objective measure of "good"

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 16 Jun 2006, 02:12 · from 2006-June.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:12:19 -0700
Subject: (urth) objective measure of "good"
In-Reply-To: <010a01c690d9$e39825e0$4a227645@VALUED7B9600FA>
References: <BAY102-F3119FA6BC569B77DBE800C868D0 at phx.gbl>
	<010a01c690d9$e39825e0$4a227645@VALUED7B9600FA>
Message-ID: <1f7617370606151912qa2820e5s14a39e7171879bfb at mail.gmail.com>

Alan,

Thank you for posting that -- I do like Tom Stoppard a lot
(especially _Travesties_ and _Dogg's Hamlet and Cahoot's
Macbeth_ and ... Oh, heck: I like Tom Stoppard), and what
he says here does seem relevant.

In fact, I _do_ have some thoughts on how one can make a
useful and empirical and all that stuff definition of "good"ness
for a piece of fiction, but they are (for the moment) insufficiently
choate for me to post anything about them, and anyway I
want to see if anyone else comes up with a similar approach.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant

-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
"One o'th'flay-rods gone out o'skew on th'treadle."

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net