Life's been shit so I've been getting high a lot.
Was walking up the steps of my hotel when I heard the Windows Ding like it was coming from above and outside a cage.
I stopped there and processed
Then went on moving.
Can something be enjoyable without being good? And can something be good without being enjoyable? Which is the greater or the better of the two? And what defines each term? All of this is relative to enjoying content such as writing and stories and shows and games.
Post your answers below.
Page generated in 0.024 seconds
Total duration
968 users online
564,238 hits today, 2,561,572 yesterday
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
There is no good answer to this question. I can simply say that if it gives you enjoy something then for you it is good and as long as you don't impose that goodness upon others Then knock yourself out an go see/read/play that 'bad' movie/book/game.
Yes and Yes. I refuse to elaborate further as it is easily intuited.
I'd say yes to both. I've read plenty of things that ain't written very well but enjoyed them regardless. I don't think things need to be 'good' -- however you define that -- in order for one to derive enjoyment from it. That right there is a matter of standards, I'd say. as for something being good but not enjoyable? It's a bit less easy for me to explain. Best way I can is give an example. Neon Genesis Evangelion is an anime people debate endlessly. There are a lot of aspects of it that I think are phenomenal, but I simply didn't enjoy watching it at all. It wasn't an experience I felt did much for me beyond taking up time. Once again, it's a matter of personal taste there, but I feel like the example outlines what I'm getting at. Something being made well or being made poorly doesn't necessarily mean it can or can't be enjoyed.
Well, yes. I mean we have The Room
Interestingly, there's a bit in Jerry Seinfeld's new special on Netflix where he goes into something tangential to this: the fine line between "great" and "suck". And, thanks to people who put in the effort to transcribe things, I can just paste a relevant part of it here:
Yes. Yes. The former. Good satire, and good quality infused with bad bias.
As usual, we find minor comfort in word origins here.
Surprisingly, both words are from a similar root sound, building around the 'g' construct in Proto-Indo-European (yes we know what we're talking about okay no we don't), but they have varying vowel paths and as such we can surmise a little more about the semantics of their pronunciation.
'Joy' is to 'guadia' in Latin, a sense of joy or pleasure, is eventually to '*gau', to rejoice in religious awe or terror. Just with this separate definition in hand, we can understand that the root word, and therefore the root experience/qualia of 'joy' and 'enjoyment' is separate from something that is 'good'; something terrifying or awe-inspiring need not be good, and a life-changing religious experience need not feel positive or pleasurable in a strict way.
Digging into 'good', we find it's a mostly modern-English usage, probably built around the proliferation of the synonymous noun 'good' and the usage of English as a trade language. Tracing the word 'good' further back, we find it has a less direct and succinct Proto-Indo-European root, '*ghedh', which most directly translates to 'together'. You find a lot of this in Proto-Indo-European 'value' words, or rather senses or definitions of words that reach for more nebulous philosophical qualities while at the same time providing placeholder words for the physical objects associated with that quality. In this case, Proto-Indo-European civilization viewed 'togetherness' as stronger than 'separateness', the same way it viewed 'sturdy' as the opposite of 'weak', and therefore equated these terms to 'positive' or 'good' in a modern semantic sense. But the original distinction is much muddier, and we'd hesitate to say that 'good' is a direction translation of any of the original ideas etched by that proto-civilization.
When we go into word origins and roots, it's not to blanket in semantics: the idea is that, if at the inception of these words and terms, they were distinct, then we can surmise reasonably that even the earliest recorded human civilizations needed a way to distinguish these terms. If we didn't need a separate idea or word for 'joy' or 'enjoyment', we would have just used the already existing word for 'good' and never bothered to invent any new ones. Therefore, we can conclude that because '*ghedh/together' and '*gau/rejoice' are highly separate notions and qualia, the ideas they represent continue to maintain this separation into their modern translations. Q.E.D.
In conclusion, yes. And we didn't go into the philosophy of tangible experiences or anything. Let us do that next. <3
5270416 | 5270415 | 5270420
Agreed. Good answers from each of you.
5270417
The best of comedy tends to either change or expose a poignant view of reality. That, and that fucker got it so right.
5270421
Agreed. Though I could never pretend to go as deep as you do—words bear deviations from each other for a reason and, in discovering that reason, it can assist in our current problem. Glad to see you're still kicking.
To all.
Thank you for the comments so far.
~ Yr. Pal, B ~
I suppose we should start with definitions.
To me, enjoyable means that it is possible for something to be enjoyed. So if any one person enjoys a thing, that thing is considered enjoyable. I suppose we could quibble on that a bit, but that strikes me as the literal, objective definition. A thing is enjoyable if someone, somewhere, derives some form of joy from it.
Pinning down what makes something good is... harder, I would say. Something that I've found seems to be a good metric for goodness is that things are good when your appreciation of them increases the closer you look at them. I've seen films where I enjoy them in the moment, but as soon as I pick apart a scene I realized that, wait, actually not very much of this made sense at all, and that diminishes my appreciation of the story. And I've read stories where I maybe, you know, liked a scene well enough the first time, then I come back and it really clicks with me how... could be anything. Subtle foreshadowing, thematic connections, some level of profoundness that I had to discover for myself. I think that's the hallmark of something that's good. When you can talk about it and pick it apart and it doesn't fall apart, but actually seems better and more appealing than when you just engage with what it offers on the surface.
By those definitions, I suppose if something is good it must be enjoyable--that doesn't say that good media is universally appealing so much as it does that the standard for being called enjoyable is spectacularly low.
And I do think there's value in both qualities. Some of my favorite stories, I would say are pretty good. Some of my favorites, I'm willing to admit are flawed. A while back, I read the story that first made me want to write fanfiction, and I realized, wow, this is kind of a really stupid story--there's so much potential for depth and nuance and tension and fucking none of it is capitalized on--but I loved almost every moment of reading it, so I don't feel a shred of guilt for reading it. And there're probably stories out there that presented more interesting narratives that wouldn't have entertained me on the same level. As a writer, I would prefer to be remembered as someone who writes good stories as opposed to ones that're just enjoyable, and I think aiming to be good is a better motivation and should be encouraged, but there're certainly times when as a reader I'm going to prioritize surface-level enjoyment over anything deeper.
I guess to summarize, yes, you can absolutely be enjoyable without being good, but I think not the opposite. Which one is better depends too much on context for me to give a succinct answer. There's value in both qualities.
Short answer: Yes
I'm gonna exemplify this with movies real quick
I fucking love the Disney Channel original film Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior.
It's objectively a piece of shit. The acting isn't very good, the pacing is weird, the dialogue is painfully mid-2000s, but I have a good time when I watch it anyway.
Hereditary is an extremely well-crafted film. I don't enjoy a single second of it and I never have. I appreciate it, and the vision that Ari Aster had for the film came together in a perfect way, but it is pure misery the whole way through. I would never watch that movie for fun, but it is good.
The simplest way for me to make a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is to think about clarity of vision. What makes a drawing bad, for example? It's when the drawing does not communicate what the artist intended. It's when the artist draws a cat, or makes a political comic, and the cat doesn't look like a cat and the political comic is visual schizophrenia and devoid of comedy. A 'bad' piece of media happens when the end product isn't what the artist(s) thought they were making. A 'good' piece of media is when the end product evokes the kind of emotions in you, or at least makes you understand how someone else could feel those emotions, that the artist(s) originally intended, OR when it transcends waht the artist originally intended and takes on a life of its own.
This is a bitch answer but it's the true one: they both have their place in people's lives and one isn't ever better than the other.
yes
Yes, a just punishment can be enjoyable, but that doesn't mean their punishment is good. Related to that, and more on the side of sadism, we have schadenfreude, which is the enjoyment one feels while seeing someone else's pain, like someone slipping on a banana peal. But in a more abstract sense, how about movies like "The Room", which is OFTEN claimed to be "the best worst movie ever."
Broccoli is a classic example of something good for you, but it not enjoyable to eat, at least to children, when they need it most. But in terms of stories, movies, etc. , then the first thing that comes to mind is "The Rise of Palpatine" (officially known as "The Rise of Skywalker") which was professionally made, professionally acted, professionally animated, such that it is a visual masterpiece... and it's story... to be blunt... wasn't that bad... the only problem is that it didn't fit the universe it resided in. Or, even more drastically, "A Siberian Film" which was intentionally made to be as horrific and uncomfortable as possible.
It entirely depends on the intention, as well as the interpretation. For no matter how well made something is, there's always going to be a select few that are going to hate it for one reason or another, but having said that, it doesn't matter how good something is, if it isn't enjoyable, what reason will anyone have to see it?
Oh, NOW you decide to ask the important questions! This is basically asking how you find the answers to the previous questions! Well, let's take care of the easy one first:
I define "enjoyable" to mean "that which is pleasing; comfortable; or entertaining, in that it does not cause unwanted boredom; pain; or irritation.
NOW... to define "good"... that's a trickier prospect... because the word encompasses a LOT of ground, in that something can be well MADE, but not well thought out, like the objects in r/ATBGE , BUT it can also mean something that was well thought out, but not executed properly, like the painting "Ecce Homo", or, more accurately, its famous attempted restoration. HOWEVER, one could also say that the very idea of something being enjoyed could be its own definition of good, therefore, under the definition that "good" means that it fully fulfilled its intended purpose of being enjoyed by as many as possible, it's impossible for something to have one, but not the other quality (both or neither)
The entire concept of mething being so bad that it's good is proof enough.
The Room.
Troll 2.
Most of the Leprechaun movies.
They're all stupid and fail horribly in their intended genres, thus are not enjoyable in said genres, but because they fail so spectacularly, they become hilarious.
There are many deep and philosophical answers in this thread. As for me, I’m just gonna invoke the name of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and run. You haven’t lived until you’ve giggled through the nonsense that is Manos: The Hands of Fate.
Petty revenge.
Enjoyable? Yes.
Is it good? No.
Some people enjoy cheating on their spouses, hard narcotics, making fun of someone... Lot's of things can be enjoyed without being good.
Providing discipline or punishment against someone you care about, like loving parents grounding their child or removing privileges.
Is it good? Yes.
Enjoyable? No.
There are plenty of things that are good for us, such as healthy diets, taking certain medications, a plethora of life choices... but sometimes it just sucks having to do them.
That's going to go on a case by case basis.
Have you ever heard of The Star Wars Prequels?
The idea of good and bad are arbitrary concepts that are fluid from one culture to the next. But, accepting the argumentative confines of a society's morality as a given...
Drugs come to mind. Or any other similar vice. On a less severe level, the very idea of a Guilty Pleasure is rooted in this. There are any number of niches that a minority of people enjoy that the majority of a society might decide is 'not good' in a qualitative sense, even if out of ignorance. (i.e. My Little Pony)
Certainly. Going to the dentist, for example. (Unless your hygienist is as attractive as mine). Going to the gym falls into this category for most people. Eating healthy, etc.
This is two separate questions, really.
Which is the greater of the two?
Which is the better of the two?
Both are a subjective question with a subjective answer. It depends on who you ask. The selfless monk would say that doing the good thing, even if it isn't enjoyable, (like say, picking up litter) is the path to enlightenment and true inner happiness etc. Where as the hedonist could just say YOLO and snort a line of coke, clearly finding it the be the preferable of the two activities.
I can see that. As The World's Strongest Writer™, I have an obligation to write, to bless this world with the fruits of my craft. That is the good, and right thing to do. But if I, as the artist, did not find some enjoyment in doing so, then I would not.
It really depends on how you define “good”. If good means well written, or a neat concept...well that’s where the debate begins. How does one define “well written”? Is it with perfect grammar and flowing words that sweep you along like swift river? Or is it in the perspective through which they’ve told the tale? Or perhaps something...more. The spirit imprinted into the story.
I just finished another read through of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien, bless him, is wordy. Especially in Fellowship of the Ring. Yet the story sweeps you along and before you know it, you’re at the Grey Havens departing Middle Earth.
And yet many of the stories I’ve most enjoyed here and elsewhere have been simple tales, not grand quests or adventures. Equally though, I’ve been turned away by stories just as simply structured.
It ultimately comes down to the story. As writers as fingers click on keyboards, or pens and pencils race across paper, as the story takes shape, if we truly care and are passionate about it, a part of us is infused into the words, seemingly giving it a life as it’s own. I believe it is that life, that spark, that echo or imprint that makes or breaks a story.
I think something has to be good to be enjoyable, it just doesn’t have to be good in the technical sense. If we’re talking stories, I’m sure a lot of books, fics, and shows you like are awesome, they’re just not tightly written and subject to critical acclaim.
Cocaine isn’t very good—it destroyed my relationship with one of my former best friends because I was one of their few friends willing to call them out on their spiraling destructive behavior—but it sure is fun.
On the flipside, dieting when you are obese isn’t enjoyable but it’s good for you. I should know.
A bad film Or show can be enjoyable because its bad. I think something like a scary movie can also be enjoyable and not good per say.
Sure it can, so long as it's at entertaining.