Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I need to reexamine my life...
^^^^Bullshit. There's plenty of children's literature that succeeds in being good stories for adults as well.
I really, really don't see why something's merit as a children's book/show/whatever should have even the slightest bit to do with how much adults like it.
Your point assumes that what entertains children can't entertain adults. Either that or I'm misreading your post.
I assume he means that if something for children does a good job entertaining them, but not adults, then it's not objectively bad. He didn't rule out the possibility of something being entertaining to both children and adults.
But the problem is that children like different things than adults. I suppose you could say that Alvin and the Chipmunks is "objectively" good because it entertains children, but why does that make it a good movie? The best children's entertainment should be able to sustain both children and adult attention spans.
(nevermind, I'm probably an idiot and I don't want to come across as discrediting Gelzo's argument or something)
Kids are easily entertained. Kids are entertained by Total Drama Island, Power Rangers, and My Little Pony. Just because they like it doesn't make it worthwhile, and excusing something for being crap because it entertains kids is intellectually lazy. If it's good then it's not limited to being enjoyed by kids. Hell, the simplest stories can still be very engaging for adults. Hell, look at Dr. Seuss.
Besides, enjoyment of either isn't a good signifier of quality for any entertainment. I'm enjoying the hell out of the Japanese Spider-man show right not but I would never call it good.
I'mma get this out of the way: the latest incarnation of My Little Pony is not crap. At least not to me, anyway. And it's meant to appeal to both children and adults, anyway.
It's almost as though I specifically chose that example to troll. =P
Lately I'm beginning to think that statements like this don't really make a whole lot of sense, but since I can't really articulate my thoughts very well I'll just ask: what exactly is the purpose of measuring the quality of a given work of entertainment, if personal enjoyment isn't a part of it (and thus if it isn't a measure of how entertaining it is)? Serious question, because I really am quite confused.
I think I've spoken before in a subject. So I'll save you sometime and say the abridged version:
Just because you like something, it doesn't mean it's good. You can like bad things.
And
Just because you dislike something, it doesn't mean it's bad. You can dislike good things.
So what's the deal here and what allows for these to happen? Simple. Personal appeal. I love superheroes. I really do. I like the idea of black and white morality, men in capes fighting super criminals, etc etc. And I can forgive a bad story if it does these things well and entertains me. But that doesn't stop me from noticing the bad.
For me, I would say a work can be counted as a good work if it serves the purpose intended for it adequately. If I say something is a bad work, I mean primarily that I didn't or can clearly see that I wouldn't enjoy it. In practice this generally carries the implication that the same would hold for people who could be expected to enjoy it, otherwise I would simply say I didn't enjoy it. By my best description of how I define it, if something is a bad form of children's entertainment, it is either not entertaining for children or is otherwise unsuitable for them.
A good [children's book] is a book that is good for children. A children's book that is good appeals to me. These are two different things. Usually the superior work will involve both being true all else equal, but that isn't a necessity for either kind.
That's all I have to say. I have more important things I need to take care of, and I've already indulged my laziness enough today.
^^ No, see, that's not what I don't get. Well it is, but not really. At the very least, I've heard that enough that I've committed it to memory. I mean, why is it that entertainment is labeled as "good" or "bad" in the first place? What is gained by doing that, and what exactly does something being "good" or "bad" actually tell you about the work of entertainment?
It helps towards understanding what works actually contribute to the art form and help it progress or exemplify how some aspects or all aspects of a medium can be used in synergy.
So basically, you should only care about this if you want to either discuss media or understand media.
Ah. I suppose I figured it was something like that. Thank you for your help.
That being the case though, I think it sounds a little bit pretentious, and (more importantly) more than a little bit misleading to use "good" and "bad" and the like that way, when what's really being discussed seems to be something else entirely. Though I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot.
Not quite. At least, I think good use of narrative and aesthetical principles are...you know...a good thing that helps towards making a work "good".
I'd say it's more pretentious to call something good because you like it and not because it was done well, to be perfectly honest.
Liking something because it's good and enjoying it because it's bad is a very similar difference to that between altruism and schadenfreude. The latter might be amusing but probably not "good."
For me, something is "good" entertainment if it is enjoyed by many people, and "bad" if it isn't. Simple as that. However, there's plenty of good entertainment that you wouldn't objectively claim was great art (and vice versa - I've seen plenty of modern art that may have been good art, but wasn't exactly entertaining). Similarly, there are works that are both good art and good entertainment.
The controversy comes when you try and decide what work falls into which category, especially if its fans pile in.