Barbelith Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing > J K Rowling voted best living British writer by The Book magazine.

"Reid, do you think there is a difference between how much we like a writer (subjective, of course) and a more consensual or objective quality of skill at writing?"

No, or rather how do you feel that we have arrived at that consensus?

"People study some texts and not others in school, and the texts that are chosen are usually agreed to be examples of good writing."

Not really, agreed by whom? Again it comes down to a question of abrogating your taste. Last of the Mohicans is considered great literature yet it is one of the few books I've not actually made it to the end of because, in my opinion, it is so badly written. Also I studied the X-Files for my dissertation, a friends of mine use Brechtian theory to analyse wrestling. Pretty much anything can be studied and has a value in understanding culture whether it's considered popular or otherwise.

"Whether you like something or not you can recognise the writer's skill, or clumsiness. I love badly written fantasy novels for example, and I like Rowling but I don't think she's a great writer."

But again as to whether or not it's good writing is subjective, what you are saying is that you're opinion is influenced by external factors, well of course it is but that's not an excuse to abrogate your own taste or what you seem to be saying is that you feel your taste is lessened or diminished because you like fantasy novels.

Mattisse you're right I've been using populist, popular and pulp almost interchangeably here which is a little lazy. I shall attempt to be more careful.

"I'd certainly agree that the Iliad is a cracking war story. Where I think we differ is whether that makes it pulp. You think it does, I don't. As it happens, I think your comparison with Buffy has certain strengths, but you've got it the wrong way around. The idea that the only reason it is more revered than J K Rowling is that it is far older is a painful stretch. It was certainly popular. Populist is a more difficult question, for all sorts of reasons a bit too complex to go into here."

Okay populist rather than Pulp. Now you have me at a disadvantage as clearly you know more about the Iliad than I but I'm willing to bet that when Homer wrote it he did so to appeal to as many people as was humanly possible. This idea that "popular" writers should be looked down on I'm pretty sure is a new concept as I struggle to think of many writers of the past penning their masterpiece and thinking : "Hmmm, I only want literary snobs to read this..." They are considered better because they have been around for longer and there is this mysterious received wisdom that because they've been around for a while they should be judged in a separate literary category to the HP books.

Lets take a hypothetical example fifty years times the HP franchise is still going strong but you have to search long and hard for a Paul Auster novel. Those of you saying that there is some kind of objective benchmark of quality (Incidently would someone like to define that?) whom is the "better" writer (though strictly speaking comparing Auster and Rowling is a bit like comparing Bambi and Taxi Driver they are written with a very different target audience in mind)? Throughout history how many hypothetical Paul Austers do you think we've lost? Great books and authors that have gone missing yet Tolkein is still with us? Why? Because he's popular. Popularity is the reason that things stay in print because publishing is a business.

Face it the Bronte sisters where the Catherins Cooksons of their time.

Why do you think the comparison with Buffy has strengths? Strictly speaking the closest filmic equivalent to the Iliad I can think of would be Black Hawk Down but I can’t see that comparison going down very well here.