[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by gmw

I would contend that a popular novel, by definition, cannot be considered to be badly written.

Yes, the evaluation of an artwork involves subjective judgments. Yes, there is no objective or "true" or "inherent" value to a given work.

However, "quality" and "popularity" are two very distinct concepts. On the simplest level, people can thoroughly enjoy something that they know is terrible and of minimal value, perhaps even because it is bad. More importantly, the quality of a book will be based mostly upon criteria that do not relate to a book's popularity. One of those may be the clarity of the author's communicative skills -- or, conversely, on the author's ability to introduce and exploit the ambiguities of the text.

And how does one rate a book whose popularity is fleeting? Is the book only "good" at the height of its popularity, and its merits as a communication fade as it loses that popularity?

If Twilight sells more copies than Ulysses, should academics switch to studying this wondrous communicative work of popular literature instead of one of the most technically accomplished and influential books of the 20th century?

Or, what if a book sells well and is widely read, but is disliked by its readers?

Originally Posted by gmw

The purpose of writing is communication.

It can also be entertainment. I don't think James Patterson is trying to "communicate" to his audience, he's trying to keep them occupied and engaged.

Originally Posted by gmw

Note: I am specifically referring to books that are popular in and of themselves. Such books as Twilight and the early Harry Potter books, that were popular before the movies.

Aside from the fact that these two particular books were wildly popular prior to being movies, you cannot exclude them from your analysis on the basis of fame.

One major issue highlighted by your attempted exclusion is that the mark and mechanics of "popularity" involves large numbers of people purchasing or borrowing the book before they receive the "communication." By the time the 3rd or 4th books were published, the Potter books had massive pre-sales orders, i.e. the book was popular before anyone knew what it was actually going to contain. Was it a "good communication" before anyone read it?

Originally Posted by gmw

A.A.Milne writes of The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame: "When you sit down to it, don't be so ridiculous as to suppose that you are sitting in judgment on my taste, or on the art of Kenneth Grahame. You are merely sitting in judgment on yourself. You may be worthy: I don't know. But it is you who are on trial."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he's defending its quality, not its popularity or abilities to communicate. Nor does it make sense to view popularity as the primary evaluative criterion, and then attempt to substitute the judgment of an authority figure (a famous writer) as a whole new criterion.

What can I say, I reserve the right to call Twilight "crap" if it turns out to focus on trite concepts (vampires) in a ludicrous setting (undead attending high school) with technically inferior writing. If people enjoy it, that's their choice. I for one am not going to conflate sales figures with a book's quality.