Jimquisition: Diversity? LIEversity!

[Silvanus]

You claimed these books were tremendously popular yet had trouble determining just how popular they were.

Right. What does this have to do with whether or not we would describe them as "the most famous books ever written"? That was the absurdly high standard you set.

It's a reasonable definition of majority as it prevents you from saying that no book appeals to the majority because the majority of people don't read books. I didn't further subdivide it into genres because you could do the same thing and end up with a majority in a niche genre for pretty much any book.

Since it's difficult to determine how many people make up any of these groups, it's also difficult to determine how large the majority will be I'll have to concede this point to you as I can't prove the majority of readers likes any of these books. So while I can prove that 2.7 million people in the UK bought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I can't prove that the total number of people who read books in the UK is less than 5.4 million.

...Would you seriously believe it is? In a country of 63 million people?

You would have to start imposing more arbitrary limits-- counting only people who read a certain amount, for example-- for this to be any kind of workable standard.

However I can prove that a larger minority likes Harry Potter than they do other types of books.

Indeed; and, as has been my point from the beginning, being the absolute single best-selling thing ever is not every creator's ambition, and nor should it be. We could take that road to its logical conclusion and discount every piece of art except the single example that sells the best.

Well when people are deciding which play to put on they choose the one that will make the most profit. So plays like Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserable, and Cats that have a long track record of making money are more likely to be chosen then other plays that don't make as much money (which is why the same plays keep being performed until everyone is sick of them). Of course there are other considerations such as the costumes and the props available so a theatre group may not be able to perform some plays but they'll very likely to chose the most profitable play out of all the ones they can perform.

Let's face it Ragtime (which was about racial issues) was expected to win most several Tony awards until Lion King came out, made more money, and won best musical at the Tony awards (Lion King won in 6/11 categories, Rag Time won 4/13). As a result Lion King has had more revivals than Ragtime. So making large amounts of money does affect how often something is performed.

I don't think anybody disputed whether or not making money resulted in longer-running shows. Remember, I originally brought up the theatre example because if we followed the rationale of discounting anything that is less profitable than something else, then theatre would not exist-- even though it can make millions, and even though it produces great art.

And studies who pay directors to make this art will only fund you if you will make a lot of money. So they're more likely to fund a movie similar to Transformers than Casablanca or It's A Wonderful Life. When you also factor in merchandising Transformers has an even bigger advantage.

Fun fact: originally "It's A Wonderful Life" was so poorly received that the studio didn't renew the copyright. As it could be shown without having to pay anyone royalties TV companies broadcast it because it was cheaper than other movies. As a result it became a classic.

I'm well aware of this; it doesn't actually counter my argument.

Since Stephen King has written several books it's easy to compare Dolores Claiborne to his other works to determine whether these issues did make it more popular.

Below is a list containing the 5 books published before Dolores Claiborne and the 5 books after.

Misery (1987)
The Tommyknockers (1987)
The Dark Half (1989)
Needful Things (1991)
Gerald's Game (1992)
Dolores Claiborne (1992)
Insomnia (1994)
Rose Madder (1995)
The Green Mile (1996)
Desperation (1996)
Bag of Bones (1998)



While the movies aren't always equivalent to the books it is easier to determine how well they sold. According to the list of Stephen King movies released in cinemas (adjusted for inflation figures) here's how well each book that was turned into a movie sold. I'm comparing Dolores Claiborne released in 1995 to other 90's movies.

Here are the movies by date

4 Misery $115,555,900 11/30/1990
24 Tales From the Darkside: The Movie $30,719,500 05/04/1990
31 Graveyard Shift $21,796,600 10/26/1990
9 The Lawnmower Man $61,571,700 03/06/1992
11 Sleepwalkers $58,548,700 04/10/1992
23 Pet Sematary II $32,784,600 8/28/1992
27 Needful Things $29,197,600 8/27/1993
32 The Dark Half $20,402,100 4/23/1993
35 Children of the Corn II $13,422,400 1/29/1993
14 The Shawshank Redemption $53,014,600 9/23/1994
17 Dolores Claiborne $44,579,400 3/24/1995
37 The Mangler $3,259,700 03/03/1995
30 Stephen King's Thinner $27,581,700 10/25/1996
36 Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace $4,338,800 01/12/1996
34 Apt Pupil $15,042,900 10/23/1998
38 The Night Flier $212,800 02/06/1998
1 The Green Mile $207,878,800 12/10/1999
28 The Rage: Carrie 2 $27,832,900 03/12/1999

and by ranking

1 The Green Mile $207,878,800 12/10/1999
4 Misery $115,555,900 11/30/1990
9 The Lawnmower Man $61,571,700 03/06/1992
11 Sleepwalkers $58,548,700 04/10/1992
14 The Shawshank Redemption $53,014,600 9/23/1994
17 Dolores Claiborne $44,579,400 3/24/1995
23 Pet Sematary II $32,784,600 8/28/1992
24 Tales From the Darkside: The Movie $30,719,500 05/04/1990
27 Needful Things $29,197,600 8/27/1993
28 The Rage: Carrie 2 $27,832,900 03/12/1999
30 Stephen King's Thinner $27,581,700 10/25/1996
31 Graveyard Shift $21,796,600 10/26/1990
32 The Dark Half $20,402,100 4/23/1993
34 Apt Pupil $15,042,900 10/23/1998
35 Children of the Corn II $13,422,400 1/29/1993
36 Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace $4,338,800 01/12/1996
37 The Mangler $3,259,700 03/03/1995
38 The Night Flier $212,800 02/06/1998

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=stephenking.htm&adjust_yr=2012&p=.htm

So while Dolores Claiborne did better than many other movies there were many other movies that sold much better despite not being about issues.

There are colossal issues with this measure. First of all, it's not actually relevant to my point, which was solely that Dolores Claiborne sold millions, which should justify its existence (if your sole measure of worth is profit).

Secondly, the film adaptation of Dolores Claiborne replaced the African-American protagonist with a caucasion, so it's not relevant when our discussion concerns diversity and minority representation.

 

[Silvanus]

You were the one who claimed that the books you listed were tremendously popular, not me. I pointed out that this description was completely inaccurate by listing books that were tremendously popular.

The "tremendously popular" goalposts are completely different from the "most famous books ever" ones, which we were just using.

Well there are a lot of babies and toddlers who don't know how to read. Given that all labels on medicine have to be written so that a 12 year can understand them I'd say that there's a fair few adults who don't have good comprehensive skills (so they're unlikely to read some of the more complex books).

Remember that Harry Potter and Twilight aren't particularly complex books; you would be discounting pretty much every complex book, since none of them are as well-selling as simpler ones.

Theatre is in decline because other things make more money, so investors are discounting that which is less profitable in favour of that which makes more money. While theatre may not die out completely it is becoming increasingly niche and if they do produce any good shows investor won't be thinking "let's revive the theatre" but "how can I made this into a movie/game/toy" (such as Mama Mia).

Except, of course, all the people still making millions upon millions from Theatre, who aren't abandoning the medium. Investors are not actually all doing one (fairly simplistic) thing: that's just reductionist.

The reasons why people are more likely to make the next Transformers rather than the next Casablanca do counter your argument.

What do you imagine my argument is? I've repeated several times, now, that I'm well aware that some things sell better than others, and my argument is that the less-well-selling things should still exist.

In the section to which you wrote in response, I was stating that it's not a bloody competition, and art does not need to outsell all other art in order to "win". Some people make art to make good art; not everybody is contending to outsell LOTR. Responding by merely reiterating that some sell better than others, or are more likely to be made, doesn't address that. It's not always a competition to be the #1 bestselling book of all time.

It justifies my point that books with issues don't sell better than books than aren't about issues.

If you were to assume that correlation proves causation, and dismiss every other variable at play, and then draw that conclusion from a single example it would.

Wait was that the issue in Dolores Claiborne? I thought the issue was child abuse. How did the books differ from the film?

Oh, it seems I got it mixed up with something else just then. Still, Dolores Claiborne deals with an abusive marriage and the power dynamic between a household maid and her rich employer, in addition to child abuse. There are issues of class in there too.

 

[Silvanus]

And how many copies does a book have to sell before it becomes "tremendously popular"?

It's a subjective standard, so an exact number does not exist. I would have thought topping the NYT Bestseller list would have qualified, though.

Some people may make millions from the theatre but others make billions from films. That's why films can attract investors in a way the theatre cannot.

Indeed. Nobody has been arguing against this; my point is that people are still happy to make theatre, and other people are still happy to enjoy it.

Y'know, some people are quite satisfied with being millionaires.

And my argument is that the less-well-selling things will fade into obscurity because they can't compete with the more popular things. There's only so much space in art galleries and so many theatres, so you cannot expect something that draws thousands to exist when there are things that will draw millions. An example of this are the books by Percy Shelley which were popular in their day but faded into obscurity because his wife's book Frankenstein was more popular.

Y'Think better-selling things will have longer lasting appeal? That the cast of 'Glee' will outlast Bob Dylan and Roy Orbison; that 50 Shades will outlast Wordsworth; that Transformers 2 will outlast Casablanca and Its A Wonderful Life; that Vincent Van Gogh has almost no lasting appeal?

Well, if that's how you feel...

If kind of does. If art isn't popular enough it will be sidelined by that which sells better. As I already stated theatre shows that don't draw in large crowds are performed less frequently than the more popular shows. You may not like that all but the best selling art is ignored but that's how the world works.

...but the art still exists, is still enjoyed, is still created.

Actually if we're trying to determine whether books with issues sell better than books without issues then it's sufficient to look at the top 100 best selling books of the year to see how many of these books deal with issues. If none of them deal with issues then this implies that having issues isn't a major factor regarding the number of sales.

But nobody is trying to determine that; you've misinterpreted my argument again. We can't really have a debate unless you engage with what I'm actually arguing.

 

[Silvanus]

And my point is that just because some people enjoy theatre doesn't change the fact that those who are looking to make money by investing in things won't invest in theatre because they can make higher returns elsewhere.

Right, and for the eleventh time, nobody is arguing against the fact that more people invest in theatre than film.

Theatre still gets made. People still enjoy it for artistic reasons. I don't give a damn whether more investors are picking something than something else.

Making irrelevant comparisons is a sign of a weak argument. Comparing different styles of music, books with different themes, and movies from different genres just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Bob Dylan's popularity meant that other folk singers were sent into obscurity, just like Glee's popularity meant other teen dramas and teen music was sent into obscurity.

You just appealed to diversity. You just made the point that these examples appeal to different people, fill different niches, and are not in direct competition.

That was my point. I brought up those examples precisely to illustrate what you just described.

Care to explain how I've misinterpreted you and what you actually meant.

Also if you can't show that books/movies/games with issues sell as well as or better than books/movies/games without issues then this is strong evidence that people don't like books/movies/games with issues. In a world where sales are important it's difficult to justify something not proven to increase sales and anything that will reduce sales can't be justified.

Can't be justified... if literally the only measure of worth you have for art is profit. Thankfully, not all creatives agree. In fact, if something is created entirely and exclusively to make money-- not even partially for artistic merit, or to evoke an emotional response, or make a message, or even tell a good story-- then it isn't even art. It's just product.

 

[mister R]

haha wow you guys are the walls of text really needed?

i mean sheesh do you actually expect people to read all that?? xD

 

[Silvanus]

SNIP

We're talking at cross purposes here; we simply have entirely different values when it comes to art, and we would just be repeating ourselves again if this continued.

haha wow you guys are the walls of text really needed?

i mean sheesh do you actually expect people to read all that?? xD

Uanime5 and myself, I'm pretty sure, only really expected each other to be following our argument.