Two brief comments from this corner of SW Pennsylvania:
1. My response to Matthew Winslow's comments are a very emphatic "Amen!"
2. The post that prompted David Bratman's response used the word "master",
implying the mastery of some art form. To evaluate mastery is, in itself, a
comparison. Had Stacy used the phrase "well known" or "widely read", there
would have been little to disagree about. Regardless of what I or anyone
else thinks about Eddings or Jordan, we can't deny that both authors are
well known and widely read. But Stacy chose to describe those three
individuals as masters....and regardless of whether her decision was based
on marketing or a description of an article, her comment is a comparison
that invites disagreement (as any comparison does).
What bothers me about the reasoning that Stacy described is that it seems to
imply that number of books sold or read simply equates to impact on the
field and mastery. That may not have been what she meant to say, but that's
how it came across to me.