In general, however, turning to your other points:
I would say that I don't agree with your categorization completely. I'd say aesthetics and style are nearly the same thing, depending on which definitions you're using. I'd say maybe "style" means the "author's style" while "aesthetics" means "what the reader appreciates."
I don't think aesthetics can be boiled down to florid descriptions - and, I know Nabakov is highly-regarded, much more so than RJ, but that is a truly florid description.
If you're going to use aesthetics to refer solely to the author, you'd look at Merriam-Webster, definition 2:
a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight
A "real" artist - it's easiest to consider visual ones - has a theory: the slightly blurred and distancing effect of Impressionism, the odd juxtapositions of surrealism. Or, looking at books, the focus on artifice, as well as opulence and decay, in Decadence. These can work along with, or form the entirety of, the *thesis* of a particular work.
So when you use grotesque, like Toulouse-Lautrec, you make things nightmarish and garish and ugly. When you go with romantic or gothic aesthetics, you use the approach/theory of that style.
So this critique doesn't necessarily just "add right on" to what DomA was describing, I think.
RJ had a style - I only took it as the style for this series, not as he would've written something else. RJ's style certainly had a lot of repetition, and could really give the reader details that really weren't needed to build a scene. The "cream slashed with gold" comment that I read recently really was a succinct-but-serious highlight of where it becomes a problem.
Whether or not you like something does make a big difference. I don't like "Being John Malkovich," although I enjoyed some scenes. I admit that it has many special qualities and
If we want to look at things as "yeah we are clearly right about this," then you could look at numbers. If enough people say something is good, and there's some (honest) critical support, then it's good, right? But then you get into the Transformers movie - or that time I was on a date and I asked an actress what her favorite movie was and she said, "Independence Day."
So popular doesn't always signify quality as well. Since it becomes a giant opinion argument at that point, I can only say what I try to do: I put my measure into the appeal that something has to someone with well-developed tastes for the particular thing they're talking about.
Why? Because that's when you start to get thoughtful analysis along with emotional impact.
So when a person who knows classic rock inside-out says, "Lenny Kravitz is stealing his riffs all over the place, especially from Zep," I have some analysis to think about. And this person might like individual songs - might even say "ah, this is an original composition and it's stylistically and technically fine."
I may agree or disagree, but I trust their background, and their comments indicate that there's more of their brain going on that when someone sees Transformers 2 and says, "the explosions were sweet, the jokes were awesome, and Megan Fox is freaking hot!"
"BJM" was technically fantastic and had interesting ideas and I can see why it's popular. But I think that the writers pulled some very cheap tricks there and I don'object to the movie on those grounds in a pretty absolute way. I'm happy for the people who didn't notice the problems and just had a good time.
Personally, I can see that "Lolita" quote as possibly being a sweet read - whether or not I knew Russian language or history. I don't especially like it, but I can imagine how or why it would work in its own context.
I can take points away from RJ by saying that his choices - and their resulting effects - were gradually less impressive, or perhaps diminished - as the series went on.
It's the difference between looking at a work of art and saying "I get what X artist (RJ/Cuse and Lindelhof/Lars von Trier) was trying to do - nice attempt, but it didn't quite work" and saying "Entourage is like basically 1 or maybe 2 different episodes, but they've run 20 of them and they don't really have anything to say."
I at least try to give a decent amount of thought to people who can do the first and provide some critique. Then I decide if I disagree with them or not. Note that I'm not accusing you of giving this a shallow analysis, just saying the method that I use.
It's a weird topic because I find that music tastes can be extremely hard to translate/trust, while movie tastes are often easier to approach. Books, too, I think.
Try John Banville's "Athena" - there's great elements to it, but I didn't really think it worked. Try also, Armistead Maupin's "Tales of the City" - a great first novel that the author just rehashed 3+ times over.
I would say that I don't agree with your categorization completely. I'd say aesthetics and style are nearly the same thing, depending on which definitions you're using. I'd say maybe "style" means the "author's style" while "aesthetics" means "what the reader appreciates."
I don't think aesthetics can be boiled down to florid descriptions - and, I know Nabakov is highly-regarded, much more so than RJ, but that is a truly florid description.
If you're going to use aesthetics to refer solely to the author, you'd look at Merriam-Webster, definition 2:
a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight
A "real" artist - it's easiest to consider visual ones - has a theory: the slightly blurred and distancing effect of Impressionism, the odd juxtapositions of surrealism. Or, looking at books, the focus on artifice, as well as opulence and decay, in Decadence. These can work along with, or form the entirety of, the *thesis* of a particular work.
So when you use grotesque, like Toulouse-Lautrec, you make things nightmarish and garish and ugly. When you go with romantic or gothic aesthetics, you use the approach/theory of that style.
So this critique doesn't necessarily just "add right on" to what DomA was describing, I think.
RJ had a style - I only took it as the style for this series, not as he would've written something else. RJ's style certainly had a lot of repetition, and could really give the reader details that really weren't needed to build a scene. The "cream slashed with gold" comment that I read recently really was a succinct-but-serious highlight of where it becomes a problem.
Whether or not you like something does make a big difference. I don't like "Being John Malkovich," although I enjoyed some scenes. I admit that it has many special qualities and
If we want to look at things as "yeah we are clearly right about this," then you could look at numbers. If enough people say something is good, and there's some (honest) critical support, then it's good, right? But then you get into the Transformers movie - or that time I was on a date and I asked an actress what her favorite movie was and she said, "Independence Day."
So popular doesn't always signify quality as well. Since it becomes a giant opinion argument at that point, I can only say what I try to do: I put my measure into the appeal that something has to someone with well-developed tastes for the particular thing they're talking about.
Why? Because that's when you start to get thoughtful analysis along with emotional impact.
So when a person who knows classic rock inside-out says, "Lenny Kravitz is stealing his riffs all over the place, especially from Zep," I have some analysis to think about. And this person might like individual songs - might even say "ah, this is an original composition and it's stylistically and technically fine."
I may agree or disagree, but I trust their background, and their comments indicate that there's more of their brain going on that when someone sees Transformers 2 and says, "the explosions were sweet, the jokes were awesome, and Megan Fox is freaking hot!"
"BJM" was technically fantastic and had interesting ideas and I can see why it's popular. But I think that the writers pulled some very cheap tricks there and I don'object to the movie on those grounds in a pretty absolute way. I'm happy for the people who didn't notice the problems and just had a good time.
Personally, I can see that "Lolita" quote as possibly being a sweet read - whether or not I knew Russian language or history. I don't especially like it, but I can imagine how or why it would work in its own context.
I can take points away from RJ by saying that his choices - and their resulting effects - were gradually less impressive, or perhaps diminished - as the series went on.
It's the difference between looking at a work of art and saying "I get what X artist (RJ/Cuse and Lindelhof/Lars von Trier) was trying to do - nice attempt, but it didn't quite work" and saying "Entourage is like basically 1 or maybe 2 different episodes, but they've run 20 of them and they don't really have anything to say."
I at least try to give a decent amount of thought to people who can do the first and provide some critique. Then I decide if I disagree with them or not. Note that I'm not accusing you of giving this a shallow analysis, just saying the method that I use.
It's a weird topic because I find that music tastes can be extremely hard to translate/trust, while movie tastes are often easier to approach. Books, too, I think.
Try John Banville's "Athena" - there's great elements to it, but I didn't really think it worked. Try also, Armistead Maupin's "Tales of the City" - a great first novel that the author just rehashed 3+ times over.
Can someone explain to me how Jordan is not a particularly good writer?
21/02/2011 05:41:31 PM
- 3293 Views
I personally see it as more of RJ being a fantastic story teller, but not a well structured writer.
21/02/2011 06:44:21 PM
- 1678 Views
Re: I personally see it as more of RJ being a fantastic story teller, but not a well structured
22/02/2011 10:59:25 PM
- 1299 Views
What do you think about the Southern Gothic authors?
23/02/2011 08:08:26 AM
- 1184 Views
Re: What do you think about the Southern Gothic authors?
23/02/2011 10:51:57 AM
- 1271 Views
For the same reason that most people think they have above average intelligence.
21/02/2011 11:13:34 PM
- 1639 Views
Re: For the same reason that most people think they have above average intelligence. *NM*
22/02/2011 02:39:20 PM
- 900 Views
Re: For the same reason that most people think they have above average intelligence.
22/02/2011 02:41:37 PM
- 1113 Views
That's possibly the best explanation of literary criticism I've ever seen.
23/02/2011 02:47:12 AM
- 1238 Views
I can take a shot at that, since nobody else seems willing to.
22/02/2011 07:29:20 AM
- 1703 Views

Re: I can take a shot at that, since nobody else seems willing to.
22/02/2011 11:23:38 PM
- 1327 Views

That has very little to do with anything unless you can provide a real-world analogy to a channeler.
22/02/2011 11:30:52 PM
- 1239 Views
Re: That has very little to do with anything unless you can provide a real-world analogy to a
23/02/2011 12:02:24 AM
- 1287 Views
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to gauge whether an author is good or not is ...
22/02/2011 03:58:17 PM
- 1229 Views
Re: Can someone explain to me how Jordan is not a particularly good writer?
22/02/2011 06:27:11 PM
- 2091 Views
I think it has more to do with limitations imposed by how the story was organized and edited.
22/02/2011 07:50:18 PM
- 1597 Views
That's interesting, and I have a weird agree/disagree here; also, that Adam Roberts sucks
23/02/2011 02:15:12 AM
- 1349 Views
Re: That's interesting, and I have a weird agree/disagree here; also, that Adam Roberts sucks
23/02/2011 11:02:14 AM
- 1314 Views
adam roberts reviews
23/02/2011 03:53:49 AM
- 1306 Views
And I suspect those who prefer the BS books are those who largely read WoT for the story. *NM*
23/02/2011 08:06:16 AM
- 759 Views
Oh GAWD!... not another pointer to Robert Adam's incoherant muckraking
24/02/2011 07:47:35 PM
- 1157 Views
I think DomA answered the question best, but the "do you like it" argument is weak.
22/02/2011 10:32:51 PM
- 1471 Views
Re: I think DomA answered the question best, but the "do you like it" argument is weak.
22/02/2011 11:16:24 PM
- 1412 Views
The Necronomicon isn't actually a book, you know.
*NM*
22/02/2011 11:28:29 PM
- 715 Views

There are nine, actually...
23/02/2011 12:04:55 AM
- 1476 Views
Lovecraft's Necronomicon was fictitious. If you want to count fanfiction, fine. *NM*
23/02/2011 12:38:07 AM
- 778 Views
Based on how poorly worded that response was, I'm not sure what to think of it. *NM*
23/02/2011 12:13:00 AM
- 758 Views
I hope I am misunderstanding you.
23/02/2011 10:57:47 PM
- 1162 Views
Re: I hope I am misunderstanding you.
24/02/2011 10:41:09 AM
- 1290 Views
If the core of the story is all that matters, why read a book
24/02/2011 10:32:01 PM
- 1253 Views
Re: If the core of the story is all that matters, why read a book
24/02/2011 11:23:42 PM
- 1089 Views
So wait, style is good?
25/02/2011 12:32:07 AM
- 1483 Views
That depends...
23/02/2011 03:00:35 AM
- 1383 Views
I didn't say aesthetics was the primary criterion. I named three criteria.
23/02/2011 05:39:03 AM
- 1245 Views
the "do you like it" is the most important criterion
23/02/2011 10:45:17 PM
- 1242 Views
If you don't mind me asking...
24/02/2011 01:05:12 AM
- 1061 Views
I don't mind that you ask, but I'm not going to engage in a defense of literature.
24/02/2011 05:35:27 PM
- 1080 Views
Re: I don't mind that you ask, but I'm not going to engage in a defense of literature.
24/02/2011 11:26:55 PM
- 1231 Views
I'm sure you have a wonderful job awaiting in fast food service.
25/02/2011 01:57:15 AM
- 1283 Views
Re: I'm sure you have a wonderful job awaiting in fast food service.
25/02/2011 08:56:06 AM
- 1182 Views
...
25/02/2011 01:07:22 AM
- 1141 Views
It is not a serious question.
25/02/2011 01:53:59 AM
- 1122 Views
Is that so?
25/02/2011 05:58:31 AM
- 1207 Views
I'm not fixated with Jordan.
25/02/2011 03:13:56 PM
- 1222 Views
Then why do you keep trying to qualify the passage in relation to him?
25/02/2011 06:29:31 PM
- 1273 Views
You're conflating two things.
25/02/2011 07:32:59 PM
- 1242 Views
All right, now we're getting somewhere.
26/02/2011 12:40:57 AM
- 1172 Views
Okay, here you go. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity.
26/02/2011 03:20:44 PM
- 990 Views
Thank you, and I agree with all your explanations. *NM*
26/02/2011 07:28:09 PM
- 727 Views
No, it is a serious question, just one that can never be seriously answered.
25/02/2011 03:28:48 PM
- 1144 Views
Your opinion isn't as valid as anyone else's if that's your opinion.
25/02/2011 04:44:57 PM
- 1305 Views
Re: Your opinion isn't as valid as anyone else's if that's your opinion.
25/02/2011 06:05:18 PM
- 1713 Views
I'm not wasting my time proving something to an internet moron and troll like you.
25/02/2011 07:36:19 PM
- 1071 Views
Ah yes, the wonderful "dissmiss the person who disagrees with me by insulting him tactic"
28/02/2011 02:30:35 PM
- 1093 Views
Re: Your opinion isn't as valid as anyone else's if that's your opinion.
26/02/2011 11:06:26 AM
- 1122 Views
And part 2, on the analysis of writing.
24/02/2011 01:16:20 AM
- 1198 Views
Re: I find this whole thing elitist and more than a bit silly
23/02/2011 06:45:05 AM
- 1295 Views
Why do you think mind-expanding literature is restricted to the classics?
23/02/2011 08:03:59 AM
- 1122 Views
Re: Why do you think mind-expanding literature is restricted to the classics?
23/02/2011 09:25:10 AM
- 1314 Views
Of course people read for pleasure.
23/02/2011 09:04:24 PM
- 1081 Views
Ok...
24/02/2011 08:59:27 AM
- 1126 Views
"Yeah well, that's, like, just your opinion, man." Good argument.
24/02/2011 03:43:24 PM
- 1195 Views
I'm curious to hear who Tom and DomA consider a "very good writer"?
24/02/2011 05:49:13 PM
- 1181 Views
Among living writers?
24/02/2011 08:16:08 PM
- 1246 Views
My list would be similar...
26/02/2011 07:24:11 AM
- 1352 Views
That was a very good list.
26/02/2011 03:07:31 PM
- 1198 Views
Re: That was a very good list.
27/02/2011 04:51:43 AM
- 1250 Views
Oh, and another question
27/02/2011 05:28:47 PM
- 1009 Views
Re: Oh, and another question
01/03/2011 03:42:02 AM
- 1189 Views
I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great'
27/02/2011 11:14:30 AM
- 1295 Views
Re: I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great'
28/02/2011 11:51:49 PM
- 1322 Views
Re: I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great'
03/03/2011 12:01:30 AM
- 1228 Views
Re: I think the two of you have taken too narrow a meaning of 'great'
03/03/2011 02:17:06 PM
- 1176 Views
He's a great storyteller, but his prose is somewhat uninspiring. *NM*
27/02/2011 07:28:00 PM
- 802 Views