What we're really talking about here, or at least I am, is judging something's success based on intentions. If you want something that destroys your body but makes you feel good for a brief but addicting period of time, then crack is a good choice.
With books, however, it can't be that concrete. You can prove what crack is doing to your body, but it's harder to prove that a book is a 'good' book.
I guess this relates to the philosophy discussion going on elsewhere. However, it is my argument that--in this case--opinion DOES create reality.
Millions of people think Eye of the World is a good book. SE thinks it's a bad book. I say that while his aesthetic judgement may hold more value than that of some other people (he has, after all, studied this subject extensively) his pure opinion of enjoyment is no more valuable than that of another person. Therefore, EOTW can be judged a 'good' book rather than a 'bad' book (assuming one looks at it in general terms.)
SE says a 'good' book is one that he judges to be of value to himself.
I say a 'good' book is one that the greater number of people judges to be of value to them.
Yes, it's a simple matter of semantics. Yes, I understand that everyone's opinion is subjective. What I'm trying to do, however, is develop an argument to use against the literary establishment when they try to make value judgements on my behalf. I want to prove that the process of bringing people joy through a well-told story is as valuable as their subjective criteria for literary excellence.
That doesn't devalue SE's opinion, especially if you limit your judging criteria. If, for instance, one's criteria when looking for a book is not to seek for one that has been judged good by a large population, but one that has been judged good by a specialized segment with similar interests (such as the literary community) then the weight of evidence might judge the book to be 'bad' for you.
