[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

It's interesting that you take this subjective view. It seems to me that this view contradicts your assertion that one person's criticism can be objectively better than someone else's.

You take me somewhat out of context. If Michelangelo and a truck driver are looking at a painting, and Mike says "Wow, that is an excellent work of art," but the truck driver just spits and says "Don't look like nuthin' good to me," I would say that each opinion is valid for that person. But I would also say that the quality of Michelangelo’s perspective is probably better than the truck driver's due to his experience with artwork.

I don't think the quality of the criticism of a published author is necessarily superior to that of anyone else. In fact, in the case where an author is criticizing his or her own work, it is probably less valid.

I would agree with you there about the subjectivity of an author regarding his own work. But when an author sells thousands of books, isn’t that the masses telling him he is a good author? I’m saying guys like Jordan know what it takes. If it were complete junk no one would buy it. Tolkien knew what it took. Their books provide tens of thousands of people with entertainment, and that is what they wanted to accomplish when they sent their manuscripts to print. I’m not saying that is ALL they wanted to accomplish. No doubt there are as many reasons as there are authors. Fiction’s main purpose is entertainment, otherwise why read it? Note I did not say “only purpose”.