 As a content creator, I have been exposed to, subjected to, been witness to, a barrage of comments over the years that are something to the effect of, if you like this, you're wrong. If you hate this, you're wrong. Anyone who hates this book shouldn't read fantasy at all. You're just objectively wrong about this. Clearly you didn't get it because the only reason that someone could dislike this is if they didn't get it. I thought about pulling up some examples of that, some screenshots of comments like that, but I decided against doing that because, well, I don't know exactly what purpose that would serve unless I'm trying to prove that this happens, but I feel like if you're watching this video and you don't believe that this happens, you haven't been on the internet. And I don't, the purpose of this video is not to call out any particular comment or commenter. It's not to draw attention to any particular person who's doing this because there are many people doing this. There are many comments like this, some more harsh, some less harsh, but this isn't about one comment. This isn't about one commenter. So I don't really want to pull up images or screenshots of any particular comments because I don't want to direct any hate towards any particular individuals because, again, that's not what this is about. And there are just so many comments like that that I don't even know where I'd begin, how I'd begin to choose which ones to showcase, which again goes to the point of this is a pretty widespread thing. This isn't one person doing this. There's a lot of people that do this. So I wanted to talk about that, about why that is, because it's kind of a running joke, especially among content creators, but not just content creators. We have a running joke on my Patreon and my Discord where if someone dislikes a book that someone else likes, we'll say, read it smarter because like that's kind of the gist of that type of comment. It's like, well, you read it wrong because you disliked it. So we're saying that as a joke, but there are sincerely comments that basically say that and we like to laugh at them. We like to say what a ridiculous comment that is, what a ridiculous position to hold that is, but people do keep doing this. And I'm sure we've all felt this way at some point because when we joke like that in my Discord, it's a joke because we don't seriously think that someone is an idiot if they didn't like the book that we love. But at the same time, we feel like a certain level of catharsis in saying that even as a joke, because it's very frustrating to see something you love get hated. So you're like, oh, you're an idiot because you didn't like it. The difference being mainly that we don't seriously mean it, but we kind of mean it a little bit, I think. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everyone who's saying this doesn't mean it at all. But I think just at least on some level, when you're saying that even as a joke, it's because you feel that kind of frustration and you're just like, how could anyone hate this? This is amazing. Or it also happens the other way, not as much. But if someone likes something that we think is terrible, we'll also be like, you must be crazy. Like, this book is terrible. How could you like it? I think people feel a little bit less offended and a little less angry about someone liking something that they hate than about someone hating something that they like. So anyway, that's what I wanted to talk about today. Why does, why is this a thing? Why does this keep happening? Why do we feel this way? And is it valid to feel that way? So I think to start off with, we have to talk about objectivity in art, specifically in books. So there's a wider conversation to be had about objectivity in art. I'm going to focus this on books as art. But basically, is there such a thing as objectivity when we're judging books or art? We're going to focus on categories that apply to books, but you could do something similar with almost any art form. With books and judging them, there is, I think, a spectrum of objectivity. There are some things, some metrics by which to judge a book that are, if not entirely objective, are borderline entirely objective on one end of the spectrum. And then on the other end of the spectrum, there are things that like, there is literally no possible way any part of that is objective. It's entirely subjective matter of taste and opinion. So this is by no means an exhaustive list, but I have a list of some categories by which you can judge books and whether or not they are objective. I've tried to list them more or less going from most objective to least objective, but even there, like there's a discussion to be had about, is the order that I put them in even correct? Maybe you'll say, no, I think this is more subjective and that's more objective, but that's what I've attempted to do with this list. So first up, grammar. I think that is the most objective metric by which to judge a book. Unless an author is doing something extremely experimental, I think one can fairly objectively judge its grammar, spelling, and syntax. Next up, I have clarity. Was it clear what the author was trying to say or get at, at the sentence level, at the chapter level, at the book level? Even if the grammar is correct, it could still be kind of muddled and unclear. Next, I have originality. Regardless of how you feel about if the book was good or enjoyable, it's fairly easy to make a decently objective case for whether or not something is original or not. Though the degree of similarity that it bears to something else, again, you may disagree a little bit about how similar it is to something, you will also possibly disagree about how important it is that it is similar to something else. But again, you can make a decently objective case for does this thing seem to be similar to you or copying or inspired by this, this, this or this, and therefore it is not original because we have seen these things done before. Whether it's good or not doesn't really apply, only it's original, not whether its originality is a point in its favor or not. Next, I have pacing. Now, one can list the events in a narrative and calculate kind of the distribution of those events. Are they spread out and kind of trickled evenly across the narrative? Are they all clustered in one part of the narrative? Are there a few kind of clusters of events? Determining what counts as an event would be perhaps a little debatable. Also, what is the ideal number of events would be up for debate? And what would the ideal distribution of events be? Again, would be up for debate. Next, I have prose, which is definitely not the same thing as grammar and syntax, although they are related. One man's beautiful prose is another man's purple nonsense. But one can make a decently objective case for what type of prose it is. So is it lyrical? Is it sparse? Is it casual? Is it formal? Is it archaic? These kinds of things, whether you like that or not about it is subjective. But I think you would be hard pressed to find somebody that would disagree with you if you said that Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott is archaic and flowery, and that Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson is more casual and informal and not flowery. Again, whether you like that about it is different from what it is. Next, I have delivering on promise. Every book makes something of a promise to its reader about the kind of story that it's going to tell, but not every book makes good on that promise. Sometimes this is due to an intentional subversion, but more often it's simply a failure to deliver on what was expected by the reader based on the promise made at the beginning of the book. Your mileage and satisfaction will vary. Whether something did or did not deliver on its promise, you could make a case for whether it did or not. And again, maybe it didn't deliver on it, but you think that's a good thing. Maybe it did deliver on it, and you think that's a bad thing. But you can make a decent case for whether it did or not. Next, I have characters. You can point to things like consistency and internal logic, which are slightly less subjective. But for the most part, whether you find a character to be believable, compelling, interesting, relatable, this will be down to your taste, your experience, your preferences, your expectations, which are entirely subjective categories. Lastly, I have story structure. There are some general principles about structuring plots and structuring stories that are broadly recognized in Western storytelling traditions. And you can make a fairly objective case for whether or not a book follows those structures and those principles. But how much and how little you think that stories should adhere to those principles is a matter of taste. And basically, everything else is just a matter of taste. So humor, romance, action, these are all just like humor, working or not working for you. Like, I, if you can think of a way to make an objective case for whether something is funny or not, I love to hear it. But as far as I can tell, whether you find something romantic, whether you find something humorous, whether you find action to be fun to read about, I fail to see how even an attempt at an objective case could be made. So I think it's safe to conclude that objectivity, for the most part, does not exist in judging art and in books specifically. A quick glance at the categories that we just went over, you already see how even the more objective categories, they are still subject to a lot of subjectivity. But so it's, I think, pretty undeniable that we feel like there are things that are objectively good or bad. So why do we feel like that? I am not irrational. Or at least I don't like to think that I am. And I think it's fairly safe to say that most people don't think that they are irrational and certainly would not like to think that they are irrational. People like to think of themselves as rational actors. If we love something, if we hate something, if we generally feel strongly about something, we want to believe that we feel that way because of our responsiveness to good logical rational reasons. What makes something rational? Well, according to the dictionary, here's a few definitions based on or in accordance with reasons or logic. For a person, it means they're able to think sensibly, clearly, and logically. And in general, it means that it is in something is endowed with a capacity to reason. So if I can give reasons, if I can make a logical case for it, if I'm able to clearly articulate the factors that I've included in my assessment of something, then my position must be a rational one. If I'm able to do so for a book that I love or hate, well then that love or hate must be rational. Ergo, the opposite of my assessment, must be irrational. Because if I admit that the opposite of my position is rational, well then surely that means that my position is the irrational one. My camera overheated. Continuing on from where I left off, I believe I was saying that if I allow that the opposite of my position is rational, then surely that must mean that my position is the irrational one. If I hold position A and position A is rational, and you hold position B and position B is the opposite of position A, position B must be irrational. But does that logic actually hold? Being responsive to reasons only means that, that you are responsive to reasons. Your response to those reasons, which reasons you give more weight to or find more persuasive, that is extremely subjective. If one enjoys reading about violent battles and doesn't like reading about romance, it is rational to dislike a romance novel. If one enjoys reading about romance and dislikes reading about battles, it is rational to dislike a war story. If one rationally likes a war story and someone else dislikes it, it is not necessarily irrational of them to dislike it, even though they are opposite responses to the same thing. Okay, so the previous examples were for people who do not have the same tastes or are not interested in the same type of thing. So what about for people who do broadly have the same tastes or interests? Two romance readers disagreeing about a romance, two fantasy readers disagreeing about a fantasy. Is there an objective standard for quality within a certain genre, subgenre, or subset? What are some ways that we determine whether something truly is the best of its kind? Well, there are lists galore. There is the top 10, the top 100, the top 1000 of fantasy in the last decade, fantasy in the last year, fantasy in the last century. There are rating and review aggregators. So you can say, on average, if you pull together every review ever posted for this, it has an aggregate of 4.5 stars. Therefore, most people seem to be rating it highly. There are awards. So you can say that this book won the Hugo Award, it won the Locus Award, it won the World Fantasy Award, it won the Good Reach Choice Award, although some people might think that was more an insult than a compliment. So which, if any, of these metrics is an indicator of objective quality? Are books with the highest aggregate ratings also the same books that you always see on top lists? Are books with the highest number of ratings also the ones that you always see winning awards? Are award winners also always the same books that are on top lists? Is Sarah J. Mass writing better fantasy than Ken Liu? Or is it that Ken Liu is writing better fantasy than Sarah J. Mass? Well, it depends on which metric you use to objectively assess it. Why am I making this video at all? Well, it is, ironically, irrational to claim that one's opinion is objective, or the only rational opinion that one can hold. It is absurd to claim that any opinion that stands in opposition to one's own is irrational. However, it makes perfect sense that people would feel this way and that they would want to defend their position by asserting and pointing to facts or authority or statistics. How do you defend a subjective position? What argument could be made for the quality of something if quality is something that is entirely subjective? Well, in short, you can't. You could never make a case for something being objectively, universally, or inarguably great or terrible. You can't explain your tastes, your preferences, and why, based on those tastes and preferences, this thing did or did not work for you, did or did not disappoint you. You can explain why something works for you or why it doesn't work for you. But I get it. When I love something, it does feel irrational for someone else to hate it. When I hate something, it does feel irrational for someone else to love it. But there is no such thing as good taste. There is only taste that is similar to your own. So go find people who have similar tastes to yours and avoid people whose tastes wildly differ from yours. There is a reader for every book and a book for every reader. It does not matter how popular, how highly rated, how awarded a book is. Enjoyment is still subjective and disliking something that is highly rated, highly awarded, or widely read is not inherently irrational. If someone posts a review saying that they hate a book that you love, that doesn't mean they're wrong, it doesn't mean they're irrational. What it means is that their taste is clearly quite different from yours. So this is probably not a reviewer that you're going to want to go to to find books that do work for you. Now, will I never say that something is objectively bad? Will I never say that it's crazy to like something? No, I'm a hyperbolic content creating human. But I will never say it seriously. I will never comment on someone's negative review of the blade itself and tell them that clearly they're not cut out to read fantasy, because that would be crazy. Let me know in the comments down below your thoughts about this topic, about reading, about reviewing, about why it is that we feel so strongly about the books that we love and about the books that we hate. Do you think there is such a thing as objectivity in assessing art? If so, let me know. But whatever you want to let me know, I post videos on Saturdays, other random times as well, it'll be Saturdays, so like and subscribe to my Patreon if you feel so inclined, and I'll see you when I see you.