Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I enjoy this sort of discussion.
To me, if there ever exists two types of fiction, that would be good ones and bad ones 😀
I agree this is a very possible way to split works up, but good and bad are of course subjective to the reader so no ones lists of what are good and bad will tend to match.
I see writing as a tool. It's constructed with a mindful purpose. The quality of that work can vary, and inform us on good or bad in a way, but in the real final determination of the work, the right question is "Did it do the job the reader and writer wanted it too well"?
No, seriously, I am not being cheeky. The point I would like to make is that some authors write really good economical, dry fiction that I guess you would call "fetish-driven". Take Shock's excellent stories, for instance: they have very little characterization, dry Tom Clancy-esque descriptions (this is not a criticism on my part; I am actually quite a massive fan of that author's works) and offer little in terms of suspense or story arc. Yet they are unbelievably effective: they deliver exactly what you'd expect and even more than that. I'd compare them to a perfectly executed military operation: they are not made to be artistic or aesthetically pleasing, but they are incredibly well though-of, sharpened as they are to the point of maximum efficiency.
And Shock is a very talented writer. His skill level is quite high, and that allows him to break some rules. He can construct things that serve the purpose of the reader and himself in ways that many cannot.
Look at Three Wishes
http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?302625-Three-Wishes-(*-f)
These characters are not blanks. They have distinct personalities shown in the first lines. They have complicated backgrounds and motivations. We have numerous ways to connect and project into/onto them. Shock lays all that information out as he moves the story along. Not in some big info dump. It's revealed to us at a pace that we need. This is skill. Note this is also a story With start, end, and arc that changes the main character. It's fetish inclusive. Not fetish driven.
Often he only lets us see what his viewpoint character sees. Which looks like a blank but doesn't function as one in the story. We see aspects of the character revealed as the lead action character does. Again, that is skill.
Conversely, I cannot imagine how any story that would feature "blank", interchangeable characters could be any good
That is of course your prerogative as a reader, and will fit your personal idea of what good will be. But a writer can use blanks to good effect.
Here is one of my own works that I did for C.A.B.:
https://www.deviantart.com/ceeaybee/art/C-A-B-and-Friends-Myriads-529339778
The lee's in this story are the ultimate blanks. They have no names, no personalities, nothing, they are reduced to feet. But the main character is not a blank, and in his actions on the blanks I delivered a fetish-intigrated story. I also deliver a big payload of fantasy fodder across a large number of different reader 'likes'. I like to think that the story is 'good'. But of course that is up to each reader to decide.
But I want to say that blanks can be used to produce very nice effective works. A measure of skill is required though to pull it off.
A certain sobriety like Shock is capable of requires the same amount of word crafting as a more "fetish-integrated" one does, only it is used to a different effect.
Ah but I'll hold that his works tend to be fetish-integrated. He doesn't follow all the rules of such, but then he's good enough to get away with it.
If a story, no matter how dry and economical, does not take into account even the universal basics of writing (logic, grammar, syntax, progression...) then it just becomes a bad story. Maybe it's good enough for some wank fodder, but I highly doubt it, as something that's not properly written does not stimulate the imagination and is just off-putting. At least that's the effect it has on me
Oh I quite agree, and if you read things posted to the story forum, you'll find no shortage of such things. Works that fail on the basics you specify. But remember often even lost in poor craftsmanship sometimes a gem of an idea hides. One that engages the imagination and sticks with you. There is often enthusiasm in a purely amateur work, someone who wanted to get an idea out so bad they tried even lacking the tools to do it as well as we may judge.
Most often they are just wank's at best. A nice concept, an original set up. Something to work with. But very rarely something special is in there and with some reader help, in the form of a chosen blind eye to flaws a good effective story exists.
Art is so subjective.
But I'll hold with my base questions: "What is it for?" and "How well does it do that?"
Myriads