Yes, it does kind of prove the point, but you wouldn't really confirm it if you perceive an author, a genre, a category, whatever, through some sort of filterin

Yes, it does kind of prove the point, but you wouldn't really confirm it if you perceive an author, a genre, a category, whatever, through some sort of filtering mechanism. I think you can turn this saying around and consider that if 90% of something does not appear to be crap, and you want to understand its true nature, and maybe find some things others have missed, you need to go to the raw data source. I didn't end up thinking his short stories were as good as I expected, but I did feel like I understood the person better. And even maybe human nature, or how authors progress, a little better.