Is there an objective way to evaluate literature/art? Like why can we say Hamlet, The Recognotions...

Is there an objective way to evaluate literature/art? Like why can we say Hamlet, The Recognotions, or ISOLT are better than something like Harry Potter?

Attached: 1554830959855.jpg (655x700, 106K)

Yes, we can by realizing that Harry Potter was intentionally written for an audience of edgy female teenagers.

No.

Well literature is a human practice that involves the human condition so it is something that can be evaluated on a standrand of practicability and there are things that can be measured in literature. So if you are injured will you go to a doctor or someone who has no practice in the medical field? If you want to get your car fixed will you go to a mechanic or someone that does not know what they are doing? Likewise if you want to read good literature you will read Billy Shakes rather than something a fourth grader wrote.

To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great.

Yes and no.
You can create a value system to judge art by, but any such system would be inherently arbitrary and subjective.

There is always some level of arbitrarity but please... There is no such value system that would place Harry Potter above Shakespeare and any such value system that would is inherently flawed and anti-intellectual.

Thousands of people prefer Harry Potter to Shakespeare.

Because they have undeveloped taste and no experience reading anything high brow and contenporary culture is about consuming a lot of garbage

Obviously they do and there's nothing bad with that but as a matter of fact, should we let popularity dictate whether or not a book is "valuable". Isn't it also important to considerate whether or not it seeks to advance our philosophical and cultural horizon, whether or not it forms the apex of cultural sophistication in its time?

Explain why Shakespeare is better than Harry Potter. What aspects of Shakespeare are superior to Harry Potter?

Every person that studies literature seriously prefers Shakespeare or Harry Potter

Languagewise:
Obviously Shakespeare.
Storywise:
Maybe a bit difficult to compare them both because Harry Potter is essentially one story in seven or so books but Shakespeare's stories are more nuanced, feature more in-depth and do not circle around tautological arguments.
Prosewise:
I doubt, Harry Potter has much to offer there...
Culturewise:
Harry Potter may be a good series of book for teenagers but there is no actual deeper meaning, there is no attempt at spawning new insights, new thoughts. Harry Potter simply deals with a fantasy story, nothing more whereas Shakespeare did spawn impetus and he did receive attention not solely because the books sold well.

over*

Shakespeare came first.

The names of thousands of writers have been forgotten yet Shakespeare is still remembered. Doesnt have anything to so with who came first.

A value system which favors success or the largest reach or emotional impact on the most people definitely would, but yeah, it would be dishonest.

Not true, I’ve seen some fucking horror stories.

>Languagewise:
>Obviously Shakespeare.
Why?
>Storywise:
>Maybe a bit difficult to compare them both because Harry Potter is essentially one story in seven or so books but Shakespeare's stories are more nuanced,
How so?
>feature more in-depth and do not circle around tautological arguments.
How so?
>Prosewise:
>I doubt, Harry Potter has much to offer there...
Why not?
>Culturewise:
>Harry Potter may be a good series of book for teenagers but there is no actual deeper meaning,
Why does that make it bad?
>there is no attempt at spawning new insights, new thoughts.
Why does that make it bad?
>Harry Potter simply deals with a fantasy story, nothing more
Why is that bad?
>whereas Shakespeare did spawn impetus and he did receive attention not solely because the books sold well
Why does that make him good?

Isn't this mentioned verbatim in dead poets society

Literally all of what you have said has no place in the current world’s outward opinion.

Pretty sure that was the joke

If you think that Harry Potter has more value than Shakespeare because the modern world says so, then there is something very wrong with the modern world and not with Shakespeare.

There really isn’t any point to what you’re doing. Shakespeare is great, how is Harry Potter in any way comparable?

>Shakespeare is great
That has yet to be proven by you.

I didn’t say that at all, my point was that there is something very wrong with the world.

see "of the standard of taste" by david hume

Ok then consider the opposition of the objects of Greek vs Western tragedies: the object of Greek tragedy was the incident, they saw tragedy as a reenactment of an actual event. "Character" was not important to the ancient Greek as was the event itself, as such personas like the king, priest, the farmer, etc are prominent in their plays. The personas are tools used to tell the story. This is why acting was seen as a lowly profession in Greece. Contrast this with Western tragedy that values the character over the event, for example the psychological effect on the character is the subject of plays like Macbeth and King Lear. A Westerner can reenact Oedipus Rex but he can never understand it as the ancient Greeks intended. Shakespeare was one of the first Western playwrights to use character in such a manner and that is why he has had such a huge everlasting influence in our society. We take the notion of character for granted today, but Harry Potter couldn't exist without Shakespeare coming first.

Why? - Read it.
How so? - Please take a literature course.
How so? - Refer to above.
Why not? - Refer to above.
Why does that make it bad? - It doesn't but damn sure it makes it unworthy of being called inherently valuable.
Why does that make it bad? - Refer to above.
Why is that bad? - Refer to above.
Why does that make him good? - Because humanity ultimately benefitted from Shakespeare.

Then we agree.

Not that guy, but this post really doesn’t help your cause.
Also, if you can’t tell him straight out why it is better, instead telling him to take a lit course, it gives off the feeling that you yourself haven’t taken one.

So you can't actually explain in any real way why you think anything. Cool.

Well, all tragedies were based in myths everyone were familiar with, so the characters mattered a great deal, especially Oedipus as you mentioned.
Secondly, the whole point of the drama’s climax was based all around the characters, Aristotle argues for what type of character the figure of the tragedy should be to make the impact of the play most potent.
But you are right, but also wrong.

I deem it infeasible to convince someone that Shakespeare has more literary value than Harry Potter when all he does is relentlessly questioning the arguments and bringing forward his almighty opinion that everything is subjective.

Shakespeare was lowbrow in his days.

You do realise that he probably does think Shakespeare is better than Harry Potter, and is just making light of your inability to explain why?

No he wasn't

This is completely false.

You could answer the questions and actually explain why you think what you do; that would be a good start.

>a guy who wrote the ancient version of Twilight is considered the best author of the anglo world
You can't make this shit up

Attached: poster.jpg (170x255, 15K)

Based and blueballed

Maybe, but you get what I mean. Obviously you can't have a play without characters but character development, something fundamentally crucial to Western storytelling since Shakespeare, was not important to the Greeks. You can look at the events of most Greek tragedies and find that they usually end where a Western tragedy would begin. Looking at Oedipus Rex again, it ends when Oedipus is blinded, and the sequel is set years after the fact. If Shakespeare wrote a play about it, it would be about his descent into madness after being blinded.

Character development is implied in the Oedipus trilogy more than it is shown.

nice fucking analysis retard

Nope. But even if there was it wouldn’t be worth doing

what is your fucking problem, brainlet. if you're unable to bring forward any counterarguments, why bother talking at all?

Attached: 1551574615760.jpg (454x550, 32K)

Yeah you are completely right, but you shouldn’t discard it so easily, but it was of course much more in the forefront in the west later.

There has to be an argument first to counter.

>Shakespeare has good language, good story, and good meaning. Harry potter, on the other hand, has BAD language, BAD story, and NO meaning. Therefore Shakespeare>Harry potter, Q.E.D

Attached: brainlet6.jpg (645x729, 48K)

>Why?
why not?
>How so?
how aren’t they?
>How so?
how doesn’t it?
>Why not?
why?
>Why does that make it bad?
why wouldn’t it?
>Why does that make it bad?
why wouldn’t it?
>Why is that bad?
why isn’t it?
>Why does that make him good?
why wouldn’t it?

You're the one making a claim here. Defend your opinion you coward.

This is the official declaration of surrender by the people of Shakespeare land.

We, the people of Shakespeare land, surrender to the troops of Harry Potter.
We pledge allegiance to the flag of Harry Potter.
We will fight alongside Hairy Pot-ter against the evil of those who hold dearer one author than the other.

Attached: 1554099133129.png (583x482, 119K)

not him i just despise people who do that

retard

>i just despise people who do that
Ask you to explain the opinions you present as fact? Yeah, I hate that too.

I mean, it's obvious that you're either some sort of puberscent Harry Potter fan or just have some nasty thing going on with your parents. I'm not going in depth here. If all you do is calling names, well then...

Retard.

it’s take take take, all it does is slow the conversation down

>If all you do is calling names
and what does this do? provide an argument?

>provide an argument?
No. He's asking you to explain your argument. you made a claim, so you should be able to back it up under scrutiny.

he understands, he’s asking him to (unnecessarily) show his working

>(unnecessarily)
So people can just say their opinions, present them as fact, and face no scrutiny or questioning?

it’s a very basic and stupid and dull argument ‘trick’ used by children and annoyed girlfriends to try to win rather than be right. in which case what’s the point of talking

>‘trick’
Literally just asking you to explain how you came to your conclusions.

sry i quoted the wrong one i meant

you're on the same side. refer to