About supposed "Historical Revisionism"
I have seen something going around with the entire Neil Gaiman debate. Basically there were people saying: "Well, I never liked his writing either way." To which others would reply: "Let's not do the same historical revisionism, that people try with Rowling. There is a reason those books were so popular." And stuff like that. Basically saying that any comment on the books maybe not being as good as the hype suggests somehow is historical revisionsm and wrong.
But folks, here is the thing: A lot of popular stuff is actually not good. Stuff does not become popular by being good, but by catering to the taste of a lot of people.
Harry Potter never was really a good book series. Like, there are plot holes in those books deeper than the Mariana Trench, the characters have close to no development over the course of seven books, and the worldbuilding is lackluster at best, and quite racist at worse. And those things have been noted both by book critics and people in Livejournal since the books came out in the 90s. It was just that this criticism was kinda drowned out by the hype, because those books gave a lot of kids a certain type of escapism, that at the time very little other media gave them.
But the criticism was always there.
And let's face it: Twilight was just as popular. With the main difference being that the criticism was less drowned out simply because it was mainly targeted at girls, and it is always cool to criticize "girl stuff". And I guess, if Stephanie Meyer turned out to be more problematic than your average mormon, people would generally go: "Eh, figures," because often the same people who would defend the same issues in Harry Potter would love to hate on those "promatic" things in Twilight. Because, again: Twilight was for girls, and thus it was fine to rant about it despite it being popular.
And when it comes to Neil Gaiman? Well, I will openly say, that I personally always liked his often deeply sarcastic voice in the books. I liked the humor in many of his books. But there have been people criticising those books with very valid criticism at the very least since the dawn of the internet. Because the books aren't perfect. And let's face it: There is a lot of abuse of women in Gaiman's books for example. And without knowing those things that we now know, a lot of people decided to read this as criticism of the patriarchy and men who abuse women. But now? Well, now some people start to wonder if it was something else.
Generally speaking: Yeah. Popular stuff is not popular because it is good. To put it very zynically: Popular stuff is popular, because it fits with the lowest common denomenator. Or to put it less cynically: Popular stuff is popular, because it manages to come out at point where it can fill a certain need.
I mean, just look at the MCU. We were so hyped by that franchise. And now, slowly, a lot of people start to be criticial of the new movies - and when we look back on the old movies, we suddenly start seeing the same issues in those as well. And yes, certain people have criticized many of the same things from the very beginning there, too. To note that maybe the MCU was never quite as good, as we have given it credit for is also not historical revisionism.
Things can be good and popular. Things can be average and popular. And yes, things can also be bad and popular.
Popularity just generally does not say a whole lot about quality.
And yeah. Well. Harry Potter never has been good. I loved those books when I was a kid, even though some stuff (for me it was mainly how much the books excuse bullying) even irked me back then. But it is very normal to reexamine stuff that you once liked and realize that maybe it never really has been as good as you once believed.
