[Aiwendil]

But my point is, there is plenty of message and meaning in lots of literature, popular or not. It's not somehow unique to Tolkien.

I don't think anyone has implied otherwise; I certainly have not. It's just that Tolkien frequently gets attacked as having no 'message or meaning'. My point is: 1. Irrelevant; art is about aesthetics, not usefulness, and 2. There is a significant 'applicability' (Tolkien's word) in LotR. I certainly don't consider it the only work that has any meaning; on the contrary, I can think of plenty of allegories and such with more non-literary meaning.

if something is better liked, that must means it will be more popular. Or do you mean that if just one person is so overwhelmed with pleasure at reading "Star Trek #259 " that they spontaneously combust, that makes it better than all other books?

You're taking my remark rather out of context. All I'm saying is that when a person likes a book, he or she likes it for a reason. Let's say that the book has property Y that person A enjoys. Property Y is an intrinsic property of the book. So in other words the process goes: Author -> book with property Y -> popularity because of Y. Of course, some other variable might be introduced between steps 2 and 3 (the accesibility, reputation, and familiarity that I discussed earlier enter in here). But the point is that a person's like or dislike for a book has its roots in the book itself.

If popularity IS NOT the measure, then you have to consider other literature without reference to popularity or "accessibility" - which includes popularity/accessibility of theme, form and so on.

I agree completely. I never refused to consider other literature without reference to popularity/accessibility.

I like ice cream. I prefer ice cream to spinach. But I know spinach is better for me.

Do you propose that literature must be good for society to be good? This is a strange criterion. Does that mean that if you have a piece of literature written from a communist viewpoint and one written from a capitalist viewpoint, one is inevitably bad literature, because one of the two systems must be better than the other? How can we know what is best for society? And how often does a work of literature (literature, not philosophy or science) actually have a measurable impact on society? I would think it is extremely infrequent. Do you think any politicians in the U.S.S.R. read Animal Farm and were convinced to abandon communism? Literature simply doesn't have a significant impact on the way the world works.

Of course, even if you could show that it did, I'd still say the purpose of art is to entertain.

I'd guess you like some modern American music more than classical Indian ragas. But you could accept that the classical Indian ragas might have more musical virtue, even though you don't like listening to them as much.

Er. . . I don't think so. First of all, "musical virtue" is almost as amorphous as "literary virtue". Second, music theory (well, excluding serialism for the moment) is designed the way (I think) artistic theory should be. That is, it tells us why things sound good, not that what we think sounds good isn't really good. If I agreed that a certain Indian piece had more musical virtue than something else, I would like it better than that thing.

But, wait a minute ... do you mean text-based RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons-style) with the little metal figures, or do you mean computer of PSX-style gaming?

Well, neither. I mean text-based RPGs without little metal figures (actually it's into this category that Dungeons and Dragons falls; the 'little metal figures' are not a necessary part of it.) I mean a gamemaster (author) sitting down with a group of players (characters) and creating for them a carefully devised world, an intriguing plot, complex characters with which they can interact, and even MEANING and MESSAGE.

Let's just say that by your definitions, working at McDonalds is art.

Have you ever played a real RPG? (I don't mean to sound offensive; I just get the feeling you either haven't played them, or you've had a really bad gamemaster.) Your examples of plot, character, etc. at McDonald's are obviously sarcastic; but in RPGs these things exist on quite the same level as for the novel. To compare the plot of a well done RPG to working at McDonald's is absurd, and no better than comparing the plot of a novel to the same. Name any aspect of the novel that you think distinguishes it as a medium for art, and I'll show that role-playing is capable of the same thing.

I don't mean to sound hostile - I'm just a bit defensive about this. I also have enjoyed this thread, being something of a compulsive arguer.