I won't deny that ToOers tend to be hostile toward the relaunch, but when you begin a post claiming that we disliked the episode solely because we dislike Emily (and if I recall correctly, dislike of Emily wasn't even given as a reason by most posters in this thread) and telling us how much we should love it because the rest of the AIO blogging world allegedly loved it, you should not be surprised to find that we get our hackles up.
If I had said that, then I would not be surprised and upraising hackles. However, I did not.
TigerintheShadows wrote:Waltzing in here with a not-so-subtle holier-than-thou, patronizing attitude about how it's TOTES OBVZ that like, EVERYBODY ELSE LOVED IT and we're just a bunch of pathetic Emily-haters who can't see past our stupid prejudices is both insulting and puerile.
Okay, enough with the remarks about my "attitude" and such. I fail to see what I said that was so rude. I said:
Why is it people are so determined to dislike Emily and nearly every episode she's in? A bit of bias here?
The interesting thing is, while many Emily Haters insist the show is bad, the AIO blogging world approved. That is, let us remember, those who, unlike us, care enough about AIO and listen to the show closely enough and formulate their opinions enough to write a blog about them. Even the Odyssey Scoop, the biggest and most successful AIO fan site in existence, all but raved about it in its podcast.
It is a fact people tend to dislike Emily in every episode she's in. True, when I said that, I didn't know that for a fact about you people. But, nobody, including you, has yet said, "What do you mean, dislike every episode Emily's in? Emily's one of my favorite characters! I like her episodes." I did not imply that you dislike the episode
only because of Emily, I was just pointing out people seem to often be biased against Emily episodes because they strongly dislike the main character. Far from claiming that was "solely" your reason, however, I did my best to refute your reasons afterward in the same post.
And citing people who like the episode wasn't so condescending either. I was quoting a higher authority on the subject we were discussing, a perfectly normal If this were a discussion about music, I might quote Tchaikovsky. If we were discussing food, I might quote Julia Child. As we are discussing AIO, I cited Kevin McCreary to back up my case. That's unusual, but it's not socially wrong.
Now, I do sometimes say something offensive online when I don't mean to as it can be hard to translate one's thoughts into a typed out reply with no facial expressions or tones of voice. If I did, I apologize.
However, Marvin, you never even asked for an apology. So I don't know what you want from me.
If I did indeed say unkind things, it was about you fellows' perspective on AIO. You, on the other hand, seem to be making judgements on my "attitude" (your word.)
Based on one post.
That I made in June.
And it is October.
Enough. Please.
Marvin D. wrote:
i) If there is such a thing as "objectively good" fiction, what, pray tell, are the standards? Realistic, fleshed-out characters? Punchy dialogue? Who decides what these standards are? What are these objective problems? You keep positing that there's such a thing as objective goodness/badness, to put it simply, but I've yet to see you provide me with the magic list of standards that make a work of literature worthy of merit. You claim the episode here is objectively good. I disagree. So, somehow, you're adhering to the magic list of objective standards and I'm not? What if you read some of Gertrude Stein's "Tender Buttons" and say it's bad? What then?
We've been over this.
Firstly. The point was things like poor grammar are likely to be an objective problem in a book if done accidentally. If a genius like Emily Dickinson chooses to deliberately use them to her advantage the results can hardly be expected to be the same. That is another matter entirely.
Further, most writers will agree that there are indeed objective stylistic mistakes an author can make, and that most books do indeed have objective problems that are indeed bad.
Marvin D. wrote:ii) Claiming that a book is bad because it has bad morals only works if you believe in a Higher Being who gives us a moral code to follow. And at what point does it become "too much"? Is there a secret number/amount of gore or sensuality/sexuality that oops, suddenly makes something objectively bad? Is subtle innuendo okay, but explicit gore not? What if alternate meanings give a piece of poetry a sexual charge? This objective standard, weak as it already is, works only if you believe that you get your morals from God. And even then. .it's not objective, because people interpret sacred texts differently, so from the same text, one can derive multiple moral codes. It doesn't work.
Marvin, Tiger in the Shadows,Let's just forget everything else for the moment and focus on the overall concept here. This is getting awful complicated.
First, let's define objective and subjective reality. What is it to you two?