Suspension of Disbelief and Good Fiction.
- Thread starter DLPB
- Start date
- Status
If I could explain that to you, I would. All I do know is, the amount of times I see a retarded post here is way above what I would call normal. Dacon for example, has no idea about the basic structure of fiction. I know that because I have seen his posts, and they demonstrate a lack of understanding that at first I put down to trolling. I am not talking about detailed arguments here, I am talking basic understanding that you should know when you are 10.
So why am I more qualified than him? Because I do understand. I have obviously read a shit load more on it and understand the debate far better. I don't need a badge to tell me that I know what I am on about and he doesnt. It is as plain as a pair of tits.
Go and watch the reviews and if after you have finished, you are disagreeing with that guy on a lot of stuff he says, watch it again and again until it sinks in. That reviewer by the way, understands it more than me in a lot of places, and actually educated me as well.
So why am I more qualified than him? Because I do understand. I have obviously read a shit load more on it and understand the debate far better. I don't need a badge to tell me that I know what I am on about and he doesnt. It is as plain as a pair of tits.
Go and watch the reviews and if after you have finished, you are disagreeing with that guy on a lot of stuff he says, watch it again and again until it sinks in. That reviewer by the way, understands it more than me in a lot of places, and actually educated me as well.
Last edited:
- AKA
- Caius Ballad
I've never notcied a lack of udnerstanding in his posts.
But regardless, you say you understand what makes good fiction, and in your mind I'm certain you do. However, have you considered that what you judge to be good fiction or bad fiction is not exactly the same as what other people consider to be good or bad? If so have you further considered that maybe that doesn't have to do so much with a lack of proper understanding so much as a difference in taste? One mans treasure is anothers garbage.
But regardless, you say you understand what makes good fiction, and in your mind I'm certain you do. However, have you considered that what you judge to be good fiction or bad fiction is not exactly the same as what other people consider to be good or bad? If so have you further considered that maybe that doesn't have to do so much with a lack of proper understanding so much as a difference in taste? One mans treasure is anothers garbage.
Well that's a very good post. (Apart from not seeing lack of understanding in Dacons posts that is)
You are correct, that it is each person who enjoys what they enjoy. That is opinion. Bad taste does exist though. But... you are right. We all like different things and that's not the issue.
The issue is, that certain things, even if you like them, are flawed. It is possible to like something which is poorly made or developed or has many flaws. AC for example, it isn't an opinion that AC is poorly made from a story point of view. It is a fact.
It has got so many things wrong with it, not least the fact that development and story are really basic, that although you are free to like the film, you can't just dismiss the faults.
It is 1 long battle sequence after another, trying to make up for the fact that nothing is happening. A study of AC would expose it for so many things it isn't funny. It has broke so many fundamentals of story telling... including... telling a proper story with proper narrative and dialogue.
Sure, it isn't all bad. Sure, you can still enjoy it. But that doesn't alter the fact that it got so many things wrong.
If you look at the reviews that guy has done of Star Wars, you will see how he rips its soul apart and exposes it for just how BAD it is. And it IS bad... it is no opinion. But does that mean people can't like it?
Hell no. Personal preference and how good a fiction is, are not the same thing.
Except I can, and I come to nearly all the conclusions he does, because they are facts. Plot holes, bad dialogue, lack of exposition, over use of special effects arent just something you dream up... they are real and provable.
You are correct, that it is each person who enjoys what they enjoy. That is opinion. Bad taste does exist though. But... you are right. We all like different things and that's not the issue.
The issue is, that certain things, even if you like them, are flawed. It is possible to like something which is poorly made or developed or has many flaws. AC for example, it isn't an opinion that AC is poorly made from a story point of view. It is a fact.
It has got so many things wrong with it, not least the fact that development and story are really basic, that although you are free to like the film, you can't just dismiss the faults.
It is 1 long battle sequence after another, trying to make up for the fact that nothing is happening. A study of AC would expose it for so many things it isn't funny. It has broke so many fundamentals of story telling... including... telling a proper story with proper narrative and dialogue.
Sure, it isn't all bad. Sure, you can still enjoy it. But that doesn't alter the fact that it got so many things wrong.
If you look at the reviews that guy has done of Star Wars, you will see how he rips its soul apart and exposes it for just how BAD it is. And it IS bad... it is no opinion. But does that mean people can't like it?
Hell no. Personal preference and how good a fiction is, are not the same thing.
Except I can, and I come to nearly all the conclusions he does, because they are facts. Plot holes, bad dialogue, lack of exposition, over use of special effects arent just something you dream up... they are real and provable.
Last edited:
AC:
Dialogue is poor.
Exposition is poor
Story is basic
use of special effects is too long and at the expense of story
No attempts made to explain certain events (like Rufus surviving, and getting up from his wheel chair)
Characters are "just there", we dont know anything about loz or the others. All we know is they are there. We feel nothing for them. The only reason we can feel something for the established characters is because we played VII. That's not a good thing, if it has to rely on the previous installment. It is a flaw.
Denzel. Why should I feel anything for him? He is just some kid. Nothing explained.
I would have to go through Advent Children and doa review voice over. You know what! I WILL.
and I havent seen ACC. I cant see it making a difference either.
Dialogue is poor.
Exposition is poor
Story is basic
use of special effects is too long and at the expense of story
No attempts made to explain certain events (like Rufus surviving, and getting up from his wheel chair)
Characters are "just there", we dont know anything about loz or the others. All we know is they are there. We feel nothing for them. The only reason we can feel something for the established characters is because we played VII. That's not a good thing, if it has to rely on the previous installment. It is a flaw.
Denzel. Why should I feel anything for him? He is just some kid. Nothing explained.
I would have to go through Advent Children and doa review voice over. You know what! I WILL.
and I havent seen ACC. I cant see it making a difference either.
Last edited:
- AKA
- Caius Ballad
But one could argue that if a person enjoys a movie, even a heavily flawed one, then that movie is good for that individual. Its true that things like plot holes and poor dialogue can harm a film, and make it unappealing to many many people. But if you enjoy the piece of fiction in question then it is good for you, just not for everyone else.
See, no, everything you mentioned is subjective. William S. Burroughs wrote books where large portions of the plot weren't even explained. They were regarded as revolutionary. By your standards that would make them "bad fiction" despite the fact that the writing was so incendiary it wound up inspiring a whole new generation of writers.
"Bad dialogue" is completely subjective. Writing that one person finds terrible might be superb to another. Apart from obvious things like poor grammar (which is all over the place in your posts, I might add), there's really no objective criteria for "bad dialogue." Not even "realistic dialogue" necessarily means "good dialogue"; reviewers have constantly noted that no one speaks in Don DeLillo like people actually speak in real life, but that hasn't stopped them from being extremely highly regarded by critics and other writers.
"Lack of exposition" might be regarded as a strength by some readers. Some people don't want to read two hundred pages of backstory when they come into a novel; they want to get right into the action.
As for "over use [sic] of special effects," who's to say what's overuse?
So no, nothing you mentioned is at all an objective criterion for determining whether fiction is good or bad, since for starters nothing you mentioned can even be evaluated objectively. And unsurprisingly, you once again declared that you were right without bothering to prove it in the slightest.
"Bad dialogue" is completely subjective. Writing that one person finds terrible might be superb to another. Apart from obvious things like poor grammar (which is all over the place in your posts, I might add), there's really no objective criteria for "bad dialogue." Not even "realistic dialogue" necessarily means "good dialogue"; reviewers have constantly noted that no one speaks in Don DeLillo like people actually speak in real life, but that hasn't stopped them from being extremely highly regarded by critics and other writers.
"Lack of exposition" might be regarded as a strength by some readers. Some people don't want to read two hundred pages of backstory when they come into a novel; they want to get right into the action.
As for "over use [sic] of special effects," who's to say what's overuse?
So no, nothing you mentioned is at all an objective criterion for determining whether fiction is good or bad, since for starters nothing you mentioned can even be evaluated objectively. And unsurprisingly, you once again declared that you were right without bothering to prove it in the slightest.
- Status