Can You Say Non Sequitur?

By -
Anne McCaffrey is dead. Her NY Times obituary contains the following sentence:

"But the immense commercial success of Dragonriders of Pern more than outweighed any criticism."

Hmm, so what exactly is the equation that balances the errors critics spot (one critic accused her of "awkward similes" and "formulaic descriptions") against sales? One thousand copies sold negates one awkward simile?

Comments

  1. Josiah Neeley2:43 PM

    Let's hope whoever wrote that obit never sees the sales figures for Battlefield Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Avram5:08 PM

    The equation is that calling yourself a critic doesn't mean your opinion on anything is more valid than anyone elses, and thinking otherwise is a great example of being a snob.

    Specifically *one* sale to *one* person who doesn't give a ratsass about "awkward similies" and finds other beauty in the book negates all the holier than thou nitpicking critics in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah9:47 PM

    So someone who actually takes the time to learn about a field and painstakingly builds up expertise in it is a snob! This is ignorant philistinism masquerading as anti-snobbery, Avram.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Avram6:47 AM

    They're not snobs (always) because a lot of critics are very humble.

    I respect what critics do. In fact they do me a great practical service as often I decide whether or not I will purchase something or not based on criticism. The more informed and in line with my own thinking I deem the critic, the more likely I will weigh his opinion more heavily in my decision.

    However I stand by my statement that all the critics in the world saying a book is bad for blah blah blah does not actually make the book bad.

    For example I am sure that many people could write a very intelligent critique of Mozart's music. It is very possible that the critical consensus on Mozart's music could be that it is terrible.

    This does not make the music terrible.

    And to relate to the original thingo, if thousands other non critics said Mozart's music is good, then maybe this would be a sign that the critics are out of step with what good actually is.

    I will admit that I am guilty of thinking that you think that if a critic says something is bad it must be bad. Maybe you do not think this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah4:07 AM

    "However I stand by my statement that all the critics in the world saying a book is bad for blah blah blah does not actually make the book bad."

    Of course, Avram, critics saying a book is bad do not, thereby, make it bad. But if they all think it is bad, that is a fairly good indication that it really is bad. But not an infallible indication!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more