On a scale from one to theory...

In just over a year spent in Zelda discussion, I have examined theory upon theory, and considered every element of their build, from the weight of argument to the validity of canonical backings to the epistemology of logical mechanics to the psychological well being of the author =P.
It came as something of a surprise, therefore, when I realized last week that I had never once considered the value of a theory, not as a presentation of evidence but simply as a literary work (My Lit teacher would be ashamed).

As anyone with experience can attest, writing about writing, or writing about writing about writing, or (the good student’s secret) writing for those who write about writing about writing, literary evaluation is something set apart. One does not determine the merit of the piece by comparing against some contrived, predetermined norm but rather by quantifying the extent to which the piece meets its own, self set goals.

Judgment of an analysis is primarily based on a writer’s ability to provide evidence and explanation for the thesis of his choice, rather than on the quality of the thesis as a story-concerned statement; as such, a well performed judgment does reflect on the basic story knowledge of the writer, but rather on his or her over all ability to write.

I strongly feel that an evaluation of our particular brand of synthesis, when it is intended to create a measure of the associated synthesizer, should operate in a similar way. The matter theorized on (if sufficiently original and inherently interesting) need only be consistent with the ability of the theorist to support his conclusions in a manner consistent with the intended weight of the theory, and not with the evaluator’s personal notions concerning the importance, aptness, or correctness of said matter.

Attempting to organize this thought and develop a workable criteria set for an evaluation process, I open the floor to discussion. The primary question I'm considering here is what elements, contained within a theory, give a measure of the theorist and how can those elements by quantified.

I think I'm not seeing your central goal.

And, as such, I have nothing to contribute at present.

To be very honest a lot of things here are true, but there are to some degree scientific theorizing about the art of writing a convincing article and I don't really see that much of a need to go into so much depth. Of course it is good and it provides a more mature looking theory but a good theory can function by just:

-Defining your goal
-Stating your arguments
-Presenting the proof

Unfortunately more and more people accomplish to forget the last one of those which leads into just another Splittism vs. Linearism flaming thread.

Example

This can hardly be considered a discussion not to mention article... Now note that the thread has an actual goal and arguments but no proof whatsoever. Relying on a thread which has been proven wrong though.

My head hurts. I don't quite get what you're getting at pie.

I think that he wants to imply that at least half of the "theorists" around here don't know how to properly write / discuss an article. At least thats what I figured.

Haha! Pie, you need to work on the accessibility of your writings. You're causing a bunch of head aches across the planet!

Gotta second that. <.< Had to read it 3 times to understand what it's about. ^^ And I might still be wrong.

Pie, you need to work on the accessibility of your writings. You're causing a bunch of head aches across the planet!

Oh so very true. The points I've attempted to make are;

1. Up until now, we have always used article writing and discussion making to emphasize an argument concerning the Zelda series
2. The Bombers contest asked us to use article writing and discussion making to emphasize our ability as theorists
3. We argued. How exactly does one judge a theorist based on his article?
4. I lamented. The content of the article cannot be judged, the presentation of the article can't be judged, the relevance of the article cannot be judged.
5. I wondered. What else does an article present that indicates something about the ability of its author?

And that is the question I attempted to pose, including the beginings of a possible solution I was then considering...

Well all that is left is the ability of a writer to compose his article. How good it looks and if it can keep the readers attention. The ability to write one might say.

So the articles are judged based on appeal. That was my impression from the beginning.

How good it looks and if it can keep the readers attention. The ability to write one might say.

Which is a measure of an author's communicative and linguistic abilities, and though these are certainly important to our functions, they were not the only qualities the bomber's contest intended to consider. (I don't think)

One's ability to theorize is bound by his or her ability to communicate (to some extent atleast) but is is certainly not dictated by it. As long there is a basic ability for calm coherent use of the english language, then discussion can occur, and IMO, that shoul be enough. The quality of that discussion, as it relates to "Zelda theory", is based on knowledge base, explanatory skill, and argumentive ability.

So the articles are judged based on appeal.

To what do they appeal? My enjoyment as a reader? My interest as a fan? My agreement as a feollow debater? And anyway, isn't appeal relative to audience?

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

And anyway, isn't appeal relative to audience?

Of course it is.

The 'judgment' you [and I] refer to is subjective as well.

The 'judgment' you [and I] refer to is subjective as well.

Minimally so, I should hope.
The current system asks a judge to assign the designation "Good Enough" or "Not Good Enough" through there own emotional responses to the work, rather than through comparison to some definable actual standard. If I, as a student, was given a similar treatment by a teacher, I would find it rather aggrivating...

Well, this isn't a graded assignment. This is more a matter of ensuring that the members are at least up to the challenge of maintaining the standard one would expect from a group of people with the privilege of being selected to be one of a pool of writers whose opinions and thoughts will be featured on the main page of one of the bigger Zelda sites on the web. Were the judges simply looking at content, and not appeal, they would fail to ensure that. Obviously this doesn't explain a few of the selections, but I think that basically explains why the first 5-6 of us at least (based on posting history and the professional quality of the submissions) were chosen.

I like to think of us as pseudo-journalists, and the judges as our editors.

Well art teachers for example give marks by their own personal judgment of the work the student presents. I think that this could be interpreted as that too as our theories did not follow any certain rules for making them. Your theory MP was much of a flash presentation and the rest were written. Even then not everyone followed the same structure. So it is more or less impossible to compare them to anything.

The Bombers is not a class, Pie. It is a group sponsered by the site, with work that appears on the main page. Of course it's subjective, and whether or not something is good enough for the group is entirely up to the judgments of the staff involved. It's not meant to be fair. Someone could write the best article in the world, or the most complete theory in the world, but if for some reason it was deemed inappropriate for the group, then it is entirely within the power of those running it to disregard it.

Yes, they will do their best to keep things fair and objective, but in the end it is a judgment call.


Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with the Bomber's group, and I'm saying this as an outside observer. So it's possible that Lem will swoop in and declare everything I just said complete bull****. But I doubt it.