because then i can say "i told ya so." however, in this case, i thought about it and changed my mind.

>but it's
>always seemed that your reasoning falls back to popular
>acceptance and that's just not acceptable to me and my musings
>(pun intended).

maybe not to you, but i think popular acceptance is crucial to the comparison.


>>i changed my mind.
>
>maybe we can change it back.

who are "we"?


>clancey
>had books made into movies which starred the biggest actors of
>our times. his name is known the world around.

there's something to be said for that. it takes talent to capture the imaginations of millions.


>but in a
>thousand years if an archeologist dug up one of his books and
>one of leguins i think they'd be able to separate the wheat
>from the chaff within a chapter. this is muse speak.

it's also possible they may be riveted by the clancy novel. you never know the tastes of the people who matter, whether the historians of the future or the gate keepers of the present.


>there
>is discussion for popularity, but amongst the classicals and
>jazz's of our times popularity really should be a non-factor.

this seems elitist, even if we're on the same side of taste.


>but again you're using popular and trusted as the measuring
>stick. who cares?

i care when it has real world consequences.