who is the most overrated writer ever?

[sixsmith]

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.

You've captured my thoughts on this stlukes. I happen to hate Wordsworth as well, having taken a Romantic course in my undergraduate 'studies'.
But the validity of my opinion is incredibly limited given that my knowledge of poetry and the canon of scholarship that evaluates its development and how and why it works is negligible. I suspect my feelings on Wordsworth would remain the same (the idea that nature has a 'presence' or whatever is just crap IMO) but i bring the same level of ignorance to Shakespeare's poetry which i happen to love. My opinion is of similarly little worth.

I think kelby is right in a sense. Art is about the gut in that, to an extent, it evokes a rather fundamental response of pleasure. But not all guts are created equal. I think it was Robert Hughes who said "Democracy exists to allow elitism - elitism based on excellence". That's the way i prefer to think of it. The idea that art is somehow fatally flawed if it can't speak to Joe Blow on the street is beyond absurd. Art is never untouchable; it can be elusive and difficult but the individual has to come to the party also.

[Jozanny]

Again... your argument brings us to another issue: is art for everyone?

The short answer to this is yes. If you're human, no matter how poorly educated, you make aesthetic choices on a daily basis. Both you and JBI are more exposed than I am in your multi-cultural data, but that may be due to things I cannot change: health, economics, even linguistic ability.

But as a published author, I have different strategies than either of you in my approach to aesthetic choice. I look for ideas in what I appreciate, and not necessarily the satisfaction, or solely that satisfaction, of aesthetic transcendence, with obvious exceptions. I don't steal from Shakespeare, and attend to a quality production for its own sake. Nearly every other writer, however, is a rival, in one form or another. "Stay away from doing this, or can I do this better, or I know I can't write at that level and need a reason not to suicide as quickly as possible, or hey, this I can steal and I had better steal it well..." That is how my mind works.


Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem?

No, but everyone can subvert expectations, some of the time. Despite my deliberate push back, which is in other ways a form of respect, JBI is very good at this game.;)

[kelby_lake]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;723457]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? . 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?

Ouch.

People are naturally susceptible to poetry, as they are to music- topics about human experience and rhythm affects everyone, regardless of their intellectual capacity. Of course, the more intellectual people will be able to articulate why they feel a certain way more articulately, but does that make their opinion more important? As you have pointed out in mine, it may be written vaguely articulately, but does that instantly make it better than someone who disagrees but doesn't write how I write?

There are people, like in music and painting, who are more intuitive about art, and who might be able to pick up on layers that someone without that may not find.

Who cares if they've spent however many years poring over it? They still have the same biases and are unlikely to change them- they will see what they want to see. If they spend 20 years seeing it, great- they'll probably give more scholarly reasons for their thoughts- but Hitler spent a lot of time on Naziism. Does that make his opinions any more valid?

[Jozanny]

But kelby, if I may, you might want to stick your hasty responses in a word processor, sit on them a few, then revise? Posting with any degree of frequency sometimes leads to more confusion than necessary. I myself am having trouble getting your argument (define argument as closer to thesis here, as opposed to disagreement).

As I explained above, I am an extensively published poet who is at times hostile to poetry, and I'm basically indifferent to Wordsworth and Blake, which implodes your point, since you assume, in my anti-intellectual moments, that I would choose the religious wing nut over the grand old man of letters in his waning Victorian twilight. I'd prefer the pedestrian to the overwrought visionary, so maybe what you assume about those who don't get this in university is off. I had a fan from New England who was a farmer. Never did English Literature, but like me, loved the small press, and his analysis of my work would have knocked my buns right back in my wheelchair if my buns weren't in the wheelchair already, and if he was astute about what I published, he wasn't simple.

[stlukesguild]

Is art for everybody?

The short answer to this is yes. If you're human, no matter how poorly educated, you make aesthetic choices on a daily basis. Both you and JBI are more exposed than I am in your multi-cultural data, but that may be due to things I cannot change: health, economics, even linguistic ability.

Jozie... again I'm not disagreeing with you. We all make aesthetic choices to one extent or another. Perhaps the question should have been made more specific: Is all art for all people? Again the answer remains Yes and No. As I suggested we each make the choice whether something is worth the effort of not. It is an elective affinity. For example Japanese Noh theater and Chinese opera did nothing for me in the little I have experienced. I was in no way intrigued enough to desire to explore more. As a result I wouldn't think to offer an opinion of the work... yet do we not continually find ourselves confronted with those who having little or no real experience of Modernist or Abstract painting, or contemporary poetry or opera feel free to throw out their opinions and imagine that they should have any merit whatsoever?

But as a published author, I have different strategies than either of you in my approach to aesthetic choice. I look for ideas in what I appreciate, and not necessarily the satisfaction, or solely that satisfaction, of aesthetic transcendence, with obvious exceptions.

Personally I don't separate the form from the content. I imagine that they are so intertwined as to be virtually one and the same.

I don't steal from Shakespeare, and attend to a quality production for its own sake. Nearly every other writer, however, is a rival, in one form or another. "Stay away from doing this, or can I do this better, or I know I can't write at that level and need a reason not to suicide as quickly as possible, or hey, this I can steal and I had better steal it well..." That is how my mind works.

And certainly I would imagine most artists' minds work in a similar manner.

Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem?

No, but everyone can subvert expectations, some of the time. Despite my deliberate push back, which is in other ways a form of respect, JBI is very good at this game.

I had a fan from New England who was a farmer. Never did English Literature, but like me, loved the small press, and his analysis of my work would have knocked my buns right back in my wheelchair if my buns weren't in the wheelchair already, and if he was astute about what I published, he wasn't simple.

Again, Jozie, you seem to be assuming that what I am suggesting is that it is the opinions of the academic scholars alone... those with a great degree of formal study under their belt. I made it clear that those whose opinions are of merit are those who have invested the time and effort into the study... the exploration of a given discipline. This need not mean formal "study". Your farmer, you have suggested, is certainly not knowledgeable about contemporary poetry without having invested some effort in the exploration of the small presses, etc... Hell my own knowledge of literature has been largely gained outside of any formal courses.

[Jozanny]

Actually luke, that last was for kelby. Only in the sense that there are lovers of literature who aren't the modern incarnation of an English Major. Her point seems to be the man on the street would enjoy Blake because Blake wrote shorter stanzas. I am as confused as you and wessexgirl are, I'm afraid, because making assumptions about what the average Joe's tastes are is still committing the fallacy of assumption. My ex-fiance is a dumb cop from the Bronx. In his attempt to placate me during our engagement he'd say, "I've read Nietzsche!"

Stereotypes abound ;)

[Eryk]

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

[kelby_lake]

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

!!

Yes, I know his plays can verge into the melodramatic, but that's only because they study the extremes of human nature.

They're passionate, raw, consciously poetic, violent, lonely...perfect for the theatre.

[Beyle]

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.

I actually enjoy Woolf's writing.

Like you, I do not understand the hype surrounding Salinger or The Catcher in the Rye. I thought the book was boring.

[Mr Endon]

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

I second that. To be fair, I've only read Not About Nightingales, but it was sappy, tepid, frankly quite the let down.

[kelby_lake]

I second that. To be fair, I've only read Not About Nightingales, but it was sappy, tepid, frankly quite the let down.

His earlier and later work is weak, but the era from The Glass Menagerie (1948) to Night of The Iguana (1962) is a brilliant example of good theatre. If you watch The Glass Menagerie and don't cry, you must be evil...

[TurquoiseSunset]

Oh, definitely J.D. Salinger! I absolutely hated everything about The Catcher in the Rye...

And Faulkner, although I don't feel as strongly about him as I do J.D. Salinger.

[Mr Endon]

His earlier and later work is weak, but the era from The Glass Menagerie (1948) to Night of The Iguana (1962) is a brilliant example of good theatre. If you watch The Glass Menagerie and don't cry, you must be evil...

Well I suppose I ought to give the man a fair chance. Not About Nightingales is just a big sloppy mess of clichés and bathos (no one will ever convince me otherwise!) yet I'm hoping A Streetcar Named Desire will reconcile me with him. And I guess I could give the Glass a go as well.

EDIT: I've just noticed that the Streetcar is from 1947, so before the era you've mentioned. What did you make of it?

[kelby_lake]

Whoops- just worked out that Glass Menagerie- first commercial success- was actually in 1944.

I liked the play, and thought the film was a brilliant adaptation, although it skimmed over some of the parts, like Blanche and the schoolboy...

My personal favourites are Cat on A Hot Tin Roof (steamy and claustrophobic), The Glass Menagerie (terribly sad), Night of The Iguana (sort of tragicomic, less melodramatic than some), and Orpheus Descending (not a commercial success- Southern Gothic style- very moving however).

[My name is red]

Oh i got an answer for this one:MİLAN KUNDERA:smash:

[joao_oliveira]

There are no overrated writers. There are just some people who like them and some others who don't. Even if you think a particular one is overrated, you're not better alone than the 213453268'23148 other people together.

[thomas212]

Oh i got an answer for this one:MİLAN KUNDERA:smash:

But have you read more than The undearable lightness of being ? Is this bold statement only based on one novel?

[My name is red]

But have you read more than The undearable lightness of being ? Is this bold statement only based on one novel?
No,I've also read Immortality.I actually enjoyed it to some extend way more than The Unbearable lightness of being,that's for sure.But still i think he is overrated.Especially,when some consider him as the last existentialist,I'm like that's enough.Existentialist?Not even near.You see,existentialism kind of a sour point with me :idea:

[rabid reader]

read through the first bit of the thread and have to say that I really enjoyed Hemmingway, Salingher and Fittsgerald, as a matter of fact those three athours have to be sopme of my favourites. I own and reread all there books, have collected all their short stories, and have consumed much of my time just discussing their works and sifting through there genius.

As of right now of all the authors I have ever read the best short story writer I have ever come across has been J.D. Salingher, his How to Write a Love Story wittingly belittles the traditional romance novel that has made ever real man's life hell when they begin a relationship. His writing I actually find quite underrated.

As for those who name Rowlings or Brown, it is no doubt they are overrated, they have to be if they are as popular as they are now, but in 50 years time they will take their place in literature like everyone else and will no longer be overrated. They have some talent and they both can tell a good story, so I would not really list them yet.

For me overrate, I wouldn't say overrated persay becasue his writtening is obviously influencial, it's just not my cup of tea and that is Charles Dickens.

[Helga]

I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...

[amuse]

I still remember choking on Faulkner in high school...only one book, but it was excrutiating.

Omg, i just saw that he won a Nobel Prize. Whoa is me!

And just read an excerpt from The Sound and the Fury. Can't say I appreciate the choppy little sentences. Though if memory serves, he also wrote many sentences that ran on and on like the Amazon or Mississippi.

[mayneverhave]

I still remember choking on Faulkner in high school...only one book, but it was excrutiating.

Omg, i just saw that he won a Nobel Prize. Whoa is me!

And just read an excerpt from The Sound and the Fury. Can't say I appreciate the choppy little sentences. Though if memory serves, he also wrote many sentences that ran on and on like the Amazon or Mississippi.

Faulkner's technical style shifts throughout that novel, ranging from simplistic and completely extroverted (Benjy) to lyrical and drawn out (Quentin).

Authors like these deserve the benefit of the doubt. Before you simply dismiss an author because he appears, on first notice, to be difficult, ask yourself "why would an author employ very long sentences?" You wouldn't pick up a Shakespearean play and say "Oh, Shakespeare uses 'thou' and 'ye', I give up!"

[Mathor]

I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...

what world are you living in. You really don't like TKAM?

[Pryderi Agni]

what world are you living in. You really don't like TKAM?

Guess there are philistines in every cultural epoch:nod:.

[kelby_lake]

I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...

Finally! Someone who understands! What on earth are the people saying below me about 'philistines'? It's a so-so book not a grand classic.
There is probably a reason why she didn't write another book...

[lattywatty]

Definitely agree on J. K. Rowling. Read the first six books because I was young and everyone was reading them then got seven chapters through the latest one, put it down and haven't picked it up since.

[Lynne50]

Hi, Red,
I'm intrigued by your quote. Is that a quote of your own? If not, could you tell me where you read it? I liked the analogy of the apple/tree, but as soon as we form a thought or opinion of our own, we're doomed to the ground. Of course, we are in great company.

[JBI]

what world are you living in. You really don't like TKAM?

This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).

[Drkshadow03]

This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).

That's it! No Quidditch for you!

[JBI]

That's it! No Quidditch for you!

Heh! who would want to be transported to a world where if you shake a stick up and down a few times, white sparks come out!

[bluosean]

Steinbeck, Hemingway (sp?), Whitman, O. Henry, and Kather would be my choices.

Jewett is under-rated though. She is fun reading.

[kelby_lake]

Heh! who would want to be transported to a world where if you shake a stick up and down a few times, white sparks come out!

:sick: That sounds like a creepy euphemism....

[Oread]

I don't understand all the votes for Steinbeck! His style is simplistic but his stories are deeply insightful. Of Mice and Men is an amazing story, I can get goose bumps just thinking about it. Plus, I can't help but love all the plugs for Monterey and Salinas =). Two books that stand out in my mind as particular objects of hatred are Grendel and Siddhartha.

[islandclimber]

This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).

my thoughts exactly! haha

[islandclimber]

I don't understand all the votes for Steinbeck! His style is simplistic but his stories are deeply insightful. Of Mice and Men is an amazing story, I can get goose bumps just thinking about it. Plus, I can't help but love all the plugs for Monterey and Salinas =). Two books that stand out in my mind as particular objects of hatred are Grendel and Siddhartha.

I quite liked Of Mice and Men too... most likely my favourite work by Steinbeck, although I wouldn't call it his best... I don't see him as overrated... although I don't like East of Eden that much... thinking of overrated writers although I don't know so much anymore as I am not sure what current opinion is of him.. but Theodore Dreiser is definitely one of them in my mind.. Saroyan to an extent as well.. and Charles Bukowski is the most overrated poet ever... I despise his poetry almost to an irrational extent! :flare:

[Nabokov_love]

I truly enjoyed your input in this discussion and must agree that although some authors may be overrated currently, they will take their place among the entertainers of our day. Granted, they are not brilliant pieces of philisophical inquiry, but not all great literature is! :)

[Nabokov_love]

Ok my last post was actually just a reply to rabid_reader, but I forgot to quote :)

But to add my say into this muddle of writers who did more than I ever have, I would say that Cormac McCarthy is just one author I cannot quite grasp where his praise comes from. Maybe I need only to read other pieces of fiction, but after reading the reviews and comments on 'The Road' I picked it up and after a day put it down sadly discouraged. I was eager to finish it, hence the short time of reading it took, because I was looking for the proof of his praises. I think mainly I just didn't "get it"

As for some of the other authors on here, I am slightly saddened at the choices, not liking a book and not being able to appreciate its impact are very different things. I say this mainly pertaining to Kerouac. He was not the most talented writer, and certainly not the most creative... but he influenced an entire generation of beat writers, poets and citizens. I suppose it spoke to them at the time and so he deserves his praise, much like Britney Spears deserves recognition for single handlely starting a young female pop/stripper phase :)

But seriously, Kundera... Salinger... these men are amazing ;) That is all a matter of personal preference though.

[Babak Movahed]

The absolute worst writer I could think of is Alodous Huxley! Brave New World is so bad that i threw up a little in my mouth after finishing it. The entire time I was reading it I was thinking "when is this going to get good?"... it didn't get good at all.

[kelby_lake]

I quite liked Brave New World

[breeze]

In my modest opinion it`s Leo Tolstoy. His style is awkward, his morals are hopelessly out of date, his books aren`t teaching, they`re preaching.

[Drkshadow03]

Socrates. Socrates is the most overrated writer ever.

[PeterL]

Socrates. Socrates is the most overrated writer ever.

Socrates is not known to have written anything that survived. Did you mean Plato? If so, then why? Or was it because of a particular translator?

[Drkshadow03]

Socrates is not known to have written anything that survived. Did you mean Plato? If so, then why? Or was it because of a particular translator?

I am well aware Socrates never wrote anything. Heh. I guess I flubbed that attempt at a nonsensical/ironic joke. :blush:

[Red-Headed]

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

We must be talking about a different Shakespeare. I always thought that the 'History Plays' were marvellous. Regardless of various historical inaccuracies. Some of the later plays are anything but dull. Mind you, I've never really rated his comedies, with the possible exception of The Merry Wives of Windsor. Although it's probably best to overlook the 'cheese-eating' jokes as they could be considered a tad racist now. Although Sir Hugh Evans probably deserved the cheese jibes. Many people don't even know why the Welsh are associated with eating cheese.

[Barbarous]

I find Orwell's work to be a bit overrated, along with Vonnegut. Now both these writers represent to me this flow of stiff excitement (a contradictory metaphor, eh? hehe) once lost when a reader discovers something of a different vision. The vision can be in multiples (and of different things) but with that said, I enjoyed Animal Farm, but not 1984, etc...

[Mathor]

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.

[Manchegan]

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.

To each his own, but I can't bring myself to criticize authors when they've been translated, especially renowned ones like Tolstoy.

For me the most overrated would have to be Steinbeck - Mice and men had like four pages of back and forth with George and another ranch hand saying

"lenny's dumb."

"But he's got a good heart though."

"yeah if he wasn't so dumb." over and over. we get it, John. He's both good and dumb.

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce and of course, Steven King and JK Rowlings

[Manchegan]

I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations, and I had such great expectations for it.... Also Ayn Rand! I don't mind her ideas, but for an author who worships talent and ability, she doesn't have much.

[Gretchen]

In my modest opinion it`s Leo Tolstoy. His style is awkward, his morals are hopelessly out of date, his books aren`t teaching, they`re preaching.
Agree! I'm still reading Anna Karenina(I started it one year ago and still didn't finish it!) and I just think while reading it - Why people love it so much? Why it ever became a classic? I don't say there aren't any interesting parts, but Levine's "speeches"(that appear in every five pages, at least and last like 20 pages) have nothing to do with the plot - it doesn't add depth to the characters nor anything at all.

[stlukesguild]

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.

I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations...

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

:brickwall

[Jozanny]

luke, during my computer crash episodes and the infantile despair in between, I caught a series on Y Arts, Black Writers in America. One episode featured Ishmael Reed, and his critique of Harvard ran thus: "We all know the problem with these institutions; their curriculum is restrictive. I taught courses there, but I've also taught kids who know nothing of King Lear-- but they know Star Trek."

Maybe in contrast to this it would be interesting to examine Ross Douthat's sentiments.

[kelby_lake]

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

Julius Caeser isn't dull. Othello isn't dull...

[stlukesguild]

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.

I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations...

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

Kelby... JoZ...Comments like these I quoted are surely on par with declarations by teenage boys raised on heavy metal and Batman comics that "Mozart sucks!" and "Michelangelo blows!" For that reason they are largely so inane that one rarely bothers to comment... excepting that I was a bit bored yesterday.:D

[Drkshadow03]

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.

I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations...

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

Kelby... JoZ...Comments like these I quoted are surely on par with declarations by teenage boys raised on heavy metal and Batman comics that "Mozart sucks!" and "Michelangelo blows!" For that reason they are largely so inane that one rarely bothers to comment... excepting that I was a bit bored yesterday.:D

Funny, I read Batman and still like Mozart. And what reading a visual medium like comic books has to do with one's tastes in an auditory medium like music is beyond me. Considering the topic you seem surprised that people find Joyce and Shakespeare overrated. G-d forbid people should develop their own tastes.

[breeze]

Why people love it so much?
Well, his popularity on Russia is partly due to the Soviet Union times, as he was considered as an opposition to bourgeois literature by Ministry of Culture.
Don`t get me wrong, I can`t say that Tolstoy is a bad writer and only those who lack real taste and understanding can admire him. It`s just that he`s not my kind.

[grotto]

It’s one thing to say that you do not appreciate a writers style or how the convey themselves, it’s another thing entirely to vehemently lash out due to a lack of your own understanding for the works they produce.

I personally don’t care for Tolstoy but love Dostoevsky, others feel the opposite but that doesn’t make Tolstoy useless or over rated. Tolstoy can certainly write! He doesn’t write in a style that I care for though, that is far different than saying he “sucks” though.

For those of you who bash for the sake of bashing, has it ever occurred to you that what you may be reading is over your head? Probably not, I know, but hmmm, possibilities do exist now don’t they? That maybe your anger comes from your own lack of experience in the world or understanding the writers work and the era in which they were written? Age is the great equalizer and like me, someday you may come to appreciate what you currently don’t “get”, and then you may look in the mirror one morning and say, boy, I didn’t have a clue, did I?

Happy reading in what ever it is that you read and never apologize for liking what it is that you like. With that, never bash anyone for liking something different than you. We all started somewhere and elitists have done as much damage to literature as the bashing from those who feel like they ought to read something classic.

[stlukesguild]

Considering the topic you seem surprised that people find Joyce and Shakespeare overrated. G-d forbid people should develop their own tastes.

Obviously you still have difficulty in discerning personal preference with statement of fact. But yes... yes... you've fully accepted the notions of cultural relativism so that there is no good nor bad, but thinking makes it so. I don't buy that crap. I have no problem with personal opinions. There are works of art and literature and music that undoubtedly have real merit and yet just don't speak to me. That is different than making objective statements of fact ("Tolstoy can't write." "Shakespeare is dull.") that are completely indefensible. Indeed, it would seem that common sense dictates that when one makes a value judgment that seemingly goes against the common thread it might do well do offer up some sort of proof in defense of one's position... or perhaps... rather than stating "Tolstoy can't write" the intelligent thing to do would be to state "I don't like Tolstoy. His work does nothing for me." The latter approach cannot be argued with as it is personal opinion and admits to such. The former suggests a statement of fact which succeeds only in calling the the person's abilities of judgment into question. The title of the thread, by the way, is "Who is the most over-rated writer ever?" This would seemingly demand an author whose reputation far exceeds his or her abilities. I would think that if one were to respond with the name of an author that has been somewhat admired for his or her abilities within the realm of serious literature (as opposed to shall we say an over-hyped contemporary novelist) that one might just wish to offer up some rationale... but that's just me.

[Drkshadow03]

Considering the topic you seem surprised that people find Joyce and Shakespeare overrated. G-d forbid people should develop their own tastes.

Obviously you still have difficulty in discerning personal preference with statement of fact. But yes... yes... you've fully accepted the notions of cultural relativism so that there is no good nor bad, but thinking makes it so. I don't buy that crap. I have no problem with personal opinions. There are works of art and literature and music that undoubtedly have real merit and yet just don't speak to me. That is different than making objective statements of fact ("Tolstoy can't write." "Shakespeare is dull.") that are completely indefensible. Indeed, it would seem that common sense dictates that when one makes a value judgment that seemingly goes against the common thread it might do well do offer up some sort of proof in defense of one's position... or perhaps... rather than stating "Tolstoy can't write" the intelligent thing to do would be to state "I don't like Tolstoy. His work does nothing for me." The latter approach cannot be argued with as it is personal opinion and admits to such. The former suggests a statement of fact which succeeds only in calling the the person's abilities of judgment into question. The title of the thread, by the way, is "Who is the most over-rated writer ever?" This would seemingly demand an author whose reputation far exceeds his or her abilities. I would think that if one were to respond with the name of an author that has been somewhat admired for his or her abilities within the realm of serious literature (as opposed to shall we say an over-hyped contemporary novelist) that one might just wish to offer up some rationale... but that's just me.

No, I simply inserted "in my opinion" before the so-called statements of fact since the nature of the statements are clearly those of opinions without proof to back them up. If they had written "Tolstoy can't write because he constantly uses wrong punctuation here in paragraph 1, 2, 3, etc." I would've treated them as facts (you can't argue with a fact: the punctuation is either wrong or not). You can endlessly argue the quality and merit of an individual writer's prose or verse. Sure, the way they stated might make it sound like a statement of fact, but the actual content of the statements actually makes them opinion. Value-judgements are always subjective opinions. To put it another way, it's precisely that I can recognize the difference between an opinion and a fact that I understand when seemingly statements of facts are really just someone's opinion.

I am not a cultural relativist because I believe there are things in this world that are clearly bad and good. I am a practicing Jew, after all. Racism and discrimination is always bad for example. Nevertheless, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Art by its very nature is subjective. In fact, for someone who goes on and on about your respect for elitists and critics, you fail to recognize why we have elitists and critics in the first place. They're not there simply to transmit the culture or sing the praises of art in perfect harmonius agreement, but rather to deliver educated judgements that challenge and criticize each other's educated opinions. In other words, even educated opinions are subjective, and the elite, despite your simplistic portrait that you consistently paint of such a group rarely agree on anything. After all, who is leading this charge of multiculturalism and so-called relativism anyway? It certainly isn't the unwashed masses.

The one thing I agree with in your rebuttal is that, yes, people could do a better job in offering rationales to support their "statements of fact" that are really just opinions.

Overrated implies that you are dealing with authors that are rated highly and already in good esteem with one group or another (it might be with the masses, it might be with the critics). So it should surprise no one that people are taking swings at Shakespeare, Joyce, and company; all authors everyone praises, but for these individuals didn't do much for them. It would seem to me that's the point of the thread, but, yes, they could back up those opinions with some reasons they think those writers are overrated. No disagreement there.

[breeze]

Well, I guess I should have started with the point that I personally do not think that any fiction has some kind of "impersonal" value. You either like a book or you don`t like a book. A writer can`t be useless in general, he`s always useless for somebody. If I don`t like Tolstoy it makes him an overrated writer in my opinion. That`s what I meant.

That maybe your anger comes from your own lack of experience in the world or understanding the writers work and the era in which they were written?
It`s pretty simple to accuse somebody who doesn`t share your opinion of misunderstanding, isn`t it? I can say as well that you don`t admire Charles Manson because of misunderstanding.

[grotto]

It`s pretty simple to accuse somebody who doesn`t share your opinion of misunderstanding, isn`t it? I can say as well that you don`t admire Charles Manson because of misunderstanding.

I did say "maybe" and people are welcome to their own opinions, I accused no one. I do not think misunderstanding is a bad thing, we all do it and if you don’t, then we have found the new prophet amongst us! :p My opinion is mine and I don't care who agrees with it, I don't need another’s validation to make it an edict and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. I’m open to the fact that I don’t know what I yet don’t know.

I have nothing against Charles Manson, I don't know him, never met him, and personally, I could care less. No wait! I do admire that he had the capability and charisma to pull off the psychological fiasco that he did. To think that people are so easily swayed by another, hmmm, who would have thought that people could be that gullible? Nah, couldn’t happen to the rest of us now could it? Not that I agree with him mind you, but then again, that is only my opinion. ;)

[kelby_lake]

But Shakespeare's just one of those ones where you have to try harder than other books. If they were making the point that it failed as theatre/poetry, fair enough, but it just sounds like the person making the comment is unable to understand Shakey :)

[stlukesguild]

Art by its very nature is subjective.

Yes... certainly it all comes down to opinions... but I'll say it again, some opinions are better than others.:D

In fact, for someone who goes on and on about your respect for elitists and critics, you fail to recognize why we have elitists and critics in the first place.They're not there simply to transmit the culture or sing the praises of art in perfect harmonius agreement, but rather to deliver educated judgements that challenge and criticize each other's educated opinions.

Do you honestly believe that? I mean did you seriously invest the time and effort in studying and learning about literature simply so that you could challenge the opinions of other academics? That sounds rather pathetic, does it not? Personally, I spent and continue to spend the time and effort in reading, listening, and looking... studying about literature, music, and art because they give me pleasure... and in the case of art... because I imagine I just might succeed at creating something of interest myself. Challenging others' opinions is just a byproduct of the pleasure I have gained from great works of art which leads me to offer up my opinions in support of what I believe is worthy of recognition.

In other words, even educated opinions are subjective...


Unquestionably... and I have admitted as much repeatedly in acknowledging that I do not always see eye to eye with JBI, Mortalterror, yourself, or others just as the big-name academic critics do not always see eye to eye... but they/we usually have the common sense to frame any opinion which challenges the accepted norms as an opinion... or to offer some solid reasoning for why we believe as we do. "Tolstoy is the worst author... he cannot write" just doesn't seem to cut it.

...and the elite, despite your simplistic portrait that you consistently paint of such a group rarely agree on anything. After all, who is leading this charge of multiculturalism and so-called relativism anyway? It certainly isn't the unwashed masses.

Arguably, they would be academics that are more concerned with social engineering and questions of race, gender, politics, and economics than they are with art would they not?:D

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]In fact, for someone who goes on and on about your respect for elitists and critics, you fail to recognize why we have elitists and critics in the first place.They're not there simply to transmit the culture or sing the praises of art in perfect harmonius agreement, but rather to deliver educated judgements that challenge and criticize each other's educated opinions.

Do you honestly believe that? I mean did you seriously invest the time and effort in studying and learning about literature simply so that you could challenge the opinions of other academics? That sounds rather pathetic, does it not? Personally, I spent and continue to spend the time and effort in reading, listening, and looking... studying about literature, music, and art because they give me pleasure... and in the case of art... because I imagine I just might succeed at creating something of interest myself. Challenging others' opinions is just a byproduct of the pleasure I have gained from great works of art which leads me to offer up my opinions in support of what I believe is worthy of recognition.


Well, I certainly didn't go to grad school to mindlessly regurgitate the wisdom of my professors. I believe I answered why I read like a bagillion times (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/why-do-i-read/) already.

[Manchegan]

I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations...

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...



Kelby... JoZ...Comments like these I quoted are surely on par with declarations by teenage boys raised on heavy metal and Batman comics that "Mozart sucks!" and "Michelangelo blows!" For that reason they are largely so inane that one rarely bothers to comment... excepting that I was a bit bored yesterday.:D[/QUOTE]

I resent getting lumped in with those who said Tolstoy can't write and that shakespeare is dull. I said what you said i ought to say, that Dickens has talent but i dont care for him. AS for pynchon - I enjoy his style and absurdity, but I feel that even he can't control it. The way he ended vineland suggests to me, that he couldn't handle the fantastic world he created.

Joyce is obviously a great writer and a genious, but to have such great ideas burried under such impenetrable writing means that at least on some level he failed at his job as a writer. He wrote works that could be studied and cracked, rather than what could be enjoyed. That's an important aspect of fiction, so I say he's overrated. Great, but not as great as we want him to be.

[Barbarous]

Joyce is obviously a great writer and a genious, but to have such great ideas burried under such impenetrable writing means that at least on some level he failed at his job as a writer. He wrote works that could be studied and cracked, rather than what could be enjoyed. That's an important aspect of fiction, so I say he's overrated. Great, but not as great as we want him to be.

Well now, I assume I can count you out, but I enjoy, more than enjoy, this bit of 'meaning under mass' which is what Joyce is at face value. His work is fun and more of a celebration of literature if anything.

I don't mean to attack you personally, for I am definitely not, but I say this to users who post absurdities about the Joyce, in the same vein of previous posters about Shakespeare!

[Drkshadow03]

I resent getting lumped in with those who said Tolstoy can't write and that shakespeare is dull. I said what you said i ought to say, that Dickens has talent but i dont care for him. AS for pynchon - I enjoy his style and absurdity, but I feel that even he can't control it. The way he ended vineland suggests to me, that he couldn't handle the fantastic world he created.

Joyce is obviously a great writer and a genious, but to have such great ideas burried under such impenetrable writing means that at least on some level he failed at his job as a writer. He wrote works that could be studied and cracked, rather than what could be enjoyed. That's an important aspect of fiction, so I say he's overrated. Great, but not as great as we want him to be.

Yeah, I notice that too. I thought it odd that St Lukes defended himself by saying he had no problem with people's personal reactions and it was only when they displayed it as statements of fact that it got on his nerves, which is why he highlighted those statement, when your comments about Dickens that he quoted clearly were worded as a personal reaction. He also did the same exact thing a few posts back with some guy sharing his personal dislike of Shakespeare. I think this pretty much indicates that the problem wasn't how you or anyone else said it (as he claimed in the initial post responding to me), but that you had the audacity to suggest it in the first place.

This conversation has been hilarious to read, and not because people are taking swings at some of the greatest authors ever, but because of the defensive almost paranoid responses to the people reacting in sheer disbelief of the choices. :thumbs_up

[stlukesguild]

"Disbelief?" :lol: "Disdain", perhaps... but never disbelief. I'll never underestimate the opinions of those who have yet to outgrow their superheroes in capes and Speedos and WWF.:D Paranoia? You'd have to be far more than "paranoid" to believe that any opinions voiced on an internet forum are likely to undermine the reputations of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens... or even Bukowski for that matter (unfortunately).:rolleyes:

[Manchegan]

Thanks Drkshadow, I feel redeemed now. THis thread has been pretty funny...

[kelby_lake]

Art by its very nature is subjective.

Yes... certainly it all comes down to opinions... but I'll say it again, some opinions are better than others.:D


All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, right? ;)

[Drkshadow03]

"Disbelief?" :lol: "Disdain", perhaps... but never disbelief. I'll never underestimate the opinions of those who have yet to outgrow their superheroes in capes and Speedos and WWF.:D Paranoia? You'd have to be far more than "paranoid" to believe that any opinions voiced on an internet forum are likely to undermine the reputations of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens... or even Bukowski for that matter (unfortunately).:rolleyes:

Shhh, you're ruining the punch line!

[Sarai]

Stephenie Meyer, Dan Brown, Nicholas Sparks honestly not woth the money. The entire Twilight collection costed 70€ that's a lot of money

[mayneverhave]

Stephenie Meyer, Dan Brown, Nicholas Sparks honestly not woth the money. The entire Twilight collection costed 70€ that's a lot of money

Yes, but no one rates these authors very highly to begin with, so its a rather moot point.


All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, right? ;)

I know you're probably joking - not that stlukes even said that all animals are equal - but I would argue that that is simply not the case. Equal in what? Strength, dexterity, vision? In the case of literary study: intelligence, ambition, an artistic leaning, a negative capability, so to speak, which are all qualities that are hardly given in equal portions to everyone. There's no reason to assume everyone is capable of the same things when approaching a text, and that's taking for granted that everyone involved is putting in the same amount of effort to get to the level to make perceptive critical assessments.

In the case of say, someone whose first literary series is Twilight, versus one who has read the entire Western canon; these opinions are certainly not equal.

[Reread]

I think Dickens is overrated. Sure, he wrote a lot of things and he wrote about the strife of the middle and lower classes of England, but his characters are so boring. There are good people who are simply good people without any serious character flaws, there are bad people who are bad, and there are people in the middle who have absolutely no personalities and are simply there for the good people to be nice to and the bad people to abuse.

For everyone who says J.K. Rowling is overrated, please bear in mind that the Harry Potter series is a series of children's books that were written simply to entertain children. If you go into them expecting incredible depth then, yes, you will be disappointed.

[Drkshadow03]

I know you're probably joking - not that stlukes even said that all animals are equal - but I would argue that that is simply not the case. Equal in what? Strength, dexterity, vision? In the case of literary study: intelligence, ambition, an artistic leaning, a negative capability, so to speak, which are all qualities that are hardly given in equal portions to everyone. There's no reason to assume everyone is capable of the same things when approaching a text, and that's taking for granted that everyone involved is putting in the same amount of effort to get to the level to make perceptive critical assessments.

Speaking of having knowledge about literature . . . you do know Kelby was making an allusion to Animal Farm right?



For everyone who says J.K. Rowling is overrated, please bear in mind that the Harry Potter series is a series of children's books that were written simply to entertain children. If you go into them expecting incredible depth then, yes, you will be disappointed.

Harry Potter has a lot of depth actually. It's fascinating to delve into all the literary criticism on Potter, which I've been doing to prepare for my Harry Potter post that I promised, and see all the different interpretations of the overall series (of individual books, of individual chapters, of individual characters), sub-textual readings, analysis of its motifs, discussions about its structure, its place in literary history, its place in fantasy literature, its place in children's literature, its place in pop culture. There is just so many angles to approach it from, so many little things to analyze, such fertile ground for scholarship.

[mayneverhave]

Speaking of having knowledge about literature . . . you do know Kelby was making an allusion to Animal Farm right?

Hah. Missed the layup on that one. My point stands regardless.

[wat??]

exactly my though! i cant persuade myself to do something that is fashionable to do...like that da vinci thing...the more it gets famous, the less it attracts me...

i agree on kerouac... and i really cant understand shakespeare but apparently that's my problem...

It's alright, neither can Turgenev. George Orwell might have something to say to you about that though.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf

[janus1us]

Besides Melville? Ok, that Twilight writer. Those books are terrible. Maybe I should finish that novel. . .apparently is doesn't have to be good to sell. . .:angel:

[janus1us]

Oh wow. I can agree that Grapes of Wrath was not as "GREAT" as I had been led to believe, but East of Eden was phenomonal in it's focus on man's ability to choose what rules him.

[kelby_lake]

Speaking of having knowledge about literature . . . you do know Kelby was making an allusion to Animal Farm right?


Hah. Missed the layup on that one. My point stands regardless.

I was making the allusion, in my geeky way ;)

The point of that quote, as I see it, is that in theory everybody's opinion is valid, but of course some are less valid than others. We claim democracy but really, we're not going to let a 9 year old's judgment on War and Peace be of the same worth as an English professor of 30 years- so let's just be openly elitest :)

[My name is red]

Every name could be uttered as overrated and thats okay to some extend.But there is only one single name that I'm pretty sure that it's not overrated,and that's Shakespeare

[Reread]

Harry Potter has a lot of depth actually. It's fascinating to delve into all the literary criticism on Potter, which I've been doing to prepare for my Harry Potter post that I promised, and see all the different interpretations of the overall series (of individual books, of individual chapters, of individual characters), sub-textual readings, analysis of its motifs, discussions about its structure, its place in literary history, its place in fantasy literature, its place in children's literature, its place in pop culture. There is just so many angles to approach it from, so many little things to analyze, such fertile ground for scholarship.

Don't get me wrong. I love Harry Potter and I do agree there is a lot of depth. J.K. Rowling created a fascinating world with wonderful characters. I'm simply pointing out that if you look at Harry Potter and expect it to be comparable to something like War and Peace or Paradise Lost then, yes, you won't think it measures up. I think the entire question of what author is overrated depends entirely on your individual standards.

[Sanjar of Akkad]

Stephenie Meyer with the twilight series, and Christopher Paolini with his terrible generic fantasy.

[Twhalley]

I too, share the same opinion. Rowling gets too much than she deserve (IMHO).

Me also, She just doesn't compare to other authors from the past. But she is probably easier to access than a lot of authors.

[Adderhead]

I would nominate J.D. Salinger. The only reason he is well known is because he is a social recluse and won't do any interviews, thus increasing the hype of his novels. Also Stephenie Meyer by far.

[Twhalley]

Certainly Salinger! A lot of people would say he's a great author, but could only mention The Catcher In The Rye.

[Drkshadow03]

Certainly Salinger! A lot of people would say he's a great author, but could only mention The Catcher In The Rye.

Well, regardless of the merits and demerits of Catcher, it only takes one to put you on the literary map so to speak.

[WICKES]

Most overrated: Hemingway, Kerouac and To Kill A Mocking Bird

Most underrated: Anthony Burgess

[tbarnes]

Certainly Salinger! A lot of people would say he's a great author, but could only mention The Catcher In The Rye.

it's such a shame Catcher gets all the attention when Franny and Zooey is much better.

I cringe a little every time I see Hemingway or Kerouac in this thread.

True, Kerouac isn't the greatest writer in the world, and not all of his works are great, but when he is on he is one of the most enjoyable authors I have ever read. Stay away from On the Road and try Dharma Bums, or Big Sur.

Then again, it's all opinion.

[FanofdeBeauvoir]

Stephenie Meyer is the most overrated "writer" ever. To have insights on why, visit twilightsucks.com.

[Lullaby]

I concur. Stephenie Meyer's novels couldn't be less original, and further overrated, if she tried.

[PeterL]

Who is Stephenie Meyer? I have never heard of her, and I have never heard of her writing being rated highly by anyone.

[warm]

I concur. Stephenie Meyer's novels couldn't be less original, and further overrated, if she tried.

Well, vampires that glitter in sunlight are original enough, though not entirely well-received. :lol:

[kelby_lake]

Who is Stephenie Meyer? I have never heard of her, and I have never heard of her writing being rated highly by anyone.

She wrote a series called the Twilight Saga: Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. They are 'highly rated' by hormonal teenagers/housewives.

[Three Sparrows]

Hm, I agree that she's not the best writer in the world, but at least its entertaining. I mean, how could a vampire/werewolf/human love triangle not be amusing?:lol:

[PeterL]

She wrote a series called the Twilight Saga: Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. They are 'highly rated' by hormonal teenagers/housewives.

I never heaard of her, so her rating can't be significant.

[Dr. Hill]

I agree.

[JuniperWoolf]

I never heaard of her, so her rating can't be significant.

If you've never heard of her, then you havn't been inside of a North American bookstore or movie theater in a year (or you're deaf). Every time I go to the counter at a Chapters, the person that checks me out almost always says something along the lines of "Oh thank god, someone who ISN'T buying something by Stephenie Meyer." Also, the "Twilight" posters are everywhere, and people on THIS forum have been harping about it for months. Where have you been?

[triplesick]

If you've never heard of her, then you havn't been inside of a North American bookstore or movie theater in a year (or you're deaf).

LOL, f'real. Her mention is as common as a cold virus.

I think it's invalid to call her "overrated" though. No one credible would ever call her a Great Writer; even her fans (except those under 15 years, who probably constitute a majority) would acknowledge that she is more of an entertainer than an artist. On the whole, she is rated correctly; that is, she is a delightful indulgence for a limited audience, and nothing more.

It is fair to call authors like Kerouac or Salinger overrated, as they are taught in schools as examples of Great Writers. Or even someone contemporary like Palahniuk--I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Palahniuk class taught at some university somewhere, because people really take that douche seriously. One of my friends told me that "Fight Club" changed her life. What a tool. I guess she's not really my friend. Well, she was before she said that.

[Drkshadow03]

Or even someone contemporary like Palahniuk--I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Palahniuk class taught at some university somewhere, because people really take that douche seriously. One of my friends told me that "Fight Club" changed her life. What a tool. I guess she's not really my friend. Well, she was before she said that.

So you're talking behind your friend's back because she doesn't like the same literature as you . . . :thumbs_up

[Desolation]

I posted earlier in this thread that Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer...I'm changing my vote to Ayn Rand. As much as Shakespeare's praise annoys me, hardcore Rand fans("Objectivists") are almost as crazy as hardcore Twilight fans that beat people that dislike Twilight with baseball bats.

[promtbr]

Stephenie Meyer with the twilight series, and Christopher Paolini with his terrible generic fantasy.


Every name could be uttered as overrated and thats okay to some extend.But there is only one single name that I'm pretty sure that it's not overrated,and that's Shakespeare

how can one not love a forum that has a thread that gives these three writers equal consideration...


---

[Paulclem]

Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer

Why do you think he's overrated?

[Desolation]

Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer

Why do you think he's overrated?
Because anyone placed universally on such a high pedestal is inherently over-rated.

[Paulclem]

Because anyone placed universally on such a high pedestal is inherently over-rated.

Don't you think it might be because of how good the work is?

[Desolation]

Because anyone placed universally on such a high pedestal is inherently over-rated.

Don't you think it might be because of how good the work is?
"Good" is 100% subjective.

[March Hare]

I posted earlier in this thread that Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer...I'm changing my vote to Ayn Rand. As much as Shakespeare's praise annoys me, hardcore Rand fans("Objectivists") are almost as crazy as hardcore Twilight fans that beat people that dislike Twilight with baseball bats.

Desolation, thanks for the chuckle. A good friend went through an Objectivist phase and, man, he was hardcore. I can dig the philosophy of rational self interest in theory and am still compelled by the logical base of Objectivism. But Atlas Shrugged is just a sheer plot draped over speeches proseletysing Objectivism. Rand is no novelist.

[Manchegan]

I posted atlas shrugged as a novel that changed my life in another thread, but I have to agree that her writing is pretty bad. More like ayn rant...am i right?

The worst part was at the end of that book where all the good guys are suddenly a highly trained SWAT team.

[March Hare]

I posted atlas shrugged as a novel that changed my life in another thread, but I have to agree that her writing is pretty bad. More like ayn rant...am i right?


Yeah.. I laugh now but when I was a young dips*** Atlas Shrugged did help get me off my butt and working hard.

[joebob]

Atlas Shrugged did help get me off my butt and working hard.
Same.

As for overrated, I'd have to go with Vonnegut or Hemingway.

[Paulclem]

As for overrated, I'd have to go with Vonnegut

I read The Sirens of Titan in a completely different way to my English teacher some 3 million years ago. He read it the more sophisticated ironic way - which I might be mature enough to get now. I think he's a sophisticated writier.

[joebob]

As for overrated, I'd have to go with Vonnegut. I think he's a sophisticated writier.
hardly.

[DanielBenoit]

Ayn Rand maybe. How the hell is it that Atlas Shrugged is number one on the Modern Library's best novels of the century auidence poll, a privlige shared alongside Ulysses in the critics poll. Total absurdity.

Wilfred Owen is a bit overrated as well. And so is Charles Burkoski, but that's just my opinion. His works always appeared a bit superficial to me.

[JBI]

By Burkoski do you mean Charles Bukowski? Either way, everybody knows that JBI is the most overrated writer anyway - no point looking for a competitor.

[neilgee]

For me it's got to be D.H. Lawrence. He was pompous, judgemental, full of self-pitying egotism and his stories describe a black and white world where he is right and everybody who opposes the narrator's pov is wrong. I rated him as an adolescent but it was when I had to study Sons and Lovers for A level that I really went off him big time.

[Lokasenna]

For me it's got to be D.H. Lawrence. He was pompous, judgemental, full of self-pitying egotism and his stories describe a black and white world where he is right and everybody who opposes the narrator's pov is wrong.

Yes!

The man was an abysmal writer... god alone knows why he stays so popular. I can only assume it has something to with noteriety...

[glover7]

Joyce.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I think James Joyce is vastly overrated; so is Hemingway the novelist although he wrote some fine short stories.

[inbetween]

Friedrich Schiller... don't know if you know him but my country is awfully proud of him and I can't see why ... there might be some nice ideas in his plays but ... really they agonize me with him every german lesson... that wannabe-shakespear (I realy like shakespear and reading Schiller I realy must say that he can't hold a candle to the beaty of his stile...)

[escapologist]

I think James Joyce is vastly overrated; so is Hemingway the novelist although he wrote some fine short stories.

Joyce is overrated, but that's cos critics are always waiting for a writer who's hard to understand, so that they can spend the next 987694375 years writing about them. Pathetic. Having said that, I've only read Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Ulysses may yet surprise me, but I'm not counting on it.

I loved The Sun Also Rises so I wouldn't say Hemingway is overrated. The Old Man and the Sea definitely is, though.

Dan Brown is overrated. But then again, he's not a writer.

[DanielBenoit]

Joyce is overrated, but that's cos critics are always waiting for a writer who's hard to understand, so that they can spend the next 987694375 years writing about them. Pathetic.

Oh come on. Since when was ambiguity such a bad thing? Mystery is what keeps things beautiful. If Joyce had not written in such a radically different way, literature would not be what it is today. New percpectives always create new horizens for creativity. I suppose Shakespeare and Dante too are overrated since they've been written about for well over three hundred years.


Okay, I know I'm the bad guy, but Dickens hasn't really appealed to me in recent years. When I was younger I loved Oliver Twist and Great Expectations, but now, despite the forever known fact that Dickens is probably second or third to Shakespeare in charactarization, he just writes on and on to a rather dull extent, and his class commentary isn't as powerful as Dostoyevsky's.

[escapologist]

Oh come on. Since when was ambiguity such a bad thing? Mystery is what keeps things beautiful. If Joyce had not written in such a radically different way, literature would not be what it is today. New percpectives always create new horizens for creativity. I suppose Shakespeare and Dante too are overrated since they've been written about for well over three hundred years.

I'm not saying he's a bad writer, I'm saying he's made to sound more complicated than he really is. I don't see the point in analysing every little word in Ulysses. It ruins the beauty of the book. The point of literary criticism isn't to dissect works of art.

[DanielBenoit]

Yes!

The man was an abysmal writer... god alone knows why he stays so popular. I can only assume it has something to with noteriety...


I think James Joyce is vastly overrated; so is Hemingway the novelist although he wrote some fine short stories.


Joyce.

What is UP with all this hate towards the modernists? Is it because they're difficult?

[escapologist]

I think you'll find Lawrence and Joyce aren't the only modernists :). Plus, 'overrated' doesn't mean that they aren't good, just that there's a lot of inexplicable hype around them.

[Scheherazade]

Is it because they're difficult?Yep, you have figured us out: Since we cannot understand the literary works of great depths, we just go nasty on the authors... Kind of a defence mechanism.

[DanielBenoit]

Yep, you have figured us out: Since we cannot understand the literary works of great depths, we just go nasty on the authors... Kind of a defence mechanism.


I think you'll find Lawrence and Joyce aren't the only modernists :). Plus, 'overrated' doesn't mean that they aren't good, just that there's a lot of inexplicable hype around them.

Well maybe I'm just projecting from experience. I have a friend who despises anything made in the 20th century, so I'm just too used to hearing people complain about Ulysses because it's a difficult book.

[Lokasenna]

What is UP with all this hate towards the modernists? Is it because they're difficult?

Trust me, 1000 year old skaldic poetry is a thousand times more difficult than Lawrence or Joyce. It is also far more enjoyable!;)

[neilgee]

Well maybe I'm just projecting from experience. I have a friend who despises anything made in the 20th century, so I'm just too used to hearing people complain about Ulysses because it's a difficult book.

Sorry Daniel but I don't think Ulysses is all that "difficult". Virginia Woolf said that the book was "immature" and I tend to agree with that. I really rate Woolf, I think she was a genius and her novels are far more complex and enjoyable than anything written by James Joyce.

Maybe it's Finnegan's Wake that gives Joyce the aura of complexity more than Ulysses, because he makes up words that only he truly understands in that one.

The measure of success in inventing new words is whether they are accepted into general usage and in that sense I would have to say Wake was a failure.

[mal4mac]

Joyce is overrated, but that's cos critics are always waiting for a writer who's hard to understand, so that they can spend the next 987694375 years writing about them.

If you read Ellman's biography of Joyce you will see that it is not critics who, initially, heaped praise on Joyce, but fellow writers, including 'popular' writers like Arnold Bennett and H.G. Wells, as well as modernists like Eliot and Pound. (When Bennett praised Joyce in a review, Pound cheekily sent him a note saying "You have heard your master's voice"!) In "Top ten", the best books as chosen by a herds of modern authors, Joyce also does well.


Sorry Daniel but I don't think Ulysses is all that "difficult". Virginia Woolf said that the book was "immature"...

Woolf was the only great writer to criticise Joyce (read Ellman's biography...) Every top writer has at least one other great writer who somehow manages to miss their genius -- Shakespeare had Shaw & Tolstoy (and even Shaw praised Ulysses!) Just because you are a great novelist doesn't mean you are a great critic, in fact Joyce admitted to not being a great critic...

Because Woolf was an English snob, or at least hung around with a bunch of English snobs, she was exactly the right person to get Joyce wrong... Not a critic to be trusted here...

[escapologist]

Well maybe I'm just projecting from experience. I have a friend who despises anything made in the 20th century, so I'm just too used to hearing people complain about Ulysses because it's a difficult book.

I don't blame you... There's nothing I hate more than people stuck in 19th century literature, afraid to try reading something outside their comfort zone, cos that would require the use of a brain.

[stlukesguild]

Do you honestly believe that the best 19th century literature doesn't require the use of the brain... or that it is inherently easier to read? How easy is Mallarme? Rimbaud? Dickinson? And what of 18th, 17th, 16th (etc...) century literature? Are Donne, Dante, Spenser, Milton, Sterne, etc... easy reading?

[DanielBenoit]

Do you honestly believe that the best 19th century literature doesn't require the use of the brain... or that it is inherently easier to read? How easy is Mallarme? Rimbaud? Dickinson? And what of 18th, 17th, 16th (etc...) century literature? Are Donne, Dante, Spenser, Milton, Sterne, etc... easy reading?

I'm definitley not saying that. I find all of those names to be just as complex as any of the literature made in the 20th century, and in some cases even more so.


Sorry Daniel but I don't think Ulysses is all that "difficult". Virginia Woolf said that the book was "immature" and I tend to agree with that. I really rate Woolf, I think she was a genius and her novels are far more complex and enjoyable than anything written by James Joyce.

Maybe it's Finnegan's Wake that gives Joyce the aura of complexity more than Ulysses, because he makes up words that only he truly understands in that one.

The measure of success in inventing new words is whether they are accepted into general usage and in that sense I would have to say Wake was a failure.

I think I remember Woolf saying about Ulysses "how I wish I could write like that", though maybe I'm thinking of what she said about Proust, I'm not sure.

Either way, to each his own.

Also, Finnegan's Wake is not complex just because Joyce "makes up words that only he can understand", it's because both it and Ulysses brought about an understanding of language recently explored in philosophy by Wittgenstein and later by Derrida. Having read Finnegan's Wake I do not think Joyce wrote it with a big evil grin on his face thinking "oh how I'm going to confuse everyone". Rather, he was pushing the limits of the medium.

[escapologist]

Do you honestly believe that the best 19th century literature doesn't require the use of the brain... or that it is inherently easier to read? How easy is Mallarme? Rimbaud? Dickinson? And what of 18th, 17th, 16th (etc...) century literature? Are Donne, Dante, Spenser, Milton, Sterne, etc... easy reading?

I was talking about prose, I think poetry is a medium of its own, so I wasn't talking about the Symbolists or the Metaphysical poets. I would, however, argue that Vonnegut is a lot more difficult to read than Dickens or Hardy. That was what I was aiming at.

[kiki1982]

I would agree about Dickens, although others would disagree. ut I can totally not agree with you on Hardy. Hardy is not as easy as he comes across.

[escapologist]

That's ok, all I'm saying is that some 20th century writers are more difficult to read. Of course, 'easy' and 'difficult' are completely subjective adjectives when it comes to literature.

[neilgee]

Also, Finnegan's Wake is not complex just because Joyce "makes up words that only he can understand", it's because both it and Ulysses brought about an understanding of language recently explored in philosophy by Wittgenstein and later by Derrida. Having read Finnegan's Wake I do not think Joyce wrote it with a big evil grin on his face thinking "oh how I'm going to confuse everyone". Rather, he was pushing the limits of the medium.

I can't remember who said that Finnegan's Wake was Joyce's revenge on the English Language for what they did to the Irish language so I suppose the comment doesn't count if I can't identify it, but I picked up on the awe that surrounded Joyce's work as I was growing up as well as the sense of incomprehension that clung to Wake The Bell Jar for example].

I respect you more as I read more of your comments, Daniel [that's not to say that I don't respect everybody else - he hastens to add!] though like you say it's each to their own and we'll agree to disagree on Joyce.

I think you're right about Joyce pushing the limits but he wasn't the only one and I don't think he did it the most effectively, but he was certainly rated the most highly when I was growing up, though you don't hear it as much nowadays.

[neilgee]

If you read Ellman's biography of Joyce you will see that it is not critics who, initially, heaped praise on Joyce, but fellow writers, including 'popular' writers like Arnold Bennett and H.G. Wells, as well as modernists like Eliot and Pound. (When Bennett praised Joyce in a review, Pound cheekily sent him a note saying "You have heard your master's voice"!) In "Top ten", the best books as chosen by a herds of modern authors, Joyce also does well.



Woolf was the only great writer to criticise Joyce (read Ellman's biography...) Every top writer has at least one other great writer who somehow manages to miss their genius -- Shakespeare had Shaw & Tolstoy (and even Shaw praised Ulysses!) Just because you are a great novelist doesn't mean you are a great critic, in fact Joyce admitted to not being a great critic...

Because Woolf was an English snob, or at least hung around with a bunch of English snobs, she was exactly the right person to get Joyce wrong... Not a critic to be trusted here...

So I'm not to be trusted either because I agree with her :)

Seriously is this biography you recommend as educational about the literary establishment as it seems to be because I might add it to my reading list if it is as obviously I don't know as much about that fecund period of history as I would like to, but as I've already said I'm not the biggest Joyce fan in the world.

[DanielBenoit]

I respect you more as I read more of your comments, Daniel [that's not to say that I don't respect everybody else - he hastens to add!] though like you say it's each to their own and we'll agree to disagree on Joyce.

Why thanks :blush:


I think you're right about Joyce pushing the limits but he wasn't the only one and I don't think he did it the most effectively, but he was certainly rated the most highly when I was growing up, though you don't hear it as much nowadays.

Yes, there were plenty of other writers during Joyce's time who were revolutionizing the medium; Faulkner, Proust, Hemingway, etc.

[kiki1982]

@Neilgee and Mal4mac:

The question, too, is if critics are to be trusted... There have been several critics who had their own agenda and criticised literature for its melodrama and other features because it didn't fit their theory... I have serious doubts about that. Who criticises a writer for his writing style or his style of telling a plot? Clearly then you have missed the point because a writer does not write if it isnot necessary. But then agan, their theory was probably threatened or something.

At any rate. Joyce has his supporters and his enemies. I am of the opinion that a writer should convey his message. How does he do that? By language. If he cannot write language (as in some passages of Ulysses where he relinquishes punctuation or where he just adopts the most horrendous annoying writing style with short sentences that not even a baby would dare to use) he fails in his profession of writer. A carpenter will also not make good things if he has no skills, or chooses not to use them. That said, he could write properly when he started.

Woolf, a snob.. She belonged to a higher class than Joyce, that is true. Whether she was a snob is another matter. Woolf specialists might have more to say on that, but it is not because one moves in the highest intelectual and cultural circles that one is a snob. The word has a very clear meaning and I don't necssarily agree wth it.

[neilgee]

Daniel I love William Faulkner, he was an inspired novelist. I'd forgotten that he was writing about the same time as Joyce.

Kiki I recently heard a recording of an old radio broadcast by Virginia Woolf and I was shocked to hear how posh she sounded. Why she makes the Queen of England sound common!

Of course as you point out that doesn't necessarily make her a snob [although it is known from her diaries that her attitude towards "servants" was not particularly liberal] and she did write what's regarded as one of the earlier works to champion women's rights in A Room of one's own.

Yet I think above all Woolf had an extraordinary talent for self-effacement in her novels. You rarely get a judgemental tone in Woolf. She lets you make up your own mind.

[mal4mac]

Seriously is this biography you recommend as educational about the literary establishment as it seems to be because I might add it to my reading list if it is as obviously I don't know as much about that fecund period of history as I would like to, but as I've already said I'm not the biggest Joyce fan in the world.

Many critics rate "James Joyce" by Richard Ellmann as the greatest literary biography of the 20th century, and it's certainly one of the most entertaining and interesting biographies I've ever read. It's definitely an education about the most admired writers from the early period of the twentieth century, and of the literary establishment - not altogether the same thing! It's also (perhaps surprisingly!) a very easy read. Also, Joyce had very interesting experiences, friends and family.

I wasn't the biggest Joyce fan until reading this, reading "Dubliners" and re-reading "Portrait" (the Wordsworth classics version is recommended it has "just enough" notes. The publishing event of next year might be the Wordsworth Classics version of Ulysses in early January. No money left after Christmas? It's only £1.99!)


@Neilgee and Mal4mac:
At any rate. Joyce has his supporters and his enemies. I am of the opinion that a writer should convey his message. How does he do that? By language. If he cannot write language (as in some passages of Ulysses where he relinquishes punctuation or where he just adopts the most horrendous annoying writing style with short sentences that not even a baby would dare to use) he fails in his profession of writer.


Of course Joyce can write language! If anyone can. He can write "normally" when he wants - read Dubliners or some of his letters. I just read a passage in Ellmann of his without punctuation writing that is extremely beautiful and reflects the kind of stream of consciousness thinking that we all do without punctuation and sometimes we do baby sentences as he's just reflecting the way we think and not showing himself up as a bad writer as if but this kind of writing is very difficult just compare what I'm doing here with Joyce!



Whether she was a snob is another matter. Woolf specialists might have more to say on that, but it is not because one moves in the highest intelectual and cultural circles that one is a snob. The word has a very clear meaning and I don't necssarily agree wth it.

She was being a snob when she called Joyce 'underbred' and Ulysses 'the book of a self taught working man'. She also called Joyce's editor Miss Weaver a 'woollen-gloved missionary for a book that reeled with indecency'. The (wonderful) Miss Weaver asked when a friend read this critique responded 'What is wrong with woollen gloves?" Exactly. Nothing is wrong with woollen gloves. It's just Woolf being a snob again...

Note I'm not saying Woolf isn't a great writer! My opinion hasn't been formed about that, and she may only be a snob now and again... I like several of her essays and must get round to reading her best novels someday...

[kiki1982]

Of course Joyce can write language! If anyone can. He can write "normally" when he wants - read Dubliners or some of his letters. I just read a passage in Ellmann of his without punctuation writing that is extremely beautiful and reflects the kind of stream of consciousness thinking that we all do without punctuation and sometimes we do baby sentences as he's just reflecting the way we think and not showing himself up as a bad writer as if but this kind of writing is very difficult just compare what I'm doing here with Joyce!

Exactly, you illustrated what I mean: writing without punctuation is unnecessary and obscures the meaning of that writing just to obscure it. It has nothing to do with message, but, maybe, rather with snobbery (to me). Art for art's sake which i very difficult to understand, and maybe even ununderstandable.


She was being a snob when she called Joyce 'underbred' and Ulysses 'the book of a self taught working man'. She also called Joyce's editor Miss Weaver a 'woollen-gloved missionary for a book that reeled with indecency'. The (wonderful) Miss Weaver asked when a friend read this critique responded 'What is wrong with woollen gloves?" Exactly. Nothing is wrong with woollen gloves. It's just Woolf being a snob again...

Correction: that is not being a snob, that is reflecting the ideas of society then. She came from a high-class family that occupied itself with art and intellectual knowledge. He came from a working-class family. There is a difference in perception of what is proper and what is deemed interesting. The woollen gloves might have had more to do with Weaver being a suffragette. I haven't been able to do enough research, but several accounts of suffregettes mention 'desguise' and woollen gloves as a part of that desguise. As women's hands were supposed to be small and delicate, they cannot have worn big bulky woolen gloves as that would have made their hands bigger instead of smaller. Not to mention the fact that by the 1920s gloves were hopelessly out of fashion. This was more or less the time when Woolf was speaking. If she was alluding to this then it is the question if she was a snob. People do not become snobs because they criticise someone's work.

Note that I am not saying that Joyce is in all his works a bad writer. He just got carried away at some point in my mind.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Dickens

[neilgee]

I read two of Dickens's novels and that was enough for me!



Many critics rate "James Joyce" by Richard Ellmann as the greatest literary biography of the 20th century, and it's certainly one of the most entertaining and interesting biographies I've ever read. It's definitely an education about the most admired writers from the early period of the twentieth century, and of the literary establishment - not altogether the same thing! It's also (perhaps surprisingly!) a very easy read. Also, Joyce had very interesting experiences, friends and family.



Okay I will order this next time I get paid. You've convinced me!

[DanielBenoit]

At any rate. Joyce has his supporters and his enemies. I am of the opinion that a writer should convey his message. How does he do that? By language. If he cannot write language (as in some passages of Ulysses where he relinquishes punctuation or where he just adopts the most horrendous annoying writing style with short sentences that not even a baby would dare to use) he fails in his profession of writer. A carpenter will also not make good things if he has no skills, or chooses not to use them. That said, he could write properly when he started.


You're taking a far too conventional approach to this. What Joyce did was convey his message through his use of language. Not only that, but it serves as an expressive tone for whatever he is describing. The use of newspaper headlines in the Aeolus episode are meant to be a satirical take on the sensationalistic journalism of the day. The extremely long unpunctuated sentences in Penelope are meant to perfectly decipt a stream-of-consciousness, flowing and unpaced by periods. The Oxen of the Sun episode takes on a beautiful medium by going through the history of English dialect as he describes the birth of a child. One must truly have a love of language when reading these passages, or any part of Ulysses.


Exactly, you illustrated what I mean: writing without punctuation is unnecessary and obscures the meaning of that writing just to obscure it. It has nothing to do with message, but, maybe, rather with snobbery (to me). Art for art's sake which i very difficult to understand, and maybe even ununderstandable.

Leaving what I already said about long sentences aside; what about e.e. cummings? That's another example of a writer's idiosyncrratic use of language as a means to depicting what he wants to say. The unusual line breaks and spaces in his poems perfectly leads the eye down the page. Besides, writers have in fact since Joyce found ways to convey things through their use of language and puncuation. To take a simple and common example, when some writers use an uncapitalized 'i' in a first-person narrative. The letter on the page physically appears more irrelevant and inferior when compared to the all-powerful stand-out 'I'.


This was more or less the time when Woolf was speaking. If she was alluding to this then it is the question if she was a snob. People do not become snobs because they criticise someone's work.


From mal4mac's quotes I conclude that she's both a snob and reflective of her time :) No she's not a snob for criticizing Joyce, but for going about it in the way she did. It doesn't make her a bad writer though. Eliot and Pound obviously had unpleasant ideas concerning Jews and support for Mussolini by the latter, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they're both masterful writers.

[glover7]

What is UP with all this hate towards the modernists? Is it because they're difficult?

Hell, no. It's because Joyce does nothing for me. If I want to read about temporal disjunction, then there are plenty of other places to find it than Ulysses. If I want to explore stream of consciousness, I find there are better writers using that particular device.

My problem with Joyce, which has been so aptly demonstrated by the discussion following my comment, is that people praise him based purely on reputation.

As for "difficulty," I absolutely despise that people immediately single that out as the reason for disliking Joyce. I, for example, find that cultural translation of Kawabata's texts is more difficult to decipher than Joyce's dull prose, but I still think that Kawabata is an excellent writer. If difficulty dictated the measure of a text's worth, then the greatest work of literature is a string theory dissertation.

Joyce has become the hero of the intellectual elitist, especially in my field of study. Anyone who has not read Joyce may as well be illiterate because without having read and understood everything he says, you have no place in the world of literary academia. It's stupid. No study should hinge on such a piece of tripe as Ulysses.

[mal4mac]

She came from a high-class family that occupied itself with art and intellectual knowledge. He came from a working-class family...

He did not. His father was an upper-middle-class failure. He had a Jesuit school education & went on to study Modern Languages at University in Ireland's main city. He was as fully occupied in art and intellectual knowledge as any one in Ireland could be, and even approached Yeats and other leading lights to get comments on his work in embryo when he was barely into his twenties. In fact his education was probably more thorough than that of Woolf, who had the usual disadvantages of women in those days. Heck, it was probably more thorough than any English men of letters, given the reputation of the Jesuits & his own driven nature...

[kiki1982]

Well, it is not as straightforward as you put it. Born in 1882, he went into Clongowe's Wood College in 1888 (at the age of 6) and left, because his father could no longer pay the fees, in 1892, at the grand age of 10. A lot of art or intellectual education he cannot have had at that age. If he already knew arithmetic properly, could read and write, and had some basic knowledge of abstract mathematics (goniometry and Euclid f.e.) and could read some Latin and Greek it would have been a lot.

At any rate, his father ad grandfather married into a rich family but were bad managers. Although that might mean they had money, they certainly did not belong to the intellectual elite, like f.i. Oscar Wilde who was also an Irishman although in a little earlier period. Woolf already moved in intellectual circles when she was a child. Joyce started to move in them when he was going to university. That certainly shaped both their worlds and ideas. Woolf was definitely of a class that was not even concerned with money, Joyce was definitely so.

[FrankMarcopolos]

David Eggers

[DanielBenoit]

David Eggers

Why is it that everybody thinks my favorite writers are overrated :bawling:

Just kidding. Eggers is not one of my favorite, but he's certainly one of the better contemporary writers. Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius was a hilariously depressing work of ironic bipolarism.

[FrankMarcopolos]

Eggers is all style and no substance. He has nothing to SAY. (Except maybe, Worship me, Hipsters!) Which is why I can't stand him.

[DanielBenoit]

Eggers is all style and no substance. He has nothing to SAY. (Except maybe, Worship me, Hipsters!) Which is why I can't stand him.

Okay. . .. .obviously you've never read What is What. Besides, it's a bit unjust to use the style/substance dichotomy with postmodern writers, since style is used to express substance (an inheritance from Joyce).

Just because his work is done in a stylistic way doesn't mean he has nothing to say except "look at me I'm so cool because I write in a self-refferential postmodern way". Besides, what's wrong with excersizes in style? Sections of Heatbreaking Work may be excersizes in style, but they're still meaningful. Any unique percpective is meaningful, even if there is no message or meta-narrative.

[FrankMarcopolos]

Okay. . .. .obviously you've never read What is What. Besides, it's a bit unjust to use the style/substance dichotomy with postmodern writers, since style is used to express substance (an inheritance from Joyce).


I have not read What is What. After AHWOSG, why would I be fooled again? I disagree with your statement above in that story is story, for postmodern, modern, postpostmodern, or any other kind of writers, regardless of what they are inheriting from anyone. Style is fine so long as it is used in conjunction with substance, for my taste.

There's nothing wrong with style exercises, per se. They just don't appeal to me. Some people love eating cotton candy, for example. I do not. David Eggers, to me, is literary cotton candy.

[DanielBenoit]

I disagree with your statement above in that story is story, for postmodern, modern, postpostmodern, or any other kind of writers, regardless of what they are inheriting from anyone.

I don't think you understand. The merits of modernist literature brought about a technique in which content is expressed through style. The simplest example being Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man in which the youth of the narrator is expressed through the style of the writing. Story is story, but if all stories were told the same way then the history of literature would be kind of boring now would it?

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I'm enjoying my cotton candy thank you very much :)

[FrankMarcopolos]

The merits of modernist literature brought about a technique in which content is expressed through style. The simplest example being Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man in which the youth of the narrator is expressed through the style of the writing.

Yeah, I know. That's not my point. To me, style for style's sake alone wastes my time. Your mileage may vary.

[stlukesguild]

I'll not argue the merits of Eggers, not having read him... but I will question the dichotomy of style vs substance. What exactly do you imagine makes a worthy substance or subject vs one that is unworthy? A vast portion of the arts are dedicated to the expression of something as seemingly frivolous as sexual infatuation, attraction, lust, and love. Is a work of art automatically relegated to the "frivolous" pile because the theme the artist has chosen isn't something truly "heavy" like the Holocaust, race, gender issues, etc... ?

[FrankMarcopolos]

For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. AHWOSG, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)

The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.

[DanielBenoit]

For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. AHWOSG, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)

The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.

For me, sometimes "points" seem to distract books from the rhythms of life. That's what I love about Ulysses; it is first and foremost concerned with the sensations of perception, not any kind of moral or universal truth.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

In the world of cinema Hungarian director Bela Tarr has revolutionized the language of film by doing away with narrative and focusing on the passing of time and emotion through slow and contemplative camera shots. "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."

[stlukesguild]

Still it leaves the question of whether this or that "point" being made is more important than another... and whether having something serious to communicate inherently makes the work better... or the lack thereof makes it worse. Looking at other artistic forms by way of analogy I again ask what is the "point" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet or Monet's Waterlilies?

[DanielBenoit]

Looking at other artistic forms by way of analogy I again ask what is the "point" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet or Monet's Waterlilies?

Exactly, that's why Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytic, etc. forms of criticism can only go so far. Come to think of it, music hardly has any "point". With the exception of opera (whose music exists to express the stroy) really what other types of music really offer a "point"? That's why I side with aestheticism, "art for arts sake". Can one not find Rembrant's Night Watch or DaVinci's The Last Supper beautiful even if we may not know what is going on?

[escapologist]

For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. AHWOSG, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)

The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.

I think you might be defining 'point' too narrowly. A point of a work of art is whatever the artist wants it to be. If they want it to be just an exercise in style, then that is the point and the validity of that point is not up for discussion. And if anyone were to limit the scope of its meaning, they would be limiting the freedom of art.

[FrankMarcopolos]

For me, sometimes "points" seem to distract books from the rhythms of life. That's what I love about Ulysses; it is first and foremost concerned with the sensations of perception, not any kind of moral or universal truth.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

In the world of cinema Hungarian director Bela Tarr has revolutionized the language of film by doing away with narrative and focusing on the passing of time and emotion through slow and contemplative camera shots. "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."

I believe the Twain quote was made in jest. As for the rest of your point, I can see what you're talking about, however, that kind of art, whether it be in print or on film, does not appeal to me. I don't want an art form to mirror life precisely, I want it to entertain and then educate or enlighten me, or at least try to.

As far as Ulysses, I'm not an expert on him, so I'll refrain from comment.


I think you might be defining 'point' too narrowly. A point of a work of art is whatever the artist wants it to be. If they want it to be just an exercise in style, then that is the point and the validity of that point is not up for discussion. And if anyone were to limit the scope of its meaning, they would be limiting the freedom of art.

Indeed. However, it does not mean I must enjoy it. I'm talking about my own perspective as an audience member, not as an artist. Obviously, an artist is free to choose to express him/herself any way they want. But don't expect me to pay attention to it if it's only a style exercise... my time is valuable.

As to the points about music above, I would say any song with lyrics has a story, and perhaps someone with more musical acumen than myself might argue that any musical composition tells a story in its own way. And to my ear, my favorite musical artists are the best storytellers -- with the flavoring of the musical style added to make it more (ear)-appealing.

As to visual art, I'm not an expert on that, so I haven't thought much about it. To my mind, though, it seems that even in that art form, the artist can capture a story on the canvas, albeit perhaps more open to interpretation by the viewer since it is static and visual.

[arrytus]

ayn rand, chuck palahniuk, martin amis, hemingway, dickens

[MystyrMystyry]

All of them and none of them

Might sound wishy washy, but it's such a subjective subject that it boils down to how well trained one is in observing and appreciating various aspects and qualities of a work of fiction (not to mention the author's intention)

There was a true tale I heard of a tribe living rough somewhere in Africa whom some anthropologists came across. They were amazed how no element of their lifestyle owed anything to the last two thousand years of civilisation.

Fearing that this tribe would one day be gobbled up by the march of progress if left to their own devices they returned with a television and satellite dish, thinking that some education of the outside world would be of benefit.

Everyday and every night every member of the tribe sat transfixed to the passing parade of images from the magic lantern, not bothered by disrupting questions from the intruders

The anthos began to wonder and worry if they'd done the right thing. Would this machine consume their culture instead of enhancing it?

Then suddenly one day about a month later, they noticed something about the tribesmen - they were no longer watching, but had returned to the way they were before the interlopers' arrival

Though a relief, it was also confusing

'Why have you all stopped watching?' one was asked

'That is a very clever machine,' he replied, 'and it tells many stories - but unfortunately it does not tell 'our' stories'

[Patrick_Bateman]

chuck palahniuk, dickens

Indeed, good man :)



hemingway

You imbecile.


:mad5:

[TheChilly]

Dan Brown = TERRIBLY overrated.

Same with John Steinbeck. Couldn't even get through "The Pearl" or even some of his short stories. Didn't capture my interest.

[Anymodal]

The most overrated writer is Lord Byron

[PeterL]

The most overrated writer is Lord Byron


Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.

[Anymodal]

Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.

Never heard about him, but he seems to have a similar profile than Bryon :sleep:

[Lykren]

I'll put my vote in for Dickens, and judging from this site alone, Orwell.

[stlukesguild]

:banghead:

[Anymodal]

Someone should make a poll with the most popular overrated writers :P

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The term overrated is just so, well, dumb. All it means when someone says an author is overrated, and especially when it comes to tried and true greats like Wordsworth and Byron, is that that person doesn't like that writer, and rather than accept that their opinion isn't necessarily the sole determiner of artistic worth in the universe, that author is therefore "overrated." It's quite childish, really.

[Shevek]

The term overrated is just so, well, dumb. All it means when someone says an author is overrated, and especially when it comes to tried and true greats like Wordsworth and Byron, is that that person doesn't like that writer, and rather than accept that their opinion isn't necessarily the sole determiner of artistic worth in the universe, that author is therefore "overrated." It's quite childish, really.

Not to mention that the variable of "overrated" makes no empirical sense. How could this be determined, outside of "my favourite author can beat up your favourite."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

:iagree:

[Anymodal]

I disagree. I'd like to point out that you are assuming that Bryon is a true great, and thats precisely what the debate is about.
Now, of course that in the bottom line there are nothing but opinions, there are no real absolute values. There is no absolute way to put The Illiad above some crapy best seller from last year.
But we live in a society and we set our artificial values so that we can compare our views in a reference frame. That's why we state that Homer is better than Paulo Cohelo (that would we childish too, extending your argument). Hence we can also argue that a writer is worse than another, but of course we should keep in mind that that is valid for a given system of values.

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.



Not to mention that the variable of "overrated" makes no empirical sense. How could this be determined, outside of "my favourite author can beat up your favourite."

I do agree that is ultimately true, though. You are right, it can't really be determined outside of our favoritisms. But it doesn't prevent us to establish variables for the sake of a discussion.

[WICKES]

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.

.


I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

[Kyriakos]

Hm, i am not particularly fond of english literature (although some of my favorite writers wrote in English...) so i would say that many english writers appear to me to be overrated. Jane Austen i find to be an abysmal writer for example. The tone, the plots, everything bore me to death and i am glad i won't ever have to read anything by her again.
Hobbes is another english writer (non-fiction) that is BORING (and wrong).

Of French writers maybe Camus, not that i think he is a bad writer, but he seems to be hailed as one of the best, and i don't agree there. I recall how tiresome The Plague seemed to me, although i read it many many years ago. I tried to re-read the Stranger recently, but gave up since it seemed trivial.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I disagree. I'd like to point out that you are assuming that Bryon is a true great, and thats precisely what the debate is about.
Now, of course that in the bottom line there are nothing but opinions, there are no real absolute values. There is no absolute way to put The Illiad above some crapy best seller from last year.
But we live in a society and we set our artificial values so that we can compare our views in a reference frame. That's why we state that Homer is better than Paulo Cohelo (that would we childish too, extending your argument). Hence we can also argue that a writer is worse than another, but of course we should keep in mind that that is valid for a given system of values.
I don't assume he is a true great. I recognize that he's seen as a true great by such a large community, be it academic or otherwise, that my sole opinion counts for little to nothing, just as your claim of him being overrated does. Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet." Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion.

And there are plenty of ways to put The Iliad above contemporary, bad fiction. That's what the whole of literary analysis does. Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?


There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets".
This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc. So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.

[kiki1982]

Byron's influence goes much further than the stories he wrote. So, he is probably a true great. Many anongst those deemed 'great' have not had such influence. Whether you like his weird way of feeling above the rest (literally in some cases) or not, you just can't say he's overrated. And I am sure, characterisation is not the only thing he was great at.
Even when he was alive, he was the first case of celebrity mania. Diana-esque.

I would say Virginia Woolf is overrated because it's very hard to read her novel, but then I probably don't like Modernism.

Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.

Indeed, there are only opinions in this world, but some opinions are more founded than others.

Wordsworth and Byron are not :sleep:, to fall asleep with Byron you'd have to do your very best, maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.

[Alexander III]

Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base. What is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind. Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding. If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.


That is not to say one does not have preferences, as St.Lukes always says, he does not enjoy Joyce, but nonetheless he can see the beauty and genius behind his work, it just so happens that stylistically it does not mingle as well with him as others such as Proust or Mann. But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.

[Alexander III]

I

But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of,
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love.


II

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.


Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.

[WICKES]

Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.

maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

[Motherof8]

J.H. Rawling perhaps? I'm not sure if that's how to spell his name.

[stlukesguild]

If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y.

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...




...but some opinions are better than others.:ciappa:

Never heard of Wordsworth...

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.

[tonywalt]

I would say that Jonathan Franzen is a bit overrated. I admire that he writes in traditional storytelling tradition, but he grates a bit.

[Alexander III]

If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y.

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...




...but some opinions are better than others.:ciappa:

Never heard of Wordsworth...

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.

I have a decent and just reply to this which involves aesthetic speculative theory using Longinus and Romanticism but I unfortunately got drunk and I don't trust myself to respond now; but dammit I am not behaving cowardly and ignoring your point I am merely waiting for the time when I can express my sentiments coherently. Tomorrow morning, because I really do wish to have this discussion.

[Anymodal]

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.
It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized.
(Not that is important to the debate but I disagree with the part of self-hating white Europeans that... etc)





Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet."
Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion.
Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.


Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?

I do judge of course works by it's historical relevance. But then again, history is not a certain thing. It is something to argue about. When we speak of Homer its really easy to agree, it's an easy subject. But with Byron is a different story, because it is much more debatable, the historic relevance of Byron is something you can question.


This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc.
Yes it is. And no I don't think you could say that with Shakespeare with lightness.


So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.
The point being what I prevoisly said here (*)

[JCamilo]

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.

If? Ruben Dario is considered a true great and came from Nicaragua.

[Anymodal]

Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base.
I would like to hear more about this please. Especially the part where you teach us how to absolutely judge universal beauty.


what is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind.

Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding.
Disagree with both


If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. (...) subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.
To say that objectivity corresponds to what the majority thinks is a falacy.


But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.
I don't know if you are trying to say I can't apreciate Byron because i am ignorant. If that's your point its not my problem. That's a text book argumentum ad hominem, trying to attack the other to invalidate the others arguments instead of arguing against them. And by the way I am more or less as prepared as anyone here to read Byron.





I

But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of,
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love.


II

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.


Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.
If you read what I said you will see that I like him. Only saying that he is overrated not that he is bad.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized





Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.


I do judge of course works by it's historical relevance. But then again, history is not a certain thing. It something to argue about. When we speak of Homer its really easy to agree, it's an easy subject. But with Byron is a different story, because it is much more debatable, the historic relevance of Byron is something you can question.


Yes it is. And no I don't think you could say that with Shakespeare with lightness.


The point being what I prevoisly said here (*)

All good points. Sometimes, if I'm in a churlish mood especially, I forget these are just casual forums in which to throw around ideas. That diatribe could've been aimed at any of the previous posters--I just happened to read yours.

I still think the idea of overratedness is silly, though.

[kiki1982]

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

Oh, of course he is! I can imagine he comes across as a bit boring and efeminate to others. That's all I wanted to say. Far from myself, if Byron is boring, I suppose Wordsworth is even more sleep-inducing.

I can think of a few overrated Flemish writers. No-one knows them, duh. Most of them can't write for toffee. It's peculiar, but the tanslators of good writers seem to do a good job...
Including the one deemed greatest in our language area. A few of his works have been translated into English where he apparently achieved moderate success, but inthe original language... Let's just say it was a stark contrast to go from a Nobel Prize winner to that... Ironically Hugo Claus was always 'on the shortlist' :rolleyes:.

[Drkshadow03]

Literature is NOT subjective or objective. It's intersubjective. You can think of this as objectivity through multiple subjectivities if you'd like. Although, a better way of conceiving it is shared agreement through multiple subjectivities. A masterpiece is a masterpiece because many people recognize it as such and can offer reasons to support their opinion and often notice the same good qualities independent of each other.

It is perfectly fine to think any given writer overrated (your subjective viewpoint), which doesn't automatically equate to "I think this writer is bad." Rather it means, "You think this writer is the 3rd best poet in English. I would agree he is decent, but vastly overrated. I would place him as the 100th best poet in English at best." Although it could mean, "I think he is bad." This is not something that only happens in Lit Net Forums or other internet vent zones; plenty of critics throughout time have considered various celebrated works overrated. The Canon is not static and critics don't always agree with each other.

Not all opinions are equal. Some people are good readers, some people are inferior ones. Nevertheless, as I mentioned already even good readers don't always agree, hence the subjectivity part of intersubjectivity.

[Emil Miller]

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

Thank you WICKES for this astute summation of the situation in relation to Byron et al. It is obviously the case and you have been both succinct and non PC in making it. I wouldn't change anything about it except possibly the word 'infected' to one of infested.

[Drkshadow03]

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.


And yet amazingly here in America there are plenty of mediocre novels written by white middle class still being published every day. All you have to do to discover this fact is step into basically any bookstore and you'll be bombarded with countless examples. And you can even study Byron in almost any major university with little trouble!

:nopity:

[OrphanPip]

How has someone not heard of Wordsworth? I'm honestly a little bit shocked. The Lyrical Ballads are probably one of the most widely read poetry collections in the English language. I can get not wanting to read through the entire Prelude though.

[Alexander III]

And yet amazingly here in America there are plenty of mediocre novels written by white middle class still being published every day. All you have to do to discover this fact is step into basically any bookstore and you'll be bombarded with countless examples. And you can even study Byron in almost any major university with little trouble!

:nopity:

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. How is that not total bull****? Oh an Marry Shelley we barley did, because she was a woman who was already appreciated so we had to study other women poets who were not as appreciated...

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

[OrphanPip]

I think you overstate it though, Alex. Even if courses are given with, what may be, the misguided attempt to rediscover unappreciated authors, the DWM are still well represented in academia and are under no real threat of being removed from the curricula of major universities.

Also, there are many benefits to studying less known poets of the Romantic period, in that it gives the student a broader perspective on Romanticism and helps them to better understand the context the big 6 found themselves in.

I'm taking just the grad courses in my department as a simple sample of what is being taught in English departments:

http://www.mcgill.ca/english/graduate/2012-13-courses

Shakespeare makes it into 3 courses, Milton and Spenser into 2, and Whitman shares an entire course solely with Emily Dickinson. Apart from a class on Victorian popular literature, most of the courses listed on that site (ignoring the film studies courses) are teaching the usual DWM.

[Pierre Menard]

How has someone not heard of Wordsworth? I'm honestly a little bit shocked. The Lyrical Ballads are probably one of the most widely read poetry collections in the English language. I can get not wanting to read through the entire Prelude though.


Yeah, gotta say, that one made the eyebrows go up.

[Motherof8]

I made a mistake the other day. I meant to say J.D.Salinger. Also there is a novel I had to read when I was in school I've heard some say is over rated- A Separate Peace.

[crusoe]

I'll put my vote in for Dickens, and judging from this site alone, Orwell.

Dickens ? Are we talking about Charles, or some unknown Want-Ad smearer from your neighborhood ? Ähh...the "Down and Out in Paris and London"-Orwell ?

If so,...
Please name your weapons, Sir...or take your medication.

[Drkshadow03]

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. How is that not total bull****? Oh an Marry Shelley we barley did, because she was a woman who was already appreciated so we had to study other women poets who were not as appreciated...

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

Well, the problem with Wickes' statement and Emil's characteristic cheerleading about the evil PC boogeyman is that it deals with two different ideas: What gets published and what gets praised.

As I already noted in the post in which you responded, plenty of white dudes (mediocre or otherwise) get published these days and the suggestion otherwise is the phantasm of someone who can't handle a few people of color getting published alongside them.

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.

[Lykren]

Dickens ? Are we talking about Charles, or some unknown Want-Ad smearer from your neighborhood ? Ähh...the "Down and Out in Paris and London"-Orwell ?

If so,...
Please name your weapons, Sir...or take your medication.

Yes, Charles. No, 1984-Orwell.

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships. He could put together a good adventure, though, I'll give you that. I just don't think he's as great as everyone makes him out to be.

Orwell? Gosh, I don't know where to start. I always figured 1984 was cheap, out-dated science fiction, meant to entertain by its shock value and novelty at the time. I never found any intriguing insights in it.

Okay, your turn. Shoot.

[stlukesguild]

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era.

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.

The problem with this, is that the majority of students are not necessarily aware that a course on English Romanticism should probably include Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, and Coleridge or that the majority of the under-appreciated figures were probably "under-appreciated" for the simple reason that they weren't on the level of the Big 6.

I am all for expanding the "canon"... but not by falsely inflating the reputation of mediocre artists/writers/composers or downplaying of eliminating major figures. This is not because I bristle at the notion of multiculturalism ala Emile, but rather because I believe the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists and not push their personal political agendas... and because... as Alex suggests... I suspect that such biases are in part responsible for many students embracing an opposing Neo-Con attitude.

During my second year of art school we were required to take a year-long course on post Milton Western Literature. The teacher was a sworn American Modernist. As a result, we barely even touched upon any of the English Romantics... let alone Goethe, Hugo, Tolstoy, Dickens, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Kafka, Proust, etc... The majority of our reading focused upon American Modernism... a little Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, and Dickinson... and a lot of Eliot, Stevens, Frost, William Carlos Williams, e.e. cummings, Faulkner, Dos Passos, Hemingway, Bellow, Barthes, etc... as well as lots of American Modernist literary and art theory: again Eliot, Proust, Barthes, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, etc...

Now there is nothing wrong with studying American Modernism... but the course (in theory) was supposed to be a survey of the important Western literature after Milton. I had the advantage of having read many of the major figures that we had glossed over (Goethe, Hugo, Kafka, Baudelaire, etc...) on my own... but the majority of the students didn't. As a result of this experience, I will admit that I took a rather poor view of much of American Modernism for quite some time in response to my feeling cheated... feeling that the teacher had used her position to promote her own agenda... and feeling that the reputations of certain writers were inflated at the expense of others.

[stlukesguild]

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships.

That's an odd criticism... for the simple reason that after Shakespeare, I can hardly think of another writer who has produced quite as many memorable characters.

[Emil Miller]

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era.

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.

The problem here is that the tutors concerned are blinded by their own self-righteousness. They imagine that they are above everyone else because they have the keys to the kingdom and, as such, need to spread the gospel of inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness which, by it's nature, means the nurturing of individual abilities. I say blinded, because they cannot see that by their actions they are paving the way for the forces that will eventually render them redundant.

[Drkshadow03]

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era.

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.

The problem with this, is that the majority of students are not necessarily aware that a course on English Romanticism should probably include Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, and Coleridge or that the majority of the under-appreciated figures were probably "under-appreciated" for the simple reason that they weren't on the level of the Big 6.

I am all for expanding the "canon"... but not by falsely inflating the reputation of mediocre artists/writers/composers or downplaying of eliminating major figures. This is not because I bristle at the notion of multiculturalism ala Emile, but rather because I believe the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists and not push their personal political agendas... and because... as Alex suggests... I suspect that such biases are in part responsible for many students embracing an opposing Neo-Con attitude.

During my second year of art school we were required to take a year-long course on post Milton Western Literature. The teacher was a sworn American Modernist. As a result, we barely even touched upon any of the English Romantics... let alone Goethe, Hugo, Tolstoy, Dickens, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Kafka, Proust, etc... The majority of our reading focused upon American Modernism... a little Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, and Dickinson... and a lot of Eliot, Stevens, Frost, William Carlos Williams, e.e. cummings, Faulkner, Dos Passos, Hemingway, Bellow, Barthes, etc... as well as lots of American Modernist literary and art theory: again Eliot, Proust, Barthes, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, etc...

Now there is nothing wrong with studying American Modernism... but the course (in theory) was supposed to be a survey of the important Western literature after Milton. I had the advantage of having read many of the major figures that we had glossed over (Goethe, Hugo, Kafka, Baudelaire, etc...) on my own... but the majority of the students didn't. As a result of this experience, I will admit that I took a rather poor view of much of American Modernism for quite some time in response to my feeling cheated... feeling that the teacher had used her position to promote her own agenda... and feeling that the reputations of certain writers were inflated at the expense of others.

Oh, don't get me wrong I think extremist leftist politics in academia can be really irritating too.

But it really comes back to expectations. Suppose you have a student who is focusing on Romanticism. If they take four or five different courses that deal specifically with Romantic literature, I imagine they're going to want to go beyond merely studying the Big 6 and even the major Romantics of other countries and perhaps want to learn more about some of the second-tier/third-tier figures, say a George Crabbe, or some of the Romantic women writers. I think your idea that "the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists" is correct if we're speaking about an introductory course or a survey.

Once we step beyond that point, I'm a little more skeptical; I would hope that once you're taking an upper level undergrad course on Romanticism or a grad level class that you're doing a little more than just being introduced to Romanticism and its major players. After all, there are many worthy writers beyond the obvious names.

I would hope most people don't walk into a major art museum, find the two or three extremely famous paintings by the big players (Leonardo and Raphael, let's say), then think the zillion paintings that make up the rest of the collection by talented artists that most people haven't heard of because those artists don't quite have the same stature as the top masters are merely just filler.

[crusoe]

Yes, Charles. No, 1984-Orwell.

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships. He could put together a good adventure, though, I'll give you that. I just don't think he's as great as everyone makes him out to be.

Orwell? Gosh, I don't know where to start. I always figured 1984 was cheap, out-dated science fiction, meant to entertain by its shock value and novelty at the time. I never found any intriguing insights in it.

Okay, your turn. Shoot.

I play "Jaggers" from Great Expectations, followed by "Wemmick" from the same Book. I follow up with the whole gang from "Our mutual friend".
Before I strike you down with the Bleak House - Bunch, I'd like to ask:
What have you read by Mr.D ? Did you actually read a whole book or some of those Excuse-volumes for the more let's say "zipped approach" ? (...only asking)
Didn't you scream "YESSSS", when Nickelby gave Squeers the trashing of his Life ?

1984 was actually Orwell's vision of "Days to come" in England after WWII.
We all know that his idea for a name was 1948.

[Lykren]

I play "Jaggers" from Great Expectations, followed by "Wemmick" from the same Book. I follow up with the whole gang from "Our mutual friend".
Before I strike you down with the Bleak House - Bunch, I'd like to ask:
What have you read by Mr.D ? Did you actually read a whole book or some of those Excuse-volumes for the more let's say "zipped approach" ? (...only asking)
Didn't you scream "YESSSS", when Nickelby gave Squeers the trashing of his Life ?

1984 was actually Orwell's vision of "Days to come" in England after WWII.
We all know that his idea for a name was 1948.

I've read Great Expectations and recently finished A Tale of Two Cities and am about to read Hard Times for an english class. stluke mentioned that his characters are memorable, and that seems to be what you are getting at also. Since this is all subjective anyway, I'll mention that I didn't dislike them enough to regret reading them - they were entertaining. That said, the only two characters I remember from Great Expectations are Pip and Havisham, and the only details I remember about their personalities is that they were fairly one-dimensional. There's also something in his general style I don't like, a sort of condescending feeling I get from it. Don't get me wrong, I like simple and clear writing as much as anyone, but it's more than that - it's not that he's refraining from being snobbish, but that he cheapens his stories with a manipulating of one's affections I find unpalatable. The suspense and romance in his novels are never feelings that resonate with my own, or are something I can identify with. They seem like thin and weak emotions watered down for the sake of a quick thrill.

I don't mean to be harsh and rain on your Dickens parade - I'm interested in learning. What about (and this is addressed to stluke as well) his characters do you find fascinating? Can you elaborate on why you think I'm missing something? Thanks.

[crusoe]

I've read Great Expectations and recently finished A Tale of Two Cities and am about to read Hard Times for an english class. stluke mentioned that his characters are memorable, and that seems to be what you are getting at also. Since this is all subjective anyway, I'll mention that I didn't dislike them enough to regret reading them - they were entertaining. That said, the only two characters I remember from Great Expectations are Pip and Havisham, and the only details I remember about their personalities is that they were fairly one-dimensional. There's also something in his general style I don't like, a sort of condescending feeling I get from it. Don't get me wrong, I like simple and clear writing as much as anyone, but it's more than that - it's not that he's refraining from being snobbish, but that he cheapens his stories with a manipulating of one's affections I find unpalatable. The suspense and romance in his novels are never feelings that resonate with my own, or are something I can identify with. They seem like thin and weak emotions watered down for the sake of a quick thrill.

I don't mean to be harsh and rain on your Dickens parade - I'm interested in learning. What about (and this is addressed to stluke as well) his characters do you find fascinating? Can you elaborate on why you think I'm missing something? Thanks.


Hi Lykren... It should be fun and games. You're not harsh and I was only joking. Let's say, I'm an "open Fire - Sherlock Holmesy - 19th century kind of "reader", so Dickens is right up my alley. Your's is another avenue and that's cool. You know, Victor Hugo turns my stomach and why ? Beats me, I have not the faintest idea. That's how it is sometimes. Read you...

[maxphisher]

I'll preface this response by apologizing because you will all quickly find that I am going to constantly rise up in defense of Joyce. I study his works for a living, but I promise that I do attempt to be objective in my defenses. That being said...

I think that the biggest problem that people run into with Joyce is that they allow him to intimidate them. The result is that it becomes easy to write the works off as gibberish because, inititally, they have essentially defeated you. I only say this because I've often found myself in a similar position with Joyce. I gave up on Portrait and Ulysses several times before I committed to finishing them. I did so with a dictionary and pelnty of research materials always close by. Do I consider that to be a negative selling point for a novel? No, of course not. In reading the books, I learned more than I can possibly ever list. A novel that serves as an effective tool for learning and for critical thinking is never a bad thing. Having an author demand that you consider both the world and human existence in their entireties is a very frightening realization; attempting to accept that challenge, though possibly foolish, is empowering. Joyce's books are empowering. They challenge and they assault you, but when you feel that you've beaten them back, there's a sense of accomplishment and peace - not for the sake of impressing other's, but rather, for the sake of defeating your own fears and shortcomings.

However, yes, the language and the style are difficult, and yes, at face value, some of it appears to be what some call "gibberish." However, once you really dig into his works, especially Ulysses, and you get a sense of what exactly he accomplished in the text, it's almost impossible to not be stunned or even frightened by his ability.

Moving on, if nothing else, Ulysses changed the face of literature in the early 20th century. It was daring and dangerous, as Joyce had no qualms with both calling out the deficiencies of his predecessors in the very same sentences in which he celebrates them. He was also never afraid to borrow those author's characters, plunk them down in the middle of his own work, and allow them to see the modernized world, in hopes that they might shed light on the development of humanity.

It takes a lot of time and dedication, but once you've really gotten to the core, or what at first appears to be the core, of the novel, there's no denying that the man set out to record the history of existence in a single novel, over the course of a single, fictionalized day. And, the truth of the matter is that he succeeded. Yes, he's probably to be considered pretentious for it, but his goal was to analyze and discuss art, literature, philosophical thought, and the average pondering that is developed with newspaper in hand, taking a crap in an outhouse, all at once, with the result being the culmination of those experiences, encapsulated in his book. The only thing that could have made this effort truly pretentious would have been if he had failed at doing it. Ambition paired with success is not pretension, it is simply success.

[Dany Blue]

I can understand why people would say Kerouac is over-rated due to On the Road, but i don't think you can really class that as a novel in the same way as other authors, its more of a 3 year diary entry than a novel and so i would disagree with those of you attacking it for lack of plot, etc etc. His other novels (also semi-autobiographical) like dharma bums and subterraneans are brilliant. Personally I agree with anyone who answered with Dan Brown.

[Mason Pringle]

People like Rowling and Dan Brown and Meyer are not "overrated" - they are only loved by non-literary types (and by literary readers who read them for distraction/entertainment) and not "rated" as high literature by anybody.

For someone to be "overrated" they need to be highly rated to begin with (but they don't deserve such high rate). The one I would say is the most overrated is Mo Yan, this year's Nobel winner who basically is a stooge for the Chinese government who imitates "magical realism" badly. He's not even as good as Alice Hoffman. Nobel Committee did a disservice to humanity by giving the award to Mo Yan.

Domestically I think Arthur Miller is kind of overrated, but I won't say he's the most

[MarkBastable]

People like Rowling and Dan Brown and Meyer are not "overrated"

Indeed - we mustn't confuse overrated with overpaid.


For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.

[soundofmusic]

Indeed - we mustn't confuse overrated with overpaid.


For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.

Oh God Yes, Mark, I am still not over Women in Love.

[Delta40]

Define non-literary types for me. I only ask because of the thread 'Define Literature' There was such a discussion on it and I see now that there may be a level of snobbery on what people read which categorizes them as literary or non-literary so I'm curious.

[kelby_lake]

For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.

The problem with DH Lawrence is his philosophical passages are less interesting than the, um, action of the novel. Nevertheless, there's still some very good stuff in there- who doesn't love the wrestling scene from Women in Love? Ironically it's more erotic than anything in Lady Chatterley's Lover.