Replies

Excellent points. What I was trying to say was that the "commercial" aspect of any work of art, music, or literature has nothing to do with the quality of the work itself. This point was driven home to me in a college-level philosophy course. The professor, in making the point that science is a unique area of study because it requires public scrutiny of a person's ideas, pointed out that Emily Dickinson never published any of her poetry.

This parallel opens a real can of worms, of course, because it means that one work of art or music can be objectively "better" or "worse" than another regardless of popular consent (similar to the idea that 2+2=4 in a true, abstract, sense). A Yugo may do a far better job of meeting the needs of specific people than a Mercedes-Benz, but in any objective, qualitative comparison between the two (i.e., "all things being equal") the Mercedes will always come out on top.

What I was trying to say was that the "commercial" aspect of any work of art, music, or literature has nothing to do with the quality of the work itself.

Agreed. And likewise, yes? Just because something is successful that doesn't automatically make it trash.

I think Michael Jackson -- and J.K. Rowling -- are great artists in their own right. And criticisms of HP seem to hinge on academic-style 'classic literature is better than popular literature' type thinking.

Potter books are popular, and brilliant for what they are. The vast majority of kids prefer HP to the Chronicles of Narnia. When adults go saying that HP isn't "deep" enough, then -- to quote my 10 year old -- "some adults just don't remember what it was like to be a child."

I can remember some comic books that I enjoyed far more than the Hobbit.