Why does one author have to be better ....

[Scheherazade]

she doesn't ramble on. She is succinct and to the point. Brevity is next to Godliness. Maybe all posts should be limited to 250 words or less.

Agreed.

[Modest Proposal]

I think posts should be eight words or--

[Jozanny]

I think, to defend actual literary scholars, who put up with my frustrated ignorance on a daily basis, that what one can do best is look at the merits and detractions of historical authors without the simplicity of a subjective value statement.

I am not much for the melodrama of Dickens--but if I were to write about him I'd lose that statement, as he is arguably the most influential author of 19th century English literature, and not a few other Victorian writers owe their career to him.

It is easy for a modern reader to be impatient with him, but some advocates credit him with almost single-handedly restoring Christmas as an international holiday. We all have tastes, but every writer on our canon offers perspectives that alter the way we look through the lens. What does the writing do? This should always be the first question of a serious reader, and not, how do I feel about it?

[pooteeweet]

It's because it is easier to rank authors than to read them.