Can the quality of a work be ascertained beyond purely subjective opinion?

>Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad.
How?
>Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a character acts one way then acts completely differently.
>Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a world is told to work this one way and then switches up the rules or contradicts itself.
>Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"?
If a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that is objectively bad writing.
>Retcons aren't objectively bad.
How?

To the point of reaching a general consensus on the merits of a work or lack thereof? Sure. To the point where someone, somewhere won't still like it regardless? No, of course not.

A plot contrivance is literally just something contrived to move the plot forward, it's in the name. Without plot contrivances, usually you wouldn't have a plot at all.
>we need to go to the magical castle
>alright, why aren't we already there?
>because the magical castle is on the other side of the haunted forest. We'll have to travel
That's a plot contrivance. It's the reason why every story doesn't end in the shortest amount of time with no conflict.
Certainly, a poorly written plot contrivance is poor writing, but at that point you might as well just say "bad writing is bad writing."

The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes
>that scene is out of character
>I found it totally in-character
>well I didn't
>well I did
And you can just go back and forth on that with no progress made
Your last example is using something very obvious and clearly bad writing. Yeah sure, if a show tells us that the protagonist is hurt by water, and then shows them swimming, that's bad
What is a show says he's weak to water, but still able to function if he's wet? And then you have a fight scene where he gets a little wet, is visibly weakened, but powers through and wins?
You're gonna have debates like
>that's unrealistic, the water should have weakened him too much for him to win
>no, it's totally consistent with his strength and determination
And nobody could be clearly right

PIZZA ROLLS

Lastly is retcons. Retcons just mean "retroactive continuity," and it's an inevitability in just about any story that goes longer than one individual story. Comic #2 probably retcons some aspect of Comic #1.
All it is is, when a story develops, things that happened earlier will be reinterpreted in some way. It's not objectively good or objectively bad, it just is.
Like, in Batman 156, Robin Dies At Dawn, there's a random unnamed doctor. He's an utterly neutral character, he performs some scientific tests, and that's it.
Later, in Batman RIP, a new Batman villain was introduced named "Doctor Simon Hurt." They retconned it so he was the unnamed doctor from Robin Dies At Dawn was Doctor Simon Hurt, collecting information on Batman and implanting suggestions in his mind.

This is a reductio ad absurdum. The entire criticism of a plot contrivance is that it advances the plot in a bad and contrived way. There's ways to advance the plot without being contrived. Stop trying to be reductionist.

There's ways that you can make a story consistent without having to retroactively change what came before it. That's called bad writing.

>The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes
>>that scene is out of character
>>I found it totally in-character
>>well I didn't
>>well I did
No. If a character acts very consistently one way and then suddenly starts acting another way, then it is inconsistent, and objectively bad writing.

>bad writing is bad
Brilliant insight
Give an example of a series with zero retcons
Oh you’re just repeating stuff now? Cool, makes responding easier
The second three examples of inconsistencies are all, like I said, very subjective. Your example for the first was "if a character acts one way then acts completely differently." That's very debatable. You'll have all sorts of examples of scenes where someone goes
>that scene is out of character
>I found it totally in-character
>well I didn't
>well I did
And you can just go back and forth on that with no progress made

I'm reading this whole thread in his voice, stop it.

>Strawman
A plot can advance forward without needing to be contrived.

>I love plots, I hate plot contrivances
>I love buildings, I hate building materials
>I love food, I hate ingredients
And so on and so forth
Literally every story on earth has plot contrivances. The only ones that don't are anti-stories. Like, My Dinner With Andre doesn't have any plot contrivances. Is that the only movie you like?

Do you even know what objective means? It isn't just an antonym for your personal definition of subjective. You fucking Faggot.

I am being regarded as correct. All plots have contrivances
Are you trying to tell me that plot holes aren't objectively bad, or that plot contrivances are?

You are being retarded on purpose. There's an easy way to identify if something is contrived or not. There's a difference between plot progression and plot contrivance. Plot contrivance is an attempt to move the plot forward with ridiculous events that have very clearly been forced by the writer. Again, you're playing reductio ad absurdum

And there's a difference between good ones and bad ones.

Maybe in art where there are apparently no actual rules. But I'd say you can judge quality in practical work like engineering.