Lit Net Top Author?

[kiz_paws]

I do not disagree that he was a genius. He was a brilliant writer who I do agree, many can not live up to. I think I should have been more specific. When it comes to entertaining, I believe this is where his work falters. His work does not engage me. The tragedy does not make me feel sympathetic, and the comedy doesn't make me laugh. So in that sense, yes to me, he is overrated. But I do not dare to argue that he wasn't a brilliant writer.

Well ok then

For age -- this makes no nevermind in my world, just so you know, kay?

And yeah, EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, you are correctamundo.

BUT: we should all get back to Baz's thread now -- this has greatly dented his intention, je suppose...

[Zee.]

I've probably come off quite rude and stubborn. My apologies if I have.
I am a fighter, and I get quite worked up when it comes to discussions/debates.

I sometimes lack the ability of being able to express myself properly - for lack of a better word. It leads to great misunderstanding. So i'm sorry if I offended any of you. And I take responsibility for the misunderstanding - if any. I didn't explain my opinion very well, if at all.

[mayneverhave]

But I do argue that maybe we should all be a little more open about people's opinions.
I know I have a lot to learn. I understand that. But I think we all do - no matter our age.

This is slightly dangerous. On a normal scale, we would not except the opinions of an 8 year old concerning anything (unless the given 8 year/old was some William James Sidis type prodigy), and for good reason - their mind is underdeveloped and they simply have not had the time to accumulate the knowledge that a 45 y/o or even a 20 y/o would have.

That being said, on the surface, in dealings with a 17 on an intellectual level, we must be careful. Even you must admit that the average 17 year old doesn't have the working knowledge of literature that a college age student might have. Not that they can't, but that we must show preliminary caution - That's it.

Aside from that, age matters not, and now my only fault with you is in your dislike of Shakespeare.

[Dori]

BUT: we should all get back to Baz's thread now -- this has greatly dented his intention, je suppose...

Agreed. I think we can just tell Baz to skip page 6 when he counts.

And just so you know, lima, my comment, "Take it back!" was meant in jest.
Even though I treasure Shakespeare's work, I was only trying to be comical.

[Zee.]

mayneverhave,
Yes, I agree. Like I said in my earlier post. I understand and acknowledge the stereotypes associated with my age. But I have been well educated and experienced in my - so far, short life - more than most people three times my age.

I understand that I have to fight my way out of that stereotype and not expect to be looked upon differently until I do. But it is hard sometimes. Like I said, I am quite often misunderstood.

I know Dori

[JBI]

Meh who cares if she doesn't like Shakespeare. That is her loss - let's move on - people are entitled to opinions, and I doubt anything you will say will budge her's. As for Shakespeare - it's not as if he is short of votes or admires on this thread.

[stlukesguild]

limajean... when you make sweeping proclamations that go against the general consensus of experts in the field in which you are speaking without offering the least rational or basis for your opinion... and when you react in a blatantly emotional manner to a perceived slight... you seem to be playing right into what many may imagine to be the stereotype of the age group that you are so passionate to disassociate yourself with. I will venture that at age 17 I had read far more literature than the average teen... and probably a good deal more than a majority of adults. In spite of that, I will openly admit that my knowledge and my understanding of literature was far less than it is today for the very fact that I have had far more time to read... to gain further experiences in the field. Perhaps you are an exception to the majority of 17-year-olds (and you will notice that my original post was directed at the average 17-year-old and admitted to exceptions); perhaps you already have read deeply and are experienced not only in Shakespeare, but Donne, Spenser, Jonson, Wyatt, Sidney, and Traherne as well. Perhaps you have already earned your Masters Degree and are working upon your Doctorate. Of course were that at all true I would expect something a bit more in depth than "Shakespeare is overrated."

Now that you have offered a degree of reason behind your evaluation of Shakespeare, allow me to challenge it, if you will. You have stated that Shakespeare is overrated... this assumes that his reputation far exceeds his merits. You suggest that you personally do not find him entertaining. Fair enough... but then what actually amounts to "entertaining" according to your standards? I would suggest that what is entertaining to me covers a broad spectrum. I find a sort of intellectual pleasure in work that is challenging. Like the next guy, I can also appreciate marvelous narrative twists and turns. Shakespeare's greatest strengths do not lie in the invention of narrative (most of which were borrowed) but rather in the invention of characters and in the language. In English, only Milton... and perhaps Spenser... approach Shakespeare in his marvelous use of the language. No one approaches him in the invention of characters who have a depth and complexity that makes them almost human. Certain writers, such as Cervantes or Sterne have a few major characters that rival those of Shakespeare. Shakespeare has a legion of such characters. The drama of Shakespeare is the development of these complex characters with often conflicting motivations who reveal themselves through their thoughts (in the form of monologue or dialog) in response to the exterior conflict or drama in which they act out their roles.

[Zee.]

limajean... when you make sweeping proclamations that go against the general consensus of experts in the field in which you are speaking without offering the least rational or basis for your opinion... and when you react in a blatantly emotional manner to a perceived slight... you seem to be playing right into what many may imagine to be the stereotype of the age group that you are so passionate to disassociate yourself with. I will venture that at age 17 I had read far more literature than the average teen... and probably a good deal more than a majority of adults. In spite of that, I will openly admit that my knowledge and my understanding of literature was far less than it is today for the very fact that I have had far more time to read... to gain further experiences in the field. Perhaps you are an exception to the majority of 17-year-olds (and you will notice that my original post was directed at the average 17-year-old and admitted to exceptions); perhaps you already have read deeply and are experienced not only in Shakespeare, but Donne, Spenser, Jonson, Wyatt, Sidney, and Traherne as well. Perhaps you have already earned your Masters Degree and are working upon your Doctorate. Of course were that at all true I would expect something a bit more in depth than "Shakespeare is overrated."

Now that you have offered a degree of reason behind your evaluation of Shakespeare, allow me to challenge it, if you will. You have stated that Shakespeare is overrated... this assumes that his reputation far exceeds his merits. You suggest that you personally do not find him entertaining. Fair enough... but then what actually amounts to "entertaining" according to your standards? I would suggest that what is entertaining to me covers a broad spectrum. I find a sort of intellectual pleasure in work that is challenging. Like the next guy, I can also appreciate marvelous narrative twists and turns. Shakespeare's greatest strengths do not lie in the invention of narrative (most of which were borrowed) but rather in the invention of characters and in the language. In English, only Milton... and perhaps Spenser... approach Shakespeare in his marvelous use of the language. No one approaches him in the invention of characters who have a depth and complexity that makes them almost human. Certain writers, such as Cervantes or Sterne have a few major characters that rival those of Shakespeare. Shakespeare has a legion of such characters. The drama of Shakespeare is the development of these complex characters with often conflicting motivations who reveal themselves through their thoughts (in the form of monologue or dialog) in response to the exterior conflict or drama in which they act out their roles.

I don't mind discussing this with you, but i'd prefer to do it out of this thread. I've 'hijacked' it enough.

[The Atheist]

Whoa. What happened here?

Yes, i'm 17. So what.

Well, I'm about to turn 50 and I agree with you.

I actually thought your answer was what the thread was about - our individual choices rather than conformation to literary establishment rules.

Perhaps it would be better if you gave a reasoned response as to why exactly shakespeare sucks or is overrated.

Boring? Irrelevant to the 21st century? Anti-Semitic?

If you need more, start a thread, in which I will gladly participate!

This is slightly dangerous. On a normal scale, we would not except the opinions of an 8 year old concerning anything (unless the given 8 year/old was some William James Sidis type prodigy), and for good reason - their mind is underdeveloped and they simply have not had the time to accumulate the knowledge that a 45 y/o or even a 20 y/o would have.

Patronise much?

To me, in respect of literature, any reader's perspective is as valid as another - if they can read and understand, so be it.

I haven't changed my opinion on Shakespeare since I was 16/17, and I've read a hell of a lot more books since then. If anything, the diverse and brilliant range available to us in 2009 makes the place of Shakespeare in literature today quite laughable, in my opinion.

But as I said, that would require a new thread so Baz can get back on his numbers. I imagine that Billy-boy will come out on top, or second to Dostoevsky, by the looks of the votes so far, so the result will reflect a majority view, but it won't make it the right view.

Edit: in fact, I've started a new thread myself, here, so come one and all...

[stlukesguild]

To me, in respect of literature, any reader's perspective is as valid as another - if they can read and understand, so be it.

Come on. That has to be the dumbest thing I've read here in a long time. The perspective of anyone who can read is just as valid as any other? Does that apply to other discipline's as well? My medical opinions are just as valid as those of my doctor? My opinions on quantum physics are just as relevant as those of Stephen Hawking? In every field there are those who invest a great more in terms of effort, time, experience, etc... It would seem that the opinions of those generally hold more weight. This is not to say that they themselves always agree... nor that at times they are not wrong. In my own field I doubt I am going to consider the opinion of someone with next to no experience in art with the same degree of weight as I might the opinion of another artist or an art critic.

[The Atheist]

The perspective of anyone who can read is just as valid as any other? Does that apply to other discipline's as well? My medical opinions are just as valid as those of my doctor?

No, it's an invalid analogy. Bring that to the Shakepeare thread, although we had that as a subject recently, because it doesn't belong here.

[Niamh]

Mod Note
Can we please return to the topic of this thread which is "Lit Net Top Author". Any more off topic posts that disregard another members opinion, which they are entitled to, shall be removed. The Athiest has opened another thread for this discussion, please continue it there.
Niamh

[bazarov]

Please, respect others opinion! Someone respects your ''like list'', you can at least respect his ''dislike list''.

[bazarov]

#1 (Bazarov won't need me to fill this one in.)

Dan Brown?! No....

[_Shannon_]

Hmmm, this is a hard one. Is it who we think are the top 5 most important, or the top 5 we most enjoy, or the top 5 we think are the "best"??

I guess I'll sort of hybrid my list (though it's in no particular order):
1. Flaubert
2. Dickens
3. Dreiser
4. Faulkner
5. Twain (had to have somebody whose name didn't start with an 'F' or a 'D')


Though I am thinking that Henry James, and Tolstoy, and Stendahl ought to be on there....and there are some modern writers who I adore like Richard Russo and Tim O'Brien and Oscar Hijuelos...and I am sure that Proust will be on there once I don't have mushy, mommy-of-small-children brain and get to read him.