2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanOK.
That doesn't answer the question.
If a thing isn't popular, it is neither widely received, judged or acclaimed.
If the thing is enjoyed and received by few, this does not make it superior, only potentially popular.
Starship Troopers is a good example (please ignore the accepted fact that it is only loosely based on the book).
It has spawned a popular film (though don't waste your time with the sequel) and a popular CGI series ("Roughnecks" ).
Has that popularity diminished Heinlein's work?
No, because more people have consequently read it, and are richer for the experience...
...as is his Estate, which takes us to Nordly's response to your question.
Originally posted by ZadadkaBut the width of reception isn't a marker of the quality of its form. You seem to think that being popular is a necessary requirement of a piece of art or literature being good. I agree that a thing enjoyed and received by a few doesn't make it superior, I don't think the number of people that like or dislike a particular thing is of any import whatsoever. I'm honestly trying to work out why you think popularity is important.
OK.
If a thing isn't popular, it is neither widely received, judged or acclaimed.
If the thing is enjoyed and received by few, this does not make it superior, only potentially popular.
Starship Troopers is a good example (please ignore the accepted fact that it is only loosely based on the book).
It has spawned a popular film (though don't was ...[text shortened]... experience...
...as is his Estate, which takes us to Nordly's response to your question.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAgreed, but the popularity point was made in respect of your opinionated attack on the work and the author.
But the width of reception isn't a marker of the quality of its form. You seem to think that being popular is a necessary requirement of a piece of art or literature being good. I agree that a thing enjoyed and received by a few doesn't make it superior, I don't think the number of people that like or dislike a particular thing is of any import whatsoever. I'm honestly trying to work out why you think popularity is important.
She and it, are popular because the work is perceived as being good....or maybe it's the other way around...or both...chicken / egg?
I'm not saying popularity direcly makes the work good, and nor did I, but it is a marker that it is widely appreciated...and therefore that "overrated" is an opinion you hold, nothing more.
The fact that she has put out a seven book series that has captured hearts and minds worldwide also largely dispels your downplaying her literary prowess....could you do it? I know I couldn't.
If you find fault with her style etc, again, that's your opinion, to which you are obviously entitled, but I am more likley to read a work that is popular than unpopular (and I think I'm with the majority here).
That may make us shallow, accepted, but wait, we've not heard why you think what you do about her and the work....
Originally posted by ZadadkaGiven that the average person these days has a pretty poorly developed sense of culture and the arts, I'd say that the fact they are widely appreciated ensures they are overrated. Also, proliferance is not quality, how many pieces you write makes no difference to their standard. I have no doubt you are with the majority, that's kind of my point, to judge whether something is worth reading by the law of averages is ensuring only that you learn about, read, enjoy etc. what the rest of society does.
Agreed, but the popularity point was made in respect of your opinionated attack on the work and the author.
She and it, are popular because the work is perceived as being good....or maybe it's the other way around...or both...chicken / egg?
I'm not saying popularity direcly makes the work good, and nor did I, but it is a marker that it is widely apprecia ...[text shortened]... accepted, but wait, we've not heard why you think what you do about her and the work....
I think what I do about her work because that's the impression I have from reading the first 4 books, the last of those under duress. I have no great displeasure to express about Rowling, she's far from awful, but she is overrated.