[Aiwendil]

You are confusing two different things here. While there is no objective truth about art, there can be, in my most humble opinion, a somewhat objective truth about opinions on art.

I see. Your claim, then, is that I have confounded the quality of art with the quality of one's opinion regarding art. The former, you say, is entirely subjective, the latter "somewhat objective". "Somewhat objective" is, however, a very vague and slippery term. I will not say that it has no meaning (I think it has), but I don't think it can be applied very well to a person's opinions about art. You are willing to say that Michelangelo's opinions are objectively better than the truck driver's (without the qualifier of "somewhat"). It therefore seems to me that your position is that opinions about art can be objective. I don't see where the "somewhat" comes in, or even what "somewhat objective" might mean in this case.

I'm also still not satisfied with your definition of "better" when it comes to people's opinions. You say that:

Michelangelo's opinion would carry more weight because of his awareness in the art form. He achieved this awareness by his experiance, etc etc.

By what standard is Michelangelo's opinion better (or does it "carry more weight") than the truck driver's? It is clearly not that Michelangelo knows what good art is any better than the truck driver (because in your formulation, there is no such thing, objectively). If I am interpreting you correctly, your answer is along these lines: that Michelangelo's view is superior because he has given more thought to art, or has had more experience with it, etc. However, without an objective standard, what use are thought or experience? If the truck driver can produce a work of art that is objectively equal to Michelangelo's (because there is no objective value at all), why does it matter that Michelangelo has given it more thought or had more experience? How can objective value derive from consideration of, or experience with, purely subjective things? We can take this one step further: suppose the truck driver has produced dozens, even hundreds of these signs for Redskins games. Suppose they are typical of such things. Suppose they are not the sort of pieces that might end up in a museum. Suppose, even, that they are crude and vulgar (note: I have nothing against truck drivers, and am merely taking this example to an extreme). Suppose that this truck driver has spent as much time on these signs as Michelangelo did on his works. The truck driver's opinion is that is that his signs are better than, say, "David". Michelangelo disagrees. Now, if awareness, experience, and the like are what determines the quality of an opinion, we must consider the two evenly matched. The (I admit, increasingly hypothetical) truck driver is supremely aware of his own art form. He has had an immense amount of experience with it. He has thought about it constantly, on his long cross-country trips. His opinion must be as good as Michelangelo's, following your criteria. Or: suppose we compare this fellow to Leonardo da Vinci. Now, Leonardo spent a great deal of time on artistic endeavours, but he also devoted much of his attention to other things - science, invention, etc. It is reasonable to stipulate that the truck driver has devoted more time to his "art" than Leonardo has to his. In this case, the truck driver's opinion must be better than Leonardo's.

There are obective portions to writing: grammer, spelling, and punctuation. For non-fiction I would add content. For fiction content = the story, the part that is the artwork of the author.

Unless, however, you are willing to say that the quality of a piece of writing is a function primarily of grammar and the like, the point is moot. The art, as you say, lies not mainly in these, but in the story (and I would add style, characterization, etc.).

I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses.

I don't like this conclusion very much either, but I think it is whither your line of reasoning leads, unless you abolish objectivity altogether (which I don't think you really have).

To be educated in a work of fantasy fiction you must, at the least, read it. So my argument comes full circle: keep an open mind and go read stuff even if you think Tolkien right now sits at the right hand of God as the Muse of Fantasy and no one will ever measure up to him.

There is a big difference between reading something and liking it. I think that the majority of people who speak ill of Robert Jordan have read him, with, I hope, an open mind; indeed it seems likely that this experience is the foundation of their dislike for him.

I do agree that an open mind should be maintained. If, however, you have experienced a work of art and hold a negative view of it, there is nothing wrong in saying so. Note that I have nothing particularly against modern fantasy authors; while I think that none of them comes close to Tolkien, I have actually enjoyed Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan.