И още едно мнение, с което съм адски съгласен. Изумително, но не е на Питър Дейвид.
I may regret diving into this whole debate (not my field at all), but...
Literary theory and criticism does not deal in objective fact, because it is not a science. The empirical sciences (ie, those branches of learning that actually do deal in objective facts) are, well, just that -- empirical. Their theories are provable, either by direct observation or mathematically. Literary theory isn't even a social science, in my opinion -- those are at least based on observable phenomena, albeit very slippery, complex ones. It's one of the humanities, which are based on critical, often speculative analysis. However rigorous, sophisticated, logical and methodical your approach to it,
theories about how literature and the arts work and about what gives them value are strictly hypothetical, not provable. They're philosophical theories, not scientific ones. And they cannot provide an absolute expression of how 'good' a work is.
Now, of course, there are (at their best) undeniably extremely intelligent, useful, incisive techniques for analyzing a work of art. Some of them are objective, though largely only those that deal with strictly technical matters -- ie, grammar, spelling, anatomy, perspective. Some can be, I think, fairly divorced from bias -- ie, plotting, stylistic sophistication, thematic ambition, level of performance. Many are very largely subjective, regardless of how rigorously one analyzes them. Is there really any objective standard to judge whether humour is funny? What visual composition is better? Which themes are more worthy? I'm no expert, but I find it very difficult to conceive of any means of objectively judging these things. And to me, that means that, however rigorous and logical and methodical a critical analysis of a piece of art is, it can never be entirely objective. It can and should aspire to it (well, possibly -- there's occasionally something to be said for letting your enthusiasm for something you love affect a review, just so long as you don't let it overwhelm the review and don't ignore the work's flaws), but I don't think it can ever quite pull it off.
Now, again, the techniques of analysis are valuable and enlightening, and they do allow a degree of comparison, though I think only on a very broad scale. Mr. McEnery, you've raised comparisons between Nabokov and King to the effect that the former is quantifiably superior to the latter. Fair enough. I think most reasonably intelligent people would agree that an accomplished work of high literature with the sophistication and ambition of Nabokov is better than less sophisticated popular literature like King, however accomplished the latter may be. Accomplished high art is certainly superior to low art. (Though the definition of high and low art is in itself subjective -- Shakespeare's plays were strictly popular fare in their time, after all, and did not develop the reputation of great pinnacles of literature until the eighteenth century). That's still opinion rather than fact, but it's at least an opinion supported by an overwhelming consensus of very intelligent people who know what they're talking about, and one that you can very convincingly argue for and convince people of. Where the search for objective value in art breaks down, in my opinion, is when comparing two works at a similar level. Sure, you can convincingly argue that the relative value of the work of your imaginary five year-old niece is less than that of, well, just about everything else. But can you make the same sort of argument when comparing Nabokov to, I dunno, Joyce? Eliot? Chekhov? Well, okay -- yes, you can. But I strongly suspect it'll be far more subjective and far less convincing, and will run into a good deal of dissent. Value judgments about the quality of art are about critical argument and critical consensus, not about absolutes.
So basically, like others in this thread, I think
I agree with the analytical techniques (or would if I knew more about the specific works Mr. McEnery refers to), but I really don't believe that they can reveal The Truth about how Good a work of art is.
That's my opinion anyway.
. "Изкарва опитите за обективизъм нещо доста по-елементарно, отколкото те са"?! Те са? Нима? По-наясно си от него, дето от десетилетия с това се занимава? Оооокей.
Освен ако не беше Вазов или някой друг - но е истински случай с български писател.
