Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
When you respond to a specific argument, which makes those comparisons, by saying you don't care, you have implicitly stated (as you just did again) that you don't care about the thrust of the argument, including those comparisons. If that's not what you mean, then it's up to you to make the distinction clear.
|
Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. I said very specifically--and now I am saying it for the THIRD time--that I DON'T CARE how long it took for the author to write the book, whether the author suffered for art, whether he or she wrote with a stub of a pencil by candlelight in a garret, or in a mansion by the beach while sipping margaritas. The degree of struggle and the time devoted to writing doesn't automatically affect the quality of the book. Period. Exclamation point.
Quote:
|
Secondly, if you truly care about the quality of the book (I won't call it a product -- Faust is not a brand of hairspray) then you do care how long it took to write and how much preparation was involved because, without those factors, you wouldn't be holding that book.
|
I'm going to try one more time. All I have to judge is the quality of the book in my hands. What went into getting it to market is basically irrelevant to me as the end user. If the finished product is lousy, I don't care if the author struggled for ten years to write the book--it's still lousy. And if it's good, I don't care if I find out the author dashed it off in a month. Now, I may feel sorry for the author who spent ten years on a turkey, and envious of the author who could write a good book in a month, but the quality of the book is my main concern.
Quote:
Let's apply your reasoning to classical music:
"Really? Sounds like you think the more time a classical pianist has to practice, without the pesky distraction of a day job, the better their playing will get, as though time automatically equaled quality."
In fact, that's exactly what happens -- not because "time automatically equals quality" but because most classical pianists at any level require five to eight hours of practice a day to improve significantly, at least at first.
|
No, if you want to use music as an analogy, you should be talking about a composer creating music, not a pianist becoming more skillful through daily practice. Of course the pianist will improve with practice, even the pianist with just a small aptitude. But will the composer improve just by dint of effort?
The rest of your post, once again, has nothing to do with anything I said.