What Wemedge was arguing for, in relation to Dekker, was that he believed Dekker should try to stretch himself as a writer and write more varied prose instead of sticking to the same old serial killer stuff (and here I can’t vouch for the veracity of this statement as I have not yet read Dekker’s books), and a desire to grow and create great works that push your creative boundaries is part of the definition of a good writer, I would say. If a novelist spends his entire career writing about some kind of mutated wildlife eating people, each book focusing on a different form of wildlife, even if each of the books is individually good, people like me and Wemedge believe that they do not exist in a vaccuum. If you read this person’s fiftieth wildlife-gone-wild novel, and have never heard of them before, you could be entirely swept up in the novel, simply because he is such a good author. But say you find out he’s written 49 others. This doesn’t necessarily detract from your experience of reading the novel, but doesn’t it put things into perspective?

sorry for the lack of punctuation and caps…I’m so tired and haven’t slept for various reasons (writing, cleaning, etc) and I just don’t care right now…lol.

I’m back to briefly respond to Ted’s kind invite to email him, way back in October of last year. Ted, I decided not to let you know who I am because I’m trying to get published and I need to do it on my own. I’m sure you have scads of people trying to break into print using you as a reference. Congrats on your recent sucesses and the smart tactic to farm out some of your ideas to younger writers a la old pro James Patterson.

I’m still not a great fan of your prose (I’ve read 4 of your books, for the record), but you’re a regular idea factory, so kudos. Sure wish you’d get off that creepy serial killer kick of yours, but it’s your career, bro.

BTW, I just finaled in the TARA contest. That’s the Tampa Bay Area Romance Writers contest. Yes, I’ve decided to become the Queen of romance. That’s Queen in the Nora Roberts sense, not the Mark Steyn sense.

I found myself a nice pen name that could be either male or female (Morgan Taylor) and entered the contest and have found myself on of the finalists out of over 600 entrants. Now my entry goes to an aquisitions editor at Multnomah, which got gobbled up by Random House, for final judging. So pray for me- I don’t care about winning the contest, I just want the AE to request some chapters or the full manuscript from me.

“Thr3e, the novel, came out in 2003, and adaptation came out in 2002.”

I would say that the kid’s picture is not, in fact, art, or at least, not “good” art. Now, does this mean I don’t love the photo? Of course not – because I love the kid, I love the picture, but I love the picture BECAUSE IT’S MY KID. Do you see what I’m trying to say? Do you see how narrow the audience for this piece of “art” is? Pretty much the only reason I love the “art” is because I love the “artist.” Take away your personal connection to the artist, and you take away the goodness of the art. And because such a personal connection is there, it’s unsatisfactory in trying to come up with a larger definition of art. It’s incredibly personal, and for its purposes, yes, it does succeed, and because it makes you happy it does have some worth. But let’s stop and think – because having good “art” and having worth are not the same things – to use an example; I believe that the Twilight series is a poorly written one, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying it doesn’t have any worth. Obviously it’s deeply affected many people around the world, so it would be foolish of me to argue otherwise. But there are things about it that are poorly written, for lots of reasons.

“Art, in any true sense, is something that draws emotion and feeling from the intended audience using words or descriptive feeling.” And here is where we would disagree, because I believe art is much more than just something that draws emotion and feeling. If you look up at my conversation between dizzyjam and MissGirl, you’ll notice how we looked at different approaches to movie – the kind that merely look at it as a vehicle to cause an emotional response, and the kind who look at it as an expression of the artist’s craftsmanship. And what did we notice? That the people who merely looked at it as an emotional response were missing out on a larger picture. Reducing art to merely an emotional response is an insult to the hundreds and thousands of man hours that go into making a movie or writing a book. What about craftsmanship? I’m curious as to why this doesn’t enter into your definition of art as well.

“I like hard rock bands, and am not a huge fan of rap. Does that make one less artful than the other? No because it appeals to the general audience.”
We’ve been over this. Different genres and styles do not exclude the possibility of art. I can’t stand Jane Austen and yet I recognize the great literary qualities within her work. I don’t like hard rock and yet I recognize the artfulness involved in many a hard rock song. So, just for the record, I would like to state once more that QUALITY AND ENJOYMENT ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Also, there is something very artful about both kinds of genres, but that doesn’t mean that every song within those genres is artful.

“You said earlier that there is a general standard accepted universally as to what is good and what is bad.” When did I say this?

“To our loved ones we can do no wrong.”
Really? Let’s take the example of the kid you used earlier. If you want this kid to grow up to be a decent human being, are you going to let them do whatever they want because “they can do no wrong?” No. And do you discipline them because you don’t love them? No. Quite the opposite. If you didn’t discipline them it would be questionable how much you loved them. Likewise, if you have a friend who is smoking three packs of cigarettes a day, can they “do no wrong?” Wouldn’t you maybe be worried about their health? What if they were just a huge jackass to everyone they met except you? Would they do no wrong? All this to illustrate that our loved books, just like our loved ones, can and do go wrong sometimes. If we love something, we want what’s best for it. Contrary to popular opinion, love is not blind. Love accepts the person (or object) for what it is, but it does not just mean “anything goes.” If I dated a person who accepted everything about me, even the bad parts, and never once helped me grow, well, how much would she really love me? I want to grow in this life, and I want someone who can help me grow, not just tell me that I can “do no wrong.” As for the part about enemies, well, it may be partially true, but both of these oversimplify the situation. The fact is that if someone loves you, you CAN do wrong, and if someone is your enemy, it IS possible for you to do right in their eyes.

“In the end however, how we feel about something, is all subject to opinion. Words like good and bad are opinion, and for opinion there are no universally accepted criteria, because all people have differences in opinion, as we can view from this very thread. “
Hm, interesting. How does the presence of disagreement automatically imply no answer is possible? You are making a leap of logic here that does not follow.

“So what determines whether or not an author has skill as a writer?” In your response to this question you mainly just wrote about audience, yet I would put much more in there. Here are the four main definitions I would offer up in terms of what makes art “good.” Effort, talent, audience, longevity. Effort, because it matters how hard the artist tries; talent, because some can write really well and some people can’t write really well and it shows in the art produced; audience – because yes, the audience does matter, but it’s not the only thing that matters, and I don’t see why it should be; and finally, longevity, how long the work lasts. I’m curious to hear what you think of these. For now, let’s say that in order for something to qualify as art it must possess three of these four qualities. The baby’s work would have effort, but not talent (although some babies and toddlers DO have talent). It wouldn’t have longevity, either. (In terms of lasting beyond the baby’s life, like Da Vinci’s work outlasted him as a person). It would have audience, but the only audience who could consider the picture good would be those who had a connection to the artist himself, leaving the audience impossibly narrow.

“I guess the greatest statement to their skill would be seen right here in this thread.”
How is this the greatest statement?

My main problem with people’s definition of art is that it doesn’t leave any room for “bad” art. It’s as if we’re afraid of stepping on anybody’s toes in calling something bad, so we just don’t bother, and accept everything. But as an artist, myself, let me tell you there is such a thing as bad art – I’ve produced it, and lots of it. I started writing when I was 11 years old. Looking back on the work I’ve done over the course of the past twelve years, some of it’s terribly written, in many ways, but it did bring me to where I am today. You might say then it was good art, because it spoke to me. I’d merely say that it was worthwhile; a stepping stone, because, for many reasons which I won’t elaborate on here, the books I write now are better.

Something about the idea of writing to please the audience is troubling to me, because though you should have an audience in mind, trying to please them can lead to artistic compromise. Certain movies come out all the time tailor-made to fit audiences, and they’re horrible, and the masses gobble it up, not realizing that the men behind the movie don’t give a shit about artistic values like integrity and honor – they just want your ten bucks. And people pay it.

I’m wondering if you’ve read the whole thread. If not, please do, and we can continue our discussion at the bottom.

How do you define success? Well lets go first with the dictionary answer:

suc·cess (sk-ss)
n.
1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
2.
a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
b. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
4. Obsolete A result or an outcome.
*www.thefreedictionary.com

For most of us the definition of success would be taken from the first definition. Obtaining success is based on reaching your goals. Authors probably view their first success as their first published work. Then from there the bench mark for success keeps moving up. As personal goals tend to change so that we are always reaching for something.

Now other things that stick out in this thread is determining whether someone is talented or not, determining what is art, and defining who determines the genuine worth of a product. All paraphrased of course.

I don’t know you, and I will not assume anything about you. But let’s say that you have a kid, and your kid draws their very first picture. It’s nothing much to the average eye, just some stick figures, with a few triangles to represent a dress for mom. To me, being it’s not my kid, it’s just a photo that some kid drew, to you it’s something worthy of being thrown onto the almighty shrine we all grew up with called the door of the refrigerator. What determined the worth of that picture? Is it in fact art? I would say that it is, because that picture drawn by a young kid represents something very dear in your heart. Art, in any true sense, is something that draws emotion and feeling from the intended audience using words or descriptive symbolism. With your kids, you’d be that intended audience.

I like hard rock bands, and am not a huge fan of rap. Does that make one less artful than the other? No because it appeals to the general audience. You said earlier that there is a general standard accepted universally as to what is good and what is bad. This isn’t true though, because not all of us have it in us to judge based on any universal standard. To our loved ones we can do no wrong, to our enemies we could do no good. In the end however, how we feel about something, is all subject to opinion. Words like good and bad are opinion, and for opinion there are no universally accepted criteria, because all people have differences in opinion, as we can view from this very thread.

My self, like you Brandon, and Ted Dekker, have been around the world. However my experiences in travel has been with the military. Might that change my views a little on how I accept the cultural variety of art, based on my mission and purpose being in that country?

We aren’t dealing in concrete values, like the stability of a house. These things can be measured, and the answer doesn’t have to be put into terms of good or bad, though we could certainly use those terms, we could also use terms more definitive and can stand the test of logic and science, to describe the state of the house.

So what determines whether or not an author has skill as a writer? First we can look at the audience, were there any number of people pleased with the work? How was it received in general? Then we can look at the success, was the author’s goal met in what he intended to come of the story, and how it was received and understood? We could also use return value, was the effort put into the book equivalent, greater than, or less than the reception of the book? In other words was it worth while.

Of course these things all define whether or not the author has any skill, but I guess the greatest statement to their skill would be seen right here in this thread. Which goes right back to what Ted was saying, and what I also said in this, how did the audience receive the story? After all, who do you write for? When you understand who you write for, then you’ll also know who it is you are intending to please.

(I apologize for how long this response has been, and hope that none of it was offensive. Sorry for the lateness as well.)

Your comment on the lack of necessity for South Park’s crudeness is a discussion we could have at length – for I believe the crudeness is necessary. But you see? This series is good regardless of whether you or or I like it. We have different responses to it based on who we are, but in the end the core is that we recognize it as a good series. If we wanted to we could discuss about why we each believe South Park’s level of crudeness is necessary and unnecessary, and if we carried the discussion through to conclusion, perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement. But at this point we’re talking about specifics of its quality and the way it goes about it, not unimaginative, mindless, regurgitative, “Oh, that was a good movie.” “No, that sucks!” “Oh, well we disagree so that’s all there is to it!” We’ve taken a step beyond into something deeper and more enriching to our conversation, and to both our knowledge about South Park. Let’s examine and example where someone was not interested whatsoever in South Park potentially being a good show.

With MissGirl, my conversation with her ended when I pointed out to her several of South Park’s good qualities. MissGirl’s response? “With your example of South Park, I have (unfortunately) seen several episodes and do view them as mindless trash. I do not see that they are well written. It truly comes back to audience. If you asked the creators of that show, they would agree. They didn’t make it for everyone and they know that. They realize that they have a specific audience and that is who they write for. Not general public. I have seen it and yet still view it as trash.” When I responded back to her and pointed out SP’s good qualities, she didn’t respond back. She was completely unwilling to even give South Park a chance, or even consider for a second that maybe it isn’t the mindless trash she believes it to be. Am I asking her to love the show as much as I do? Don’t be ridiculous. What I am asking is for her to respect its quality as a good show, unless she can give me reasons why it’s not, which she has failed to do so far. When I call Twilight a poor series, I’m not just saying that I’m not part of its audience, I’m saying I can give many reasons why it’s a poor series, reasons that will hold up under a lengthy discussion with a Twilight reader as long as they used sound argument techniques and rational thinking, not just, “Twilight’s awesome cuz EDWARD IS SO HAWT OMGZ!!!” You see, it’s about bringing it out of the subjective and into the objective. If you say that someone being hot makes a book good, you have to answer why. And if you do give a good reason, you have to answer to rebuttals, like: what about a book where the main character is ugly? Is that a bad book?

And don’t worry, as soon as I read a Dekker novel I’ll post up my thoughts on it.