Greatest Novel of all time, and Greatest Writer of all time, in your opinion

[Haran Alkarin]

You're right in saying that the list is Anglo-centric, though the arguments of writers are the best in the book.

As to Homer, since I never read Homer in Greek, I do not want to do a bad judgment. But Shakespeare recreated everything around it, either by language, characterization, plot (an underrated part of his genius) is very unlikely that Homer did anything on the same scale. Classicists even admitted that Virgil improved Homer in language.

As to the topic, I'm thinking in considering that War and Peace would be my guess for greatest novel.

[JCamilo]

Shakespeare plots are neither his or great (and it didnt matter) and Homer is just the father of the entire literature that was praticed for 2000 years. He has the greatest scope of influence, but this does not mean exactly qualitty, because when you get at Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante level the difference is a coma, which is often misplaced in the sentence.

[Haran Alkarin]

Shakespeare plots are neither his or great (and it didnt matter) and Homer is just the father of the entire literature that was praticed for 2000 years. He has the greatest scope of influence, but this does not mean exactly qualitty, because when you get at Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante level the difference is a coma, which is often misplaced in the sentence.

Shakespeare's plays are worked by the plot made exclusively for the theater, he had to create a storyline that made parallel with the breaking of classical rules. Othello has one of the best plots ever, King Lear as well. There is not complete originality, Homer himself only narrated the epic of a story already known.

What do you mean by father of literature? literature exist with or without Homer. You are aware that Homer was 1500 years without being read, studied or appreciated in the West? So it is doubtful whether he had more influence than Shakespeare.

[JCamilo]

Both plots of Lear and Othelo are borrowed and what make it one of the best plot ever? The whole solution to the story witth Iago napkin is simplistic and not even worth Iago himself. I am well aware there is litle originality in this world, so, if you are, there is no point praising a man for "recreating" anything. Praising Shakespeare for his plots is like praising Kant for his poetry.

The entire western literature was build after Homer. Simple as that. Literature does not exist without him. And there is no such 1500 years without him being read (the direct reading of his original was gone, but indirect reading of his works in partial translations existed). And he was always appreciated. Virgil was paying his nod to him and 1300 years after Dante was doing the same. And influence is not popularity, it is not based only on reading. You can tell his influence when people are still using his metrics, when Virgil - who borrowed from him - was the universal model, when his characters are everywhere, when epics are still considered the greatest literary form, when his expressions are used everywhere, when his stories could be found even in the 1001 nights, etc. There is no point, Shakespeare has a handful of centuries of influence, the other 3 milleniuns. His rivals are in eastern or in religious texts only.

[Haran Alkarin]

Both plots of Lear and Othelo are borrowed and what make it one of the best plot ever? The whole solution to the story witth Iago napkin is simplistic and not even worth Iago himself. I am well aware there is litle originality in this world, so, if you are, there is no point praising a man for "recreating" anything. Praising Shakespeare for his plots is like praising Kant for his poetry.

The entire western literature was build after Homer. Simple as that. Literature does not exist without him. And there is no such 1500 years without him being read (the direct reading of his original was gone, but indirect reading of his works in partial translations existed). And he was always appreciated. Virgil was paying his nod to him and 1300 years after Dante was doing the same. And influence is not popularity, it is not based only on reading. You can tell his influence when people are still using his metrics, when Virgil - who borrowed from him - was the universal model, when his characters are everywhere, when epics are still considered the greatest literary form, when his expressions are used everywhere, when his stories could be found even in the 1001 nights, etc. There is no point, Shakespeare has a handful of centuries of influence, the other 3 milleniuns. His rivals are in eastern or in religious texts only.

The theatrical plot had to be worked out, sorry if I confuse, Shakespeare just took the stories (not the plot, not the narrative skeleton), Shakespeare's plays do not follow the classical decorum, you see in his plays all these scenes blood, wars, betrayals, murders, none of this exists in your sources. I think there's a feeling of underestimation against Shakespeare in this field.

Sorry, humanities is not my thing, I'm too technical, but how there would be no literature without Homer? Homer did not invent the literature, their tradition was oral, it just was one of the first and best to do so. Old Testament is older, there were Indian epics, Hesiod was the same period that he (although in a couple of decades later), Of course that he influenced much of this literature, but it is part of this tradition, not the creator. We can agree that Homer had influence for a longer period of time, but not that he necessarily had more influence than Shakespeare whose impact survives in oral tradition (theater), in movies, novels, poetry, music, operas, etc, in huge quantity .. Everything at a time wherein the influence of Homer is greatly reduced where there are numerous forms of arts that did not exist in the past, I think Shakespeare certainly has more influence, but that's my opinion.

I am aware that influence is not popularity, but popularity is influence, the popularity of Shakespeare or Homer in his day were just that, if they do not influence, I do not know what it is.

[Eupalinos]

Instead of translating 'greatest' into 'most influential', perhaps we can consider a writer's depiction/perspective/philosophy of life and discuss why one means more to us than another and why one seems the 'greatest' out of those we know. Technical achievement is an aspect but it doesn't have to be the whole thing, and influence and popularity shouldn't, it seems to me, have very much to do with it at all.

[UlyssesE]

I find this an impossible question! At least just to pick one. There are too many different expressions of literature, and too many different types of stories in those different expressions. That being said: if I had to pick, it would be Ulysses, and James Joyce. A huge accomplishment in literature, and utterly amazing for its scope and breadth of meaning, a wonder of prose, imagination, and interpreation firmly rooted in the mundane life of one mundane man.

[Margerma]

If to ask me "which book you would recommend to anybody?" I would say Daniel Keyes "Flowers for Algernone". This is must-have, must-read, A-m-a-z-I-n-g... however I would agree - it is impossible to say which book is "the greatest". In which way?

[Ecurb]

"The Great American Novel" was written by Phillip Roth (and it's quite good, too, especially if you're a baseball fan, although some of it is pilfered from the best non-fiction baseball book, "The Glory of Their Times" by Lawrence Ritter).

[JCamilo]

The theatrical plot had to be worked out, sorry if I confuse, Shakespeare just took the stories (not the plot, not the narrative skeleton), Shakespeare's plays do not follow the classical decorum, you see in his plays all these scenes blood, wars, betrayals, murders, none of this exists in your sources. I think there's a feeling of underestimation against Shakespeare in this field.

I do think most people who go further into thinking about it like you do will notice his part on the changes of classical drama. Just most people will not think at all about it.

Sorry, humanities is not my thing, I'm too technical, but how there would be no literature without Homer? Homer did not invent the literature, their tradition was oral, it just was one of the first and best to do so

I am not claiming withou Homer there would be no literature. I am saying we have literature with Homer, it is the reality we have. I am sure you can argue all he invented coould be eventually achive by other, but notice, the same argument could be done towards Shakespeare. All his inovations could be eventually achived by some. If we further, someone would write the entire Divina Comedia if wasnt for Dante.

Old Testament is older, there were Indian epics, Hesiod was the same period that he (although in a couple of decades later),

OT is older? As far I know most dates place it close to the youngest dates attributed to Homer (who usually has oldest dates also mentioned). As Indian Epics, I mentioned Western Literature (of course, this could also count for the OT).

Of course that he influenced much of this literature, but it is part of this tradition, not the creator. We can agree that Homer had influence for a longer period of time, but not that he necessarily had more influence than Shakespeare whose impact survives in oral tradition (theater), in movies, novels, poetry, music, operas, etc, in huge quantity .. Everything at a time wherein the influence of Homer is greatly reduced where there are numerous forms of arts that did not exist in the past, I think Shakespeare certainly has more influence, but that's my opinion.

Shakespeare is a part of a tradition as Homer was. But the point, Iliad is the starting point for western literature, it is the starting point for the epic tradition. Homer time changed? Sure, which is how powerful he is. He had survived the destruction of his culture and even the idiom. Shakespeare had no such test yet. As for other forms? Just as Homer had influence in Oral Tradition (Theatre is oral, but not oral tradition exactly, and shakespeare had not). And new arts? Homer is perfectly fine with cinema, heck, he had influence enough to have computer virus named after his Trojan horse. Comic books? Which Marvel-DC character goes afteer Shakespeare? I suppose Stan Lee may have created some Hamet, but greek myths are everywhere in comcis, because of course the heroic tradition is closer to them. Sure, Wonder Woman have no links to Homer, but Hulk, who is a mad Achiles (and faced tagged along with Agamenon, Ulisses, Heitor, etc). It is not like Shakespeare is huge, he is, right now probally more influential, but 100 years do not cover 1000 years.

I am aware that influence is not popularity, but popularity is influence, the popularity of Shakespeare or Homer in his day were just that, if they do not influence, I do not know what it is.[/QUOTE]

[Haran Alkarin]

i do think most people who go further into thinking about it like you do will notice his part on the changes of classical drama. Just most people will not think at all about it.

Agree to disagree then. You would say that Homer's plot is not great nor his when he narrated a already known story ? the same thing with Shakespeare.

I am not claiming withou homer there would be no literature. I am saying we have literature with homer, it is the reality we have. I am sure you can argue all he invented coould be eventually achive by other, but notice, the same argument could be done towards shakespeare. All his inovations could be eventually achived by some. If we further, someone would write the entire divina comedia if wasnt for dante.

Well, you do "Literature does not exist without him", literature would be without Homer or Shakespeare, the question is how these guys influence this literature (as they surely do), my point was that these guys are part of the tradition and not creators to the point of this tradition does not exist without them. The way you said it appeared that Homer had invented the literature or whatever parent. I did not say that their achievements could be made by other people, if anyone write like Dante, great, what's the point?

Ot is older? As far i know most dates place it close to the youngest dates attributed to homer (who usually has oldest dates also mentioned). As indian epics, i mentioned western literature (of course, this could also count for the ot).

Old Testament's writting is placed around 950 a.c, Homer is around 760-710 a.c

Shakespeare is a part of a tradition as homer was. But the point, iliad is the starting point for western literature, it is the starting point for the epic tradition. Homer time changed? Sure, which is how powerful he is. He had survived the destruction of his culture and even the idiom. Shakespeare had no such test yet.

Well, if he's been for 1,500 years without being read or influencing directly (not indirectly through Virgil) so I think he is not so powerful, rock paintings have been preserved for 10,000 years. Shakespeare also survive outside of idiom, also there was more cultural changes in two hundred years than in two millennia, everyone writes about it, everyone adapts it to his ends. We can say that Homer also has not passed this test.

As for other forms? Just as homer had influence in oral tradition (theatre is oral, but not oral tradition exactly, and shakespeare had not). And new arts? Homer is perfectly fine with cinema, heck, he had influence enough to have computer virus named after his trojan horse. Comic books? Which marvel-dc character goes afteer shakespeare? I suppose stan lee may have created some hamet, but greek myths are everywhere in comcis, because of course the heroic tradition is closer to them. Sure, wonder woman have no links to homer, but hulk, who is a mad achiles (and faced tagged along with agamenon, ulisses, heitor, etc). It is not like shakespeare is huge, he is, right now probally more influential, but 100 years do not cover 1000 years.

I know that theater is not oral tradition, it was only a comparison, oral tradition of Shakespeare is part of their art and lives on. Not sure what you mean by these examples, I did not say that Homer is dead. but it is obvious that Shakespeare has influenced more literature and art in huge quantity than Homer in all its longevity, the guy has all the western theater on his back, half of all the world's productions are his, he influenced a whole language, Shakespeare is the writer who recreated everything around it and cast a shadow that touched almost everything since. compared to him, Homer is just too old. All this discussion it is unnecessary. We would be in an infinite loop debating a futile exercise to compare such different writers.

[JCamilo]

Agree to disagree then. You would say that Homer's plot is not great nor his when he narrated a already known story ? the same thing with Shakespeare.

Who said I wouldnt? Iliad "plot" is irrelevant. Odissey has something else, but plot is more or less an obssession from XIX century onwards. Shakespeare or Homer (or Dante, Virgil) shrugged off limited plots because of their capacity to explore language.

Well, you do "Literature does not exist without him", literature would be without Homer or Shakespeare, the question is how these guys influence this literature (as they surely do), my point was that these guys are part of the tradition and not creators to the point of this tradition does not exist without them. The way you said it appeared that Homer had invented the literature or whatever parent. I did not say that their achievements could be made by other people, if anyone write like Dante, great, what's the point?

The point is that you seem very keen to praise Shakespeare achivements "that could be done by others" and the point is that in this reality it was Homer and Shakespeare who did. The other possible universe where someone else did, is irrelevant.

Old Testament's writting is placed around 950 a.c, Homer is around 760-710 a.c

Since when? The oldestt biblical writtings ever found are from 6 century ac. not 10th.

Well, if he's been for 1,500 years without being read or influencing directly (not indirectly through Virgil) so I think he is not so powerful, rock paintings have been preserved for 10,000 years. Shakespeare also survive outside of idiom, also there was more cultural changes in two hundred years than in two millennia, everyone writes about it, everyone adapts it to his ends. We can say that Homer also has not passed this test.

We have been here. Homer was read all this period. The original text that wsa lost. And indirect reading is a powerfull evidence. Homer has not passed the test? More cultural changes? Like the change from orality to writting culture?

I know that theater is not oral tradition, it was only a comparison, oral tradition of Shakespeare is part of their art and lives on. Not sure what you mean by these examples, I did not say that Homer is dead.

You claimed new forms of expression thaT Shakespeare had influence. I just pointed the presence of Homer there - in one case, comic books, Homer influence is even bigger.

but it is obvious that Shakespeare has influenced more literature and art in huge quantity than Homer in all its longevity,

Obviously, something you claimed but failed to show any evidence.

the guy has all the western theater on his back,

Sure? Western theater wa for 2000 years under the back of Sophocles, Aeschylus, Eurypides, authors under Homer influece. And Italian and French drama had their own tradition which also have a huge resistence towards Shakespeare.

half of all the world's productions are his,

Sorry, but what do you mean here?

he influenced a whole language,

Very good. The old greek is based on Homer. They even persecuted artists as Sappho who wrote in other dilacted.

Shakespeare is the writer who recreated everything around it and cast a shadow that touched almost everything since.

His Shadow is not even big enough to cover Dante or Cervantes.

compared to him, Homer is just too old. All this discussion it is unnecessary. We would be in an infinite loop debating a futile exercise to compare such different writers.

Homer may be nodding, but in his sleep he is too big.

[stlukesguild]

Homer is always problematic. We are uncertain whether "he" every existed as a single blind poet composing the Iliad and the Odyssey. There are arguments that the two epic poems were the product of two distinct poets at the least. The idea that a single poet named Homer was responsible for the two epics is not voiced until the 4th century BCE. Some scholars suggest that Homer was a fictional character/poet and that the Iliad and Odyssey were the product of generations of oral poets passing the works down until they were given a definitive form around the 22nd century BCE although no complete manuscripts exists dating earlier than the 10th century CE.

It matters little to me whether Homer was a real poet... or whether his epics were the product of many poets and editors over the years... a Bible of sorts. The Iliad and the Odyssey still rank among the greatest literary achievements... along with the plays of Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Euripides (My God! Imagine if we had all the plays lost by these three!), Dante, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Firdowsi, the Bible, the Arabian Nights, and a number of others.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, when I mean Homer, I mean rather the books Iliad and Odissey and the being that is their author. Of course, it is fitting that people managed to make Shakespeare a Homer with the silly controversy about his existense. Poetic even.

[Vota]

Of the limited number of books that I would qualify as being great, a couple stand out to me.

The Iliad and the Odyssey. I place these in the same position because without The Iliad, The Odyssey loses much of its meaning. The fact that Odysseus went through so much during that war, and so many people died during it, and maybe even more tragically, on the way back from it or at home even, provides background context that is fundamental to properly appreciating the epic poem. Much Like how hollow reading Lord Tennyson's Ulysses poem would be without at least having read The Odyssey prior to it.

I also would place War and Peace right there for a trinity of top reads. I read one short story by Tolstoy that made me teary eyed within it's 15 or so pages and I knew right then that I would love his writing. W&P did not disappoint me. I have never read a book that large in under three weeks.

As for top writer, that's tough. I'm not sure I can place someone there yet. Obviously Homer and Tolstoy are near my pinnacle of top writers, but that "could" change as I read more. I will note that Shakespeare has impressed me tremendously. I started off reading Hamlet and greatly enjoyed it. I then started read Macbeth, which I enjoyed, but found lacking in comparison to Hamlet. At this point I decided to read his works in chronological order and was impressed at being able to see a noticeable difference between his first works and what many consider to be his greatest. His genius and uncanny ability with language to describe the human condition are undeniable. I think what really sealed the deal for me was when I looked up Shakespeare quotes and read several dozen in a row. It's hard to believe that much wisdom and perception could have came from one person. Shakespeare is the man.

I would like to add that Shakespeare is quite popular now, whereas Homer for a long time was considered the preeminent writer by many scholars.