You make good points, but it depends on the type of discussion.fudd71 wrote:Bob you are right and as I look at what I wrote I don’t think it came across quite as I intended. I fully understand your point and I would have completely agreed with it several years ago and still do to a degree. I took a consulting job analyzing television rating and what people watch, why and how. This changed my opinion to some degree. How one defines “quality” is the hard part. Quality is impossible to measure and not the word I should have used.BobBretall wrote:I violently disagree with the above, so we can agree to disagree.fudd71 wrote:More people are willing to pay their money to read Marvel books then other publisher, which alone speaks to the quality. What large numbers of people enjoy speaks more to quality then any individuals opinion.
Lots of people reading Marvel comics does NOT mean they are quality.
Lots of people watch reality shows on TV, I don't think those are high quality.
Lots of people go to McDonald's, I don't think that is high-quality.
Popularity is the only even sort of objective way to define how the largest numbers of people feel about a product. The example you give of television drives me personally nuts, and the one I spent 16 months of my life studying. I personally despise “reality” TV; its very existence infuriates me. However, it is what the airwaves are full of because it is what people watch in the largest numbers. There are many reasons for the success of this type of programing and the failure of what I would call better programing that I could unfortunately elaborate on for days. My analysis of television showed a myriad of trends including that while reality television is amazingly popular with the television viewing audience it is also one of the largest reasons television viewership is down over the last 7 years reversing a sixty-year plus tend of growth.
The McDonalds example is a little trickier due to price concerns, I would argue objectively McDonalds is the most important food at its price level, not the best or most important food period.
Unfortunately in any industry the 800 pound gorilla in the room can not be ignored if one wishes to be objective. In comics the sheer size of Marvel and DC means you can’t have a serious discussion about anything without including them. This includes both good and bad things. I don’t think Marvel and DC take enough of the blame for the implosion of the market in the 1990’s and the lack of growth over much of the last 5 years. They also deserve the bulk of credit for this small rebound we have seen in the last year or so as well.
There can also be no serious discussion of the books of the year without including Marvel and DC. Unfortunately when the Eisner list so obviously went out of its way to ignore them, and the same names appears year after year it appears to be a clique more then a serious discussion of the books of the year. While DC got almost completely ignored so did Marvel. Marvel’s 7 nominations came heavily from Matt Fraction’s Hawkeye book, and Fraction is an established "indie darling" meaning Marvel really got ignored too.
If we are talking "awards for perceived quality" I am fine for leaving the popular out of the discussion if they don't cross over against some measure of quality.
I have no problem when "Dancing With the Stars" is passed over for an Emmy even if it's very popular and lots of people watch it.
Similarly, while McDonald's fills an important niche in fast cheap food, I don't shed a tear when restaurant critics pass it over when talking about great restaurants.
Similarly, when most Marvel/DC books that are big sellers don't get award nominations, I don't think less of the award process.
Awards are a thing in & of themselves. It almost seems like one of the primary functions of many awards is to point out good stuff that people should check out but has been typically overlooked by people who spend most of their time consuming the "popular".