(urth) objective measure of "good"

[Bob Miller]

Thank you so much for responding to the post, Dan'l.  I was wondering why 
that boring pretentiousness was put out there or why anyone would bother 
with it, and you showed me again that viewpoint and variety are the master 
limners of both profundity and accuracy.  Very humbling---again.


From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com>
Reply-To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Subject: Re: (urth) objective measure of "good"
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:12:19 -0700

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."
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/