I found the following passage in a New York Times article about James Patterson:
"As long as there has been mass-market fiction, it has had its detractors. In the late Victorian era, the English poet and cultural critic Matthew Arnold denounced “the tawdry novels which flare in the bookshelves of our railway stations, and which seem designed . . . for people with a low standard of life.” Yet even within the maligned genre, Patterson has some especially nasty critics. The Washington Post’s thriller reviewer, Patrick Anderson, called “Kiss the Girls” “sick, sexist, sadistic and subliterate.” Stephen King has described Patterson as “a terrible writer.”
First, react to the paragraph. Do you agree or disagree with Anderson and King's critique of Patterson? Why? Secondly, tell me whether the following argument is valid and sound (remember, an argument can be valid without being sound, or invalid and unsound, or valid and sound):
1. James Patterson is one of the best-selling authors of all time.
2. Best-selling authors write high-quality books.
3. Therefore, James Patterson is a high-quality writer.
I have only read the Maximum Ride series by James Patterson, so I don't really know much about James Patterson. From what I have read, I just thought he was a mediocre author - nothing special but nothing terrible either. From what Ms. Fleming said in class, I am assuming that it is true, and if it is, then I wonder why I don't get the impression that his books are very popular. I see them in the bookstore, but I never see ads for them in the news and I never see them prominently displayed with a sign that says "Everybody is buying these!"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the argument is invalid but sound. It is invalid because not all best-selling authors write high quality books. First of all, not all authors write books. Secondly, the masses may not like high quality books. Good literature is often too dense for the masses, who may prefer easy, cliché reads. It is sound because there are no logical fallacies. The facts may be wrong, but the argument is still sound.
I have not read any of James Patterson's books so I feel I have no authority in agreeing or disagreeing with either of the quotes. From what I have heard about the awards he has received, shows me that he is a very talented author, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe argument to me is not valid, but sound. In theory this argument should be true. High quality books should be the best sellers. However, many high quality books are never discovered and made popular. Also, not all best seller books are high quality. There are some books that are not high quality, but somehow have grabbed the attention of many people.
I disagree with Anderson and King's critique of Patterson. Like Judson, I have read the Maximum Ride series and a few of his other books. I may not necessarily like the style he writes in, but I love what his books are about. First, even though Stephen King knows what he's talking about he still shouldn't be able to say that. Secondly, I like Patterson's books. Even though I'm not a famous writer, I'm still aloud to have my own opinion on his books.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Judson. The argument is invalid but it is sound. Not all best selling authors write high-quality books. Some really horrible writers can sell millions of books. It is sound because the argument makes since.
I have not gotten a chance to read any of James Patterson's work. I do believe that all his critics are entitled to their own and distinct opinion. However, I think it is inappropriate to publicly call somebody as accomplished of a writer as him terrible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this argument is not valid, but I do believe that it is sound. It is not valid because not all best-selling authors are high-quality writers. They could be best-selling authors for any number of reasons excluding an ability to write high-quality works. It is sound though because best-selling books are many times high-quality writing, so the argument makes sense.
I have not read any of James Patterson's books, so I can't really talk about whether he is a good writer or not. From what I heard today from the person introducing him and Ms. Fleming, though, it seems that his books are very popular because they're interesting, but he may not be a good writer. This idea may seem confusing, but what I mean is that the themes of his books are popular now which makes them interesting, but the writing style may be too cliched.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the others that commented and say that the argument is sound, but invalid. If the statements were all true the argument would be sound and valid, but it isn't. The argument is sound because logically it makes sense that if the first 2 statements are true then the 3rd is. It is invalid, however, because the statements aren't true, not all best selling authors write high quality books. Please note, however, for this argument to be sound but invalid I am assuming that high quality writers write high quality books.
First, in a way, I agree with the New York Times article. Judging from his comments in the assembly today, he does seem like a caustic, sadistic person. To be fair though, I have not read one of his books or fully know him. If multiple credible sources say he isn't too great of a writer, that's pretty persuasive to me combined with today's speech.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think the argument is valid because is Patterson = best selling author, and best selling authors = high quality books, then Patter = high quality books. Even if any of the premises are false, logically, the argument is still valid. However, I don't think the argument is sound. The first premise, that James Patterson is one of the best-selling authors, is false. Patterson has been deemed a "terrible writer", "sick, sexist, sadistic, and subliterate". There should not be a reason why he's a best selling author. Even though he may produce good books, I don't believe that he is one of the BEST. Especially after he was rude about answering questions!
I cannot say I have read any of James Patterson's books. After hearing about all of his accomplishments and achievements, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people enjoy his writing. As Gardner said, critics are entitles to their own opinion. Not everyone is going to enjoy his writing. Also, I do think that Stephen King's statement is a little harsh, Stephen King may not enjoy his writing. Thats fine. He doesn't have to like James Patterson's writing. As I said earlier, it seems as if James Patterson has a lot of people that love his writing.
ReplyDeleteThis argument is not valid. This argument is sound. You dont have to be a 'best selling author' in order to have high quality work. You can have high quality work and just not be a 'best selling author'. Therefore it is not valid. Yet this is sound because its a logical argument.
I think the passage suits the Patterson as I reassessed what I heard today. I have not read any of his books and I honestly don’t think I ever will.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anderson because it seemed as though Patterson had a lot of sexual comments in his speech. This made me think about whether I would want to read a book with sexual, “sadistic” situations. On the other hand I cannot agree with Stephen King because I have not picked up any of his books so I can’t say whether or not he is “a terrible writer.”
The argument is invalid and sound. Not all best-selling writers write high-quality books making it invalid. It is sound because outwardly the sentences make you believe that James Patterson must be a good writer until you go back to re-read it.
I know absolutely nothing about James Patterson. All I know about him is what I heard about him during the assembly. So, I don't feel like it's fair for me to form an opinion about his writing when I haven't read any of it. However, I do agree with Matthew Arnold's statement, "now novels seem to be designed for people with a low standard of life." I think this is a valid statement that could easily be defended because the majority of America and more so the majority of the world has a low standard of living. Therefore, if you appeal to the majority, then you will increase your chances of being successful in creating a popular novel. I do think you have to be a decent writer to be able to figure out what kind of things appeal to the majority of readers. However, I think that a lot of people, including me, can not tell the difference between okay writing and good writing. Most people can tell the difference between terrible and great writing, I hope. So, I do not think you have to be a great writer to sell a lot of books.
ReplyDeleteI think this argument is invalid, but it is sound. I think that it is a sound argument because it sounds reasonable; most people would assume that a best-selling author writes high-quality books. I think it is invalid because of the reasons I listed earlier of why I think that you do not necessarily have to be a great writer to sell a lot of books.
I disagree with Anderson and King's critique of Patterson because I have not read any of James Patterson's novels, so I am very unfamiliar with his work. That being said, their comments about Patterson come off (to me) as harsh and mean. I'm sure that they have a logical reason for such comments, or I hope that they would, but judging by his character he seems like a pretty nice guy. (And a good writer!) Since Stephen King is an author and film director, I can't say that his comment about Patterson being a terrible writer is a logical fallacy because he obviously knows what he is talking about. I think the same thing is true for Anderson because he taught at McGill University for many years and he is a poet; so, he too knows what he is talking about.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument is invalid and unsound. The statement, "Best-selling authors write high quality books", is not necessarily true because a book doesn't have to be high quality in order for it to be best-selling. It just has to appeal to the people or a certain group of people in order for it to be sold successfully. Also, to me high quality can be interpreted in different ways because it is a little unclear as to what exactly "high quality" means. So, if one of these facts isn't valid, then the others (to some extent) must not be either. Although, I am sure he is an exceptional writer if he has sold many books and is considered a "best-selling author".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also have not read any of James Patterson's work. However, I have tried to read one of his books before, but I only made it through the first few pages and then I stopped reading it. I didn't really connect with his writing style, and for me, I didn't really like it much. Some of my friends have read his work and really liked it though, so it must just depend on the type of literature a person likes.
ReplyDeleteI do think that his argument is sound, but I'm not really sure whether or not I believe it's valid. When deciding whether or not this statement is true, the part we must focus on is that the second point stating that best-selling authors write high quality books. More specifically, we have to come up with a definition for what it means to write something of high quality. The obvious definition is that high quality in literature is an exemplary work that displays master of plot, character development, description and ability to affect a reader. Avoiding clichés and coming up with original ideas contribute to this to. However, I think it is also to argue that another sort of high quality is having the ability to appeal to a wide group of people. An undisputable fact is that all best-selling authors manage to sell their book to many people. This means enough people are interested enough in the book to buy it. Even if they don’t like the book after reading it, they were still interested enough initially to pick it out. Maybe one type of high quality is the ability to appeal to a large group of people even if the writing itself isn’t amazing or completely original.
Does anyone think that just appealing to a large group of people could be considered a form of high quality?
First, I must say that I have read over a dozen novels by James Patterson.I don't totally agree with that passage. His writing isn't the most sophisticated and eloquent, but it does have that consistently fast paced feel to it, which is consistent with everything he does in his books. I feel that Matthew Arnold is being a bit to careless in his comment about tawdry novels. Instead of low-standard of life, I would say people with less exposure to good literature, which would be most people in America. However, even those with exposure to all sorts of good literature can still like novels like James Patterson's.
ReplyDeleteI am going to have to contradict everyone except Amber. I think the argument is valid but not sound. Most people when discussing the "soundness" of the argument seem to agree that the line "Best-selling authors write high quality books". It's more of a general rule than a law, which makes the argument not sound. Think of Twilight, it is not a high quality book but it is sensationally popular and the series has sold over 100 million copies. I think this argument is valid because, without taking into account the soundness of the argument, if you read the entire argument without any prior knowledge to the subject, it would make sense to you.
I have never read one of James Patterson's books. But, from what I hear, he is a very successful yet unimpressive writer. I would compare him to Stephanie Meyer with her Twilight Saga. Those were books that weren't incredibly sophisticated writing, but obviously wildly popular. I can't agree or disagree with his critique, because I haven't formed an opinion of my own.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument is sound. One should be able to assume that because it makes sense. However, if what i've heard about James Patterson is true, then that is an invalid argument. Therefore my comparison of him to Stephanie Meyer still stands. The thing that makes a writer "successful" is how many copies of his books sell, not how well they are written. Another problem of quantity vs quality.
In response to the paragraph, I must say that I have not read any of James Patterson’s books. Therefore, I can’t really say if Anderson and King’s critique are accurate or not. But I agree with Gardner when he says that it seems inappropriate to call an author "terrible" in public.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I would say that the argument is not valid but sound. It isn’t valid because we know that not all of the books written by bestsellers are high quality. Someone could argue that their favorite author is a bestseller and the book they just wrote was given bad critiques. I do think this argument is sound because IF the second statement was indeed true, the whole statement would actually make sense.
I hate to say it, ya'll, but these comments are FULL of logical fallacies, which we will discuss in detail tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the review. I have read only one of his books, Sundays at Tiffany's, which was a book that he co-authored. (So, technically it isn't even his book because he didn't write it.) I have, however, read the summaries on the backs of several of his novels, and I can tell just from the short summaries that his books are meant to be read by people who need books that offer sex, murder and crime to keep them interested. It seems as though he picks his topics on what people are buying, which makes him a sellout. His books are vaguely interesting, even though I would imagine the writing is not great. He may be best selling, but he is certainly not award winning.
ReplyDeleteIt is both valid and sound that James Patterson is a best selling author, as much as I would like that to be false. It is valid, but not necesarily sound that all best selling authors write high quality books. Just because everyone is buying something doesn't mean that it is high quality: that is the false authority fallacy. I suppose it could be a valid arguement that James Patterson is a high quality writer, however it is not sound. It isn't sound because selling lots of books does not make those books high quality.
First off I have not read James Patterson books. But from what I heard in the assembly and the some creditable websites I can see that Stephen Kings quote is incorrect. He might even had this out of jealously because his books are not as popular. Even though his style may not be as complex as others.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these statements are valid because of statement 2 "Best-selling authors write high-quality books." I look at this statement as the glue to all the others because if it was not true than none of these would be. Also I believe that these are sound statements because I can not find any fallacies that contradict these statements.
I haven't read any of James Patterson's books so I can't really say if i agree or disagree with the critiques. However, at least before he came today I didn't like him as a writer because in many of his new books he puts his name larger than the title. I thought this was very egotistic of him as a writer. I do realize this is a logical fallacy and it has nothing to do with his actual writing but I couldn't help not wanting to read his books because of that. Now that he has talked to us though, I like him a lot more. Secondly, I agree that the argument in part 2 of this post is invalid but sound. It is invalid because of the second sentence "Best selling authors write high-quality books." This isn't always the case which makes the whole argument false. Many best-selling authors don't write high quality books, they just write books interesting to audiences. Relating back to James Patterson's criticism, the critics obviously don't think his books are high-quality but they still are best sellers. Also, an author can make 1 high-quality book that ends up being a best-seller but that doesn't mean all their books are high quality. The argument is sound though because it still makes sense, the fallacy in the argument is the generalization that all best-sellers are high quality.
ReplyDeleteWell, I have not read any of James Patterson's books, so I do not know firsthand if he is a good writer. From what I have heard today regarding James Patterson, I gather that his books are very popular because the topics he writes about are interesting to many people. While he may not be the best writer in the world, his books are captivating.
ReplyDeleteI agree with pretty much everyone else in thinking that the argument is invalid but sound. It is invalid because the premise that all best-selling authors write high quality books is not necessarily true. It is sound because if the argument were true, it would make sense.
I think that Matthew Arnold is completely wrong. There is no reason to design a book "for people with a low standard of life." If these people had low standards of life, then why would they bother reading books? Also, if the books flare up, there must be a reason. Books don't flare without a motive; it has to have an attractive feature, like a great author or positive reviews by respected critics. I haven't read, "Kiss the Girls" so I can't judge the first quote. However, I do disagree with the quote by Stephan King. He says that James Patterson is a "bad writer." Having read several of his books, I would not call him or his work "bad." His books are interesting and can keep the readers attention. He keeps suspense and action constantly progressing through out the novel.
ReplyDeleteThe argument is neither sound nor valid. The second statement says that best selling authors write high-quality books. This is not always true; the best seller could be a horrible book that attracts the readers because of its content. This book would attract readers because of connections made, or as a joke reading it to see how bad it is. However, assuming the second statement is true, the third statement is also invalid. James Patterson co-writes many of his novels, meaning that what we read is not entirely his work. His many partnerships with other authors could have given their books the elements that Patterson could not implement in his own books, resulting in a better, varied book that fulfills the interests of the readers. Also, having these partnerships means that he may not have actually done much of the work in writing the novel, using his partner to do most of the work, changing it in a few places before publishing and claiming credit for its success.
The only books of James Patterson's that I've read have been the Maximum Ride series. I liked them, much more so when I was younger, but I would agree that the writing isn't quality. There's nothing wrong with people liking books that are easy to read and fast-paced, but this shouldn't be mistaken for good writing, and James Patterson's popularity doesn't make him a good writer. I agree with Stephen King and Patrick Anderson's criticism of his writing, although I think it's a bit harsh to publish something like that so publicly. I personally don't think he's a good writer, although I admit that this opinion might be colored by my dislike of him as a person.
ReplyDeleteThe argument in the second part of the post is sound but invalid. While the argument would make sense if it were true, it isn't true. Just because a book is popular, it doesn't mean it's high quality.
I have not read any of James Patterson's books that he has written, so I am one of the other students who does not have a position on the comments said about his writing. Although, I do believe that authors publicly saying that someone is "a terrible writer" is very disrespectful of other writers. Stephen King should have rephrased his critique to less demeaning words.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that this argument is either valid or sound. In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, validity and soundness are described by their definitions.
"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."
The first definition for valid says that there must be no other possibility for the conclusion to be false. This argument is invalid because in the second line it says that best selling authors write high quality books. This is not always true, which makes the argument invald. Because of this fact that the argument is invalid and the definition of sound, this argument is also unsound. Therefor this argument is invald and unsound.
I, like many who have posted before this, have not read any of James Patterson's work. However, I do feel that both Anderson and King's comments are subjective to their own personal views and therefore, I may disagree or agree if I read the books.
ReplyDeleteI think that the argument is neither sound nor valid. Like Judson pointed out, not all best-selling authors necessarily write books, and also, the book does not have to be high quality. Many people today who read the best-selling books are not scholars, but rather people looking for entertainment. Therefore, as long as the story and characters appeal to a large group of people, it can be a best-seller even if it is horrible quality. This argument is also unsound because it is invalid, and an invalid argument cannot be sound because the argument does not make sense in the first place just like Ryan proved in his post.
Before Book Fair, I did not even know who James Patterson was, so clearly he is not as popular as he thinks he is. Nevertheless, his books have sold well. I have not personally read his books, but based on the accounts I have heard in class and assembly, I would agree with Stephen King in the paragraph that James Patterson is probably a bad writer. The fact that he co-writes many of his books just annoys me. Even though he has all of these ideas for books he needs to focus on a few that he can fully develop and spend his time on. He needs to prioritize. I understand collaborating on writing in certain cases, but if it's your idea for your own book, why not just write it yourself? Either he is too lazy or he knows that his writing is bad.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a valid argument, because if the premises were true you could draw the conclusion that he must be a high-quality writer. However, this argument is not sound because the premises "(all) best-selling authors write high quality books" is untrue. Just because you sell a lot of books doesn't mean you are a good writer. For example, Patterson's "good friend" writer Stephanie Meyer has sold millions of copies of the Twilight series, and while I love the stories, it sounds as if it was written by a high schooler.
I believe the criticism by Stephen King was necessary, but the tone was not. To call someone out like that publicly is not the best option and it is rude. It is important to use authority as powerful tool. In this situation King had used his power to his advantage. The argument below was valid but it wasn't sound. That is because it depends on whether or not best selling authors really write high quality books.
ReplyDelete