[OtterBooks]

I think the most one can say is that popularity is independent of quality. Since the word "popular" itself is generally defined in terms of quantity, the only thing it does by definition is illustrate the quality of marketing and/or consumer desire. If those two things are inherently related to quality, then McDonalds is quality food.

Yet it doesn't mean the work is bad. Many writers of popular fiction were given little respect in their time, then went on to garner respect from the literary community. Raymond Chandler is an example, whose work was considered trashy pulp at the time of his popularity. Now he's accepted as a great writer. Add to that list names like Edgar Rice Burroughs and Jules Verne.

Almost all Charles Dickens works were originally published as short magazine-like installments, devoured as serial soap operas by working class readers. It was one of the first instances of literature being purely marketed as product. Even today some literati view it as little more than that (I don't agree).

Similar treatment is being done to Stephen King (though not quite to the same degree), who was referred to in a previous post as a horrible writer. I'm not really a fan of King, but horrible writers usually don't receive an O.Henry Award, and even fewer get asked to serve on its committee as a guest editor, a distinction shared by John Updike and Flannery O'Connor.

Still, Twilight sucks imo.