3 ms·

Literary criticism isn't it though, the reason people don't care is that those critics doesn't laud the books people like. If they dug up new Harry Potters to t

Literary criticism isn't it though, the reason people don't care is that those critics doesn't laud the books people like. If they dug up new Harry Potters to take the world by storm people would care, but as is there is little value in their work. If you think that Harry Potter isn't good then you are one of the bad gate keepers since that kind of book is what people wants to read.

retsibsi 5y ago
To speak sensibly about what is good, we have to define what we mean by 'good' in this context. You can define 'good' as 'popular' if you like, but I don't think that corresponds with how most people use the word, and nor is it particularly useful. (We already have a word for popular.) This doesn't mean that 'good' = 'lauded by highbrow critics', either. But it's okay to have a concept of literary quality that isn't reducible to popularity or pure entertainment value; it's okay to value things like psychological insight, or beautiful complexity, or the capacity of a book to broaden its readers' circle of empathy. We will never all agree on which qualities matter most or which books best exemplify them. Employing these unavoidably fuzzy and subjective concepts certainly opens the door for pretentious charlatans to barge in and do their thing. We should adopt a sceptical stance toward any and all cultural gatekeepers, and exercise our own judgment. But there's still no need to flatten our concept of literary quality down into something objectively measurable.
mcguire 5y ago
... and by definition, John Grisham, Danielle Steel, David Baldacci, Janet Evanovich, Brandon Sanderson, Michael Connelly, Nicholas Sparks, and Lee and Andrew Child are the best writers in the world.
- orwin 5y ago
  Don't know the others, but Grisham is really good in his field (not the best, but good), and Sanderson is probably the best in the fantasy realm, although maybe Cook is better for some? , and others might argue Feist wrote the best trilogy yet.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Those are the top-selling authors from 2020; by the only objective criteria, Grisham is the best book length fiction author and Sanderson is fifth. Everything else is subjective, personal opinions.
cedilla 5y ago
A critic who only recommends what's on the best-seller list seems rather redundant.
- neutronicus 5y ago
  They're imagining a kind of critic who can identify the _next_ best-seller while it is still in obscurity.
cycrutchfield 5y ago
By that measure Coca-Cola is the best drink ever made, and pablum like the Avengers is the best movie ever made.
ska 5y ago
You are conflating good and popular which leads to a lot of confusion. They aren’t unrelated, but all these positions are false: - something can't be really popular and really good - something can't be really good but not popular - something can't be popular but not very good It is, of course, also quite possible to be not good and not popular but this isn't very interesting.

retsibsi 5y ago

To speak sensibly about what is good, we have to define what we mean by 'good' in this context. You can define 'good' as 'popular' if you like, but I don't think that corresponds with how most people use the word, and nor is it particularly useful. (We already have a word for popular.) This doesn't mean that 'good' = 'lauded by highbrow critics', either. But it's okay to have a concept of literary quality that isn't reducible to popularity or pure entertainment value; it's okay to value things like psychological insight, or beautiful complexity, or the capacity of a book to broaden its readers' circle of empathy. We will never all agree on which qualities matter most or which books best exemplify them. Employing these unavoidably fuzzy and subjective concepts certainly opens the door for pretentious charlatans to barge in and do their thing. We should adopt a sceptical stance toward any and all cultural gatekeepers, and exercise our own judgment. But there's still no need to flatten our concept of literary quality down into something objectively measurable.

mcguire 5y ago

... and by definition, John Grisham, Danielle Steel, David Baldacci, Janet Evanovich, Brandon Sanderson, Michael Connelly, Nicholas Sparks, and Lee and Andrew Child are the best writers in the world.

orwin 5y ago
Don't know the others, but Grisham is really good in his field (not the best, but good), and Sanderson is probably the best in the fantasy realm, although maybe Cook is better for some? , and others might argue Feist wrote the best trilogy yet.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Those are the top-selling authors from 2020; by the only objective criteria, Grisham is the best book length fiction author and Sanderson is fifth. Everything else is subjective, personal opinions.

cedilla 5y ago

A critic who only recommends what's on the best-seller list seems rather redundant.

neutronicus 5y ago
They're imagining a kind of critic who can identify the _next_ best-seller while it is still in obscurity.

cycrutchfield 5y ago

By that measure Coca-Cola is the best drink ever made, and pablum like the Avengers is the best movie ever made.

ska 5y ago

You are conflating good and popular which leads to a lot of confusion. They aren’t unrelated, but all these positions are false: - something can't be really popular and really good - something can't be really good but not popular - something can't be popular but not very good It is, of course, also quite possible to be not good and not popular but this isn't very interesting.