Hard to interpret that example, since the popularity of “Robert Galbraith” is strongly driven by who the author really is.

▲

wiether 3 days ago | parent [-]

If it was trash, I doubt that it would still be a best-seller on its book #8 on the series, twelve years in.

Furthermore, given what's surrounding its author, there's a non-negligible part of the readers community that won't read it, just because of its author. And it can be seen as _risky_ to read anything she publishes. During a party, someone decided to stop talking to me once I told I was currently reading a book in the series (we were discussing our current reading, so I wasn't trying to do anything smart here). On the other hand, I doubt there's people still buying her books just to _own the libs_.

Sure, it helped launching the series, but if there's still thousands people reading it after more than a decade, maybe it's because those people like it. Maybe.

	▲	mft_ 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We can disagree. 1) In the grand scheme of world literature, JKR’s books are comparative trash. It’s also well-established that the first book was not successful until the real identity of the author was shared. 2) Harry Potter (and all of the related activity) is still hugely popular, despite JKR’s unpleasant views and behaviour related to trans people. Most people in the world aren’t locked into the online zeitgeist.