Is there any objectivity in works of fiction? Is it completely subjective?

[DaVinci]

In various debates I've seen about works of fiction I always hear people describe a particular movie, or book, as being "objectively bad" in quality. Someone usually responds to this by saying that there is no objectivity at all in fiction, but it this really the case? Isn't the language of the book itself objective? Is the dialogue in a movie subjective? What about the actual experience of watching a movie or reading a book? Certainly two people can't have an objective expereince together, but the best stories seem to draw on universal human emotions to build upon. So can we say definitively that a novel or movie is entirely subjective?

[Tservitive]

I can see two possible ways:

 

1. Appeal to Authority, i.e. the author/creator.

Point: I can see this a valid since the author/creator was the one who created the universe, thought of the metaphors, and is some case knows where the story will go in the next installment. 

 

Counter: Assuming the author/creator is competent and relatively sane, it is possible that you could have found a metaphor or deeper connection than the author thought of due to having a fresh experience with something the author has spent time with.

 

2. You can the second time around

Point: I turned my brain off when I watched Frozen for the first time. Since the "Truth About Frozen", I now have an idea of Stefan's perspective and I an view it through someone else's shoes.

 

Counter: Not all experiences can be replicated due to if someone has recently lost their father and then they watch the Man of Steel movie and later self attacks for being unable to have saved his/her father. Someone who has never lost a parent, such as myself, may be unable to fully register it even if we can empathize since its an emotional connection that you have to maintain for 2.5hours without interacting with that person.

 

Verdict: You may be able to on an emotional level, but it is far easier on the cognitive level.

 

This reply was longer than I thought. Hope this helps! Great question!

[MysterionMuffles]

Things can be objectively good, but being enjoyed is a subjective thing.

 

I think any fiction has objective standards to which constitutes its quality. A good fiction must:

 

1. Pique your curiousity about the fate of its characters
2. Make you empathize with the characters motivations, whether you condone their actions or not
3. Make its philosophical argument in a way in that makes entertainment take presedence over education (thus making the educational part flow in more naturally instead of it being a 50 chapter or 2 hour lecture on morality, ethics, emotions, relationships)
4. Have at least one character, if not the main one, have a character arc in which there's personal growth
5. Touch upon any of the numerous human desires, and what one character will do to obtain them
6. Be accessible; it should show its argument more than it actually tells it, if it tells you its argument at all at some point
7. Make use of all their scenes, characters, and symbols. Anything mentioned must have a purpose as either being fundamental to the plot or at least in symbolizing a theme.

There are many works of fiction that fulfilled this criteria and I would consider objectively good, but at a subjective level, I did not experience much enjoyment from them. Might be from the style, pacing, or maybe lacking in a few of these departments, but from what I've learned from writing courses and Writer's Digest magazines and writing guides, these main 7 things are usually touched upon as things that make a fiction grab a viewer's attention. On the flipside there have been "mindless" entertainment that didn't have much of an argument, but some flashy fighting that I have enjoyed, but that doesn't make the piece good. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't good. Things can be good, but also not enjoyable.

 

Something being good can have objective merits, but enjoyment is always subjective.

[neeeel]

 

 

I think any fiction has objective standards to which constitutes its quality. A good fiction must:

 

1. Pique your curiousity about the fate of its characters
2. Make you empathize with the characters motivations, whether you condone their actions or not
3. Make its philosophical argument in a way in that makes entertainment take presedence over education (thus making the educational part flow in more naturally instead of it being a 50 chapter or 2 hour lecture on morality, ethics, emotions, relationships)
4. Have at least one character, if not the main one, should have a character arc in which there's personal growth
5. Touch upon any of the numerous human desires, and what one character will do to obtain them
6. Be accessible; it should show its argument more than it actually tells it, if it tells you its argument at all at some point
7. Make use of all their scenes, characters, and symbols. Anything mentioned must have a purpose as either being fundamental to the plot or at least in symbolizing a theme.

 

 

Thats just your subjective view on what objective standards are

[MysterionMuffles]

Oh I forgot to add, but the originality of ideas put forth can also contribute to the objective quality of fiction. Obviously most ideas have existed since the beginning of time, so to be more accurate, making fresh new takes on existing and familiar ideas. There's only really 7 basic plots in fiction that get recycled all the time. Some stories are good mixes between them, and knowing how to interweave them together also increases the objective quality of a story.

[Kevin Beal]

Subjectivity describes the manner in which something is real or true. The way in which "Monet is a better painter than Manet" is true is observer relative. That is, it's true subjectively because I am here to think it.

 

Dreams are subjectively real (as opposed to subjectively true). When we talk about the nature of a thing, we are describing particular properties and functions of that object. Dreams are real subjectively because I am here to experience them.

 

We can have objective criteria when talking about objects, even when those objects exist subjectively. The object "Tomorrowland" (movie) has particular properties and functions. It has a plot, characters, etc and functions like what that popular anti-social guy mentioned. If there is some kind of measure, that means it's an, at least partially, objective criteria.

 

It's value as a movie exists subjectively, but the manner in which it is good (assuming an objective criteria) is objectively true. Subjectively real and objectively true.

[ragdoll]

definition of subjective:

 

1. subjective. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjectiveevaluation.​

​Looking at that I would say that everything is subjectively valued by each individual and at the same time has an objective value that is based on something outside of the individual.  Which, I think is very similar to what Kevin Beal is saying.

[MysterionMuffles]

Thats just your subjective view on what objective standards are

 

Actually, no, neeel. These are the commonly held standards by literary agents and publishing houses based on the magazines and writing guides I've read from http://www.writersdigest.com and from writing courses I've taken. What I listed is what usually pops up to signify what makes good fiction. Some of these rules can be broken with the addage that how you break them should serve to tell the story better.

[Eh Steve]

Oh dude...there was some research on reddit around graphing plots of novels that was really cool I think you'd like.   (found it.)

 

CIPA or masochism (or some weird outlier) burning yourself will make you feel pain.

 

This can probably be related to all kinds of emotions that tend to have a standardized objective predictable response in humans.  Romantic love, vengence, justice, desire, can all be considered objective predictable things, but are experienced subjectively.  So the plot points you are talking about can probably be objectively considered to be predictable human instincts, behaviors, desires, whatever.  But we are talking about the objective measurement of subjective things.

 

So a novel can speak to objective commonalities of subjective experience.  But it can't objectively determine its subjective impact on other people as directly I imagine?  Some people might be moved to tears, others bored to death.  But we can all typically all respond to having some connection to feelings and experiences that are common to humans and probably most animals if you want to talk about fear and more primal things.  And a novelist understanding the objective nature of his own subjective experience can express his ideas predicting how it will impact others.  So maybe empathy is what turns your experience of your own feelings from subjective to objective ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

So none of the above is axiomatic or I'm not even sure if it is correct frankly, but that is my amateur take on the ideas.

[DaVinci]

Subjectivity describes the manner in which something is real or true. The way in which "Monet is a better painter than Manet" is true is observer relative. That is, it's true subjectively because I am here to think it.

 

Dreams are subjectively real (as opposed to subjectively true). When we talk about the nature of a thing, we are describing particular properties and functions of that object. Dreams are real subjectively because I am here to experience them.

 

We can have objective criteria when talking about objects, even when those objects exist subjectively. The object "Tomorrowland" (movie) has particular properties and functions. It has a plot, characters, etc and functions like what that popular anti-social guy mentioned. If there is some kind of measure, that means it's an, at least partially, objective criteria.

 

It's value as a movie exists subjectively, but the manner in which it is good (assuming an objective criteria) is objectively true. Subjectively real and objectively true.

So, when you say dreams are subjectively real because we are here to experience them, are you saying "we each have subjective experiences of the same thing, but the dream is real because the senses are valid?

[Kevin Beal]

So, when you say dreams are subjectively real because we are here to experience them, are you saying "we each have subjective experiences of the same thing, but the dream is real because the senses are valid?

Actually no.

 

Dreams are real because they are causal. I don't use the words "real" and "exist" in the same sense that Stef does. I'd be happy to elaborate further on that point specifically over PM (as it's not necessarily relevant to the topic of the thread). Perceptions, beliefs, desires, etc cause things to happen in the objective real world, even if they themselves as objects take up no physical space. My belief that the ground is solid causes me to walk confidently across it's surface without fearing that I will fall through down to the center of the earth. But the manner in which these things are causal is observer relative: only causal because we are here to experience them.

[DaVinci]

So a novel can speak to objective commonalities of subjective experience.  But it can't objectively determine its subjective impact on other people as directly I imagine?  Some people might be moved to tears, others bored to death.  

This is actually one of the points of debate that comes up a lot. One person found the scene moving. Someone else found it dumb. Therefore there is no reason to consider your story thoughtfully. It's all subjective.

 

Though I think this ignores how the internal logic of the story is playing out.

[Eh Steve]

This is actually one of the points of debate that comes up a lot. One person found the scene moving. Someone else found it dumb. Therefore there is no reason to consider your story thoughtfully. It's all subjective.

 

Though I think this ignores how the internal logic of the story is playing out.

Oh that is interesting.  I think much like everything you can somewhat objectively predict the impact of your story on people's emotions.  You don't write a tragedy thinking "ohh some people might thinks this hilarious, but I bet it will make a lot of people hungry".  Emotions are subjective experiences but can be somewhat though not perfectly predicted objectively.

 

It is mostly internally logically predictable how a story will effect people.  

 

Just as an example:  if you write a gay love story some people will react differently if they are prejudiced or not.  And straight people might not get the same sense of romance a gay person would by being able to empathize/sympathize with the characters. Basically the logic is consistent and predictable but people are different so you can't exactly write the same story for everyone.

[MysterionMuffles]

Eh, Steve! You bring up some very good points and I will look at the articles you posted in greater detail sometime.

 

Unless you have CIPA or masochism (or some weird outlier) burning yourself will make you feel pain.

 

This can probably be related to all kinds of emotions that tend to have a standardized objective predictable response in humans.  Romantic love, vengence, justice, desire, can all be considered objective predictable things, but are experienced subjectively.  So the plot points you are talking about can probably be objectively considered to be predictable human instincts, behaviors, desires, whatever.  But we are talking about the objective measurement of subjective things.

 

So a novel can speak to objective commonalities of subjective experience.  But it can't objectively determine its subjective impact on other people as directly I imagine?  Some people might be moved to tears, others bored to death.  But we can all typically all respond to having some connection to feelings and experiences that are common to humans and probably most animals if you want to talk about fear and more primal things.  And a novelist understanding the objective nature of his own subjective experience can express his ideas predicting how it will impact others.  So maybe empathy is what turns your experience of your own feelings from subjective to objective ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

So none of the above is axiomatic or I'm not even sure if it is correct frankly, but that is my amateur take on the ideas.

 

That's exactly what good fiction tries to capture. The universal emotions of human desire/conquest, they all objectively exist and play out in specific logical dramatics--like a revenge story either ending in relinquishing the thirst for vengeance when something more important in life takes over OR the character does get their revege and is/isn't fulfilled by it. There's always a huge variety of possibilities based on each theme, but in the end, these possibilities have always played out in an author's subjective style and portrayal, and their readers experience is subjective based on their values and morals. Based on those things, they will react to the story differently. There is the objective throughline of a revenge story turning out a certain way, but a reader with revenge fantasies can either fuel their own personal need for vengeance (through the story or sometimes in real life) or it can help reshape how they revenge.

 

Let's take Kill Bill for an example. The Bride is battered and beaten on her wedding day, and also has her child taken away from her while she's in a coma. She is thirsty for vengeance against Bill, the leader of this group of assassins she once belonged to.

She obviously gets around killing him through a series of slaughtering her other former fellow assassins. She gets the revenge she wants in classic kung fu story style and she is happy about it.

 

 

Compare this thirst for vengeance for the one in Big Hero 6 where Hiro's brother is killed in a fire. This makes him vengeful toward this "Evil Capitalist" character whose name I forget. Hiro assumes it was the Capitalist guy because he seemed greedy toward buying Hiro's world changing invention before it gets burned down at the science fair, the same fire that also kills his brother.

Hiro's true target for vengeance turns out to be his brother's professor--someone who has inspired both of them to soar to greater heights in technology development--and this is a plot twist I saw coming a mile away, I just wanted to see how they would justify it. ANYWAY! Long story short without getting to into it, Hiro does NOT end up killing either the Capitalist or Professor because he discovers a greater purpose: the further development of his brother's invention of the medical robot companion Bay Max.

 

 

One of these stories ends in achieving that vengeance, and another doesn't. It's obvious which one as one is a mature and violent movie, while another one is a children's film with mild animated violence...

 

But anyway.

 

The objectivity is in the argument about vengeance: why one should or shouldn't pursue it. One film is for it, another isn't.

 

A vengeful viewer, who is vengeful towards someone in their past who has harmed them, can and will have their own subjective experience of how they feel toward their vengeance. 

 

If they watch the movie that ends in attaining vengeance: they can either think "revenge looks stressful, I think I'll just let go of my hatred." OR "This is why revenge is worth it." (Then whether they act on it or not is a whole different conversation.)

 

If they watch the movie that ends in relinquishing the need for vengeance: they can either think, "I guess there are better things in life than revenge and I should let go of my need for it." OR "This was disappointing, I wanted to see them get vengeance because vengeance is a top priorty for me."

 

In either outcome, a viewer is always forever changed in how they think having been exposed to a heightened or altered state of mind on the theme they value that gets argued for or against in a fiction.