Mr. Claybourn, in a comment on the previous post, quite rightly points out that I have misread him. I apologize as the intent was not to set up a straw man, and I certainly did not mean to impugn Mr. Claybourn's taste. I think it is simply the innate streak in me that I must work to conquer. I have the "If it's popular, it is suspect" elitist bug that I would do well once and for all to exorcise. Mr. Claybourn's actual statement was that "most readers are interested in what is most popular," which, of course, in no way implies that everyone wants to rush over and read it. However, he does say the "if everyone is reading a certain blog, it probably has something worth reading." This statement sets off the "Lemming " alert in my brain--again a congenital defect I must confess. The contention is not necessarily true and this is bourne out by a hideously long list of best-sellers starting with Grace Metalious and progressing through Harold Robbins, Jacqueline Susann, and Sidney Sheldon. If everyone is reading it, it may simply be popular. While that is really quite all right, it doesn't necessarily make it worth reading.
I belabor the point.
The main thrust of this is that I must apologize for misrepresenting Mr. Claybourn's thought and intent and can only plead that it was perhaps with work-weary eyes and brain that I managed to misconstrue what is actually written. My apologies. However, I do contend that all examples were my own and not designed to reflect Mr. Claybourn's thought at all. If these examples represent what is "popular" then the point stands; however, attribute all statements to my own thought, not to Mr. Claybourn. And moreover, I thank him for taking the time to visit and discover. Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to come here and comment!
