Al,
Re your comment below:
> My problem with this argument, Miker, is that the
vox populi
doesn't determine what gets published. Editors do. And they
don't take votes. So I fail to see how that's
democratic.
Yeah, but, as I understood Miker, he was talking about the
specific case of "standing the test of time," not initial
publication.
Editors decide what gets published, but the public decides
what gets bought. The SUCCESS of a given book, as opposed to
the decision on whether or not to publish it in the first
place, is driven by public opinion.
YOu can argue, and I wouldn't deny, that the publishers can
affect the success of a book by deciding which work should
get the marketing dollars, which the publicity push, etc. But
that's like saying that democratic elections can be affected
by a good campaign. It doesn't alter the fact that the
ultimate decision is in the hands of the voters (or, in the
case of publishing books buyers).
And if the public decides to continue buying, and reading,
and talking about, and writing about, a given writer's work
over a long period of time, that's generally understood to be
"standing the test of time."
Leaving aside the question of whether or not "standing the
test of time" is a valid measure of whether a given piece of
literature, or a given writer, is or is not worthwhile, it IS
a reflection of public opinion over the passage of
years.
That was my understading, at least, of what Miker meant by
"democratic."
JIM DOHERTY
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Jul 2006 EDT