MoR was locked too.

 

Whilst I definitely enjoyed this fic, and wouldn't argue against it in any way, I think you're wrong here.

To my mind, if you dislike a fic then to you that means its bad. The definition of a bad fic has to be a fic that the reader does not enjoy. A good fic is one which the reader enjoys.

If Taure and Nemrut dislike something about the fic, then to them those things are bad.

Enjoying literature has no neutral standpoint. There isn't a default position from which you can categorically say something is good or bad, completely separate from enjoyment. Its all absolutely and completely subjective.

 

No. One can dislike a book for any number of reasons without proclaiming to the world "I dislike this book *therefore it is BAD*".

I don't like books with saccharine romances. A lot of people do.

I don't like books with lots of gore and blood and guts descriptions. A lot of people do.

I don't like many HP stories which feature Harry romantically interested in Ginny, because I dislike canon!Ginny and thus those stories that are true to that characterisation. But there are one or two Ginny fans out there who do like those stories.

I don't like those books, above; but I don't stand up and shout 'THEY ARE BAD!'. I just say "I don't like them" ... because of my personal/subjective preferences. Except I don't usually spend much time saying that in public forums, because such a subjective proclamation isn't of much interest to any one else.

No; as per above. Way too simplistic a statement/definition.

To them, sure, yes, of course.

But, typically, if someone posts to a forum 'this book is bad' then one assumes they are going to back up that assessment with reasons ... reasons which will presumably make sense to others and reasons which the poster assumes will encourage the readers to agree with him.

The more one aims a post a 'reasons why you should agree with me' the more 'objective' that post becomes. Certainly, the more objective the reasons, the more successful the post in persuading other folk that you are *right* in your proclamation that something is 'bad'.

No no no no no.

I disagree.

For reasons, please read my previous post.

For many books, yes, you're right. Because it's sometimes quite *difficult* to produce an 'objective' assessment, or proof, of a novel.

But that doesn't mean you can wave your arms and say "oh dear, it's impossible, it's all absolutely and completely subjective".

Please prove what you're saying.

You're suggesting that it is *impossible* for any book, anywhere, to be universally declared as 'bad', to be objectively shown to be 'bad'.

I believe I could prove you wrong with a counterexample. I could write a book with a horrible plot, terrible spelling, poor grammer, plot holes, etc. Would you defend this book? Would you declare that absolutely no-one could ever, ever, say that "Brad's book is bad, a failure as a book"? No matter what I write? I don't think you could.

I think there are some basic 'rules', standards, of literature which allow objective analysis. Fictional novels aren't like paintings where anything goes. Break enough of the rules - where the breaking is 'objectively' proven to be so, beyond any dispute or subjective apologism - and the book can be simply declared as broken/bad.

 

Absolute nonsense. Different people have different tolerances and different tastes. If you write a book with horrible plot, spelling, grammar etc then you're correct, I would say that its bad. However, I would say that because I didn't enjoy reading it. Which would be a result of the poor plot etc. It wouldn't be bad because of the fact it has a rubbish plot, it would be bad because it failed at its sole purpose, which is to entertain the reader.

There is no objective way to say whether literature is good or bad. You can objectively say that the spelling is bad, that there are cliche plot twists, or plot holes, or that the writing is simplistic etc. I'm not saying you can't do that.

None of those things is the same as the literature itself being bad however. A persons opinion of a book is an intensely personal thing, a summation of many different factors all coming together to determine whether to them the book is good or bad.

I say again, there is no single, objective way to say whether a piece of writing is good or bad. Everyone has their own tastes, and because of that the only statement you can give is that you personally think a book is good or bad.

 

You don't abandon your mind like this in other fields, I dare say. You wouldn't look at a really ugly table and say, 'that's a bad table,' even though it stands level and is solid. It's ugly, you don't like it, but it isn't bad as a functioning table. To transform brad's example: if someone wrote a game that was clunky, used too many resources, and would occasionally crash, you'd call that badly coded. It wouldn't be an argument for the code when someone said, 'but I liked that game!' He might have liked that game and the game might even have been good, but the code was not. A clock is bad if it doesn't keep time well, if it loses a second every hour. Saying, 'but I liked that clock,' doesn't alter the fact that it was bad as a clock.

Both reason and language (often the same thing) pen in your argument when we speak in any other realm of discourse. Why do you let your reason run away just because we're talking about books?

---------- Post automerged at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

This was my point. Thank you.

 

Because coding is a quantifiable thing, enjoyment of literature is not.

And besides, if a game is badly coded you can still enjoy it. At which point could quite reasonably say its a good game, but that its badly coded.

Much like you can say that a book is good, but it had bad spelling etc.

 

Except that, when one does, he usually explains it away by saying, 'well, but this guy has overcome a flaw inherent in his group.' Harry doesn't do that. He doesn't say, "Most girls are dumb 'cause they're girls, but I like Fleur." He says, 'I hate almost everyone' -- which is prejudice of a sort, I guess -- 'but these people are great, and, hey, look, they're almost all powerful, smart, driven women.'

That doesn't sound like misogyny to me.

Said another way, he thinks just as poorly, if not more poorly, about the male characters. And he likes the women not because they're sexy but because they're strong and intelligent. Again, that doesn't sound like misogyny to me. Why does it to you?

---------- Post automerged at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:13 ----------

Your getting confused again. We're not talking about the enjoyment of literature, we're talking about the quality of the literature. Similarly, you're confusing the quality of the game with the quality of the coding and thereby your last quoted sentence actually proves my point. It both proves my point and applies my metaphor too literally.

To connect my metaphor and what we're talking about with the quality of books more closely together: You can say that the writing is bad but the story is good. You can say that the writing is good but the story is bad. To say that a book is good implies that it has both good writing and a good story.

 

No. You're confusing me with someone who's confused. You're also wrong.

If I say a book is good, I'm saying I enjoyed the book. It isn't a statement on the quality of the writing, or the plot etc. It is simply a statement that I enjoyed the book.

My point is incredibly simple, and I stated it multiple times. If you want to start redefining the subject of the conversation so that you have more solid ground to stand on, go for it. Or you could just reread my previous posts in the context they were written, rather than the context you want them to be in.

 

This is not right. There are countless books out there that are good, whether or not I personally dislike them. Take, for example, my own opinion of Lord of the Flies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies I emphatically dislike this book. It was written by a Nobel Prize-winning author and was placed in the top 100 of countless book lists, and despite my dislike of it, I agree with those lists. I did not like the setting, the plot, or many of the characters, but I still think it is a good book. It showed the brutal nature of Humans, the ignorance and innocence of children, and overall social/pack nature of people and fear of the dark. I think it is a good book, and also dislike it, which you are claiming is an impossible stance to have.

Edit: User was tempbanned for this post. -Sesc

 

Meh, I liked this story very much. Have been looking forward to a sequel.

 

+1 looking forward to a sequel/

 

Shitposting in a group to hit 5 posts doesn't make you immune to the no shitposting rule, lads.

 

What are our standards for shit posting? Because that seems like a very tame post to get banned for. Especially considering the ones above it.

 

While relatively innocuous, the issue is volume. A lot of lurkers are spamming five useless posts as fast as possible to get WbA access, and there are hundreds of them, if not thousands.

 

Nah, someone went and banned all of the shit posters. So I'm fine with it now.

I just took issue with the fact that there were 4 useless posts, but only one of them was banned when I made that comment.

 

This is probably my favorite Harry Potter fanfic of all time. The quality of writing is consistently good, and it's realistic enough when you suspend your slight disbelief, which you have to do with many stories. While it's a pretty serious story, it's also has some of the best humor. I don't think I've ever read a story with better or funnier insults between characters, or better cursing.

 

Good grief. I was just trying to get thread back to the story after what appeared to be a slight derailment to what makes a story good based on personal opinion and "The Lord of the Flies." I think jbern went on to write his own fiction if I remember correctly, but for me "The Lie I Lived" ended just when the action was going to get going. One of my favorite characters from the story was the sorting hat and I could've sworn jbern had mentioned a possible sequel. I do go back occasionally and reread this story.

 

Despite polarizing opinions on this story I think most people can agree that it had an addictive flavour. While I often find the relationship between characters to be rather two dimensional in a lot of fanfics I think Jbern managed to create believable dynamics. It is still the best Harry/Fleur I have found. I remember thinking that often HJ seemed more like a mini-James than a mix of both the father and son but overall it was a quality read that made me laugh out loud a couple of times.

 

I understand how for some this might not hold put to the standards we put on new stories. But only for the nostalgia value and how important was for the community it deserves a spot in a hp hall of fame fanfiction.

It was very enjoyable, even if the characterization of Fleur tends to be weak, and a lot of the plot is a little bit rehashed. It was one of the first stories I read in which the fighting is compelling, and has an internal logic.

Maybe q lot of it is nostalgia, but I think it deserves a 4.5/5