You failed at the outset to understand what was being said. I ground my claim --- that popularity is a good indicator of trash --- in observation, not the premise with which you start. Indeed, that premise was addressed to someone else's claims, not my own. Your cast has netted you a red herring, I'm afraid.
Try again little logician.
First, thanks for an aggressive but accurate reply. We probably disagree about this but, I claim that popularity is a much better indicator of trash than almost any other metric. Whether it's popular television, popular novels, popular songs, etc. However, I see your point, and I might extend it. Popularity seems necessary for a work to make it in the long haul, which is how we ultimately determine the value of a literary work. It has to "work" out of its time. The only response I have to that is rather weak: time will tell. If we are giving opinions, mine goes like this: Rowling's writing is awful; her plots are weak deus ex machina after deus ex machina; her themes are ethically backward; her characters are well developed and also self-consciously cliche; but her sales are great. Again, I do appreciate the spirit of your reply.
Like I'm gonna trust lit crit as a reference for quality? Yeah, a queer theory analysis of Harry Potter is just what I need to start appreciating Rowling's works. Potter may be good reading, but lit crit 'aint the way to demonstrate it.
There have been many ludicrous responses to my initial reply, but this one is the dumbest.
Oh for crying out loud, I'm making a modal claim.
Things that are popular are usually low taste.
There's nothing illogical about it. You can legitimately dispute it's truth, but not it's validity.
It's easy to substitute "mostly bad" with "can't possibly be good," but it's inaccurate. Incorrectly paraphrasing an opponent's claim to falsely imply a universalization is a popular fallacy.;-)
Education refines our judgments. Lots of people call education "snooty." It's a popular cliche. Not that educated people won't like Potter --- it's just that they ought to provide criteria other than popularity.
I do think your thinly veiled analogy to racial prejudice is over the top. Even dumb, maybe.
You need to read about how many Africans were wantonly butchered by Africans before Europeans arrived, how African nations genocidally eliminated whole cultures to satisfy their blood lust and ethnic hatred. None of this changed during colonization, and it's not changed after colonization. In this sense, colonization had no effect on Africa. All it did was change who was doing the bloodletting.
European colonization was a horror. But Africa before colonization was a horror, Africa during colonization was a horror, and Africa after colonization is a horror.
When African peoples routinely starve atop some of the most fertile land in the world, you can't blame the white man. Unless, of course, the self-loathing white man really wants you to.
I'll agree with you on two things, and disagree with you on one thing.
I agree that both Tolkien and Rowling wrote their books poorly. But come on. Tolkien prose is messy, but Rowling's prose is shite.
IMHO, the whole Potter enterprise is shite, so I disagree that Rowling is a contender for literary greatness.
Popularity is not an indicator of good quality, as you think. Other criteria ought to be used. In general, when these other criteria are applied, most popular works fall short. Most not all.
Otherwise, the pet rock would have have been a paragon of art and business.
There's a colloqial use of the term "work" that you're missing on purpose. Lots of gamers say "I need to work on completing that 50th level" or "I need to work on my King's Indian opening" or "I've worked hard to get the conventional Bridge bidding system down."
He was obviously using the word 'work' in that sense.
Obtuse equivocation isn't clever. It's stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
You failed at the outset to understand what was being said. I ground my claim --- that popularity is a good indicator of trash --- in observation, not the premise with which you start. Indeed, that premise was addressed to someone else's claims, not my own. Your cast has netted you a red herring, I'm afraid. Try again little logician.
First, thanks for an aggressive but accurate reply. We probably disagree about this but, I claim that popularity is a much better indicator of trash than almost any other metric. Whether it's popular television, popular novels, popular songs, etc. However, I see your point, and I might extend it. Popularity seems necessary for a work to make it in the long haul, which is how we ultimately determine the value of a literary work. It has to "work" out of its time. The only response I have to that is rather weak: time will tell. If we are giving opinions, mine goes like this: Rowling's writing is awful; her plots are weak deus ex machina after deus ex machina; her themes are ethically backward; her characters are well developed and also self-consciously cliche; but her sales are great. Again, I do appreciate the spirit of your reply.
Like I'm gonna trust lit crit as a reference for quality? Yeah, a queer theory analysis of Harry Potter is just what I need to start appreciating Rowling's works. Potter may be good reading, but lit crit 'aint the way to demonstrate it. There have been many ludicrous responses to my initial reply, but this one is the dumbest.
It 'aint called the Democratic Fallacy for nothing, pal.
Oh for crying out loud, I'm making a modal claim. Things that are popular are usually low taste. There's nothing illogical about it. You can legitimately dispute it's truth, but not it's validity.
It's easy to substitute "mostly bad" with "can't possibly be good," but it's inaccurate. Incorrectly paraphrasing an opponent's claim to falsely imply a universalization is a popular fallacy. ;-)
Education refines our judgments. Lots of people call education "snooty." It's a popular cliche. Not that educated people won't like Potter --- it's just that they ought to provide criteria other than popularity.
I do think your thinly veiled analogy to racial prejudice is over the top. Even dumb, maybe.
You need to read about how many Africans were wantonly butchered by Africans before Europeans arrived, how African nations genocidally eliminated whole cultures to satisfy their blood lust and ethnic hatred. None of this changed during colonization, and it's not changed after colonization. In this sense, colonization had no effect on Africa. All it did was change who was doing the bloodletting. European colonization was a horror. But Africa before colonization was a horror, Africa during colonization was a horror, and Africa after colonization is a horror. When African peoples routinely starve atop some of the most fertile land in the world, you can't blame the white man. Unless, of course, the self-loathing white man really wants you to.
I'll agree with you on two things, and disagree with you on one thing. I agree that both Tolkien and Rowling wrote their books poorly. But come on. Tolkien prose is messy, but Rowling's prose is shite. IMHO, the whole Potter enterprise is shite, so I disagree that Rowling is a contender for literary greatness.
Popularity is not an indicator of good quality, as you think. Other criteria ought to be used. In general, when these other criteria are applied, most popular works fall short. Most not all. Otherwise, the pet rock would have have been a paragon of art and business.
Popular taste is low taste. True, things are popular for reasons --- mostly bad ones.
There's a colloqial use of the term "work" that you're missing on purpose. Lots of gamers say "I need to work on completing that 50th level" or "I need to work on my King's Indian opening" or "I've worked hard to get the conventional Bridge bidding system down." He was obviously using the word 'work' in that sense. Obtuse equivocation isn't clever. It's stupid.