Rei, lol, I don't know. I thought some people believed the better novel was the one that uses all the literary mechanisms and is written well, even if it is never loved by many readers. It just lacks that something that causes many people to fall in love with it, but each line will make you feel tiny and wish you could someday write such beautiful sentences and craft such believable characters. It is still missing that something that I believe gives a novel quality. Because that something is missing this novel is not popular.
Some people were saying something along those lines, too. You just can't seem too understand the concept of the hidden gem. Just because something is good, whatever you decide makes it good, doesn't mean a lot of people will find out about it and have the chance to fall in love with it. There are so many amazing Canadian books and movies out there that are just as good as the ones that millions of people fall in love with, and could do the same but for certain factors. Canadian publishers generally don't have the means to print as many copies as big American publishers. Many theatres, in and outside Canada, are not as interested in the Canadian movies because, no matter how good they are, don't have the star power of a movie with Brad Pitt or whoever and won't do as much business. Canadian film studios also don't have the same budget for promoting their movies to make sure enough people find out about them. So no, quality cannot be defined the number of people who fall in love with it.
I could slightly alter my view to account for that. The amount of people that love a novel and continue to do so based on demographics. If a novel is considered love by many in Canada then it is a better novel than other Canadian novels. The best Canadian novels would be up there with the best American novels.
You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with demographics but the ability to get known. There are so many books that are just as good as the ones that fit your description, but the simple fact is, not enough people can find out about them because they were accepted by a very small press or because nobody cared enough to promote it, or because they didn't have the means to promote it, and that says nothing of their quality or their ability to touch people the way you are talking about.
You said there are good books in Canada but they will never reach the popularity of say an American book. Based on my idea of what a better novel is, that Canadian book can never be the better book because, like you said, it will not get the chance to be read by many people so that it can be loved by many. So, I said, I can judge a Canadian book based on how many Canadians love it. If it is a popular Canadian book, then it is a better book. Now if you meant to say that there are some books, regardless of being American or Canadian that might be good books based on my idea of what a better book is, but those books will never see the light of day, then I will never know which of those unread books are great or not. Not until they become popular, at least demographically, they do not fit my idea of a better book.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense, to judge quality based on it's ability to become known. Success is not about what you know. It's who you know. People don't become successful just because they have the best skills, but because they met the right people. Of course you won't know if it's good if you haven't read it, but don't make judgements on quality based on how many other people have had the chance to read it. You're equating lack of opportunity with lack of quality. That's like saying someone isn't smart and can't learn because they haven't had the chance to get educated.
