Back in the day, I started ‘The Hunt For Red October’ and noped out when the Soviet submarine commander wrote the KGB a litter telling them that he was stealing the most powerful weapon on Earth. It was so colossally stupid that I refused to read another line.
Unless you’re telling me that you actually listen to Guitar 101 students making all sorts of errors.
Here’s Ray Charles singing The Alphabet Song. Superior talent can take simple things and vastly improve them. Untalented people can take good ingredients and make an inedible mess.
They Might Be Giants wrote, “The sun is a mass of incandescent gas…” Still a good song despite being wrong (yes I know they’ve “updated” it)
People love Marvel movies even though they’re full of plot holes and formulaic stories but I’m not gonna say they should stop in favor of films which aren’t, ya know? Instead of saying “stop watching that crap,” say “you might also like [similar but ‘better’ film]”
For the record, I’ve never read a Clancy novel so I have no horse in this race
It’s not all that different. And I don’t think whether or not I’ve read Clancy is relevant here when my point is “people like different things about art and you shouldn’t pretend your preference is objectively better”
It’s totally cool to like things BECAUSE they’re hyper realistic but it’s also totally cool to not care about that. I am much more in-line with you in that regard…inaccuracies take me out of stories…But others aren’t bothered. Why tell them their preference is bad?
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
Objectively means that any disinterested person can pick out the quality. If OP were looking for red shoes, black shoes would be objectively the wrong choice.
It doesn’t matter if you like ice fishing or not, objectively the Sahara Desert is not a good place to go ice fishing.
I noted the difference between my subjective enjoyment of the authors, and the objective fact that the books weren’t right wing.
Personal enjoyment is not something you can quantify in a way that allows for objectivity.
Chess is an OBJECTIVELY more complex game than checkers. That does not mean that it’s objectively more enjoyable because complexity isn’t how everyone ranks their enjoyment.
I like your example of ice fishing in the Sahara because it demonstrates how you don’t understand that entertainment is subjective.
Let people like what they like for the reasons they like it.
Back in the day, I started ‘The Hunt For Red October’ and noped out when the Soviet submarine commander wrote the KGB a litter telling them that he was stealing the most powerful weapon on Earth. It was so colossally stupid that I refused to read another line.
Unless you’re telling me that you actually listen to Guitar 101 students making all sorts of errors.
Here’s Ray Charles singing The Alphabet Song. Superior talent can take simple things and vastly improve them. Untalented people can take good ingredients and make an inedible mess.
https://youtu.be/JUMu3uB7VKQ
They Might Be Giants wrote, “The sun is a mass of incandescent gas…” Still a good song despite being wrong (yes I know they’ve “updated” it)
People love Marvel movies even though they’re full of plot holes and formulaic stories but I’m not gonna say they should stop in favor of films which aren’t, ya know? Instead of saying “stop watching that crap,” say “you might also like [similar but ‘better’ film]”
For the record, I’ve never read a Clancy novel so I have no horse in this race
It’s apples and oranges. No one expects to get accurate scientific data in a pop song, and no one expects a comic book movie to be realistic.
People accept a lot of inaccuracies in a James Bond movie, but they’d feel cheated if Bond suddenly had the power to time travel or turn into a lion.
Since you never read the book I have nothing to add.
It’s not all that different. And I don’t think whether or not I’ve read Clancy is relevant here when my point is “people like different things about art and you shouldn’t pretend your preference is objectively better”
It’s totally cool to like things BECAUSE they’re hyper realistic but it’s also totally cool to not care about that. I am much more in-line with you in that regard…inaccuracies take me out of stories…But others aren’t bothered. Why tell them their preference is bad?
That’s the original comment I was responding to.
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
They are also, in my opinion, much better written and far more enjoyable.
If you’d bothered to try and understand what I was saying, you wouldn’t have wasted all our time.
The books are better for the person who posted. Objectively better because they aren’t right wing screeds.
I read and understood both comments. My point is that “there are superior writers” doesn’t mean the inferior ones aren’t worth reading.
And that’s not what objectively means, dude.
Objectively means that any disinterested person can pick out the quality. If OP were looking for red shoes, black shoes would be objectively the wrong choice.
It doesn’t matter if you like ice fishing or not, objectively the Sahara Desert is not a good place to go ice fishing.
I noted the difference between my subjective enjoyment of the authors, and the objective fact that the books weren’t right wing.
Are you still confused?
Personal enjoyment is not something you can quantify in a way that allows for objectivity.
Chess is an OBJECTIVELY more complex game than checkers. That does not mean that it’s objectively more enjoyable because complexity isn’t how everyone ranks their enjoyment.
I like your example of ice fishing in the Sahara because it demonstrates how you don’t understand that entertainment is subjective.
Let people like what they like for the reasons they like it.
Are you still on your high horse?
That completely ignores what the original poster wrote, and I never said it did.
They wanted books without Right Wing ideology. I gave them some examples of books without Right Wing ideology.
If a person says they want a musical and I give them a documentary with no music at all, I’d be objectively wrong.
Are you still confused?