On being a stormy petrel

[fpb]

I don't know. I just cannot seem to stay out of trouble. Time and time again, I encounter viewpoints, even among friends, that I have discarded with contempt long ago - if I ever accepted them at all - and which seem to me to violate all common sense and even basic fairness. And yet they are not only kept, but entertained and fed and honoured

Comments

[bufo_viridis]

Of course the opposite, namely popular=good is also false :)

Recently I found an interesting argument, which for all its apparent "marxism" actually make sense: after the industrial production satied the basic and also many less basic (like entertainment) needs, and in generally there was no shortage of commodities any more, the taste for "unique", "original" and finally "eccentric" was developed to create and keep high the price of the sparce commodity. The price is defined by the scarcity, and since price usually equals quality, the equation turned to scarce=good.
Which is certainly not true as an all-encompassing rule.

[patchworkmind]

And again I find that our attitudes are similar.

Good post. Well said, er- written. (You know what I mean.)

[ani_bester]

Then someone else posts on the subject of JKR getting an award, and finds herself unhappy because JKR is not really that important. And why is she not important? Because she is not clever or original, and because she is successfulI don't think that actually. I'm sorry if I caused you to think that was what I was saying

[fpb]

There you go. I do not think that Steven King is all that good. I only read PET SEMATARY and CARRIE, and I found PS rooted in sentimentality, and CARRIE built on a fraudulent view of "crazed Christian" that is a groundless cliche that exists only to please the American majority. Capable writer, no doubt, but no genius. But as for Pratchett and Gaiman, do bookstores open at midnight for them?

[ani_bester]

Ah I must agree with you on Carrie. I cannnot read that book because I find the mother to be a pathetic stereotype that I can't suspend my disbelief for.

However, I Found his Dark Tower series to be, perhaps, on of the best works I've read. He tends to be very hit or miss. My joke with his books is I will either be unable to put them down, or through them down in disgust half way through.

But as for Pratchett and Gaiman, do bookstores open at midnight for them?

*L* Comic stores do for Gaimen.
Otherwise no, but Halo II got a midnight opening, and after the euphoria wore off, everyone tended to agree that the game was massively subpar. X-Men III also got a midnight opening . . .

[fpb]

If they do, they must be comic stores I never went to. And given that I have been into comics since the year of the Lord 1980, my experience is wide. I have known Chris Claremont in his glory, Jack Kirby's twilight, all the best period of Alan Moore from beginning to end, and I never saw anything like that. Marvel tried it a few years back with the Jim Lee X-MEN issues, and it turned out to be a stinker. X-Men III and the rest were hype. On the other hand, JKR midnight openings happened because, if they had not done so, people would have begun to steal books from the shops before they opened, so eagerly awaited were they. And it is something that, before JKR, had not happened since Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, and, before Conan Doyle, since Dickens. Such things are rare, and they cannot be made to happen by mere hype; that is something Marvel found out the hard way.

[camillofan]

Don't forget-- the masses also loved Dan Brown and his infamous book. They keep the ratings high for a lot of really garbage-y television programs (here in the US), pour more than $100 million into the box office for "Mission Impossible" movies, and so on. One doesn't want to be sentimental about the tastes of the many, or to overrate the ability of the majority to love only what is good.

[fpb]

Did they beat down the walls to have it? I think there is a difference between extent and depth. The success of Dickens, Conan Doyle and JKR - and also, I will admit, of Claremont in his great days, Alan Moore, and Neil Gaiman - is measured not just by sales but by the eagerness of readers to have the last issue and their impatience till the next. I doubt whether Dan Brown has anything like the same impact. It reminds me of the death of Princess Diana, long ago. Because the centre of London became carpeted with flowers, everyone became convinced that something serious and important was happening. But what really was happening was that several million people had spent a few pounds each on flowers; which did not change the landscape much. On the other hand, if you think of the first We Are The World concert, in 1985, something important really did happen; people not only poured avalanches of money where it would have the most effect (not necessarily always the right effect, but at least clearly intending a definite benevolent

[camillofan]

It's hard to see JKR and Harry Potter as important, though. In terms of fandom, I worship at the altar of Conan Doyle, and I'd be hard-pressed to make the claim for him, either.

[fpb]

Answer to this coming in essay form - I cannot go on adding long answers to obscure threads, they would miss 90% of the people who could make a valid contribution.

[goreism]

To be honest, Ann Coulter serves really only one purpose for me: if someone is a fan, that's a useful sign for me to never discuss politics with them. It's not so much her views (I admire plenty of people whose political views differ from mine even more than hers do) as the fact that I find her manner asinine at best and sickening at worst.

I totally agree with your opinion about JKR, though (I'm not sure I'd pick her as Greatest Living British Author, but I hate making lists like that anyway). She's definitely the most entertaining "children's author" since E. Nesbit.