Umbran said:Some people might argue that they are objectively not good books, yes. But you know what? Those people would be talking through their hats, because there's no such thing as an objective measure of literary quality! This is art we are talking about - it's value and effect are subjective, not objective.
I'm going to be talking through my hat, here.
Objectivity is subjectivity that withstands the test of reality. James Joyce's Ulysses is objectively better than The Rats of Nimh even if I like it less. I have no problem saying that the best book I've ever read was Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hunded Years of Solitude, but also that my favorite book I've ever read was Watership Down. I can distinguish between personal appeal and quality. Can you?
There are books that are more sophisticated than others. Gene Wolfe, though arguably not fantasy, is certainly more sophisticated with his religious themes and depth of story than Robert Jordan and his poorly masked cold war drivel. Still, kids need something to read.
Last edited: