Into the Fire

Recently on a “Bones” episode, Dr. Brennan discussed objectivity with the night watchman Micah, telling him she feared she was unable to maintain her objectivity in the particular case she was investigating. Micah explained that he heard in a lecture that there could be no real objectivity because of the different influences occurring in people’s lives. This of course was striking information to the emotionally challenged forensic anthropologist who prides herself on rational reactions to every situation.

Interesting concept: objectivity. I confess there are very few times or issues in my life when I can assess things objectively. I react emotionally to most circumstances—sometimes to a fault and unnecessarily. For me to be “objective”, I have to maintain no stake in the matter. In other words the assessment of the matter or thing doesn’t hold any sway one way or the other. And, I’m afraid, if that’s the case, usually I could care less.

In writing and reading I’m not objective. If I detest a novel, I can tell you why. If I dislike a novel, I can also tell you why. Usually in these two instances, it’s for a variety of reasons including the writing itself. Objectively speaking, a novelist can write proper fiction that is stylistically correct and follows acceptable writing criteria for genre, characterization, and plotting, but that doesn’t guarantee I’ll like it. Especially if all the proper usage of language skills churns out a formulaic story with clean as a whistle unimaginative prose. No thank you. Objectively speaking, I could say the writing is “correct”, but beyond that the story presents nothing to captivate me—and I tend to do that if I must give a review.  

I know some writers can set aside their preferences to effectively evaluate not only the work of others but their own. They eagerly seek respected friends and/or professionals to go over their efforts with severe red penmanship and welcome that input. These writers have acquired good filters and discern the good from the bad advice, incorporating what they find to be sound. Their ability to be objective ranks fairly high on the meter.

Relying on the current rules of writing for setting a standard for the objective assessment of a writer’s work can only apply as a contemporary measure since many of the classics do not demonstrate these rules—in fact they defy them. Contemporary writers assess their value in their personal work and write accordingly. Objectively speaking, the current rules presented by professionals speak to their preferences for publishing and perhaps reading. The exceptions to the rules in published works confound writers who aim to stick to them in seeking publication.

Most writers as readers evaluate writing, some moreso than others. Voice and style play a large role in what writers as readers will accept or enjoy. Some writers carry a strict standard by which to measure others’ works. Other writers adhere to a loose code and a liberal standard for judging the work of others if it falls within a favored genre. If not: look out.

So what about you? Do you feel you can be objective when assessing a novel you’ve read? What is your standard for judging someone else’s work? Do you apply the same standard to your own?

(Just for trivia’s sake: this is not a response to Mike Duran’s post. I intended to post this yesterday but got side-tracked with “Different . . .”)

Father, you provided the objective but left it to us to be subjective in our acceptance of the sacrifice of your Son. All who come through Jesus are welcome. Thank you for the rescue. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.