[DanielKoehler]

<<"Humans need have no brains or judgment; the market will do everything for them. That's why the U.S. economy is doing so well.?">> So...that's it? The big point of your post? That's the case cracker that puts this whole issue to rest, eh? If so, I don't care for either your point or your tone. However, your sophomoric sarcasm actually serves to prove my point.

First, Vivian, we are not here to discuss the US economy; the thread topic is "good" and "bad" novels. It's been in all the other posts you say I have yet to read. Perhaps you just missed it?

But since you brought it up, the American economy is doing quite well, thank you very much. It's the strongest in the world. There is no point in debating that fact, even for an NB economic sage such as yourself.

Abstract thinking may not be your forte. The market is we "humans."

You make the mistake of reifying the "market" as something existing apart from its constituents. You are confusing the map with the territory. The market can't "do everything for them," as you so cunningly put it. It's an collective abstract construct for the decisions of millions of readers; it is not itself a sentient being. Humans, however, are sentient beings and know what they like in lit.

My point is simply that readers' independent decisions are better proxies for good or bad lit than the preferences of a cabal of editors. Gatekeepers aren't needed to tell thinking individuals what is good or bad lit. If readers have access to a wider sphere of authors as is the case now with ebooks, I believe they are quite capable of deciding for themselves merely by scanning the jacket copy and a couple of chapters.

Second, <<"Judging from your post, you've read nothing that came before it and will read nothing that comes afterward">> is an ad hominem attack to discredit an opinion with which you disagree. To promote such an obvious logical fallacy serves as evidence of a serious deficiency in your education. The fact is, Vivian, you have no earthly way to know what I have read or will read on this thread. So, instead of coming off as clever, you instead appear arrogant and mean-spirited.

Vivian, you and I constitute but two voices on the thread. Neither of us has any right to speak for the thread or censure other voices. I must say, however, I think you have been most disingenous and your hauteur is quite frankly not in keeping with the spirit of the blog. Your post to me added nothing to the discussion IMO. You would raise your stock considerably in my eyes (and presumably in the eyes of other people of good will who participate constructively on the thread) if you were to refrain from demeaning it with your sarcastic scorn.

Finally, thank you for your concern as to my health, and yes, I do feel better now. Then again, I probably shouldn't. To paraphrase Le Boeuf in True Grit, "What really has one accomplished by besting a fool?"

If my reply has offended anyone, I do apologize. But if attacked, I will defend.