"It doesn't matter how many popular works I mention as appreciating (and the list is pretty long at this point), your ideological bias is going to keep you talking to yourself."
I don't consider that I havean ideological bias but I do have a methodological one. Obviously I prefer my method for determining quality, and just as obviously, I will never be able to make you prefer my method to your own. But where I see these preferences as tied to whatever Primary Concerns we have as individuals, you see it as tied to Secondary Concerns.
At the conclusion of the Haggard passage, you write:
"So, no, sophistication doesn't always produce better art than naivete, but probability is on the side of the former."
This buttresses what I wrote above about your appreciation of the nonsensicality of Gardner Fox. Again, I'm not saying that you can't appreciate Fox or Haggard just as you please, but when you make sweeping statements like the above one, I choose to point out that I think you may be missing some stuff in your pursuit of the sophisticated thrill.
Back on 11-15 you wrote:
"I have friends who can discuss the merits of the various Trek episode writers, but that doesn't touch on the question of the quality of the show as scifi relative to Asimov's books."
This was in response to my supposed relativizing of Archie Goodwin within the ranks of pop culture. The statement betrays a certain waspish impatience with making fine distinctions about the quality of comics-writers amongst themselves, or Trek-writers amongst themselves, but you make pretty much the same kind of fine distinction in your comparison of Merle Haggard and Bob Dylan. "But Charles, this comparison clearly overlooks how neither composer could come up to Beethoven's cummerbund."
When I claim that I'm stating real things that I see-- be it Archie Goodwin's skill with superhero-dialogue or the imaginative quality of Gardner Fox-- you accuse me of playing "genre politics." But you're the politico, Charles, and always have been.