Originally posted by rbmorrisMy daughter has read the Harry Potter books, she's 9. Well, she's almost through them. I read them, too. They mean so much to her. They are the only books that we have both read and I know she loves that. I think they have encouraged her to read more and use her imagination more. She reads about two hours a day since she started them. She always loved reading, but these books brought her expectations up a bit so it has been a positive in several ways.
Agreed. However, today kids are so wrapped up in video games and crap. It's good to see them reading something...anything. Hopefully, if a 10 year old gets into the Rowling books he/she'll have a good feeling about recreational reading. Maybe it'll inspire them to keep reading and pick up deeper, more challenging books. Maybe, since there are so many a ...[text shortened]... od I see in it.
I have no problem with J.K. Rowling. Dan Brown is the real culprit IMO.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAbsolutely, Millions of people watch American Idol even though it's the worst piece of garbage on TV since Star Search, Big Brother and Survivor.
I think you have indeed missed the point, my argument is exactly that popularity is of no importance whatsoever.
Popularity does not equate with quality.
Sometimes popular things are also quality things, but the two share no correlation with one another.
Originally posted by uzlessAgreed.
Absolutely, Millions of people watch American Idol even though it's the worst piece of garbage on TV since Star Search, Big Brother and Survivor.
Popularity does not equate with quality.
Sometimes popular things are also quality things, but the two share no correlation with one another.
Nobody in their right minds is going to suggest the Spice Girls are better musicians than the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
Originally posted by uzlessActually, the real point is that quality is a completely subjective term. Popularity does equate with quality, it's just that quality has a personal meaning, not a universal one.
Absolutely, Millions of people watch American Idol even though it's the worst piece of garbage on TV since Star Search, Big Brother and Survivor.
Popularity does not equate with quality.
Sometimes popular things are also quality things, but the two share no correlation with one another.
I've always wondered which of the following more people would consider "better": (a) a piece of music that affects many people in a positive way fairly strongly; or (b) a piece that affect a small group of people in a positive way profoundly.
(For the sake of argument, let's say that (a) corresponds to 1,000,000 people giving the piece a 7, and (b) corresponds to 1,000 people giving the piece a 10.)
Originally posted by PBE6Good question. My answer would be (b) simply because a 7 is just not that good. Not anymore. A 7 is the sign of utter mediocrity.
I've always wondered which of the following more people would consider "better": (a) a piece of music that affects many people in a positive way fairly strongly; or (b) a piece that affect a small group of people in a positive way profoundly.
(For the sake of argument, let's say that (a) corresponds to 1,000,000 people giving the piece a 7, and (b) corresponds to 1,000 people giving the piece a 10.)
Originally posted by darvlayThe trouble is any one of those people's 7s is unequatable with any of the others'. One man's appreciation of mediocrity is worth a 7 whilst another's appreciation of excellence is worth a 7. It is, as you have pointed out already, a subjective thing. So a 7 being 'just not that good' is a claim you can't really substantiate. It's an incredibly interesting topic to me, it all reduces to a subjective appreciation of quality and yet humans try and reduce it to quantity; to numbers, ranks, positions etc. The best we can hope for is that the indeterminacy of aesthetic judgements matters little in the big scheme of things.
Good question. My answer would be (b) simply because a 7 is just not that good. Not anymore. A 7 is the sign of utter mediocrity.
I don't actually think I can answer his question, I'm not sure how to qualify 'better', and even if I was, how could I decide upon which subjective agreements the consensus of either side had been reached?