How to judge fiction

[Nick Hunter]

So, minna-san, you may not have read the kilobytes of text me and Ponti have successfully contributed to Madoka thread, but among a few interesting points I got there (apart from a note to watch Mononoke sometime ) is the question of a good fiction work criteria. You see, my belief to this day has been that there exist general criteria (plot consistency, character portrayal, originality etc.), but no actual non-comparative measures to codify them. Discussing this stuff over the last few days and meeting strong disagreement led me to think that I might actually be clueless about what precise meaurements and standards exist to base objective criticism on. I'm no trained critic, after all, so it's a given I'm ignorant about many things from this sphere...
But even if there aren't any... Is it alright to exist withoit them? Have there been attempts to round up such measurements?
And hey, how about an audience like us give it a try?

E.g.:
- the maximum number of cliches allowed
- the minimum number of visibly portrayed personality traits per character
- number of archetypes allowed and maximum quota for characters of the same archetype
- necessary minimum of fresh ideas (I hope we won't run into a debate of what a freah idea is )
Or something more humorous for a break, like "maximum of cliche episodes like onsens/beach/Christmas" or Grunty-dedicated "maximum number of BGM usages instead of ONCE IN EACH FRIGGIN' EPISODE"
I understand that in other contexts, questions like these would sound like pure mockery and trolling, but... Hey, it IS CPM, isn't it? No matter what we come up with, it can be widely purposed as a non-serious talk thread, but who knows what interesting things we may come up with discussing. I'm simply curious.

Feel free to use examples and suggest your own questions, with or without given figures.

Also note that while this thread was inspired by the debate between me and Ponti, it's not meant to be its DIRECT continuation, let alone collapse into flame wars. Humour is welcomed, and any ironical comment is accepted unless it's taken to the personal plane. This thread's function is idle talk, really. But at the very least we'll have another topic to chat on and at the very most... Dunno, maybe build up a whole list and distribute it among the writers/directors/producers worldwide?

Ok, seems this would be a sufficient disclaimer intro to show Uncle Nick doesn't mean to troll anyone here. with that, I'm waiting for first comments!

(um, I'll post mine later... Since I have only started thinking about this recently, I have yet to think of how I would answer to the aforesaid queations myself... But I can count on you guys, right? )

 

[KP-X]

Sorry Nick, nothing against your topic or anything, but I bursted out laughing when I saw it, given the circumstances as to why it was created in the first place lol

 

[stormy panda]

Re:

Sorry Nick, nothing against your topic or anything, but I bursted out laughing when I saw it, given the circumstances as to why it was created in the first place lol

Agreed. We really do not need a continuation of the Madoka thread.

 

[Pontianak]

I think we should judge fiction by how successfully it can render a gangster unconcious.

Also;

We really do not need a continuation of the Madoka thread.

...is answered quite easily by...

it's not meant to be its DIRECT continuation

idk, just because me and NickHunter are having disagreements about people admitting Madoka is bad doesn't mean we're on bad terms. Or, at least, I don't have any sort of weird grudge against him.

 

[Nick Hunter]

Sorry Nick, nothing against your topic or anything, but I bursted out laughing when I saw it

I won't deny I was in a humorous mood myself when I was making it...

I think we should judge fiction by how successfully it can render a gangster unconcious.

Factor introduced:
- minimum number of gangsters the work can render unconscious
quotas suggested:
- 1

A nice start.

idk, just because me and NickHunter are having disagreements about people admitting Madoka is bad doesn't mean we're on bad terms.

That goes without saying.

 

[moichispa]

I'm going to kill you Nick, you forgot the music.

I'm not longer thinking on general criteria as the factor modifying it are million and because If I take that seriously I would stop liking some animes because they are not good by general criteria and there are not too much animes I like these days so let's not narrow it ever more. As long as I enjoy them I'm happy.

After all for me anime is entertainment.

 

[Pontianak]

Something doesn't have to be good for people to like it, though. Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou is bad, but I liked that. to-LOVE-ru is bad, but I liked that. Ice Revolution is bad, but I liked that. Working! is bad, but I... I liked that. Shitsurakuen is kind of bad (though idk it's more average than anything) but I liked that.

Even with games. Drakengard is bad, but it's one of my favourite games of all time.

 

[ninetales]

Hmm. To me, fiction should be judged, not only by how many cliches it uses, but how well those cliches are presented.

Example: I've watched a bit of CSI:Miami and CSI:NY in my time, and they both use cliches - i.e., the arrogant thug, the spoiled rich boy, the desperate illegal immigrant, etc. The only difference is that, in NY, their use of the cliches is predictable and basically the same in every episode. Miami, on the other hand, manages to present these archetype characters in a more sympathetic/understandable/enjoyable way, so that I don't roll my eyes when Horatio helps out the illegal or arrests the spoiled rich boy. (Unlike NY, when I have an irresistible urge to shut off the TV or throw something at the showrunners.)

At any rate, I believe that cliches themselves should be avoided in fiction, but if they absolutely must be used (and sometimes, they're unavoidable simply because there are so many of them, given fiction's long history in the world), then they should be used in an intelligent manner. Don't underestimate the intelligence of your audience!

By the way, thanks for making this thread, Nick! A writer such as myself can definitely benefit from it

 

[Pontianak]

^ Seconding the cliche part.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with cliches, as long as they're used well and not just like "bam cliche hurr durr" so people can avoid thinking up original ideas.

 

[Nick Hunter]

I'm going to kill you Nick, you forgot the music.

I've listed one music-related option. Until I organize my thoughts better, you're welcomed to fix this problem with your own examples.
Like, I dunno...
- number of tracks?
- number of arrangements?
- number of genres used?

the trick is, quality won't do since we can't control it by math figures and thus it's vulnerable to the IMHO virus as well. And we're wondering if there can be objective, formulaic standards.

Hmm. To me, fiction should be judged, not only by how many cliches it uses, but how well those cliches are presented.

Actually, it seems like "cliche" is an actually negative term, but we're used to applying it widely. Maybe "a trope" would fit more, while a cliche seems to be the definition of a trope which is used too often and/or carelessly.

(and sometimes, they're unavoidable simply because there are so many of them, given fiction's long history in the world

And now let's throw in this site for reference. One of my favourite sites, btw.

As someone in another forum said, "... or you can read TVtropes and get butthurt for realizing that nothing in fiction is original".

Of course, that doesn't mean that creating an original idea isn't HIGHLY welcomed anymore.