who is the most overrated writer ever?

[rintrah]

Has anyone mentioned Paul Coelho?

[Mockingbird_z]

why?
i dont think he is overrated, just famous now. no one claims him to be the greatest or something. or am i mistaken?

[rintrah]

You are right. He's certainly isn't rated highly as a literary author - sorry for venting a little frustration!

[Etienne]

why?
i dont think he is overrated, just famous now. no one claims him to be the greatest or something. or am i mistaken?

Actually many people do claim he is the greatest or something.

Extract from a conversation with an otherwise very nice guy:
Him: "I like Coelho very much."
Me: "I've read The Alchemist, and I really didn't like much."
Him: "Well it's because it's philosophy, many people don't understand."
Me: "Ehmm... no, it's not really philosophy... but hey look at that bird (I didn't really say this, can't remember what it was, but an abrupt change of subject.)"

[aeroport]

Has anyone mentioned Paul Coelho?

For several pages a while back, if I'm not mistaken...

[superunknown]

I don't think JK Rowling and Dan Brown really belong in this topic. Their writing is not serious literature, it's entertainment, and they don't claim to be writers in a literary sense. The prose exists solely for the sake of the plot.

[NotWoodhouse]

I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.

[moose gurl]

True, but the topic wasn't "What important writer is overrated?" It was "Who is the most overrated writer?" and whether their writing is entertainment or not, it still qualifies as writing and it's largely overrated. Dan Brown's stories aren't even good. JK Rowling has some story-telling merit, but her first novels were just bad as far as writing is concerned. She definitely evolved as a writer and a storyteller.

[unleashed]

hi, new around here and trying to fit in.

has anybody mentioned Dan Brown?

[moose gurl]

Hahaha, only about a billion times.
Welcome to the club.

[unleashed]

well it's a right judgment for that dude, he just copied wikipedia and tried to put some action in between to make ridiculous boring books read by too many people. [oh no i'm ranting again]
and thanks :)

[johann cruyff]

Actually many people do claim he is the greatest or something.

Extract from a conversation with an otherwise very nice guy:
Him: "I like Coelho very much."
Me: "I've read The Alchemist, and I really didn't like much."
Him: "Well it's because it's philosophy, many people don't understand."
Me: "Ehmm... no, it's not really philosophy... but hey look at that bird (I didn't really say this, can't remember what it was, but an abrupt change of subject.)"

That very nearly made me barf.:sick:

[asilef73]

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:

i heartily agree. i managed to read "On The Road" through once and now i will never get those hours back.

[aeroport]

True, but the topic wasn't "What important writer is overrated?" It was "Who is the most overrated writer?"
Once again, 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.

[cipherdecoy]

I can't say for sure which is the most overrated book, but as far as what I've read is concerned, I would say The Catcher In The Rye, although it's a book I've enjoyed. I would consider myself too much of a rookie in the field of literature to pick one such author though. However, if we're talking about 21st century literature (if you can call it that), I would also be interested to know if you think Harry Potter and Twilight by Stephanie Meyer are vastly overrated (haven't read that one yet). ;)

[waryan]

I think aside from the academics who want to teach its literary elements in college courses over other particular classic works Harry Potter fans that I know don't hold it up as any sort of Joyce or anything rather than just a fun and well done book, and personally I've not read any Potter so I couldn't say myself. Same for Twilight.

somehow i don't ever seem to get around to the really hyped books like THE KITE RUNNER or TWILIGHT or whatever else is on the front stand at B&N.

[Pecksie]

Well, I think that would be Paulo Coelho... Unlike Dan Brown and other best-seller-churners, he insists on being called a literary man...

But there are many more. Two seriously overrated authors in Latin America, in my opinion, are Isabel Allende and Ángeles Mastretta. In Spain, Rosa Regàs and Rosa Montero - they're highly popular but simply unintelligible. I think Rosa Regàs's prize-winning novel "Dorotea's Song" is probably the most awful book I've read in the last few years, unless you count Swedish Marianne Fredriksson's "Mother and daughter". However, these people sit on contest juries, write for magazines, in at least one case (Regàs) have held public office, and are generally considered "intellectuals"...

[_Shannon_]

For me it'd be Walker Percy and more modern Anne Tyler I had to read a book of hers when I was in college--and I was infuriated that the professor--having the ability to choose any book to which to expose her student chose that piece of crapola!

I am also not a Jane Austen fan --technically brilliant-- but I always want to go into the book with an uzi and just shot it off for a little excitement and to get the characters to actually do something.

[_Shannon_]

Oh- and taking into account it's intended audience--Harry Potter is totally fun!

[kelby_lake]

To Kill A Mockingbird

[JBI]

I think aside from the academics who want to teach its literary elements in college courses over other particular classic works Harry Potter fans that I know don't hold it up as any sort of Joyce or anything rather than just a fun and well done book, and personally I've not read any Potter so I couldn't say myself. Same for Twilight.

somehow i don't ever seem to get around to the really hyped books like THE KITE RUNNER or TWILIGHT or whatever else is on the front stand at B&N.

Strange, the Poterites where I live on release days were in full costume, lining up down the block. It was pathetic, sad, and even depressing to see grown men and women amongst the costumed. They clearly are a very active group (or were before the last book was released). She is clearly overrated, that is for sure, since we can clearly see she is slowly deteriorating as the realization that the series is over strikes home.

As for most overrated though, I would have to say Grisham, since he still enjoys mass sales, even though everyone realizes he has one skeleton of a book, and just keeps semi-fleshing it over and over. King is up there, but I hesitate to put Brown up there because I think his career is at an ebb. Nora Roberts for sure is up there too, as are the modern fantasy authors Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan (though the latter is dead now, so I guess he doesn't count).

Tolkien is highly overrated too, if you really think about it, but the Emperors New Clothes situation will hold for a while longer, until the CGI on the movies is no longer seen as brilliant, and is seen as old-fashioned (it will happen eventually, with the rate technology is advancing).

Every popular author eventually declines, it is inevitable. However some (the perfect example being Dickens) out-last the decline, and still enjoy some popularity.


I would also like to throw this out there: most versions of the bible are overrated, especially these new "accurate" translations that keep floating around. The KJV is the best-written version I have yet come across (I have read the text thoroughly in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament, though cannot read the original Greek), but the accurate translations used in most churches seem to a) still be completely inaccurate (it seems Christian translators neglect to realize that even Rabbinic scholars still dispute the definition of some terms completely) and b) just ugly. There are some great poetic passages in the books, but none seem to have made it into those translations, which aren't accurate anyway.

[Nossa]

Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist. And after some thinking, I think that The Da Vinci Code was highly overrated, given to the fact that its prequel, Angels and Demons, was way better.

[JBI]

I heard the opposite, either way, judging from The Da Vinci Code, neither are very good.

[Statistic]

I recently grabbed The Count of Monte Cristo from the library, and damn it was awful. I dunno, maybe I got a bad translation, but it seems like every version of the book begins with choppy sentences. And the dialogue, ugh...

This especially confuses me because I think Musketeers is fairly decent, maybe even good.

I'd also say Moby Dick = garbage, but I'm empathetic as to why some people might enjoy it. It just takes a certain type of person to like that story, and that person's not me.

Also, why does anyone like To Kill A Mockingbird? Do I need a special chip in my brain to decipher the good novel behind the cheesy Twainesque exposition?

[Cayenne]

It's maybe true that Dan Brown's books are not that good literature but I don't think that means they can't be good books (I hope you get what I mean, I don't really know how to say it in English...). And that's just a matter of opinion what's a good book and what's not. I think they were all good but as I said not the best literature.

[Statistic]

Well that's weird, my last post showed up twice (the copy was here before I erased it).

Guess I should defame another book:

I almost contracted mental retardation from reading the first page of War and Peace. It turns out I'm allergic to infodumps.

[kasie]

Are we talking about best-sellers here, or proper books, 'Literature' with a capital L. I don't think Grisham would regard himself as a literary author and to castigate him for repetitious plots is to accuse him of failing to be something he isn't trying to be - he has a winning formula and makes a healthy living from producing stories people enjoy reading. (And you must admit there are some enjoyable variations on the theme and the stories are well written which is more than can be said of some 'best selling' authors.) I can't help feeling that the reason so many people make such a huge fuss over the likes of Dan Brown (and Rowling and Tolkein, for that matter) is that they rarely read books and are delighted to be able to say they have actually found a book they like and finished it - have you noticed that many of these run-away success books are often quite chunky tomes? That can only increase the sense of achievement for an infrequent reader. But - Great! They've finished a book! Don't let's pour (too much) scorn on them, let's quietly put other books in their way and hope they enjoy those too, and the next one, and the next one.

I suppose one needs to ask oneself who is rating this book so highly? If it is vox populi, I suspect the book can be safely treated with a certain amount of caution. If the opinion is that of a respected, well-read critic, perhaps the book should be treated with a degree more respect and effort. Ultimately your opinion of any book is down to you, your tastes and your critical abilities. If you find however that you cannot agree with serious critics, perhaps something is lacking in you as a reader, maybe critical acumen, maybe knowledge of the genre or period, or maybe just experience of life.

[Nossa]

I heard the opposite, either way, judging from The Da Vinci Code, neither are very good.

I enjoyed Angels and Demons more, it was a good thriller. But I'm still not sure if any of Brown's books, and likes of them, can be called literature. I normally read these works, without the least intention of getting a certain literary value out of them.

I didn't say that his books are bad, but The Da Vinci Code just wasn't good, at least not to me.

[johann cruyff]

I'd definitely agree with Tolkien being overrated.Also,in my opinion: Jean Racine,Balzac,Hemingway(I'm sure most of you don't agree about the last two,but please,spare me,it's just my opinion),Kerouac,Ayn Rand,and pretty much everyone who's popular these days - Coelho,Brown,Rowling,Houellebecq...

[tscherff]

ayn rand's "atlas shrugged" is the winner by 5 lengths. it is accepted as classis literature unlike potter, brown and others books of that ilk which are "light reading"

[bounty]

I can't say for sure which is the most overrated book, but as far as what I've read is concerned, I would say The Catcher In The Rye, although it's a book I've enjoyed. I would consider myself too much of a rookie in the field of literature to pick one such author though. However, if we're talking about 21st century literature (if you can call it that), I would also be interested to know if you think Harry Potter and Twilight by Stephanie Meyer are vastly overrated (haven't read that one yet). ;)


cipher, almost everywhere its appropriate ive been taking the opportunity to condemn catcher in the rye as being vastly overrated (and i didnt like it either! smiles....)

and moby dick too.

[Ahera]

As for Harry Potter books , It seems every good reader's first reaction towards those books would be that its a childish book ,Same was the case with me until I finally began to read them some years back , And reading them was definitely worth it, They are good for sure.

I've read books of all types and Harry potter is the best of Its type.

[cipherdecoy]

To Kill A Mockingbird

I disagree, but oh wells.

[Vincent Black]

Neil Gaiman and Nora Roberts. bad thing is my girlfriend LOVES Nora Roberts, which she felt compelled to tell me at the top of her voice in a book store, the shame...

[Nossa]

I forgot to mention Wuthering Heights (I know some people will just hate me now lol)

[JBI]

ayn rand's "atlas shrugged" is the winner by 5 lengths. it is accepted as classis literature unlike potter, brown and others books of that ilk which are "light reading"

Is it? Funny, maybe if you get a degree in sci-fi, but most literary courses stick to more important works than Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand isn't light reading of course, merely mediocre reading, and it is rare to see an academic disagree with that, especially now adays when they all seem so left-leaning.

Rand was following her own philosophy, as I see it, and wrote a book that appealed to the communist scare in her era. Since the fall of the iron curtain, I think we can now go beyond looking at that book as legitimate philosophical literature. It is, to me at least, pseudo-philosophy for dummies.

[JBI]

Bravissimo to the writer who hit To Kill a Mockingbird, another Emperor's New Clothes book, because of its racist themes it is seen as impossible to criticize without seeming racist.

[Hank Stamper]

jane austen. mansfield park is the most pointless book ever written

[Joreads]

I love the Harry Potter books to, and as far as I am concerned they are not over rated. I guess this is really a matter taste and thankfully we all have different tastes.

[mayneverhave]

I never thought that the Harry Potter series was critically esteemed as to deserve the overrated title. Sure they're best sellers, but there are plenty of terrible books, movies, and musicians that are top sellers.

As for critically acclaimed writers, I never understood what was so great about The Grapes of Wrath. It's a fine period piece, depicting the Dust Bowl, great depression and what not, but outside of its culture and era it lacks anything of substance to me and isn't particuarlly moving. Steinbeck comes off far too melodramatic and aware of the "epic importance" of his novel.

[kelby_lake]

Bravissimo to the writer who hit To Kill a Mockingbird, another Emperor's New Clothes book, because of its racist themes it is seen as impossible to criticize without seeming racist.

Exactly! It's just BORING! It's not like it's even radical, it's just middling dull dross in which nothing happens and we're supposed to think that something really sad has happened. that bit near the end where (A) attacks (B)- good on (A)!

[Inderjit Sanghe]

In terms of over-rated 'high-brow' authors, Fyodor Dostoevskii problably tops the list. His garrulous, sentimental proto-fascist, as well as tedentious garbage is vastly over-rated. Sartre is another one. Dostoevskii also really nees to omit those long-winded, totally irrelevant passages about characters with serial neuroses that inhabit the opening passages of all his books.

In terms of popularity-Dan Brown is another abysmal writer. And that A.S Byatt book, 'Possession' was terrible.

[Emil Miller]

J.K. Rowling anyone?

I was in a bookstore when a man came in with a girl, and as they passed a pile of Harry Potter books, the girl said "I like Harry Potter."
The girl was about 7 years old.
I think that just about sums it up.

[JBI]

I was in a bookstore when a man came in with a girl, and as they passed a pile of Harry Potter books, the girl said "I like Harry Potter."
The girl was about 7 years old.
I think that just about sums it up.

If she is 7, and reading at that level, congratulations to her. Somehow though, I doubt she has read the full series. After all, keep in mind 7 years old is a grade two reading level, whereas those books place around a 5-6.

[Emil Miller]

I haven't read any Harry Potter books, because I try to avoid it. So I can't really say that she is the most overrated. Maybe the books are actually good and I'm missing out? But I just don't see why everyone is so obsessed over it!

Why do say that you "try to avoid it"? Surely any person who understands
hype when they see it just ignores it.
The reason why "everyone is so obsessed over it" is because they are too gullible to see that they are being used.
In a world where the lowest common denominator has become the touchstone for excellence it is hardly surprising that so much juvenilia fills the bookstores.
Obviously, there are some childrens books that might be considered as literature but they were written before the advent of mass marketing and the band-wagon syndrome that has reduced publishing to an outlet for whatever people can be gulled into buying.

[kelby_lake]

I like Harry Potter

[Emil Miller]

It is heartening to see such a negative response to George Orwell.
Many years ago when I was idealistic (ah! the joys of youth) I read everything by Orwell and thought he was great. However, as I began to realise that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, my admiration for Orwell decreased accordingly.
Orwell was a strangely tortured man whose influnce on readers can be dangerously misleading and whose idealism, carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to anarchy.
When I realised this, I was compelled to write a novel as an antidote to Orwell, and on meeting someone who told me he could arrange an introduction to the late author's wife, I was able to decline, secure in the knowledge that, despite his readability, I no longer had anything in common with him.

[hhc]

Totally the woman who wrote Mary Poppins.
The movie was great, and the book is considered to be an all-times classic, but it really was the most boring thing I've read in my life and one of the two books that I never finished (the other one was The Sound of Music, again a successful film with Julie Andrews-coincidence?).

[misterlit]

J.K. Rowling

[Equality72521]

Most overrated writer = J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer and Meg Cabot (it's a three way tie)

[wilbur lim]

Who conceives Shakespeare is the dominant writer?

[johann cruyff]

In terms of over-rated 'high-brow' authors, Fyodor Dostoevskii problably tops the list. His garrulous, sentimental proto-fascist, as well as tedentious garbage is vastly over-rated. Sartre is another one. Dostoevskii also really nees to omit those long-winded, totally irrelevant passages about characters with serial neuroses that inhabit the opening passages of all his books.


You really have a thing against Dostoevsky, don't you? I mean, seriously, at some point, a line must be drawn even with personal tastes... To say Tolstoy is better than Dostoevsky is one thing, but to call D. the most overrated writer is just...wow.

I don't like your inclusion of Sartre either :D

[WICKES]

I really hate Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad writer exactly, but that world weary pose, the boasting, lying and exaggerating in his personal life (especially the way he convinced everyone he was a war hero...I mean ffs, the guy drove an ambulance on the Italian front, it's not like he was an infantry officer at the Somme or Verdun), the macho posteuring etc- there is something obnoxiously adolescent and insincere about Hemingway that I find repellent. You only have to look at his most devoted fans!

Paolo Coehlo is awful. He belongs on a shelf with Californian, New Age garbage. I think all those Latin American 'magic realism' writers are overrated. Read Hermann Hesse instead!

As for Orwell, I think the criticism a bit harsh. He was absolutely spot on in his attacks on Stalin's Russia at a time when many British intellectuals were defending and forgiving Stalin anything just because he wasn't Hitler.

p.s J K Rowling is for kids, so give her a break. At least kids read her and learn positive lessons: about loyalty, love, comradeship etc. If it wasn't for her those same kids would prob. be playing soulless, violent video games. It's not like they'd be reading Keats and Dickens instead (though I must admit, as a kids writer she's not in the same league as Roald Dahl)


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!

But he was one of the all time great creators of characters. In that respect he deserves to be compared with Chaucer, Shakespeare, Cervantes and Tosltoy. Secondly, he captured a period/ place like few writers I know. When you think of Victorian London/ England/ Britain you think of Dickens. Thirdly, he shook the conscience of a nation that was becoming ever richer yet ignoring the misery and suffering of so many of its inhabitants. Very few writers have ever had so much influence for good.

However, I do know what you mean. He can be long winded (though perhaps that's because people back then had more time- no TV, no radio, no CDs, no cars etc etc) and sentimental.

[kelby_lake]

Oh, Dickens could do the characters. You have to give him that.

Whilst I enjoyed Twilight, the writing was that of a 13 year old with a thesaurus.

[WICKES]

Oh, Dickens could do the characters. You have to give him that..

He really is one of the all time greatest creators of characters. Only Shakespeare, Chaucer, Cervantes and a handful of others can compare. Among novelists he is almost supreme in that respect. People like Micawber, Scrooge, Bill Sykes etc seem almost archetypal.

Sartre was a surprise appearance. Nausea is an incredible novel. Read a bit of Mysticism then read it - astonishing. It really reads like a wide eyed innocent undergoing the full mystic/ Zen experience only NOT enjoying it- finding it hellish rather than uplifting. Scary stuff.

[Etienne]

I just love Dickens, many people deplore the "simplicity" and "naivety" of his writing, but I think that it is precisely that which makes the charm of his books, as it is not simple simplicity and naivety, Dickens was an extremely smart man, and a man who really knew how to write.

As for Dostoevsky, I really like his books, however I do have to agree with the fact that he is somewhat overrated. It often seems that many people consider him the alpha and the omega of literature... but it just seems to me like the guy is not such a good novelist. There is something very sketchy and unrefined in his books (he wrote very fast, yeah, yeah I know, but it's the result that I read). No doubt he created a lot for literary theory and gave food for thought for philosophers and psychologists, but as a novelist, he was no Tolstoy. However, just like Tolstoy didn't have the depth of a Dostoevsky...

[Kafka's Crow]

I just love Dickens, many people deplore the "simplicity" and "naivety" of his writing, but I think that it is precisely that which makes the charm of his books, as it is not simple simplicity and naivety, Dickens was an extremely smart man, and a man who really knew how to write.

As for Dostoevsky, I really like his books, however I do have to agree with the fact that he is somewhat overrated. It often seems that many people consider him the alpha and the omega of literature... but it just seems to me like the guy is not such a good novelist. There is something very sketchy and unrefined in his books (he wrote very fast, yeah, yeah I know, but it's the result that I read). No doubt he created a lot for literary theory and gave food for thought for philosophers and psychologists, but as a novelist, he was no Tolstoy. However, just like Tolstoy didn't have the depth of a Dostoevsky...

Dostoevsky was consistently good. There are no bad books written by this one writer. There are no so-called 'minor works'. Tolstoy's career was a slippery slope apart from the two famous books. Too much religion. I think Tolstoy was a 'one-hit wonder' but that 'one-hit' (War and Peace) happens to be the greatest of the great novels. As far as the depth of characterisation is concerned, Dostoevsky leads the way by a huge margin.

[Etienne]

Dostoevsky was consistently good. There are no bad books written by this one writer. There are no so-called 'minor works'. Tolstoy's career was a slippery slope apart from the two famous books. Too much religion. I think Tolstoy was a 'one-hit wonder' but that 'one-hit' (War and Peace) happens to be the greatest of the great novels. As far as the depth of characterisation is concerned, Dostoevsky leads the way by a huge margin.

Let me disagree with this view of Tolstoy. His short-novels are masterpieces, those short stories I've read of him were very good, and I find Resurrection better than Anna Karenina. Many people seem annoyed by some "religious ranting" from Tolstoy, but the fact is that in most of his works, more obviously in his major works, there is always some ranting. Agriculture for Anna Karenina, Philosophy of history for War and Peace, and then religion for Resurrection. Tolstoy was considered one of the greatest Russian writers before War and Peace and Anna Karenina. One could argue that his religious turn made him write worse, I'd argue that it only made him write less (fiction) but the quality was still there. His non-fiction writings were always kind of boring, he just repeats himself way too much, be it his Confessions or his rantings in War and Peace...

Which work exactly by Tolstoy have you found very much inferior to the status of a great writer like Tolstoy?

As for Dostoevsky, I haven't read all of him (Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, The Gambler, Notes From the Underground and some short Stories) and I've found all of them very good, but most of them gave me an impression of being sketchy, so what I am saying is that on a stylistic level, he is far from being perfect. I am not saying he is bad by any stretch of imagination, I really like Dostoevsky, I just don't find him to be what some people try to make of him. He is certainly not the "most" overrated however.

[Kafka's Crow]

I re-read Anna Karenina thinking I had missed something but still find it among the most forgettable of the 'great books.' I found the religious ranting in Resurrection appalling. Dostoevsky is not irreligious but later Tolstoy is just simply blatant. I did not mind the 'forces of history' and their indifferent march in War and Peace but religion at that scale in Resurrection is just not very palatable.

[Emil Miller]

I really hate Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad writer exactly, but that world weary pose, the boasting, lying and exaggerating in his personal life (especially the way he convinced everyone he was a war hero...I mean ffs, the guy drove an ambulance on the Italian front, it's not like he was an infantry officer at the Somme or Verdun), the macho posteuring etc- there is something obnoxiously adolescent and insincere about Hemingway that I find repellent. You only have to look at his most devoted fans!

Paolo Coehlo is awful. He belongs on a shelf with Californian, New Age garbage. I think all those Latin American 'magic realism' writers are overrated. Read Hermann Hesse instead!

As for Orwell, I think the criticism a bit harsh. He was absolutely spot on in his attacks on Stalin's Russia at a time when many British intellectuals were defending and forgiving Stalin anything just because he wasn't Hitler.

p.s J K Rowling is for kids, so give her a break. At least kids read her and learn positive lessons: about loyalty, love, comradeship etc. If it wasn't for her those same kids would prob. be playing soulless, violent video games. It's not like they'd be reading Keats and Dickens instead (though I must admit, as a kids writer she's not in the same league as Roald Dahl)



But he was one of the all time great creators of characters. In that respect he deserves to be compared with Chaucer, Shakespeare, Cervantes and Tosltoy. Secondly, he captured a period/ place like few writers I know. When you think of Victorian London/ England/ Britain you think of Dickens. Thirdly, he shook the conscience of a nation that was becoming ever richer yet ignoring the misery and suffering of so many of its inhabitants. Very few writers have ever had so much influence for good.

However, I do know what you mean. He can be long winded (though perhaps that's because people back then had more time- no TV, no radio, no CDs, no cars etc etc) and sentimental.

You raise some interesting points but I think your judgement on Hemingway is
rather hard because he really was a larger than life individual. As for his writing, I'm afraid I have only read A Moveable Feast and thought it was well written.
I know nothing of Paulo Coehlo but your recommendation to read Hermann Hesse is sound.
I have already mentioned Orwell elsewhere on this thread but I think you are being disingenuous in saying that many British intellectuals forgave Stalin because he wasn't Hitler. The fact is they actually believed in Marxism and should have been old enough to know better.
It's obvious that J k Rowling is for kids, but try telling that to the adults who read her.
Whatever his faults, Dickens was a great writer but I would suggest that most people are more likely to equate Victorian London with Conan Doyle; not in the same league of course.

[mortalterror]

I really hate Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad writer exactly, but that world weary pose, the boasting, lying and exaggerating in his personal life (especially the way he convinced everyone he was a war hero...I mean ffs, the guy drove an ambulance on the Italian front, it's not like he was an infantry officer at the Somme or Verdun), the macho posteuring etc- there is something obnoxiously adolescent and insincere about Hemingway that I find repellent. You only have to look at his most devoted fans!

He did drive an ambulance on the Italian front, where he was wounded by shell fire in the leg, and as he was crippled, bleeding, and tending to his own wounds, he managed to drag another wounded soldier nearly a mile to safety. The soldier still died, but I give Hemingway an A for effort on that one.

After WWI he covered the Spanish Civil War as a journalist, where he made some documentaries, his hotel was bombed, and he dodged more shellfire in the street. If it were me, and I'd been wounded in a war, I would do everything I could to stay out of the way of any further such actions; but he actually embraced this lifestyle, faced his fears, and went back.

During WWII he outfits his fishing boat with bazooka's, arms a posse, and gets a special permit to hunt German U-boats off the coast of Key West. When he realizes how ridiculous this is, he signs on for an embedded journalist position on the German front lines, where he is subsequently brought up on charges for engaging the enemy with rifle fire, and killing two German SS officers with a grenade. As a journalist, he was considered a non-combatant and was technically in violation of the Geneva convention.

The man hunted lions. Lions! What more do you need? When his plane went down in Africa, for the second time, despite having multiple fractured limbs he pushes his wife and friend through the window he's too big for and then, amidst flames and smoke batters the escape hatch open with his head. Say what you want about his writing, he was one tough dude. Then you have the boxing, the bullfighting... If you don't think that's macho, I'm afraid to see the guy who does impress you.

Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Celine, James Jones, Orwell: all might have seen more action than Ernest Hemingway, but he lived, and he wrote better than any of them. In the modern age, writers are not men of action as they were in the time of Aeschylus, Horace, Dante, Cervantes, Sidney, Sir. Walter Raleigh, and Lope De Vega.

[stlukesguild]

Macho macho man! I wanna be a macho man...:banana:

[mortalterror]

Macho macho man! I wanna be a macho man...:banana:

Wounded veteran is not a punchline, and in my family we respect the men and women who put their lives in harms way for the sake of their loved ones.

[Etienne]

Wounded veteran is not a punchline, and in my family we respect the men and women who put their lives in harms way for the sake of their loved ones.

This is a punchline. Many veterans did not fight at all for their loved ones.

[WICKES]

He did drive an ambulance on the Italian front, where he was wounded by shell fire in the leg, and as he was crippled, bleeding, and tending to his own wounds, he managed to drag another wounded soldier nearly a mile to safety. The soldier still died, but I give Hemingway an A for effort on that one.

After WWI he covered the Spanish Civil War as a journalist, where he made some documentaries, his hotel was bombed, and he dodged more shellfire in the street. If it were me, and I'd been wounded in a war, I would do everything I could to stay out of the way of any further such actions; but he actually embraced this lifestyle, faced his fears, and went back.

During WWII he outfits his fishing boat with bazooka's, arms a posse, and gets a special permit to hunt German U-boats off the coast of Key West. When he realizes how ridiculous this is, he signs on for an embedded journalist position on the German front lines, where he is subsequently brought up on charges for engaging the enemy with rifle fire, and killing two German SS officers with a grenade. As a journalist, he was considered a non-combatant and was technically in violation of the Geneva convention.

The man hunted lions. Lions! What more do you need? When his plane went down in Africa, for the second time, despite having multiple fractured limbs he pushes his wife and friend through the window he's too big for and then, amidst flames and smoke batters the escape hatch open with his head. Say what you want about his writing, he was one tough dude. Then you have the boxing, the bullfighting... If you don't think that's macho, I'm afraid to see the guy who does impress you.

Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Celine, James Jones, Orwell: all might have seen more action than Ernest Hemingway, but he lived, and he wrote better than any of them. In the modern age, writers are not men of action as they were in the time of Aeschylus, Horace, Dante, Cervantes, Sidney, Sir. Walter Raleigh, and Lope De Vega.


Well, like I said I don't dislike his books (though personally I think he is very overrated), but there is something nauseatingly adolescent about him. Many people who met him found him an overbearing braggart and liar. I read once that the story about rescuing the wounded man is now thought to have been grossly exaggerated. He covered the Spanish civil war, but he was a non combatant (as in WW1 and WW2). I'm sorry, but why didn't he go to Britain and sign up to fight the Nazis when Britain was all alone in 1940? People like Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon would have pissed themselves laughing if they'd been swapping war stories and all Hemingway could come up with was "well, my Hotel got bombed in Spain". Probably no hot water either! He always reminds me of John Wayne- both macho posturers who never really experienced the full horror of war (which was why they never grew out of the macho nonsense- the men who really had to do the fighting just wanted to forget it).

As for the hunting/ bullfighting, it doesn't take guts to shoot a lion. D H Lawrence (a much better writer) shows up the bullfight for what it is in 'The Plumed Serpent': an ugly, barbaric little piece of human cowardice and cruelty.

I do think he wrote well about the spiritual emptiness/ loss of meaning of the 20th century and he was right to try and find a solution in a more primitive, natural, authentic way of living. I also thought 'Fiesta'/ The Sun Also Rises was excellent but I can't take the posing and exaggerating. Had he been a piolet in the Battle of Britain or an infantry officer at Verdun then I'd maybe see it differently.

[Kafka's Crow]

Wounded veteran is not a punchline, and in my family we respect the men and women who put their lives in harms way for the sake of their loved ones.

Hey, you forgot to mention the latest fad, F.R.E.E.D.O.M :flare:

[mortalterror]

He covered the Spanish civil war, but he was a non combatant (as in WW1 and WW2). I'm sorry, but why didn't he go to Britain and sign up to fight the Nazis when Britain was all alone in 1940?

Probably because he was in his forties, walked with a limp, and had a history of other ailments which made him 4F. As far as his contribution not being dangerous or meaningful, I remember a little thing called 9/11. You might have heard about it. You see, a bunch of "ambulance drivers", fire fighters, and policemen ran into a burning building to pull survivors from collapsing wreckage. Well this "ambulance driver" went to a place every bit as scary as that. He took out the maimed, the bleeding, the dying, the groaning remains of humanity; let it seep into his clothing and fester in his mind. He dropped them off at the hospital week after week, and then he went back over and over to do it again. That's a patriot. That's a hero who's service does not deserve to be slighted or mocked by men who weren't there and didn't do or see half of the things he did.

I think he joined the ambulance core for three reasons. 1)The United States hadn't declared war by the time he went overseas. 2)His father was a doctor, and he wanted his father to be proud of him as a preserver of life, not a destroyer. 3) Dos Passos and E.E. Cummings had already done the same thing. I think he wanted to be where the action was, unlike Faulkner who joins the Royal Canadian Airforce, never sees combat, crashes a plane after hostilities are over and then tells wild stories for years about his dogfights over Germany.

[integrity]

I read a number of Hemingway's books in my early twenties, and thought his writing was highly overrated. Being that I am older now, and hopefully possess a bit more experience and wisdom, I thought I might actually give the guy's books a second chance.

But after reading about his "exploits" just now, I think I'll pass. I'm even less impressed with him than before. I tend to agree with Wickes. Hunting (any animal) is hardly heroic. The fact that he hunted innocent animals and pointlessly taunted bulls indicates to me a severe disconnect with nature, a sheer lack of compassion for fellow creatures, and a desire for unnecessary bloodshed or pain. Boxing?...dear lord...if two dumb mugs want to beat the **** out of each other for "fun" and silly looking belts, let the morons have at it.

Arming a fishing boat with a bazooka?! It sounds to me like he wasn't just a war hawk of sorts, but a dramatic pea head to boot. Good thing he realized how goofy he appeared to be, and pulled himself together enough to go shoot some real people. Apparently, non-human animals were not enough of a challenge for him.

Seems to me he canceled out whatever merits he gained as an ambulance driver by performing other various bloodthirsty "feats" of ignorance and apathy.

[Etienne]

I read a number of Hemingway's books in my early twenties, and thought his writing was highly overrated. Being that I am older now, and hopefully possess a bit more experience and wisdom, I thought I might actually give the guy's books a second chance.

But after reading about his "exploits" just now, I think I'll pass. I'm even less impressed with him than before. I tend to agree with Wickes. Hunting (any animal) is hardly heroic. The fact that he hunted innocent animals and pointlessly taunted bulls indicates to me a severe disconnect with nature, a sheer lack of compassion for fellow creatures, and a desire for unnecessary bloodshed or pain. Boxing?...dear lord...if two dumb mugs want to beat the **** out of each other for "fun" and silly looking belts, let the morons have at it.

Arming a fishing boat with a bazooka?! It sounds to me like he wasn't just a war hawk of sorts, but a dramatic pea head to boot. Good thing he realized how goofy he appeared to be, and pulled himself together enough to go shoot some real people. Apparently, non-human animals were not enough of a challenge for him.

Seems to me he canceled out whatever merits he gained as an ambulance driver by performing other various bloodthirsty "feats" of ignorance and apathy.

Mate, if such thing makes you dislike an author (and not his writing) then you've just dismissed a ton and a half of good literature. I'm not sure I see the connection in the fact that you will not read the books of a dead author because he happened to hunt and did some crazy things.

Might as well say: "I'm not going to read Borges, he never did anything in his life, so his writings are going to be boring!"

[JBI]

If we are taking Hemmingway's life into account, as we probably shouldn't, since it is his work which is important, then we must not forget his misogyny, alcoholism, and the fact that he seems overall to be a bit of an a@#hole. But that isn't the point. His prose has its importance, but many of his works are rather rubbishy. For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises, and his Short Stories seem to be the most enduring, with the rest being sustained by the fact that a) he didn't die too long ago, and b) the popularity of the other works keeps him in print.

No doubt he was a great author, but compared to many of his contemporaries, he is quite minor in the grand scheme of American novels, though perhaps central in the development of the American Short Story.

[JacobF]

I'm not the most seasoned reader, but of all the books I have read William Golding goes to the top of my list of the most overrated of writers. Nothing he has written is substantially deep or evocative, and Lord of the Flies isn't a very good allegory of human nature.

[Jozanny]

I'm not the most seasoned reader, but of all the books I have read William Golding goes to the top of my list of the most overrated of writers. Nothing he has written is substantially deep or evocative, and Lord of the Flies isn't a very good allegory of human nature.

I tend to agree with this. Tribalism is not necessarily barbaric, nor is savagery so quaintly schematic in terms of being able to plot one's points toward regression.

Today's gangs in the US, for example, don't need to be spearing pigs to be seen as devolving off of civic respect. Guns make human life very cheap these days, and murders don't even need motives--like it has been said about Cormac McCarthy's villains "killing seems to become just part of the conversation."

Reminds me of the fall of the Roman Empire.

[mortalterror]

If we are taking Hemmingway's life into account, as we probably shouldn't, since it is his work which is important, then we must not forget his misogyny, alcoholism, and the fact that he seems overall to be a bit of an a@#hole. But that isn't the point. His prose has its importance, but many of his works are rather rubbishy. For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises, and his Short Stories seem to be the most enduring, with the rest being sustained by the fact that a) he didn't die too long ago, and b) the popularity of the other works keeps him in print.

No doubt he was a great author, but compared to many of his contemporaries, he is quite minor in the grand scheme of American novels, though perhaps central in the development of the American Short Story.

Honestly JBI, only a person who hasn't read much Hemingway could refer to him as a minor writer. I've seen you misread him as a minimalist several times, and I've told you that's mostly just characteristic of his early work. You'll read Finnegans Wake but you won't put the slightest effort into reading For Whom the Bell Tolls, A Farewell To Arms, A Moveable Feast, or the Old Man and the Sea because you already have your opinion of Hemingway, somebody elses.

As far as subject matter goes, when I want to know about the mating habits of Irish prostitutes, or I want to read the only book about a struggling young writer, or a book about Dublin, or Dublin, or Dublin again, I'll read Joyce. When I want to know what it's like to hunt a lion I'll read Hemingway.

And by the way, to whomever above was talking **** about boxing, I happen to like the sport.

[Michigan J Frog]

Proust.

A couple of others like Golding, Hawthorne, Heller, Balzac, Austen, And pretty much any modern writer that is published.

Oh wait, and Twain. And most American writers. Most people who wrote in English.

And Steinback is insufferable.

[JBI]

Honestly JBI, only a person who hasn't read much Hemingway could refer to him as a minor writer. I've seen you misread him as a minimalist several times, and I've told you that's mostly just characteristic of his early work. You'll read Finnegans Wake but you won't put the slightest effort into reading For Whom the Bell Tolls, A Farewell To Arms, A Moveable Feast, or the Old Man and the Sea because you already have your opinion of Hemingway, somebody elses.

As far as subject matter goes, when I want to know about the mating habits of Irish prostitutes, or I want to read the only book about a struggling young writer, or a book about Dublin, or Dublin, or Dublin again, I'll read Joyce. When I want to know what it's like to hunt a lion I'll read Hemingway.

And by the way, to whomever above was talking **** about boxing, I happen to like the sport.

His Iceberg theory was revealed to the world in 1932 with the publication of Death in the Afternoon, outlining his style, which though perhaps not as simplistic as his early work, was still minimalist. But either way, the point is whether or not he is a minor writer, or whether or not he is a major writer.

The first thing we need to assess is his contemporaries, off the top of my head, the ones that hit me first are O'Neal, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Porter, Carter, Cather and on a stretch, Wharton.

Of those, he is obviously better than Steinbeck and Porter, but Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby, and any of the major works of Faulkner seem far more enduring than even the best Hemingway. O'Neal is unique, as we are dealing with drama here, which seems outside of Hemingway, and most mainstream reading. The question then remains where is the spot for Hemingway.

In terms of short stories, as I mentioned earlier, he seems, with Faulkner and Porter, the most defining of the genre, far surpassing everyone, except for Faulkner. As for novels however, he is just one amongst many great writers, as named above. This is only American modernism however, as you mentioned above, there were a lot more writers working at the time, and I am sure there were a lot more as talented, or more talented writers we don't know about because of lack of scholarship/translation.

His place in the tradition of American literature is undisputed, but it is not a stretch to say exaggerated, as many of his works are dated (despite what you say) and the whole Lost-Generation bit which seems cemented in his early work has grown a little stale. Do I deny that he was a great writer? of course not, though I wouldn't place him above Willa Cather in my esteem.

[WICKES]

. [QUOTE]As far as his contribution not being dangerous or meaningful, I remember a little thing called 9/11. You might have heard about it. You see, a bunch of "ambulance drivers", fire fighters, and policemen ran into a burning building to pull survivors from collapsing wreckage. Well this "ambulance driver" went to a place every bit as scary as that. He took out the maimed, the bleeding, the dying, the groaning remains of humanity; let it seep into his clothing and fester in his mind. He dropped them off at the hospital week after week, and then he went back over and over to do it again. That's a patriot. That's a hero who's service does not deserve to be slighted or mocked by men who weren't there and didn't do or see half of the things he did.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course a man who risks his life as an ambulance driver/ fireman etc is brave and praiseworthy. I hugely admire the conscientious objectors in WW1 who served as stretcher bearers and won medals for rescuing men under shell fire. What I can't bear about Hemingway is his macho posturing, boasting and lying when he was never actually a combatant. It now seems to be generally accepted among biographers and scholars that he exaggerated and sometimes simply lied about his experiences in WW1 and Spain. Still, he needed to dramatise and exaggerate, wheras a man like Robert Graves in 'Goodbye To All That' simply tells of his time as an infantry officer in WW1 in a cool, precise, undramatic way because he had nothing to prove.

If you want to read about war, read something like 'The Last Enemy' by Richard Hillary: a British fighter pilot in the Battle Of Britain who was shot down over the channel and severly burnt/ disfigured. He wrote about the battle while recovering, rejoined the RAF shortly after publishing and was killed a few months later. He writes without a shred of self pity, sentimentality or drama. His little, almost forgotten, book is far more moving than anything that overrated bully Hemingway wrote.

[WICKES]

the whole Lost-Generation bit which seems cemented in his early work has grown a little stale.

He does write well about that I must say. Still, lots of writers write well about that period : Aldous Huxley, Evelyn Waugh, Hermann Hesse etc all capture the emptiness/ loss of meaning very well.

[miyagisan]

I must be quite a Philistine - Steinbeck is my favorite writer and I find Hemingway dreadful. For Whom the Bell Tolls is his only work that I've read cover to cover, so I'm certainly no expert and am definitely planning on reading more. But I just didn't see anything that justified all the praise heaped on him. If I was a Spanish civil war aficionado I may have enjoyed it immensely, but to me it was just a simple theme wrapped in an overly dramatized* book that was 200 pages too long.

* Particularly the ending

[Jozanny]

I am rather surprised at all this Hemingway fuss. I recently reread For Whom The Bell Tolls, and there are things to like in it, but Hemingway seems incapable of humanizing characters beyond Hollywood cliches. I was certainly not moved by what I should have been moved by in Rabbit's experiences, or the other peasant soldiers of the doomed Republic. I got much more, in fact, from a Granta contributor recently recounting an earlier travel writer's experiences in 1930's Spain.

But I am not here to trash the man either--there is something to be said for the reporting style he brought to fiction. Fitzgerald transcends Hemingway, Faulkner transcends both, but they were men of their era, and I disagree with JBI putting Wharton in their camp.

Edith Wharton, like Henry James, represented the last gasp of America in the Victorian age, and that she outlived James by a significant margin doesn't change that.

Let's all take a deep breath? (In and out... )

[jaywalker]

Both Hemingway and D.H. Lawrence are better as Travel writers.' Sea and Sardinia'' and ''A Moveable Feast'' are good. Can't read Henry James and don't think much of Grahame Greene.

[integrity]

Mate, if such thing makes you dislike an author (and not his writing) then you've just dismissed a ton and a half of good literature. I'm not sure I see the connection in the fact that you will not read the books of a dead author because he happened to hunt and did some crazy things.

Might as well say: "I'm not going to read Borges, he never did anything in his life, so his writings are going to be boring!"

In this particular case, I cannot separate the writer from his writing. Just as if Karl Rove or Dick Cheney wrote the most well-written fiction book loosely based on all the great things they've done for middle east, or if Michael Vick was the most eloquent writer on the planet, I would read none of their books because they are major jerks/idiots who lack the slightest amount of empathy or compassion and possess an acute disrespect for their fellow living creatures. These type of folks have nothing of value to impart to me at this time of my life. It's not about whether an author's life (in this case Hemingway's) was exciting or boring, it's about the moral character of the individual himself/herself. It permeates and shines through in a writer's works.

His alcoholism I couldn't give a crap about. Many authors are alcoholic. Or have some sort of addiction or self-destructive foible or idiosyncrasy (sometimes these shortcomings actually enhance the author's writing, making it more interesting or rich with understanding). But if the person appears to have a bloodthirsty streak for needlessly hurting fellow creatures, then that person more than likely has nothing meaningful to impart to me. It indicates a severe lack of depth in their perception of life.

Perhaps if I hadn't read Hemingway's works before and disliked them, I would give him another chance. But I have already read a few of his novels, and did not receive enjoyment or fulfillment from them. So why would I torture myself by reading his books again? Especially when the man's character is so repugnant to me?

For the person who enjoys boxing....good for you. Nothing like watching the spectacle of pointless bloodshed carried out by two willing individuals. I just wish and pray they would bring back the old gladiatorial "games" of Rome. I don't think there is enough gore or innocent animals involved in modern day fighting.

(By the way, Etienne, is that Borat as your avatar? ;-)

[Etienne]

Perhaps if I hadn't read Hemingway's works before and disliked them, I would give him another chance. But I have already read a few of his novels, and did not receive enjoyment or fulfillment from them. So why would I torture myself by read?

Well of course, but then the reason would be that you disliked his writing, not that the man was a hunter...


(By the way, Etienne, is that Borat as your avatar? ;-)

No, Andrei Bely :lol: I think I'll have to change it it's confusing people :lol:

[LitNetIsGreat]

For what it is worth I would just like to throw my coins into the Hemingway well and say that personally I find his novel A Moveable Feast to be easily his best work. Hemingway seems to be at his best in this novel because it is closely biographical and therefore it seems to step away from the “Hollywood” aspect of some of his other novels. Fiesta is also one of his best works. Both these works while not outstanding by any means present a flavour of continental life that I find very attractive.

[stlukesguild]

In this particular case, I cannot separate the writer from his writing. Just as if Karl Rove or Dick Cheney wrote the most well-written fiction book loosely based on all the great things they've done for middle east, or if Michael Vick was the most eloquent writer on the planet, I would read none of their books because they are major jerks/idiots who lack the slightest amount of empathy or compassion and possess an acute disrespect for their fellow living creatures. These type of folks have nothing of value to impart to me at this time of my life. It's not about whether an author's life (in this case Hemingway's) was exciting or boring, it's about the moral character of the individual himself/herself. It permeates and shines through in a writer's works... if the person appears to have a bloodthirsty streak for needlessly hurting fellow creatures, then that person more than likely has nothing meaningful to impart to me. It indicates a severe lack of depth in their perception of life.

Integrity brings into play an intriguing question. Can we separate the artist from the art? Can a real a@#hole produce great art? Do we find it impossible to divorce who the artist was from what the artist did? I think such questions are in need of another thread altogether... and so:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=614810#post614810

[kelby_lake]

I want to read more Hemingway but what on earth happens in The Old Man and The Sea?! It is apparantly 'one of the most profound stories ever told' but all they're currently doing is eating fish and reading about baseball!

[Behemoth]

It's purely a personal opinion, but...
Jane Austen
...
*runs*

[kelby_lake]

Anyone would be overrated with her amount of rating

[Emil Miller]

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.

This story may be apocryphal but I read somewhere that Dan Brown decided to become a writer when he was lying on a beach reading a best seller and he said to himself 'I could write a better book than that.'
Whoever the author was is the person we are looking for.

[kelby_lake]

Oh, Stephenie Meyer has imagination but her writing is terrible. She doesn't exactly have a way with words.

[Leiphos]

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:

from a very prose-centric perspective i agree, jack kerouac is so often terribly careless in terms of style and technique in general

[Dark Muse]

Stephenie Meyer is definitely the most overrated author ever in my book. I am sick to death of hearing about her and seeing her books, and people gushing over her, when she is a mediocre writer at best.

Even when I was in highschool I could not have stood to read her and was reading works of higher quality.

[Judas130]

J.K Rowling.

though, as a children's author, she's quite good at it.

[kelby_lake]

I don't mind Rowling

[John Goodman]

J.K Rowling.

though, as a children's author, she's quite good at it.


Any author who can get millions of children (and adults alike) excited about reading certainly cannot be overrated.

[eyemaker]

Stephenie Meyer is definitely the most overrated author ever in my book. I am sick to death of hearing about her and seeing her books, and people gushing over her, when she is a mediocre writer at best.

Even when I was in highschool I could not have stood to read her and was reading works of higher quality.

I certainly agree with you DM! Meyer is my pick for the most overrated author ever..Sorry for all those Twilighters..:p

[cipherdecoy]

I certainly agree with you DM! Meyer is my pick for the most overrated author ever..Sorry for all those Twilighters..:p

"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."

Hmm but that was the original objective of the thread. I don't think Meyer's books have ever been classified as "great", neither have they achieved the status of classics.

[kelby_lake]

They have by some tiddlywinks who think they are the epitome of literature

[DeadAsDreams]

Im going with the cliched choice, Stephen King.

[Hank Stamper]

It's purely a personal opinion, but...
Jane Austen
...
*runs*

I said the same but have since realised such an opinion is unfair based on the fact I have only read Mansfield Park... I am reserving my opinion now until I have read a bit more of her work (have to read Northanger Abbey for Uni this term)

[Scheherazade]

Im going with the cliched choice, Stephen King.I am sure he will be thinking about this while laughing his way to the bank!

:p

[PeterL]

Stephenie Meyer is definitely the most overrated author ever in my book. I am sick to death of hearing about her and seeing her books, and people gushing over her, when she is a mediocre writer at best.

Even when I was in highschool I could not have stood to read her and was reading works of higher quality.

What has she written? I have never before heard of Stephenie Meyer. Obviously, I don't rate her highly.

[kelby_lake]

She has written this rubbish series called Twilight, which millions of girls have fawned over.

[litpsycho]

I always liked Rowling. Her attempt at grasping the readers' thoughts and imagination is successful. The stories are interesting. Her writing is excellent.
As for Woolf, I beg to disagree that she is a good writer. She seems more of confused and confusing to the readers. Her fans call her works challenging but, isn't a chalenging piece of reading something that could eventually be understood?

[Josef K]

Christopher Paolini, by a long shot

[illuminatus]

Rowling is most certainly overrated--I'll agree with that.

[Tallon]

I've been bored stiff several times when attempting V.S. Naipaul.

[pgwodehousefan]

That Twilight female-soppy,pathetic,painful , Meg Cabot (aarrrrgghh) and Arundhati Roy (how could the supremely painful God Of Small Things win the Booker.

[waryan]

Eh, who is to say really, beside some academic establishment. Is Rowling supposed to hold some literary merit beside the hook that keeps her readers coming back? She is fine in her own right, but I've heard they're teaching her alongside Dickens and Shakespeare and if she is what will be recalled hundreds of years from now as great then, sigh...

[vnnegt-ology]

dickens...
i like Rowling and the Harry Potter series... held off for a while, but had to read it for a college class, and got hooked.

[imperiex]

i'd go with Lovecraft.

[waryan]

dickens...
i like Rowling and the Harry Potter series... held off for a while, but had to read it for a college class, and got hooked.

you read it for college? how interesting- do you mind if I ask what the course was?


i'd go with Lovecraft.

Haven't heard that one before but that's very intriguing- I've always enjoyed Lovecraft's works but I've never been able to get into them the way I feel other people do.

[DaveB]

jack kerouac ~pukes~ Has anyone here read a book called CONVERSATIONS WITH CAPOTE? It's funny---Capote rips into jack, gore, mailer, etc. --- a tough critic & an accurate one! I LOVE CAPOTE! Brilliant man!

He was a very insightful guy. It's too bad he didn't write more. His stuff was always well done.

I read (where?) that Capote, when discussing Jack Kerouac once commented, "That's not writing. It's typing." - Or words to that effect.

I agree with his appraisal.

[Kloster]

Kerouac dissapointed me so much that I stopped reading On The Road by chapter XIII. He's not big deal after all.

And even though I don't like Capote as a short story writter, I agree 100% with him in that commentary on Jack Kerouac quoted by HelloDolly.

[mona amon]

The author of Da Vinci Code. But I'm judging him based on this one book...

[March Hare]

I didn't read this 41 page thread but, in case no one's brought it up, James Joyce is THE MOST overrated writer since cuneiform. Seems everyone's afraid to say it's crap.

[Etienne]

I didn't read this 41 page thread but, in case no one's brought it up, James Joyce is THE MOST overrated writer since cuneiform. Seems everyone's afraid to say it's crap.

What, because you couldn't understand it?

[Cassandra15]

I didn't read this 41 page thread but, in case no one's brought it up, James Joyce is THE MOST overrated writer since cuneiform. Seems everyone's afraid to say it's crap.

Portrait of the Artist is a good book, maybe an important one, but I guess that Joyce wrote that before he decided that he was Joyce. In any case, noone can compete with Proust; as an early editor said, Temps Perdu begins with a thirty page description of someone turning over in bed. And it only gets worse from there.

Thanks.
C.

[March Hare]

What, because you couldn't understand it?

That's right. Neither can you.

[bazarov]

I don't like Joyce but to say to Etienne that he can't understand is rude.

[PabloQ]

One sentence does not satisfy on this topic. If you are going to make a claim that a specific writer is overrated, back it up. Modern popular writers, like J. K. Rowling and Dan Brown are low hanging fruit, but when you take shots at the names on the first page of this site, you really need to back it up. In these discussion threads, nobody polarizes the conversation as much as Joyce. But you just can't throw him out the window. He is acknowledged as one of the greatest writers of all time by people who are for the most part smarter than us. Ulysses is commanly at the top of those 100 best Novel lists (not just on it, but at the top). There must be something there.

I've never read Joyce with the exception of a short story or two long, long ago. I have no opinion of his work one way or the other, but I imagine he has earned his reputation.

These threads are silly and get sillier when someone inevitably brings up Joyce or Shakespeare or Twain or Dickens or Austen. What you are saying is that you set a level of expectations when you sat down to read an author's work, but were dissatisfied with the experience. That in no way means that the writer did not earn his or her reputation as a great writer 100s of years after their death. The weakness is not the ability of the writer, it's on the reader.

Thus, I believe the ability of the typical reader to fully understand what he is reading is overrated. I know this to be true of myself. I assume it to be true of the majority of posts in that past 41 pages.:(

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your comments.

Inflammatory posts will be edited/deleted without further notice.

Feel free to ignore any posts that you don't find agreeable or "worthy" of your response.

[islandclimber]

I love James Joyce.. Ulysses, Portrait of the Artis as a Young Man are both amazing works.. and The Dubliners is in my opinion one of the best collections of short stories written in the english language.. even Finnegan's Wake is quite an amazing and enjoyable work to read through especially if you don't worry about understanding every single word, but I've read it twice, once without notes, and the other time with notes to the book that were longer than the book itself... :p and I still enjoyed it both times..

but as this is opinion, I don't really see the problem with anyone saying they think Joyce is overrated, or any writer for that matter.. if someone wants to say Dostoevsky is overrated in their opinion that is okay.. but if you are going to say you think a universally respected and for the most part considered "great" writer is overrated, give reasons why you think so.. :D

from what I have read on some sites regarding great books and great writers, I would have to say overrated writers are those like Stephen King, and John Grisham.. and JRR Tolkien.. but it all depends on who's opinion we are looking at, for I doubt most people who are seriously into literature, or who are lit critics, think King or Grisham are great writers.. maybe Tolkien in my opinion gets undue praise for his literary talent.. as his books are basically fantasy books written a little better than most others, but in my opinion that does not make them great literature.. they don't transcend genre writing which in my opinion is the only way a genre work can jump into great literature..

[crystalmoonshin]

I'm still fuming over the fact that I was fooled into thinking that the "Twilight" saga was so good. It wasn't. It's just that the book was so hot in forums and in my school that I actually thought it was good but I was so wrong! Imagine my disgust when they compared Meyer to Anne Rice! So far, I consider Meyer the most overrated writer.

[Bitterfly]

In any case, noone can compete with Proust; as an early editor said, Temps Perdu begins with a thirty page description of someone turning over in bed. And it only gets worse from there.


I beg to differ - the only thing wrong with Proust is that he has an unfair reputation for difficulty, which is a pity, because it means people are discouraged before even having started to read him. My boredom threshold is rather low, but I didn't once find the Recherche tedious. He tells a good story, honestly!

I envy you islandclimber for finding Joyce enjoyable though. I loved the Portrait, liked Dubliners, but trudged through Ulysses twice, finding him interesting to study, but on the whole rather yawn-provoking, except for a few chapters. I haven't tried Finnegans Wake yet but I suspect I will have the same type of reaction.

I can't think of any author whom I find overrated, because I generally go by the rates of academic circles, but I can think of some I find extremely boring (The Man without Qualities by Musil tops eveything else, for me) - that said, I wouldn't say they were overrated, just that my capacity for understanding has limits.

[islandclimber]

I beg to differ - the only thing wrong with Proust is that he has an unfair reputation for difficulty, which is a pity, because it means people are discouraged before even having started to read him. My boredom threshold is rather low, but I didn't once find the Recherche tedious. He tells a good story, honestly!

I envy you islandclimber for finding Joyce enjoyable though. I loved the Portrait, liked Dubliners, but trudged through Ulysses twice, finding him interesting to study, but on the whole rather yawn-provoking, except for a few chapters. I haven't tried Finnegans Wake yet but I suspect I will have the same type of reaction.

I can't think of any author whom I find overrated, because I generally go by the rates of academic circles, but I can think of some I find extremely boring (The Man without Qualities by Musil tops eveything else, for me) - that said, I wouldn't say they were overrated, just that my capacity for understanding has limits.


Yeah, I don't really see Proust as being difficult or tedious.. Mind you I have only read in translation but still.. I thought In Search of Lost Time was amazing.. One of my favourite books..

I agree with you though.. If you go by academic circles you really can't say an author is overrated, maybe you just can say you didn't enjoy that work, or understand it.. I know there are famous authors I don't like in the slightest.. but I still don't view them as overrated really, just not my cup of tea... ;)

[kelby_lake]

I'm still fuming over the fact that I was fooled into thinking that the "Twilight" saga was so good. It wasn't. It's just that the book was so hot in forums and in my school that I actually thought it was good but I was so wrong! Imagine my disgust when they compared Meyer to Anne Rice! So far, I consider Meyer the most overrated writer.

She is without a doubt.

[Vintage34]

I'm most likely the oldest person who posts on this site, so I probably have a different slant on all books mentioned so far.

The Catcher in the Rye: When it was published in the 1950's, it was groundbreaking, and opened the door to a brand new style of writing. It was so innovative and amazing at the time, that I can remember actually feeling thrilled! I can't even guess at how many times I've read it Those of us in college at the time were totally blown away by the book. However, since then, many hundreds of books have been written, using "Catcher" as a template. I believe they call them "Coming of age" stories or movies? Consequently, it's just become one of hundreds of teenage angst stories. "Catcher" was the first and the best . . . you had to be there!

Hemingway, is overrated, and has not stood the test of time. His books seem tedious and boring now. Anyone ever see a really good movie made from a Hemingway book? The only one that is watchable today is The Killers, with Burt Lancaster.

Steinbeck has endured because of his two masterpieces, "East of Eden", and "The Grapes of Wrath". Both still readable, and both made into classic movies, that still hold me spellbound.

[johann cruyff]

Hemingway, is overrated, and has not stood the test of time. His books seem tedious and boring now. Anyone ever see a really good movie made from a Hemingway book? The only one that is watchable today is The Killers, with Burt Lancaster.


I didn't know that was a condition for a book to be considered good? Going by that logic, The Brothers Karamazov is a horrible book, since it doesn't even have a movie based on it? (at least as far as I know, but you know what I mean)

I agree Hemingway is overrated, but the reason you gave is just...wrong. Especially bearing in mind the fact that no really good book can ever be matched by a movie.

[bazarov]

I didn't know that was a condition for a book to be considered good? Going by that logic, The Brothers Karamazov is a horrible book, since it doesn't even have a movie based on it? (at least as far as I know, but you know what I mean)

I agree Hemingway is overrated, but the reason you gave is just...wrong. Especially bearing in mind the fact that no really good book can ever be matched by a movie.

BK has more then 5 movie versions, so it's a great book! :lol:
Really, reason is...yes, wrong.

Tko bi glumio Ahmeda Nehrudina? Rade Šerbedžija?

[johann cruyff]

Tko bi glumio Ahmeda Nehrudina? Rade Šerbedžija?

Haha, who else? Maybe Josip Pejaković, but from a much younger age... And I really didn't know about the movie versions of TBK, never seen a single one... Huh, now you got me interested!

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I'll second!

As far as other 'classic' literature goes, I'd say Orwell is overrated in my eyes.

[stlukesguild]

I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.

I'll second!

I must agree with PabloQ that such one-line comments are completely useless... if not inane. "That Mozart guy was over-rated" "Yeah, and Raphael couldn't hold a candle to Bob Ross".:rolleyes: Personal opinions are fine... but when they seemingly contradict the opinions of generations of literary figures: writers, critics, scholars, literature lovers... then it would seem that one might feel somewhat obliged to offer up something along the line of reasoning behind such blanket statements. You feel Nathaniel Hawthorne is over-rated? Why? What books have you read by him? Who would you compare him with by way of comparison and contrast. I find it interesting that JBI got taken to task for having taken the time to offer up a reasoned analysis of why he didn't like the harry Potter novels... but we still get these continual comments dismissing Hawthorne, Hemingway, Joyce, Proust, and the like.

[islandclimber]

I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.

I'll second!

I must agree with PabloQ that such one-line comments are completely useless... if not inane. "That Mozart guy was over-rated" "Yeah, and Raphael couldn't hold a candle to Bob Ross".:rolleyes: Personal opinions are fine... but when they seemingly contradict the opinions of generations of literary figures: writers, critics, scholars, literature lovers... then it would seem that one might feel somewhat obliged to offer up something along the line of reasoning behind such blanket statements. You feel Nathaniel Hawthorne is over-rated? Why? What books have you read by him? Who would you compare him with by way of comparison and contrast. I find it interesting that JBI got taken to task for having taken the time to offer up a reasoned analysis of why he didn't like the harry Potter novels... but we still get these continual comments dismissing Hawthorne, Hemingway, Joyce, Proust, and the like.


couldn't have said it better myself! :thumbs_up

[JBI]

Meh, I'll say that outside of perhaps The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne isn't that great. Just try reading The Great Stone Face without being bored to tears by the long predictable drone of the tale.

Still, not the most overrated ever - tastes differ of course.

I would say, perhaps Poe or someone would be more overrated. Hawthorne is only remembered pretty much for a handful of stories and one novel anyway.

[bazarov]

Neither did I, but I've checked it once on IMDB.

[Cayenne]

Do I have to dislike some author's books to say she's overrated? Because I love Harry Potter -books but I do think J.K. Rowling might be a little overrated. I mean obviously she has a great imagination but still I don't really get how it has got so popular.

[prendrelemick]

J D Salinger

Why? His reputation is built on ONE book for heaven's sake. A book I hated with a deep passion. His protagonist has nothing to say to me, there's no common ground between us. He moves through a landscape I don't recognise, meeting people I cannot believe in. Thats the plot, as for his writing, its adequate nothing more. Where's the body of work so that we can judge him and compare him with others? What is there to go on? a few forgettable short stories and a couple of mediocre novellas.
There, rant over.

[Mag Master 21]

J D Salinger

Why? His reputation is built on ONE book for heaven's sake. A book I hated with a deep passion. His protagonist has nothing to say to me, there's no common ground between us. He moves through a landscape I don't recognise, meeting people I cannot believe in. Thats the plot, as for his writing, its adequate nothing more. Where's the body of work so that we can judge him and compare him with others? What is there to go on? a few forgettable short stories and a couple of mediocre novellas.
There, rant over.

I originally had a response drawn out about wanting to punch you in the face, etc., but I thought it would be better to just leave it out. I don't believe a small body of work should be taken into consideration when discussing who's overrated and who isn't.

Would you say the same about Harper Lee, who has even LESS out..? Or John Kennedy Toole who has only written one novel, that just so happened to have won the Pulitzer Prize, that is one of the most original, genius bodies of literature I've ever had the pleasure of reading?

It is one thing to dislike a writing style or the premise of a novel, but to discredit someone's like-ability because of the amount they've written is absolutely absurd.

How do you think I feel? Salinger is my favorite author and he teases us with one novel and a bunch of shorter stuff. All the while, everyone knows he has 50 years of writing locked away in filing cabinets, waiting for him to die before they're published.

But to answer the OP's question, my vote goes to Kerouac... I don't mind stream of conscious writing; in fact, I really enjoy it. My problem is he does a terrible job of it. The story could be extremely interesting, but I get the feeling I'm reading the cliff-notes version of his journey. I had to struggle to keep myself interested.

And I hate to say it, but Nabokov. The opening lines of Lolita are genius... in fact, I'd say one of my all-time favorites. However, the quality of writing falls off a cliff, with some exceptions of brilliance. The ability is there, but it doesn't shine through on every page.

EDIT: Just to clarify re: Toole - He has another novel called The Neon Bible; however, it was written when he was 16 and only published years after his death, due to the immense pressure from other family members who wanted to cash in on their ownership rights.

[promtbr]

Yeah, I don't really see Proust as being difficult or tedious.. Mind you I have only read in translation but still.. I thought In Search of Lost Time was amazing.. One of my favourite books..
I agree with you though.. If you go by academic circles you really can't say an author is overrated, maybe you just can say you didn't enjoy that work, or understand it.. I know there are famous authors I don't like in the slightest.. but I still don't view them as overrated really, just not my cup of tea... ;)

This being the first day of a period of time I have set aside for reading In Search of Lost Time, is reassuring. Tho I have read the first two volumes a LONG time ago and am not detered by Prousts style at all since it IS a work of art we are talking about here. That is what distinguishes literature from commercial entertainment. Proust's unprecedented exploration of how we experience the self as it moves through time requires his style. One of the definitions of art is the concept of form and substance as being unified.

I find readership of literature who's expectations are foremost to be entertained, boring and tedious. ( As per the martyred rock god who railed against the overweening need to be entertained...)

In My HO, as I attempt to appreciate a work that is generally accepted as literary art, it is for sure is excusable to be put off by subject content or ideas expressed that does not rest well with my personal mores or taste...but if I do not otherwise "connect" (in Forster's sense of the word), it is a failure on my part, not the authors...

How's that for venting :rage:

[Tsuyoiko]

If any author has been claimed to be "the best", then maybe in a sense he's overrated.

Writers that I didn't enjoy as much as the hype made me expect to include Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Franz Kafka (although Metamorphosis redeemed him somewhat) John Steinbeck and Vladimir Nabokov.


Dostovesky.

:bawling:

[BloomingRose]

I guess Twilight is not a classic XD (Thank God!) but so many people are reading these books nowadays.. and I don't like the way it's written... there's nothing special in it :S For me, she writes similar to other american writers, like R.L.Stine...

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.

I'll second!

I must agree with PabloQ that such one-line comments are completely useless... if not inane. "That Mozart guy was over-rated" "Yeah, and Raphael couldn't hold a candle to Bob Ross".:rolleyes: Personal opinions are fine... but when they seemingly contradict the opinions of generations of literary figures: writers, critics, scholars, literature lovers... then it would seem that one might feel somewhat obliged to offer up something along the line of reasoning behind such blanket statements. You feel Nathaniel Hawthorne is over-rated? Why? What books have you read by him? Who would you compare him with by way of comparison and contrast. I find it interesting that JBI got taken to task for having taken the time to offer up a reasoned analysis of why he didn't like the harry Potter novels... but we still get these continual comments dismissing Hawthorne, Hemingway, Joyce, Proust, and the like.

Looking back, I'll say this on my choice selection which others have unpleasantly (on my part) acknowledged I have left out. I consider Hawthorne an overrated writer due to the fact that his motifs that have been integrated throughout the work The Scarlet Letter. Children, nature, the struggle between good and evil, and what should be considered social appropriate was better phrased by Shakespeare before Hawthorne and virtually blown out of league with both of your aforementioned authors, Joyce and Proust. Two individuals who I happen to appreciate the depth of their prose. Both are known either way, whether you enjoy their prose or not. Both have attempted a new form to show correlation between reality and thought and even have expressed the motifs Hawthorne had, which I've already expressed, only these other two authors were able to show flexibility. So when comparing Hawthorne to Joyce, what has Hawthorne done? Essentially nothing in my personal opinion and the same can be said or Orwell whose allegorical expression could have been soaked with literary hostilities and have that be the charge of new world orders in discussions. Ah well, it's mere food for thought.

[prendrelemick]

[QUOTE=Mag Master 21;667523]I originally had a response drawn out about wanting to punch you in the face, etc., but I thought it would be better to just leave it out. I don't believe a small body of work should be taken into consideration when discussing who's overrated and who isn't.

Would you say the same about Harper Lee, who has even LESS out..? Or John Kennedy Toole who has only written one novel, that just so happened to have won the Pulitzer Prize, that is one of the most original, genius bodies of literature I've ever had the pleasure of reading?

It is one thing to dislike a writing style or the premise of a novel, but to discredit someone's like-ability because of the amount they've written is absolutely absurd.

How do you think I feel? Salinger is my favorite author and he teases us with one novel and a bunch of shorter stuff. All the while, everyone knows he has 50 years of writing locked away in filing cabinets, waiting for him to die before they're published.

================================================== ========
Its OK Mag Master, my post was entirely a personal rant. Your points are well made and probably pertinent. Well done for defending your favourite author.

I wasn't trying to discredit his like-ability, just his "rating". If his fifty years of unpublished stuff is brilliant, fair enough, he'll confirm the exalted place he holds. If its disappointing then he's overrated, a one hit wonder.

[kelby_lake]

Harper Lee is overrated. Everyone drones on and on about how brilliant Mockingbird is when it is fairly bland and preachy.

I think that Lolita is one of the best examples of writing I have ever read. And he totally thrashes some English authors and it's not his first language!

[PeterL]

I think that Lolita is one of the best examples of writing I have ever read. And he totally thrashes some English authors and it's not his first language!

English was Nabokov's first language. He spoke both English and French before he started learning Russian at age eight. Nabokov also trashed many Russian writers.

[DisPater]

stephen king

[jon1jt]

Dante Alighieri

John Updike and Saul Bellows


Tim O'Brien too.

[mayneverhave]

Dante Alighieri

John Updike and Saul Bellows


Tim O'Brien too.

Strange combination there.

[Wilde woman]

Dante Alighieri

Just curious. Why?

[kelby_lake]

English was Nabokov's first language. He spoke both English and French before he started learning Russian at age eight. Nabokov also trashed many Russian writers.

That makes him even cooler! :)

[Equality72521]

Stephanie Meyer; William Golding

[kelby_lake]

Meyer's writing is awful: 'The pizza held no interest for me.'

Who writes things like that?!

[shud-shee]

Conrad (Nabokov called his style "souvenir shop")
Hemingway
Golding

[Allannah]

Stephenie Meyer and JD Salinger. The latter is good but definately overrated.

[Allannah]

Meyer's writing is awful: 'The pizza held no interest for me.'

Who writes things like that?!

Yeah, she's trying to be all writing technique-y, but it's just really cliche-y and wasted on that. It just sounds overdramatic, unless if she was saying it in a jokey way. It would be good if it was something other than a pizza!

[JBI]

Personifying the pizza as a work of art - that's priceless. That's just plain old stupid - food "doesn't hold interest." It makes one crave.

[kelby_lake]

Yeah, she's trying to be all writing technique-y, but it's just really cliche-y and wasted on that. It just sounds overdramatic, unless if she was saying it in a jokey way. It would be good if it was something other than a pizza!

And this wonderful phrase is used again, maybe even in the same book: The book held no interest for me.

Because that phrase sounds SO fabulous that it clearly MUST be used again.

[shud-shee]

Gorky Maxim

[thomas212]

Paolo Cuelho.

[PoeticPassions]

Hemingway... I just find him so dry and vapid. Even his short stories do not intrigue. Hemingway is of no interest to me. haha ;)

oh and I might just agree with Conrad. Though I see the value in his literary endeavors, or why Heart of Darkness was groundbreaking/popular.

[rozreads]

Jane Austen is not overated; she is a brilliant novelist, it's just she wrote in the old ways, meaning that today her merit is not as greatly revered. I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.

Mark Twain? Now that's sacrilege...

[OhReally?]

Charlotte Bronte. Jane Eyer was reall dry, and too consticted; I felt that there was no flow. I like the actual story, but if the prose was a bit more interesting, I would have really liked it.
Oh, yes, Meyer definetly. 'Stifled a gasp' is in a book that is considered literature! Flat characters, and everything, I mean... come on.

[Lokasenna]

I can mention D H Lawrence? In my frank opinion, he was nothing more than a glorified smut peddler, with all the artisitc skill and integrity of road-kill. He is noticed merely because he is shocking, and for no other reason!

[WICKES]

Three names keep recurring- Hemingway, Jane Austen and Kerouac.

My vote goes to Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad novelist, just overrated. Kerouac is not really overrated because he's generally considered good pop lit rather than University reading list material.

[amb]

Twain, Hemingway

And also, with all the King mentions, I think it's only fair to list Lovecraft (who may have already been mentioned---I didn't read all 45 pages....)

[PoeticPassions]

Hemingway (for his dry and lackluster prose) and quite possibly Chekhov... I just don't see the appeal in his stories. Not that they are bad or have no merit (in fact I can even sometimes enjoy reading one), but he is always termed as the master of the short story, and I can name a hundred short story writers that are better and have much more substance to their stories. Chekhov's stories do not speak to me, and in fact they rarely say anything... at times they seem so pointless (or so obvious). But maybe I am missing the point?

[kelby_lake]

Sorry, Hemingway, but I can't get into your books :) Whilst I admire that you get to the point, it's kind of hard to read something like that. x

[WICKES]

It is amazing how many times Hemingway has been chosen! As far as I know, his reputation among scholars and academics is quite low.

[sunshine_enl]

Faulkner!!i just don't get him!i struggle to read his novels just to find myself puzzled at the end,not being quite sure what it was about!

[Schokokeks]

My nomination would be Henry Miller. Seriously. Maybe I'm missing the point of his work, but surely producing a scandal shouldn't be all there is to it...

[JoeLopp]

Hawthorne - at least House of the Seven Gables really vexed me. I think there was something there, but could never quite place it. Maybe I was too young, it was some years ago, but if I try it again and it has a similar effect, I don't know what I may be driven to do...

[subterranean]

Faulkner!!i just don't get him!i struggle to read his novels just to find myself puzzled at the end,not being quite sure what it was about!

I have him on my mind. But no, I decided to try again :). I'd hate if I missed something great out of Faulkner just because my experience with Absalom Absalom.

[Tallgren]

As a Hemingway fan, I'd be interested in hearing why people find him overrated? As far as I'm concerned, he has written four classic novels and a number of classic short stories.

His style did vary. He became famous for his detachment as a narrator and working with implied feelings, but give For Whom the Bell Tolls a try if you want Hemingway in another mood, a novel filled with descriptions and inner thinking of its main characters. It also deals explicitly with a number of moral themes.

Old Man and the Sea is Hem at his most sentimental, but it's a beautiful story. And the best of the lot would probably be A Farewell to Arms.

I'm just trying to say that he did not always write in the same manner. If you've never given him a try, look up Indian Camp online and get a feel for his traditionally terse yet highly rich prose.

[Redzeppelin]

Hemingway rocks.

Gertrude Stein is COMPLETELY OVERRATED. I do not care how many critics insist that she is some founding member of modernism - her writing is terrible!

[Monamy]

Hemingway rocks.

Gertrude Stein is COMPLETELY OVERRATED. I do not care how many critics insist that she is some founding member of modernism - her writing is terrible!

I honestly, REALLY second every word in that quote...
couldn't really put it any better myself!

Heminway is the schiznet!

[La Amistad]

Shakespeare is the most overrated :D.

[Morden]

Let me inject Paulo Coelho, unless of course we are only supposed to be bashing classic authors. The Alchemist is not even suitable for a boat anchor. It is definitely below any classical author mentioned here.

[Dark Lady]

Before I start I'll admit that what I say may have been said on this thread many times already but I only read a few pages back (partly because of time restrictions and partly because my laptop has decided that every time I go somewhere on the internet it's going to open a new window...I don't know if I've accidently changed the settings or my laptop's just having an off day...anyway).

Firstly, it really isn't fair to put authors like J.K.Rowling and Stephenie Meyer in this thread since they are not highly rated in the first place so can't really be overrated. It's like saying junk-food is overrated! Nobody says it's nutritious but sometimes it's nice to indulge. But you can't compare it with a really good meal from a nice restaurant.

Secondly, as for the question, I'm not sure who to pick. There are novels I've read that I didn't feel lived up to the hype but whether they are overrated or I just didn't enjoy them personally is hard to say. I think I'll add my vote to Joyce (partly because I'm currently studying for my Modern Lit exam and I can see Ulysses sitting on my bed...)

I'll admit that all I have read of Joyce is Ulysses so I may be judging him unfairly. I can also admit that there is some merit to the novel but it reads like an experiment. A really really really long experiment. I'm glad I read it but mainly because I feel like it's something you can hold up as an achievement. I feel like it would be the same if I ran a marathon; I wouldn't enjoy it but I'd be proud I did it. ;)

I think when Virginia Woolf wrote Mrs Dalloway she said something about taking Joyce's idea but making it actually work or doing it better or something. I completely agree. Ulysses is pretty interesting as an experiment but, for me, as a novel it doesn't really work.

[Dark Lady]

Wait! Scrap my last post because I know who I think the most overrated writer EVER is. I can't believe I didn't think of him before. Wordsworth. I absolutely fail to see how he got his position in the literary canon! Unlike writers such as Joyce or Fitzgerald or Emily Bronte, who's works I don't like as much as their hype but can see some merit in, I don't see anything in any way special about Wordsworth.

It's not because I think he was a pompous, arrogant arse - which I do - but I don't see one thing that makes his writing more worthy than thousands of other mediocre poets. I thought for a long time that I just didn't like the romantic poets but then I read some others and I do. I LOVE Blake and I really enjoy some of Coleridge and I'll have a read through some Shelley now and then but I just can't stand Wordsworth.

I know people have been criticised on this thread for throwing out a writer of well repute and then leaving at that with no explanation so I'm trying to think how I can best justify my opinion. The problem, mainly, is that that is just it with Wordsworth...there's nothing. He leaves me cold. I feel like there's no feeling in his poetry whatsoever and I can't even say I think he's technically good. I feel like he was a poet who tried to make up for a lack of quality with quantity. His poetry seems longer than it needs to be (I know I said something similar about Joyce and thought I'd clarify; I have no problem with a text being long if it needs to be but I think needless length is one of the biggest sins writers commit) and padded out with...nothing. It's all so nothingy.

I know that hasn't been very explanatory, more like a rant, but after my last exam tomorrow I'll maybe dig up some Wordsworth and give examples of what I mean.

[kelby_lake]

he appears to have weird feelings for nature in Nutting

[PeterL]

If he isn't the worst, then Wordsworth is certainly near the top of the list.

[no one special]

Disregarding J K Rowling and other obvious writers of non-literary fiction - although I wouldn't like to give that term a definition - the king of the overrated writers is Ian McEwan, who has not written anything worth reading for a very long time. Followed very closely be the prancing prince of dross -Martin Amis.

[Don Quixote Jr]

The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!

I don't think it's possible to accurately answer this question with only one writer, but since the question was posed in the singular, I'd have to say Ayn Rand, not because her writing style was necessarily bad but because her love of plutocracy and unfettered capitalism strike me as amazingly stupid and loathsome. BTW, she thought that smoking was really cool and that cigarette health warnings were some sort of socialist plot, and guess what she died of? Well, at least she proved the existence of poetic justice...

[stlukesguild]

The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!

Yes... a mediocre writer and less-than-mediocre thinker turned into a cultural icon: a brilliant artist and profound philosopher. :sick:

[PeterL]

No, Rand was a better writer than Wordsworth.

[Emil Miller]

The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!

I don't think it's possible to accurately answer this question with only one writer, but since the question was posed in the singular, I'd have to say Ayn Rand, not because her writing style was necessarily bad but because her love of plutocracy and unfettered capitalism strike me as amazingly stupid and loathsome.

Maybe you don't like Ayn Rand's philosophical viewpoint but shouldn't you be judging her as a writer? I happen to find the anarchy implicit in George Orwell's philosophical viewpoint equally stupid and loathsome but have to admit he is a very good writer.

[cynara]

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

About Salinger, i completely agree. I read his book after getting a great recommendation for it and found it lacking. It was just teenage angst

[Madame X]

The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!

Yes... a mediocre writer and less-than-mediocre thinker turned into a cultural icon: a brilliant artist and profound philosopher. :sick:

Whose dystopian musings served as inspiration for what was destined to become, according to several infallible critical sources, 2007’s Videogame of the Year: BioShock! Indeed, case in point. :cool:

And, a bit lonely on this side of the seesaw perhaps, but my vote’s for Tolstoy/his battalion of translators...just never could get into that campy Karenin business.

[kelby_lake]

Some of Coleridge's work is pretty dull, as can be Wordsworth.

[lichtrausch]

Max Frisch. Montauk was practically unreadable. It jumped from scene to scene in the most confusing manner possible.

[Dr. Hill]

No, Rand was a better writer than Wordsworth.

First off, apples to oranges. And secondly, Wordsworth is a beautiful poet.

[PeterL]

First off, apples to oranges. And secondly, Wordsworth is a beautiful poet.

They both wrote in the English language. As for your other assertion: Tastes vary.

[Dr. Hill]

But to call him overrated...

[PeterL]

But to call him overrated...

He has been put in the Canon, but he had no great influence in his day, except among the people that he associated with, and he has had little influence since. If the people who created the canon were looking for a Romantic who influenced later writing, then Byron would have been the one. Rating Wordsworth as worthy of being read is excessive, unless one trying to point out how not to write well.

[stlukesguild]

Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.

Wordsworth has no influence excepting upon those around him. Well certainly he did have an influence on Coleridge, Shelley, and Browning... positive and negative. One would also certainly Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, both of whom ranked Wordsworth along side Milton and Shakespeare. American literature and the centrality of nature and the writer's subjective response to nature certainly influenced Emerson, Thoreau, Tuckerman... even Whitman. Just a little research will reveal Wordsworth's importance and influence on writers as different as Pushkin, John Stuart Mill, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Poe, Keats, etc... It is not a far stretch to suggest that a great majority of the English poets after Wordsworth wrestled with his influence. Admittedly there was a rebellion against his work (and more often against what he became later) as there is in emulation or adulation. In either case, he most certainly was not some unknown figure who only impacted those immediately in his own sphere of contact.

As to Wordsworth's merit... certainly suggesting that he is one of the worst writers of all time is an absurdity. I personally prefer Blake... and Keats... but Wordsworth produced a body of poetry of unquestionable beauty, to my mind... and poetry that has been more than slightly influential upon the work that followed.

[JBI]

He has been put in the Canon, but he had no great influence in his day, except among the people that he associated with, and he has had little influence since. If the people who created the canon were looking for a Romantic who influenced later writing, then Byron would have been the one. Rating Wordsworth as worthy of being read is excessive, unless one trying to point out how not to write well.

You'd actually be surprised how much influence Wordsworth had in his own day - there were quite a few editions of Lyrical Ballads alone brought out in his life time. He was even made a household name - though by then he wasn't much of a poet anymore.


As one of my professors put it (she is a modernist scholar, with a specialty in Eliot and Richard Wilbur), "Wordsworth's Ode is the greatest 19th century poem." Certainly, that may be a stretch, but it certainly would be top five, in terms of the way it changed poetic understanding. Perhaps you may be interested in reading Abrams' Mirror and the Lamp, where he discusses the transition in poetic thought brought about by, primarily, Wordsworth.

[PeterL]

You'd actually be surprised how much influence Wordsworth had in his own day - there were quite a few editions of Lyrical Ballads alone brought out in his life time. He was even made a household name - though by then he wasn't much of a poet anymore.

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.


As one of my professors put it (she is a modernist scholar, with a specialty in Eliot and Richard Wilbur), "Wordsworth's Ode is the greatest 19th century poem." Certainly, that may be a stretch, but it certainly would be top five, in terms of the way it changed poetic understanding. Perhaps you may be interested in reading Abrams' Mirror and the Lamp, where he discusses the transition in poetic thought brought about by, primarily, Wordsworth.

While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the art. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world; but the sonnets communicated something of value. Perhaps if Wordsworth had been a little more extreme, then his writing would have been as humorous as Coleridge's; but Wordsworth wrote as if he expected to be taken seriously.

[wessexgirl]

Wordsworth was an innovator, and as such was hugely influential on his peers and future generations. You may not like his work personally, but there is absolutely no denying that he's worthy to be in the literary canon. I can't help thinking you must be teasing us Peterl.

[PeterL]

Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.


Wordsworth has no influence excepting upon those around him. Well certainly he did have an influence on Coleridge, Shelley, and Browning... positive and negative. One would also certainly Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, both of whom ranked Wordsworth along side Milton and Shakespeare. American literature and the centrality of nature and the writer's subjective response to nature certainly influenced Emerson, Thoreau, Tuckerman... even Whitman. Just a little research will reveal Wordsworth's importance and influence on writers as different as Pushkin, John Stuart Mill, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Poe, Keats, etc... It is not a far stretch to suggest that a great majority of the English poets after Wordsworth wrestled with his influence. Admittedly there was a rebellion against his work (and more often against what he became later) as there is in emulation or adulation. In either case, he most certainly was not some unknown figure who only impacted those immediately in his own sphere of contact.

Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era. Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.


As to Wordsworth's merit... certainly suggesting that he is one of the worst writers of all time is an absurdity. I personally prefer Blake... and Keats... but Wordsworth produced a body of poetry of unquestionable beauty, to my mind... and poetry that has been more than slightly influential upon the work that followed.

Opinions vary. There may be value in a few of his poems, but the overwhelming bulk of Wordsworth writing was not very good. I won't claim that he was the worst English poet ever or even the worst of the 19th century, but i wonder what he would have written after the Tay Bridge collapsed in a storm.

[kelby_lake]

Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.


Byron's so much better than Wordsworth, as is Shelley and Blake.

Wordsworth IS overrated- when you learn poetry in school, the only 'old' poets you really know are Shakespeare and Wordsworth, mainly because of the latter's amusingly apt (or maybe not) name.

[PeterL]

Wordsworth IS overrated- when you learn poetry in school, the only 'old' poets you really know are Shakespeare and Wordsworth, mainly because of the latter's amusingly apt (or maybe not) name.

That just came to my mind too. There were many better poets than Wordsworth during that era, but more attention is poured onto him than he deserves. Even Leigh Hunt was as good a poet, but he is largely forgotten today.

[kelby_lake]

Wordworth and nature..hmm...nature poems are the worst type. The Prologue- yawn.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

[stlukesguild]

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.

And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.

While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world...

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.

This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.

Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.

Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.

Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.

Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.

[stlukesguild]

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

Actually... I thought Blake understood that:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

[Desolation]

William Shakespeare...the most over-rated anything of all time.

[stlukesguild]

Oh yeah... and that Mozart dude... he kinda sucks too. And that Leonardo guy... a complete nothing.:rolleyes:

[Desolation]

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.

[googlesque]

I used to think shakespeare was overrated and snobby... but I think alot of my prejudices against shakespeare (and alot of classic literature) was out of contempt for what other people say about him and making such grand statements (best writer ever!). alot of it was also due to my maturity... not saying ppl who think hes overrated are immature... but a vast majority of ppl who don't like shakespeare do not give him a chance.

shakespeare IS difficult reading (alot of elizabethan lit is)... but i think appreciation for shakespeare and actually alot of classic literature needs a personal desire (and an open mind)... that 'enjoiying' older literature DOES require some effort... kind of like listening to 'rock' music... you might not like so and so's album right away, but somehow it just sticks on you after a few repeated listenings.

and before ppl write off shakespeare as elite or snobbish... the guy married young, didn't go to college, was considered 'crude' by the critics of his time. even a couple hundred years after his death, some critics still didn't think much of him just because there attitude was that a man who came from 'peasant stock' couldn't be that great of a writer.

oh well, i just think its a loss if you dont give him a chance.

my vote for 'overrated' would probably be... hmm... maybe the beat generation. i think they were the first victim of a growing mass media... where the lifestyle took over the art. they definitely were good, and in some authors, great... but there meaning has been overrated in the sense that ppl take more out of what they did rather than what they wrote.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

Actually... I thought Blake understood that:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.

[PeterL]

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.

And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.

Would poetry or music be any different today, if Wordsworth or Mozart had not done what they did? That is an idea that is worthy of some thought. I can't say for sure, but i expect that poetry might be a little better now.


While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world...

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.

This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.

All knowledge is subjective. The only value in knowledge is that it is shared by others and is effective in some way. I suppose that Leeches enjoyed that poem about the gatherer of leeches, but leeching isn't used in medicine any more.


Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.

Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.

Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.

Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.


I would imagine that all of those people and many others were influenced by Shakespeare and many other writers, but most of them chose to write other than like Wordsworth.

[stlukesguild]

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined.

[Jozanny]

Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.

But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman. I never asked my instructors what actually elevated Shakespeare to the place we have him in, but I read a paper online that claims we can blame that on the Romantic Movement, and the argument seems persuasive to me. Part of what makes Shakespeare the Shakespeare of the modern canon is that directors can do so much with his material. Othello can be a radical subversion on purity; Macbeth can be a parable about Vietnam; Hamlet is an exploration of the police state and the difficulty of breaking it, and the comedies well neigh anticipate male pregnancy, if you ask me:p, which you did not. But his genius is pretty much what he is always subverting, or threatening to subvert, about the established order, and his intuitive understanding about the corrupting nature of power, or greed, or sex. If Bloom says Shakespeare created the human, that claim isn't much of a stretch. He took the conventions of Elizabethan theater and virtually single-handedly superattenuated them. Jonson, his contemporary, was a great playwright, so was Marlowe, but William Shakespeare, was, and to my mind pretty much remains, the transformative voice in literature. There is a saying: Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. It is a cliche, but still a basic truism.

[Desolation]

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined. It's all subjective, and if you're unmoved by something, then naturally you're not going to think it's good, and if it's highly praised, you'll think it's over-rated. While if you really like something, you can't think that it's over-rated. You can't separate personal feelings from this sort of argument. I'll admit that Shakespeare had talent, but by no means is his talent on the same level of his praise.

[Desolation]

But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman. That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone. And that he's over-rated here-and-now is really all that matters.

I like the rest of your argument, though.

[stlukesguild]

It's all subjective...

Yes, all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others. The merit of a work of art (as in any discipline) is best judged by the opinions of the experts in that field. Is that elitist? So be it. Art is elitist. Something every artist knows. Of course in speaking of "experts" I do not limit this to academics and literary critics (although they would certainly be included). The "experts" would include as well what Virginia Woolf calls the not-so-common "common reader"... that lover of literature who is willing to invest the time and effort into the study of and appreciation of literature. It would also, necessarily, include subsequent writers. There's not all that many writers of real merit who would think to dismiss Shakespeare as grossly overrated. Certainly, Tolstoy had issues (primarily on moral grounds) with Shakespeare, but one suspects that rather like Plato's issues (on the same grounds) with Homer the real issue was the latter writer;'s recognition that he could not surpass his predecessor. However, Kafka, Joyce, Milton, Blake, Borges, Goethe, T.S. Eliot (and on and on we may go) all considered Shakespeare a central figure. There is a clear difference between stating that you don't like a particular work of art or artist (personal opinion) and making a sweeping judgment that goes against the common thread without offering any proof in your favor.

[stlukesguild]

That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone.

And that, by the way. is also a stereotype. Certainly the reputation of the most important artists may grow as his or her influence continued to weave its way through the work of subsequent artists. Certainly there are those who were largely ignored during their own lifetime who are suddenly "discovered" in a later age: Van Gogh, Vermeer, William Blake, Thomas Traherne, Franz Schubert, etc... A great many (if not the majority) of artists of real merit are certainly recognized during their own life time... if not afforded the same level of recognition as will come later. Michelangelo and Raphael were commonly known as "El Divino" (the Divine One). Rubens was knighted in three countries and was the highest paid artist in Europe. Picasso was the first artist whose work broke the million dollar mark... in his lifetime. T.S. Eliot was clearly recognized as one of the most important and influential poets of his time. Nearly all of the Impressionists died quite wealthy. Goethe was so recognized that even the emperor, Napoleon could speak of him as "there was a man". Beethoven's funeral drew vast crowds in Vienna. Time doesn't necessarily canonize all artists... and it is far more likely to be objective in its judgments. There is often much at stake in the reputation of today's art stars be it the investment of collectors, dealers, publishers, etc... Time is far more commonly a leveler of opinions.

[Desolation]

Yes, all opinions are subjective.
Yes, and the answer to a question such as "who is the most over-rated writer ever" is PURELY opinion. There is no answer based on absolute fact. And as a lover of literature, I say that Shakespeare is over-rated.

I don't lean my views on the common thread, and think that it is foolish to do so. It's a very convenient way to claim that you have a better opinion than someone else, though, isn't it?

Anyways, after Shakespeare, my second choice for most over-rated writer would be T.S. Elliot.

[kelby_lake]

Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Personally I would rather read the Wordsworth, easily.


Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

Damn, not be long, there goes Dante, Milton, Shakespeare and every other epic ever written, bummer! Though again you limit and reduce Wordsworth's poetry as only about "nature" (like there is something wrong with that anyway) but it is clearly much more than that:


There is a Yew-tree, pride of Lorton Vale,
Which to this day stands single, in the midst
Of its own darkness, as it stood of yore:
Not loathe to furnish weapons for the Bands
Of Umfraville or Percy ere they marched
To Scotland's heaths; or those that crossed the sea
And drew their sounding bows at Azincour,

What is he really talking about? What's the real point of the poem? War? Man's abuse of nature? Mankind's eternal lust for power? The selfish nature of the human? The folly of human endeavour? Darkness at the heart of mankind? A poem about a tree?

Yew trees were used in the past to fashion bows with due to their suppleness and strength and the fact that there is only one lone tree standing in "its own darkness" to me suggests much about the true nature of mankind. His ever present lust for power and social status at the expense of others. The ugly human.

At the end of the poem there is hope though and a path forward. It is not all bleak as the narrator rises above and rejects the folly of mankind:


And Time the Shadow; there to celebrate,
As in a natural temple scattered o'er
With altars undisturbed of mossy stone,
United worship; or in mute repose
To lie, and listen to the mountain flood
Murmuring from Glaramara's inmost caves.

He realises that time is precious, although short, when he says "Time the shadow" notice of course the personification of time, but we do not dwell on the negative. Instead we appreciate life for its richness, we worship the small things, quietly "in mute repose" we "lie, and listen" to the richness of life around us.

Even though there is only one lone tree left, as all the others have been used to kill long ago, there is still a grain of hope, a love of life and a deep understanding of the beauty of the world. Yes there is more in that one lone tree than in all the folly mankind, in all of its dashing and conquering, and murdering and fighting. If only we could learn to see the world as the voice in that poem.

A beautiful and wise little piece.

[wessexgirl]

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the suggestion of Shakespeare as overrated, it's such a ridiculous notion. There's a vast difference between not liking someone's work personally, and stating that they are overrated, and I think some posters are confusing the two things.

I would like to know what makes you think Kelby that poetry shouldn't be about nature? It can be about whatever the poet wants it to be about. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it lesser poetry. And just to lay my cards firmly on the table, both Shakespeare and Wordsworth rightly deserve their places in the canon, whether they appeal to some readers or not, their work is not overrated, and their reputations are richly deserved, as attested by their contemporaries, scholars, critics, academics, and yes readers, over the centuries.

[stlukesguild]

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

Damn, not be long, there goes Dante, Milton, Shakespeare and every other epic ever written, bummer!

Indeed. That also pretty much eliminates a majority of the Japanese and Chinese poetry that I've read. Hmmm... is there some rule book somewhere that I don't know about that spells out just what subject matter is allowable for poetry? It sounds like the old 19th century "heirarchy of art" in which subject matter was ranked for the convenience of painters: at the top of the heap we had the historical, mythological, and religious narratives followed closely behind by portraiture (and the "importance" of the sitter was part of the measure of the "importance" of the portrait)... then came genre scenes, followed by landscapes and still life. Poor ol' Turner and Cezanne... they never had a chance.:lol:

[JuniperWoolf]

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

That's the silliest thing I've read so far on these forums.

[JBI]

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

No, it is because Blake a) is hardly read, except for some early lyrics, and b), is incredibly misunderstood, even within those early lyrics. There are far easier poems to read than Blake's prophetic works. Blake is one of the most difficult poets I've encountered, and is very, very difficult to get into, because everything is kind of cryptic.

People think, when they read The Tyger, for instance, that they are reading a simple kids poem - in truth, most people get it the first time as Children, but I am yet to find a person that age who really knows what, "When the heavens threw down their spears / and watered heaven with their tears" means. In truth, most adult readers wouldn't be able to pick up the reference easily (Isaiah mixed with Milton).


Poetry without nature is almost impossible. Perhaps one can achieve the sense of nature almost joked upon by Stevens:



And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place


But one realizes, quite early, that to not hear the subjectivity of the natural world is to be like the snow man - dead and frozen, part of Stevens' irony.

[stlukesguild]

I didn't want to get into the Blake discussion myself... being an admitted fanatic... but yes, outside of his shorter lyric poetry Blake is an extremely difficult poet and I would agree a seldom read poet. And certainly his short lyrics can be as knotty as anything.

[Madame X]

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.
That would be Poe’s entire Poetic Principle – in 10 words or less!

[stlukesguild]

Unfortunately, Poe was a rather mediocre poets. No Wordsworth... and certainly no Blake.

[JBI]

Unfortunately, Poe was a rather mediocre poets. No Wordsworth... and certainly no Blake.

Yeah, but Poe had something both of these Geniuses did not - something, to many readers worth far more than innovation or eccentricity - an American stamp on his forehead. I highly doubt, had he been born in England, that Poe would have amounted to much beyond a shrug.

So yeah, to throw another one in the pot, I'd put him as one of the most overrated writers.

I think that's one of the problems that Harold Bloom has struggled with in his life. His knowledge of Poe's inferiority, yet his loyalty to the American Imagination. He then came up with a bogus excuse to justify Poe as "thinking up people's nightmares" which is total idiocy, when one thinks of it, rather than coming up with a real answer; America, at that point, had very few good poets, (I like to think of Longfellow as a good poet, though he wrote his fair share of shlack) and was trying to establish itself. Along comes Poe, with a haunted, sort of Gothic tinge, that seems cool, and bam! sensationalism, that lasts to this day. He's like Twilight and The Da Vinci Code wrapped into one bag. Certainly, he was about as creative as they at any rate, but I guess the competition at the time wasn't much, and his weird sense of perverse adolescent madness (perpetuated by his incestuous marriage to his Lolita of a first cousin) only made him seem more authentic. He's like Baudelaire, but without the Baudelaire, Byron without the wit - but what can compete with an American stamp? Well, the power of the American brand has been proven time and time again - I guess that is just an early example of it, in its infant stages.


Yes, I know, I may seem biased, but Poe seems the poet people who don't like good poets love (in the sense that Britney Spears is the singer people who don't like good singers like). Perhaps he deserves a little more credit, and would be best compared to Puccini... yeah, I like that... in terms of style, I see a lot between Poe and Puccini's operas... accept for one thing really... Puccini had music, which was somewhat pleasant, whereas Poe was only able to capture the mediocrity of the unnatural words and ridiculous plots.

[Jozanny]

I don't think he is that bad as a fiction writer JBI. What he lacks in depth he makes up for in atmosphere, and Poe was the father of film noir, in a sense. He provided the roots for the hard-boiled American detective character and plots. I am no advocate for his poetry, but he did manage to make his mark as an American author.

[JBI]

I don't think he is that bad as a fiction writer JBI. What he lacks in depth he makes up for in atmosphere, and Poe was the father of film noir, in a sense. He provided the roots for the hard-boiled American detective character and plots. I am no advocate for his poetry, but he did manage to make his mark as an American author.

Exactly my point. Look how you've constructed Poe, as this original American innovator, and pioneer of the American short story. It becomes problematic though, when you try to separate the artificially constructed tradition from the author - the dancer from the dance. Relevance to a tradition perhaps isn't everything, and if it is, what if we start to unravel the notion of a tradition - what happens then? It would seem, that these figures who are only relevant, I would argue, because of their associations with the tradition begin to become re-evaluated.

[Dark Lady]

I would like to try to back up the notion that Wordsworth is overrated but I do think it's a difficult thing to do since any of his poetry I may quote may be enjoyed by other people. How do you stop this sort of thread spiralling into 'this is good', 'no it's not'?

Since Blake has been brought up I thought maybe I'd compare the two. It is difficult as they are so different. I also have the problem that whilst I have Blake's Complete Poems I am limited with Wordsworth to what I have in an anthology. Perhaps the sections I'll choose will be a bit arbitrary but then I do sort of think I could choose almost any section from any of their poems and feel the same.

This is from Wordsworth's 'Surprised by Joy':

"Surprised by joy--impatient as the Wind
I turned to share the transport--Oh! with whom
But Thee, deep buried in the silent tomb,
That spot which no vicissitude can find?"

Now I fail to see much in this (and I suppose perhaps it is a failing on my part). I feel like if I had handed this in during my Creative Writing classes at uni nobody would have batted an eyelid. However, if I had handed in something like this (from Blake's 'America: A Prophecy'), I think it would have had a lot of attention:

"Silent and despairing love, and strong as jealousy,
The hairy shoulders rend the links, free are the wrists of fire;
Round the terrific loins he seized the panting struggling womb.
It joyed. She put aside her clouds and smiled her first-born smile,
As when a black cloud shows its lightnings to the silent deep."

I know that these are very different poems in form and subject and everything but like I said I just feel like I could take almost any poem of Wordsworth's and almost any poem of Blake's and I would not see the merit in Wordsworth's whereas I would in Blake's.

Wordsworth leaves me cold. There are other poets who do this to me too but I can still recognise certain aspects of their poetry that make me understand why other people hold them so highly. I don't have this with Wordsworth. As has been said before in this thread; Blake is an extremely difficult poet. But even when I can't understand what he's saying or I don't get the allusion (one of the reasons I am going to read the bible is so I will get the biblical allusions in writers like Blake) I can appreciate the skill and beauty of his writing.

[Jozanny]

Exactly my point. Look how you've constructed Poe, as this original American innovator, and pioneer of the American short story. It becomes problematic though, when you try to separate the artificially constructed tradition from the author - the dancer from the dance. Relevance to a tradition perhaps isn't everything, and if it is, what if we start to unravel the notion of a tradition - what happens then? It would seem, that these figures who are only relevant, I would argue, because of their associations with the tradition begin to become re-evaluated.

You lose me here a little, although you seem hostile to what I'd call quality hack writers, of whom I'd include Dumas, Wilkie Collins, Gissing, and possibly Poe, though I am not sure Poe *pioneers* short fiction so much as American genre, whether or not we include those genres to be American Gothic, Mystery, Horror, pick your tag.

I am more forgiving of certain genre formulas than others, certainly, as Stephen King makes me puke, but I am easier on detail-oriented 19th century paint by numbers fiction writers, and even 20th century historical novelists like Mitchner, John Jakes, or James Clavell. To me, Shogun was decent entertainment when I was a teenager. I learned something about the classical Japanese caste system, and a samurai was rather the Asian version of an Arthurian knight. In the same vein, Poe is something of a morbid sensualist. When I am in the mood, I enjoy him as a kind of lighter Maupassant, an American Maupassant without the French Maupassant cynicism. If you don't like the tropes inherent in these types of tales, without them, would someone like Borges have evolved?

I have yet to penetrate Borges, but I know enough about his oeuvre to know he took the cheap tricks from said genres and pushed their boundary lines in such a way that appreciative readers become fascinated. Lessing does the same with science fiction. There is bad trash and better trash, and I am fine with the latter when I don't want to work too hard. American noir, at its best, is as equally worthy of the esteem granted to fictional realism, besides. The Maltese Falcon has something to teach its readers, JBI. The hero is a brutalist, but he honors a peculiar kind of code: you get justice for your partner, even at the cost of a great sex life, or chasing fantasical totems, and if part of this legacy owes a debt to Poe, far be it for me to ridicule good material simply for being encased in its own norms.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I would like to try to back up the notion that Wordsworth is overrated but I do think it's a difficult thing to do since any of his poetry I may quote may be enjoyed by other people. How do you stop this sort of thread spiralling into 'this is good', 'no it's not'?

Since Blake has been brought up I thought maybe I'd compare the two. It is difficult as they are so different. I also have the problem that whilst I have Blake's Complete Poems I am limited with Wordsworth to what I have in an anthology. Perhaps the sections I'll choose will be a bit arbitrary but then I do sort of think I could choose almost any section from any of their poems and feel the same.

This is from Wordsworth's 'Surprised by Joy':

"Surprised by joy--impatient as the Wind
I turned to share the transport--Oh! with whom
But Thee, deep buried in the silent tomb,
That spot which no vicissitude can find?"

Now I fail to see much in this (and I suppose perhaps it is a failing on my part). I feel like if I had handed this in during my Creative Writing classes at uni nobody would have batted an eyelid. However, if I had handed in something like this (from Blake's 'America: A Prophecy'), I think it would have had a lot of attention:

"Silent and despairing love, and strong as jealousy,
The hairy shoulders rend the links, free are the wrists of fire;
Round the terrific loins he seized the panting struggling womb.
It joyed. She put aside her clouds and smiled her first-born smile,
As when a black cloud shows its lightnings to the silent deep."

I know that these are very different poems in form and subject and everything but like I said I just feel like I could take almost any poem of Wordsworth's and almost any poem of Blake's and I would not see the merit in Wordsworth's whereas I would in Blake's.

Wordsworth leaves me cold. There are other poets who do this to me too but I can still recognise certain aspects of their poetry that make me understand why other people hold them so highly. I don't have this with Wordsworth. As has been said before in this thread; Blake is an extremely difficult poet. But even when I can't understand what he's saying or I don't get the allusion (one of the reasons I am going to read the bible is so I will get the biblical allusions in writers like Blake) I can appreciate the skill and beauty of his writing.


Hmm, it reads as quite a touching piece to me, a father’s grief at the loss of a daughter. Full poem here:
http://www.portablepoetry.com/poems/william_wordsworth/surprised_by_joy_.html

Sonnets need to be read as a whole really to get their full impact. I like the concluding lines of the poem especially:


Knowing my heart’s best treasure was no more;
That neither present time, nor years unborn
Could to my sight that heavenly face restore.

It’s very touching, especially having two daughters myself.

One interesting angle which one of my tutor’s brought up was that Wordsworth tends to divides the sexes. Of course it is an acknowledged sweeping statement but there may be a case to be made out of it, though it’s not my cup of tea to really do so. While we are making sweeping statements of the sexes a lot of women seem to be attracted to the work of Blake too. I don’t know, I just think a lot of the time people tend to reduce Wordsworth as “a nature poet” or someone who only writes about trees and bridges etc (as we have seen) and that sort of approach doesn’t do him justice as I hope I illustrated in one of my last posts.

Of course people have different tastes and that is fine but to say Wordsworth is overrated doesn't ring true to me at all.

[kelby_lake]

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

Obviously the 'and' escaped you.

Of course some good poetry is long- narrative poetry thrives on it- but it shouldn't be a divide of intellects.

There well might be some meaning behind the tree poem, but who would ever pick up on that unless you pored over it? We should study poems to gain a deeper or more accurate understanding, not to desperately search for an understanding.

Nature poetry is, or can be, the height of pretentiousness. Now, nature can feature in poetry (Neutral Tones is a good example) but if all you're saying is 'Isn't nature lovely?', what's the point? Are we all supposed to bow down and praise the poet on their wonderful observations of what art can do so much better?

I have not said anywhere that Wordsworth is terrible, or that the fact I don't think much of his poetry equates as the definitive judgement on its merit.

Overrate means: to rate or appraise too highly; overestimate.

In secondary school everyone thought that Wordsworth was untouchably great, one of those poets that you just assume are good. It appears to be the belief of a lot of people. And I didn't wake up one morning to find that his poetry was terrible; I read other poets and as I became more experienced, I realised that he was not as good as Shakespeare (which is what he was essentially equated to) and that there were many poets we had never really learnt that were far better. Blake's poetry is passionate and lyrical- instantly attractive. Wordsworth's doesn't have the same impact.

Ask a group of non-poetry intellectuals which they prefer and I bet the majority would choose Blake over Wordsworth.

[PeterL]

Unfortunately, Poe was a rather mediocre poets. No Wordsworth... and certainly no Blake.

It is true that Poe was not a Wordsworth, and he certainly was not a Blake. Although Poe was into writing poetry when he was young, his later and better known poetry was mostly in a humorous vein that accorded well with the best of his prose. But Poe was not much of a poet, and, if he were here to be questioned, then he would admit that his satirical, ironic, and horrific prose were his best work. To the best of my knowledge, neither Wordsworth nor Blake Wrote a story that could compare with even "The Cask of Amontillado".

[wessexgirl]

Nature poetry is, or can be, the height of pretentiousness. Now, nature can feature in poetry (Neutral Tones is a good example) but if all you're saying is 'Isn't nature lovely?', what's the point? Are we all supposed to bow down and praise the poet on their wonderful observations of what art can do so much better?

Ask a group of non-poetry intellectuals which they prefer and I bet the majority would choose Blake over Wordsworth.

This is a deeply flawed misreading of Wordsworth. Can I just ask how much of Wordsworth you have read Kelby? There's a heck of a lot more to Wordsworth's poetry than that. Just out of interest, you have mentioned reading him at Secondary School. Are you still a school student? If so, I can safely say that you will not have read a huge amount of Wordsworth's poetry for the syllabus, (I work in a Secondary School), and if you had studied him in greater depth, (as I did for my degree), you would know that he's more than that, and is universally acclaimed to be a very important poet. To dismiss him as you have with that trite statement smacks of desperation. Okay, you don't like him, everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, but that is an overly simplistic, and just plain wrong summing up of an extremely well-regarded pioneer of poetry.

I also don't understand your last statement. Why would a group of "non-poetry intellectuals" choose Blake over Wordsworth? Do you mean people who don't read poetry? Are you saying that as they're intellectuals, they deal in reason and not feelings, so would choose Blake, who is the antithesis to reason, whose works sing out with his own unique, personal spirituality, because Wordsworth is too wrapped up in emotion? You may prefer Blake to Wordsworth, but they are both part of the Romantic Movement, which was about feelings and emotions over reason and logic. Where's your proof of such a statement? And do you really think that Art can "do Nature" better than Nature?

[LitNetIsGreat]

There well might be some meaning behind the tree poem, but who would ever pick up on that unless you pored over it? We should study poems to gain a deeper or more accurate understanding, not to desperately search for an understanding.


Yes I am sure that there is "some meaning behind the tree poem" in fact I am absolutely sure there is and I gave my quick reading of it earlier. And I do say quick, it was not "poured over" but was instantaneously obvious to me, maybe that is because I don't just dismiss Wordsworth as someone who writes long poems about trees? This is where you are going wrong with Wordsworth, you are seemingly reducing him to someone who says "oh look at that nice tree" and in doing so you are missing the point with Wordsworth completely. You are not alone in doing this. This is fine, it doesn't really matter either way, but to say that he is overrated if you are not going to properly read him seems a little pointless to me.

Peter L

To the best of my knowledge, neither Wordsworth nor Blake Wrote a story that could compare with even "The Cask of Amontillado".

That's because they were poets.

[PeterL]

Peter L
Quote:
To the best of my knowledge, neither Wordsworth nor Blake Wrote a story that could compare with even "The Cask of Amontillado".
That's because they were poets.

That was my point.

[stlukesguild]

I also don't understand your last statement. Why would a group of "non-poetry intellectuals" choose Blake over Wordsworth? Do you mean people who don't read poetry? Are you saying that as they're intellectuals, they deal in reason and not feelings, so would choose Blake, who is the antithesis to reason, whose works sing out with his own unique, personal spirituality, because Wordsworth is too wrapped up in emotion?

Yes... I'm having difficulty getting what you are at here myself. "Non-poetry intellectuals?" So you are assuming that those who are intelligent but do not read poetry would prefer Blake. I'm not certain that says much in favor of Blake... and I am an admitted Blake fanatic myself. Perhaps presented with a seemingly simple poem like The Tyger you may be right... but how many would find Wordsworth's "Strange Fits of Passion I have Known" or "She Dwealt Among the Untrodden Ways" or "I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud" or "Intimations of Immortality" far more pleasurable than Blake's Milton, or Jerusalem? I am not asking which is better as I clearly prefer Blake... but I think you grossly underestimate Wordsworth... and I think you have thrown out some rather absurd reasons for doing so when you suggest that long poems about nature are inherently bad. Where is the dividing line between a long poem and a short poem... Is there a specific number of lines after which the quality inherently deteriorates? And nature as an inappropriate subject matter? Who decides what subject matter is appropriate? Do we honestly believe that any subject matter cannot result in great art... or schlock? Yeats suggests that all art may be reduced to a contemplation of sex and the dead... perhaps he is right: creation and destruction, life and death, love and hate, sex and violence... but even so it must be recognized that Wordsworth is not lacking even under such criticism. There is certainly more than a little meditation upon mortality within his poetry.

[stlukesguild]

I agree with Jozie with regard to Poe. As a poet he was mediocre at best... and often quite bad. As a short story writer...? He had his moments. I agree that he developed a certain unique, Gothic atmosphere which is often the strongest element of his strongest tales. It is for this reason that he had such an impact upon Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Gautier and others... as well as upon any number of influential visual artists. He is certainly not Baudelaire... but neither was Gautier for that matter. While Poe's nationality certainly assured him a place within literature survey's in the United States, I think you grossly overstate the worth of his nationality (another bit of those Canadian anti-American reflexes at work?:D). The reality is that it was far more likely the appreciation of the French writers and authors which sealed Poe's reputation early on.

[stlukesguild]

By the way... to return to Wordsworth... it is somewhat amazing that Wordsworth is dismissed as such an overrated poet with people continually pointing out that he had so many mediocre and poor poems... and yet what of Coleridge? His entire reputation virtually rests upon three (unquestionably great) poems.

[JBI]

I agree with Jozie with regard to Poe. As a poet he was mediocre at best... and often quite bad. As a short story writer...? He had his moments. I agree that he developed a certain unique, Gothic atmosphere which is often the strongest element of his strongest tales. It is for this reason that he had such an impact upon Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Gautier and others... as well as upon any number of influential visual artists. He is certainly not Baudelaire... but neither was Gautier for that matter. While Poe's nationality certainly assured him a place within literature survey's in the United States, I think you grossly overstate the worth of his nationality (another bit of those Canadian anti-American reflexes at work?:D). The reality is that it was far more likely the appreciation of the French writers and authors which sealed Poe's reputation early on.

His current reputation is built upon the fact that virtually every American schoolchild (and Canadian for that matter) reads him, and has him held up as the embodiment of good literature and poetry. Every kid is fed the raven - every kid is fed the Tell Tale Heart, and no one actually has stopped to ask if these works are actually any good (well, almost nobody).

This whole genre of Dark Romanticism in America - from Poe to Lovecraft to King - is completely built upon the acceptance of Poe as the model. The acceptance of Steven King, undoubtedly, stems from him as a continuation of the Poe vein - part of the American tradition, if you will. But what is there at the core? The poems seem to say one thing over and over again, with only one emotion, and the same words and phrases recycled again and again. The Tales, to me at least, seem rather silly.

Take The Tell Tale Heart, for instance. Let's compare it to something like the ending of Zola's Therese Raquin. Who is closer to the consciousness of the delusional victims? I don't think either are, but Zola at least has a tinge of flavor - from line one of Poe we get the same feeling, and it never alters, and when he finally confesses at the end, nothing really changes. Essentially, the works feature similar themes, but Zola, though his work is flawed, seems to have a style that makes things rather interesting, by assembling a better narrative, whereas Poe seems boring, and redundant.


By the way... to return to Wordsworth... it is somewhat amazing that Wordsworth is dismissed as such an overrated poet with people continually pointing out that he had so many mediocre and poor poems... and yet what of Coleridge? His entire reputation virtually rests upon three (unquestionably great) poems.

Nah, Coleridge had at least four. Kubla Khan, Christabel, Dejection, and the Ancient Mariner.

Wordsworth had about 10-15 fantastic poems, and about 10-20 more that were excellent.

Then again though, what poet in the West isn't just remembered for a few choice lyrics?

Even Shakespeare's sonnets have mediocre ones amongst them, and it seems people are only familiar with a maximum of 20 (though I would estimate that at least half are pretty good).

There's a misunderstanding, it would seem, amongst many people who don't really read poetry, that poets only write great poems. Thomas Gray, for instance, seems remembered for less poems than even Coleridge. Certainly outside of academic circles, and scattered readers very little outside of his Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard is unheard of (if people even read that anymore).

What of someone like Raleigh though? It seems people know his Response to Marlowe's Shepherd, but very little outside of that.

Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.

Readers who aren't primarily poetry readers like to think of the poetic tradition as something like the novel tradition, or the prose tradition in general. It isn't, and it cannot be reduced to that. Each poem is a separate entity, even within a cycle, yet talks to all poems, and is ultimately about the same question. To value a poet based on all their poems is ridiculous. Very few people write only good poems, in the sense that very few novelists write only good sentences. The difference is though, with the novelist, the bad bits don't get published, and go unheard of, or are destroyed, but with poetry, the mediocre bits are part of the whole. Every poet only ends up with a handful of memorable poems at any rate. Some poets have a handful of really great poems, some have a couple really great poems, some have one fantastic poem, and some have many fantastic ones. But when it comes to valuing, the person with the most fantastic poems cannot be valued over someone with fewer than they, because the poems cannot be compared like that.

[stlukesguild]

Ah yes... I forgot Dejection. Four it is... and two fragmentary at that... albeit who knows if we'd actually have wanted him to have finished Christabel or Kubla Khan.

[the_black_skye]

I'm just going to interupt and say John Steinbeck, I found Of Mice and Men, incredibly dry. But then again why would an adolescent Australian, relate with two deep southern, working class men?

[sixsmith]

I can't say that they are the most overrated of 'all time' but Salman Rushdie and Ian McEwan spring to mind. I think that their reputations are inflated due to the relative dearth of quality contemporary British fiction. Rushdie lives solely of the cred of 'Midnight's children'. I can't fathom McEwan's standing. His earlier, darker works are promising but his later works are uniformly sub-par - the nadir being the laughable "Saturday''.

[kelby_lake]

I also don't understand your last statement. Why would a group of "non-poetry intellectuals" choose Blake over Wordsworth? Do you mean people who don't read poetry? Are you saying that as they're intellectuals, they deal in reason and not feelings, so would choose Blake, who is the antithesis to reason, whose works sing out with his own unique, personal spirituality, because Wordsworth is too wrapped up in emotion?

Whoops, my bad here. I was writing pretty late at night- what I meant was more 'non poetry-intellectuals'- my made-up word for people who aren't well-versed in poetry or particularly intellectual, but are naturally susceptible to it as a living breathing feeling human. Most likely I am too sweeping in my judgement of Wordsworth, but everyone exaggerates things to make a point. You're no doubt speaking as someone who's very knowledgable about poetry, correct? I'm speaking as someone who follows a gut instinct, who judges on what they first see from poetic ignorance. Naturally my appreciation of different poetry will grow as I become more analytical and well-versed, but poetry should connect with people, regardless of whether they've studied it or not, otherwise it becomes the untouchable 'intellectual' thing it was to me years ago and, in part, now.

[Emil Miller]

I can't say that they are the most overrated of 'all time' but Salman Rushdie and Ian McEwan spring to mind. I think that their reputations are inflated due to the relative dearth of quality contemporary British fiction. Rushdie lives solely of the cred of 'Midnight's children'. I can't fathom McEwan's standing. His earlier, darker works are promising but his later works are uniformly sub-par - the nadir being the laughable "Saturday''.

I haven't read Rushdie, although having read reviews of some of his writing, I don't see what all the fuss is about. One wonders how well he would have fared had not The Satanic Verses given him enormous publicity because of the outrage it stirred up among muslims.

[Jozanny]

I am staying out of this argument about the Romantic poets. In truth, I only had a cursory study of them, and haven't read any of them in years, until coming here and *reseeing* Keats with fresh eyes, thanks to some posts.

In general terms, I have an ambivalent relationship with appreciating poetry, something that the astute lovers of the genre may have guessed by now. Why this is amounts to my own impatience with contemporary confessional narratives. Most of it is simply crap, which, coming from me, is an uncouth statement. Now, when it comes to great pieces from early and mid-20th names, things become a tad more complicated. I do not *love* Robert Frost, for instance, but respect him in the sense that one respects the Ibsen trope of the master builder. On occasion, I've admired Marianne Moore's wit, and Bishop can knock a few out of the ballpark. The Beats are almost a whole issue unto themselves, but they can be blamed for the fact that people like me can publish 300 poems and be bitter about the fact that I'll die in obscurity while individuals like Pinsky represent the academic norm. All I genuinely care about is publishing enough of my own work while being fairly stingy about admitting who are my betters, and by now some of you can imagine what I'd cop to on that score.

As we leave aside contemporaries it gets more complicated still, as I am equally ambivalent about formalism and yet can fall in love with Robert Browning, whose narrative abilities delight as oppose to threaten. Sonnets I can take or leave, no matter who adhered to them faithfully. Epics I place in a different class, as the epic is deceased, and not really poetry anymore. (Astounding statement, but I will defend that on another day.) I have no love lost for Yeats, poor fellow, and yet I count Donne more among the living as much as I assign Yeats one grave among so many of the entombed.

For being a poet, my knowledge is not markedly extensive, despite how grounded and how well read I've been in modern literary journal poetry, but as to the Romantics, Wordsworth wrote too much, in my estimation; probably foundered at times more than he should have, but beyond that I cannot judge or opine on whether his brand outsizes its actual merit. Keats deserves sainthood, so maybe that is a judgment in and of itself. The rest of them that I were taught, they are pretty. Not quite sure they move me as authentically as Donne manages, but I remain cautious of overly sweeping statements, and that is where I'll leave it.

[PeterL]

By the way... to return to Wordsworth... it is somewhat amazing that Wordsworth is dismissed as such an overrated poet with people continually pointing out that he had so many mediocre and poor poems... and yet what of Coleridge? His entire reputation virtually rests upon three (unquestionably great) poems.

I think that Coleridge gets credit for what he didn't do, but people ignore what he actually wrote. I think that he wrote humorous verse, but his humor was personal, and he tried to hide it from readers. "Kubla Khan" can easily be interpreted as a description of a sexual encounter, but he hid that in such lofty language that it is lost. "The Rime..." can be interpreted as the raving of a halfmad bum who was trying to cadge some money.


Ah yes... I forgot Dejection. Four it is... and two fragmentary at that... albeit who knows if we'd actually have wanted him to have finished Christabel or Kubla Khan.

"Kubla Khan" is complete. The story of the postman was a lie to hide the truth.

[stlukesguild]

what I meant was more 'non poetry-intellectuals'- my made-up word for people who aren't well-versed in poetry or particularly intellectual, but are naturally susceptible to it as a living breathing feeling human. Most likely I am too sweeping in my judgement of Wordsworth, but everyone exaggerates things to make a point. You're no doubt speaking as someone who's very knowledgable about poetry, correct? I'm speaking as someone who follows a gut instinct, who judges on what they first see from poetic ignorance. Naturally my appreciation of different poetry will grow as I become more analytical and well-versed, but poetry should connect with people, regardless of whether they've studied it or not, otherwise it becomes the untouchable 'intellectual'

Again... your argument brings us to another issue: is art for everyone? Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem? I have long argued that art is an elitist endeavor... but that it is not an elitism of birth or social or economic status but rather that it is an elective affinity. We all make the choice whether to invest the time and effort into the study of this or that art form. The fact that someone is not well-versed in poetry does not make them ignorant... however it would seem logical that someone having put forth a great deal of effort to the genre of poetry would be someone whose opinion I am more likely to consider. Thus my question as to why I should be impressed if Wordsworth were less popular than Blake among those to whom poetry is not a great passion and a subject they have put forth effort in studying? I might presume that among those not deeply versed in art Renoir, Andy Warhol, Van Gogh, and Gustav Klimt's Kiss might be far preferred to Titian, Velasquez, Bonnard, and Ingres. Should I care the least what the uninformed and largely disinterested masses think? How valuable is my opinion on the string quartets (Beethoven vs Mozart vs Schubert vs Haydn vs Shostakovich vs Dvorak) a genre of which I am not overly fond? I have little doubt that my opinion on opera and choral music is far stronger... albeit that is far less solid than my opinions on painting.

Kubla Khan" is complete. The story of the postman was a lie to hide the truth.

Perhaps... perhaps not. In either instance the prose introduction is certainly an essential part of the work as a whole. Of course even if the tale of the lost remains of the poem were true and all that remains is but a fragment... it is still as "complete" as Schubert's "Unfinished Symphony". The suggestion of something lost or unfinished lends a certain pathos... and yet we are uncertain as to whether the work could be made better had it been whole.