4 ms·

I could float some ideas, but it doesn't seem to pertain to the discussion.

by dmos62 6y ago

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
If you posit a thesis that critical acclaim is a better measure of whether a book is good than popularity, it makes sense to explain why.
- Miraste 6y ago
  I'll back GP's thesis. The global median reader has poor reading comprehension skills and has read few other books. Their main concern is entertainment. Entertaining as many readers as possible in order to be popular requires writing about broad-interest subjects using surface level knowledge. Dedicated literary critics have read many more books than average and are better at extracting meaning from what they read. They're looking for "quality," which is nebulous but distinct from entertainment value, and they're less likely to be put off by abstract concepts or complexity. Specialized critics are better; if you want a sci-fi book you ask a sci-fi reader. As anecdotal evidence I submit the sales figures of Fifty Shades of Gray.
- filoleg 6y ago
  Just like with any other media, popular and good aren't always the same, despite there being a fairly close relationship between the two. The reason for why critical acclaim is a better measure of whether a book is good than popularity is because critical acclaim is explicitly and directly concerned with assessing the quality of the product. As opposed to popularity, which has zero explicit relationship to the quality, it is only concerned with the raw demand numbers. Just because mcdonalds is one of the most popular (if not the most popular) restaurants in the world, it doesn't mean that the quality of food there is better than that at a random much less popular Michelin star restaurant. In the same vein, Transformer movie series is of a pretty terrible quality, but it is insanely more popular than something very critically acclaimed like Parasite. Just looked up numbers, and the first Transformers movie alone (from 2007) had about $700mil in worldwide sales, as opposed to about $250mil for Parasite. And mind you, Parasite wasn't some unknown indie movie that was critically acclaimed. It was one of the most popular critically acclaimed movies out there.
- dmos62 6y ago
  You misread. I didn't say that critical acclaim or popularity are measures for whether a book is good, whatever that means. I said that critical acclaim and popularity are distinct.

I could float some ideas, but it doesn't seem to pertain to the discussion.

by dmos62 6y ago

I could float some ideas, but it doesn't seem to pertain to the discussion.

If you posit a thesis that critical acclaim is a better measure of whether a book is good than popularity, it makes sense to explain why.

Miraste 6y ago
I'll back GP's thesis. The global median reader has poor reading comprehension skills and has read few other books. Their main concern is entertainment. Entertaining as many readers as possible in order to be popular requires writing about broad-interest subjects using surface level knowledge. Dedicated literary critics have read many more books than average and are better at extracting meaning from what they read. They're looking for "quality," which is nebulous but distinct from entertainment value, and they're less likely to be put off by abstract concepts or complexity. Specialized critics are better; if you want a sci-fi book you ask a sci-fi reader. As anecdotal evidence I submit the sales figures of Fifty Shades of Gray.
filoleg 6y ago
Just like with any other media, popular and good aren't always the same, despite there being a fairly close relationship between the two. The reason for why critical acclaim is a better measure of whether a book is good than popularity is because critical acclaim is explicitly and directly concerned with assessing the quality of the product. As opposed to popularity, which has zero explicit relationship to the quality, it is only concerned with the raw demand numbers. Just because mcdonalds is one of the most popular (if not the most popular) restaurants in the world, it doesn't mean that the quality of food there is better than that at a random much less popular Michelin star restaurant. In the same vein, Transformer movie series is of a pretty terrible quality, but it is insanely more popular than something very critically acclaimed like Parasite. Just looked up numbers, and the first Transformers movie alone (from 2007) had about $700mil in worldwide sales, as opposed to about $250mil for Parasite. And mind you, Parasite wasn't some unknown indie movie that was critically acclaimed. It was one of the most popular critically acclaimed movies out there.
dmos62 6y ago
You misread. I didn't say that critical acclaim or popularity are measures for whether a book is good, whatever that means. I said that critical acclaim and popularity are distinct.