# Sanderson's First Law



## Kelise (Apr 22, 2012)

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere - point me that way and I'll lock this one if I've mistaken 

What do we all think of this: Sanderson's First Law

Taken directly from the wiki:



> _Sanderson's First Law is the first law developed by epic fantasy author Brandon Sanderson for use in designing settings for genre writers. While originally created as a rule for magic systems in fantasy novels, Sanderson has specified that this law need not apply just to fantasy, but is applicable to science fiction as well._
> 
> *Sanderson's First Law.* An author's ability to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Devor (Apr 22, 2012)

starconstant said:


> Sanderson's First Law. An author's ability to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.



I don't think it's as simple as that.  To me it's more about understanding the role the magic plays in the story than understanding the technical specifications, which can in some cases even get in the way.  I think satisfying a reader is about making the surprise connections between the specific magic or its limitations with the situation at hand.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 22, 2012)

I don't think he means it has to be technically explained, but there has to be definite and defined limitations if the writer is going to use magic to resolve any problems. Otherwise it will seem like Machina.

That was one of the things I didn't like about the Malazan series. In the later books especially, too many problems get solved by magic that isn't really all that well defined. Things just...happen and, honestly, it just felt cheap.


----------



## Ankari (Apr 22, 2012)

I agree with Sanderson.  It becomes obvious when an author forces a magical feat in the story.  I always walk away from the book asking _"How come the author didn't think this through?"_ 

When authors fully work out the details of their magical systems it creates limitations that the character must overcome.  This adds an additional layer of conflict to the story, one that the readers may enjoy.  Although the genre we love is fantasy, I appreciate it when their is logic to the world.  Logic exists when fantastical systems are bound by rules.  

I'm going through that process now.  That is why its taking such a long time to world build.


----------



## Ankari (Apr 22, 2012)

shangrila said:


> That was one of the things I didn't like about the Malazan series. In the later books especially, too many problems get solved by magic that isn't really all that well defined. Things just...happen and, honestly, it just felt cheap.



I agree.  I loved the Malazan series but the sudden use of magic to solve problems with methods that seemed to readily available.....the series lost some of its luster.


----------



## Queshire (Apr 22, 2012)

Hmm.... While I can see where they're comig from, I disagree that it's a hard and fast rule. If you vaguely define magic, that gives you an oppourtunity to say that magic CAN'T solve this particular problem for whatever reason. The deus ex machina-ness of magic isn't related to the magic itself, but how it is used. No matter the form, Magic should be a tool to help solve the problem.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 22, 2012)

I think Sanderson is correct. If magic rules are explained and the reader understands very well how it works, and those rules allow the use of magic to solve a given situation, then by definition it is not a _deus ex machina_. Indeed, the reader would wonder why the magic wasn't used to solve the problem if it so clearly could be.


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 22, 2012)

It all ties back to the gritty realism people strive for in their works. When you give it to them, you are going to account for everything out there because it is what the people want. That means volumes on concepts for your magic, governments, main characters, one-offs, and so on.

It is giving your reader the maximum value for their dollar. It's a standard practice in internet marketing as well, you give them more than they expect with clarity and value added to it, and your customer will come back to buy the next book you are releasing. You are earning their trust.

That being said, miracles and magic shouldn't really have to be explained in the true context. This is why they term it miracles and magic. The definition covers those things that cannot be explained.

If it were anyone other than Sanderson telling me this, it would carry some weight. Of course, expanding on that statement is for another thread.

All in all, do what you want. If you feel your magic must have explanation, do it. If you want to retain mystery, don't. It is your story in your voice.


----------



## Queshire (Apr 22, 2012)

I have to say... I'm not fond of the term gritty realism.... I mean, what's the point of reading a story if it's exactly like real life? Yeah, you want your readers to be able to connect to it, but you also want them to be able to escape for a time through your writing. There's a line there.


----------



## Jon_Chong (Apr 22, 2012)

I can dig this. It often annoys me that authors use vague and soft magic to solve problems without properly defining their rules to the readers. If the world is bound by physical laws, then so to is magic considering that magic is a force within the physical world. And if it is not, then it therein lies a whole area to exploit and use. This school of thought holds particularly true in this day and age considering that we as a society demands explanations for everything. It usually doesn't have to be a good explanation - see Dan Brown - but it has to be reasonable sounding at the very least. 

That said, getting overly technical can be problematic as the entire magic system takes a life of its own. This is not necessarily a bad thing - especially if the story is about the magic system - but it can feel like you're reading a text book at times. There is also my distaste for info dumps. I as a reader tend to skim through info dumps and while I cannot speak for the readers here and in the world at large, I can speak for myself: down with the info dumps!

I have one last thing to add: the word magic. We call it magic because it is miraculous and undefined by science. But should magic be used in a world that understands its limitations and applications, can we really call it magic then? A few authors have sought to change the name - Sanderson is one but it's a slow moving trend. As such, I would like everyone here to sit down and ask yourself, "Is magic the right word for it?"


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 23, 2012)

Queshire said:


> I have to say... I'm not fond of the term gritty realism.... I mean, what's the point of reading a story if it's exactly like real life? Yeah, you want your readers to be able to connect to it, but you also want them to be able to escape for a time through your writing. There's a line there.



"Gritty realism" doesn't mean "it's just like real life." It means that it's identifiable as being _like_ real life, rough edges and all, but of course any good story has a solid narrative structure that real life utterly lacks. Less "realistic" stories tend to have more obviously fantastic edges that would seem absurd in the real world, but that we accept in fiction. These days, people generally prefer stories that have a more realistic, naturalistic tone. _The Dark Knight_ would have seemed much too dark and sober back in 1966; the _Batman_ TV show from 1966 now seems silly and childish. Doesn't mean one's inherently better than the other (artistic quality is 100% subjective; no exceptions).

"Gritty realism" is about tone and avoiding wish-fulfillment. The good guys do not always win easily; people suffer; the heroes may win in the end, but there's always a cost. It doesn't have to be as brutal and dark as, say, _Game of Thrones_.


----------



## Devor (Apr 23, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> "Gritty realism" doesn't mean "it's just like real life." It means that it's identifiable as being _like_ real life, rough edges and all, but of course any good story has a solid narrative structure that real life utterly lacks. Less "realistic" stories tend to have more obviously fantastic edges that would seem absurd in the real world, but that we accept in fiction. These days, people generally prefer stories that have a more realistic, naturalistic tone. _The Dark Knight_ would have seemed much too dark and sober back in 1966; the _Batman_ TV show from 1966 now seems silly and childish. Doesn't mean one's inherently better than the other (artistic quality is 100% subjective; no exceptions).
> 
> "Gritty realism" is about tone and avoiding wish-fulfillment. The good guys do not always win easily; people suffer; the heroes may win in the end, but there's always a cost. It doesn't have to be as brutal and dark as, say, _Game of Thrones_.



The only problem I have with the phrase "gritty realism" is the idea that reality is always _that_ dark but never equally _that_ bright.  Dark Knight was a great film, but it's shades of black and dark grey are as equally real - or unreal - as similar shades of white and light grey.  I'll note, in Batman we have a "morally grey" hero, but still always an "evil" villain.  I can see why that appeals to people, but I don't think it's inherently more or less realistic than a story with brighter tones and happier endings.  Happy, silly romantic couples _do_ exist, and so do good cops and soldiers doing their best to protect people and fight the bad guys.  They are a part of the real human experience.

Sure, people have flaws and weaknesses, but they don't necessarily have to be the sort that would shake up their "good guy" status.  And the bad guys have those weaknesses, too, and in reality, are just as likely to have everything work against them as the good guy is.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 23, 2012)

I think suffering is just more relatable. Everyone suffers at some point or another, but it's harder to find true happiness in real life than sadness.


----------



## Queshire (Apr 23, 2012)

I still think you shouldn't be limited just gritty realism, stupid funny has it's place as well. I mean, just look at Adventure Time, it's a light hearted comedic series that's aimed at children, but it has a large amount of older viewers.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm not saying that a writer should be limited by that, I was just offering a possible reason for why its so popular these days.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 24, 2012)

Magic systems can be the most marvellous things to read about, and one of the most frustrating things to write. No matter how much is explained, no matter how soft or hard a wizard's wand is, a writer should NEVER resort to using deus ex machina to resolve problems.

If you as a writer are faced with a dilemma, and you feel as if you've written yourself into a corner, then you should be making lists of everything that your character can do to get out of his or her predicament. Sure, sometimes external forces can come into play, and happy accidents do happen - but these will feel cheap to the reader no doubt, who wants to see the character find a way out themselves. Apart from magic spells, there is also cunning and courage. A character can always try talking out of a situation; or if that doesn't work, his sword can express a few opinions. 

I think that explaining any aspect of your world in an info dump is sloppy writing that elicits groans from disgruntled readers. A magic system can be revealed throughout the story, pertinent details being peppered here and there - but as others have pointed out, magic by definition defies explanation. So there should always be some softness to it, and mystery.

I also like to think that those wielding magic in these stories might botch spells or miscast them. These are powerful forces to be dealing with. Just think of someone inexpert at handling firearms - there's a good chance that they can break their wrists from the recoil of a powerful shot if they don't know how to brace themselves with the gun. Magic can cause as many problems as it solves - and I feel it's a truly brave writer who lets it loose without knowing what will happen. To use magic only as a problem-solver is lame. Magic can also create some wonderful problems, as well and it could be that the characters in the story are striving to understand the mysteries that surround the magic system that they don't even fully grasp.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 24, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> Magic systems can be the most marvellous things to read about, and one of the most frustrating things to write. No matter how much is explained, no matter how soft or hard a wizard's wand is, a writer should NEVER resort to using deus ex machina to resolve problems.



Sorry, I could be misunderstanding, but are you saying that Sanderson's first law advocates using deux ex machina? Because it doesn't. It's just saying in a world where magic has few  or no bounds it's difficult for it not to be the all purpose easy solution to all problems. And as a consequence, IMHO finding those problems where magic can't be the solution is the key but can be extremely difficult.


----------



## SeverinR (Apr 24, 2012)

Magic needs to have set limits on the author, so just some random magic can't abruptly end the story. No one wants a magic wand to fix it all with one swipe. If it could, then why didn't the MC just use it before the reader wasted their time on the book?

The reader doesn't neccesarily have it explained to them, but it should not be a magic bullet that kills all enemies or brings a hero back to life all of the sudden.  It must be believable and not destroy the reason to read the book.

One problem with magic I have, is why does a wizard use different magics on different enemies? If a fireball kills well, why not use it on all enemies? It might get boring for a reader, but in real life, if something works, people keep doing it. And why learn a whole different elemental magic just for variety?
In action movies we see this by the hero shooting a certain gun majority of the time, but when faced with the villain, he grabs a bigger and better weapon. Usually a bazooka, missle launcher, or other grand weapon, when a simple handgun would do the trick. Of course, we know, if you don't blow the villian into tiny peices, he/she will come back and kill someone close to the hero or even worse, come back in a sequel!

Magic having boundries doesn't mean it can't be miraculous, its power can be undefined by science, but the author needs to know the basics of why this power hasn't enslaved the world, altered time reality, destroyed the world, or other world changing events.
There is alot of space between all powerful with no limits magic versus precisely regulated and defined weak magic. Knowing why the mage hasn't conquered the world helps to prevent the unbelievable magic from destroying the story in one casting.

I agree, Alchemy is a magic herbal concoction until it is studied by science, then it become pharmacology.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 24, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> Magic needs to have set limits on the author, so just some random magic can't abruptly end the story. No one wants a magic wand to fix it all with one swipe.



Yeah, I think this is the takeaway point.

Using powerful magic to resolve a plot point is not a deus ex machina if the rules regarding the magic have been established and allow the use. So by setting the rules, you are more likely to avoid the deus ex machina problem in the first place. If the magic system has no rules and the author is basically making it up as he goes, deus ex machina problems become more likely.


----------



## Amanita (Apr 24, 2012)

> If a fireball kills well, why not use it on all enemies?


- Because some enemies can defend themselves against it by using water magic
- Because some enemies can send them back into your own lines and do damage there
- Because it requires plenty of effort from the mage and he can't use it too often...



> And why learn a whole different elemental magic just for variety?


- Because different means of attack are always valuable
- Because magic can be used for things other than fighting (such as healing or helping agriculure)
- Because different forms of elemental magic might exist and their users need training...

There's so much that can be done with magic and as a writer, you're (almost) completely free with it. That's why I don't believe in putting up universial laws of magic everyone is supposed to follow. Something that works fine in one story might stand out like a sore thumb in another. 
Everyone has to look at his or her own writing critically and decide if his or her magic system works or if it hinders the plot No one can take this work away from us by creating simple rules.  It doesn't seem to be that difficult either though, because at least for me, the number of books where the magic actually got into the way of the story is very small.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 24, 2012)

I have to agree with Amanita here!! The beauty of Magic is that we can create it inside our own worlds in so many different ways, we are free, and following rules or something that is supposed to apply for all Fantasy in general would only limit our creativity as writers and storytellers...

After all, different stories work with different styles of Magic, and the style that exists in a particular story or world would not work well for some other stories: The Magic in Lord of the Rings would not work well with my worlds at all, and the addition of my own Magic to the Middle-Earth world would just completely ruin the story!!

The style of Magic that you create and use in your stories must follow the rules and limits necessary for your own story =)


----------



## shangrila (Apr 24, 2012)

No disrespect intended, but you both missed the point then.

Sanderson isn't talking about universal, story spanning rules for magic. All he's saying is that, if the writer wants to use magic to solve problems, then it has to have defined rules IN THE STORY or else it will just be Deus ex Machina. I think Sanderson describes it in that article as turning magic into a tool, so it becomes the characters using their brains to solve problems rather than just waving their hands and having everything go away.

That said, he endorses what he calls soft magic too, so he's not trying to put one over the other.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 25, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Sorry, I could be misunderstanding, but are you saying that Sanderson's first law advocates using deux ex machina? Because it doesn't. It's just saying in a world where magic has few  or no bounds it's difficult for it not to be the all purpose easy solution to all problems. And as a consequence, IMHO finding those problems where magic can't be the solution is the key but can be extremely difficult.



Totally misunderstood, pilot. 

Not I nor Sanderson wish to see magic abuse. 

I'm saying that deus ex machina should never be used by any writer in any story. Period. 

Surely magic systems that are underdeveloped may tempt writers to use spells to get their characters out of trouble - but any writer worth their ink should recognize when deus ex machina rears its ugly machinations and steer clear! 

In my experience, EVERY literary dilemma carries its own solution. You just have to look hard enough to see it.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 25, 2012)

The problem that has been described is that Magical characters could just use powerful Magic to solve any huge trouble, which is what you call deus ex machina (a name that sounds really strange to me!!) well, I think in a different way:

The Mages in my stories have nearly limitless Magic with terrible powers, but still they have trouble and situations that they cannot escape or solve easily just by throwing Magic at it.

Why is that??

Their powerful Magic does not allow them to do anything they want because their troubles are Magical as well- They sometimes create their own limitations, and when they go to battle, obviously they cannot win easily _just like that_ because they are fighting other Mages with the same weapons and defenses that they have.

It's like the first chapter in the 6th Harry Potter book, where the muggle Prime Minister tells Cornelius and Scrimgeour: "But you are Wizards! You can do magic!! Surely you can sort out... _anything!!_" and one of them replies that the real problem is that the other side can do magic as well =)

If my Mages travelled to Middle-Earth they could solve the problem of the ring and nuke Mordor up before Frodo and the others can even start their journey (so, deus ex machina and story ruined!!) because my Magic is not good for a story like The Lord of the Rings, but in their own worlds they face their own freaking trouble and they cannot fix everything so easily.

So, why do you talk and worry so much about this deus ex machina thing?? You mean, like suddenly Gandalf started throwing huge green lightning and destroyed all the bad guys in two minutes? What story has done something like that?


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 25, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> The problem that has been described is that Magical characters could just use powerful Magic to solve any huge trouble, which is what you call deus ex machina (a name that sounds really strange to me!!)
> 
> So, why do you talk and worry so much about this deus ex machina thing?? You mean, like suddenly Gandalf started throwing huge green lightning and destroyed all the bad guys in two minutes? What story has done something like that?



The phrase denotes a literary device which once was common practice but now is frowned upon because it's seen as cheating by the writer who gets his characters into insurmountable situations, then invents an equally impossible solutions. To put it plainly, it's bad writing. 

The magic system you describe had limitations, and these are a set of rules you invented. The more clearly you know these rules and the more clearly you express them to your readers, the less chance you'll use magic to fix every problem and overcome every obstacle your characters encounter. While they should be allowed to do so when it's appropriate, a writer shouldn't use magic in every instance where the characters are in trouble, because it will become predictable and monotonous. Readers expect more from the story-tellers than a string of quick fixes. 

Gandalf DOES in fact shoot lighting to defeat his enemies - but we are also shown that Gandalf's powers are limited. He cannot handle or hold the One Ring for even a moment, lest he be tempted and overpowered by it. 

To put Sanderson's precepts in another light, I had friend who was writing a story in which he got stuck, because his villain found a way to become omnipotent. I kept suggesting things that the heroes could do to thwart him, but he argued with me that if the villain was omnipotent he could foresee every move his enemies would make, and could stop them with a thought. His story could not be finished, because there was no conflict. The villain was utterly victorious, and the heroes vanquished.

The basic principle is that magic needs to be limited and those limitations should be understood by the writer, if never fully expounded to the reader.


----------



## Jon_Chong (Apr 25, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> The problem that has been described is that Magical characters could just use powerful Magic to solve any huge trouble, which is what you call deus ex machina (a name that sounds really strange to me!!) well, I think in a different way:
> 
> The Mages in my stories have nearly limitless Magic with terrible powers, but still they have trouble and situations that they cannot escape or solve easily just by throwing Magic at it.
> 
> ...



The issue here really isn't with Deus Ex Machina. Authors these days do away with deus ex machina nowadays because it is not relevant to our lives. No, the issue that Sanderson's first law has is with vague and undefined magic that allows authors to pull crap out of their asses without due explanation. One good example, Harry Potter.

We're never given an appropriate explanation as to how magic works and it never clearly frames just what makes Voldemort well... Voldemort. Why was Voldemort so powerful? What made him so feared? Was it because he used the Avada Kedvara all willy nilly? So what do we get? We get horcruxes(problem #1), the Elder Wand(problem 2) and a magic system that quite frankly, doesn't go anywhere. Let's examine them one at a time.

Horcruxes show up in the sixth book, the second to last book. It is supposed to be an important thing, but it is revealed this late in the game and the whole of book siix is taken up to destroy the horcrux. It is then revealed that the Diary was a horcrux, only we didn't know its significance until now. While it could have been planned, it smells too much of a retcon to me. It's like her editor asked her, "So why hasn't anyone you know, killed Voldermort? Is he like, invincible? And how?" And so she planted it in. Except the horcruxes doesn't quite explain his invulnerability. After 'dying' once, it took him some 15 years to come back, and even then there was major issues with him coming back. 

The Elder Wand is touted as the most powerful wand in existence. Why is that? What does a wand do? Does it amplify your spells? How do spells work for that matter? Is there a level of mastery? Like if you're really good with Wingardium Leviosa, could you float castles? Does casting spells drain you in some way? This point coincides with my third - a vague and empty magic system. These questions are either glossed over or never explained at all. If this was any type of novel - epic fantasy, paranormal fantasy - I can take it. But you're in school for crying out loud. Don't they teach spell theory in school? No, they don't apparently. They don't teach how magic works, just that it does with the write words and a flick of a wand. Really? Is that all it takes? 

I'm sorry if this post has become a rant of sorts and I understand as a YA novel, Harry Potter has some leeway in such matters. I still find it annoying though and its especially infuriating when the author who obviously plans her novels - Snape's character was done amazingly - did not spend enough time thinking out the nuances of what makes Harry Potter magical - the magic. Okay, done.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 25, 2012)

Well, I agree that Magic needs certain limits because otherwise a story could not work at all, but that's absolutely obvious really for anyone writing Fantasy and there is no need to give it a special name like Sanderson's law. Also, there are Fantasy stories with very low Magic and others without it, and still they are good stories =)

I think that this deus ex machina thing is not so bad for Fantasy stories and I do not understand why it's loathed so much...

It would be bad writing only when it gets really extreme or stupid: Today I was reading that some people consider that Fawkes helping Harry Potter with the hat and the sword was a deus ex machina in the Chamber of Secrets book!! So, why? Was Harry supposed to fight the monster with his bare hands, because using any Magic against it or receiving any help means it's deus ex machina and bad writing??

Now, _this_ would be a deus ex machina: In the final battle, when all seems lost suddenly Fleur reveals herself as an ultra-powerful super witch and she starts killing Death Eaters by the hundred with Fiendfyre under her absolute control, and then she takes on Voldemort himself and blasts him out of reality with soul-killing Veelaser beams from her eyes!! Then, Fleur turns to Harry and says: "'arry, your problem ees solved!!"

However, most "deus ex machina" examples from Fantasy stories are not like that... and in my opinion, many writers are getting too worried about it instead of feeling more free and happy with their Magic systems.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 25, 2012)

@Jon: The Magic in the Harry Potter series is (I think) mysterious and undefined on purpose, in contrast to the more precisely defined and near scientific Magic systems from other Fantasy series. I prefer the mystery and unexplained style of Magic while many others go for the science-style, and stories can be good with both and also without any Magic =)


----------



## Jon_Chong (Apr 26, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> Well, I agree that Magic needs certain limits because otherwise a story could not work at all, but that's absolutely obvious really for anyone writing Fantasy and there is no need to give it a special name like Sanderson's law. Also, there are Fantasy stories with very low Magic and others without it, and still they are good stories =)
> 
> I think that this deus ex machina thing is not so bad for Fantasy stories and I do not understand why it's loathed so much...
> 
> ...



It is true that authors are getting too tied up in definitions and it often stifles out creativity, but it bears to be cognizant of the pitfalls of writing lest we fall into it. Secondly, both circumstances - Fawkes helping Harry and Fluer turning into a hulking juggernaut of doom - are actually deus ex machinas. Why? Because there has been little explanation leading up to it. Harry has met Fawkes all of one time and he discovers that his wand has Fawkes' tail feather in it - can't recall if this was in the second or third book, to be honest - but other than that, there has been no connection between the two, nothing to hint at Fawkes showing up. Now this is okay for younger readers as it enthralls them as they read of the phoenix(the deus ex machina in this case) coming down to save Harry. This is similar to your Fluer example. There is no buildup, no mention, nothing.

Magic can be mysterious. Take Lord of the Rings. Magic is barely used, let alone explained and is given this grand sense of wonder. However, the circumstances in Harry Potter is different. Humans use magic. A lot. So why haven't they studied it? Why haven't they dissected it? In order to harness something safely, you need to understand the nuances. In all honesty, they probably have dissected magic, we just don't know it. So do we as readers need to know all of the nuances? No, cos that would be silly. But some groundwork is required. We know you can cast magic without wands - wands are required for the big spells. But why? What is magic? And it is not like she is starved for avenues when it comes to explaining this. Considering Harry's background as a muggle, it allows for Rowling to slip in little tidbits about how magic works in her world without it coming off as ham fisted. We also have to ask something: does learning about something lessen the wonder and mystery of it? I think not.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 26, 2012)

Jon_Chong said:


> It is true that authors are getting too tied up in definitions and it often stifles out creativity, but it bears to be cognizant of the pitfalls of writing lest we fall into it. Secondly, both circumstances - Fawkes helping Harry and Fluer turning into a hulking juggernaut of doom - are actually deus ex machinas. Why? Because there has been little explanation leading up to it. Harry has met Fawkes all of one time and he discovers that his wand has Fawkes' tail feather in it - can't recall if this was in the second or third book, to be honest - but other than that, there has been no connection between the two, nothing to hint at Fawkes showing up. Now this is okay for younger readers as it enthralls them as they read of the phoenix(the deus ex machina in this case) coming down to save Harry. This is similar to your Fluer example. There is no buildup, no mention, nothing.



On the contrary, Fawkes helping Harry was foreshadowed a few times earlier in the second book. Dumbledore stated clearly that he would never truly leave Hogwarts while those in it were loyal to him. Harry showed his loyalty to Dumbledore when he faced Tom Riddle, which resulted in Fawkes coming to help him. Also the things like Fawkes' healing tears and ability to carry extremely heavy loads was stated in the scene where Harry first meets him, as well as phoenixes being "highly faithful pets," which again ties into the loyalty thing mentioned above. So no, I don't think this is a Deus ex Machina, but the Fleur example definitely is.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 26, 2012)

I think it's 100% fair that Harry would get some help to fight the basilisk, after all he still had to gather a lot of courage to take on the monster armed only with a sword... Well, if that counts as a deus ex machina anyway, what should have happened so nobody would think it was a DEM and an example of bad writing??

The Wizards in that series have this Department of Mysteries thing, so it's clear that there are many things that still remain a mystery for them about Magic. For me, the series explains enough about the Magic... I don't really want to learn everything about how it works and why, but I understand why others dislike this Magic system in particular.

I imagine that the author focused on developing the story itself, giving less importance to the Magic...


----------



## Jon_Chong (Apr 26, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> I think it's 100% fair that Harry would get some help to fight the basilisk, after all he still had to gather a lot of courage to take on the monster armed only with a sword... Well, if that counts as a deus ex machina anyway, what should have happened so nobody would think it was a DEM and an example of bad writing??
> 
> The Wizards in that series have this Department of Mysteries thing, so it's clear that there are many things that still remain a mystery for them about Magic. For me, the series explains enough about the Magic... I don't really want to learn everything about how it works and why, but I understand why others dislike this Magic system in particular.
> 
> I imagine that the author focused on developing the story itself, giving less importance to the Magic...



Fawkes coming to help Harry is fine - he's a kid facing off a giant snake with a sword. last I checked he did not know how to use a sword - but the circumstances leading up to the aid was a little too neat in my mind. Granted, it has been years and I don't have the books with me so my opinion about it can be coloured by the recent developments in the series, but it irks me that it's too... clean. Compound this with the fact that Harry has very rarely shown much skill beyond bravery and the ability to fly a mean broom stick ceapens his victories somewhat. 

Personally, I'm like you. I don't want to know the physics of Wingardium leviosa. I don't need to know how much mana is needed to power a Stupefy spell. What I would like to know. however, the foundations for magic. The basic rules on how magic operates. A framework, if you will. Something that gives me a point of reference to say "If Voldemort is here and Harry is here, that means if Harry were to take on Voldemort now, he would be boned..." As it stands, it's pretty much whatever Rowling says. This is problematic as it can lead to contradictory results. For example. Dumbledore. He's portrayed as the world's most powerful wizard but we never see anything... awesome about him besides being an extremely wise grandad. Why is he the most powerful wizard in the world? Is it the skill in his wand? The force of his spells? The sheer knowledge of what spells to use? Conversely, why was Voldemort so feared? What was stopping the ministry of magic from sending a hundred mages and peppering him with stupefies till he can't block? Right now, all I know is that Voldemort was scary because he can say "Avada kedvara". That's... not enough.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 26, 2012)

Harry pulled a magical sword out of a magical hat in order to kill the Big Bad. I'm not completely sure, but this might just be the dictionary definition of Deus ex Machina.

If you're asking how that would be done differently, show the guy at least practicing with the sword before the end battle. Just having the main character pull something out of their butt to solve the problem is DEM. Anything else isn't.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 26, 2012)

Just as a side note, I believe I found the one excusable instance in which DEM can be used with impunity. 

One of my novels in progress has a sequence in which the main characters are flying about in a Cadillac convertible (this should be enough to relate that this story includes the ridiculous as well as the profound) when the driver suffers from a sort of seizure and the car goes out of control. They're about to crash into the side of a mountain when, at the very last second, the car is caught and held at an angle askew. 

When the characters descend from the vehicle they find that the little silver angel that had been the hood ornament on the car has come to life to save them. The car is owned and operated by gods, so this type of car insurance is actually common. 

Quite literally: God in the Machine. 

I greatly enjoyed the irony.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 26, 2012)

I still think that you are taking this DEM thing way too seriously, but anyway, that's just me =) I would not worry about it at all (either in my own stories or while reading those of someone else) unless it was a really extreme form of DEM like my Fleur example, because if you worry too much about this thing you will limit your Magic and your stories a lot!!


----------



## shangrila (Apr 26, 2012)

I don't see how it would be limited. It's not like you couldn't use the magic at all, just that you can't have it solve all your problems. It would destroy any sort of suspense if you knew that the character could just wave their hand (basically) and get out safely.

I mean, it's completely up to you. But considering where the genre is right now, that kind of thing might be enough to turn people off your novel.


----------



## Sinitar (Apr 26, 2012)

> because if you worry too much about this thing you will limit your Magic and your stories a lot!!



I think it's the opposite. A poorly developed magic system limits your choices to such extent that DEM becomes the only option to satisfy the readers.


----------



## Jon_Chong (Apr 26, 2012)

Sinitar, I would like to add on what you said. A poorly developed magic system does limit your choices, but not quite in the way you're thinking. I feel that if you do not set some ground rules on how magic works, every time you use magic it has the potential to come out as a deus ex machina because you don't explain enough. There is no plausible reason. And yet depending on the tone and work being created, sometimes deus ex machina aren't bad. One just has to use them extremely sparingly and in tasteful detail. Case in point, Lord of the Rings. 

That said, I like what you did there Phin. It's got style. It's got sass.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 27, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> Just as a side note, I believe I found the one excusable instance in which DEM can be used with impunity.
> 
> One of my novels in progress has a sequence in which the main characters are flying about in a Cadillac convertible (this should be enough to relate that this story includes the ridiculous as well as the profound) when the driver suffers from a sort of seizure and the car goes out of control. They're about to crash into the side of a mountain when, at the very last second, the car is caught and held at an angle askew.
> 
> ...



I lol'ed. 

Also, I'm of the opinion that DEMs are less acceptable the farther you get into a story. DEMs at the beginning are much less problematic—nothing major is really at stake yet, and it's sort of a one-time "get out of jail free" card for the protagonist ("I saved your ass this time. Next time, you're toast," said Zeus)—but resolving big problems with them is to be avoided.


----------



## ThinkerX (Apr 27, 2012)

Hmmm...In my world, at least:

Most human magic - actually 'refined' psionic abilities with a few oddities thrown in are reasonably well understood by the mages and scholars who make the effort to do so.  However...

Some human magic, while understood in general, has a serious problems or ethical issues associated with it - spells that animate the dead, require human sacrifice, or Black Magic.  These effects are sort of known, but considered to be far too dangerous to muck about with, and some of the more exotic effects are, well...chaotic.  It is worth pointing out that while black magic is capable of things not normally possible, some aspects of normal magic become unusable to those who go this route.  And in absolute terms, black magic is not really more powerful than the other sort, merely more dangerous.    In addition (since there are Lovecraftian things lurking in the corners) :

There are abilities associated with 'demons', 'fey' (faerie), elder spirits and things that no human or other mortal spellcaster can hope to duplicate - though, with some of these entities, their magical services can be bargained for.  Not being truly of the physical world, these creatures get a partial pass where magic is concerned - but they are also subject to limitations as well - Iron, for example is a deadly poison to fey and pretty much immuse to their magic; a genuinely pious priest is immune, and might actually order away a demon, that sort of thing.  Additionally, I'm thinking of going with a sort of 'key' with many of the spells of these beings - if certain seemingly harmless conditions are meant, then their spells can come unraveled in a hurry.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 27, 2012)

According to many people, the Harry Potter series is packed with these deplorable DEMs that are the mark of a bad writer, but anyway the series has been unbelievably successful... and it is far more famous and loved than many other Fantasy series with science-like Magic systems and realistic explanations.

As Fantasy writers we should worry more about plunging our readers deep into our worlds, creating something unique that captures the imagination of the readers- In my opinion, that is the true formula of success in what we do: Create a world that people will love, and as long as you do not include really crazy stuff, you will be okay =)

@ThinkerX: Your Magic sounds interesting!! I love stories about demons, ghosts, mysterious spirits and things like that.

As an additional note, I am sure that DEMs made extreme and crazy on purpose could be excellent in Comic Fantasy stories!!


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 28, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> According to many people, the Harry Potter series is packed with these deplorable DEMs that are the mark of a bad writer, but anyway the series has been unbelievably successful... and it is far more famous and loved than many other Fantasy series with science-like Magic systems and realistic explanations.



The success of the series is in no way a measure Rowling's talent but merely a demonstrative phenomenon of pop marketing.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 28, 2012)

That, and children are more easily able to suspend disbelief when it comes to something like magic. As long as it looks cool, they don't care.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 28, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> The success of the series is in no way a measure Rowling's talent but merely a demonstrative phenomenon of pop marketing.



Is there another way to measure talent besides success? Or really, _is_ there any way to measure talent? You might think writer A is the most talented writer out there, and I might despise everything they write. So are they talented, or not?


----------



## Amanita (Apr 28, 2012)

Oh well, and so I do post here again even though I didn’t want to.

Quickly stating my opinion on the Harry Potter issue: I’ve been very fond of Rowling’s use of magic in her first five books but I wasn’t happy about the resolution. 
The Hallows actually did come out of nowhere and Voldemort’s end wasn’t too convincing. In my opinion this is not because of inherent problems with the magic system but because Rowling didn’t want to have her teenage protagonist actually killing someone. It can be blamed on the magic system of course, but I believe that they usually lie in other parts oft he story. If an author knows what he or she is doing they don’t need deus ex machina no matter what they’re magic is like.

In Harry Potter, I really liked the idea of an entire nation of magical people among whom magic is seen as the norm and not as something special. It’s pretty unique I believe, at least I can’t think of another work doing something similar. Under these circumstances it makes sense in my opinion that HP wizarding youth don’t know too much about the finer workings of magic. When learning to read and write most of us aren’t interested in the brainfunctions necessary for this either. I actually dislike some explanations involving things like ”žmana“ or leylines for unknown reason, that’s why I’m glad if I don’t see it. 

I’ve actually considered doing something similar myself but in my case, the all-magical society didn’t really work out, derivative work usually doesnt.  That’s how my own magic system came about which I think actually matches what’s been asked here. 

We all agree that random help for the hero is a sign of bad story-telling. This is true no matter if the randon help comes from people (the king suddenly supporting the heros for no reason), gods or magic. 
Still, I disagree with the notion that to avoid this, detailed information on the nature of the magic in question is necessary. The readers should have an idea as to what is possible and what isn’t but it’s not necessary to give a detailed background. It can be nice and interesting in certain stories, but I don’t think it’s necessary. 

Even flawed or ”žcliched“ magic systems can work very well if the plot, the characters and the conflicts they’re facing are good and interesting enough. 
Imagine a casserole. The pasta or potatoes are the plot, the vegetables and/or meat are the characters and the cheese is the magic. Choosing a tasty kind of cheese makes the whole thing much more delicious but if the rest isn’t good, it’s no use.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 28, 2012)

Amanita said:


> The Hallows actually did come out of nowhere and Voldemort’s end wasn’t too convincing. In my opinion this is not because of inherent problems with the magic system but because Rowling didn’t want to have her teenage protagonist actually killing someone. It can be blamed on the magic system of course, but I believe that they usually lie in other parts oft he story. If an author knows what he or she is doing they don’t need deus ex machina no matter what they’re magic is like.



I reply with a quote only in rare occasions... I agree with this very much!! Like Amanita, I was not really convinced about the Hallows story and how Voldemort was defeated (I would have given the story a completely different way to end) but the Hallows were not a flaw in the Magic system, and also I noticed how the author always kept her protagonists from killing their enemies by sheer force. If a writer knows well what he or she is doing, there is no need for authentic crazy DEMs no matter what the Magic is like =)

Everyone, please check my new thread: Sheilawisz's First Law!!


----------



## Devor (Apr 28, 2012)

Amanita said:


> I actually dislike some explanations involving things like „mana“ or leylines for unknown reason, that’s why I’m glad if I don’t see it.



I feel that way a lot, too.  Serious efforts to explain magic can sometimes just point out how little sense it makes.  Unless you're going to tie the explanation for the magic into the plot line, it's not necessary to explain it.  Readers just need to know the _role_ that the magic plays in the story.  Sometimes it's enough for the reader to think, "Okay, this guy's a fire mage.  He does fire.  Gotcha."  Talking about leylines and internal energies and mana pools encourages readers to analyze your system, which can tear down their immersion into the story, especially if it brings to mind parallels found in other stories.

That said, I've a clear magic system developed for my work in progress, so I don't mean to take a hard line.  I find a clear system to be a great plot tool - but only because I want to go there.  I don't think it's necessary for every story.




> The Hallows actually did come out of nowhere and Voldemort’s end wasn’t too convincing. In my opinion this is not because of inherent problems with the magic system but because Rowling didn’t want to have her teenage protagonist actually killing someone.



Looking at the series as a whole, the Hallows did come out of nowhere.  Taking book 7 individually, they didn't, it was even the name of the book.  Most authors want each book to have their own story arches like that.

And the question of why Dumbledore had James's invisible cloak is a real question that didn't have any other answer.  He could turn invisible on his own, and James needed to hide from Voldemort, so there had to be something special about the cloak to warrant Dumbledore taking it.  So I don't even know that the Hallows weren't planned from the start.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 28, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Is there another way to measure talent besides success? Or really, _is_ there any way to measure talent? You might think writer A is the most talented writer out there, and I might despise everything they write. So are they talented, or not?



Commercial success denotes merely good marketing in most cases. I'd hesitate to call a lot of pop stars "artists" just because they're in the spotlight - and while such creatures might have a good deal of artistic potential, it is often never developed. 

There are plainly evident differences between good writing and bad writing, just as one can hear it when a musician sings off key or  is tone deaf (of which I am unfortunately one, which is perhaps why I write); but I'm not aware of any system in place for measuring talent. I don't believe it's subjective, although there is surely no accounting for taste.


----------



## Devor (Apr 28, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> Commercial success denotes merely good marketing in most cases.



You're probably not aware, but most definitions of "Marketing" are actually inclusive of the product and its quality.  The 4 Ps and all.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 28, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> The success of the series is in no way a measure Rowling's talent but merely a demonstrative phenomenon of pop marketing.



Are you saying she isn't talented? I haven't read her work, so I can't judge. But if her success really is due wholly to a "demonstrative phenomenon of pop marketing" all I can say is... I WANT ME SOME OF THAT POP MARKETING! WHERE CAN I GET IT? :biggrin:


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 28, 2012)

IMHO Marketing gets you attention. You still have to bring something to the table that appeals and that people enjoy. I've done my fair share of kicking Stephanie Meyers, Dan Brown, etc., but at the end of the day, even though they have flaws in their stories, they're doing something very right. Something so right that a lot of people are willing to give them passes on the flaws. For me, I want to figure out what they do so right, take that, and hopefully writing something without the flaws.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 28, 2012)

I think that's right, Penpilot.

Potter was already doing quite well before the marketing blitz set in. With respect to Meyer, no one shells out $3/4 million on the hope they might be able to market it into a success. I do think the controversial subject matter helped Brown - that kept the book in the news and made a lot of people curious.


----------



## Amanita (Apr 29, 2012)

In case of Harry Potter, I believe the fact that the story was very easy to relate to, played an important role. Despite of having magic, the characters' lives had much in common with the lives of ordinary, modern, western teenagers. This mixture of things the readers have actually experienced and something new and magical makes it more fascinating than very distant stories set in times hundreds of years past. 
For Twilight, the same probably applies even though I've never read it. The fact, that the perfect boy was a vampire didn't make the story about a teenage girl falling in love with a perfect boy anymore interesting to me.  Plenty of others obviously feel differently. 
Especially among younger people, the desire to escape into a world before our own time only seems to be strong among a minority in love with the Middle Ages, many others prefer something closer to their own reality. For Tolkien and others of his time, the memory of (in hindisght) better times was much closer than it is for us. World War I was the first industrialised war in history, the idea that war is noble and a place for heros and "real men" to prove themselves was commonplace before, afterwards not so much anymore. If someone thinks of war today bombs probably are the first thing that comes to their minds and not knights or swords. 
Most of us don't believe that war is great in itself anymore either, though maybe we do believe that it's unavoidable sometimes. That's probably one of the reasons for the "grim and gritty" stories emerging. Those stories however fail to offer hope and therefore only appeal to a smaller group of people interested in "realistic" depictions of past times. 
Harry Potter's threads, terrorists attacking the country, randomly killing people and trying to turn the republic into a dicatorship are much closer to our current reality, no matter how flawed the depictions are in parts. Many of the events in Harry Potter have close equivalents in the real world such as terrorist attacks, school shootings, abusive teacher/caretakers etc. And who didn't have to struggle with nasty teachers, homework, exams, teaching schedule leaving the really important stuff out and unpleasant classmates at school?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 29, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> I don't believe it's subjective, although there is surely no accounting for taste.



This is the crux of it. I don't think this statement makes any sense. How can something be objective, and yet have personal opinion be relevant? Either it's objective or it isn't. If it's objective, then there must be clear, objective criteria for judging. If personal taste is allowed, then how is it meaningful to say that "There are plainly evident differences between good writing and bad writing"? I don't think it's comparable to singing off-key; key is related to a specific frequency, which is an objective, measurable number. Either you're singing that frequency or you're not. But for a given piece of writing, one person might enjoy it and another might not. How can either one of them be right or wrong?


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 29, 2012)

I'm not saying that there's nothing of value in the series, nor am I making a claim against Rowling's talent. I'm just saying that the reason why there is this HUGE WORLDWIDE PHENOMENON isn't because the story is in any way amazing or original. It's filling a niche just like the Twilight series fills another niche - and the people who recognize how to exploit such things apply a formula to engineer success for themselves. 

I would call Harry Potter cute and clever but I wouldn't venture further than that - and reviewing the comments others have made in this thread about the DEMs employed by the author, I can only say that it doesn't surprise me that they're there, and now I find that I am even less inclined to read the books now than ever before.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 29, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> This is the crux of it. I don't think this statement makes any sense. How can something be objective, and yet have personal opinion be relevant? Either it's objective or it isn't. If it's objective, then there must be clear, objective criteria for judging. If personal taste is allowed, then how is it meaningful to say that "There are plainly evident differences between good writing and bad writing"? I don't think it's comparable to singing off-key; key is related to a specific frequency, which is an objective, measurable number. Either you're singing that frequency or you're not. But for a given piece of writing, one person might enjoy it and another might not. How can either one of them be right or wrong?



Okay let me try to elucidate...

There are strokes that are made. With a painter, it's strokes of a brush on a canvas; with a writer, there are keystrokes. Both the words and the paints build a foundation upon which the final image or story will be upheld and revealed. In both cases, there are plainly evident techniques that are totally measurable. One can teach these things. Some don't need to be taught.

I believe the people who have "talent" which is kind of a nebulous term to begin with (which is where I think I got muddled earlier) are those who can sense these techniques naturally and can put them to use masterfully to create a symphony or colours or words. They can do this without studying because it comes from within; and most likely they can even invent new methods and techniques, as only true innovators can do. 

Genius is probably just being able to deal with a high number of factors at any given moment and processing them intelligently; but an artistic genius has to dance with his or her chosen art. It has to make an impression on them, just as they use it to impress the world with their creations. They have to sense the Truth and channel it, by allowing themselves to be the medium. 

So, that is what I mean by it's not subjective: one can measure and recognize genius in literature just as in any other field or art or science. 

But how many people have read A Brief History of Time versus how many people have read Twilight? What people enjoy isn't always what's most amazing or enchanting or bewildering or created with the most talent. For the most part, people enjoy bland, easy to digest stories, pop music, and hamburgers. Most people aren't as devoted to literature as we on this site are; most people aren't even big readers. 

That's why things that are simple and have simple appeal do well. Harry Potter and Twilight both fill this niche perfectly. It's just enough flair and pizazz to make it entertaining, but ultimately they contain very little substance. 

So yeah: there's good lit and bad lit, but most of the people like stuff that sits somewhere in between because it keeps them from having to actually think about things or look up words in the dictionary that they don't know. 

The truest kind of writer will always be a Poet. If there's no poetry in your work, I think there's still a lot of work for you to do as a writer.


----------



## Amanita (Apr 29, 2012)

> and now I find that I am even less inclined to read the books now than ever before.


It's interesting how you seem to know all this without actually having read the books.  Not that I'd claim everything you wrote is wrong, but still...
Actually, there are plenty of people who actually did think about issues raised in Harry Potter very much, wrote very detailed articles about them and still liked the books without being above pointing out the flaws. (And many of them were quite disappointed with the ending.) Therefore claiming, that everyone who enjoyed those books is too lazy to think about something they read. I did join in this myself a bit, but mainly used the magical world of the books as my playing field before I had made my own. 
Personally, I fail to see a higher amount of "substance" or deeper philosophical issues raised in works like Lord of the Rings than I can see in Harry Potter, even though Tolkien might have done it in more elaborate words. 

For me, writing and reading fantasy isn't about "mental exercise", I have plenty of that in other areas of my life, but about imagination, about going through situations that will never arise in my own life with the characters, often situations I'm glad never to experience. 
I'm a bit sad about the fact that we've come so far that even fantasy writers look down upon these kinds of feelings.

Returning to Harry Potter: It has inspired the imagination of thousands of people to discuss it endlessly or make up their own stories in this world, many of which are bad, but some are really good. 
That's my (probably unreachable) goal as well, not becoming the next Goethe and having generations of students trying to dissect what I actually meant to tell them with my writing.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 29, 2012)

Hmmm...yes. I haven't read it but let me give you my thoughts on the work itself, including how much depth it has, why it is appealing to some, etc. This isn't convincing. If you haven't read the work you are discussing you are no more capable of providing an informed opinion than anyone else commenting on a subject he is not familiar with. This reinforces my notion of why people on writing sites bash these books.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 29, 2012)

I've read the books when I was younger and enjoyed them then. Looking back at them now, especially with what I've learnt about structures, tropes and the like, I doubt I would like any of it. People who don't read or like fantasy much will enjoy them into their adult years, but I think anyone who's actually interested in the genre will be able to find something much, much better.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 29, 2012)

shangrila said:


> People who don't read or like fantasy much will enjoy them into their adult years, but I think anyone who's actually interested in the genre will be able to find something much, much better.



I think it is true that there is a lot better out there in the genre, but I know a lot of people who are avid Fantasy fans, and who didn't even start reading Potter until their adulthood, who love the series.

I liked the Potter series well enough as an adult, even though I'd seen a lot of what was there before. It was a fun series. It isn't going on my top ten list of Fantasy works, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 29, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> Okay let me try to elucidate...
> 
> There are strokes that are made. With a painter, it's strokes of a brush on a canvas; with a writer, there are keystrokes. Both the words and the paints build a foundation upon which the final image or story will be upheld and revealed. In both cases, there are plainly evident techniques that are totally measurable.



Could you give a specific example of such a technique (in writing) that is measurable, and what exactly the metric is by which it is measured?



> So, that is what I mean by it's not subjective: one can measure and recognize genius in literature just as in any other field or art or science.



Again, I'm interested in how exactly this measuring is done. Mostly I ask because I've never actually come across any description of measurement systems for genius before. What's the unit of measurement for genius?



> That's why things that are simple and have simple appeal do well. Harry Potter and Twilight both fill this niche perfectly. It's just enough flair and pizazz to make it entertaining, but ultimately they contain very little substance.



Can you give an example of a piece of substance that other works contain, that (for example) Harry Potter doesn't? Having read all seven HP books, I think they say a lot about responsibility, sacrifice, and friendship, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to say they contain little of substance.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Could you give a specific example of such a technique (in writing) that is measurable, and what exactly the metric is by which it is measured?
> 
> Again, I'm interested in how exactly this measuring is done. Mostly I ask because I've never actually come across any description of measurement systems for genius before. What's the unit of measurement for genius?
> 
> Can you give an example of a piece of substance that other works contain, that (for example) Harry Potter doesn't? Having read all seven HP books, I think they say a lot about responsibility, sacrifice, and friendship, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to say they contain little of substance.



This is an excerpt that I think proves my point. It comes from John Crowley's book _The Translator_:

"We look now at a famous poem by English poet A. E. Housman," Falin said, turning the purple mimeo sheets to find the little thing, one of the few in the packet familiar to Kit. He looked down on it, nodded slightly as though in greeting, and then looked up. Kit wrote _famose boym_ in her notebook. "What does it say and how is it made.

_"Loveliest of trees, the cherry now
Is hung with bloom along the bough
And stands about the woodland ride
Wearing white for Eastertide."_

Two couplets, he pointed out, in a meter also favored by the Russian poet Pushkin and others writing in that language. Kit wrote in her notebook _D'Roshin boyt_. The stanza is very simple in form and thought, and has a figure only in the last line: the cherry trees are girls in white clothes, for church at Easter. 

"Now the poet does some arithmetic," said Falin.

_"Now, of my threescore years and ten,
Twenty will not come again,
And take from seventy springs a score,
It only leaves me fifty more_.

"Arithmetic is hard to do in verse without clumsiness," he said. "So poets sometimes like to see if they can do this. And I have learned, though I did not know this when I first read this poem in Soviet Union, that the poet was professor of Latin, and worked for many years on a Latin poet who wrote about astrology, a poem filled with arithmetic in verse. So."

Kit wrote _Sov yetchunion_. Then she tore the page from her notebook and crumpled it, looking up to find all regarding her, including Falin; and she lowered her eyes. 

"Now see how he ends this small poem," Falin said. "He has said that he is young, but even so he knows life is short; here is what he now says:

_"And since to look at things in bloom,
Fifty springs are little room,
About the woodlands I will go
To see the cherry hung with snow._

"Now do you see," he said to them with great strange tenderness, as though for them but also for Housman and the young man in the poem as well, "do you see: the only other _figure _ in this poem is very last word, and it compares white blossoms to tree in winter, covered with snow. With _snow_, when all blossoms and leaves will be gone. In the very moment of his delight the poem reminds him, and us, that time will pass, blossoms will fall." He leaned forward toward all of them. "And it may well be that it was not Housman's thought but the poem itself that produced this meaning; that the poet reached next-to-last line and this rhyme arose of its own accord, with all these meanings. Yes I am sure, sure it did. A gift that came because of rhyme, came because rhyme exists. Because poetry is what it is. And because this poet was faithful."

They were all immobile in their chairs before him, stilled maybe (she was) by that word _faithful_. Kit would remember it: the word he used that day.


Please note all in this thread that I am not bashing any author's work, nor am I claiming that there is no substance in the popular books which many have enjoyed. I have read enough of them to recognize them for what they are, and I did not continue because I felt they do not have the quality to sustain my interest. Most stories that merely entertain do have themes of value; of course they do, otherwise they would be entirely vacuous. 

Crowley is a literary genius. It's a shame so few have celebrated his work.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 30, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> This is an excerpt that I think proves my point. It comes from John Crowley's book _The Translator_:
> 
> Please note all in this thread that I am not bashing any author's work, nor am I claiming that there is no substance in the popular books which many have enjoyed. I have read enough of them to recognize them for what they are, and I did not continue because I felt they do not have the quality to sustain my interest. Most stories that merely entertain do have themes of value; of course they do, otherwise they would be entirely vacuous.
> 
> Crowley is a literary genius. It's a shame so few have celebrated his work.



That was a nice passage, but I'm not sure how it proves anything. And it doesn't really answer my questions about how exactly you quantify genius, or particular writing techniques.

Quantifying something means describing it with quantities, that is, numbers. You can quantify mass, distance, volume, intensity, and time; you can quantify the number of words in a piece of writing, or the number of sentences, or of each part of speech, or the number of metaphors, or the proportion of dialogue to narration. But I'm still not sure how you can objectively quantify writing in a way that distinguishes "good" writing from "bad" writing.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> But I'm still not sure how you can objectively quantify writing in a way that distinguishes "good" writing from "bad" writing.



You can't. The closest you're probably going to get is application of the rules of grammar. A great deal of what one might considered good writing versus lesser writing is subjective. It depends not only on the writer's goals, but also the reader's goals (i.e. some writing may be better for one purpose, other writing better for another purpose).

The thing that interests me the most whenever these discussions come up is the psychology involved. Why is it that there is a need to attempt to elevate one's own subjective judgments to an objective level. Why not simply be content with the idea that there is a large degree of subjectivity involved and that reasonable people will differ?  Take it one step further, and you get the stating of an opinion on a series of seven books by someone who hasn't read them (OK, he's read enough to form an opinion. Given the work as a whole, how much is sufficient to form an opinion - one page? Ten?). Again, it is the compulsion to be objectively "right" that drives one to characterize a work based on what is in all likelihood an insignificant sampling. And I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on Phin - this is a rather common circumstance, in my view, and it just so happens that it has come up in this thread. I mean to be speaking more generally, but given the thread I know it goes in the context of the discussion.

So - does this mean Phin, or anyone else, should like Harry Potter? Certainly not. Nor should anyone like a work simply because it is popular, well-reviewed, or held in esteem by literary types who look down at their noses at the groundlings reading common work. 

A book may have a variety of purposes. It may be to enlighten, or to entertain, or to inform. In some instances, maybe a book does all three. Your goal as a reader, at any given moment, may be all of these things, or it may be only one of them. If you pick up a book and it serves the purpose you expect from it, then the writer has done her job. Whether it serves that purpose is likely to hinge on many more subjective factors than objective ones.

Lastly, I've read Twilight and A Brief History of Time. So what? I read a lot of fiction, and I read a lot of science books. Am I somehow elevated above the person who has read Twilight and not A Brief History of Time? I think not.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 30, 2012)

As Fantasy writers, our job consists in capturing the imagination and the hearts of our readers, take them out of the real world and plunge them deep into the worlds that we create... That's the most important goal that we shall seek, not a perfect grammar or a more _elevated content_, and if we manage to do that well, we have a better chance to be truly successful in the world of Fantasy literature.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> That was a nice passage, but I'm not sure how it proves anything. And it doesn't really answer my questions about how exactly you quantify genius, or particular writing techniques.
> 
> Quantifying something means describing it with quantities, that is, numbers. You can quantify mass, distance, volume, intensity, and time; you can quantify the number of words in a piece of writing, or the number of sentences, or of each part of speech, or the number of metaphors, or the proportion of dialogue to narration. But I'm still not sure how you can objectively quantify writing in a way that distinguishes "good" writing from "bad" writing.



Very true. And the whole taste and preference thing muddles the issue even further. I'm sure that Crowley passage was well-written, but I got bored after the first paragraph. I'm not much for poetry.

I think in theory you could categorize writing on a plane or sort of biaxial continuum or sliding scale. On one axis you have "good" vs "bad" and on another axis you have "fun" vs "boring". This gives you four extremes: totally epic, good-but-boring aka "the classic", so-bad-it's-good aka "the farce", and utterly worthless, aka "OMG WTF IS THIS I DON'T EVEN". 

The problem with this is that everyone skews those axes differently, and it's extremely difficult to find a truly objective viewpoint from which to relativize all others.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 30, 2012)

I think you can judge the quality of writing skill and the ability to convey points. Whether a story is good is subjective because you're dealing with a whole, but you can tear apart the pieces and tell whether each of them is 'good' or 'bad.'


----------



## Devor (Apr 30, 2012)

It would be pretty expensive, and I don't know if there's enough precedent with books, but the right combination of market research could objectively determine the quality of a book by any standards I can think of. K-Means clustering and focus groups can pinpoint a book's appeal, to whom, how much, and why pretty accurately and give you several metrics to evaluate.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> A book may have a variety of purposes. It may be to enlighten, or to entertain, or to inform. In some instances, maybe a book does all three. Your goal as a reader, at any given moment, may be all of these things, or it may be only one of them. If you pick up a book and it serves the purpose you expect from it, then the writer has done her job. Whether it serves that purpose is likely to hinge on many more subjective factors than objective ones.



Steerpike has a point here. The closest thing there is to a rubric of objectively good writing is this: 
A. Is the writer clear about what purpose they intend to serve?
B. Do they serve it in a satisfactory manner?

If condition A is met, then any criticism of a "pop fiction" book being shallow are irrelevant, because the writer (should have) made it clear from the start that this was not intended to be a deep and philosophical treatise on the human condition. You can call a spade a spade, but you can't criticize it for _being _a spade unless it claims to be something else. Thus, even shallow writing can be considered "good" as long as it makes it clear that it's shallow from the start. Now condition B is the tricky one, because that word "satisfactory" is what opens the door for multitude of opinion. We've narrowed the definition of good a little, but not by much.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> It would be pretty expensive, and I don't know if there's enough precedent with books, but the right combination of market research could objectively determine the quality of a book by any standards I can think of. K-Means clustering and focus groups can pinpoint a book's appeal, to whom, how much, and why pretty accurately and give you several metrics to evaluate.



Yes, but that makes the assumption that "X group likes it" = "it's good". Can we make that assumption? Does mass appeal and financial success equal quantitative "goodness"? Consider Transformers 2 for example.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Yes, but that makes the assumption that "X group likes it" = "it's good". Can we make that assumption? Does mass appeal and financial success equal quantitative "goodness"? Consider Transformers 2 for example.



 Well, if we're going to argue that writing is subjective as to whether or not it's good or bad, we also have to apply that logic to Transformers 2.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Thus, even shallow writing can be considered "good" as long as it makes it clear that it's shallow from the start. Now condition B is the tricky one, because that word "satisfactory" is what opens the door for multitude of opinion. We've narrowed the definition of good a little, but not by much.



Yes, I think this is right. I like to read deep books. At time, I also like to read shallow books that I expect will be light, quick reads that are entertaining and little more. Both types of books can be "good" writing if you keep the purpose in mind. By the same token, if I watch an episode of The X-Files versus a documentary on insects, my goals are different. I'm going to learn a lot more from the documentary, but if I enjoy the X-Files episode, then it too is "good" in that sense.

@Devor - I think with the marketing angle you are talking about, you are still ultimately measuring people's subjective reactions to the product. You can quantify those reactions and establish metrics by which to gauge them, but it seems to me the underlying data are still subjective by and large.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 30, 2012)

Shockley said:


> Well, if we're going to argue that writing is subjective as to whether or not it's good or bad, we also have to apply that logic to Transformers 2.



That's exactly my point. Trying to objectively categorize writing as "good" or "bad" creates the "Transformers 2 Paradox". Is Transformers 2 good or bad? 

Many people paid to see it. Many people hated it. Some people enjoyed it, but even those people will say it's a bad film. So is it good or bad? 

This is the "Transformers 2 Paradox".


----------



## Devor (Apr 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> @Devor - I think with the marketing angle you are talking about, you are still ultimately measuring people's subjective reactions to the product. You can quantify those reactions and establish metrics by which to gauge them, but it seems to me the underlying data are still subjective by and large.



Only to an extent.  You can objectively measure appeal, and why, but then you would have to make a value judgement as to which audience and which reason can be determine that the work was better.  For instance, you could measure appeal to well-read fantasy critics (just one K-Means group), and then determine how many of them felt the work was original.  Hypothetically, you could even measure how that viewpoints changed over time or across regions, and determine which works survive scrutiny.  You could find, "Well, these people didn't like it, but only because it was too dark for them.  That's not determinate of quality.  Another group consistently felt that the protagonist was irrational in making key decisions.  Does that reflect quality?"

The result would be an argument about which standards you consider determinate of quality, but you would have clear and objective metrics to make that decision if you knew how to analyze them.

The fact that the objective metrics are derived from subjective answers is actually immaterial; that's the case of all the social sciences.  Objective statistical conclusions can be made from subjective data.




Mindfire said:


> This is the "Transformers 2 Paradox".



That's not a paradox.  A lot of people just saw a bad film.  That can actually be objectively determined by Market Research.

A bad film is not the same as a bad decision to make the film.  That's another question.

The success of the next piece in a series is often influenced by the one before it.  A great episode of House may have lousy ratings, but the following week the ratings pick up because people were talking about the show.  Transformers 2 was a terrible film, but it sold well because the first Transformers was mostly pretty good.  Transformers 3 is generally considered "okay," but it suffered in people's minds from the drag of T2 and performed the worst so far.

It's not really a paradox, or even confusing, if you understand the industry.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> That's not a paradox.  A lot of people just saw a bad film.  That can actually be objectively determined by Market Research.
> 
> A bad film is not the same as a bad decision to make the film.  That's another question.
> 
> ...



No, no. You missed my point entirely. Not only did a lot of people see this bad film, but they enjoyed the bad film. Thus the film is both good (people enjoyed it) AND bad (those same people call it bad). THAT is the paradox, or rather one variation of it.


----------



## Devor (Apr 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> No, no. You missed my point entirely. Not only did a lot of people see this bad film, but they enjoyed the bad film. Thus the film is both good (people enjoyed it) AND bad (those same people call it bad). THAT is the paradox, or rather one variation of it.



Okay.  That's a much more legitimate question, but it can still be resolved pretty easily.  You can differentiate the experience of seeing a film with an appreciation of the actual elements of the film, if you know how to approach that distinction.

It's not the subjective nature which is the problem in a social science so much as the ability of the researcher to accurately sense and target the properties of what's being tested.  But that's a problem which can be overcome in any given case.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> Okay.  That's a much more legitimate question, but it can still be resolved pretty easily.  You can differentiate the experience of seeing a film with an appreciation of the actual elements of the film, if you know how to approach that distinction.
> 
> It's not the subjective nature which is the problem in a social science so much as the ability of the researcher to accurately sense and target the properties of what's being tested.  But that's a problem which can be overcome in any given case.



Isn't that a bit reductionist?


----------



## Shockley (Apr 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> No, no. You missed my point entirely. Not only did a lot of people see this bad film, but they enjoyed the bad film. Thus the film is both good (people enjoyed it) AND bad (those same people call it bad). THAT is the paradox, or rather one variation of it.




 At your basic point though, you're accepting (even forcing the idea) that it is a bad film.

 I think that establishes a basic rule for literature, as well. People who are exposed to a great deal of literature (especially what we might qualify as 'good' literature) are the primary arbiters of what is good and what is not, with the majority of people just being mere observers.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 30, 2012)

Shockley said:


> At your basic point though, you're accepting (even forcing the idea) that it is a bad film.
> 
> I think that establishes a basic rule for literature, as well. People who are exposed to a great deal of literature (especially what we might qualify as 'good' literature) are the primary arbiters of what is good and what is not, with the majority of people just being mere observers.



So what you're saying is that the unwashed masses are incapable of telling good from bad? That creates another conundrum. Is that true, or are we just being elitist? Or both?


----------



## Shockley (Apr 30, 2012)

> So what you're saying is that the unwashed masses are incapable of telling good from bad? That creates another conundrum. Is that true, or are we just being elitist? Or both?



 I wouldn't break it down in those terms, but essentially.

 If you're trying to find out what defines good food, do you go to someone who eats exclusively at McDonald's or Anthony Bourdain?

 If you're trying to find out what defines good film, do you ask Michael Bey or Frederico Fellini?

 That also goes for people who just experience things. I have a friend whose favorite movie is Prince of Persia and another friend who is a film major. One of them, obviously, has more experience in dealing with cinema and is more qualified to determine good from bad.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 30, 2012)

As to whether or not I'm being elitist, well, there's nothing inherently wrong with being elitist. It's just how you personally interpret that label.


----------



## Devor (Apr 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Isn't that a bit reductionist?



I don't know what you mean.  I'm only saying, if you can make a value judgement about what features are considered good writing, we can develop objective metrics about which groups agree that a writing posses those features and to what extent.  From that evidence, we can draw objective conclusions about the quality of a book.

About T2, we can determine whether the movie is considered to be artistically bad, and whether the experience of watching the movie was still enjoyable and why.  You still have to make a value judgement as to what of that matters for whatever the question at hand.  But the qualities _can_ be measured.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 30, 2012)

Shockley said:


> I wouldn't break it down in those terms, but essentially.
> 
> If you're trying to find out what defines good food, do you go to someone who eats exclusively at McDonald's or Anthony Bourdain?
> 
> If you're trying to find out what defines good film, do you ask Michael Bey or Frederico Fellini?



If you're trying to define "good" _objectively_, then you're _making a mistake_. A given piece of food might taste like manna from heaven to you, and taste like dog crap to me. A given Fellini film might be transcendently beautiful to me, and a boring snooze-fest to you.

Does this mean it's not okay to seek out Bourdain instead of McD's? Of course not. But what you're trying to find out is not _which food is good_; what you're trying to do is find out _which food you will enjoy._

_Neither of us is wrong. Neither of us is right._ Rightness and wrongness _cannot be applied to taste._

What you _can_ do is statistically analyze food and movies, but even if something is _popular_, that does not make it _good_. "This [food | movie] is good" is synonymous in *all cases* with "I like this [food | movie]."


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> I don't know what you mean.  I'm only saying, if you can make a value judgement about what features are considered good writing, we can develop objective metrics about which groups agree that a writing posses those features and to what extent.  From that evidence, we can draw objective conclusions about the quality of a book.



Ah, but you are axiomatically declaring that certain features are "good" writing. Why do those features get to be called "good" and others don't?


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2012)

I agree with what Benjamin has stated, above.

As for delegating the task to the "elites," however you want to define them, anyone who has spent any amount of time around academia can tell you that you can't even get close to a unanimous verdict on such issues by people who have extensive training and exposure to the field. I'm not saying there are no objective elements, but when it comes to these sorts of issues they are vastly outweighed by subjective preferences.


----------



## Devor (Apr 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Ah, but you are axiomatically declaring that certain features are "good" writing. Why do those features get to be called "good" and others don't?



I'm not.  I'm saying that however you define "good," those qualities can be measured.  It's like saying Boston is a "big city."  It's subjective, until you define "big."

However, once you break down the data, you will probably see clear trends that will redefine your notion of good and bad writing.  For instance - and I'm just guessing, based a little on other discussions - you might find a "plain" main character reaches more people because a more distinct one is unrelatable to many people.  If you realize that a book is being received poorly because the main character is too distinct and original, you might decide, "This factor doesn't seem like it should matter as to whether the book is artistically sound in and of itself, so we can factor that out and see whether the work holds up against our other standards."  Even though that factor might be a huge consideration when it comes to the business side of whether it will sell and be received by audiences.

_I'm not making a decision about whether the book is good or not_, I'm saying that it's possible the conversation can be moved to an objective measure of the various qualities a book possesses.

((edit))

For instance, this is a testable statement.



shangrila said:


> People who don't read or like fantasy much will enjoy them into their adult years, but I think anyone who's actually interested in the genre will be able to find something much, much better.



Market Research can determine whether and how much Harry Potter appeals to people based on their lack of familiarity with the fantasy genre.  With that information, you can then decide for yourself whether that, along with other factors, makes it a good book by your standards.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 30, 2012)

Just popping in to add that what's determined to be good and bad can be cultural too. A movie like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is considered really good in the west, but in China, not so much. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Why has it flopped in the east? | Film | The Guardian

The discrepancy I believe is because of the existence of what people call "High" and "Low" context cultures. It affects communication written and verbal. High Context vs. Low Context Communication
High context culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Low context culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

my two cents.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 30, 2012)

Devor said:


> I'm not.  I'm saying that however you define "good," those qualities can be measured.  It's like saying Boston is a "big city."  It's subjective, until you define "big."
> 
> However, once you break down the data, you will probably see clear trends that will redefine your notion of good and bad writing.  For instance - and I'm just guessing, based a little on other discussions - you might find a "plain" main character *reaches more people* because a more distinct one is unrelatable to many people.



I agree with what you're saying here, _as long as_ "reaches more people" is not a synonym for "is objectively better in an absolute sense." Reaching more people is not always (usually, but not always) what a writer wants.



> _I'm not making a decision about whether the book is good or not_, I'm saying that it's possible the conversation can be moved to an objective measure of the various qualities a book possesses.



Agreed. If we're all in general agreement about what makes a book "good" (that is, we accept the same underlying axioms about what constitutes "good"), then we can focus on those qualities and figure out how to quantify them.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Very true. And the whole taste and preference thing muddles the issue even further. I'm sure that Crowley passage was well-written, but I got bored after the first paragraph. I'm not much for poetry.
> 
> I think in theory you could categorize writing on a plane or sort of biaxial continuum or sliding scale. On one axis you have "good" vs "bad" and on another axis you have "fun" vs "boring". This gives you four extremes: totally epic, good-but-boring aka "the classic", so-bad-it's-good aka "the farce", and utterly worthless, aka "OMG WTF IS THIS I DON'T EVEN".
> 
> The problem with this is that everyone skews those axes differently, and it's extremely difficult to find a truly objective viewpoint from which to relativize all others.



This makes me think of the scene in Dead Poets Society where Mr. Keating has his students tear out the introduction to their books on appreciating poetry which instructs them to judge the qualities of a poem by a graph.

There are methods to writing essays that we learn in school, and how to bring about and develop the points we'd like to make in the writing. The same can be said for writing fiction. There are effective methods and techniques, and others which are not, like the DEM, which is what we were all initially talking about. Soft magic versus hard magic. 

I think that writing is like magic. There are rules. There are definitely rules. Some can be bent, and others can be broken. Some remain vague and enigmatic, while others are plain and easy, like the rules of grammar. 

The hardness in a poem like the one Crowley included is the rhyme and meter: these are quantifiable. Easy to follow, and easy to spot when it's spoiled. 

The softness is the inexplicable manifestation of the perfect word, snow, in exactly the place that it is needed. The moment when that happens - and I believe we have all felt this - we feel we have been given a gift. Maybe from a muse, maybe from part of our psyche, - who knows; but the mysterious quality of the Source is enchanting and unquantifiable. The more a writer has faith in the story, the more the story will inform him or her and allow these brilliant connections to occur. Genius occurs in art as someone rides the line between skilled control and faithful surrender. 

I feel like I have a very basic rating system in my head with which I appraise the material I encounter: books, music, film, friends, conversation, etc. Maybe we all do this, assigning numbers or stars to the stuff that we deign to be worth such attention. Obviously, the things that I consider truly brilliant get the highest rating - and these are the works that have blended all the aspects of the art into, quite literally, a masterpiece. In a story this means compelling and complex characters, a fascinating plot, a heady style and a powerful use of language, mythic progression, and emotional invocation to a powerful catharsis at the climax. 

It doesn't happen very often that I encounter literature that is truly mythic, crafted by the hand of a poet, with the eye of a visionary. There are a few pieces that I've analysed over the years to see why they are so effective, and it's a marvel because I can't conceive of any way to improve them. They are perfect, and they fill my heart with wonder and my eyes with tears. 

Some of the books and films I enjoyed in my youth were "shallow" and there's nothing wrong with that; but since those days my tastes have become more sophisticated so that I gravitate towards pieces that are more satisfactory. Any connoisseur in any field will choose more elevated creations if they can. But these things aren't necessarily "better"; they're just more created with more skill - and ultimately one will find more nourishment in a meal prepared by a gourmet chef than they will in a Big Mac. 

I believe the qualities of a piece can be identified and judged individually on their effectiveness. That is why I say it is objective: I believe that a system can be created, if it hasn't already been. To do so would be exhaustive, but that is what we expect of ourselves and those we chose to edit our writing, is it not - to ferret out the flaws and find ways to more effectively convey our ideas so that our writing approaches perfection.


----------

