who is the most overrated writer ever?

[Rachy]

I think J. K. Rowling is a good author, but all her stories are the same, and as Harry Potter has become more popular, she's had to change the style to fit both adult and child, but she should remember ultimately that these books started out for children, and so they would be disturbed by the 5th book. This might just be me, but I personally saw MAJOR similarities between her books and the Lord of the Rings trilogys, and I was not happy! But yes, the Harry Potter books are good, just very predictible!!

[Lonely Soul]

Around the time the first Harry Potter book was published I can remeber telling my teacher that I didn't care for it, and to this day I remeber as if it was yesterday the way she looked back at me in utter disbelief. Whilst I admit that at the time I must have been in the minority I am unable to acertain for what reason she looked so horrifeid at my expression of literary preferance.

[amuse]

Annie Dillard. hated her short stories. *retches.

[Koa]

As some of you might be expecting (*grins at Mono and Jay*) my suggestion is Virginia Woolf... I have read two of her books and left with the same feeling of 'and...?' and I didn't care much for her style either...

Good point. I really disliked her books I read... but then I can say the same of all post-modernist stuff, it just doesn't suit me.
(which kinda reminds me that I have big problems with Joyce too...I prefer writers who use grammar ... and I didnt even got much out of Dubliners...)

[Fango]

exactly my though! i cant persuade myself to do something that is fashionable to do...like that da vinci thing...the more it gets famous, the less it attracts me...

I feel the same way. I never go for the renowned books. There's something magical about enjoying an unheard-of book... it's like you discover it... it becomes your other world that no one else knows about but you, and that you can jump into any time you want. Anyone else feels that way? maybe it's just me...

[Koa]

Eheh for me it's just a question of things that are cool at the moment... I read a lot of classics, so they are really famous and renowned... But if something it's popular at the moment it loses all its charm to me...

[Pip]

Most overrated writer eh? I would nominate Salinger. I just don't understand what the big deal with The Catcher in the Rye is. I find his writing cliche, redundant, and really boring. Woolf is a close second though.

[Jack_Aubrey]

It's not cliche if you're the first to do it.

[mister_noel_y2k]

first to do what? and give an example.

[Fango]

Being very demanding nowadays aren't we? I'm not posting to stand up for the innovation of The Catcher in the Rye, but I enjoyed it. And 0I don't think anyone written before a story about the way a problematic cynical teenager sees the world in such an interesting way.

[sKorpia]

I think a big part of Rowling's appeal is the fact that she's given us a new fantasy world to play in with the vocabulary to boot. It's been a long time in children/adolescent literature since there's been one of those created. I also am glad that the issues she brings up follow the same trajectory that she has for Harry's development from an innocent through adolescence to maturity. I'd have been very disappointed if the 16-year-old Harry stayed within the confines of the 11-year-old Harry's mentalities. It becomes problematic and you can see a lot of this with many of the current run superhero comics.

I enjoyed Salinger's Catcher but I completely didn't get Nine Stories. I'd have to re-read both of them to find out how I feel because whatever I thought about the books I read while in high school is now worthless. How can anybody know anything during those years that would help you get the literature that they teach?

Dan Brown's fun to read, but not particularly deep.

[Jack_Aubrey]

first to do what? and give an example.

She said his writing was cliche, and I said "not if you do it first." In my opinion Salinger's matter-of-fact writing style and nonchalant narration were revolutionary in the literary world. Salinger is up front with what he's saying through out most of the novel. I don't think I need to give an example if you've read the book. But knowing you, you probably didn't understand it and have sworn a vendetta against it.

[Capnplank]

I wasn't overly impressed with Catcher in the Rye when I first read it, though I still enjoyed it and find a great many things to think about in there. But what really bowled me over were Nine Stories and Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenter and Seymour: An Introduction.

[mister_noel_y2k]

She said his writing was cliche, and I said "not if you do it first." In my opinion Salinger's matter-of-fact writing style and nonchalant narration were revolutionary in the literary world. Salinger is up front with what he's saying through out most of the novel. I don't think I need to give an example if you've read the book. But knowing you, you probably didn't understand it and have sworn a vendetta against it.

ah jack, so eager to take anything anyone says as a personal insult.
i dont think salinger's "matter of fact writing style" is particularly original but then thats not a very good answer. hemingway wrote in a similar matter of fact way as did theodore dreiser (though dreiser is a dreadful writer in my opinion). as for nonchalant narration...well, by that do you mean holden caulfield is a apathetic narrator? or that the narration isn't particularly detailed and quite breezy? i think if you mean the former then perhaps you could read "the great gatsby" as nonchalant narration as nick carraway ignores many of the realities of his story in favour of a more romantic view of his experiences. or perhaps the character of mr stevens in "the remains of the day" could be seen as another such nonchalant narrator. but then ishiguro wrote that in the late 80s and so couldn't be said to be original, but fitzgerald on the other hand was writing in the 20s so perhaps he could be seen as an earlier influence to salinger, after all salinger did admire fitzgerald and hemingway's style as well as their short story techniques hence his desire to be the next great american short story writer before he wrote "catcher". as personal vendettas go, i don't really go after books unless they really tick me off like the ridiculous naked lunch but that arguments still raging in another thread. personally, holden is a brilliant character and salinger's first and only novel is one of my all time favourites. calm down jacky boy.

[mister_noel_y2k]

and as for you saying that "i didn't understand the book" well jack m'lad let me tell you that you didn't understand naked lunch either. you just repeated what i had said in an earlier thread and then said something banal about how "uh it makes you understand the mind of a heroin addict". well la de dah. i don't think your 16 year old mind understands the book or "the catcher in the rye" either, but then if i stand by my position that naked lunch as unreadable pap then theres really nothing to understand about it. check mate!