I don’t equate those, but seeing as in art there is no objective way to measure goodness or quality, it’s a pretty good indicator. It’s hard for me to dismiss something with that level of success as being bad. Seems disingenuous.
I took a course decades ago when I was at University working towards my BA in English Literature. It was titled “The Canon”. Basically, how do we decide what books are “good” enough to be included in a literary canon. After months of discussion, research, justification using criteria such as critical acclaim, popularity, longevity (popularity over time), etc., it pretty much came down to whatever you, or the little group you are working with, agrees on. As you say. Like a particular food, I may not like something while you may like it, we would both be right. That said, Rowling’s writing, for me, was absolutely awful. But again, someone with a different background, expectations, or whatever may have not noticed the poor and repetitive prose, and instead just liked it. Fair enough. I’ve read that the books became better written as she chugged along, but I never found out. I do know that I like some things even though I can understand why some people may think are pretty bad. Hell, I grew up on punk rock in the late '70s and early to mid '80s and, with some notable exceptions, they weren’t the best musicians. I still loved, and continue to love, a lot of that music. When I worked at a book store back in the early '90s when book stores were still a thing, it became pretty clear that good writing isn’t in any way a requirement for a book to become a best seller.
I don’t equate those, but seeing as in art there is no objective way to measure goodness or quality, it’s a pretty good indicator. It’s hard for me to dismiss something with that level of success as being bad. Seems disingenuous.
I took a course decades ago when I was at University working towards my BA in English Literature. It was titled “The Canon”. Basically, how do we decide what books are “good” enough to be included in a literary canon. After months of discussion, research, justification using criteria such as critical acclaim, popularity, longevity (popularity over time), etc., it pretty much came down to whatever you, or the little group you are working with, agrees on. As you say. Like a particular food, I may not like something while you may like it, we would both be right. That said, Rowling’s writing, for me, was absolutely awful. But again, someone with a different background, expectations, or whatever may have not noticed the poor and repetitive prose, and instead just liked it. Fair enough. I’ve read that the books became better written as she chugged along, but I never found out. I do know that I like some things even though I can understand why some people may think are pretty bad. Hell, I grew up on punk rock in the late '70s and early to mid '80s and, with some notable exceptions, they weren’t the best musicians. I still loved, and continue to love, a lot of that music. When I worked at a book store back in the early '90s when book stores were still a thing, it became pretty clear that good writing isn’t in any way a requirement for a book to become a best seller.
Yeah. Maybe the “poor and repetitive” prose you describe was even helpful in capturing many readers. It all depends on perspective.