4 ms·

I see. In all your arguments it is talent as judged by you. Therefore you are the arbiter of talent? Can we just end this thread here before we get to the ine

by wyday 19y ago

I see. In all your arguments it is talent as judged by you. Therefore you are the arbiter of talent? Can we just end this thread here before we get to the inevitable anticlimactic conclusion that people differ in opinion?

pg 19y ago
I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.
- wyday 19y ago
  But isn't it popularity among the elite (that is, critical popularity) that traditionally decides a writer's talent?
  - pg 19y ago
    After a few hundred years.
- randallsquared 19y ago
  Popularity isn't proof that someone is a good writer, but it certainly is evidence of same.
  - pg 19y ago
    I don't know how far you'd want to rely on that evidence. Only a small percentage of people buy books regularly. So to make a big bestseller you have to write a book that gets bought by that huge majority of people who don't read much. And usually their decisions are dominated by random extraneous factors: i.e. it's a biography of someone they admire, or is related to some doctrine they subscribe to, or contains facts they need or gossip they want to know about. Think of the books you find in the houses of people who have hardly any books: the Bible, the Guinness Book of World Records, a Chilton car repair manual, a racy biography of Princess Di, a book of popular mysticism, a book about how to make money or lose weight. Those are the really big sellers.
    - wyday 19y ago
      If it's not general popularity, and it's only critical popularity after a few hundred years, then can a writer's talent even be judged in the short term? (This question sounds smarmy, but I ask it earnestly.)
      - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        Probably not, no, since one of the tests of quality is timelessness.
      - pg 19y ago
        No, there's currently no neutral way. Good judges can tell who the good writers are, but there's no currently no independent way of telling who the good judges are. Empirically the oscillations of opinion seem to settle down after a few hundred years. Even then there are probably errors. E.g. tragedies will tend to be more highly regarded than comedies, because they seem more serious.
    - aswanson 19y ago
      Kudos for adding in the Chilton manual. I don't know how you do it, but the detail you add makes these types of observations hilarious because I have seen this set of books in so many houses.
  - falsestprophet 19y ago
    Dan Brown.
- gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
  That, and that when it was pointed out, his response was a non sequitur in the purest sense. Anyone who claims the mantle of rationality ought to have a better grasp of basic logic than that.
  - wyday 19y ago
    When I wrote: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't?" I meant to write: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't a good writer?". It's not a non sequitur, just a typo.
    - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
      Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.
      - wyday 19y ago
        The statement (or at least the fixed one) does follow from the given premise. Just because you disagree with the premise (that popularity might be evidence of quality) doesn't make it non sequitur. To save myself from repeating the same argument as the few threads above this, I'll just link to it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920
        deleted 19y ago
        [deleted]
        gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        Right. You know, finally I did what one of us should have done some 8 or 9 messages back - I went and checked what you actually wrote: > the popularity of her books suggests otherwise [my emphasis] In other words, you weren't actually making the claim I thought you were - that popularity implies quality. So I'm sorry for missing your point originally. I do disagree that popularity is evidence of quality; popularity is only evidence of broad appeal, and you'd still need to demonstrate a correlation between broad appeal and quality - I contend that no correlation exists. But that's a reasonable debate, not a logical fallacy. But I have to ask - why didn't you tell me that I was refuting an argument you hadn't made...?

by wyday 19y ago

pg 19y ago

I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.

wyday 19y ago
But isn't it popularity among the elite (that is, critical popularity) that traditionally decides a writer's talent?
- pg 19y ago
  After a few hundred years.
randallsquared 19y ago
Popularity isn't proof that someone is a good writer, but it certainly is evidence of same.
- pg 19y ago
  I don't know how far you'd want to rely on that evidence. Only a small percentage of people buy books regularly. So to make a big bestseller you have to write a book that gets bought by that huge majority of people who don't read much. And usually their decisions are dominated by random extraneous factors: i.e. it's a biography of someone they admire, or is related to some doctrine they subscribe to, or contains facts they need or gossip they want to know about. Think of the books you find in the houses of people who have hardly any books: the Bible, the Guinness Book of World Records, a Chilton car repair manual, a racy biography of Princess Di, a book of popular mysticism, a book about how to make money or lose weight. Those are the really big sellers.
  - wyday 19y ago
    If it's not general popularity, and it's only critical popularity after a few hundred years, then can a writer's talent even be judged in the short term? (This question sounds smarmy, but I ask it earnestly.)
    - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
      Probably not, no, since one of the tests of quality is timelessness.
    - pg 19y ago
      No, there's currently no neutral way. Good judges can tell who the good writers are, but there's no currently no independent way of telling who the good judges are. Empirically the oscillations of opinion seem to settle down after a few hundred years. Even then there are probably errors. E.g. tragedies will tend to be more highly regarded than comedies, because they seem more serious.
  - aswanson 19y ago
    Kudos for adding in the Chilton manual. I don't know how you do it, but the detail you add makes these types of observations hilarious because I have seen this set of books in so many houses.
- falsestprophet 19y ago
  Dan Brown.
gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
That, and that when it was pointed out, his response was a non sequitur in the purest sense. Anyone who claims the mantle of rationality ought to have a better grasp of basic logic than that.
- wyday 19y ago
  When I wrote: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't?" I meant to write: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't a good writer?". It's not a non sequitur, just a typo.
  - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
    Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.
    - wyday 19y ago
      The statement (or at least the fixed one) does follow from the given premise. Just because you disagree with the premise (that popularity might be evidence of quality) doesn't make it non sequitur. To save myself from repeating the same argument as the few threads above this, I'll just link to it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920
      - deleted 19y ago
        [deleted]
      - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        Right. You know, finally I did what one of us should have done some 8 or 9 messages back - I went and checked what you actually wrote: > the popularity of her books suggests otherwise [my emphasis] In other words, you weren't actually making the claim I thought you were - that popularity implies quality. So I'm sorry for missing your point originally. I do disagree that popularity is evidence of quality; popularity is only evidence of broad appeal, and you'd still need to demonstrate a correlation between broad appeal and quality - I contend that no correlation exists. But that's a reasonable debate, not a logical fallacy. But I have to ask - why didn't you tell me that I was refuting an argument you hadn't made...?