What makes writing Objectively good? Do we even need or want Objectively good writing?
Title.
Coherency and consistency seem to be the go to writing virtues that can be used to measure objectively good writing. From what I’ve gathered seems to be the notion common on this sub atleast.
If im wrong I’d love to be corrected. If you disagree with my understanding, you dont have to read the following application:
A story can be objectively good and not interesting (subjectively bad). Meaning it makes sense (coherent) and maintains a uniform style/logic (consistent)
So would the following be objectively good?
‘I walked my dog to the shop. I bought a loaf of bread and some butter. I walked my dog home.’
Correct me if im wrong but this isnt engaging. So would also be considered subjectively bad. Yet it would also be considered objectively good.
Which raises a question, do you need to be coherent or consistent to be subjectively good?
Its clear to me the answer is no. What a person finds to be subjectively good is arguably inherently irrational or arational (could be irrational based on desires or rationality/irrationality might not apply).
It occurs to me I re-watch the films I enjoy rather than the films i consider to be the most consistent.
Yet im drawn to an argument which says something like ‘objectively good writing is more likely to provoke a consistent reaction amongst different people’ so an objectively good horror film is more likely to provoke the same kind of scared reaction from its audience, than an objectively bad film.
Any thoughts?