Um, yeah. I wouldn't have much of a problem with the "please don't commit suicide" foreword either way. Although it strikes me as unnecessary, or even slightly vain.
We differ on this issue anyway. I think if an author can think about the social consequences of their work, that can be an interesting thing in an artistic sense (as well as in the ethical sense that seems to interest you). I don't agree that they have to, because I like too many works in which those impacts sit rather unconsidered. Good example: H. P. Lovecraft, frequently direly racist in his outlook. But I'd never argue that he shouldn't have been published. In fact, what his racism reveals about his own evident "fear of the Other" contributes neatly to the paranoia that infests the rest of his fictional landscape. Perhaps the Cthulhu Mythos without racism would be less worthwhile.
As far as the relativism of "good" writing goes, if I'm in conversation and I know that we both agree something is good, or even great (let's say The Left Hand of Darkness), I'm happy to call it that. Based on experience, I know that if I call it "good" to other carefully judged third parties and they read it on my recommendation, we won't be too far off the mark altogether. That's as much as I need, not being a pro reviewer or one who's keen on authoring the latest official literary canon: and everyone knows that those official "100 Best" lists are trash in the final analysis.
I do disagree with your remark that "the skill of a good author lies in being able to craft words in a way which speak to multiple people an effective way". To my mind that's more the skill of the commercial author -- broad appeal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
We differ on this issue anyway. I think if an author can think about the social consequences of their work, that can be an interesting thing in an artistic sense (as well as in the ethical sense that seems to interest you). I don't agree that they have to, because I like too many works in which those impacts sit rather unconsidered. Good example: H. P. Lovecraft, frequently direly racist in his outlook. But I'd never argue that he shouldn't have been published. In fact, what his racism reveals about his own evident "fear of the Other" contributes neatly to the paranoia that infests the rest of his fictional landscape. Perhaps the Cthulhu Mythos without racism would be less worthwhile.
As far as the relativism of "good" writing goes, if I'm in conversation and I know that we both agree something is good, or even great (let's say The Left Hand of Darkness), I'm happy to call it that. Based on experience, I know that if I call it "good" to other carefully judged third parties and they read it on my recommendation, we won't be too far off the mark altogether. That's as much as I need, not being a pro reviewer or one who's keen on authoring the latest official literary canon: and everyone knows that those official "100 Best" lists are trash in the final analysis.
I do disagree with your remark that "the skill of a good author lies in being able to craft words in a way which speak to multiple people an effective way". To my mind that's more the skill of the commercial author -- broad appeal.