I think J.K. Rowling is a good author.

@jk_rowling I turned it off when the argument was ‘the books aren’t Objectively good’ and his first post rebuttal was ‘lots of people are reading it’ That’s an argumentum ad populum. Start with a relevant argument and non-fallacy next time.

@jk_rowling Wrong. Fiction is produced and sold for people to read and enjoy. Harry Potter being widely read indicates it is a successful book and the author is therefore good at creating successful books.

@jk_rowling No it isn’t. I didn’t ask if it was successful I asked if it was objectively good. Being widely read means lots people have read it not that it is good. Lots of people watched fast and furious 10. Doesn’t make it good. Lots of people eat to obesity. Doesn’t make it a good action.

Yes, you are wrong. You are even wrong about what the argument is about. It is not "Are the books good" it is "Is Rowling a good author." The books are successful. They are commercially successful, enormously popular, widely read, well reviewed, and Rowling has success with multiple series in different genres. An author is a person who produces books. An author who produces successful books is a good author. This is not a fallacy to observe the objective evidence that the books are successful as measured by their popularity.

@jk_rowling No I am not. I’m going to simplify this bc you are clearly struggling here: the first sentence of this video makes the argument verbatim. Your immediate response is a argumentum ad populum (a fallacy). ‘A lot of people read it’ isn’t an answer to the claim in this video.

@lthlnkso @jk_rowling Using your own logic, nobody is “objectively” good at any art form. If we can’t use popularity, money generated, and vast number of reviews or critic acclaims. Which also means, nobody is “objectively” bad at any art.

@lthlnkso @jk_rowling No that’s what you are arguing. Stop conflating my position with whatever you are throwing at the wall today.

@jk_rowling I don't think the OP makes a strong argument (or really any argument per se), but I also don't think this rebuttal quite hits the mark. Surely you'd agree author quality is not purely reducible to commercial success; overrated or underrated authors can in principle exist

I’m open to considering any objective measure of author quality. I referred to reading time, books sold, reviews, and hours of human enjoyment. If you have another measure in mind, let’s see it. If you think author quality can’t be objectively measured then you agree with me up to the point that the OP is wrong. I think the objective measures I gave are relevant and subjective measures exist too. I don’t see the point in denying the objective.

@jk_rowling For clarity, I'm 90% on the same page as you, I just don't think your response quite engages the central idea. If e.g. we polled Lit profs to rate the technical writing quality of the Potter novels, I guess that they'd rate it middlingy.

@lthlnkso @jk_rowling That is one of many factors that make a "good" author. Literary skill alone doesn't make someone a good author, just a good technical writer.

@lthlnkso @jk_rowling Absolutely. Your point here is what I've been alluding to as a rebuttal to the OP that more centrally engages them.

@jk_rowling a pet peeve of mine is someone saying "objectively..." followed immediately by a subjective statement.

@jk_rowling Several authors on that most read list (e.g. Sarah J. Maas, Colleen Hoover) I'd say objectively are terrible authors despite their popularity. But your point stands. Most post-2019 HP hate is transparently just politically-motivated sour grapes masquerading as literary criticism.

@jk_rowling Determining the quality of something based off big numbers and reviews of people you’ve never met isn’t a good standard to have for art. I say this as someone who couldn’t care less about Rowling’s politics.

@jk_rowling Her Harry Potter series is second only to the bible in terms of copies sold. Whatever you think, you can't claim it's objectively not good.

@jk_rowling complaining about a fantasy novel while wearing a steampunk costume

It seems to me that you are both incorrect. I don’t believe, in principle, that an author can be objectively good or bad; those are subjective qualities. Your argument convinces me more that she is objectively popular and well-respected, but not that she is an objectively good author.

@jk_rowling I can say she is a good author, easy to read books with a decent plot with some surprises without getting too convoluted. And she clearly appeals to a vast group of readers. That said, I’d rather read Lord of the Rings.

@jk_rowling This doesn't actually prove his point wrong. If anything this shows they are popular not not good. Those two things are not the same thing.

@jk_rowling Her being popular doesn't mean she is necessarily good. She's always in the top 20 because the Harry Potter books are popular. If you genuinely think she is up there because of quality then you need to read more books. Endgame is the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time...

@jk_rowling The funny mustache man doesn't understand the definition of the word objectively.

@jk_rowling she’s a piece of shit regardless of her writing skills

@jk_rowling Popular means good?

@jk_rowling the most punchable face ive seen in a while

@jk_rowling Popularity is not a measure of objectibe quality. Not saying the other guy is right, but twilight was number 1 on the NY time bestseller list and that book is OBJECTIVELY terrible

@jk_rowling they’re not written very well but the worldbuilding is clearly very good. aesthetics trump all. someone like cs lewis or philip pullman does a lot better tho

@jk_rowling People really torture the word "objectively" when they want to protect more strength than their argument actually has. Rowling is objectively a best selling author. She is objectively a financially successful author. She has objectively given billions of hours of enjoyment to--

@jk_rowling Guy is mad for the Ts.

@jk_rowling Just bc it’s successful doesn’t make good. The transformer movies are successful they are not good movies

@jk_rowling Popular doesn’t mean good, and good doesn’t mean popular. I’ve met people, and most of us have shit taste.

@jk_rowling A teacher friend of mine did a study on how the Harry Potter series helps children improve their vocabulary and reading comprehension. Beyond that, teaching children to love reading is a Huge Win!!

@jk_rowling By what metric is Harry Potter not objectively good? The left does this a lot. They intentionally misuse a word, even though it's not true, because it makes a more extreme stance. Another example is how they use "empathy". They think it means to "endorse" what someone else does

@jk_rowling Obviously there is a general misunderstanding of "objective vs subjective". Objectively, it is to be weighed against the rules of what constitutes good writing. Subjectively, it will be weighed against how the general audience likes or hates the books.

@jk_rowling this guy is a goofball, but it's silly to turn his "objective" shtick back on him. It would've sufficed to demonstrate that his claim that Rowling is not a "good author" is not objective, no need to claim that yours is. Aesthetic quality is an extremely contested concept

@jk_rowling My personal opinion - Rowling is a very good story writer. Imaginative in creating a world that readers could consistently return to. I think character dev and dialogue left a bit to be desired but it’s a kid series. She obviously couldn’t write how teenager talks (swearing etc)

@jk_rowling I agree completely. Just like we know Nickelback are the best musicians, McDonalds makes the best food, and Greek philosophy sucks fat floppy donkey dick. I never seen Aristotle make the Most Most Read List.

@jk_rowling So the Star Wars sequels are good movies because lots of people have seen them. Good job.

@jk_rowling DUNE, by Frank Herbert, one of the top-selling sci-fi novels of all time, was rejected 23 times before being published by Chilton, who famously printed auto repair manuals. Judging an author for how many times they are rejected means absolutely nothing. As she proved as well.

@jk_rowling The discourse is just so tedious. Famous author has 'bad' opinions other artist-adjacent people don't like. They decide because they hate her opinions that they hate her, and, consequently, her art. That video would not be made had she said the right thing.

@jk_rowling There’s no way to make an objective argument about an opinion….

@jk_rowling Bruh, people are now just subverting their subjective opinion as objective truth to validate their opinion? Copium🤦‍♂️Harry is billions dollar franchise.

@jk_rowling books those thick and a series that long , that’s a fantastic author imagine getting a freaking kid to real ALL of that in elementary or middle school. outstanding!

@jk_rowling People forget what objectivity actually means. It means empirical, data-backed, reproducible. It doesn't mean "an authority said it".

@jk_rowling This guy knows that most American adults read at a 6th grade level right? Citing popular books to argue they’re good is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard