who is the most overrated writer ever?

[mister_noel_y2k]

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

i say jack kerouac is the most overrated

die! on the road

:banana:

[Nightshade]

okay not an autor but
Wilfred Owen
I hate that mans poetry I really really reallly do!
And I had a 3 and a half hour Literature exam yesterday on unseen texts from WWI and guess who was on it!!

[~K~]

Kerouac and Steve Allen did a music to reading.
Quite witty and humorous.
Kerourac is meant to be read aloud.
I like it.
I am not familar with Owens.
I cannot think of anyone who is overrated, trends are trends and classics are classics.

[Jack_Aubrey]

J.K. Rowling anyone?

[wanderlust_ox]

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

[amuse]

ah, then read the first one! i felt the same - refused to read them/be part of the crowd. and then found out i liked them! though the 5th is rather dark. forget if there are 5 or 6 now, so if there's a 6th haven't read it, but the first few are just :) :).

[Jack_Aubrey]

I read the first one when I was in 5th grade, and decided that I didn't have much interest in Harry's adventures. And also, my teacher at the time told me that I could do better. :) Aren't complements great?

[Mark F.]

I tried reading one and just couldn't cope with her writing, it's so poor. Aparantly she gets better over the years. I still felt like I was reading a Mister Men book.

[Mark F.]

Oh, and too many people think that Dan Brown is a good writer.

[Koa]

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


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...

[amuse]

"and mine!" az added.

[PeterL]

Thomas Hardy is over rated. On the other hand, J. K. Rowling is a very good writer. I had been hearing about Harry Potter for a few years, so I picked a copy of the first one; it was excellent. The writing was very good; characterization and plot were nicely done, and the theme is clear and worthwhille.

Kerouac's writing was variable. I don't like On the Road, but the Dharma Bums was very good. Some of his other writing was decent.

Steinbeck is also overated. He was a good writer, but not great. I would almost say the same of Hemingway, but he wrote a few great books.

[mono]

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

[Scheherazade]

I have read only On The Road by Kerouac; I did not enjoy the book (to say the least) and I still don't understand why it is considered a great read even though some of my more learned friends here tried to explain it to me very patiently on more than one occasion. However, I think Kerouac has a good style, which is what kept me reading.

I can say that the same thing for J.K. Rowling... I have read all the Potter books and even though I don't think that she is very creative with her ideas etc, I believe she is a good story teller and produces good page-turners... And I am glad that her books made many youngsters start reading.

As some of you might be expecting (*grins at Mono and Jay*) my suggestion is Virginia Woolf... I have read two of her books and left with the same feeling of 'and...?' and I didn't care much for her style either... I can also say the same things for Jeanette Winterson maybe but I have read only one book of hers.

[Nightshade]

ha I'd Forgotten about shakespear then theres Margret Attwood- Shudders at mmomry of HAndmaid's Tale. J K Rowling Well I have read all them so far and will read the next 2 though I think 5 was awful and 6 will probably be worse number 1 was Ok But I m just waiting to see her kill Harry :brow:

[Rachy]

I think J. K. Rowling is a good author, but all her stories are the same, and as Harry Potter has become more popular, she's had to change the style to fit both adult and child, but she should remember ultimately that these books started out for children, and so they would be disturbed by the 5th book. This might just be me, but I personally saw MAJOR similarities between her books and the Lord of the Rings trilogys, and I was not happy! But yes, the Harry Potter books are good, just very predictible!!

[Lonely Soul]

Around the time the first Harry Potter book was published I can remeber telling my teacher that I didn't care for it, and to this day I remeber as if it was yesterday the way she looked back at me in utter disbelief. Whilst I admit that at the time I must have been in the minority I am unable to acertain for what reason she looked so horrifeid at my expression of literary preferance.

[amuse]

Annie Dillard. hated her short stories. *retches.

[Koa]

As some of you might be expecting (*grins at Mono and Jay*) my suggestion is Virginia Woolf... I have read two of her books and left with the same feeling of 'and...?' and I didn't care much for her style either...

Good point. I really disliked her books I read... but then I can say the same of all post-modernist stuff, it just doesn't suit me.
(which kinda reminds me that I have big problems with Joyce too...I prefer writers who use grammar ;)... and I didnt even got much out of Dubliners...)

[Fango]

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 feel the same way. I never go for the renowned books. There's something magical about enjoying an unheard-of book... it's like you discover it... it becomes your other world that no one else knows about but you, and that you can jump into any time you want. Anyone else feels that way? maybe it's just me...

[Koa]

Eheh for me it's just a question of things that are cool at the moment... I read a lot of classics, so they are really famous and renowned... But if something it's popular at the moment it loses all its charm to me...

[Pip]

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.

[Jack_Aubrey]

It's not cliche if you're the first to do it.

[mister_noel_y2k]

first to do what? and give an example.


:banana:

[Fango]

Being very demanding nowadays aren't we? I'm not posting to stand up for the innovation of The Catcher in the Rye, but I enjoyed it. And 0I don't think anyone written before a story about the way a problematic cynical teenager sees the world in such an interesting way.

[sKorpia]

I think a big part of Rowling's appeal is the fact that she's given us a new fantasy world to play in with the vocabulary to boot. It's been a long time in children/adolescent literature since there's been one of those created. I also am glad that the issues she brings up follow the same trajectory that she has for Harry's development from an innocent through adolescence to maturity. I'd have been very disappointed if the 16-year-old Harry stayed within the confines of the 11-year-old Harry's mentalities. It becomes problematic and you can see a lot of this with many of the current run superhero comics.

I enjoyed Salinger's Catcher but I completely didn't get Nine Stories. I'd have to re-read both of them to find out how I feel because whatever I thought about the books I read while in high school is now worthless. How can anybody know anything during those years that would help you get the literature that they teach?

Dan Brown's fun to read, but not particularly deep.

[Jack_Aubrey]

first to do what? and give an example.


:banana:
She said his writing was cliche, and I said "not if you do it first." In my opinion Salinger's matter-of-fact writing style and nonchalant narration were revolutionary in the literary world. Salinger is up front with what he's saying through out most of the novel. I don't think I need to give an example if you've read the book. But knowing you, you probably didn't understand it and have sworn a vendetta against it.

[Capnplank]

I wasn't overly impressed with Catcher in the Rye when I first read it, though I still enjoyed it and find a great many things to think about in there. But what really bowled me over were Nine Stories and Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenter and Seymour: An Introduction.

[mister_noel_y2k]

She said his writing was cliche, and I said "not if you do it first." In my opinion Salinger's matter-of-fact writing style and nonchalant narration were revolutionary in the literary world. Salinger is up front with what he's saying through out most of the novel. I don't think I need to give an example if you've read the book. But knowing you, you probably didn't understand it and have sworn a vendetta against it.

ah jack, so eager to take anything anyone says as a personal insult. :lol:
i dont think salinger's "matter of fact writing style" is particularly original but then thats not a very good answer. hemingway wrote in a similar matter of fact way as did theodore dreiser (though dreiser is a dreadful writer in my opinion). as for nonchalant narration...well, by that do you mean holden caulfield is a apathetic narrator? or that the narration isn't particularly detailed and quite breezy? i think if you mean the former then perhaps you could read "the great gatsby" as nonchalant narration as nick carraway ignores many of the realities of his story in favour of a more romantic view of his experiences. or perhaps the character of mr stevens in "the remains of the day" could be seen as another such nonchalant narrator. but then ishiguro wrote that in the late 80s and so couldn't be said to be original, but fitzgerald on the other hand was writing in the 20s so perhaps he could be seen as an earlier influence to salinger, after all salinger did admire fitzgerald and hemingway's style as well as their short story techniques hence his desire to be the next great american short story writer before he wrote "catcher". as personal vendettas go, i don't really go after books unless they really tick me off like the ridiculous naked lunch but that arguments still raging in another thread. personally, holden is a brilliant character and salinger's first and only novel is one of my all time favourites. calm down jacky boy. :D

[mister_noel_y2k]

and as for you saying that "i didn't understand the book" well jack m'lad let me tell you that you didn't understand naked lunch either. you just repeated what i had said in an earlier thread and then said something banal about how "uh it makes you understand the mind of a heroin addict". well la de dah. i don't think your 16 year old mind understands the book or "the catcher in the rye" either, but then if i stand by my position that naked lunch as unreadable pap then theres really nothing to understand about it. check mate!

:banana:

[Jack_Aubrey]

Yeah, I'm 16 which according to you means I don't know ****. Well I'd rather stay 16 and not know anything and be sure about that, than be an anal old fart like you and pretend I know everything.

[Scheherazade]

Please avoid turning literary disagreements into personal conflicts and attacks. Such incidents cause unpleasant atmosphere not only for you but for all the other users visiting the Forum.

[glitterandtwang]

I'd have to agree that Virginia Woolf is especially overrated. I do think that, more recently, Chuck Palahniuk is given much more credit than he's due.

[mono]

As some of you might be expecting (*grins at Mono and Jay*) my suggestion is Virginia Woolf... I have read two of her books and left with the same feeling of 'and...?' and I didn't care much for her style either... I can also say the same things for Jeanette Winterson maybe but I have read only one book of hers.
Eh, no offense taken, Scher. Virginia Woolf seems someone either greatly admired or greatly not-so-admired, which I can see both sides of the debate, but cannot deny her. Jeannette Winterson, yes, I know, can seem a little dry and . . . in a way, cliché. I love both of the writers, their brilliant minds, but see others' complaints.
That writers like J.D. Salinger and Ernest Hemingway made the list does not surprise me in the least; they, too, seem absolutely a blessing to the bookshelf to me, but I clearly perceive what others can dislike about them. I know, especially Salinger's Nine Stories, reads with much difficulty, but I cannot insult its pure uniquity.
Chuck Palahniuk also appeared with no surprise. Coming from the city that, I believe, he still teaches in, hearing always of his book reviews and raves, and even spotting him on the street now and then, I get a little tired of it. I adore his novels, their undeniably dark factor, but cannot quite connect to his short stories.

[mister_noel_y2k]

i like some of palahniuk's stuff like fight club, survivor and choke which were very imaginative and interesting but lately hes been writing pretty awful stuff though i hear his latest novel "haunted" is set to be a good one so i hope its a return to form for one of todays most original and interesting writers around.

(ps jack im not old, just older, ill be 21 on the 27 of june)

:banana:

[EAP]

Rowling is great, certainly not over-rated in my opinion.

Of the names listed so far I agree with Virginia Wolfe.

*Yawn*

My choices would be Shakespeare and Dostovesky.

[Jack_Aubrey]

Well. I guess I gotta respect someone with a controversial opinion.

[glitterandtwang]

i like some of palahniuk's stuff like fight club, survivor and choke which were very imaginative and interesting but lately hes been writing pretty awful stuff though i hear his latest novel "haunted" is set to be a good one so i hope its a return to form for one of todays most original and interesting writers around.


I loved Fight Club and Survivor, but apart from those two I don't find much of his writing particularly innovative anymore. I tracked down "Guts" online out of curiosity — I believe it's in Haunted, but please correct me if I'm mistaken — and I wasn't even mildly impressed. It seemed written more for shock value than any other purpose. Though I think his writing style was innovative and original when he started out, it's quickly growing tired. I keep waiting for him to do something that snags my interest and seems to be something more than a repetition of all his other work. I can't help but wonder if the man is drowning in his success...

[Jabberwocky]

I found Earnest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald to be overrated. I had heard a lot of good things about The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald, but it failed to live up, and I wasn't overly fond of his writing style. The Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway was just plain dull.

[Beaumains]

Though it looks like I'm in the minority, I actually enjoy Joyce, Woolfe, and Hemingway, but anyway...I would nominate Stephen King for this position. Now before any of his fans attack me (physically or verbally), allow me to explain: I've read several of his novels and I simply failed to find the characters interesting and the plots to be drawn out entirely too long. The Dark Tower for instance. I will admit that several of his short stories are worthy of merit though.

[helsinki angel]

I am wondering if a lot of people that list Salinger, Fitzgerald, Hemmingway, Woolf (the list goes on... some of the most influential authors of modern writing) read these authors for school. I found I didn't appreciate these writers until I re-read them independantly a few years after school...

[chmpman]

I completely agree with the Stephen King nomination. I've read several of his books (admittedly not much of his early writings besides The Shining) and agree the characters and writing are quite dull. The movie version of the Shining is one of those few that beat out the books - this one by a long shot. (Now go ahead and attack this nom. Stephen King fans)

[mono]

With Stephen King, I can really perceive what his very devoted readers enjoy in his literature, but I could also never call myself a fan, with the exception of The Shining and The Green Mile (also decent movies).
In these two novels, I feel he put much more thought and pre-meditation, while many of the others I have read consist of mere gore.
Other contemporary writers I happened to forget to list, for unknown reasons, and who I oddly associate with Stephen King: Dean Koontz and John Grisham - any writer who has the mysterious ability to produce so many novels in such little time cannot contribute as much effort as Leo Tolstoy, for example, who wrote few, but qualitative, novels.

[mister_noel_y2k]

i think with king it's kind of hit and miss- i've read and loved the shining, misery, the green mile, different seasons (with the shawshank redemption), black house, and on writing but i've also read It, pet sematery, carrie, and salem's lot and disliked those. i'm now reading the dark tower series and like that despite the first one being very shaky both in story and writing. so all in all, i think king is a good writer but his penchant for putting out so many books all the time sometimes makes for bad writing and sometimes for good.
ditto elmore leonard.

:banana:

[shortysweetp]

i like king but i cant read king after reading a good classic novel.

[bestseller]

Michael Moore is over rated. He is "Chomsky for children". Chomsky, that's one hell of an underrated writer. "Dettering Democracy" will knock you on your ***. That's a good read with excellent research (from an MIT professor of linguistics) that not only paints a realistic, unbiased view of politics, economics, and society in general, but it reads fluently with a varied higher vocabulary. It's all too rare. Michael Moore is comparatively a hack.

[scruffy_danny]

I hate to be all predictable or wotnot but (I havn't read the whole thread) but I really do have to say that the Harry Potter books aren't very good. I think Rowling is the most over rated author ever. I really do.
Ok, maybe her books are good, though each one incredibly similar to the other, but that is no excuse to the amount of sales she's had; it's simply ridiculous. It's a hyped up thing like many other things: pogs, marbles, football stickers, Sunny Delight, and now Harry Potter.
Rowling is ok I guess, I'l give you that, but she deserves less.

(the moody cow)...

[bestseller]

The authors of TV guide, of course. Fragmented sentences galore, and way too many numbers...is this a bad read, or what?

[scruffy_danny]

I think Homer Simpson would beg to differ... *chuckle*

[Bix12]

I didn't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if she was mention'd....but, Ayn Rand get's my vote, hands down. A major snooze-fest, and her "philosophy" sucks...imo.

:as-sleep:

One writer that I wasn't surprised to find mention'd a few times as being overrated was "Papa" Hemingway. I can understand why people might tend to think that of him. It's ironic, because the very thing about him that might cause folks to say he's overrated is actually, imo, the very thing wherein lies his genius. I'm refering to his compact sentence structure and sparse use of descriptors. Granted, he wasn't at all wordy, but he didn't need to be...he could say more, and with more precision, in a few short sentences than most other writers could only try, (and fail), to say in 2 full pages.

J.K. Rowling? At the insistance of others, I've tried twice now to read her, and both times I felt as if I were reading a book written for 10 year olds. Hmmmm....I wonder why that was?

[Sirius_Kai]

I think that I would have to say...I know this will possibly get me slaughtered...Faulkner. His stories are great, but IMHO, you have to be a wonderful writer to get the most out of it. Of course, that was probably what he was going for, but for general purposes...no. (In other words, I think far more people claim to enjoy his writing than actually do.)

[ArcherSnake]

I see some of you mentioned Kerouac. I think he and his contemporaries are just horrible, and extremely overrated. I had to read On The Road for my sophomore English class; the teacher chose this over Hemingway's A Moveable Feast because she thought we would identify with Kerouac's "rebellious, nonconformist nature" (which was, I must say, very overdue for a legally adult young man). Not only did I find it inappropriate (there was some sex and alot of drug use in there), but it didn't really seem to have a point to it. I didn't get anything out of it, and neither did the rest of the class.

[amuse]

i've never liked Faulkner (and probably never will).

[RococoLocket]

Charles Dickens is overrated, he bores the hell outta me.

I just had to study Wordworths *twitch* Prelude for my Eng Lit A-Level, and it was torture! It came across to me as arrogant; No wonder Coleridge overdosed & died so soon after 'Wild Willy' [as my English teacher loves to call him] wrote a 12 book poem all about himself for his bestest friend. Wordsworth = Overrated.

Usually, the more I study a book/poetry etc, the more I begin to like it, so when it all goes the opposite way, that's when I know it's awful.

[baddad]

One writer that I wasn't surprised to find mention'd a few times as being overrated was "Papa" Hemingway. I can understand why people might tend to think that of him. It's ironic, because the very thing about him that might cause folks to say he's overrated is actually, imo, the very thing wherein lies his genius. I'm refering to his compact sentence structure and sparse use of descriptors. Granted, he wasn't at all wordy, but he didn't need to be...he could say more, and with more precision, in a few short sentences than most other writers could only try, (and fail), to say in 2 full pages.

[/FONT]

"Hear, Hear", from a Papa Hemingway fan.............Hemingway was all about 'simple'. Deep complexity revealed with simple words, simple sentences. Hemingway.

[Basil]

Over at Oprah's Book Club, they're celebrating "A Summer of Faulkner (http://www.oprah.com/obc_classic/featbook/asof/fury/fury_member_promo.jhtml)."

https://www.oprah.com/obc_classic/login/images/osbs_oprah_218x296.jpg

[Sitaram]

I didn't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if she was mention'd....but, Ayn Rand get's my vote, hands down. A major snooze-fest, and her "philosophy" sucks...imo.


Aha, now I know the secret to your Font of Garamond and COLOR equals yellow! (Nice, that one poem of yours, Bix, I must look more closely)

I always felt like I should read Ayn Rand, but I could never bring myself to actually begin. Just now, I became curious about the origin of the title "Atlas Shrugged" and google lead me to a very informative link:

http://www.eckerd.edu/aspec/writers/atlas_shrugged.htm




The overarching story is that the men of the mind, who like Atlas,
carry the world on their shoulders, gradually get fed up with being
exploited, and abused, and given no respect. They retire from the
world, shrugging the burden, in effect. Rand’s working title was On
Strike. Her husband’s suggestion that the title be changed to Atlas
Shrugged was a valuable contribution. (It reminds me of another great
title change, when Viktor Frankl’s book From Death Camp to
Existentialism was re-named Man’s Search for Meaning.)





"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent
of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears.

Reason is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of
knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of
others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to
others, nor sacrificing others to himself. My need does not give me an
automatic claim to your wealth.


The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a
system where men deal with one another, not as victims and
executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free,
voluntary exchange, to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man
may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and
no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The
government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it
uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who
initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. There should be
a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and
for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."





Rand makes much of the sign of the dollar, and another bit of hokum
occurs in the ending, when John Galt traces the sign of the dollar in
the air as he tells the strikers it is time to go back to the world. Even I
choke on that. She took the dollar-sign symbol, always drawn on
capitalist pigs in cartoons, and turned conventional wisdom upside
down, to make a point. She always wore a large gold dollar-sign pin on
her dress. At her funeral, a six-foot floral dollar-sign was placed by the
casket.



Such links, and tidbits help me to develop a deeper understanding of and appreciation for certain books and authors.

For now, I have my hands full with Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow". Ms. Rand will have to wait her turn.

Speaking of Faulkner, I am mesmerized by the opening pages of "As I Lay Dying", with Jewel and that horse poised for an instant in "furious hiatus".

I suppose if we like intricate, gothic, ornate convolutions of Byzantine complexity, then we are doomed to dislike barebones, powerful simplicity, elegantly hewn by Occam's razor and distilled to the most elemental form.
And, conversely, if we love the simple, we shall not love complex.


There is no accounting for personal tastes or for contemporary popularity or historical endurance. Thornton Wilder seems to have been quite fond of Gertrude Stein, but Hemingway appears to have disliked her intensely.

I am sure there are those who consider Gertrude Stein to be overrated.

It might prove very interesting to study works which were best-sellers but fell into obscurity, such as "Anthony Adverse" of the 1930's, and compare them with works which were unsuccessful in their time, but were then "rediscovered" long after the author's death.

[Scheherazade]

I suppose if we like intricate, gothic, ornate convolutions of Byzantine complexity, then we are doomed to dislike barebones, powerful simplicity, elegantly hewn by Occam's razor and distilled to the most elemental form.
And, conversely, if we love the simple, we shall not love complex.OK, Sitaram, keep your hands where we can see them and slowly walk away from that Thesaurus!!!



;)

[Sitaram]

But, look how cute I was in that paragraph,.... the FORM of the sentences imitated the meaning which I attempted to convey. The first sentence, which is elaborate and ornate, speaks of those who prefer complexity. The second sentence is much simpler by comparison.

Mallarme describes one of Pascal's Pensees as a "perfect poem" precisely because its very sentence structure emulates the idea which it conveys:

"Le silence eternelle et des espaces infinite, m'frai" (from my poor old memory, pardon any errors..... "The eternal silence and the infinity of space, frighten me" ... but the ME of the sentence is OUTSIDE of an alienated from the two infinities, which are perfectly balanced and juxtaposed by the "AND".

Though, it may be Paul Valery and not Mallarme. I read the essay 40 years ago. Hard to remember.

In all honesty, when I write, I never use a thesaurus. I just write what pops into my head. Of course, once it pops in my head, I place it in the fire of the forge until it glows, and then pound it on the anvil for a bit with a very large hammer and my sinewy "arms like iron bands", like any respectable village smithy under a spreading chestnut tree.

My big problem is spelling. I paste what I write into MS Word, and look for spelling errors. Then, I use this forum's wonderful edit feature to correct. When I was a teenager, and wanted to read the poetry of Wallace Stevens, I had to have a large dictionary to look up so many words. But now, as I read Gravity's Rainbow, I am amazed that I don't have to look up any words, and I am personally familiar with many of the things he mentions in culture and history (I actually had a Plasticman comic in the 1950s). I believe that whatever we write should well up naturally, from within, and be a genuine expression of what we are and who we are, and not some synthesis or caricacture of what we would like to be.

[mister_noel_y2k]

i've a new literary writer i dislike- henry james. BOO!


:banana:

[Scheherazade]

i've a new literary writer i dislike- henry james. BOO!That's interesting!

I read James' Daisy Miller at university and loved every bit of it; characters, description and since then, I have always wanted to read his books but never had the chance. Because of that one book I read, I actually consider James one of the writers I like! Maybe I should read his other books and see how I feel about his style now.

[dejosc]

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

[Sitaram]

That's interesting!

I read James' Daisy Miller at university and loved every bit of it; characters, description and since then, I have always wanted to read his books but never had the chance. Because of that one book I read, I actually consider James one of the writers I like! Maybe I should read his other books and see how I feel about his style now.


It is my understanding that he wrote some essays on theory of the novel, interpretation. I have looked around for those. I would like to read them. By the way, his brother, William James, was one of the last famous psychologists prior to Sigmund Freud; one of the last pre-Freudians.

It became fashionable for literature majors to say that Henry was the better psychologist and William was the better writer, but such observations are sometimes more clever than accurate.

http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_theory/henry_james.html



The critical act, for James, must first of all be a disinterested and dignified search for "truth," for "life." Like Matthew Arnold, one of his earliest critical models, James saw criticism as a means of making "truth generally accessible"; "it does not busy itself with consequences" but "takes high ground, which is the ground of theory" (717). Unlike the vulgar, "off-hand" productions of his English contemporaries, James's reviews self-consciously attempt to rise above practical matters of "rough-and-ready" evaluation (96-97) and achieve detached discrimination, analysis, and appreciation, the qualities that he felt characterized both Arnold and Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, another early critical model.

...

Before the appearance of "The Art of Fiction," James wrote approximately 200 reviews almost entirely on individual works. During this same period he wrote about 20 essays (including his book on Hawthorne) on more expansive topics, literary figures, schools, or movements. After its appearance he wrote only six reviews but published almost 100 critical essays, including the 18 prefaces to the collected New York Edition of his novels (1907-9). It was in these essays and prefaces that James voiced his major aesthetic, critical, and theoretical concerns.

...

Because of its crucially transitional place in James's development, it provides a synthesis of 20 years of inchoate and desultory*** thoughts about fiction and fiction writing and transforms them into a group of interrelated principles upon which most of his later criticism rests.

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/06/02.html


comes from Latin desultorius, from desultor, "a leaper," from the past participle of desilire, "to leap down," from de-, "down from" + salire, "to leap."






http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=5083

Ezra Pound noted James’s faithfulness to the vernacular.

http://www.cercles.com/review/r10/lodge.html




In Lodge’s thumbnail sketch of the history of the novel Henry James is perhaps given too much credit—and Lodge’s interest being English Literature, Flaubert none at all—but he notes succinctly and effectively how James married in his fiction the first person of subjective enquiry with the third person of objective enquiry, developing the mastery of free indirect speech that allows the novelist to locate the narrative in a character’s consciousness and yet move away from it to suggest other realities.



http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/Erkan.htm




James describes Aunt Maud in The Wings of the Dove as: “ Mrs. Lowder was London, was life—the roar of the siege and the thick of the fray. There were some things, after all, of which Britannia was afraid; but Aunt Maud was afraid of nothing – not even, it would appear, of arduous thought” (24). Here is another example of a personal description about Kate:

She would have been meanwhile a wonderful lioness for a show, an extraordinary figure in cage or anywhere; majestic, magnificent, high-coloured, all brilliant gloss, perpetual satin, twinkling bugles and flashing gems, with a lustre of agate eyes, a sheen of raven hair, a polish of complexion that was like that of well-kept china and that-as if the skin were too tight-told especially at curves and corners. (23)

On the other hand Milly is described as a dove : “ Milly was indeed a dove; this was the figure, though it most applied to her spirit. . . . so far as one remembered that doves have wings and wondrous flights, have them as well as tender tints and soft sounds” (337). James is very successful in describing people: Kate resembles to a lioness who acts according to her interests and get the best as she can whereas, Milly is soft and helpless resembling especially to a dove.



I have just found a link to the e-text of "The Art of Fiction"

http://dinamico.unibg.it/rls/essays/james.htm

which I reached through this useful looking page

http://dinamico.unibg.it/rls/e-texts.htm


By the way, this work by Robert Louis Stevenson looks interesting:

http://dinamico.unibg.it/rls/essays/writing/aw-1.htm

ON SOME TECHNICAL ELEMENTS OF STYLE IN LITERATURE
by Robert Louis Stevenson

[PeterL]

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

I can understand that. There are a few of his plays that I like, but moat of them are just OK, and some aren't very good at all.

[mono]

I read James' Daisy Miller at university and loved every bit of it; characters, description and since then, I have always wanted to read his books but never had the chance. Because of that one book I read, I actually consider James one of the writers I like! Maybe I should read his other books and see how I feel about his style now.
Unfortunately, I have only read Henry James' The Turn of the Screw and The Aspern Papers. Needless to say, why I never posted either James' names in this thread, I loved them both, despite The Turn of the Screw seeming very difficult to read; beneath its confusion, however, I found a genius work. Eventually, I intend on reading Daisy Miller, having heard good things, but so much to read in such a short life!
On a side note, for an easier read, I would definitely recommend The Aspern Papers. :D

[mister_noel_y2k]

sche, read the turn of the screw and then decide whether hes a good writer or not


:banana:

[Pendragon]

I think y'all hit about every author I think is over-rated (though I did take some guff on another thread for listing The Works of Shakespeare as one of the top 10 books I could do without. And I even added "Except, mayhap ye be a thesbian"!) Oh, well! I'll add votes for The Bard of Avon, Stephen King, "Dreary" Dickens, Hemingway, etc. But I'll probably make some enimies by adding, collectively, the sisters Bronte. I just can't read any of them! :as-sleep:

[hellodolly]

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

[hellodolly]

oh... james's THE GOLDEN BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How dull is THAT! I cannot believe they made a film from it.... haven't seen it...you?

[hellodolly]

Has anyone read I CAPTURE THE CASTLE by Dodie Smith?? Very good! As for Harry Potter I do enjoy them--- overrated writers...hmmm....anything by that closet case Hemingway. Jack. K. eeewwww hmmm..... Stephen King bores me to tears!

[baddad]

Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....

[subterranean]

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


I hate to be all predictable or wotnot but (I havn't read the whole thread) but I really do have to say that the Harry Potter books aren't very good. I think Rowling is the most over rated author ever. I really do....

[mono]

Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....
Amen, baddad!
This thread often makes me feel like I have painstakingly poor taste in literature; some of my favorite writers have received mention here, but I try not to take it personally, instead taking a deep breathe and counting slowly to ten. :D
Personally, I cannot but give the highest praise to writers like Ernest Hemingway, Virginia Woolf, the Brontë sisters, William Shakespeare Henry James, Wilfred Owen, and Jack Kerouac, yet I realize we all have our different palates for literature; to put it in another way, I know people who like J.K. Rowling and Billy Collins. ;)

[subterranean]

Now now...some of us do acknowlege that Mr. Hemingway is indeed one of the greatest witers ever. So stop sniffing, your nose is beginning to red...


Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a
beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....

[Aurora Ariel]

I agree that Virginia Woolf is an exceptional writer.This year I've managed to read quite a few of her works such as Mrs.Dalloway, The Waves and Orlando.
The Waves is an outstanding piece.It's deeply poetic and a breathtaking read.
As for Henry James: I've read Washington Square and last year read The Awkward Age.I've yet to read The Aspern Papers or The Turn of the Screw but both these works are on my read next list.I've got copies of both here and plan to come to these in time-I hope I get a chance to read these two really soon!And Bronte is fantastic-one of my favourite books from that era is Wuthering Heights.I've also read the poetry and gone over this book on innumerable occasions.

[B-Mental]

Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....

I have a hard time seeing Hemingway placed on the same list as Rowlings, too!

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

Two thumbs down for the Potter series!

[baddad]

I have a hard time seeing Hemingway placed on the same list as Rowlings, too!

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

Two thumbs down for the Potter series!


*wants to agree completely with the above quote...but*

I suppose the 'Potter' series is a good read for younger folks, anything that encourages people to read has value I suppose.....

[PistisSophia]

I have tried to read books by Willa Cather and Catherine Anne Porter many years ago, but I couldn't get into them, then. Maybe I could try again sometime.

[Padan Fain]

Dan Brown and Hunter S. Thompson

[mickeymack]

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

[rachel]

Virginia Wolf and Margaret Attwood-ARGHH!!
Apologies to all the Anne of Green Gables kazillions of fans but I really didn't like that woman's writing and when I read her life and if I remember correctly she herself didn't enjoy writing some of them, she needed the money, well...
I have not read a single Harry Potter, I really don't know why. I love with a passion Tolkien although considering he was a world class philoligist and had a chair at Merton his writing seems childish. But to me that is what makes it work. I gave it a chance so maybe I'll shell out some drachmas for harry.

"courage Merry, for our friends." Aeowyn

[F.Emerald]

I'm thinking...Jane Austin?

Pardon me if this already has been discussed several times.

[ShoutGrace]

Right here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15518), my dear. :D

:eek: :eek: You think Jane Austen is overrated?? :p

[Bookworm89]

I agree, F.Emerald. Jane Austen stinks!

[Bysshe]

I don't think Jane Austen is overrated. Well, maybe slightly. I really don't think that Pride and Prejudice is as good as everyone thinks it is, but I'm sure there are lots of authors who are infinitely more overrated than Jane Austen.

[Turk]

James Joyce.

[Guzmán]

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

[stlukesguild]

In quicky browsing through this post I find myself wondering about the reasoning behind all these choices for "overrated writers". It is quite easy to simply state that James Joyce (?!), or J.L. Borges (?!), or Jane Austen (!?) are overrated. One might just as easily proclaim that Shakespeare, Mozart, and Michelangelo are overrated, but all such proclamations do is lead one into questioning the opinions of the person making such blanket statements without offering any rationale. Perhaps one might want to offer some reasoning behind one's opinion. James Joyce, for example, is not one of my favorite writers, but before I would think to declare that he is far overrated, I would be sure that I could offer some facts of reasons behind my opinion. Just a thought.:idea:

[Turk]

Stlukesguild, don't forget this thread says "overrated authors" not "bad authors". And as far as i see Joyce is the one of the most overrated author of English literature. You know some silly intellectuals even consider him most important English writer of 20. century. And if they call him "most important person of 20. century English literature" i say it's overrate. Because i've read many American and English writers and i definetely read better authors than him. Especially his "greatest" work "Ulysses" is extremely boring. According to me it's not a great novel but "intellectual brain masturbation". And as we know if there's something is sophisticated intellectuals suddenly appears (just like Gremlins) and says it's an important piece of art. If we remember this guys choosed a toilet (Marcel Duchamp's) as the most important art-work of 20. century it'll be easier to understadn my argument. If they can choose a toilet as the most influental art-work of 20. century of course we shouldn't surprised when they said "Joyce is the most important English writer of 20. century".

To me, a novel or story doesn't have to be sophisticated and full of intellectualism to be great. Sometimes the most simple thing is the most beatiful thing.

[cuppajoe_9]

Say what you will about Joyce, but there are very few authors who have their own national holiday.

[Mark F.]

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

[stlukesguild]

Turk;

The term "overrated" suggests an author whose reputation with the public (ie. Dan Brown) or with the literary establishment (critics, scholars, teachers, and other writers) seems far larger than is warranted by the actual achievements. By this standard I find it difficult to think of Joyce as overrated in spite of the fact that he is not among my favorite writers. I must acknowledge that he (along with T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, and a few others) essentially dismantled and reassembled literature into what we now define as Modernism. His impact is unquestionable upon any number of contemporary and subsequent writers of real talent, including W.B. Yeats, William Faulkner, Samuel Beckett, John Barth, Thomas Pynchon, etc... I personally found sections of Ulysses to be brilliant, while others bogged down. I felt several of the characters to be quite wonderfully explored... but at other times I found myself put off by the overly self-conscious attempts to be formally innovative. Among the Modernists I far prefer Faulkner, Eliot, Kafka, and Yeats. But then I must admit that I cannot be completely certain in my opinion because I have yeat to have read Joyce's "masterpiece", Finnegan's Wake.

As an artist, I agree totally with your thoughts upon Duchamp's "Fountain". My guess is that a good many of the art "experts" involved in this poll were responding solely to the impact of Duchamp's work upon the current developments in conceptual art. Unfortunately, I find most of this work to be juvenile at best, and doubt that much of it will will last any test of time. As such, neither will Duchamp's influence. As an artist, Duchamp's output was small, largely immature, and prone to intellectual mind-games and sophomoric puns. The "Fountain" (or urinal) itself was merely part of one of his more elaborate jokes (which can be read about in some detail in Roger Shattuck's Candor and Perversion. As opposed to Duchamp, Picasso's and Matisse's achievements are towering and unquestionable. Both produced a large oeuevre of masterful work and both influenced a great number of the greatest artists of the 20th century (and continue to do so)... and Picasso certainly must be credited with far more innovations central to the develoment of Modernism than Duchamp might ever be credited with... including the innovation of the use of the "found object" which was as the heart of Duchamp's "ready-mades" (including the overrated "Fountain")

[Guzmán]

Stlukesguild, you're perfectly right in saying that some justification is needed for saying that some author is overrated so here's why I think Borges is:
First of all Spanish is my native toungue so i've had the opportunity to read what little i've read of his in it's original language, and, on a personal level although i find that he is a master of writing from an essayist's perspective i found that, on the most part his prose sacrificed beauty and 'soul' for the sake of 'complexity', yet this supposed 'complexity' refers more to his choice of words than to the real substance of his writings.
This brings me to my main point: Borges' work is neither as complex nor as difficult as most people claim him to be, take a look at "Examen de la obra de Herbert Quain", for example. This one's what I would say fits in under his "essay about non-existing author", type of work which "Ficciones" abounds with. The whole point of the essay lies in examining one of this imaginary author's most famous novels, "April March" i think it was, which is supposed to be a play on logic and time and that sort of thing but in the end it comes out as not more than a trivial curiosity and the whole thing just feels like an excuse for Borges to let you know how much he knew about history, philosophy and art just by mentioning certain names, which in the end ammount to nothing and dont have anything to do with the whole point of the essay.
other examples of this are "Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote", "Acercamiento a Almutasim" and others from "Ficciones", which to me, they feel like Borges being snobish and not much more, certainly not complex, ingenious at the most, and actually only a few of these did I really enjoy.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm going to get in big trouble from Robin for this, but I honestly think that Michael Crichton sells way more books than he deserves to. Jurassic Park undoubtedly has a creative premise, but my favorite part was the introduction. The rest of the prose seemed to boil down to "ooh, look how smart Michael Crichton is!". I couldn't get past chapter five of Rising Sun, as it struck my as, how to put this?, japonophobic racist propagandic crap. In all fairness, I loved The Great Train Robbery, I just don't think he deserves to have everything with his name on it at the top of the best-seller list.

[kjt1981]

MY mate Damon. He says he's the best, but he aint.

Acually though i wasnt too knocked out by The Great Gatsby...

[holograph]

i dont think austn is overrated. her writing is fun and easy to read. and i didnt like the great gatsby much either. other than that, [i think im going to get a very negative response for this] ive read a lot of hemingway and it is extremely redundant. i wouldnt say he is overrated and i wouldnt say his works are crap, but i think his works are overpraised though they are all the same, essentially.

[CourtnyG]

I consider a writer over rated if I hear wonderful things about them from everyone and everywhere I look, then I read them and don't enjoy the story or the style (which usually means I'm disgusted due to my disappointment and upset that I wasted my money) . For me the two most over rated writers are Faulkner and Joyce. That is probably because I can't stand stream of consciousness writing (it drives me crazy). I really think that's why all the books I try to read by these two bore me to tears. I've never finished a book by Faulkner or Joyce. I like structure. The thoughts a person has in their mind lack structure. They ramble on, flitting from one thought or topic to the next. The thoughts or topics lack definition and appropriate punctuation. Writing in stream of consciousness seems too easy (that's how you take notes, it's not how you write a novel). To me being a good writer means adding structure and definition to those thoughts in order to relate the story or topic to the reader in the best way possible. Faulker and Joyce seem to stop at the thoughts without going to the extra trouble of actually writing and arranging the thoughts to their best advantage. Anyone can write down thoughts, and create a little story around them. This is just what I feel when I try reading Joyce and Faulker in comparison to novels that I enjoy. I'm sure there are many who love that style, and don't enjoy my favorite novels.

Courtny

[Turk]

Stlukesguild; i didn't say Joyce is a bad writer. But since i know he's considered to be the most important author of 20. century by many critics and intellectuals, i think he's overrated. I think there's much better English writers than him. That's why i say he's overrated. I was thinking his masterpiece is "Ulysses", i also didn't read "Finnigan's Wake" (i don't think it's translated to Turkish) but i don't think an author's style can be very different in his every book. So even if i didn't read "Finnigan's Wake" i don't think he wrote it much different than "Ulyyses". And about stream of conscious; i think Faulkner uses that style much better than Joyce did.

Whatever... Here's a personal question; what do you produce as an artist?

[Bastet]

Turk, something you said brought another question to mind: up to what point can you trust a translation of an original work when it comes to criticism?

[Turk]

Every country has good and famous translators. If translator is good and if he proved himself in his job, we can trust the translation i think.

[stlukesguild]

Guzman;

As a sworn Borghesian I must jump to the defence of this Argentine master:rolleyes:. I will admit that when I first read Borges (like Kafka) I found him to be rather dry, to say the least. I believe I was expecting something of a more romantic notion of Surrealism/fantasy, but both author have nothing of the atmosphere or mood or mystery which I had come to expect from Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Poe, Hawthorne, and other prior writers. I found that both Kafka and Borges only revealed themselves slowly to me. Perhaps, for this reason, I imagine them as taken best in small doses over a period of time.

Speaking of Borges specifically I began with what may be the best starting point (for the English reader at least), the collection of short "fictions" and essays entitled, Labyrinths. Borges writing style (much like Kafka's) is most certainly not "beautiful" in a more romantic sense. Initially, it is rather dead-pan... which may suite a writer whose subjects are not so much characters, but rather ideas... or perhaps literature itself. I understand that one might interpret Borges work as being overly "literary"... or perhaps "pendactic" with his habit of referring continually to the literature of other writers. I personally don't see this as "pretentious"; it is merely that Borges has chosen to explore the subject he knows best: books. Borges admits as much himself when he declares in his book, Dreamtigers (El Hacedor, in Spanish): "Few things have happened to me, and I have read a great many. Or rather, few things have happened to me more worth remembering than Schopenhauer's thought or the music of England's words."

As a librarian continually surrounded by books, and tragically losing his eye-sight from a young age, Borges' themes center upon his experiences with books. Just as Van Gogh or Cezanne may transform the most mundane subjects into a exploration of thoughts and feelings far more profound, so too Borges is able to transform his explorations of books into examinations of themes of mortality and immortality, infinity, imagination and creativity. The critic Harold Bloom has suggested that many of the great works of literature are born out of an artist's anxiety and eventually transcendence of the work of his or her strong predecessors. He imagines masterpieces from Dante and Shakespeare through Joyce and Borges as being the result of a strong "misreading" of one's artistic heros. As an artist myself, albeit in the visual arts, I do acknowledge the fact that most art is at least partially a dialog with other art. Borges, to me, makes this dialog quite clear. His "fictions", essays, poems, and aphorisms often read like essays by which begin as traditional critical examinations of a work of art... but soon bloom into works of brilliant artistic expression in and of themselves. It should come as no surprise that among Borges' favorite writers one finds Robert Burton, Sir Thomas Browne, Thomas De Quincy, Walter Pater, etc... Besides reading like meditations upon books... and reading itself, Borges' works often blur the very distinctions between literary forms: essays, poems, fragments, short stories, criticism, etc...

I don't know that I imagine Borges as being overly "complex". I see an irony and a humor in the manner in which he plays with concepts of time, space, mortality, infinity, and the labyrinth and takes them to a logical/illogical conclusion. Undoubtedly, he is a "reader's writer"... writing for an audience like himself (don't most artists create for themselves?) which is more than a little well-read. In this manner he strikes me a similar to Joyce and T.S. Eliot.

Personally, I love Borges' work. I appreciate the manner in which he has blurred the distictions between literary forms. I like the simple, crystaline (berhaps even scientific?) prose style and the equally compact forms in which he explores his themes taking ideas to the absurd conclusion. I am endlessly fascinated with his interpretations of literary history and his favorite concepts of time, space, mortality, infinity, etc... I must admit to having rethought (and reread) several authors after coming across his fictive or essayed examinations of their works. For that alone, I would find him worth reading. Of course... my admiration of Borges should come as no surprise considering my equal love of such literary "relatives" as Lawrence Sterne, Kafka, Italo Calvino, Tomasso Landolfi, and Donald Barthleme.

[another sara]

sorry but dont like her one bit!

[stlukesguild]

Turk;

The translation question is a valid one. Joyce must certainly be one of the most difficult writers to translate considering his penchant for wordplay. I will note that what I have perused (if such is possible) of Finnegan's Wake is far more difficult... far more rooted in word-play and an absolutely exhuberant mauling of the English language... to such an extent that it far-outstrips Ulysses, and I cannot imagine it ever being well-translated into any language. Nevertheless, we are not so far apart in our opinions of Joyce. I admire his achievements... I like given sections of what I have read... but he is not one of my personal favorites. I too find Faulkner's use of "stream-of-consciousness" to be more successful... as well as T.S. Eliot's Wasteland. If I were asked to select the greatest writer of the 20th century I would be far more likely to go with any number of others: Kafka, Proust, Italo Calvino, Rilke, Eugenio Montale, J.L. Borges, Yeats... before going with Joyce.

As for my own work, after a good many years working as a realist painter of sorts, my current work is abstract and rooted in my passions for books, music, architecture, among other things. The works are all collage... constructed of materials taken from old books (EeeeK!:eek:) and other printed materials. I'll post a couple here, but many more can be found at my Webshots page at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/stlukesguild

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/102BachSuite7small.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/135-J.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/133-J.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/106-WinterMeditationsuponaThemebyJ.jpg

[mtpspur]

StLukesguild--I liked the first and third collages best mostly because I like the staright line approach and overlaps. I hope that makes sense to you. I will be the first to say I know nothing about the critiquing of art--just know if I like it or not.

[SummerSolstice]

Honestly, the only book/story by a famous or respected author I can ever remember thoroughly disliking is 'The Turn of the Screw' by Henry James. I can't say if he's altogether repulsive, since I threw my book in the garbage can from sheer disgust after finishing 'Turn'. It was just babble to me--psychotic, thoruougly uncreative babble. I despise ghost stories anyway, beliveing them to be the lowest form of writing, period. And that was even before I encountered any of the analyses of the story, which only appalled me farther.

This is probably a bad way of making an entrance, since everything everywhere is somebody's favorite something... if it helps, that's my favorite thing about humankind. :D

[CourtnyG]

I think Henry James is over rated too. I didn't dislike Turn of the Screw, and I didn't dislike Washington Square. I wasn't impressed with either though. I always heard wonderful things about him, but I've never been impressed by any of his books. I think Edith Wharton is under rated. I hadn't even head of her. I just happened to stumble upon Ethan Frome, and loved it. Now I've read a great many of her books, and they're all wonderful. I don't think I could pick a favorite.

Courtny

[freespiritjill]

Austen is okay. Although the movie did bring the book to life bettr than the book does. A seriously overrated author is Nathaniel Hawthorne. HE goes on and on about nothing. My friends and I did a rewrite of the Scarlet Letter and were able to put all into less than a hundred words. What a waste of paper!!!

[subterranean]

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

Crisaor, say something! :D

[Logos]

As for my own work, after a good many years working as a realist painter of sorts, my current work is abstract and rooted in my passions for books, music, architecture, among other things. The works are all collage... constructed of materials taken from old books (EeeeK!:eek:) and other printed materials. I'll post a couple here, but many more can be found at my Webshots page at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/stlukesguild

Hey I really like your work. Some of it reminds me of mail I get from my friends and family in far away/exotic countries, writing in calligraphy, and my love of old books and maps :) it also evokes Henri Matisse's later period of cutouts when he worked with construction paper because he was too frail to stand at his easel to paint. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h189/truenekokera/a2883a29.gif

Maybe you will start a separate topic about your art and where people can share ideas/images of theirs.

[Jolly McJollyso]

Hmm. I find it impossible to call Joyce overrated... When critics call him the most influential writer of 20th century English Literature, I don't understand how that can really be found unwarranted. I mean, the man basically invented Modernism, sure Proust, Kafka, Woolf, and a few others joined in the fun, but James Joyce used stream-of-consciousness in a way no one had before, and in a way most authors STILL take from. There can be no doubt that Joyce changed the way we look at language, and Samuel Beckett only followed with more brilliance on that same subject.

I think it's incredibly hard to prove James Joyce overrated because really he's the first author to question what literature and language really are, and I find the ultimate level of expertise in any art form is reached when one has such a thorough knowledge of his art that he can question it.

So overrated... I'd like to say Hemingway because I despise his style, but I'll throw out one on whom we can all agree, J.K. Rowling.

[higley]

I'm going to get in big trouble from Robin for this, but I honestly think that Michael Crichton sells way more books than he deserves to. Jurassic Park undoubtedly has a creative premise, but my favorite part was the introduction. The rest of the prose seemed to boil down to "ooh, look how smart Michael Crichton is!". I couldn't get past chapter five of Rising Sun, as it struck my as, how to put this?, japonophobic racist propagandic crap. In all fairness, I loved The Great Train Robbery, I just don't think he deserves to have everything with his name on it at the top of the best-seller list.

Agreement. Jurassic Park and its sequel were great, but every other book I've read from him is confusing and tiring. Though I hear Timeline is good. (Is it?)

College kids around me make a great fuss about Chuck Palahniuk. I read and was marginally interested at the beginnings and partway into the middles of Invisible Monsters and Lullaby, but the great plots he comes up with are overshadowed by a annoying writing style that can only be stood for so long.

[Pendragon]

Very nice artwork, stlukesguild! :thumbs_up

Cuppajoe, selling books even if you can't stand the writer, is a hard argument to follow. It's very difficult to argue with success. That's one reason I sort of hesitate before agreeing on J.K. Rowling. Yes, I believe she's overated, but she's "crying all the way to the bank", to paraphrase Liberacre. :) :D

[Vedrana]

A seriously overrated author is Nathaniel Hawthorne. HE goes on and on about nothing. My friends and I did a rewrite of the Scarlet Letter and were able to put all into less than a hundred words. What a waste of paper!!!

I agree. I mean, Hawthorne may be considered a 'Great' American writer, but I find it difficult to get at all absorbed by his work. I am currently attempting the read "The House of the Seven Gables" and I am really struggling to stay with it. I guess that's just the style of the times, because so many other authors of the nineteenth century wrote in the same way. Maybe the nineteenth century audience liked it, but for a modern reader who is used to having things much faster, such a long, ponderous style can become tedious. I will try and finish it, however. Fingers crossed!

[aeroport]

A seriously overrated author is Nathaniel Hawthorne. HE goes on and on about nothing. My friends and I did a rewrite of the Scarlet Letter and were able to put all into less than a hundred words. What a waste of paper!!!


I agree. I mean, Hawthorne may be considered a 'Great' American writer, but I find it difficult to get at all absorbed by his work. I am currently attempting the read "The House of the Seven Gables" and I am really struggling to stay with it. I guess that's just the style of the times, because so many other authors of the nineteenth century wrote in the same way. Maybe the nineteenth century audience liked it, but for a modern reader who is used to having things much faster, such a long, ponderous style can become tedious. I will try and finish it, however. Fingers crossed!

Well, I didn't hate The Scarlet Letter when we read it the way the rest of the class seemed to (though about half of them did not actually read it, so their opinion need not matter much), but I understand House of the Seven Gables is actually much worse with regard to "going on and on about nothing". You might try his children's stories; they're really quite enjoyable - from back when children's stories didn't insult the intelligence. I don't love Hawthorne, but he could be worse. I don't know that he's overrated. I really think, with regard to "difficulty" and the invitation to "stay with it", James is far more formidable (two of his late novels have both shaken off my efforts at conquering them) - yet I really consider him infinitely superior.

[ladylazarus]

Faulkner. I know a lot of people think he's great but I'm just not feeling that vibe at all.

[Il Penseroso]

Faulkner's actually becoming one of my favorites. His style is so poetic, and every little sensual perception related lends itself so well to each character's personality. He's truly a poet at heart, which I think is why his stream of consciousness works so well.

I agree about Palahniuk though. It's probably the style (ultra-modernism or whatever) but the 2nd Grade level sentence stucture and miniscule paragraphs(I know this seems trivial, but not to me; long paragraphs- or at least thoughts that are examined through writing - are important) really just didn't strike a chord with me. I've only read "Fight Club" though.

[omegaxx]

Faulkner. I know a lot of people think he's great but I'm just not feeling that vibe at all.

I agree with regards to "Sanctuary" and "As I Lay Dying", especially the latter which I was stupid enough to have to chosen to do a seminar presentation on. To lie dying is definitely a superior state to my wretchedness as I lay on my bed reading that book.
Have you tried "The Sound and the Fury" and "Absalom, Absalom!" though? Try those two. You might like those more.

[Nightwalk]

With overrated authors the first that come to mind are Shakespeare's plays and the novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. Although I like the style of the two aforementioned novelists, I find that their works don't hold enough substance to be worthy of the fame they have.

[julien]

books tell you about the common experiences of life. "Classic" books tell you how to gain knowledge from the common experiences of life.

a) why the flip would you want to have someone tell you how to live when you do perfectly fine at it?
b) you're already living the common experiences of life, so why read about it?

[Wild Apple]

a) why the flip would you want to have someone tell you how to live when you do perfectly fine at it?

Good books don't "tell" you how to live. They present, not command. The books you're describing are self-help books.


b) you're already living the common experiences of life, so why read about it?

A reader should interact with his or her book. Not everyone's experiences are identical, and the ones that are very similar may be presented in a new light so as to allow the reader to understand it differently. Remember, books are experiences within themselves.

[lit_lover]

I happen to think Jane Austen is a very influential and compassionate author. I enjoy her books. In my opinion, F. Scott Fitzgerald seems a little overrated.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Acually though i wasnt too knocked out by The Great Gatsby...

Oh my, I don't think I can forgive that comment. I love Fitzgerald.


Please don't bite my head off, but might I mention Dickens? Yes, fabulous ideas, but rewriting the same ones into a thousand different novels gets triesome...

[*Classic*Charm*]

Oh, and how could I forget...


STEINBECK

[Inderjit Sanghe]

.
I do not really like Hemingway very much, ditto the verbose Victor Hugo, though I have only read "Les Misérables", I found it boring. I do not really like Joyce very much, I think he is pretentious; this may be because I do not "get" his work, but I found Ulysses to be pretentious, though I can admit to its "artistic worth". "Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man" was also distinctly average, in my opinion. I guess a lot of authors have minor works which are fallaciously regarded as being "classics" simply because that specific author wrote them-Charles Dickens, for example wrote many book, not all of which are in my opinion "classics", or even "good. Balzac, on the other hand, wrote a lot of books, most of which could be considered classics. Beckett is a bit hit and miss for me-I love "Molloy", "Malone Dies" was hit and miss, but "The Unnamed" was (for me at least) gibberish.

Dan Brown is also over-rated, though I did not expect him to be that great.

[zigzig20s]

Maybe not an author but definitely a book. Well it's a short story..."The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. It's supposed to be a powerful feminist piece but I thought it was totally over the top and ridiculous. It seemed like a spoof. I'd be interested in talking to someone else who's read it actually, and see if they liked it...
I've not read her other things though. I may be interested in reading her autobiography, cos she seems like an interesting person. But 'The Yellow Wallpaper' sounded like a joke all over. And it's supposedly her most famous piece.

[Iago]

I have to disagree; :D I think 'The Yellow Wallpaper' is ingenious. I've written essays about it, and I think that although the plot has a relatively simple and linear structure, there is a multitude of symbolisms and layered meanings that can be discovered. If you just start from her description of the wallpaper as "a smouldering unclean yellow", you can reach interesting conclusions. Check for the definitions the MacMillan English Dictionary gives for smoulder . One of them reads "to feel very strong emotions that you do not express in words, especially anger or sexual feelings".

Moreover, she says that the paper is "strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight". Check De Vries' Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery and the symbolisms for "sun". "male creator", "King, ruling by divine right", etc.

In conclusion, the reason this story is considered a powerful feminist piece is not what's on the surface of the story (which personally I find intriguing as it is), but what's underneath

[liesl]

i certainly agree with Iago that 'The Yellow Wallpaper' is a wonderful text. I particularly like it for the slow burning descent into madness and the powerful effect it eventually had upon Charlotte Perkins Gilman's doctor Weir Mitchell to rethink his prescription of rest cure.

[Matilda]

I think Paulo Coelho is hugely overrated. Everybody told me that The Alchemist was wonderful and that it would change my life. Sure, it was good, but I don't hink it was that special.

[Iago]

I guess Coelho has to be seen within the social context (as, indeed, it is the case with all writers). Judging Coelho by his text alone, he surely is rather average. But part of the "myth" is the social impact his books have created.

[seasong]

I love 'The Yellow Wallpaper' as well.
Maybe we're only discussing classic authors who are overrated, but the most overrated author I have ever attempted reading is Robert Jordan.

[Alexei]

Robert Jordan? Definitely. His “The Wheel of Time” series are a little disaster in my opinion. Ok, he has an imagination, but why everything is just like a soup opera? I know this sounds utterly rough and impolite, but I have never enjoyed his style. I mean his books are not beautiful at all!
As for Coelho I like his books and his a bit melancholic style of writing. But as almost every bestseller his works are a bit overrated. They are just too popular to be jugged with a clear mind.

[seasong]

YAY! I'm not alone in despising Robert Jordan or thinking his books are fantasy soap operas. This makes me very happy.

[Alexei]

Hehhe, it was the same with me too. By now everybody was saying to me: “This is a great book you should read it”. Well, I read it. It was just terrible. I couldn’t stand it. And the way the story is finishing in such a hurry in the end if the first book; it isn’t complete and full-blooded. It was a great disappointment. Of course now, I am almost scared to say my opinion in public, because everybody says ‘You are mad! This book is Awesome!”

[blackbird_9]

I

hate

Dan

Brown.

Such non-sense. I could only get through three chapters.

[seasong]

AMEN! Why on earth are his horribly written books so popular?

[Alexei]

Oh, thank God! It is not only me after all! Huh, they like them just because these books are scandalous. I don’t think this is a good reason enough to read and like something. Are they all mad? Even if we stop thinking about the flat plots, based only on the unexpected turns, where is the esthetic pleasure of the beautiful prose? I didn’t find it anywhere; am I supposed to look for it with a magnifying glass?!

[EAP]

William Shakespeare. James Joyce. Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

[Maria L]

Margaret Atwood = totally overated.

[liesl]

Margaret Atwood = totally overated.

perhaps you could say some novels like 'Alias Grace' or 'Oryx and Crake' are overrated (not i myself because i love Atwood's writing style) but i cannot understand how anyone could read 'The Handmaid's Tale' is overrated. As dystopian literature it is up there with Orwell's '1984'.

[cuppajoe_9]

I like the covers of Tom Robbins' books a great deal more than I like the actual literature.

P.S. Margaret Atwood = awesome.

[Brendan Madley]

How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!? Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated. And neither did Joyce produce such novels hailed as classics of 20th century litearture by being overated. I agree, however, entirely with blackbird 9. Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.

[Brendan Madley]

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

[cuppajoe_9]

I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.*jaw drops*

But Twain is hillarious, and Hemingway is...not.

[Redzeppelin]

I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.

I'm not sure it's possible for "overrated" authors to change the way books are written. Hemingway's style has been tremendously influencial - and his stories have the sly ability to appear very simple (when in reality they are not at all so): but that's part of the artistry.

As far as Mark Twain - huh? He too was involved in changing the face of American Literature - how can you be overrated if you're capable of doing that?

As far as Margaret Atwood goes, her poetry, short stories and novels (Handmaid and Oryx were excellent) reveal a considerable writer of vision.

[Maria L]

I admit, Handmaid's Tale is a moving novel
but otherwise I don't appreciate Atwood too much.

As for more authors who are overrated, I think I have changed my mind.
No author can be overrated. It is just the amount of publicizm their books get.
I.E: Dan Brown went Hollywood and his books became known worldwide.

The only reason authors are considered "overrated" is when some idiot who has never read in his life decides to pick one up and realizes hey - reading's not that bad! Then the book get's publicized and even more idiots read it. Then, these books become famous - even when they're not that great...
It has nothing to do with the author at all!

[bluevictim]

How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!? Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated. Haha, I think that's an overestimation of Shakespeare, so I guess that means I think Shakespeare has just become overrated (by Brendan Madley).

[EAP]

How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!?

With the help of ten fingers and a keyboard.


Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated.

Subjective claim, nonsensical sentence.


And neither did Joyce produce such novels hailed as classics of 20th century litearture by being overated.

Joyce did write some decent short stories, I am not familiar with all of his novels, but his magnum opus, Ulysses is the definition of unreadable twaddle.

That's neither here nor there though, so if you re-read the sentence you wrote again, you'll realize that claims like 'classics of 20th century' are precisely the reason people call his works over-rated. Ulysses has definitely become a classic, there's no denying that certainly - doesn't make it a particularly good book though.


Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.

I am not aware of many people who rate Dan Brown's stuff to begin with. How can you be over-rated if no body even rates you?


The only reason authors are considered "overrated" is when some idiot who has never read in his life decides to pick one up and realizes hey - reading's not that bad! Then the book get's publicized and even more idiots read it. Then, these books become famous - even when they're not that great...
It has nothing to do with the author at all!

That's just semantics. Unless specifically stated otherwise, whenever people are talking about an author being 'over-rated', it is generally taken for the granted that they mean his literary canon, not his character as a person.

There's a difference between fame and appreciation. Authors like Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, Nora Roberts, Sydney Sheldon and (to a certain extent) J. K. Rowling are famous but hardly anybody 'rates' them. [rightly or wrongly] On the flip side, Shakespeare, Joyce, Tolkien, Twain, Poe and Austen are considered and accepted as literary giants even by those who haven't read them.

[Maria L]

rebuttal mood I see.

[*Classic*Charm*]

There's a difference between fame and appreciation. Authors like Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, Nora Roberts, Sydney Sheldon and (to a certain extent) J. K. Rowling are famous but hardly anybody 'rates' them. [rightly or wrongly] On the flip side, Shakespeare, Joyce, Tolkien, Twain, Poe and Austen are considered and accepted as literary giants even by those who haven't read them.

Well said. Overrated depends on how the novels are being judged. Tom Clancy's novels are judged on their entertainment value, whereas Shakespeare is judged for his literary merit and the effects his works have on society. One might say that while Clancy's novels are entertaining, they may not go down in history as being the most relevant to history and society. While some say that Shakespeare is the most influential writer of the english language, his work may be boring and difficult to understand (I disagree with this last point, but I have heard it said). When one judges an author of being overrated, one must mention on what level the author's work is judged.

[Brendan Madley]

Ask anybody qualified on world literature and they will tell you the merits of Shakespeare and Joyce. Something great does not neccessarily have to be readable by everybody. It is the prose and depiction of life that is of the true merit.

[Brendan Madley]

And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.

[Brendan Madley]

There is certainly no American who can match the ability of: Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Scott, Austen, Archer, Doyle, Kipling, Buchyan, Defoe, Woolf, Conrad, Marlowe, Thackeray, Swift, Fielding, Bronte Sisters, Shelley, Stoker, Joyce, Disraeli, Gaskel, Collins, Carroll, Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Potter, Trollpe, Eliot and Hardy to name some British legends.

[Brendan Madley]

Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is. Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.

[EAP]

Ask anybody qualified on world literature and they will tell you the merits of Shakespeare and Joyce.

The only qualficiation needed to comment about a book or an author is a familiarity with their works.


Something great does not neccessarily have to be readable by everybody. It is the prose and depiction of life that is of the true merit.

For a book to be good, it has to be readable. If you can't even read the book, its impossible to judge the remaining attributes.


And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.

Sigh.

Tolkien
Martin
Poe
Dostoevsky
Murakami
Mieville
MacLeod
Banks
Acroyd
Roy
Rushdie
King
Kay
Helprin
Christie
Orwell
Ishiguro
Bradbury
Clement
Simmons
Dick
Clarke
Le Guin
Matheson
Hardy
Bronte (E)
Buglakov
Manto
Hoeg
Voight
Powers
McCarthy
Bakker
Fowles
Jackson


Enough or do you want more names?

[prophitus_86]

I understand where you are coming from about the way that a book is being judged, but I'm still trying to get over you saying that giants such as Shakespeare and Twain were and are overrated.:bawling:
Shakespeare was one of the most influential play writes of all time. You cannot deny this. Even today, his works are being adapted to movies and Hallmark cards, books and T.V. Sorry. I guess that I'm just having a hard time figuring out how you can call someone overrated when they have influenced world culture as a whole for about 400 years. How is that by the way? How do you defend your statement. The man perfected iambic pentameter for God's sake! And the sonnet! And the classic Petrarchan Sonnet!

So with that, I give you my overrated author: James Joyce. Unreadable drivel indeed. There is a line between s of c and bunches of letters put together. If you want stream of consciousness, read Jabberwockee.

[EAP]

Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is. Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.

Le'sigh. Ever heard of copyright?

[Brendan Madley]

No EAP. None of them are superior in terms of prose or ideas contained in the work. Ask any person qualified on world literature and they will concur with me. I don't hate Mark Twain, don't say he's bad, but slightly overated in terms of the ideas in his novels. That's not to say he couldn't write.

EAP: Observe by everybody. You can't judge it because you can't read it but those of us who have can.

From Wikipedia: William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, and the world's preeminent dramatist.[

Those who have judged him as the greatest know what to look for: prose, ideas, imagery, ectera, other than pure enjoyment, which is what is implied by you saying any person familiar with the text may judge it properly. No, you couldn't be more wrong.

His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth. This is one of the many things I mean by ideas with the prose.

P.S. That first sentence from my last post was from Wikipedia.

[EAP]

prophitus,

Please realize that influencing cultures does not by itself does not make something deserving of accolodes. Hugo Gernsback's sci-fi efforts kick-started the modern sci-fi genre, yet no body in their right minds would call him a good writer.

Shakespeare's influence and his mastery of English language is undeniable, however, he is not the be-all and end-all of fiction. There's beauty in his works, but they are also boring, verbose, annoying and are based around themes which are largely irrelevent these days. Feminism, racism, classism, global expansion and technological ascendency are some of the key issues faced by our world, and in this day and age, I find the emphasis placed on his works to be over-the-top misguidedness.

I find his characterization to be worthless and very much a product of his era, values and morality included. The less said about the 'plots' the better. Of course, in drama, dialogue is the most important bit, but as I detailed earlier, his dialogue has little emotional value or empathizable characteristic for me.

[kilted exile]

Just a quick point I think Racism is dealt with quite aptly by Shakes in Merchant of Venice, I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could find examples of the other themes as well

[Brendan Madley]

Ah, you are saying this from a point of enjoyment of his work. The world he wrote for has gone. Just because we today cannot fully understand the Middle English does not decrease the ability of the work. And also, enjoyment is only one of the factors that makes a great writer. Ideas and prose also come into it; refer to: His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth.

Shakespeare is essentially literature in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best? Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.

[EAP]

No EAP. None of them are superior in terms of prose or ideas contained in the work. Ask any person qualified on world literature and they will concur with me. I don't hate Mark Twain, don't say he's bad, but slightly overated in terms of the ideas in his novels. That's not to say he couldn't write.

Repeat that about twenty thousand times and maybe you'll believe it yourself.


Just a quick point I think Racism is dealt with quite aptly by Shakes in Merchant of Venice, I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could find examples of the other themes as well

If by aptly you mean according to the mores and trends of his era, then you might be correct. Those values aren't really relevent in today's envoirnment though.

[Brendan Madley]

Masterpieces that are greater pieces of literature than any other literature produced by any others.

[kilted exile]

If by aptly you mean according to the mores and trends of his era, then you might be correct. Those values aren't really relevent in today's envoirnment though.

Read the "hath not a jew arms" speech it is affirming that all people are equal, is this is not a relevant and desired principle in today's environment?

[seasong]

Since no one's convincing anyone else, let's all just agree to disagree. Please. When someone's mind is already made up they're not going to change it.

[Brendan Madley]

Ha ha so now you're trying to make me second guess myself. I stand by my claim, and by the way, I didn't write the second quote. Although, when you say that the racism portrayed there isn't really relevent in today's environment, any racism will always be relevant, even if it isn't Christain's and Jews, it still portrays racism in general and as a whole.Too, remember Shakespeare wrote for different times, but the messages in The Merchant of Venice on racism will always be relevant.

To seasong: With no disrespect I am merely pointing out why Shakespeare is regarded as the best ever and how just because it is not enjoyable because it is written in Middle English to him doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece.

[seasong]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's no need to argue about it.

[EAP]

Shakespeare is essentially literature in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best?

'Greatness' is relative.There are a variety of factors involved in the choice of books including cost, the instructor's personal whims, trends of the day, the socio-political stance/standing of the institute and a tendency to rely on lists generated by 'critics'. Your arguement, i.e: because shakespeare is taught in most schools, it is great' makes logical thought cry.


Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.

These are probably the most regurgitated phrases in the history of literature. 'But their (your favourite authors) works are masterpeices that combine blah blah blah with blah blah blah' is a meaningless sentence. You can find a deeper meaning in a pile of steaming dog **** if you put your mind to it. Please back your claims and adjectives with solid examples.

The original intent, in any case, was not to discuss the merits of Shakespeare. Your over the top, fanboyish, head-in-the-mud obstinately repetitive defense of Shakespeare only serves to highlight my belief in the over-ratedness of Shakespeare's works.

[Brendan Madley]

Did you also know Shakespeare has sold over 2 billion copies worldwide? 4 times more than the nearest American - Danielle Steel. So he can't be too unenjoyable.

Ah, again getting personal. I am merely saying what the world thinks by the popularity of Shakespeare, the fact critics LOVE HIS WORK and that his work is essential literature at school. (Not essentially, sorry about that, my mistake.)

[EAP]

Read the "hath not a jew arms" speech it is affirming that all people are equal, is this is not a relevant and desired principle in today's environment?

It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7221/demon.htm

Did Shakespeare also tackle sexism? equalism? women's rights? gay rights? When Shakespeare talks about equality, is his willing to consider the buggerer, the sodomite or the rugmuncher as an equivalent?

[Brendan Madley]

Shakespeare is not merely taught at school due to cost and "the instructor's personal whims". Such a claim is laughable. Did you happen to know the GOVERNMENT dictates what should be taught? Probably not. The instructor doesn't choose. Shakespeare is chosen because his is masterpieces, popular, well written and with great underlying messages that is one of the reasons that make him so great.

And now that I think of it, the greatest novel ever would have to be either The Pilgrim's Progress or Don Quixote. Both masterpieces.

Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.

[Scheherazade]

Brendan> Please avoid flooding the thread by multiple posts one after another. If you would like to add any more comments, use the EDIT button which is on the right bottom corner of your posts.


Further posts with personal comments/insults will be deleted with or without any futher notice.

It might be a good idea to start another thread under Shakespeare section to discuss his place in Literature History.

[kilted exile]

It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7221/demon.htm


Ok, without turning this thread into a discussion of Merchant of Venice. I would say the play is a satire, and shakes is questioning more the prevalent attitude of the time that Jews were somehow inferior. The recognition that it is actually classified as one of his comedies I think suggests that it is a satire. If you wish to continue this start a thread in the MOV section about it.

[Maria L]

Firstly,
I love Kilted's picture

Secondly,
I enjoy Shakespeare's works immensely

but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing.

That's my two cents.

[Iago]

Shakesperian Drama (Tragedy in particular) is virtually the basis of the modern dramatic theory. Up until the 1920s-1930s, academics considered Plato as the god of dramatic theory, finding Shakespeare flawed.



but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing.


I disagree. Take any given film (ok, NOT "Weekend at Bernie's"--although you can find some Shakesperean elements there too, e.g. the mistaken identity theme) and you'll see that virtually every single one follows a dramatic arch and structure built on the Shakesperean foundations

[Pensive]

To seasong: With no disrespect I am merely pointing out why Shakespeare is regarded as the best ever and how just because it is not enjoyable because it is written in Middle English to him doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece.

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

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

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

[Redzeppelin]

Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.

I already responded to this idea elsewhere. I love Shakespeare too - but he's not the be-all, end-all of literature. His skill lay primarily in a very facile use of language and an astute understanding of human nature/behavior. But most writers have that. We've all figured out that you think he and Joyce (and Joyce - though original - does not deserve to be ranked next to Shakespeare - but again: isn't that just my opinion?) are pretty nifty. So what's next? I'm not really concerned about these so-called experts in world literature and their opinions - American literature is equally brilliant in its own way. Anybody with sufficient knowledge of literature would know that British and American literature are built on different foundations and are concerned with different ideas and intentions. I believe Shakespeare enjoyed a good story - and that he would've gotten a kick out of Mark Twain, enjoyed Steinbeck's descriptive mastery, admired Crane's irony, marvelled at Faulkner's structural innovations, nodded his head at Hemingway's masterful understatement and praised Melville's epic sweep.

Stating that one country's literature is better than another is tantamount to "literary racism." Real lovers of literature don't draw national "color lines." Books are books - the nationality of the author is trivial and true literary scholars don't get caught up in pointless comparisons.

[metal134]

Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.
Ditto on Dan Brown. I kept hearing and kept hearing and kept hearing how spectacular "The DaVinchi Code" was and it turned out to be one of the biggest let downs ever.
I also think Ernest Hemingway is overrated. I enjoy his stories, but his style drives me up the wall. And I'm, so tired of hearing how he was a "master of dialogue". His dialouge, quite frankly, is among the worst I've ever read. I mean, here's a typical Hemingway conversation:

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: Truly?
Robert Jordan: Yes, I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: We will help you blow up the bridge.
Robert Jordan: Will you help me blow up the bridge?
Andselmo: We will help you.
Robert Jordan: Alright.

[PeterL]

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


Shakespeare didn't write in Middle English. If you want to see Middle English, read Chaucer.

[ennison]

Ah and should dialogue be life like then

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: The ... what .... the who .....
Anselmo: Yes . si Hey turn off that engine .. hey I SAID?
Robert Jordan: Yes turn off that engine I cant hear ... cant hear .
Anselmo: Turn it off hey turn .
Robert Jordan: Anselmo?
Andselmo: Turn it off TURN IT OFF!!.
Robert Jordan: ***** what ***** Anselmo who are you on about.

Gee no wonder Franco won. The Republicans spoke too normally!!!

[Zippy]

I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

I'd be interested to know how you could possibly write an entertaining and thought-provoking play that deals with the subject of racism and not have one or more of the characters act in a racist manner.

You are making the cardinal mistake of confusing Shakespeare with his characters. By the same logic you'd have to call Vladimir Nabokov a paedophile or Bret Easton Ellis a psychopath. The character is not the author!

[EAP]

Zippy,

I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

[PeterL]

Zippy,

I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

Creating characters that have particular opinions and attitudes does not indicate that the author shared those opinions, but it means that the author was aware of such opinions and put those into the character. If you see of the characters in The Merchant of Venice as prejudiced against Jews, then you can be sure that Shakespeare intended that the audience saw that in the characters, but it does not mean that he shared that prejudice. On the other hand, I would be surprised if Shakespeare did not have feelings against Jews, but I'm not personally acquainted with him,. so I don't know for sure.

[ennison]

Why would you be surprised if he 'did not have feelings against Jews'? That's a very double-edged sword you're wielding.

[Mark F.]

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

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

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

Not a big fan of Romeo and Juliet either, but try reading Hamlet and King Lear. On the other hand you have to think about why the dialogue was written that way, Shakespeare didn't write his plays for people to read them but for people to see them, audiences don't always pay attention to what's going on on the stage, repetition was part of his game. I don't think there's a single character study that comes close to Hamlet and King Lear is one of the most epic tales ever.

[PeterL]

Why would you be surprised if he 'did not have feelings against Jews'? That's a very double-edged sword you're wielding.

Yes, it is a two-edged sword; I realized that while was writing. Anti-Jewish semtiment was the general rule in England in Shakespeare's time. As an author, he certainly was aware of it, but I doubt that he completely evaded that part of his era.

[Pensive]

Not a big fan of Romeo and Juliet either, but try reading Hamlet and King Lear. On the other hand you have to think about why the dialogue was written that way, Shakespeare didn't write his plays for people to read them but for people to see them, audiences don't always pay attention to what's going on on the stage, repetition was part of his game. I don't think there's a single character study that comes close to Hamlet and King Lear is one of the most epic tales ever.

I read the play, and all I know is that the repetition left a really bad impression on me. Anyway, a single sentence in the end of a play can be very important. The ending of the story depends on it, and if the audiences are not paying attention to it, they are responsible for it. Same is the case with the whole play. A good play-wright doesn't have to repeat his lines for the sake of it. And I don't think that he meant it as a game. Repetition might have been just his style. Of course, I can be wrong in that but it's my thought.

Yes, I haven't read Hamlet and King Lear yet. I might someday try King Lear though. Its story (I read it somewhere) appeals me. :)

[Adudaewen]

I'm going to have to say JD Salinger. I really don't understand why Catcher in the Rye is such a beloved book. It just made me angry at the end because it just Friggin ends!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate that.

[papercut]

Dan Brown. His fame is based purely on the premise of his book rather than the execution of it. There's certainly nothing in the prose. JK Rowlings. The life and times of a prepubescent wizard. Need I say more? Hemmingway. I actually liked his style of prose, but his works fairly drip machismo. I couldn't take it. Ayn Rand. Bitter, bitter woman. The rant that is Atlas Shrugged did not deserve 1100 pages. Also, Robert Jordan -he's like the song that never ends- and Tolkien -there is such a thing as too much detail. We don't need to know the family tree, thanks.

Who said Victor Hugo? How could you? *weeps in a corner* And Hawthorne, his exploration of human nature-- overrated? :bawling:

[Alexei]

I agree J.K. Rowling is overrated. I don't like her books. The story is more like a common fairy tale and the characters are boring. Don't even mention reader could solves the problems in the book much before Harry and it becomes really uninteresting to sit there and reading his thoughts while you have already know the main idea. It get me furious. There were some periods while I have reading such things, on my mind was only: "how someone could be so dull?". But that actually is because of the retardation and this kind of retardation is shallow in my opinion. As for the descriptions and so on, there are not very good. I couldn't feel myself a part from this world, not after I became twelve years old. As for the style of writing I don't see something really special. It is true most of the people are attracted by the book, but it is only because the plot. And the mark for the good literature, in my opinion this is the writing style, is not really on good level.

[liesl]

i must agree with Adudaewen that J.D Salinger seems to me to be overrated, but this is based upon the fact that i myself did not enjoy 'Catcher in the Rye' and therefore was unable to see what all the fuss was about. (i am currently studying a module in which i will have to study the book again, perhaps my view will be altered).

i must also agree with papercut that Dan Brown is immensely overrated. 'The Da Vinci Code' sold well because of its own generated hype, if purely based upon his writing style and ability the book would have failed to be as big a success as it was. Having read 'The Da Vinci Code' i decided to read 'Angels and Demons' (recommended by my boyfriend's mother) to see if perhaps Dan Brown was able to write different genres. I was bitterly disappointed to find that the text followed the exact same premise as his previous text, down to kidnappings, murders and code-breaking.

[Mark F.]

Dan Brown isn't even rated as a good author...everyone is aware that his books are crap.

[ennison]

I tend to like books for what I can get from them. Sometimes its just a good yarn ......so I like Grisham. Sometimes its the thrill of discovering another mind, sometimes something else. There are authors whose works I detest and whose minds as revealed in their works I detest. The great Soviet writer Babel asks a question in one of his stories about whether it is possible to live without enemies and answers that it is not. I agree and detecting ones enemies in literature is a worthwhile exercise. Literature like all things is political and whether we say we like a book for this reason or for that reason it all boils down to the fact that we recognise some attitudes as directly opposed to the way we understand the World and Life. This may sound unusual to young readers but .........there you go ............

[Adudaewen]

i must agree with Adudaewen that J.D Salinger seems to me to be overrated, but this is based upon the fact that i myself did not enjoy 'Catcher in the Rye' and therefore was unable to see what all the fuss was about. (i am currently studying a module in which i will have to study the book again, perhaps my view will be altered).

I'm so glad to see someone else agree with me, mostly because I was beginnign to think maybe it was just me!!! I am also beginning to think that its just a guy thing that maybe we women can't understand because all of my guy friends just LOVED Catcher in the Rye. Liesl, if your view does alter please explain it to me!:D

[ennison]

No Salinger's novel is not as good as many say but then what book that gets 'cult' status can measure up to the fame thrust upon it. I wonder if it is true that Salinger has a vault full of unpublished manuscripts.
I'm not a great fan but then I don't mind him either.

[mS_?]

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: Truly?
Robert Jordan: Yes, I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: We will help you blow up the bridge.
Robert Jordan: Will you help me blow up the bridge?
Andselmo: We will help you.
Robert Jordan: Alright.


Heh, I'll actually agree with that, I liked the premise of the book, and I alos liked the story of The Old Man and the Sea but I really think that any of his books that go past 300 pages are too drawn out for his style. Most of For Whom the Bell Tolls was just Robert Jordan walking from place to place. I'd have to say the only two exciting or interesting parts were Pilars description of the execution of the fascists in her town, and the final stand of El Sordo(which was also drawn out a bit).

I can actually deal with drawn out novels and I do enjoy most of them for their descriptiveness, The Tale of Genji, Moby Dick, Don Quixote. But for some reason Hemingways style just doesnt work at all for a book being long.

[Domer121]

Nora Roberts....She can give housewives a thrill..but there is a way to get that thrill without dumbing yourself down....though I suppose without Nora Roberts what else would they sell in the aisles at Target?...

[ryguy]

Hemingway by far IMO is the most overrated author of all time. I think he is a horrible writer.

[bouquin]

Paulo Coelho, I've read "The Alchimist" and it was so poorly written and simplistic, I really felt like I'd just wasted my time.


I agree absolutely.

[ennison]

You are very hard on Mr H. No doubt his style can grate and he seems desperately easy to parody but look a bit closer at some of the short stories and at 'A Farewell to Arms'. That pared down style takes a bit of doing.

[manolia]

Dan Brown isn't even rated as a good author...everyone is aware that his books are crap.

Unfortunately I've met people who actually believe that he is a good author!!
(can you imagine that?).

Overrated authors..let me think..one name comes in mind.Paulo Coehlio. And of course the lady with the Harry Potter series. By far the most unoriginal books ever created. If you are into fantasy literature you know what i mean.
Also I think that Orwell is a bit overrated. I don't know..just a thought!:blush:

[grace86]

Harper Lee. Maybe I should read "To Kill a Mockingbird" again someday, but that book was torture to get through.

I don't agree with Hemingway being overrated. Perhaps he just takes a little more thought to get through, I think he is tough.

[ennison]

Lee 'torture to get through'? Surely you're thinking of someone totally different.

[grace86]

Lee 'torture to get through'? Surely you're thinking of someone totally different.

Nope, I think reading her book was the only thing that ever made me fall asleep in class. But maybe reading it with a classroom is what did it for me.

[bluevictim]

That's interesting. I really liked To Kill a Mockingbird. I'm kind of surprised that you found it so soporific; I thought it was pretty interesting, and a lot easier to read than Hemingway (for example). Maybe it wasn't enough of a challenge for you. I wouldn't consider Harper Lee a "great" writer, though, because, as far as I know, TKAM is the only thing of note that she wrote.

[Adudaewen]

I loved Harper Lee. I think that it is really hard to read anything in a school setting, on a deadline. Literature is to be enjoyed not assigned. I hated almost all the books that I read in high school, but when I read them now I love them. (Some of that might have to do with personal growth and a mature(er) mind, but I can't read in a hard desk, under florescent lights, with a clueless student teacher telling me what the text is about. BLAH.

I have to agree with Hemingway. He is not the easiest person to read. I find a lot of his books to be quite tedious and though I'm interested in the story he is telling, its hard to push myself to actually get through them.

[grace86]

I loved Harper Lee. I think that it is really hard to read anything in a school setting, on a deadline. Literature is to be enjoyed not assigned. I hated almost all the books that I read in high school, but when I read them now I love them. (Some of that might have to do with personal growth and a mature(er) mind, but I can't read in a hard desk, under florescent lights, with a clueless student teacher telling me what the text is about. BLAH.

Hmm yes you have a point. Maybe I will reconsider putting her on that list until I can take her book at my liesure (sp?) one more time. Shouldn't be bitter I guess for the author surely didn't ask to be read in a classroom :D Hah!! you have swayed me!

[dorindapaige]

I've never despised an author more than James Joyce, but I've only read a few of his books (and those many years ago). I know I've matured as a bibliophile, so I'm considering giving him one more chance. "Portrait" will definitely not be my choice, but I'm considering "Finegan's Wake."

My other humble choice is Tolkein (please don't all attack the newbie at once!) I appreciate fantasy, but he bored me to tears!

[Matrim Cuathon]

i find that among my peers i ahve the msot open mind as to what constitutes a good book. just becuase i disagree with the author does not mean that the book is bad. for the most part i read Sci-Fi and fantasy but i can enjoy almost any topic. I have many books from Valdemar, Darkover, and WoT as well as the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. LotR had like 400 pages of walking, walking, walking, but it was still an interesting story with a well-explored history. The other 3 authors arent considered great but they at least get credit for not having each succeeding conflict be agaisnt a more and more massively powerful enemy, a sad trend in modern SF/F.
Ive gotten many comments on the variety of my reading, although msot of it is SF/F: David Brin, Isaac Asimov, Lackey, Zimmer Bradley, Jordan, David Eddings etc.
Yet i still manage to have interest in Austen, Tolstoy, Twain, Kafka, and the rest of that massive list of "classical" authors. I find it vastly amusing that many people confine theselves to such a small number of topics in stories.
Certainly as a male ive been teased quite a bit about Austen. I might actually be around this forum a lot as i am sadly at a loss as to any sort of lterature discussion in school or with peers.
I noticed that not a few people did not see much value in Catcher in the Rye.
I understood, certainly, why many people found value in it, but for myself, i really cant see how it is so popular. The same goes for Steinbeck. I was very happy, however, when we read quite a bit of Bradbury.
As for Dan Brown and Rowling, the number of people i have met who think them quite talented as authors is highly disconcerting. Honestly, i read the books and took what value they had, but the character and story deveoplement left quite a bit wanting.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I wouldn't consider Harper Lee a "great" writer, though, because, as far as I know, TKAM is the only thing of note that she wrote.

Aww, but you have to give her a break, considering she was only sixteen when she wrote it! A good number of people her age don't have that much insight.

[grace86]

Aww, but you have to give her a break, considering she was only sixteen when she wrote it! A good number of people her age don't have that much insight.

Okay, credit where credit is deserved, I did not know she was only sixteen at the time she wrote TKAM...

[Matrim Cuathon]

heh, still, age only gains you so much credit. but for 16 thats a pretty good book.

[Domer121]

I have to say that Nabakov is over rated.... I did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing...Sorry if I offend anyone

[Adudaewen]

Hmm yes you have a point. Maybe I will reconsider putting her on that list until I can take her book at my liesure (sp?) one more time. Shouldn't be bitter I guess for the author surely didn't ask to be read in a classroom :D Hah!! you have swayed me!


Ah, I'm so glad. :)

[Inderjit Sanghe]

did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing

Guess it rests on what you consider to be a "love story"-some people may classify the relationship between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet as the perfect love story, some may prefer Heathcliff and Cathy as the perfect love story etc. Lolita can (at times) be slow, but literature is supposed to talk about and analyse the "disturbing" parts of the human mind and human nature-I do not really think that a book can be rightly criticised for being "disturbing", though even then Lolita is not particulalry disturbing in comparison to other "great" books.

[Basil]

Aww, but you have to give her a break, considering she was only sixteen when she wrote it!
Although she began writing at a very early age, I'm pretty sure Harper Lee didn't write To Kill A Mockingbird when she was sixteen. She was 34 years old when it was published in 1960, and she had worked on the novel full time in the years immediately prior to its publication. It's possible, though, that she carried the germ of the story with her for many years, especially considering its autobiographical bent. :nod:

[ennison]

'I've never despised an author more than James Joyce, but I've only read a few of his books (and those many years ago). I know I've matured as a bibliophile, so I'm considering giving him one more chance.'

I suggest you try the brilliant short stories and 'Stephen Hero'. The later stuff could be called novels for novelists rather than for readers. But it would be fair to admire his belief in his artistic calling.

[omegaxx]

I have to say that Nabakov is over rated.... I did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing...Sorry if I offend anyone

That was how I felt when I first read "Lolita" 2 years ago. I was on the verge of :crash: the book after he set me up so painfully for the night of the Enchanted Hunters and, well, glossed over the fornication in one line while accusing me of being a beast for daring to wish for some nice erotica. The rest of the book just became a drawl that, annoyingly, refused to end.
I reread the book a year later, knowing fully what to expect, and it is now one of my all-time favourites.
So I would give Nabokov another chance:p

[ennison]

Nabokov is a brilliant writer. And like all brilliance can be hard to look at for long. Try 'Pnin'. The Viking portable Nabokov will give you a good selection too. If you can get a hold of his translation of Lermentov then you'll see another side to Nabokov's genius.

[Redzeppelin]

Nabokov has a masterful tough with the English language. Lolita rings with wonderful linguistic turns. Can't say I agree that he's overrated.

[masterlibrarian]

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

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Care to explain why you think he is over-rated? I didn't like "The Age of Reason" much, but "Nausea" was brilliant, in my opinion.

[masterlibrarian]

Care to explain why you think he is over-rated? I didn't like "The Age of Reason" much, but "Nausea" was brilliant, in my opinion.

Ok, I'll explain my reasons with my bad, bad english...:p
Sartre is considered a brilliant philosopher and writer, and one of the founders of existentialism. I've only read "Nausea", in which the protagonist show his disgust for the pathetic aspects of his existence and the existence of the other men. Trying to simplifing, he's disgusted by the existence itself, which he found totally meaningless. Sartre took trough his character in the entire book like a severe judge of all the feeling and behaviors of the humans, and i'd admit i agree with many of his thoughts, but what's the result of his cruel exam of the meaning of the life? The author have an answer to the question that had asked himself?
Yes, and the answer is in the banal end of the work: the only think that make the life worthy of being lived is the creation trough art, that set free the individuality of the man from the chaos of the mere mass.
It's without dubts a true statement, but is 3000 years old!!!!!:D
I have read many other works of the existentialists, like Camus's "The Plague", for example, and I found it most intersting that sartre, 'cause they took about the existence's vacuum and absurdity WITHOUT find a reason or a solution, that, as heidegger himself think, cannot exist 'cause the existence itself can't be totally knowable. But I haven't a deep knowledge of the philosophic aspect of existentialism and I'm not a philosopher, so maybe I'm totally wrong...:blush:

[ennison]

Sartre is boring, dull, bunkum. He took his own nonsense too too seriously. Camus is better but neither are really novelists. They've got the art back to front: It's story first then ideas. They in their sophisticated French way go Ideas first then graft on some story or other - well Sartre does

[Religious Opium]

Truman Capote

[Allan77K]

Wasn't Duchamp's toilet a urinal?

[Brendan Madley]

If you are going to consider J.K. Rowling overrated, please then concur with me in calling Christopher Paloni overrated (although I believe Rowling is not.) I mean, it was basically a bit of Harry Potter, a bit of Lord of the Rings and a bit of the Chronicles of Narnia with other fantasy series tidbits thrown in.

[andave_ya]

People are going to absolutely hate me for saying this...

I don't like Dickens.

Well, that isn't entirely true. I love Pickwick, but that's it. Dickens' humor is nice and enjoyable; Dickens' tales of gloom not so much.

[Matt the Man]

Probably been said, but Christopher Paolini. Eragon/Eldest are just bad.

[Stieg]

Tolkien, Koontz, and King!

[aydin]

D. H. Lawrence, Booker Prize winners and nominees (the ones I have had the misfortune to read), Orhan Pamuk, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir. Not so much that I think they are overrated, but that I didn't like them.

[Matt the Man]

Tolkien, Koontz, and King!



Tolkein, no. Koontz and King, yes.

[THX-1138]

F. Scott Fitzgerald

[philipkd]

shoutgrace, lemme guess, you are located in Indonesia.

because you're quoting in Malay

[Robert Jordan]

F. Scott Fitzgerald is very overrated. His writing seems sloppy, almost like a trainwreck. And it's always about rich people whom I can't relate to.

[aydin]

Why is everyone naming Fitzgerald?


F. Scott Fitzgerald is very overrated. His writing seems sloppy, almost like a trainwreck. And it's always about rich people whom I can't relate to.

It's not about rich people, although they figure in it. I always thought it was more about how you might think that a materialistic life might be a fulfilling one, but how empty and pointless it really is. His characters usually end up with nothing and in a way have wasted their lives. Gatsby is poor but accumlates wealth in the hope of winning his girl, who, it eventually turns out, didn't really care that much for him and is a shallow coward. Dick Diver fights interal rage due to the responsibility of his wife's deteriorating mental health and feelings of guilt and frustration. In the Beautiful and Damned, they eveutally win all the money, but only to end up miserable creatures, and even after all they go through, they have their priorities wrong. Their best friends abandon them, and out of the three men at the start of the book, only one of them acheives critical success with their book - the one who was least likely to have, only to then succumb to writing rubbish for cash. The married couple gain wealth, but that is all, and they are miserable. sorry if i'm inaccurate, haven't read any of those for a while. But it is also supposed to be an portrayal of the jazz era and the whole new money versus old money thing (in Gatsby anyway, I think). He didn't finish the last tycoon, but apparently the main character is supposed to die. He is a good person who gets swallowed up by the greed of the industry. Or something like that.

I suppose some of his writing might seem sloppy, but he has some great passages, esp. when describing a loving relationship gone sour. I think he puts across feelings of hopelessness, dejection, suffering, angst, humiliation (which can be applied to most people, although perhaps in different circumstances), etc. quite well. I like the passages when the characters are falling in love less.

Anyway, my point is that it's not just about rich people, although perhaps I haven't explained very well. My memory is like a sieve.

[Dorian Gray]

Probably been said, but Christopher Paolini. Eragon/Eldest are just bad.

But it's a truth universally acknowledged that he's bad. :P

[THX-1138]

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


:lol:

[Woland]

Say what you will about Joyce, but there are very few authors who have their own national holiday.

That might be an indication that he is overrated. What writer deserves their own holiday? :lol:

well, except maybe Shakespeare... :D

[ennison]

John wrestle-with-the-bears Irving. That Scots twit whose name escapes me but supports the Hi Bees. Marilyn pain-in-butt French. Kurt stuck-in-a-time-warp Vonnegut, Harold Now-I'm-famous-I-can-have-an-opinion-on-everything Pinter, James gee-whizz-how-do-they-swallow-this-bunkum Ballard and many dozens of others who get their temporary fame in the literary rags

[Stieg]

Why is everyone naming Fitzgerald?



It's not about rich people, although they figure in it. I always thought it was more about how you might think that a materialistic life might be a fulfilling one, but how empty and pointless it really is. His characters usually end up with nothing and in a way have wasted their lives. Gatsby is poor but accumlates wealth in the hope of winning his girl, who, it eventually turns out, didn't really care that much for him and is a shallow coward. Dick Diver fights interal rage due to the responsibility of his wife's deteriorating mental health and feelings of guilt and frustration. In the Beautiful and Damned, they eveutally win all the money, but only to end up miserable creatures, and even after all they go through, they have their priorities wrong. Their best friends abandon them, and out of the three men at the start of the book, only one of them acheives critical success with their book - the one who was least likely to have, only to then succumb to writing rubbish for cash. The married couple gain wealth, but that is all, and they are miserable. sorry if i'm inaccurate, haven't read any of those for a while. But it is also supposed to be an portrayal of the jazz era and the whole new money versus old money thing (in Gatsby anyway, I think). He didn't finish the last tycoon, but apparently the main character is supposed to die. He is a good person who gets swallowed up by the greed of the industry. Or something like that.

I suppose some of his writing might seem sloppy, but he has some great passages, esp. when describing a loving relationship gone sour. I think he puts across feelings of hopelessness, dejection, suffering, angst, humiliation (which can be applied to most people, although perhaps in different circumstances), etc. quite well. I like the passages when the characters are falling in love less.

Anyway, my point is that it's not just about rich people, although perhaps I haven't explained very well. My memory is like a sieve.


Well, I haven't been able to read Fitzgerald since torturing myself through This Side of Paradise. Now that was one giant pile of rubbish. The main character had NO LIFE, NO LIFE AT ALL and he deserved every worst circumstance he suffered. What a pompous jerk and meanlingless meandering story. I am not sure I can read this author again.

[Mark F.]

The Great Gatsby is a great novel, plenty of irony about the rich and mundane. The Last Tycoon, although he never finished it would probably have been even better. I haven't read his other work but so many authors are unable to write even one decent novel.

[Mrs. Dalloway]

Jane Austen and James Joyce overrated??? :sick: :sick:

Jane Austen was one of the first women who wrote "in favour" of women! She criticized her society of being sexist. I think she was "brave" because in XIX Century was not easy, women writers were not well-seen.

[Stieg]

The Great Gatsby is a great novel, plenty of irony about the rich and mundane. The Last Tycoon, although he never finished it would probably have been even better. I haven't read his other work but so many authors are unable to write even one decent novel.

If and once I ever recover from This Side of Paradise, I'll try to give The Great Gatsby a swing. That novel put me in the literary ICU, barely made it out alive with my sanity intact.

[Virgil]

Jane Austen was one of the first women who wrote "in favour" of women! She criticized her society of being sexist. I think she was "brave" because in XIX Century was not easy, women writers were not well-seen.

I'm not that sure about that. While Austen wrote from a women's perspective, and that would naturally lead to sympatheize with their problems, I have never read anything from Austen to catagorize her a passioante feminist. In Emma, the female character settles to be married to a strong man. Where in Austen do you see her be so femnist?

[JBI]

I'm not that sure about that. While Austen wrote from a women's perspective, and that would naturally lead to sympatheize with their problems, I have never read anything from Austen to catagorize her a passioante feminist. In Emma, the female character settles to be married to a strong man. Where in Austen do you see her be so femnist?

Pride and Prejudice, where the woman ends up calling all the shots and not the man. Other than that I am not sure with Austen, though the female characters in the books tend to do what they want rather than what the men want, and the men are responsible for getting them to say "yes".

[Robert Jordan]

This Side Of Paradise. Exactly! Rich kid with rich mother traveling doing rich people things. Jumbled writing. Not engaging at all. Great Gatsby is about the rich, or at least people who are a lot more well off then my impoverished being. If you don't think it is then you must obviously have more money than I. I just don't think he's a good writer. Franz Kafka is also very overrated in my opinion. Maybe I'm not deep enough to follow his "plots" if you casn call them that. I tried reading the Metamorphosis because people told me it would be more cohesive, which it was, in a way, but it was incredibly dull too me. It just didn't interest me for some reason. I guess everyone has those authors. Kafka and Fitzgerald would have to be my picks for authors that I find overrated. I guess I'd throw in Bukowski as well. Also,aside from Junky, I'd say William Burroughs. Once you've read Naked Lunch you've pretty much read all his other works.

[aydin]

Must admit that I started This side of Paradise but never finished it. Am planning to though. I suppose the other thing about some of them seeming overrated is that you build them up before you've read them and sometimes it seems like a disappointment from what you were expecting...

STEIG - would also recommend The beautiful and Damned if you are going to read Fitzgerald. Although I guess I've kind of given away some of the plot...

ROBERT JORDAN - Yes, he does tend to write about rich people but that is because that is what he knew and probably felt could write accurately about. I'm far from rich as it happens but don't see why a character's financial position should deter me from enjoying a story. At the end of the day, it's about people, they sometimes just happen to have some money. If you don't like his writing, fair enough, but I don't see what his characters' affluence have to do with him being a bad writer. Sort of agree with you about Kafka and Bukowski.

VIRGIL - I think Austen's character's are considered feminist for her times. As in they had a mind of their own, and often spoke it too.

Also think Hunter S. Thompson and Jack Kerouac are overrated. Or perhaps I just don't like the beat generation style.

[kenikki]

Bret Easton Ellis. As much as I enjoy his work, I think it's a case of right place at the right time.

[liesl]

I'm so glad to see someone else agree with me, mostly because I was beginnign to think maybe it was just me!!! I am also beginning to think that its just a guy thing that maybe we women can't understand because all of my guy friends just LOVED Catcher in the Rye. Liesl, if your view does alter please explain it to me!:D


well i just finished studying 'Catcher in the Rye' in one of my modules at university and despite approaching it from various different angles (freudian aspects, buddhism comparisons etc) i remain unswayed about disliking the book. i'm beginning to think it may be because i just cannot relate to or accept liking Holden himself.

needless to say i was the only one in my class of 30 who admitted to disliking the text :p strange.

[Asa Adams]

Nora Roberts......Bah!