who is the most overrated writer ever?

[Stieg]

aydin, I will make it my priority to give Fitzgerald a second shot, the one I had read probably was one of the author's lesser works, very aimless and vacuous.

[MarcMcGrath]

I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.

But I consider Shakespeare an overrated author because I have always found his works to be extremely boring. Repetition of things again and again. Philosophic but on many places annoying dialogues. For example, all those things Romeo said to Juliet again and again. I have read Romeo and Juliet quite a time ago so I am afraid that I can't quote that passage though I would have loved to.

As for philosophic references, I agree that this man is very crafty but those writers who say things simply, and so more precisely, I personally consider them better. I don't see what's the point of making things up when they can be expressed in a more simple and concise manner. Some people call it an art, or beauty. But I don't see the beauty in reckoning one's brain off just so one can get the meaning behind Shakespeare's oh-so-clever-dialogues.

I must disagree with many of your points regarding Shakespeare's works. The man was a craftsmen of the language (modern English by the by, Chaucer was middle). Shakespeare is and has be continuously relevant to the cultures and societies which have adopted his theory and produced his plays. If the culture as a whole decided that this was not the case, he would simply disappear into the literary cannon of the past. Although we cannot relate to the setting or the Idiosyncrasies, and nuances of the cultures projected in the plays, the themes of love, war, death, paranoia etc. are always relatable and indeleble to the human spirit that transcends the never ending march of time over culture.
Shakespeare's use of "repetition" allows him to fully express and explore the themes of the play in a variety of depths. If a concise expression of ideas is what you're looking for than an essay may be better suited for your tastes. Fictional writing is an artistic endeavor that marries entertainment with ideas and knowledge. The complexity of the style create an ocean rather than a pool in regards to depth and this is what allows Shakespeare to be continually relevant in the ever-changing cultures of the world.

I dunno, it comes down to taste and opinion, if literary criticism has proven anything, it is that the aesthetic value of a given literary piece can never be completely decided upon. I hope I didn't come off as condescending or attacking, it was not my intention, I am just an antagonistic with a love of old Shakespeare.

[kandaurov]

A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y!

I'm quite mad at you! I have just now joined this forum and I wanted my very first post to be "Is it just me or Jane Austen is incredibly overrated?"

Heh, it's good that someone shares my opinion :)

[NickAdams]

Jorge Luis Borges. Although i've only read "Ficciones" I think so anyway.

I think he is a bit underrated by the general public.

[chaplin]

I enjoy making lists of authors you don't like much as much as the next man, but isn't this "overrated", "underrated" thing kind of pointless and trite? First of all, who determines what authors have what rating? the ratings you are saying are too low or too high? isn't it entirely and impossibly and inanely relative and subjective? And it really takes no basis, no knowledge of the author to say he or she is too high or too low on some mysterious list.

[Nossa]

Charles Dickens is SO overrated in my opinion. I mean yes he wrote good stuff..but not THAT good...I don't remember ever really enjoying any of his works..they're so gloomy and always leave me with bitterness and a strange feeling of wanting to hang myself!

[Captain Pike]

Lots of us folks up here in Maine look up to Stephen King. I really liked "The Stand". But, lately, I've really grown tired of the rehashing an a lot of going on and on ... kind of a pulp science-fiction pump. Seeing characters resurface in other books, while legit I suppose, seems somewhat distracting for me, anyway.

Whenever I read something that seems hard to follow, I have this thought that maybe other people would see it more clearly, that it is just my weakened perception, rather than outright, intentional obliqueness. But then, I wonder still.

[Fango]

Well, now that you ask, I definitely think George RR Martin is overrated. People are all excited that he writes about sex. I don't know, maybe including sex in fantasy is new and people get excited about it. Maybe adding a lot of realism and family intrigue is new and people get excited about it. I just didn't like, and a lot of people seems to praise is a lot that I just had to write his name here.

To me, his "Game of Thrones" (the book that seem to have made him really popular) appear so close to realism that I frankly preferred reading an actual historical book than that.

Uh, also, Dan Brown. He just took a taboo subject and popularize it, so no matter what he wrote, people were interested having a bite ofi t.

[ennison]

Taboo subject? That there was a fictional grail?

[Dorian Gray]

That Jesus and Mary were a couple and that she had his child.

I'd rather believe Jesus was involved in a sordid affair with Judas. Now that would make a great Hollywood blockbuster. Brokeback Mountain in Jerusalem.

[Captain Pike]

I think writing off Jane Austen is a mistake. I read all of "Sense and Sensibility", only because it was referred to in the Jimmy Stewart movie Harvey. Elwood P. Dodd goes into his study finds his hidden liquor bottle and gets out Jane Austen's book and begins to read. I went out and got the book just to see if that was how it started.

"The family of Dashwood had been long settled in Sussex.", see, I still remember -- I love that movie. And the book seemed a little dry. But 75 years ago this was a great unintended satire on the aristocracy, possibly?
See, this is a book that other people could see the great value of. My own lack of depth is the overrated part.

[ennison]

That's not taboo. It's bizarre.
Taboo means something other than that.

[Jennyfrijole]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Stephen King, too. I only started reading his stuff in March - I wanted to see how "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" compared to the movie and then read the rest of the books in that short story compilation and then read a couple other of his books.

I think why he's so popular is because he's such an easy read - just about anyone can read his stuff, that's it's appeal. Sure, his books are a million pages long, but they're not difficult at all and they borderline on simplistic. Did anyone read "The Library Policeman"? I mean, King seems like a rad badass dude and all and I'd like to meet him, but I'd swear a twelve-year-old had written that. And I was not impressed with 'salem's Lot at all.

Strangely enough, "Apt Pupil" is my favorite piece of his work, I really liked it alot.

I finished Four Past Midnight not too long ago and I think that'll do me for King books for the next couple years.

[Set of Keys]

Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

[_JadeRain_]

William Faulkner. I still shudder at the _Sound and the Fury_

[NickAdams]

William Faulkner. I still shudder at the _Sound and the Fury_

I am going to be reading The Sound and the Fury this year. What was it that you didn't like? Without giving anything away.;)



Chuck Palahniuk. Good movie, bad book.:sick:

[Stieg]

Well, now that you ask, I definitely think George RR Martin is overrated. People are all excited that he writes about sex. I don't know, maybe including sex in fantasy is new and people get excited about it. Maybe adding a lot of realism and family intrigue is new and people get excited about it. I just didn't like, and a lot of people seems to praise is a lot that I just had to write his name here.

To me, his "Game of Thrones" (the book that seem to have made him really popular) appear so close to realism that I frankly preferred reading an actual historical book than that.

I read the first three books and I enjoyed them I guess but the GRRM gushers that make their rounds on various literary boards need to get a grip. GRRM needs to tone down that big fish swallowed by a bigger fish story structure. I flipped through A Feast For Crows at the bookstore and think I found a bunch more psycho feudal freaks in chainmail. And yes, I just love reading dwarf smut every 20-50 pages. Pull-leeze!

[kratsayra]

I read the first three books and I enjoyed them I guess but the GRRM gushers that make their rounds on various literary boards need to get a grip. GRRM needs to tone down that big fish swallowed by a bigger fish story structure. I flipped through A Feast For Crows at the bookstore and think I found a bunch more psycho feudal freaks in chainmail. And yes, I just love reading dwarf smut every 20-50 pages. Pull-leeze!

I quite enjoy the Song of Ice and Fire books. And I appreciate them for what they are - good, fun, reads that are engrossing and an easy way to disappear into another world. There are plenty of books that can do that, and plenty of books that can do that a lot better than Martin. But it works for me.

[jon1jt]

Sartre...
I've read The Nausea and I found it like a palace build on nothing.
The best thing he did is to refuse the nobel, he knews that he didn't deserve it!!!!!!!!!!

grrrrrrrr!

[Stieg]

I quite enjoy the Song of Ice and Fire books. And I appreciate them for what they are - good, fun, reads that are engrossing and an easy way to disappear into another world. There are plenty of books that can do that, and plenty of books that can do that a lot better than Martin. But it works for me.

They're alright, nice flowery prose blended with gritty fantasy and medievel court soap opera nothing deep however. Personally, I liked Fevre Dream more. Much more. Not sure I can get back into world of Westeros if the flawed trends I spoke about in my post above continue. How many characters are going to die before GRRM realizes he has thinned the quality of the saga overall.

[kratsayra]

They're alright, nice flowery prose blended with gritty fantasy and medievel court soap opera nothing deep however. Personally, I liked Fevre Dream more. Much more. Not sure I can get back into world of Westeros if the flawed trends I spoke about in my post above continue. How many characters are going to die before GRRM realizes he has thinned the quality of the saga overall.

yes, I suppose killing off characters can get old. ;)

I'll have to look into his other stuff like Fevre Dream.

[Stieg]

yes, I suppose killing off characters can get old. ;)

I'll have to look into his other stuff like Fevre Dream.

Definitely, I mean how many new freaks did GRRM introduce in the last novel to dull me with. Greater character investment for readers would have given the novels a greater backbone. Probably should have let many of these characters live through two or three books at least not only would their deaths have more significance but also GRRM could invent less characters with greater originality but probably didn't because the plot is stretched pretty thin already. Easier to kill them than create more subplots.

Fevre Dream is an excellent horror fantasy!

[drunkenKOALA]

Paulo Coelho, I've read "The Alchimist" and it was so poorly written and simplistic, I really felt like I'd just wasted my time. I could have reread "The Old Man and the Sea" instead and would have enjoyed it so much more.

I read The Zahir...it was very very lame.

[Adolescent09]

Although I have tried on several occasions to adopt a slight liking, if not just a general respect for the numerous generic line of literary products by Stephen King my efforts have been in vain. I deplore short sentence structures incessantly cut with hyphens and involving dialogue which although parallel to a lesser educated audience's diction leaves much to be desired in realism. His writing style sickens me although I do find appeal in the labrynth of twists in his thriller series and novels. When all has been said and done, the literary merit of Stephen King's works leave much to be desired--even more when he is categorized with the "greats" such as J.D. Salinger and Harper Lee. His 'The Green Mile' has also been identified with Harriet Beacher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, which very few may object, conveys a profound message that Mr. King could never dream of displaying

[linz]

TO EACH HIS OWN

This day and age, if you like a good simple story without deep thoughts then read all these famous authors of today. But I like all the existentialist and absurdest. I wouldn't consider any of them over-rated, atleast not the famous ones, maybe Ionesco just a hair?

[Stieg]

I am not going to bother to make a new post because I don't feel there are many GRRM fans on this forum but it does have them.

Question, is George R R Martin the new Robert Jordan?

Aside from a smashing debut of his A Song of Ice And Fire saga, A Game of Thrones. A dark fantasy wonderland for adults. But since then, the series has grown progressively sophomoric and convoluted.

With each succeeding series entry, each book introducing a absurb new cast of uber-killers vying for the title of most bizarre and Iron Throne usurpers and general freaks galore lacking plenty originality.

In the second book, readers had to bear too much GRRM's fixation on Tyrion. So much so we were introduced to his most naked personal anatomy and sex life and his temporary transformation into Ubermensch.

The third book, brought the death of many main characters. And now with their absence brought in an encyclopedia full of new players and powers in the fourth volume. Ahem sound familiar? See question above.

And also similarly to Jordan, GRRM can't make up his mind which characters will remain dead and which ones will return. For readers of the series I have heard Gregor Clegane "The Mountain who Rides" has returned under the alchemy and sorceries of maester Qyburn. He is now a Frankenstein monster rebuilt from various body parts???

O.O

Why bother killing off the likes of Rob Stark, Catylin, Joffrey, Tywin, etc when you are going to write more of the same into the series again.

Did the saga simply grow too overwhelming and complex for GRRM to handle and he lost grip of his original visions and designs?

[jim1961]

I quite enjoy the Song of Ice and Fire books. And I appreciate them for what they are - good, fun, reads that are engrossing and an easy way to disappear into another world. There are plenty of books that can do that, and plenty of books that can do that a lot better than Martin. But it works for me.

My criticism is that the plot just crawls most of the time. It takes a character nearly a whole book to move from one city to the next. And ironically that character often turns around and ends up going right back where they started.

[rgdmalaysia]

Saul Bellow....When he passed away last year, I re-read Herzog and a few of his other books....I had read them in college and found them full of the fussy self-analysis and uninteresting somewhat elitist charcters that I associate with the worst New York intellectual literature (Yes I know Bellow was a Canadian who lived in Chicago).

Turns out I was right the first time....I should admit I don't like Woody Allen movies either

[Corragiosso85]

In two words... Dan Brown!!!

[FacialFracture]

Philip Roth.

I'm a twenty-something WASP female, so I'm sure I don't fit the profile of his intended readers, but I really resent the few days I devoted to Portnoy's Complaint. I appreciate that many people find something worthwhile in his writing, but if I want weirdly self-congratulatory tales of frenzied adolescent masturbation and indulgent neuroses I'll...well...I just never want those things.

Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

(I'll add another vote to the anti-Dan Brown cause as well.)

[Janine]

Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

Hi Set of Keys, interesting user name.

I was truly appalled to see Oscar Wilde's name up there and also Henry James. I honestly don't know much about the other authors you listed....only a small amount about Plath and some about Updike - both considered fine authors.

Could you give some reason you found these authors sh!t, as you put it?

I am still pretty stunned. I usually only read this thread but I found I needed to speak out this time.

It would be interesting for me to know what authors you do like.

[Virgil]

Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.



Everyone here at lit net knows I agree with that. Yes, I do think there isn't much there for an adult. ;) I think Bulowski's an example of arrested development, frozen at the emotional age of sixteen. :D

[Old Crow]

Philip Roth.

I'm a twenty-something WASP female, so I'm sure I don't fit the profile of his intended readers, but I really resent the few days I devoted to Portnoy's Complaint. I appreciate that many people find something worthwhile in his writing, but if I want weirdly self-congratulatory tales of frenzied adolescent masturbation and indulgent neuroses I'll...well...I just never want those things.

While I definately enjoy his writing, I do think the constant critical fawning over him is overblown.

[Bakiryu]

Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.


while you may not like these authors, It isn't really nice or proper to refer to something as "Sh!t" could you maybe give a reason for disliking Plath and Wilde?

************************************************** ***

Most overrated author? Charles Dickens. His works are extremely boring and just drag on and on. Great Expectations has to be one of the worse books I've ever read yet people are always quoting him and proclaiming his amazing style.

Balooney!

[stlukesguild]

quote-Set of Keys-Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

quote-Janine-I was truly appalled to see Oscar Wilde's name up there and also Henry James. I honestly don't know much about the other authors you listed....only a small amount about Plath and some about Updike - both considered fine authors.


Indeed! My thoughts as well. I can live without Plath and Updike... and while Eco appeals to my bibliophile nature... especially in The Name of the Rose... I can survive quite well enough without him... But Henry James and Oscar Wilde categorized as http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/icon_turd.gif!!??!!
Surely sir (or Madame) you have some impediment of which you have not bothered to inform us.:lol:

facial fracture- Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

Everyone here at lit net knows I agree with that. Yes, I do think there isn't much there for an adult. I think Bulowski's an example of arrested development, frozen at the emotional age of sixteen.:D

Oh Virgil... you are so right. Now be prepared for a drubbing from the Beats Brigade.

[quasimodo1]

To Stlukesguild: Here, here on the Updike stuff. I'd have to remove Plath and James; thanks for not sugar-coating your opinion. quasi

[FacialFracture]

Okay, I'll jump in and support Set of Keys' bashing of Wilde; I've never liked his writing. I wouldn't say he's "irrefutably sh*t" though--especially since people have been refuting his alleged sh*tiness all over the place.

I find Wilde to have an annoying, preening quality in his writing, and I've always thought he seemed too eager to be clever; I hated The Importance of Being Earnest, I was underwhelmed by Portrait of Dorian Gray, and I've never bothered delving in any more than that.

Because this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work. In my experience, his well-known witticisms are so often in the mouths of people who overheard them somewhere, or saw them outside of their original context, that I'd be happy never to hear any of them again.

So, basically, whether Wilde is "irrefutably sh*t" or not doesn't concern me...but I will agree with his being overrated simply because I see a large part of his reputation being built on snippets from works that don't share the popularity/public familiarity of their author's name.

[rgdmalaysia]

Henry James? Not a fan of his writing

In the words of HG Welles "Like and elephant attempting to pick up a pea".

[Metanoia]

Dean Koontz. I honestly don't know how he has sold so many books. "it was cold outside so i put a coat on". I shouldn't really have to say any more... but I will. Koontz is like a disease, he is a plauge on the simple minded folk who could be using their spare time expanding their minds. p.s If you read Koontz I wasn't talking about you- your not simple minded. :-D

[Virgil]

Oh Virgil... you are so right. Now be prepared for a drubbing from the Beats Brigade.

:lol: Yeah I know.

[jon1jt]

facial fracture- Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

Then you've never understood Bukowski, not one iota of him. Sad considering all the big books you read.

[stlukesguild]

this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work.

Actually I would think that Shakespeare or the King James Bible more likely fit the bill of the most oft quoted yet unread by the one doing the quoting. Certainly taken out of context the quotes may have a rather different meaning than intended...rather like Shakespeare's series of good moral point such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when one forgets just who mouths these. Personally, I far prefer the so-called "preening" aesthetes such as Wilde, Pater, Proust, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Nerval, Gautier, and Mallarme far more than many of the "realists" of the time. But then I suppose that's a personal preference... rather like Wagner as opposed to Brahms (although in reality I actually like both in that equation).

[jon1jt]

this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work.

Actually I would think that Shakespeare or the King James Bible more likely fit the bill of the most oft quoted yet unread by the one doing the quoting. Certainly taken out of context the quotes may have a rather different meaning than intended...rather like Shakespeare's series of good moral point such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when one forgets just who mouths these. Personally, I far prefer the so-called "preening" aesthetes such as Wilde, Pater, Proust, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Nerval, Gautier, and Mallarme far more than many of the "realists" of the time. But then I suppose that's a personal preference... rather like Wagner as opposed to Brahms (although in reality I actually like both in that equation).

Affectation!

[stlukesguild]

Affectation!

Based upon experience.:D

[Etienne]

Then you've never understood Bukowski, not one iota of him. Sad considering all the big books you read.

Here they come! :D

[FacialFracture]

stlukesguild--You're right, Shakespeare's work and the King James version of the bible are quoted more often by people who haven't read them than anything by Wilde. I suppose my argument regarding Wilde could really be made about any author/work that has been absorbed into Western culture in such a way that it is seen or heard, fragmentarily, everywhere...and it's an argument that becomes progressively less supportable as the authors/artists/works in question get older and more ingrained into our culture (e.g., The Bible).

I stand by not liking Wilde (who is certainly better than...oh, let's say, Bukowski), and I gave my reasons for it; I didn't say my logic would be consistent. I like Rimbaud, Proust, and what little Baudelaire I've read. It is just a matter of preference, but what else are people going to base their idea of "overrated" anythings upon?

[Aiculík]

Most overrated are Joyce, and Shakespeare. (And maybe also Dickens).

Not because they are bad authors, for they aren't bad.
But because everyone is expected to like them. And if one dares to admit he did not like one of them, he's considered unintelligent, uneducated, without real taste in literature, etc. Everyone must like them because everyone knows that they're THE authors, the greatest writers in all time. Because people are not allowed to make their own opinion about them.

Most people didn't really read anything by them, but they are almost always top on different lists "TOP 100". It's not that they're famous, they're legends, that are really worshipped, it's like a cult. Just look at Shakespeare - you can find in in hundreds of versions, for children of different age, retold in different ways etc. Or Joyce with national holidays and people "replaying" Bloom's travel across Dublin...

And as for those who say Joyce deserves it because he invented modernism - well then, I'd say Laurence Stern desereves it even more. But unlike Joyce, poor Stern is underrated...

[Lambert]

Most overrated are Joyce, and Shakespeare. (And maybe also Dickens).

Not because they are bad authors, for they aren't bad.
But because everyone is expected to like them. And if one dares to admit he did not like one of them, he's considered unintelligent, uneducated, without real taste in literature, etc. Everyone must like them because everyone knows that they're THE authors, the greatest writers in all time. Because people are not allowed to make their own opinion about them.

Most people didn't really read anything by them, but they are almost always top on different lists "TOP 100". It's not that they're famous, they're legends, that are really worshipped, it's like a cult. Just look at Shakespeare - you can find in in hundreds of versions, for children of different age, retold in different ways etc. Or Joyce with national holidays and people "replaying" Bloom's travel across Dublin...

And as for those who say Joyce deserves it because he invented modernism - well then, I'd say Laurence Stern desereves it even more. But unlike Joyce, poor Stern is underrated...

1) Shakespeare is a far more read author than Joyce. Comparing bowdlerized versions of Shakespeare’s plays to Blooms day in order to prove the cultish nature of these authors’ admirers is ludicrous

Shakespeare’s works have been criticised negatively. Samuel Johnson did so, as did Tolstoy and T.S. Eliot to a certain extent.

Joyce’s work is regularly denigrated in the Irish press at Blooms Day with little rebuttal. And the idea that nearly everyone who goes around saying they’ve read Ulysses has not actually read the book is absurd. Anyone I know who has read that book can quote a least a couple of memorable lines or talk about scenes that they particularly liked, even after their first read.

2) Sterne is not underrated. If you’re thinking of Johnson’s dislike of the book (“Nothing odd will do long”) then you need to look at other critical opinions. I haven’t read a single modern critic who underrates Tristram Shandy.

And Sterne did not have a hand in inventing modernism. People used to think Tristram was “Stream-of-consciousness” but most critics nowadays dismiss this notion. Sterne wrote Tristram in one distinct style. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in various different styles.

[AuntShecky]

I would never say a contemporary writer was over-rated, although there are many. It would smack of professional jealousy. I would love to say that yours truly was in fact a professional, but at the moment I would be lying. I am, however, jealous.

Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.

Joyce, Sterne, Dickens,Melville-- over-rated? No way, man! The quartet has produced true "classics" in the sense that you can the works over and over and still find something new. Every one should read Moby Dick at various stages of one's life, every couple of decades, for instance. Same with Ulysses.Re: Joyce: I want to have Anthony Burgess's guide in my lap (same title: "Re: Joyce")when I go to read Finnegan's Wake. Next garage sale/used book sale I'll be searching for copies of both of those books.

[Virgil]

I would never say a contemporary writer was over-rated, although there are many. It would smack of professional jealousy. I would love to say that yours truly was in fact a professional, but at the moment I would be lying. I am, however, jealous.

:lol: I too am jealous, but I'm enough of a clod to come out and say that certain contemporary writers are over rated. :D


Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.
I understand the difficuties of reading Faulkner, but let me just say that the difficulities he puts to the reader are critical to the aesthetics of the works. At least in his top rated fiction. The difficulties do integrate with the themes.

As to Poe, i completely agree. I won't quite say there's no there there; let me say there's not much there there. ;)

[Janine]

Hi Everyone! I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and just laughing and laughing to myself. I keep wondering what the point of all this is actually. Last night I was at my library and I was talking to my librarian and told her about it. I guess one could call this thread - 'author bashing'. Anyway, I told her it seems several people said Shakespeare was over-rated and mentioned a few other great authors. I must say, I really gave her a good laugh.

Shakespeare - r e a l l y? I can't even fathom this being said! At first I was so outragged and wanted to strike back, but I am not really the fighting type, like some people we know (;) . Actually, glad to see these people maintaining their composure and staying so so calm. I am proud of you and you know who you are....:lol:!

Thanks everyone for keeping me entertained. I am really speechless for once.;)

[Virgil]

Hi Everyone! I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and just laughing and laughing to myself. I keep wondering what the point of all this is actually. Last night I was at my library and I was talking to my librarian and told her about it. I guess one could call this thread - 'author bashing'. Anyway, I told her it seems several people said Shakespeare was over-rated and mentioned a few other great authors. I must say, I really gave her a good laugh.

Shakespeare - r e a l l y? I can't even fathom this being said! At first I was so outragged and wanted to strike back, but I am not really the fighting type, like some people we know (;) . Actually, glad to see these people maintaining their composure and staying so so calm. I am proud of you and you know who you are....:lol:!

Thanks everyone for keeping me entertained. I am really speechless for once.;)

Actually yesterday i think was my first post here too, but I've read along. I've wanted to strike at times too, but I think whether one feels a writer is over rated is a personal opinion and every one is entitled. Once I got over that it became amusing for me too. :lol:

So let me now say something controversial: John Irving is over rated. ;)

[Janine]

Actually yesterday i think was my first post here too, but I've read along. I've wanted to strike at times too, but I think whether one feels a writer is over rated is a personal opinion and every one is entitled. Once I got over that it became amusing for me too. :lol:

So let me now say something controversial: John Irving is over rated. ;)

Totally! ;) :lol: but somehow I like the movies they have made from his books. Over-rated, as a author? Absolutely!

So, is this really icky writer my aunt recommended to me once - Nicholas Sparks - they also made some films from his icky books - films were also real icky!

[Aiculík]

And the idea that nearly everyone who goes around saying they’ve read Ulysses has not actually read the book is absurd. Anyone I know who has read that book can quote a least a couple of memorable lines or talk about scenes that they particularly liked, even after their first read.
I've never said that everyone who says they've read Ulysses actually has not.
I don't have - never did - anything against people who actually read Ulysses (or any other book by any other author) and liked it or disliked it.
But in my opinion, most of population has not read Ulysses. Yet, if you'd ask them to name some really great book, many would name Ulysses. At least that's my experience.


2) Sterne is not underrated. If you’re thinking of Johnson’s dislike of the book (“Nothing odd will do long”) then you need to look at other critical opinions. I haven’t read a single modern critic who underrates Tristram Shandy.
I never said he vas underrated by critics, I meant it generally. Ask common people if they heard of Laurence Sterne, they'd ask "Laurence who?" But ask them if they ever heard of Shakespeare, or Joyce, and they'd think you're mad for even asking. Or look at reactions here - most people were shocked by the idea that they are overrated - how can they be overrated, when they are great classics, when they are legends! Well, such reactions are exactly the reason why I think they are overrated...

And Sterne did not have a hand in inventing modernism. People used to think Tristram was “Stream-of-consciousness” but most critics nowadays dismiss this notion. Sterne wrote Tristram in one distinct style. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in various different styles.
I never heard of stream-of-consciousness in connection with Sterne, I usually heard his name in connection with modernism and postmodernism.

[PabloQ]

This has been one of the most entertaining threads to read. I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great. Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language. Did I get that right?
First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.
Secondly, I dismiss any comment that says "I read one work by so and so and I didn't like it." OK, but that doesn't make the author or his/her body of work overrated. It just means you didn't like the read for whatever reason.
Thirdly, declaring someone as overrated does not mean that the author is a bad writer. It means the expectations built by the author's reputation don't meet individual standards of what warrants that reputation.
Fourthly, where are the Russians? Are you telling me that no one, and I mean no one thinks Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Gogol aren't overrated on some level. I'm not saying they are; I was expecting one of those guys to pop on the thread and I was surprised nobody took a shot at them.
Finally, the correct answer is Henry James. I hadn't heard the HG Wells quote before, but just the other day I felt as though James was trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. I'm slugging my way through "The Wings of the Dove" and I think I'd rather try to wade through a swamp. I'd move faster.

[Janine]

This has been one of the most entertaining threads to read. I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great. Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language. Did I get that right?
Secondly, I dismiss any comment that says "I read one work by so and so and I didn't like it." OK, but that doesn't make the author or his/her body of work overrated. It just means you didn't like the read for whatever reason.
Thirdly, declaring someone as overrated does not mean that the author is a bad writer. It means the expectations built by the author's reputation don't meet individual standards of what warrants that reputation.
First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.


:lol: Hi PabloQ, and welcome to Lit Net. I get all you wrote;) and I :lol: and :lol: 'ed. You have really entertained me totally! I must tell others to read your profound and intuitive post. This thread has greatly entertained me as well. I, as you, have just read along often and I share this sentiment - "I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great." :lol: :lol:

I agree that one reading of an author could hardly qualify a person to announce that that author is over-rated.

Now, I do question your statement "Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language." oh I see you added "Did I get that right?" - you have a really good sense of humor Pablo! ;) I bet you won't find another site where this statement has been said online. :lol:


First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.

Seriously.......???? :rolleyes:

Thanks for all the laughs today....good way to start my day out!!!




Fourthly, where are the Russians?
Yeah, where are the Russians?!:confused:

Are you telling me that no one, and I mean no one thinks Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Gogol aren't overrated on some level. I'm not saying they are; I was expecting one of those guys to pop on the thread and I was surprised nobody took a shot at them.

Even D.H.Lawrence took a shot at Dostoyevsky in his famous essay on 'The Inquisitor', and also I think he had a few things to comment on about Tolstoy. Oh, yikes, I realise now I have put Lawrence's name out there to be shot, at as well.:bawling: I saw a post way back taking a big punch at the author, but now I see no one much answered that guy and he has not resurfaced. I tried to find the post but lost it now - I was going to have a rebutal for him.



Finally, the correct answer is Henry James. I hadn't heard the HG Wells quote before, but just the other day I felt as though James was trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. I'm slugging my way through "The Wings of the Dove" and I think I'd rather try to wade through a swamp. I'd move faster.

Is that why I tried to read the book several times now and abandoned it, or went on to other novels by other authors? I have only read some James short stories and I enjoyed those, but I felt like I was wading through a swamp too, with "Wings of the Dove"....I just though the boredom came from having known the story from the film. I loved the film version with Helena Bonham Carter, but the book is pretty weighty - still I cannot judge the man having read only the short stories and one small novel, so far - think it was "Washington Square". I like that book. Oddly enough I still plan on reading 'WOTD" eventually.

My final question still is - and what is the point of this thread?

[Virgil]

My final question still is - and what is the point of this thread?

I've come to the conclusion that the point is to express some pent up frustration at seeing certain writers praised while one doesn't see why.

Now I'm going to express something that will probably cause some controversy. You know me, I don't shy from controversy. ;)

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

[Janine]

I've come to the conclusion that the point is to express some pent up frustration at seeing certain writers praised while one doesn't see why.

Yes, good point, I think....just that often it seems more like 'author bashing' to me.


Now I'm going to express something that will probably cause some controversy. You know me, I don't shy from controversy. ;)

Virgil, you don't say..... :lol:



One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

Are there a lot of threads and posts on Orwell? I really had not noticed. I read "Animal Farm" in high school - it was required. We had a strange list of books that were required in my HS. I usually just groaned and read them....no wonder I hated reading then. But "Animal Farm" was ok and clever at the time. Now I am not sure if it would interest me much. I kept hearing about 'Big Brother' and I never did get around to reading 1984 - but I saw the film - does that count? Actually, it was a pretty decent film...it had some fine actors - Burton, John Hurt.

Don't smash :crash: your computer - we would all miss you and your contraversal ways! :lol:

[bluevictim]

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:It does seem like every time I turn around there is another post about 1984. Maybe we should have a thread about authors and/or works that are over/under discussed on the LitNet.

[Janine]

Yes bluevictim, Your idea might be a real good one. Also, I was just saying this to someoene today - we should start another thread called 'under-rated authors'...what do you think of the idea? Seriously, there are many authors who never got their due recognition, expecially in the past. Some had to die first to be heard or noticed...sad, really.

[Quark]

Orwell does get an incredible amount of attention on Lit Net. I can't begin to explain why, though. I do think that Animal Farm and 1984 are good books. Even Homage to Catalonia is an interesting read, but, once you divorce Orwell from the political and historical dimensions that make his writing unique, his writing doesn't impress that much. Animal Farm approaches topics like idealism, hypocrisy, and societal control. Yet, other novel do so as well--and they often do so with more success. I'll have to look into the Orwell threads more when they reappear on the "Recent Forum Posts" page. Maybe it will change my mind.

[PeterL]

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

I understand your point. Animal Farm is a fair allegory, but it does not stand the test of time. In the 1950's is was relevant, but the relevance has diminished. I completely agree with you about 1984; it is a pretty good novel, it has also lost much of its relevance.

[manolia]

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature.

Amen to all that :thumbs_up



And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

Well, about our societies and how democratic they are and were in the past, this needs discussion Virgil, but not in the forum ;)


Orwell does get an incredible amount of attention on Lit Net. I can't begin to explain why, though. I do think that Animal Farm and 1984 are good books. Even Homage to Catalonia is an interesting read, but, once you divorce Orwell from the political and historical dimensions that make his writing unique, his writing doesn't impress that much.

I agree.

[bazarov]

Are there a lot of threads and posts on Orwell? I really had not noticed.


Orwell and Shakespeare are top two, ask Logos who is the first one! :D

[Janine]

Orwell and Shakespeare are top two, ask Logos who is the first one! :D

Hi bazarov, Wow, I will have to ask Logos, as you suggest. Well, popularity doesn't guarentee that an author is actually a good one. I pass no judgement here - only stating a fact.

[bazarov]

Hi bazarov, Wow, I will have to ask Logos, as you suggest. Well, popularity does insure an author is actually a good one. I pass no judgement here - only stating a fact.


Discussion on Specific Authors & Books
This forum is for specific discussion on any of the authors and books featured on this site. Most Popular: William Shakespeare, George Orwell.


Familiar? Above Authors List...

Yes, I agree with you. Orwell is really good in my opinion, but there are many writers much much better than him.

[Alexei]

Yes, I agree with you. Orwell is really good in my opinion, but there are many writers much much better than him.

Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell :lol: :lol: :lol:

[bazarov]

Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell :lol: :lol: :lol:

Join the club!:lol: :lol: The Atheist is the president. :lol: :lol:

[Alexei]

Join the club!:lol: :lol: The Atheist is the president. :lol: :lol:

Thanks, if I menage with all my reading I will take part too ;)

[Janine]

Join the club!:lol: :lol: The Atheist is the president. :lol: :lol:

Good one, Baz! :lol: :lol: :lol:

This thread continues to entertain me....thanks! ;) :thumbs_up

Alexei, I never said I did not like Orwell. Actually, I do (so you are not alone), but just have not read much by him. He certainly had his prominent place in literature.

[bazarov]

Alexei, I never said I did not like Orwell. Actually, I do (so you are not alone), but just have not read much by him. He certainly had his prominent place in literature.

What is there except 1984 and Animal Farm?

[Janine]

What is there except 1984 and Animal Farm?

I think he wrote another short book called "Keep the Aspidistra (sp?) Flying".
I saw a film based on the novel. I like the film very much and would like to read the novel, actually. I am guilty of not really reading Orwell, just seeing films based on his novel - oh, wait --- I did read "Animal Farm" in high school....that was many moons ago.

Yep, just looked it up on Amazon and there it was - http://www.amazon.com/Aspidistra-Flying-Penguin-Modern-Classics/dp/0141183721/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196542422&sr=1-1 - check it out. I think I did spell that right - amazing! Anyway, if you check the Orwell listings there are many more books he wrote.

[PabloQ]

Virgil, dude, look what you've done. You've started yet another string on Orwell. Take your thundrous hammer and smiteth mightily your bits and bytes. :crash: Or at least ignore this thread until we find the next goat.
And the charm of Animal Farm is simply this. Pigs in pants...Dude!!...PIGS IN PANTS!!!:lol:
And will someone please take the bait and try to defend Henry James. I'm wandering around his field of crap looking for the pony. I'm looking for the key that will allow me to be as impressed with his writing as Mr. James seems to be.

[Janine]

I would like to nominate for most over-rated poet, our own Lit Net superstar poet, Virgil - he wins too many picture poetry contests! :lol:


sorry Virg - just kidding with you......

[rgdmalaysia]

I think he wrote another short book called "Keep the Aspidistra (sp?) Flying".
I saw a film based on the novel. I like the film very much and would like to read the novel, actually. I am guilty of not really reading Orwell, just seeing films based on his novel - oh, wait --- I did read "Animal Farm" in high school....that was many moons ago.

Yep, just looked it up on Amazon and there it was - http://www.amazon.com/Aspidistra-Flying-Penguin-Modern-Classics/dp/0141183721/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196542422&sr=1-1 - check it out. I think I did spell that right - amazing! Anyway, if you check the Orwell listings there are many more books he wrote.

I would have to say "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" is my favorite Orwell novel....A perfect mix of idealism and reality....However, the ending isn't necessarily an unhappy one as capitalism temporarily triumphs over the goals of the protagonist....Also the relationship between the male and female leads is the best of any of Orwell's books.

"Coming Up for Air" is also excellent and a worthy addition to the British tradition of the little man fighting against his gray repetative 9 to 5 life.

"Homage to Catalonia" is well-written and interesting....The part where Orwell is severly injured is compelling.

"Down and Out in London and Paris" is a short book that makes an interesting comparison about two types of working poverty....A minor book but an entertaining one.

Actually "Animal Farm" is my least favorite book of his....It's ham fisted allegory and obvious message doesn't make for a very good read IMO.

Orwell's personal reputation has taken a bit of beating recently with the revelation he may have been an informer on some of his communist/socialist colleague for the government....In some of the biogrpahies I have read he comes across as a total ******* but I say trust the art and not the artist!

[Janine]

I would have to say "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" is my favorite Orwell novel....A perfect mix of idealism and reality....However, the ending isn't necessarily an unhappy one as capitalism temporarily triumphs over the goals of the protagonist....Also the relationship between the male and female leads is the best of any of Orwell's books.

"Coming Up for Air" is also excellent and a worthy addition to the British tradition of the little man fighting against his gray repetative 9 to 5 life.

"Homage to Catalonia" is well-written and interesting....The part where Orwell is severly injured is compelling.

"Down and Out in London and Paris" is a short book that makes an interesting comparison about two types of working poverty....A minor book but an entertaining one.

Actually "Animal Farm" is my least favorite book of his....It's ham fisted allegory and obvious message doesn't make for a very good read IMO.

Orwell's personal reputation has taken a bit of beating recently with the revelation he may have been an informer on some of his communist/socialist colleague for the government....In some of the biogrpahies I have read he comes across as a total ******* but I say trust the art and not the artist!

Wow, rgdmalaysia - thanks for all that information. It is good to know about the other books Orwell wrote and I bet they are actually better reads than "Animal Farm" - I think that book's popularity was based on the fact that no one had done a book quite like that before. I have been intending for a long time to read "KTAF" - I read that that this book is basically autobiographical and that interested me. Also, I saw the film based on the book and I found it witty and very amusing and 'touching', as well. In the film the male and female leads had great chemistry and were so witty together.

Given this new list (thanks again) I think these all sound interesting and a bit more true to life - maybe (?).

At the time "1984" was written, it is true that it was quite 'unique', and now we have been over-exposed to this 'mind-control' concept in films and books, so that I think it has lost it's original impact. I am sure it was a brilliant novel in it's day, and still is considering it's place in time.

[quasimodo1]

Ars Gratia Artis. Hail Caesar. Long live Virgil.

[Janine]

Ars Gratia Artis. Hail Caesar. Long live Virgil.

quasi, at least you got the joke!:lol:

[Virgil]

Virgil, dude, look what you've done. You've started yet another string on Orwell. Take your thundrous hammer and smiteth mightily your bits and bytes. :crash: Or at least ignore this thread until we find the next goat.
And the charm of Animal Farm is simply this. Pigs in pants...Dude!!...PIGS IN PANTS!!!:lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: Pigs in pants! I guess that is something. :D



And will someone please take the bait and try to defend Henry James. I'm wandering around his field of crap looking for the pony. I'm looking for the key that will allow me to be as impressed with his writing as Mr. James seems to be.
It's hard to defend Henry James, especially with Wings of the Dove and The Golden Bowl. They are inpenetrable for no apparent reason. But then there is the great Henry James too, Portrait of a Lady, Daisy Miller, The Ambassadors, and The Beast In the Jungle, which in my opinion may the best short novel ever written. So I don't know. There is some truely great Henry James too.

[quasimodo1]

Pigs wearing pants could only be improved by pigs on the wing.

[Virgil]

Pigs wearing pants could only be improved by pigs on the wing.

How about pigs on a barbecue? ;)

[manolia]

Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell :lol: :lol: :lol:

We definately didn't say that we don't like Orwell. Check out Virgil's post ;) :)


How about pigs on a barbecue? ;)

:lol: :lol: I almost fell off my chair :lol: :lol:

[Phoenix Wright]

Mark Twain.

It's a matter of preference. I can't stand his writing style.

[Janine]

We definately didn't say that we don't like Orwell. Check out Virgil's post ;) :)



:lol: :lol: I almost fell off my chair :lol: :lol:

manolia :lol: :lol: :lol: absolutely - hysterical! Good one, Virgil:thumbs_up

Hey, V, did you see that I nominated you as 'over-rated' poet, cause you win all those poetry contests.....I was just kidding of course!:D

This thread is certainly a fun one!;)

Yeah, let me expand the phrase - 'pigs on a barbie' - is that how Australia's spell that? Wait how can one put a pig on a barbeque? Is it like ribs?

[metal134]

Pigs wearing pants could only be improved by pigs on the wing.
Pink Floyd are gods.

[Janine]

Pink Floyd are gods.

Pink Floyd!!! alright!:thumbs_up Love them.....:D

[EAP]

Hmm, lessee.

I thought I covered the russians?

All of 'em are overrated.

Orwell's best work isn't his fiction but his essays/travelogues.

[Etienne]

Hmm, lessee.

I thought I covered the russians?

All of 'em are overrated.

Orwell's best work isn't his fiction but his essays/travelogues.

What do you mean all of them? I mean I don't think that in general they are considered better than, let's say english or french in general, it all comes down to individuals. So do you mean to say that they are inferior to english or french writer as a whole? I'm not sure saying russians are overrated really means anything, no? What have you read and what did you find overrated among what you read? I'm just curious.

I also agree with Orwell, I've only read 1984, it was a very good book, but when I look at it's popularity, I'm puzzled.

[FacialFracture]

I'd go so far as to say that Russia itself is totally overrated. I mean, what have they got going for them anyway? Vodka? Snow? The Hermitage? When it was still the U.S.S.R it was okay, but its later work has really disappointed me.

[EAP]

What do you mean all of them?

All of 'em.


So do you mean to say that they are inferior to english or french writer as a whole?

Yes.


I'm not sure saying russians are overrated really means anything, no?

No.


What have you read and what did you find overrated among what you read?

Everything.


I'd go so far as to say that Russia itself is totally overrated. I mean, what have they got going for them anyway? Vodka? Snow? The Hermitage? When it was still the U.S.S.R it was okay, but its later work has really disappointed me.

QFT.

[Etienne]

Dude I checked your posts and you seem to post only useless crap. Why don't you tell us which one you read and found overrated exactly?

[Janine]

Be nice now ~

[Etienne]

Be nice now ~

Will you stop that? You're one of those always jumping around and saying "be nice" while there's no reason for it this is really annoying, honestly. I've not been rude at all, look at the guy's posts he just seems to be trolling around. Why post at all if all if he's not going to discuss constructively?

[papayahed]

General Mod note to all.

Refrain from nit picking and personal insults and return to the topic at hand. If it continues, posts may be edited or the thread will be closed.

[Dori]

Russian lit seems to me to be underrated. I have not a met a person in real life who has read anything that Russia has produced with the exception of my English teacher. Even on online forums, the amount of people I encounter which have read a substantial amount of Russian lit (enough to form a justifiable opinion on it) are minimal at best.

[bluevictim]

Yes bluevictim, Your idea might be a real good one. Also, I was just saying this to someoene today - we should start another thread called 'under-rated authors'...what do you think of the idea? Seriously, there are many authors who never got their due recognition, expecially in the past. Some had to die first to be heard or noticed...sad, really.It's a good idea. "Overrated Authors" and "Underrated Authors" (and variations on that theme) are pretty standard recurring threads at LitNet. I'm sure you'd be able to dig up an "Underrated Authors" thread just by flipping back a few pages in the "General Literature" forum. Naturally, the "Underrated Authors" threads often turn into "My Favorite Obscure Authors" threads in essence, and the current thread is pretty typical of the "Overrated Authors" threads -- consisting of complaints about "great" authors together with indignant defenses of the greatness of those authors (cf. the "Worst books you ever read" thread). I pretty much consider this activity the official sport of the LitNet. :)

[AuntShecky]

You know, I said that I wasn't going to comment on current or contemporary authors, but --
("Do I contradict myself?
Then, I contradict myself" --Walt Whitman) but--
why the popularity of Pat Conroy (not to be confused with Frank Conroy, under-rated author of Stop Time.)

Pat Conroy's novels have been filmed as movies -- one about a schoolteacher starring Jon Voight and one that
starred Barbra Streisand. But a few years ago I started reading the actual novel of Prince of Tides and I couldn't account for the author's success. So I couldn't/wouldn't finish, but I had read enough to think that the emotional content was maudlin and his prose style seemed amateurish to me. I could almost picture him at his desk with the thesaurus open!
And what was most disappointing was the author's inability to take artistic risks.

[nebish]

I totally endorse your opinion of Prince of Tides, the scenes in New York were particularly embarrassing: cliche'd plot and behaviour, an insult to the critical reader. It may be the problem moderate writers encounter when they try to go beyond their native soil.

[elfiedaelf]

Most overrated Writer....

Hmm.... I would have to say shakespear!

[loggats]

I don't think any writer rises to sustained prominence without giving something meaningful. Even though I dislike their achievements (i'm thinking of d.h.lawrence right now) I'll acknowledge their contributions. Third rate writers are overrated, by ignorant readers.

[stlukesguild]

Most overrated Writer....

Hmm.... I would have to say shakespear!

Uhhh... yeah... and that Michelangelo... what an overrated artist. Couldn't paint a lick.:rolleyes:

[stlukesguild]

For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.

Ah yes... an artist railing against the norms of bourgeois society. How original. That's never been done before.:rolleyes: I now see the error of my ways.

[papayahed]

I think that Tom Wolfe is the most overrated writer ever!I detested his new journalism and find his novels badly written and almost entirely lacking in any literary merit. Honestly just because he's from the south and wears a white suit literary editors of magazines seem to equate him to a Faulkner or Dickinson instead of just the grubby overvalued little (in every sense) hack that he is!

Agreed.

[jon1jt]

For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.

Two thumbs down for the Potter series!


Ahhh, when the hell is America going to add Kerouac to Mount Rushmore?! :lol: B-Mental, you and me need to team up on StLuke, he's at it bad mouthing Kerouac again!

[jon1jt]

For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.

Ah yes... an artist railing against the norms of bourgeois society. How original. That's never been done before.:rolleyes: I now see the error of my ways.

Why is it that I imagine you as a bathrobe, pipe-smoking type? :D

[aabbcc]

From my personal experiences... Coelho. Quasi-spiritual kitsch written by a quasi-spiritual wannabe. I cannot even understand why, oh why was I torturing myself by giving him a second chance, and then a third, despite knowing somewhere in the bottom of everything that he would not get any better (that is the fact you can realise in the first ten pages), and that his popularity at the time was not due to the quality of the written material, but to something else, maybe that typical mass effect, suddenly everybody was talking about him, so it turned out that everybody was reading him, if for nothing else than for the sake of curiosity. (On the side note, a similar phenomenon is happening now with Beigbeder, whom I have not read yet, only skimmed once in library, so I will not comment... But every year or two some popular author ends up in that position.)

I can think of several other authors who were literary disappointments for me (e.g. Salinger, or Pamuk), but I doubt anyone could compete Coelho in this.

[stlukesguild]

Why is it that I imagine you as a bathrobe, pipe-smoking type?

Nope... no bathrobes, I sleep in the nude.:brow: Drives the wife nuts, though. She always wants to know what I'd do if there was a fire. (I'd probably be saving the books:eek2:). No pipe either. I don't smoke smoke at all. But I do drink:D I'll take a good dark British beer (Samuel Smith Imperial Stout... Young's Double Chocolate Malt) or something Belgian.

So what are the habits of a Kerouac lover? Hmmm... I somehow imagine those skinny French cigarette, wine coolers, and speedos.:goof:

[PeterL]

Ah yes... an artist railing against the norms of bourgeois society. How original. That's never been done before.:rolleyes: I now see the error of my ways.

That is good. Everyone should be willing to recognize one's own errors.

[AuntShecky]

I don't dislike the works of Sylvia Plath, but I wonder if her reputation comes from our romantic sentiment about the details of her life.

Flannery O'Connor -- just ok, but some see her as God's gift to American literature.

(Okay, auntie, now you're getting catty.)

[HotKarl]

--"That's not writing. It's typing."

Truman Capote's response to a question about what he thinks of On the Road.

I'm inclined to agree Mr. Capote. I'm inclined to agree.

[Aeltya]

I don't dislike the works of Sylvia Plath, but I wonder if her reputation comes from our romantic sentiment about the details of her life.

For me, reading Sylvia Plath was very disturbing because I identified with her darkest works. It was like looking into a mirror. Such pain and anger.

<shiver>

[thechampion]

Truman capote writes like an old woman on the crapper, stuffed, pretentious, self-reverent; his voice comes through the distance of a tinfoil tube then through the telephone. There is no emotion not fabricated, no real human emotions AT ALL. He is depraved in all ways as a writer. Truman capote is by far the most overrated writer ever. He's actually one of the worst. This is not in response to the kerouac thing. Kerouac is vastly overrated also, but he at least has written several sentences of any value in his time, whereas capote has not written one.

[loggats]

Truman capote writes like an old woman on the crapper, stuffed, pretentious, self-reverent; his voice comes through the distance of a tinfoil tube then through the telephone. There is no emotion not fabricated, no real human emotions AT ALL. He is depraved in all ways as a writer. Truman capote is by far the most overrated writer ever. He's actually one of the worst. This is not in response to the kerouac thing. Kerouac is vastly overrated also, but he at least has written several sentences of any value in his time, whereas capote has not written one.

To me, the greatest pleasure of writing is not what it's about, but the inner music that words make. Capote.

[Shea]

Haven't looked through enough of this thread to know if anyone has said this, but I can't stand Dan Brown. Anyone who claims to have facts in their work and not do the adequate research to make sure is just a raving lunatic.

[crazefest456]

Haven't looked through enough of this thread to know if anyone has said this, but I can't stand Dan Brown. Anyone who claims to have facts in their work and not do the adequate research to make sure is just a raving lunatic.

YES! finally someone who understands...

[Shea]

YES! finally someone who understands...

:lol:

[jon1jt]

The public asks for crap and so Dan Brown gave them crap. Danielle Steel, John Grisham, Anne Rice, etc. It's a noble accomplishment in this world, actually.

[ThePianoMan]

I really never saw anything in Grisham's works that I found so awful. He's no literary genius, but he knows how to right an interesting story that really grips your attention.

[ClickForth]

okokok

[stlukesguild]

I can see the cigarettes making sense, but the beats weren't exactly lightweights at drinking and probably wouldn't deign to wear a speedo.

Ah... but considering a "Beats Lover" one gets the image of a holdover from the good old days of teenage rebellion... sort of an aging hippie. I don't imagine such as still hitting the Jack Daniels on a regular basis.

[Sir Bartholomew]

Thomas Hardy is over rated. On the other hand, J. K. Rowling is a very good writer.

ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!

[PeterL]

ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!

I sometimes ask the same question, but what does that have to do with authors?

[Irrylath]

Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is overrated (referring to a few posts on the first page) seriously needs to think about his/her life. If you don't like him, you don't understand him.

[PabloQ]

This is the second "overrated author" thread I've read. The other one started with someone going after Jane Austen. It's far more entertaining that this one. However, there are some valid points made in that other thread, which I would appy to this one.
1. Ignore current bestseller writers. We have no indication we'll be talking about them a hundred years from now.
2. Back up your claim. If you are going to crawl out on a thin limb and declare Shakespeare overrated, you had better have some facts to back it up. Otherwise, it's a matter of your not enjoying the writing or underappreciating it or something more relative to you than the author or the writing.
3. Every author doesn't appeal to everyone. It's what makes all the forums on this network so interesting. Seek what you like or what intrigues you or what gives you joy or mystifies you.
4. Read more than one work from the author before you make a declaration on his or her work. Go to a forum and make a statement like "I just read xyz by whomever and found it unpleasant. What else should I read to have a better experience." Folks will help you out.
My recent candidate for overrated has been Henry James and I'm changing my tune. I read Portrait of a Lady (liked it) and The Wings of the Dove (hated it) and I'm currently reading The Ambassadors (really like it). I'm discovering the I don't have what it takes to fully appreciate his work, but I can see why it might be considered "literature". So, give some of these folks a break.

[johann cruyff]

I'm not even going to take contemporary "writers" such as Dan Brown,Rowling,Houllebecq or Paulo Coelho into account: 99% of today's authors are grossly overrated in my opinion,including the aforementioned.

As for older authors...in no particular order:
Ernest Hemingway
Virginia Woolf
De Sade(no matter how bad you may think he is,he's even worse!His poor excuse for philosophy in his works is ridiculous.)
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Honore de Balzac
Ayn Rand
Boris Pasternak

All of these,especially Hemingway,are important,but I still think they're given too much credit.

[stlukesguild]

De Sade(no matter how bad you may think he is,he's even worse!His poor excuse for philosophy in his works is ridiculous.)

Agreed 100&#37; His "writing" is nothing more than the ramblings of a deranged mind... and even that makes him sound better than he is. As mind-numbingly repetitive as some angst-laden teenager's diary (without the angst) and as "deep" as the ramblings of some middle aged pervert posting comments on some porno blog.

Ernest Hemingway
Actually... I find the short stories quite good.
Virginia Woolf
Really? I quite like her.
Ayn Rand
Agreed again.
Boris Pasternak
Perhaps it is hard to understand why he won the Noble Prize solely on the basis of Doctor Zhivago... but his poetry is quite marvelous. Check out My Sister-Life if you can find it.

[HotKarl]

I nearly forgot--Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Sure, he has the occasional good comment, but for the most part, this man has everybody fooled. I detest his style; there is no logical flow to his ideas. He quickly jumps from idea to idea without transition. His writing is a series of quotes that makes for a frustrating experience.

Second, he says many things that are just stupid. Occasionally he'll lay some doosie on you like “No great man ever complains of want of opportunity” (tell that to MLK) or “There is a tendency for things to right themselves” (I guess there's no need to treat AIDS patients or pay our bills). Yet everyone treats this guy with extreme reverence even though much of his advice is chock-full of ignorance.

But my biggest gripe with Emerson is his belief that he and the rest of the artistic elite are "part and participle of God." Talk about arrogant. This guy thinks he's filled with divinity. I remember quotes where he boasts that he has seen the universe, that he understands the universe, that he is the universe--all because his body is formed from molecules that have drifted the cosmos. To me, Ralph Waldo Emerson is synonymous with hubris.

[johann cruyff]

Ernest Hemingway
Actually... I find the short stories quite good.
Virginia Woolf
Really? I quite like her.

Okay,I have to admit,I don't think Hemingway,as a writer,is as overrated as some of his works(does that even make sense:brickwall ?) are.Most notably,The Old Man and the Sea.There's just something about that book that makes me want to slap the nearest person.

As for Virginia Woolf,I've read very little of her,granted,but I find her no better than Rand.

[Laughablefellow]

1. Ignore current bestseller writers. We have no indication we'll be talking about them a hundred years from now.

I'd agree for the most part, however the probably only exception would be someone who's been sniped at quite a bit in the couple of pages of this discussion I bothered to read: Ms. J.K.Rowling - I think it pretty safe to make a bet that whatever anyone thinks of her writing she's created a phenomenom which is going to be talked about for many many years to come - the franchise is now the most profitable ever: the first five movies taking more in box office gross than 22 james bond films put together (and yes all six star wars films too). The last book sold record numbers in record time.

Of course this doesn't make her a good writer, the books arn't the best written in the world and the plots arn't even that original. However, you have to remember these are childrens books, they just happen to have attracted massive adult audiences as well. I'll concede though that even relative to other children's books of a similar style she's not the best, give me Tolkien's The Hobbit anyday.

P.S. In agreement with other comments - I can't believe anyone can seriously say Shakespeare is over rated and be able to back that up with anything other than "plays are boring" or "the language just doesnt mean anything". I've spent all day going over Romeo and Juliet for revision for a Shakespeare exam I'm sitting on Tuesday and if anything it's only deepened my love for the Bard and all his works... well.... most of his works ;-)

[Mark Anthony]

Where's the objectivity? These are the over-rated writers - at present, anyway.:flare:

[Mark Anthony]

I'm not sure who is the most overrated author. What I do know is that I recently received an 'Alice in Wonderland' DVD in the post. It was based on a novel by:

J. K. Rowling

at least, in Cyprus, it was, somewhere - apparently!!!:bawling:

[Sir Bartholomew]

I sometimes ask the same question, but what does that have to do with authors?

What does it have to do?

[Sir Bartholomew]

I'm not sure who is the most overrated author. What I do know is that I recently received an 'Alice in Wonderland' DVD in the post. It was based on a novel by:

J. K. Rowling

at least, in Cyprus, it was, somewhere - apparently!!!:bawling:

That's sick. :lol:

[ben.!]

Dan Brown gets my vote for most overrated author currently. He combines all the current conspiracy theories of the Church, throws in a bit of fiction, writes it like a Bond film on fast forward (it's so fast you just can't understand it!), throws in long-winded speeches about bogus history, then writes all this in a form of prose that would be apt for a 7 year old.

That's why he's a bestseller, his books are so easy to read. He makes the chapters so short that you sound smart by finishing 12 in one night without breaking sweat, then just rants on about Catholicism and Opus Dei until the cows come home.

Here's the four reasons why he's a bestseller:

1. His books are inexplicably easy to read.

2. The Vatican expressly said not to read them.

3. It pays out on the Church. Big time.

4. Gives an alternate interpretation of the Holy Grail, which has everyone prancing around in joy, even though it the theory was clearly explained as a clear coherent idea in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors of that book actually sued Brown for stealing their ideas.

I myself quite like the idea of Mary Maguedelin being the Grail, however there is so much bogus in the book that it leaves me feeling like a 7 year old and confused.

[JoanS]

Garc&#237;a M&#225;rquez without any doubt.. Hemingway's works is like the start of comercial literature.. Balzac needs diferent points of view

[JoanS]

ah, i ve forgotten write the holy bible

[bazarov]

ah, i ve forgotten write the holy bible
You're kidding, right?

Hemingway, Coelho; Rowling and Brown are not considered to be writers.

[Axle1017]

James fennimore cooper is the most overrated writer of all time. Mark twain bashed him in an essay and i have never read the last of the mohicans the same way again.

[Dori]

James fennimore cooper is the most overrated writer of all time. Mark twain bashed him in an essay and i have never read the last of the mohicans the same way again.

Well, Mark Twain also bashed Jane Austen. Twain wrote, "Just the omission of Jane Austen’s books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn’t a book in it." I'm not sure I buy into this though...;)

[Tersely]

Nicholas Sparks. I thought the movies had more information then his books, and that time spent I'll never get back. Ever.

[PeterL]

Well, Mark Twain also bashed Jane Austen. Twain wrote, "Just the omission of Jane Austen’s books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn’t a book in it." I'm not sure I buy into this though...;)

And I thought that I was missing something by not liking Jane Austen. Twain's critique of Fennimore Cooper is one of the most useful instructions in writing fiction that exists. I never could stand Fennimore Cooper, but I didn't know exactly why until I read Twain's piece.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt

[Igetanotion]

What a painful thread to read! I realize, however, different people certainly have different tastes . . . sometimes very different tastes.
I certainly agree with J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown, but also I would like to add James Redfield, Dr. Phil, Gore Vidal, and Billy Collins. :p

BILLY COLLINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

Ok, Ok, I'll give you he's not for everyone. He's dry!! His Poetry is not supposed to be "Deep" which is one of his greatest criticisms! I think he's fantastic. In fact, I'll be seeing him at the AWP Conference next week, perhaps If I see him around the hotel I'll let him know he made such a list, he'd probably find it funny!! (He's been to my college quite a few times actually. Nice guy)
He is only the former Poet Laurette to the USA after all :p :lol:

[Igetanotion]

García Márquez without any doubt.. Hemingway's works is like the start of comercial literature.. Balzac needs diferent points of view

How could you possibly include Gabriel Garcia Marquez on a list like this? I'm dumbfounded. He is one of the great authors of our time. Shame for you :sick:

Especially when there are people like Dan Brown and, Gee let me think, anyone else on the "Best Sellers" table at any bookstore around the country.
Ernest Hemingway is also one of the greats. Everyone has a right to dislike an authors work, but it sure dosen't qualify them for the "Overrated authors" list.

[Igetanotion]

Dan Brown and Hunter S. Thompson

Techincally.... Hunter S. Thompson was a "Journalist", he is found in the Journalism section at Boarders at least so that should qualify for something. :lol: and totally not overrated, maybe not for everyone. Certainly not for everyone actually, but not overrated.

and with that I am not going to read this thread anymore, its making me nuts! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ozymandias]

Stephen King is neither an exception story teller nor writer. He has a talent for finding images and settings that evoke fear and disquiet, but that's about as fa as it goes. Everything of his I've read has left me disappointed.

[Ozymandias]

I'm all for being an iconoclast, but Shakespeare is THE writer. You can rebel against it as did Virginia Woolfe in her essay, but you cannot deny it.

I have not read Marquez in his original language but 100 Years of Solitude was a wonderfully crafted novel and one of the finest I have read. I found Autumn of the Patriarch lacking, however.

I'll agree with the James Fenimore Cooper posting. Steinbeck and Hemingway were products of their time and excelled at articulating the spirit of that period. They are perhaps set on too high a pedestal but they are excellent writers.

Freud has been overrated for a very long time.

[HotKarl]

Techincally.... Hunter S. Thompson was a "Journalist", he is found in the Journalism section at Boarders at least so that should qualify for something. :lol: and totally not overrated, maybe not for everyone. Certainly not for everyone actually, but not overrated.


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion of Mr. Thompson. To call him a "journalist" is practically blasphemy. Not only is he taking a writing style where objectivity is of the utmost importance and pissing all over it, but he's acting like he's had some sort of great realization, like he's made huge progress in the field of journalism. Talk about Hubris. He completely distorts events; what should be as objective as possible becomes a farce. I know that remaining completely objective is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean journalists should stop trying. "Gonzo" journalism turns a public service into a monument of narcissism.

That and the guy was just a lunatic. It's one thing to get high and ruin your own life, but it's another get high and ruin someone else's. For God's sake, the man thought it would be a good idea to give acid to the Hell's Angels--some of the most murderous, marauding guys around, a group of insane criminals. Would you give an already dangerous group of men psychedelic drugs? I hope not. Talk about irresponsible.

I can say with confidence that within fifty years time that Hunter S. Thompson will no longer be relevant.

[HotKarl]

Freud has been overrated for a very long time.

While I agree that Freudian ideas about women are completely ridiculous (penis envy? This guy was clueless when it came to ladies), I do think that some of his ideas about men are true. I can certainly identify with the Id, Ego, and Super Ego. I think his idea of the Oedipus Complex is insightful and interesting. And men certainly are phallocentric. I think he has a very good understanding of the male mind.

[Igetanotion]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion of Mr. Thompson. To call him a "journalist" is practically blasphemy. Not only is he taking a writing style where objectivity is of the utmost importance and pissing all over it, but he's acting like he's had some sort of great realization, like he's made huge progress in the field of journalism. Talk about Hubris. He completely distorts events; what should be as objective as possible becomes a farce. I know that remaining completely objective is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean journalists should stop trying. "Gonzo" journalism turns a public service into a monument of narcissism.

That and the guy was just a lunatic. It's one thing to get high and ruin your own life, but it's another get high and ruin someone else's. For God's sake, the man thought it would be a good idea to give acid to the Hell's Angels--some of the most murderous, marauding guys around, a group of insane criminals. Would you give an already dangerous group of men psychedelic drugs? I hope not. Talk about irresponsible.

I can say with confidence that within fifty years time that Hunter S. Thompson will no longer be relevant.

Well, no matter how much you hate him or his lifestyle, the fact is he was a journalist. You can, of course, respectfully disagree, agree, jump up and down, do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around. But, it doesn't change the fact that he was a journalist. And a Pioneer. Now, I understand that many people do not find drugs and alcohol, and terrible behavior as something to be admired. And it most certainly is not. But, brilliant people very often do terribly stupid things. And perhaps he was not brilliant at all, but if not then he was very lucky to make the impact that he has. I will be a professor of Literature some day quite soon, and I'll make sure that 50 years from now, when I am in the twilight of my career, to mention him to my students as someone worth looking at. ;)

Of course, don't take offense. I am simply respectfully disagreeing with your disagreement, and mean no harm at all.

Also, have you ever considered the fact that perhaps the beauty of his style of journalism was in his distorted perception? It isn't that he is delivering to the public a distorted view of events, he is delivering his view of events. Also, "Fear and Loathing" (I know terrible example but it is one that everyone should know) begins with him covering a sports event, but the book (which is considered a book of journalism, and not a fiction novel) becomes an account of narcotic induced lunacy in LV. This is the account of an addict, from the point of view of an addict. That in itself is a wonderful thing, who wants to read a report from someone who has never been there telling that kind of story? they wouldn't really know would they? But Thompson lets you in, shows you from the inside, which is the point of Gonzo Journalism.

[Igetanotion]

I have not read Marquez in his original language but 100 Years of Solitude was a wonderfully crafted novel and one of the finest I have read. I found Autumn of the Patriarch lacking, however..

I'm glad you agree with me!
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.
(Also, Autumn of the Patriarch is a "Poem" according to Marquez at least, and is based on actual Tyrants. I think he was trying to show the horrors of all the Caribbean tyrants in one man. Marques is quite political.) Some of his short stories I have found a bit "Lacking" but Writers also progress. "The General in his Labyrinth" is a better political one if you wanted to give his political literature another wing, though I think I much prefer his love stories:blush: .

[iloveoscar]

I love Jack Keroauc and I'm very upset to see his name pop up so often!! =( try reading the Dharma Bums, its an amazing book, and i agree with Shakespeare, I'm sorry but I just can't handle him.

[Idril]

I'm glad you agree with me!
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.

Oh man! That book was a beast! I counted once and there was one sentence that was 10 pages long! I had to bring a pencil with me whenever I read the book so I could make a mark where I finished because there were no obvious leave off points, no periods, no paragraphs, no anything. There were so many things that made that book difficult, along with the lack of puncuation was the fact that the narrator would change in the middle of these mamoth sentences and that wouldn't always be clear until a little way into the thought. But I do agree that it has it's worth, if you could deal with the format and get through it, the end feeling was very powerful. It was a disturbing book and I don't know that he could've acheived that intensity with a more conventional format.

[Igetanotion]

Idril,
:lol: :lol: I'm glad to see someone else on here read the whole thing :lol:
Did you also feel bad for the tyrant? A little even? I fealt bad. He did a good job, Marquez, got the point across well. Nothing like reading a book with desperate punctuation to make you feel the desired effect

[Idril]

Idril,
:lol: :lol: I'm glad to see someone else on here read the whole thing :lol:
Did you also feel bad for the tyrant? A little even? I fealt bad. He did a good job, Marquez, got the point across well. Nothing like reading a book with desperate punctuation to make you feel the desired effect

I was determined to finish the book, I was not going to let the beast defeat me, it became a matter of pride. :p

I did feel bad for the Tyrant...and then I felt bad for feeling bad for such a violent, cannibalistic despot. :rolleyes: :lol: The physical effect it had on me because of the punctuation, because of the stream of consciousness type thoughts and the constant switching of narrators, was significant. It produced a sense of fevered reading and racing thoughts, it created this almost physical atmosphere of the haze of heat and it even affected my dreams. I got through the book pretty quickly, mostly just because there was no place to stop but when I was done, there was such a relief, not just because of hard task of reading the novel but also because I needed to get out of that mind set.

[liberal viewer]

I'm glad you agree with me!
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.
(Also, Autumn of the Patriarch is a "Poem" according to Marquez at least, and is based on actual Tyrants. I think he was trying to show the horrors of all the Caribbean tyrants in one man. Marques is quite political.) Some of his short stories I have found a bit "Lacking" but Writers also progress. "The General in his Labyrinth" is a better political one if you wanted to give his political literature another wing, though I think I much prefer his love stories:blush: .
:
: Obviously his master piece is One Hundred Years of Solitude, but Autum is an enriching experience as well, anyway, please don't call him "Marquez". He is García Márquez. And yes, one of the giants!
Cheers!

[bakestewah]

I think Charles Dickens is the most overrated writer. Great Epectations and a Christmas Carol are my basis for this because, even though they were classicas of their time, they were overrated!

[kilted exile]

I think Charles Dickens is the most overrated writer. Great Epectations and a Christmas Carol are my basis for this because, even though they were classicas of their time, they were overrated!

Could you expand on that?

[Igetanotion]

:
: Obviously his master piece is One Hundred Years of Solitude, but Autum is an enriching experience as well, anyway, please don't call him "Marquez". He is Garc&#237;a M&#225;rquez. And yes, one of the giants!
Cheers!

Calling him "Marquez" is a term of endearment. And do not think for one second that I hold any lack of respect for him.
and just so you know, his name is not "Garcia Marquez" it is "Gabriel Garcia Marquez" if you are going to make comments like that, you should make them correctly.

[ballb]

Maybe it is because I had to study him at school, but D.H. Lawrence for me is the most over rated writer in the English language. Dickens was turgid. But Lawrence gives banality a bad name.

[liberal viewer]

Calling him "Marquez" is a term of endearment. And do not think for one second that I hold any lack of respect for him.
and just so you know, his name is not "Garcia Marquez" it is "Gabriel Garcia Marquez" if you are going to make comments like that, you should make them correctly.

Actually, if you wish to use a term of endearment for the great Colombian, you should refer to him as "Gabo", as many do, or, more correctly: "El Gabo". The "Marquez" is actually a sore spot because when he was awarded the Nobel, Singer referred to him dismissively as "Marquez", saying that he was not in the same league as Tolstoy, which of course begged the question: "What about you, Mr. Singer? You aren’t even in the same sport!"
I never liked Singer anyhow.
Cheers

[Etienne]

Hey look! Here's another hair to split!

[iloveoscar]

I love pointless arguments over last names. =)

[liberal viewer]

I love pointless arguments over last names. =)

What is "pointless" about trying to be as accurate as possible? If we, in a forum of literature, for crying out loud!, let these things slide, we'd just show that we aren't intellectually demanding.:sick:

[Igetanotion]

Actually, if you wish to use a term of endearment for the great Colombian, you should refer to him as "Gabo", as many do, or, more correctly: "El Gabo". The "Marquez" is actually a sore spot because when he was awarded the Nobel, Singer referred to him dismissively as "Marquez", saying that he was not in the same league as Tolstoy, which of course begged the question: "What about you, Mr. Singer? You aren’t even in the same sport!"
I never liked Singer anyhow.
Cheers

I would never be so bold as to refer to him as "Gabo" this is a name that his friends gave him, and no matter how much I adore him, I am not lucky enough to have his personal acquaintance. And, Yes, I know his nickname is Gabo.

[Etienne]

What is "pointless" about trying to be as accurate as possible? If we, in a forum of literature, for crying out loud!, let these things slide, we'd just show that we aren't intellectually demanding.:sick:

Hey, your name "liberal viewer" should be written "Liberal Viewer".

[1n50mn14]

J.K Rowling
Stephen King *shudder* I'm all for detail, but a 5 page description of somebody brushing their teeth is not imperative to plot (obviously an exageration, but fellow Stephen Kind haters get the point)

[Etienne]

J.K Rowling
Stephen King *shudder* I'm all for detail, but a 5 page description of somebody brushing their teeth is not imperative to plot (obviously an exageration, but fellow Stephen Kind haters get the point)

Nothing wrong with long descriptions if it's well done. My objection to Stephen King is his lack of style and frankly, his boring and flavorless writing.

[aeroport]

I think Charles Dickens is the most overrated writer. Great Epectations and a Christmas Carol are my basis for this because, even though they were classicas of their time, they were overrated!
:confused:
I am afraid this is not something one can conclude based on one novel (out of at least fourteen) and one short story.

[pianonutty23]

I find it interesting to find numerous typographical errors in these postings. After all, this is a literature forum. To criticize writers while using poor grammar and spelling is rather hypocritical. I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and think that any books which encourage children to read are worth their weight in gold.

[Igetanotion]

Hey, your name "liberal viewer" should be written "Liberal Viewer".

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Awesome :lol:

Awesome

[liberal viewer]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Awesome :lol:

Awesome

Actually it is my little homage to the great e e cummings.

[Igetanotion]

Actually it is my little homage to the great e e cummings.

Perhaps your animosity on the topic of your "Little Homage" would be better directed towards the person who originally posted the comment on it. If you care to go on with this little tussle you seem to insist on continuing, by all means send me personal messages (which I will of course ignore) and stop filling the forum with this nonsense that should not be here in the first place. I've grown quite bored of it.
Cheers!:thumbs_up

[papayahed]

I find it interesting to find numerous typographical errors in these postings. After all, this is a literature forum. To criticize writers while using poor grammar and spelling is rather hypocritical. I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and think that any books which encourage children to read are worth their weight in gold.


Please remember that not all memebers speak/write english as their first language, all are welcome.

[liberal viewer]

Perhaps your animosity on the topic of your "Little Homage" would be better directed towards the person who originally posted the comment on it. If you care to go on with this little tussle you seem to insist on continuing, by all means send me personal messages (which I will of course ignore) and stop filling the forum with this nonsense that should not be here in the first place. I've grown quite bored of it.
Cheers!:thumbs_up

You were the one who was jumping up and down like a goddamn cheerleader, weren't you? I mean with that "awesome" remark and all. :lol:

[tractatus]

As writing for mainstream is not an offense, "Gabriel Jose de la Conciliacion Garcia Marquez" is okey. But After writing masterpieces, one should be more consistent. For my opinion "Memories of My Melancholy Whores" just mediocre. Also Love and Demon etc.
They are not overrated, they deserve it, but fame of Borges and Marquez shadowing other great Latin American's.

[Oomoo]

I hate Charles Dickens. I've only read like 100 pages of David Copperfield, the prose is decent but it's sentimental and moronic, the characters are exaggerated, etc. It's a good children's book, nothing more

[ClickForth]

okokok

[Ryduce]

lol

After reading this thread I am thoroughly convinced that Dickens is the most polarizing figure among readers.I personally can't get into him,but I really am not qualified to make such an assessment,being that I've only really read one of his novels.However,I am optimistic about A Tale of Two Cities.

Another writer praised by the masses that I do not particularly favor is Orwell.He is a fine writer whom I've read much of his material,but I always believed Huxley's dystopian future was much more stunning in it's accuracy.All other dysopian novels pale in comparison to me.

This all,however,is a matter of personal preference.I don't normally like calling writers overrated.They all offer something I can enjoy.

[jon1jt]

I wish people like Oprah would stop kissing Dan Brown's ***. His writing sucks.

[Kent Edwins]

I second the above statement. Not all his ideas are bad, but what horrible prose!

"The internationally renowned professor stroked his beard".

[bazarov]

Another writer praised by the masses that I do not particularly favor is Orwell.He is a fine writer whom I've read much of his material,but I always believed Huxley's dystopian future was much more stunning in it's accuracy.All other dysopian novels pale in comparison to me.




How can alpha and delta males and females be more accurate then Big Brother and telescreens?

[Ryduce]

An industrialized pleasure driven society,the collective will favored over the individual,hypnopaedia,test tube babies,eugenics,and biological engineering?

Pretty accurate if you ask me.

It also predates Orwell's works by a good 16 years.

[bazarov]

I didn't said it's unaccurate, I just think that Orwell's way of thinking and not just technology is more like now days.

[AuntShecky]

I'm going back to one of my orig. replies way back when this thread first comes up. I am speaking just for myself, please understand, but it occurs to me as a rank amateur
(even after literally decades of writing) I am really not in the position of judging others without sounding bitter or
envious. However, we are human and therefore the thought of the mediocre receiving laurels does not sit well with our sense of justice. It's like the Cain and Abel story!

[superunknown]

It's not accurate you say?

Let's see.

An omnipresent secret police.

A cult of personality based around one leader who is raised to the status of a God (and the subsequent elimination of religion from all culture).

The establishment of labour camps, and execution of dissidents.

Show trials and confessions forced out through torture.

A collectivised state.

Brainwashing and propaganda.

Falsifying media i.e. photographs to change the appearance of past events.

A permanent state of potential war with foreign superpowers and the use of the fear it creates to further the state's control over the people.

Ring a bell? Do you happen to know any Russian history? Don't forget Orwell's political affiliations.

Both are excellent but they make different points and are very much of their respective times. Aldous Huxley observed on the depersonalization of man that he was witnessing with the recent inventions of mass production, the assembly line and other machinery which were making skilled workers jobless. Orwell was making a direct political commentary on what he was seeing in countries like Russia and applying the situation to England. I love both books (I think I might prefer Brave New World actually, but only just) but what you have to realize is that they're actually making different points. The two books don't serve the same purpose.

[superunknown]

Also even if you prefer Brave New World to 1984 that doesn't make Orwell overrated. He did write lots of other stuff apart from 1984 and Animal Farm. Burmese Days, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Road to Wigan Pier, and Homage to Catalonia are superb.

[bazarov]

I didn't said it's unaccurate, I just think that Orwell's way of thinking and not just technology is more like now days.


It's not accurate you say?

Let's see.

An omnipresent secret police.

A cult of personality based around one leader who is raised to the status of a God (and the subsequent elimination of religion from all culture).

The establishment of labour camps, and execution of dissidents.

Show trials and confessions forced out through torture.

A collectivised state.

Brainwashing and propaganda.

Falsifying media i.e. photographs to change the appearance of past events.

A permanent state of potential war with foreign superpowers and the use of the fear it creates to further the state's control over the people.

Ring a bell? Do you happen to know any Russian history? Don't forget Orwell's political affiliations.

Both are excellent but they make different points and are very much of their respective times. Aldous Huxley observed on the depersonalization of man that he was witnessing with the recent inventions of mass production, the assembly line and other machinery which were making skilled workers jobless. Orwell was making a direct political commentary on what he was seeing in countries like Russia and applying the situation to England. I love both books (I think I might prefer Brave New World actually, but only just) but what you have to realize is that they're actually making different points. The two books don't serve the same purpose.

What's your point? I think you got me wrong!


Also even if you prefer Brave New World to 1984 that doesn't make Orwell overrated.

But when or where did I said that???

Oh, just forget it...

[Ryduce]

It appears I struck a nerve with Orwell.

*Runs out of thread*

[Etienne]

I didn't said it's unaccurate, I just think that Orwell's way of thinking and not just technology is more like now days.

I think it really depends on one's point of view. I also believe that Huxley's is more... accurate? Soma is more accurate than telescreen, however both have their merits. I do think that Huxley's writing is somewhat bland though and that Orwell is quite overrated.

[superunknown]

You got me wrong bazarov. I was speaking to Ryduce, not you. I thought my defending Orwell would've made that clear.

[Ryduce]

I put a disclaimer in my comment stating that it's all a matter of opinion and personal preference.

Orwell is a fine writer,and I love his essays Such,Such Were the Joys and Shooting an Elephant I just don't put 1984 on this pedestal that most others do.

[Dr. Flim-Flam]

Mein Krampht is over rated. The only truth in the book is trust no one.

[HotKarl]

Mein Krampht is over rated. The only truth in the book is trust no one.

lol. Don't think you'll be getting any arguments there.

[kandaurov]

Jane Austen.

[thelastmelon]

I've not been very impressed with Paulo Coelho so far, actually.
I had heard so many good things about his books and people that loved his stories and writings. So when I came around to actually read some of them, I was simply dissapointed. The stories didn't apply to me, the language didn't and the spirituality was a bit too much sometimes as well.

Maybe I need to read even more to get a hang of him, but so far.. not impressed.

[JBI]

Jane Austen.

Don't just name them. Support this with proof.

[JBI]

On the Orwell bit, Stalin had already run his marathon before 1984 was penned. I think it a little silly to credit Orwell as a prophet since he clearly was just an observer. He is good, but Orwell certainly has taken a toll from his fans who make him out to be some sort of guru. The fact that he is so well known has contributed to his overrated nature, since now big-brother is in every high school text book, and every kid knows a few Animal Farm quotes, that they misuse and don't understand quite regularly.

[kandaurov]

Jane Austen. Shallowness. She lived in a world of her own, she made believe as if the world were that simple. She brought innovation neither in terms of writing style nor in terms of plot. She followed the same formulae over and over again. She did have wit, her sole redeeming feature.

[kandaurov]

Antiquarian, fair enough! I happen to think that she did indeed criticize what she actually also reinforced with her novels, the social conventions, but all this is only my opinion though, which I was asked to laborate upon.

[teejay17]

Of all the authors I've read, Dan Brown was the most overrated. When I finished Angels and Demons, I thought it was complete drivel. I could barely get 1/3 of the way through The Da Vinci Code.

[superunknown]

On the Orwell bit, Stalin had already run his marathon before 1984 was penned. I think it a little silly to credit Orwell as a prophet since he clearly was just an observer. He is good, but Orwell certainly has taken a toll from his fans who make him out to be some sort of guru. The fact that he is so well known has contributed to his overrated nature, since now big-brother is in every high school text book, and every kid knows a few Animal Farm quotes, that they misuse and don't understand quite regularly.I agree with that. That's really what separates Huxley and Orwell. Orwell was always a journalist at heart, and even his novels are in some form journalism. He was extremely observant, and 1984 is showing the world what's already happened in Russia, but applying it to the rest of the world.

[superunknown]

I found Dan Brown's books entertaining in an intellectually devoid sort of way, a bit like watching the latest explosion-happy Hollywood movie.

[Lambert]

She brought innovation neither in terms of writing style nor in terms of plot.

Eh... she innovated Free indirect speech about 90 years before the modernists, and quite effectively, as many critics and readers would agree.

That's pretty significant.


She lived in a world of her own, she made believe as if the world were that simple.

One of the reasons she is so highly admired is because she showed how complex her world was, mostly through irony and her sharp observation for social satire and commentary.

[kandaurov]

You're very right about the indirect free speech, I stand corrected. As for the satire component, I don't know how effective it is. What she did was to criticize social conventions, while at the same time acknowledging that they were necessary. I, at least, never saw a character actively rebelling against what she "criticizes". As I read her I remember sensing hypocrisy, but that may be just me. I mean, of course you can like her and think her wit was something else other than just adornment of her prose, I fully respect that, but now that I've explained my opinion I like to think I'm entitled to it.

[kandaurov]

Well said, Antiquarian! And it's not that I don't think Jane Austen was a bad writer, not at all!, I just wouldn't rank her among the best 5 novels of all time, like some polls did. By the way, this is interesting: you love Jane Austen and you think that the publishers should keep their standards high. Do you remember / have you heard of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/19/books.booksnews ? Terrible, I know!

[Kafka's Crow]

Well said, Antiquarian! And it's not that I don't think Jane Austen was a bad writer, not at all!, I just wouldn't rank her among the best 5 novels of all time, like some polls did. By the way, this is interesting: you love Jane Austen and you think that the publishers should keep their standards high. Do you remember / have you heard of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/19/books.booksnews ? Terrible, I know!

Hilarious stuff :lol: :lol: :lol: Literally left me in stitches. I strongly believe that both music 'industry' and publishing 'industry' need dismantling by all means possible. The Guardian article above strongly confirms my notions.

[Morten]

As much as I love Jane Austen, I don't think her novels would sell today. The sad part is that these "experts," with the exception of one, didn't even recognize her writing, even if a bit paraphrased. :O

But she sells enormously, no? Every bookstore I go to there's an abundance of Austen novels, and everytime I turn on the TV there's a movie or a tv series with her name in the title. I find it insufferable. Such an overrated writer...

[moose gurl]

Hey everyone! I'm new, but I'm really excited about meeting you guys and jumping in on literature debates.
That being said, I agree with kandaurov. Jane Austen is overrated, and I always felt that what she claimed to disdain in society she sort of taught in her literature. I do think that she brought a lot to the "literature table," especially for women, but I don't think she was as much of a "feminist" as she claimed to be, and in that light many of her books seem to be, at least to me, self-contradictory to what she believed in.
I also agree that Dan Brown is largely overrated. I read Angels and Demons and almost got through it, and it was remotely entertaining in a "leave your brain at home" way, but it was cheesy. I started The DaVinci Code and couldn't get past the first few chapters.
The most overrated author in my opinion? I'd have to go with Hawthorne. I've probably made a ton of enemies right then and there, but honestly, I just don't like his work. It's stale and repetitive. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Morten]

She sells enormously as an 18th century writer. I don't think any agent or publisher would take her on if she were writing that kind of thing today.
Well, that's self explanatory. Every work of art, however universal, could not have emerged at any other time than it originally did.


I don't personally find her at all overrated. I love all her books, but they are definitely late 18th century, which is part of the charm for me and part of the insufferability for others.
It's not so much that she's late 18th century as it is the fact that all her novels are tedious comedies of manners with only the characters and order of events altered. For future Austen readers: read Pride & Prejudice and call it a day. Everything else is...well, it's flat out the same.

[teejay17]

I agree that Dan Brown is the most overrated writer ever to set pen to paper, but his writing isn't the worst writing I've ever read, though it is certainly in the top five. The prize for the worst writing I've ever read would have to go to Diane Johnson for Le Mariage. Most of what she wrote didn't even make sense. It sounded like a person who'd taken leave of her senses and was drunk and on speed all at the same time. I don't know if others works written by her share the same "scattered" quality. I have not read them and don't intend to do so.

I did finish The Da Vinci Code, but I found it terribly, well, terrible. LOL
I've never read Diane Johnson, but I'll take this as a warning to stay away!
I wonder what future drivel Dan Brown is going to have published.

[Sir Bartholomew]

Hardy overrated? Jane Austen overrated? Would you please KINDLY leave the dead alone?

[Lady Glynde]

Well everyone, all I can say is that I love Jane Austen and the only reason she would not get published today is because all the publishers accept is romance crap. I don't mean to pick a fight, but they are, for the most part, just movies on paper. Jane Austen, Shakespeare, and all the rest are the real writers.

[Lady Glynde]

w00t!!! I just made post #200!!!

[Oniw17]

JK Rowlings. She's richer than the queen because she told the same story 7 times.

[aeroport]

Hardy overrated? Jane Austen overrated? Would you please KINDLY leave the dead alone?
Here is the OP:


this is a thread for all the writers that we've been told are great and are in the classics range and constantly appear on 100greatestnovels lists and such like but we hate.

i say jack kerouac is the most overrated

die! on the road

:banana:

This thread was made for the dead.

[aeroport]

The most overrated author in my opinion? I'd have to go with Hawthorne. I've probably made a ton of enemies right then and there, but honestly, I just don't like his work. It's stale and repetitive. But that's just my personal opinion.
Hmm, I don't know that I'd say he's "overrated", in the sense that not everyone's talking about him and making film adaptations, etc...
If you mean in an academic sense, there is a very good reason that Hawthorne is An Author To Be Dealt With - namely, he is the first good American writer who, to paraphrase Henry James's argument, did not have to leave his country to find a subject. He's a foundation, of sorts.
Of course, there was Washington Irving - an author with whom Hawthorne shared a mutual admiration - but Irving didn't write very much fiction, and, from what I understand, he doesn't figure as strongly in American Studies because he wrote "like an Englishman".
Okay, I'll end my little history lecture now. Sorry...
Anyway, I sure hope he's good - I'm about to read all of his works. :(

[Jane's Nemesis]

Well, that's self explanatory. Every work of art, however universal, could not have emerged at any other time than it originally did.


It's not so much that she's late 18th century as it is the fact that all her novels are tedious comedies of manners with only the characters and order of events altered. For future Austen readers: read Pride & Prejudice and call it a day. Everything else is...well, it's flat out the same.

I don't think it's fair to say that all of Jane Austen's heroines are the same, or the stories the same either. The themes often recur, but that's something you see with other writers (Look at Charlotte Bronte...unrequited love appears in all her books). You can't say for example that Northanger Abbey, which is a sparkling parody of Gothic novels, is the same as the rather subdued Mansfield Park, which deals with heavier themes like the subjection of poor middle class women. The comedy of Emma doesn't have the same tone as the more poignant Persuasion.

[ben.!]

The prize for the worst writing I've ever read would have to go to Diane Johnson for Le Mariage. Most of what she wrote didn't even make sense. It sounded like a person who'd taken leave of her senses and was drunk and on speed all at the same time. I don't know if others works written by her share the same "scattered" quality. I have not read them and don't intend to do so.

I have not read any works of Diane Johnson, but as a side-note it's interesting to know that she and Stanley Kubrick collaborated together to write the screenplay of the famous horror film The Shining.

I'm guessing Stanley Kubrick wrote most of it, if she is as bad a writer as you say! :p

[SirRaustusBear]

Most overated in my opinion is Jules Verne. I'm all for fantastic adventures and whatnot but if the characters going on those adventures are unrealistic stereotypes who don't change at all throughout the book, then I don't care about them or their various trials that inevitably lead to a cheesy happy ending.

Seriously I just don't understand his popularity. I mean he was the first science fiction writer (along with Wells) but rather than make him popular I would think his writing would lead people to dismiss the genre as a failed experiment.

[islandclimber]

Jack Kerouac and the whole beatnik movement.. the worst thing that happened to poetry ever!

and hmm... I think Melville is overrated... and Poe... and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

[Quinn_]

-----

[Dori]

J.K. Rowlings, without a doubt. I don't really understand why people like her books.

[stlukesguild]

I think Melville is overrated...

You think wrong.:D

and Poe...

As a poet, certainly.

and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

Mediocre in comparison to whom? Perhaps Dante and Shakespeare and a few others. Who are all these far superior poets? Looking at much of the vast array of 20th century poetry... not merely American and British but internationally... I would note that many of the greatest poets would seem to disagree with your dismissal of Whitman. Even T.S. Eliot, as much as he attempts to deny Whitman, is profoundly influenced by him. As much as I love and read poetry I would be hard pressed to name one poet since Whitman (American or otherwise) who surpasses him in influence or aesthetically.

[lauren!]

Agreed, Dori. I can never get into her books.

[JBI]

I think Melville is overrated...

You think wrong.:D

and Poe...

As a poet, certainly.

and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

Mediocre in comparison to whom? Perhaps Dante and Shakespeare and a few others. Who are all these far superior poets? Looking at much of the vast array of 20th century poetry... not merely American and British but internationally... I would note that many of the greatest poets would seem to disagree with your dismissal of Whitman. Even T.S. Eliot, as much as he attempts to deny Whitman, is profoundly influenced by him. As much as I love and read poetry I would be hard pressed to name one poet since Whitman (American or otherwise) who surpasses him in influence or aesthetically.

As Harold Bloom has put it, The Wasteland is just a rewrite of "When Last in Door-yard Lilacs Bloom'd".

Whitman is critically regarded as perhaps the greatest American poet by many scholars. All subsequent modern poetry bears at least some resemblance to him.

As for egotistical, he for the most part, rarely means what he says, or says what he means. He is a huge ironist, and also famously praises all of humanity. "Song of Myself" which I assume you are talking about is, as he put it, a song of himself, and therefore shows his true identity as he sees himself.

[HotKarl]

As for egotistical, he for the most part, rarely means what he says, or says what he means. He is a huge ironist, and also famously praises all of humanity. "Song of Myself" which I assume you are talking about is, as he put it, a song of himself, and therefore shows his true identity as he sees himself.

I agree with IslandClimber in the sense that Whitman is egotistical. Like all the other Transcendentalists, he loves to project his own identity on other people and vice-versa. He thinks he understands everybody's soul. But regardless of what Big Wally thinks, he can't take on another's identity; he can only empathize with him/her. Sorry Walt, you aren't the slave escaping the hounds, you aren't the soldier dying on the battlefield, you aren't the wife enthusiastically making babies (his image of woman, which I think proves my point.)

But don't get me wrong. What he did with verse is extraordinary. He's an excellent poet, and most poets (and writers in general) are egotistical.

[aeroport]

I found this kind of humorous, and thought I would contribute it to the WW discussion:
"You came to woo my sister, the human soul....But for a lover you talk entirely too much about yourself. In one place you threaten to absorb Canada. In another you call upon the city of New York to incarnate you, as you have incarnated it. In another you inform us that neither youth pertains to you nor "delicatesse," that you are awkward in the parlor, that you do not dance, and that you have neither bearing, beauty, knowledge, nor fortune. In another place, by an allusion to your "little songs," you seem to identify yourself with the third person of the Trinity....We find art, measure, grace sneered at on every page."
--Henry James's review of Leaves of Grass

[Sir Bartholomew]

Here is the OP:
This thread was made for the dead.

I see. Oh well.

[Prometheus]

J.K. Rowling, easily. I've read up to the fifth, albeit being a ten-year-old, I thought they were crap.

[stlukesguild]

I found this kind of humorous, and thought I would contribute it to the WW discussion:
"You came to woo my sister, the human soul....But for a lover you talk entirely too much about yourself. In one place you threaten to absorb Canada. In another you call upon the city of New York to incarnate you, as you have incarnated it. In another you inform us that neither youth pertains to you nor "delicatesse," that you are awkward in the parlor, that you do not dance, and that you have neither bearing, beauty, knowledge, nor fortune. In another place, by an allusion to your "little songs," you seem to identify yourself with the third person of the Trinity....We find art, measure, grace sneered at on every page."
--Henry James's review of Leaves of Grass

Of course it is always possible to discover critical opinions by great authors that suggest the failings of another master. I almost would have expected as much of James. In almost every way Whitman's poetry goes counter to the highly ornate (some might say overwrought) perfectionism of form, the Baroque, excessively Latinate and even obscurantist language, as well as the sense of reserve... with regard to an open display of feelings... especially sexual... as favored by James (How's that for a Jamesian sentence?:D) One can imagine James turning up his nose at this crass and unsophisticated country bumpkin who would be poetic visionary. Of course H.G. Wells is no less favorable in his opinion of James... and his critical opinion is direct and to the point... unlike James own criticism of Whitman, referring to his prose as something akin to a "hippopotamus laboriously attempting to pick up a pea that has got into a corner of its cage."

Personally I am able to admire both writers greatly.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That chick who rights the Harry Potter books. Even for mindless entertainment, which I enjoy, I could not handle those.

[islandclimber]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

Mediocre in comparison to whom? Perhaps Dante and Shakespeare and a few others. Who are all these far superior poets? Looking at much of the vast array of 20th century poetry... not merely American and British but internationally... I would note that many of the greatest poets would seem to disagree with your dismissal of Whitman. Even T.S. Eliot, as much as he attempts to deny Whitman, is profoundly influenced by him. As much as I love and read poetry I would be hard pressed to name one poet since Whitman (American or otherwise) who surpasses him in influence or aesthetically.

I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

[Brucelles]

I would nominate Jeffrey Archer, except that no-one with a multiplicity of brain cells would ever rate him in the first place.

[stlukesguild]

I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...

Obviously I am limited by having had to read Neruda in translation... but I will state that to my mind he doesn't come near to equaling let alone surpassing Whitman. You suggest that judging poetry (as opposed to prose? Where exactly can I find those objective standards that make it clear once and for all where Proust, Joyce, Mann, Tolstoy and Borges fall in the canon of literature?) is purely subjective... about personal "feelings"... and that Whitman inspires nothing in you. For you that is fine, but you should recognize that the measure of an artist's worth and achievement is not measured solely by you, the single reader. An artist's standing or reputation is measured by the so-called "experts" in the field: critics, historians, literary professors, by the opinions and the influence upon subsequent artists of importance, and by the audience deeply passionate about that art form... or perhaps what Virginia Woolf called the "common reader". To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me. To state that Neruda is a superior poet to Whitman or that Whitman's "own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..." appears to be making a critical judgment that goes quite against the general consensus and would seemingly call for some proof... or illumination of such statement... just as if I were to declare that Monet was a ham-fisted, mediocre painter or Franz Schubert was an amateurish composer with no ear for melody.

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

Whitman "invented" a new manner of poetry and had a huge and inescapable impact upon almost every major poet who followed in his wake: Pessoa, Neruda, Eliot, Ashberry, etc... yet he can not stand along side the giants of 20th century poetry? His own poetry is crude and boring? Why, exactly has he had such an influence? Why do you think Pessoa and Neruda and Eliot etc... have turned to him again and again? Again, for you to state that you personally dislike Whitman is fine. For you to suggest that he "is far from being a great poet" calls for some clarification as to why he falls short.

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

Eliot would have answered your question for you:

"Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot
be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great
labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense...
the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with
his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the
whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the
whole of the literature of his own country has simultaneous
existence and composes a simultaneous order...
No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning
alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation
of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value
him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among
the dead... what happens when a new work of art is created is
something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art
which preceeded it. The existing monuments form an ideal monument
among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the
new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order
is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist
after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations,
proportions,values of each work of art toward the whole are
readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and th new.
Whoever has approved this idea of order...will not find it
preposterous that the past should be altered by the present
as much as the present is directed by the past."
-T.S. Eliot


Art is a dialog: a dialog with an audience... but also a dialog with other artists. The fact that two different authors wrote in different languages and lived in different cultures in no way negates our ability to compare their achievements or their work. Homer is continually compared with Virgil in spite of a 1000 year gap and language barrier between them. Virgil continues to impact writers... even James Joyce was not immune to him... or Dante... or Shakespeare. Dante and Shakespeare did great things for poetry (talk about an understatement!) yet that does not make them great poets? Again... where do they fall short? Or is this all just personal opinion?

[islandclimber]

I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...

Obviously I am limited by having had to read Neruda in translation... but I will state that to my mind he doesn't come near to equaling let alone surpassing Whitman. You suggest that judging poetry (as opposed to prose? Where exactly can I find those objective standards that make it clear once and for all where Proust, Joyce, Mann, Tolstoy and Borges fall in the canon of literature?) is purely subjective... about personal "feelings"... and that Whitman inspires nothing in you. For you that is fine, but you should recognize that the measure of an artist's worth and achievement is not measured solely by you, the single reader. An artist's standing or reputation is measured by the so-called "experts" in the field: critics, historians, literary professors, by the opinions and the influence upon subsequent artists of importance, and by the audience deeply passionate about that art form... or perhaps what Virginia Woolf called the "common reader". To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me. To state that Neruda is a superior poet to Whitman or that Whitman's "own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..." appears to be making a critical judgment that goes quite against the general consensus and would seemingly call for some proof... or illumination of such statement... just as if I were to declare that Monet was a ham-fisted, mediocre painter or Franz Schubert was an amateurish composer with no ear for melody.

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

Whitman "invented" a new manner of poetry and had a huge and inescapable impact upon almost every major poet who followed in his wake: Pessoa, Neruda, Eliot, Ashberry, etc... yet he can not stand along side the giants of 20th century poetry? His own poetry is crude and boring? Why, exactly has he had such an influence? Why do you think Pessoa and Neruda and Eliot etc... have turned to him again and again? Again, for you to state that you personally dislike Whitman is fine. For you to suggest that he "is far from being a great poet" calls for some clarification as to why he falls short.

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

Eliot would have answered your question for you:

"Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot
be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great
labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense...
the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with
his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the
whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the
whole of the literature of his own country has simultaneous
existence and composes a simultaneous order...
No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning
alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation
of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value
him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among
the dead... what happens when a new work of art is created is
something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art
which preceeded it. The existing monuments form an ideal monument
among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the
new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order
is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist
after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations,
proportions,values of each work of art toward the whole are
readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and th new.
Whoever has approved this idea of order...will not find it
preposterous that the past should be altered by the present
as much as the present is directed by the past."
-T.S. Eliot


Art is a dialog: a dialog with an audience... but also a dialog with other artists. The fact that two different authors wrote in different languages and lived in different cultures in no way negates our ability to compare their achievements or their work. Homer is continually compared with Virgil in spite of a 1000 year gap and language barrier between them. Virgil continues to impact writers... even James Joyce was not immune to him... or Dante... or Shakespeare. Dante and Shakespeare did great things for poetry (talk about an understatement!) yet that does not make them great poets? Again... where do they fall short? Or is this all just personal opinion?


I did not say Dante and Shakespeare fall short anywhere... I don't think you read correctly... all I said was influence alone doesn't make a poet great... and I will stick to that belief... I think Dante and Shakespeare two of the greatest poets... and I respect that you think Whitman was great, and that so many others do as well... but in my opinion he is overrated... I also respect the so called "experts" in the field with their opinions, but I still believe Whitman is overrated, and just because people who for some reason are judged to have superior taste in poetry, say he is an amazing poet, doesn't mean I have to agree... or are you saying we should all just follow the crowd, and completely destroy all differences of opinion and thought... for if others say Whitman is great that means I have to as well????

why not just outlaw independent thinking and feeling... we can have a tyranny that controls every aspect of human existence, just so people don't ever disagree with commonly accepted opinions and ideas... for the idea that whitman is great is just a commonly accepted opinion, well, no, a commonly shared opinion, and you seem to think it should be forced on everyone... as i said what he did for poetry was wonderful, but he is far from wonderful as a poet in my opinion and therefore vastly overrated...

and i did not say his worth is measured by solely me, i just stated an opinion which is what this thread asked for, but again you seem against people having opinions that run against accepted ideas... also I think his worth is immense for what he did for poetry, so again that point you make is pointless...

as well i don't think prose has objective standards, I was just stating, again in my own opinion, it seems easier to judge for literary merit, than poetry is to judge outside of influence and solely on poetic quality...

Neruda takes what Whitman started and goes far beyond it... his lines are so much more liquid, his metaphors are so much more beautiful... I've read the spanish and the translation, and I even find the translation much more beautiful, Neruda's metaphors bring one to tears to smiles, to many immense and beautiful emotions, whereas Whitman's make one bored and inspire just the thought, that wow, this guy loves himself and america, and that's about it... Neruda is the poet of the world, of the people of the world, and Whitman is the poet of only america... to in love with his own country to see that maybe there is beauty everywhere...

not to say that Marquez is necessarily right, but I agree with him when he said Neruda is "the greatest poet of the 20th century, in any language"...

and because Eliot wrote something saying that a poet has to be judged by not just poetic quality alone, but influence on others, again you're saying I have to agree with everyone else's opinion... for that is just an opinion too... I never stated Whitman isn't great, I said "in my opinion" Whitman isn't great, is overrated, I thought that was clear, that everything here is opinion, I'm not trying to state a fact, but just an opinion... Do I have your permission to have an opinion?????

but you can keep trying to tell me that I can't have an opinion here, that is your right I guess...

[stlukesguild]

Islandclimber;

No where in my post did I state that I question your and anyone's right to a personal opinion. Indeed I suggested that there were certainly authors of great reputation who did nothing for me:

"To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me."

On the other hand I question statements that seem to pass as fact... especially when they seemingly go against my own experience and the general consensus:

"Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others.."

"...his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..."

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me or with the opinions of critics, historians, other authors, etc... Certainly that is what most of the dialog here is about. To merely state an opinion... especially one that will certainly provoke disagreement... without saying anything more... well that seems rather pointless:

"I don't like Shakespeare"

And? Why? Give me some examples?

I don't question your assertion that Neruda was a great poet. I have 5 or 6 volumes of his works myself. Personally I prefer Borges among the Latin-American writers and find Borges "The Aleph" to be the most scathing criticism of Neruda's shortcomings... but I still love Neruda. You suggest that one of Whitman's shortcomings is his egocentrism... yet certainly Neruda has no less of this "flaw". Both attempt to speak in a voice that contains multitudes.

You argue that Neruda speaks for the whole world while Whitman only for America. Couldn't one then question who was the more egocentric? Personally, I think that any artist speaks only for him or herself. Neruda may indeed speak more of the world as a whole having had the experience (as few 19th century authors would have) of traveling internationally. This makes him different... but I question whether it makes him "superior". Dante, Homer, William Blake, Shakespeare (all of whom I would place well above Neruda) had little experience of the larger world. Blake made it clear that such was unnecessary... as one might find an entire "world in a wildflower".

You state that Neruda's lines are more liquid (example?) and his metaphors bring one to tears or smiles, while Whitman leaves one (you) bored... I don't question that Neruda can be more fluid... Spanish lyric poetry is almost inherently more fluid than English... but "fluidity" is no guarantee of superiority. The violin in more fluid than the piano, and yet the wealth of piano music is unrivaled. Whitman's poetry draws upon the grand, eloquent diction and cadence of Biblical Hebrew poetry as well as upon such visionary poets as William Blake. Personally I find Neruda to be a magnificent lyric poet. When he comes into direct competition with Whitman, however, he falls short and even fails miserably at times. Whitman virtually "invented"... and marvelously realized the notion of the poem as a chant or song of a sort of catalog or list (albeit limited) or the world around him. Neruda is at perhaps his worst when he mimics Whitman's catalogs in attempting to sing all of Latin America: birds, trees, plants, animals, geography, natives, peasants, the Communist Party and the Great Punisher Stalin, whose murders Neruda seemingly approves ("Punishment is needed"). Of course he still never slips to the level of self-indulgence one might find in many lesser Whitman imitators (Ginsberg and beyond). Unfortunately, the result can approach Whitman far less than it does Michael Drayton's Polyolbion, the English Renaissance poem that attempted to catalog the whole of England. This is the bulky, bombastic sprawl that Borges was so critical of.

But again... we can agree to disagree.

[LadyW]

I think perhaps Jane Austen...
*don't hurt me!*

[islandclimber]

Islandclimber;

No where in my post did I state that I question your and anyone's right to a personal opinion. Indeed I suggested that there were certainly authors of great reputation who did nothing for me:

"To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me."

On the other hand I question statements that seem to pass as fact... especially when they seemingly go against my own experience and the general consensus:

"Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others.."

"...his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..."

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me or with the opinions of critics, historians, other authors, etc... Certainly that is what most of the dialog here is about. To merely state an opinion... especially one that will certainly provoke disagreement... without saying anything more... well that seems rather pointless:

"I don't like Shakespeare"

And? Why? Give me some examples?

I don't question your assertion that Neruda was a great poet. I have 5 or 6 volumes of his works myself. Personally I prefer Borges among the Latin-American writers and find Borges "The Aleph" to be the most scathing criticism of Neruda's shortcomings... but I still love Neruda. You suggest that one of Whitman's shortcomings is his egocentrism... yet certainly Neruda has no less of this "flaw". Both attempt to speak in a voice that contains multitudes.

You argue that Neruda speaks for the whole world while Whitman only for America. Couldn't one then question who was the more egocentric? Personally, I think that any artist speaks only for him or herself. Neruda may indeed speak more of the world as a whole having had the experience (as few 19th century authors would have) of traveling internationally. This makes him different... but I question whether it makes him "superior". Dante, Homer, William Blake, Shakespeare (all of whom I would place well above Neruda) had little experience of the larger world. Blake made it clear that such was unnecessary... as one might find an entire "world in a wildflower".

You state that Neruda's lines are more liquid (example?) and his metaphors bring one to tears or smiles, while Whitman leaves one (you) bored... I don't question that Neruda can be more fluid... Spanish lyric poetry is almost inherently more fluid than English... but "fluidity" is no guarantee of superiority. The violin in more fluid than the piano, and yet the wealth of piano music is unrivaled. Whitman's poetry draws upon the grand, eloquent diction and cadence of Biblical Hebrew poetry as well as upon such visionary poets as William Blake. Personally I find Neruda to be a magnificent lyric poet. When he comes into direct competition with Whitman, however, he falls short and even fails miserably at times. Whitman virtually "invented"... and marvelously realized the notion of the poem as a chant or song of a sort of catalog or list (albeit limited) or the world around him. Neruda is at perhaps his worst when he mimics Whitman's catalogs in attempting to sing all of Latin America: birds, trees, plants, animals, geography, natives, peasants, the Communist Party and the Great Punisher Stalin, whose murders Neruda seemingly approves ("Punishment is needed"). Of course he still never slips to the level of self-indulgence one might find in many lesser Whitman imitators (Ginsberg and beyond). Unfortunately, the result can approach Whitman far less than it does Michael Drayton's Polyolbion, the English Renaissance poem that attempted to catalog the whole of England. This is the bulky, bombastic sprawl that Borges was so critical of.

But again... we can agree to disagree.

I think I did give reasons for why I dislike Whitman... secondly I don't recall saying that I don't like Shakespeare... I love Shakespeare... I agree Neruda was quite egocentric at times, and I didn't mean he spoke for the world, more or less of the world is what I should have said... whereas Whitman confined himself to America, but maybe that is because Whitman spent his life in one place, whereas Neruda crossed the world... and no the world does not have to be travelled to make good poetry, but the fact Neruda could turn everything in the world into that all-encompassing wildflower that you speak of, is what distinguishes him from Whitman, Whitman's descriptions of things in my opinion are so lacking any vividity, or beauty in any sense at times.. they are so dry and unappealing to me...

And Neruda's support of Stalin has nothing to do with the quality of his poetry... I agree that "Canto General" is an imitation of "leaves of Grass" and is not one of Neruda's better works, not even close... but "Residence On Earth" is the most beautiful collection of poetry ever compiled in my opinion... it encompasses everything, leaving "Leaves of Grass" far behind in that sense, and the way Neruda describes things is so much more wonderful than what Whitman tries to do... as I said, Whitman may have invented the style, but in my opinion Neruda perfected it... and you go into talking of hebrew biblical poetry but that is under the assumption that it is so magnificent as well... and same with Blake, I like Blake, I don't think him particularly great...

as well I don't just mean Neruda's poetry is more fluid, it is beautiful the metaphors he produces, the comparisons that he creates, the dream he implies, and draws forth from each one of us... whereas Whitman goes on in endlessly boring, monotonous and dry catalogues and lists in my opinion... and yes I will agree when Neruda tried to do this he failed to a degree, for Canto General is not that amazing... but Residence on Earth is the most beautiful collection of poetry written in my opinion, just the magnitude, the scope, the melancholy, the beauty, the dream, the voice, the vision... it is everything and nothing all at once, and inspires the same... it is beautiful...

Broges is an amazing writer as well but his poetry, again in my opinion is a far cry from Neruda, and the literary critics you hold in such esteem for their opinions on Whitman for the most part agree with me here... His stories are unbelievable but his poetry is a dalliance that doesn't do him justice as a writer... Much like Joyce's failed attempts at poetry...

But, as you said we can agree to disagree... the world would be quite the boring place without differences of opinion...:)

cheers

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.

[stlukesguild]

I certainly agree that Neruda is the superior poet to Borges... in some ways. Surely as a lyricist... as a visionary. I wouldn't underestimate Borges' poetry, however. It constitutes a far greater part of his oeuvre than does Joyce's. It was surely far more than a dalliance, especially when one considers that Borges often thought of himself as a poet first. One of my favorite books of the 20th century must be Borge's Dream Tigers in which the writer blurs the distinctions between short fictions, essay and non-fiction, aphorism and poetry. Nevertheless, Borges' poetry is one of narrative fictions... a poetry of ideas... not far removed from his aphorisms... and not overly sensual, lyrical... poetic.

I agree that Residence on Earth is a magnificent book... although if I were to need to go with a single poetic volume (excluding epic poetry) I might go with Shakespeare's or Spencer's sonnets, Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, or Baudelaire's Fleuers du Mal. I don't know that I would clearly place any 20th century poet above Neruda... but I do find that there are several others I prefer more, Montale and Rilke being first among these.

[stlukesguild]

It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.

Please read my posts a bit more closely before making statements that are in no way supported by what was written... or stick with your Stephen King:D.:nod:

[islandclimber]

I love Walt Whitman. I love Pablo Neruda. But I do think Walt Whitman speaks for the whole world more than does Neruda as Neruda's poetry is, to a great degree, very personal love poetry, written to his wife. I love different things about both poets and find both of them great.

And Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors. LOL I don't think anyone has done so much with such a narrow life that was all but forced on her. I love her wit and her discerning eye. I love her characters. But I do know many people who simply can't stand her.

have you actually read much Neruda for the only real love poetry he wrote for his wife was "the captains verses"... Residence on Earth has nothing to do with a wife, nor almost every other collection of poetry he put out...


I certainly agree that Neruda is the superior poet to Borges... in some ways. Surely as a lyricist... as a visionary. I wouldn't underestimate Borges' poetry, however. It constitutes a far greater part of his oeuvre than does Joyce's. It was surely far more than a dalliance, especially when one considers that Borges often thought of himself as a poet first. One of my favorite books of the 20th century must be Borge's Dream Tigers in which the writer blurs the distinctions between short fictions, essay and non-fiction, aphorism and poetry. Nevertheless, Borges' poetry is one of narrative fictions... a poetry of ideas... not far removed from his aphorisms... and not overly sensual, lyrical... poetic.

I agree that Residence on Earth is a magnificent book... although if I were to need to go with a single poetic volume (excluding epic poetry) I might go with Shakespeare's or Spencer's sonnets, Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, or Baudelaire's Fleuers du Mal. I don't know that I would clearly place any 20th century poet above Neruda... but I do find that there are several others I prefer more, Montale and Rilke being first among these

you are right here... I kind of exaggerated his mediocrity as a poet... I still think his stories, especially labyrinths are superior to his poetry, for Labyrinths is one of my favourite collections of short stories ever written... I actually own his collected works of poetry... and though I don't think of him as a fantastic or great poet, it was a little much of me (i can admit) to compare him to Joyce in this regard, and say it was just a dalliance... I don't think they have the power of Neruda, but I agree, it is interesting the distinctions between prose, poetry, aphorism, etc... and they are full of interesting thought and idea... I just again don't get the inspiration for feelings and emotions... but you are right I don't think that is what he intended, it is a poetry of ideas...

I myself don't like coleridge or spenser, and as is obvious Whitman, I admire them all for what they wrote and did for poetry, but I don't particularly enjoy them... but Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Baudelaire I love... For 20th century, I love Rilke, the poet of the mind and the soul I would say... and then Eliot, and Yeats... maybe Yeats because of my time in Ireland, it made it so much easier to relate to his poetry, and maybe is why I love it... Montale I don't really enjoy, though I couldn't really say why, sometimes a poets work can just leave a bad taste in your mouth if you know what i mean...and i think that is Montale for me.. and to be honest that is probably Whitman as well:D

interesting discussion though... I do own two copies of Leaves of Grass, one the original, and the other a more complete later revision... and I appreciate them, even admire Whitman for them, I just can't enjoy them... all opinion though... lol oh well... disagreement is fun though... :D

cheers

[stlukesguild]

Interesting that you should love Shakespeare... but not Spencer. I am particularly drawn to Spencer's cycle of sonnets (and the concluding Epithalimion) because the have degree of "honesty"... "realism" that goes beyond many other Renaissance sonnet cycles. Where many other poets write in the tradition of a series of sonnets to an unattainable love who continually ignores and rebuffs the poet, Spencer never writes as if she... this woman were some "ideal"...an invention or artifice. I am struck with the manner in which the poems (and the narrative) evolve as the poet woos his wife-to-be. She rejects him at first... as is usual... but slowly the relationship changes... she comes around... and eventually a real sense of love grows between them until the culminating celebratory wedding poem, the Epithalimion. For pure playful baroque wit and artifice, however, I can't go without the Muiopotmos.

[Etienne]

I sincerely hope people judging foreign language poetry have read it in the original language, or else, your judgments are not worth that toilet paper I just used.

[islandclimber]

I sincerely hope people judging foreign language poetry have read it in the original language, or else, your judgments are not worth that toilet paper I just used.

:lol: I have learned spanish well enough to read Neruda and others in the original though I am by no means even slightly fluent with it.... And it so immensely beautiful in the original...

but you are a little harsh here, I do believe, even though I do like how you worded your attack :lol: ... I think translations do hold some value.. and judgements of translations are worth something.. a translation can be amazing... whether a language into english, or english into another language... it is irrelevant... what matters is there is still much of the original poet there, enough to decide to like it or not... to love it or not... to draw one into looking at it in the original language... or so I believe...


Interesting that you should love Shakespeare... but not Spencer. I am particularly drawn to Spencer's cycle of sonnets (and the concluding Epithalimion) because the have degree of "honesty"... "realism" that goes beyond many other Renaissance sonnet cycles. Where many other poets write in the tradition of a series of sonnets to an unattainable love who continually ignores and rebuffs the poet, Spencer never writes as if she... this woman were some "ideal"...an invention or artifice. I am struck with the manner in which the poems (and the narrative) evolve as the poet woos his wife-to-be. She rejects him at first... as is usual... but slowly the relationship changes... she comes around... and eventually a real sense of love grows between them until the culminating celebratory wedding poem, the Epithalimion. For pure playful baroque wit and artifice, however, I can't go without the Muiopotmos

i know... it is a little strange... just another poetic pecularity of me I guess:D
i find so many great poets, or poets others love to be not my cup of tea, but I'm sure it is the same with everyone... or so I hope...

[aeroport]

Of course it is always possible to discover critical opinions by great authors that suggest the failings of another master. I almost would have expected as much of James. In almost every way Whitman's poetry goes counter to the highly ornate (some might say overwrought) perfectionism of form, the Baroque, excessively Latinate and even obscurantist language, as well as the sense of reserve... with regard to an open display of feelings... especially sexual... as favored by James (How's that for a Jamesian sentence?:D) One can imagine James turning up his nose at this crass and unsophisticated country bumpkin who would be poetic visionary. Of course H.G. Wells is no less favorable in his opinion of James... and his critical opinion is direct and to the point... unlike James own criticism of Whitman, referring to his prose as something akin to a "hippopotamus laboriously attempting to pick up a pea that has got into a corner of its cage."

Personally I am able to admire both writers greatly.

How full of Truth your posts always are, stlukesguild! :thumbs_up
It's kind of interesting, though, that, in this case, James seems to have been a bit ahead of himself. That was written when he was relatively young, certainly before any of his own "important" works were written (well before Portrait, even). Yet, later in life, he seemed to take up something of an admiration for Whitman. Here's a passage from Sheldon Novick's recently completed bio, discussing reading and literary discussion at Edith Wharton's house:

Someone spoke of Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass was fetched, and James read while the others sat rapt.
When he read Whitman, James seemed to be speaking directly from his innermost self. His stammer vanished, and he read with unaffected emotion, chanting to emphasize the rhythms of the songs. When he came to the elegy for Lincoln, his voice deepened with emotion, and at the passage that begins "Come lovely and soothing death," his voice "filled the hushed room like an organ adagio."
I'm not sure, but I'm assuming the details (and closing quote) of this passage come from Wharton's A Backward Glance.

[Etienne]

:lol: I have learned spanish well enough to read Neruda and others in the original though I am by no means even slightly fluent with it.... And it so immensely beautiful in the original...

Alright, was only making sure :p

I am curious though, as I refuse to read poetry in translations (besides a few exceptions), are Neruda and Borges hard to read? I'm also not fluent in Spanish although I can read a bit, mostly Borges fictions, in bilingual editions though.


but you are a little harsh here, I do believe, even though I do like how you worded your attack :lol: ... I think translations do hold some value.. and judgements of translations are worth something.. a translation can be amazing... whether a language into english, or english into another language... it is irrelevant... what matters is there is still much of the original poet there, enough to decide to like it or not... to love it or not... to draw one into looking at it in the original language... or so I believe...

Yes, there are good translations, and if one likes the translation, probably the original would be at least as good, but a translation can also be bad (for different reasons, the first often being untranslatability) and how does one know whether the translation is good and the original bad or a bad translation to a good original if he hasn't read the original? And even over this, in any translation, especially in poetry, there is something lost.

A better translation than the original is not excluded (it is often said that Dostoevsky is better in translations, for example) but they are the exception, and undoubtedly a subject of harsh debate.

[aeroport]

I think perhaps Jane Austen...
*don't hurt me!*

Whoa, you mean there are women who think this as well...?

[JBI]

You are all a bunch of mis-readers. The question isn't who do you not like, it is who is overrated. Logically there is no such thing as overrated, but that's a different discussion. In relation to the conversation, the real meaning of the thread must be discerned as "Who do you think has too big a reputation for the amount of skill as a man of letters that they posses/possessed. Saying you don't like Whitman isn't a logical argument. That does not relate to the topic, only shares your babbling stupidity.

Whitman, as it has been proven, has earned a significant reputation which can be supported by his influence on almost all Western poetry after him. Comparing him to Neruda doesn't even come close to an accurate argument, because a) Neruda came later, and b) they wrote in different languages.

If you compare, however, Whitman to his contemporaries, The Pre-Raphaelites, Emerson, Longfellow, Thereau, Wilde, Tennyson, the Brownings, Arnold, and Emily Dickinson, you will note that he stands above almost all of those poets easily.

Dickinson is probably his closest contender, but she resides in a separate place because of the rare circumstance of her life and work. Relative to the other American contemporaries named, Whitman easily is the best, hands down. The big 3 Victorians are good, but their influence was far less, and their significance far less.

Whitman as an American poet outshines everyone who came before him, without question. Whitman as a poet of the world, outshines almost everyone who came before him writing in English, with the exception of perhaps 10 names. Unless you can give me names of contemporaries of his who have had better success as poets, I consider this conversation over.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.

Please read my posts a bit more closely before making statements that are in no way supported by what was written... or stick with your Stephen King:D.:nod:

Haha, I'm sure that is the first of many SK jabs, lol. I misread your posts, and as many will come to learn, I sometimes jump to judgment, post a smart-*** reply, and later regret it. My apologies.

And now, back to SK. I think a character is going to be raped by a gun barrel soon, I can't wait!