Aiwendil and SPM, your logical abilities surpass mine; I fear that I have lost the thread of the argument somewhere between linguistic premises and broader points. Suffice it to say that amusement and wonder appear to be mutually exclusive. If someone finds something amusing, that someone will not view that something with a sense of wonder. I'm thinking that wonder and inspiration seem to be linked. Terry Pratchett's and Piers Anthony's fantasies (I have only read the latter's Xanth, of the two), are amusing (from what I've been told regarding T.P.), but do not evoke a sense of wonder. The ability to be amused by something that evokes a sense of wonder in others, seems to indicate a, perhaps, condescending view of the something. Such as Lord of the Rings.
Suffice it also to say that it is clear that neither the two of you nor I are going to modify the stance of the other(s) in regard to that which constitutes good art. I do notice, however, that our friendly debate has begun to remind me of that classic philosophical battle between nominalists and universalists. I am a universalist, and you two seem nominalist in your arguments. Feel fere to take a look at this:
http://www.comm.uiuc.edu/icr/about/news and click on the "Dr. Clifford Christians receives award" item, if you care to.