>Serious, maybe. Commerically viable these days... well, we know better,
>don't we? :)
Yes, but the distressing thing is that even books are not terribly viable
these days. It's only because printing is so cheap that there are as many
books as there are. Most publishers seem to prop themselves up on a few
hit titles (like _The Bridges of Madison County_).
>>Elements of this thread smack of the notion that all things are equally
>>good when considered in the appropriate context. I admit I don't buy that;
>>for example, IMHO, Handel's _Messiah_ is better than Michael Jackson's
>>_HIStory_ in an absolute sense.
>
>Not if you want to dance.
There --- you're doing it! You're saying that one is better than the other
within a certain context. This may be true, but says nothing about which
one is better in an absolute sense.
Consider this analogy: A fast computer, I think we'd all agree, is
absolutely better than a slow one, all other things being equal. Yet you
could argue that the slow one is better, for example, if you're getting
paid by the hour and you don't like the work you're doing on the computer.
(I.e., if you'd rather sit around waiting for the machine to grind away
than make more progress on the problem.)
The fact that there is a limited context in which we might prefer A to B is
no reason to throw common sense (or, in this case, artistic sensiblilty)
out the window and refuse to make an overall qualitative judgment on A
vs. B.
>Same old Baggett, I see...some things never change, do they?
I don't think I'll ever agree with the idea that all things are equally
good. It's counterproductive (since it argues against trying to improve
one's work --- what does it mean to improve something if it's all a matter
of finding the right context in which to consider it anyway?), and it
makes criticism essentially irrelevant.
>>I'd say the same thing of _Detective_ vs. _Trinity_ --- wouldn't you?
>
>Same genre. Not the same argument. "Music in General" <> "IF"
I don't see your point here. How is "IF in general" an acceptable context
while "Music in general" isn't?
>No, but you've got to define your terms. If the author's trying to write
>a silly game with a lot of weird spellings (for example, hah hah) then
>he's not going to write "Detective."
Of course it's important to understand an author's intentions before
reviewing a work. But that doesn't mean I can write garbage and expect
people to call it wonderful "in the context of a game that's supposed to be
garbage" --- as wonderful as Trinity is "in the context of a game that's
supposed to be a work of art." It seems to me that the relativism you are
so fond of leads us to equate these two kinds of "wonderful," which is an
obvious mistake.
Dave Baggett
__
dmb@ai.mit.edu
"Mr. Price: Please don't try to make things nice! The wrong notes are *right*."
--- Charles Ives (note to copyist on the autograph score of The Fourth of July)