In my first ever article for this site I looked at the HBO Spawn cartoon, a show I very much do not like but at the same time consider a well-made show that succeeded at what it wanted to be. I just didn’t care for what it wanted to be. 😀
The point of that article was to demonstrate what I thought at the time was the most important detail when judging my reviews and commentaries, that the quality of the work is not equal to my enjoyment of it. I can watch The Pumaman, a movie probably more famous for being on Mystery Science Theater 3000 than on its own (though I saw it on TV long before MST3K, back when infomercials didn’t dominate non-sports programming on the weekends after Saturday morning cartoons were done), and still enjoy it for what it is while having no interest in watching a good chunk of the American Film Institute’s top 100 movies. You can enjoy bad media and not be interested in good media, and I shouldn’t have to tell you the reverse is also true.
The question poised by medieval history and sword enthusiast, as well as a huge science fiction fan and author, Shad Brooks of Shadiversity is whether or not there is an objective standard as to what qualifies as a good story. It turns out there is, but in his essay he points out that what that standard is varies based on what the story is trying to do versus how well it achieves it.
Catch more Shadiversity on Shad’s YouTube channel.
Not really brought up is the debate over whether what the story did was a good thing or not, but I guess that’s a whole other conversation in some circles. Do you guys enjoy something that isn’t necessarily considered good by others or not enjoy something you admit is actually well made? Can you tell the difference between “this is good/bad” and “I like/hate this”?