasons, but the main one for a professional writer would be (I presume) to create something they can sell.
It depends on what position you are coming from: Writer, critic, producer, directer, actor, broadcaster, viewer etc etc. The definition of well written could be different for each of these points of view.
Again it seems to come down to that horrible subjectivity that you are trying to avoid.
There are some things that we could say are well written from a objective point: Grammer, puntcuation (language). Format. Certain Rhetorical devices/figures of speech etc.
You're just saying what I said, Jacparov! FORSHAME.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ December 6 2010, 3:51 PM GMTYou're just saying what I said, Jacparov! FORSHAME.
Having just re-read the previous posts I realise you're quite right. Please accept my most humble of apologies. And pies.
Hooray, pies!
far be from me to deny anyone a pie!
jacparov - I think you've hit the nail on the head which is that the work is well-written if it achieves what the writer set out to accomplish.
So how does an audience determine the writer's intentions? How do we avoid a writer simply saying "well I never intended the characters to be "x" so you can't hold me to that standard"
?
Nat - Your definition could work well, absolutely - in another context. In this context I think we're specifically seeking out those areas which are less subjective.
On the subject of subjectivity:
I'd argue that a great many points of debate, this one included, lie somewhere on a scale between objective and subjective. It seems likely that very little is totally one or the other. I'm interested here in those areas of writing which can be seen to lean toward the objective.
Let's try this framework: BAFTAs are given for writing - if you were a BAFTA judge, what criteria would you use?
You would be obligated (I'd hope) to base your decision on something more substantive than "this one made me laugh the most"
How would you take the nominees, line them up and compare them?
far be from me to deny anyone a pie!
jacparov - I think you've hit the nail on the head which is that the work is well-written if it achieves what the writer set out to accomplish.
So how does an audience determine the writer's intentions? How do we avoid a writer simply saying "well I never intended the characters to be "x" so you can't hold me to that standard"
?
Nat - Your definition could work well, absolutely - in another context. In this context I think we're specifically seeking out those areas which are less subjective.
On the subject of subjectivity:
I'd argue that a great many points of debate, this one included, lie somewhere on a scale between objective and subjective. It seems likely that very little is totally one or the other. I'm interested here in those areas of writing which can be seen to lean toward the objective.
Let's try this framework: BAFTAs are given for writing - if you were a BAFTA judge, what criteria would you use?
You would be obligated (I'd hope) to base your decision on something more substantive than "this one made me laugh the most"
How would you take the nominees, line them up and compare them?
I heard you the first time!
viz the BAFTA's, in this case, as in all others I'm afraid, your judgement would and should be subjective.
For a start, the writing has to be viewed in context - it is a contibution to the whole and should be judged as such.
But the question would have to be, has that writer achieved something good - how he got there is irrelevant.
One would hope and expect to have people on the jury confident in their own judgement - willing to trust their gut.
And of course they won't agree.
Subjectivity rules.
Hi, You asked:
So how does an audience determine the writer's intentions?
I don't think the vast majority of an audience would want or need to do this, most people watch TV to relax and have fun. A critic or student may well do though, and that I guess is the realm of literary criticism.
How do we avoid a writer simply saying "well I never intended the characters to be "x" so you can't hold me to that standard"?
1. WE don't have the right to hold a writer to any of our standards, what ever they may be. It is that writers right to write what they like, is it not?
2. Some writers would say that after they have sold the script, it has little to do with them from then on, as it becomes a much more collaborative process. Plus we (the viewers, as in a visual piece of work) are judging their script ( which is more of a narrative set of instructions for directors and actors) by the wrong critera.
On the subject of subjectivity:
Let's try this framework: BAFTAs are given for writing - if you were a BAFTA judge, what criteria would you use?
How would you take the nominees, line them up and compare them? I guess I would use what I wrote previously about the expert construction and composition of a script.
Quote: Lazzard @ December 6 2010, 5:19 PM GMTI heard you the first time!
viz the BAFTA's, in this case, as in all others I'm afraid, your judgement would and should be subjective.
For a start, the writing has to be viewed in context - it is a contibution to the whole and should be judged as such.
But the question would have to be, has that writer achieved something good - how he got there is irrelevant.
One would hope and expect to have people on the jury confident in their own judgement - willing to trust their gut.
And of course they won't agree.
Subjectivity rules.
Lazzard, I beg you, just consider for a short while that there might possibly be a way of looking at writing that is something other subjective. Please....