Hey, I already used the example of Hermione in this thread! No repeats! :)

On 7/5/09, Paul Hartzer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think this may say as much or more about how we decide what "art" is, and
> how we nominate the cultural arbiters of "artistic merit," than it does
> about the intrinsic worth of the books in question.
>
> After all, the original function of the author was as cultural storyteller,
> and certainly the ability to entertain more people rather than fewer is a
> significant, if not the centermost, criterion for determining the skill
> level of a storyteller. However, we have developed a sense of "literature"
> in our culture(s) where entertainment value is only a minor criterion of
> worth.
>
> Regardless, the original point was responding to the claim that, by using
> titles like mma and rra and using authentic names, the author of No 1 Ladies
> Detective Agency made the books "bad writing" in the sense that it's
> inaccessible. The accurate rebuttal was that No 1 was a bestseller. (For
> that matter, the Harry Potter series has as one of its three principals a
> character that many Americans [including myself] did not know how to
> pronounce, and that didn't hurt book sales... or if it did, the mind boggles
> at how rich JK Rowling would be if it had be Harry, Ralph, and Helen!)
>
> -- Paul
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: J. Burke <[log in to unmask]>
>> There seems to be little or no necessary connection between artistic
>> merit and popularity; though some popular authors are very good, past and
>> present, while some so-called "literary" types are self-indulgent tripe.
>
>
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>