Which is the worst serious writer of famous literature?

[Jtolj]

The question is basically is that out of literarydom, among authors who are "serious" and write famous works, who just isn't that good. It doesn't have to be overrated just as much as a general lack of quality. I nominate... James Joyce, who created a tome so awful that it should reflect on his quality as a writer.

[cuppajoe_9]

James Joyce has his own national holiday, so I guess all of Ireland disagrees with you. Which tome, exactly, are you refering to?

I say, I dunno, Danielle Steele?

[Jtolj]

James Joyce has his own national holiday, so I guess all of Ireland disagrees with you. Which tome, exactly, are you refering to?

I say, I dunno, Danielle Steele?
Ulysses. Of course, it's fashionable to bash Joyce, and do you really think they read the whole book? Joyce isn't even a good rolemodel. He's a drunk.

[ShoutGrace]

Since when is it an artist's duty to be a role model??

Patricia Cornwell (sp) is terrible, in my opinion, and she is relatively famous.

[Virgil]

Ulysses. Of course, it's fashionable to bash Joyce, and do you really think they read the whole book? Joyce isn't even a good rolemodel. He's a drunk.

I've read Ulysses, twice. It's a great work.

[cuppajoe_9]

Ulysses. Of course, it's fashionable to bash Joyce, and do you really think they read the whole book? Joyce isn't even a good rolemodel. He's a drunk.

I have never read Ulysses, and I am sure that there are some people in Ireland who share that unfortunate condition. However, one simply does not get to be a folk hero by writing bad books. I have read a few Joyce short stories and love them, and I think I'm justified in saying, based on that, that Daniele Steele and Tom Robbins are far worse famous authors.

Honestly, if you have to resort to calling Joyce a drunk, then you are out of legitimate literary criticisms. By that standard we would also have to discount Hemingway, Faulkner and Thomas.

[cuppajoe_9]

More great writers who make poor role models:

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Sigmund Freud (drug addicts)
Fyodor Dostoevski (gambling addict)
Ezra Pound, T.S. Elliot, William Shakespeare, most english writers before about 1890 (anti-semites)
Pablo Neruda (Stalinist)
John Milton (Cromwellian)
J. D. Salinger (completely anti-social)

But we can forgive them for this, because they are geniuses.

[Mark F.]

I haven't read "Ulysses" but anybody who writes a novel as good as "A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man" should be considered a brilliant author. I'd say Paolo Coelho.

[PeterL]

Ulysses. Of course, it's fashionable to bash Joyce, and do you really think they read the whole book? Joyce isn't even a good rolemodel. He's a drunk.

First, James Joyce isn't a drunk. He is dead. He doesn't eat or drink anything anymore.

Second, Ulysses is pretty darned good. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the book, but I think that it is an excellent piece of literature. If you had mentioned Finnegans Wake instead, I might have agreed with you, but Finnegans Wake was not written for the masses. It has a lot in common with double crosstics.

It is almost impossible for a bad novel to get published. There are some, but not many. But much bad poetry has been published, and some very famous poets wrote what I consider bad literature, including: Wordsworth and Whitman.

[Zippy]

What thought provoking and controversial threads you start Jtolj - I like them!

I'm on to a loser here, and will no doubt be branded a barbarian, but I have to agree with you and admit that I don't think much of Joyce. I thought Dubliners was pretty good, Portrait fair, Ulysses over-rated and Finnegans Wake a joke. A clear case of a writer disappearing up his own ar...ego.

One of the worst writers in my opinion was Jack Kerouac. I tried reading On the Road a while back and almost died of bordom.

Zippy.

[bazarov]

Another vote for Coelho!

[bazarov]

Ulysses. Of course, it's fashionable to bash Joyce, and do you really think they read the whole book? Joyce isn't even a good rolemodel. He's a drunk.

It's hard to be normal man and a genius in the same time:D

[Scheherazade]

One of the worst writers in my opinion was Jack Kerouac. I tried reading On the Road a while back and almost died of bordom.
Amen to that! It is one of the rare books, point of which I could not see but I will not nominate him because I read only one book of his. Instead, I will nominate...

Virginia Woolf

[Walter]

Yet another vote against Coelho! Two votes, if I'm allowed.

But a definite YAY for Virginia Woolf! Mrs Dalloway was a total joy for me to read.

[Turk]

My vote goes to Virginia Woolf.

[underground]

James Joyce has his own national holiday, so I guess all of Ireland disagrees with you.

really? i didn't know that. thanks for the enlightenment; i won't forget to bring that in my future english classes.

i would vote for frank mccourt.

[underground]

Another vote for Coelho!

i never thought he thought himself as a serious writer. his stories are kind of weird i'd assume he's often writing tongue-in-cheek. i really liked the alchemist, though, so i devote your vote. :p

[cuppajoe_9]

really? i didn't know that. thanks for the enlightenment; i won't forget to bring that in my future english classes.

i would vote for frank mccourt.

It's called Bloomsday. The idea is to act out the events of Ulysses, particularly the breakfast. Read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsday).

[Mark F.]

i never thought he thought himself as a serious writer. his stories are kind of weird i'd assume he's often writing tongue-in-cheek. i really liked the alchemist, though, so i devote your vote. :p

I hate that novel and was very after losing my time reading it.

[Chava]

My english teacher insisted that Ruth Rendell was a serious/brilliant author, and enforced her book "crocodile bird" upon the class... Try analysing that to any depth...?
We have a new teacher now.

[Turk]

My english teacher insisted that Ruth Rendell was a serious/brilliant author, and enforced her book "crocodile bird" upon the class... Try analysing that to any depth...?
We have a new teacher now.

Poor woman. I bet she went to Japan to kill Godzilla.

[toni]

Fortunately(or unfortunately?), I have yet to encounter such authors.

Maybe, I'm not quite adventurous when choosing books...

[subterranean]

i would vote for frank mccourt.


I kinda like Angela's Ashes. My first book about the Irish.

[underground]

I hate that novel and was very after losing my time reading it.

you must be one bitter person to begin with. :lol:

[underground]

I kinda like Angela's Ashes. My first book about the Irish.

it's not the most terrible book ever written, but for some reason mccourt just seems like a joke in himself. i'm not sure why. :sick:

[Mark F.]

you must be one bitter person to begin with. :lol:

I am, but I try not to let that get in the way of me having fun.

[Evi]

Another vote for Paulo Coehlo please!

Let Joyce and kerouack sleep in peace!If one of this forum has 1/10 of their talent is a great writer!

Evi

[Guzmán]

My vote is for Tolkien, im not saying he was a good or bad writer but he is way, way, way overrated. And the movie definetly sucks, it felt like a cheap TV production to me.

[cuppajoe_9]

My vote is for Tolkien, im not saying he was a good or bad writer but he is way, way, way overrated. And the movie definetly sucks, it felt like a cheap TV production to me.

You're blaming Tolkein for a movie that was made 17 years after his death? By the way, that movie was, at the time, the most expensive ever made.

[Vedrana]

Dan Brown. I mean, The Da Vinci Code et al. are okay as gripping page turners, but it's not exactly the best prose I've ever read.

[CatherineH/L/E]

My vote is for Tolkien, im not saying he was a good or bad writer but he is way, way, way overrated. And the movie definetly sucks, it felt like a cheap TV production to me.

Ouch that hurts. Almost anyone who can appreciate decent fantasy will disagree with you. I personaly believe Peter Jackson did a phenominal job with the trilogy. He was able to capture the true essence of the books on screen which is rarely ever accomplished by those who turn books into movies.


My vote goes for John Steinbeck. He is the epitome of bad American classics.

[Mark F.]

Dan Brown. I mean, The Da Vinci Code et al. are okay as gripping page turners, but it's not exactly the best prose I've ever read.

I don't thinbk anyone considers him a serious writer.

[Mark F.]

Ouch that hurts. Almost anyone who can appreciate decent fantasy will disagree with you. I personaly believe Peter Jackson did a phenominal job with the trilogy. He was able to capture the true essence of the books on screen which is rarely ever accomplished by those who turn books into movies.


My vote goes for John Steinbeck. He is the epitome of bad American classics.

You think The Lord Of The Rings movies were good and Steinbeck is a bad author? Peter Jackson's films left some of the most important aspects of Tolkien's books, the only thing he really managed to capture were the landscapes, but who needs that? Tolkien's descriptions are powerful enough for anyone's imagination. The characters became ridiculous because of the awful acting.

I've only read two novels by Steinbeck, "Grapes of Wrath" and "Of Mice and Men", both are incredibly moving, I have a real preference for the first. If you're going to call one of the greatest authors of the 20th century the "epitome of bad classics" at least give some points...

[Pendragon]

I'll toss in another vote for Walt Whitman because Leaves of Grass has to be the most boring book I ever picked up. Two more authors not yet mentioned are Herman Melville (Call me a cab!) and Stephen Crane (Red Eyes From Trying to Stay Awake!) :lol:

[SleepyWitch]

You think The Lord Of The Rings movies were good and Steinbeck is a bad author? Peter Jackson's films left some of the most important aspects of Tolkien's books, the only thing he really managed to capture were the landscapes, but who needs that? Tolkien's descriptions are powerful enough for anyone's imagination. The characters became ridiculous because of the awful acting.
I

which aspects do you mean, Mark? I'm rereading the book these days and I like both the book and the films, although I agree that they are very different. I think Ian McKellen was awesome and there couldn't have been a better Gandalf. Plus, some of the effects in the film are more powerful than the description in the book (e.g. When Gandalf goes "Don't take me for a conjurer of cheap tricks". In the book it only says something like "a shadow passed over him" or something dull).
Has anyone else noticed that Frodo seems a lot more snobbish in the book than in the film? I even like him better in the film because he's so sweet and boyish (no, I do not fancy Elijah Wood!)
I don't think Tolkien is overrated at all. There is a lot of hype around his books these days, but then, fantasy was underrated for 50 years before the LotR and Harry Potter films.


it's not the most terrible book ever written, but for some reason mccourt just seems like a joke in himself. i'm not sure why.
why do you feel he's a joke in himself? I like McCourt a lot:) Is he a serious writer?

as for my worst serious writer, I can't really say there is any. Goethe's Faust would be a candidate for worst serious piece of Lit, though.
Well, it's not bad actually, but it's one of those plays where teachers just take it for granted that you'll see why it is so great and nobody ever explains it to you and if you can't get your head round it that's because you're stupid anyway :(

[Pensive]

My vote goes for John Steinbeck. He is the epitome of bad American classics.

I don't think so that you are right here. Personally, I found East of Eden one of the best books I have ever read. It was written well, had a moving plot and was perfectly-characterized. What else can we ask from an author? :)

[Mark F.]

which aspects do you mean, Mark? I'm rereading the book these days and I like both the book and the films, although I agree that they are very different. I think Ian McKellen was awesome and there couldn't have been a better Gandalf. Plus, some of the effects in the film are more powerful than the description in the book (e.g. When Gandalf goes "Don't take me for a conjurer of cheap tricks". In the book it only says something like "a shadow passed over him" or something dull).
Has anyone else noticed that Frodo seems a lot more snobbish in the book than in the film? I even like him better in the film because he's so sweet and boyish (no, I do not fancy Elijah Wood!)


Taking Bombadil out of the story was the major slip up. He embodied a lot of what Tolkien was trying to say in his story. McKellen is the only actor who did a good job. Viggo Mortensen annoys me, he only has one expression thorughout the films. Orlando Bloom completely wrecked Legolas. I don't know I just failed to see a point in the films.

[SleepyWitch]

yeah, I seem to remember that after I read the book for the first time I thought "Hey, what about Bombadil, he ought to be in the film!". Funnily enough, I don't even remember why he is important. But I'll find out soon enough :)
Maybe it helps to see the book and the film as two different versions of the story?
Yep, Aragorn lacks depth in the films, but in my humble opinion, most characters who are 'chosen' or 'destined' to be a king/hero/etc do, in books as well as in movies.

heehee, I'd better make another token contribution to the original topic of this thread: Henry Roth ("Call it Sleep" in more than one sense ;) )

[cuppajoe_9]

My vote goes for John Steinbeck. He is the epitome of bad American classics.

Ridiculous. The Grapes of Wrath is one of the finest and most important novels of the past century.

[cuppajoe_9]

McKellen is the only actor who did a good job.

It takes an extremely incompotent director to prevent Ian McKellen from doing a good job.

[Mark F.]

I love Peter Jackson but he should stick to what he does best, splatter flicks with humour.


yeah, I seem to remember that after I read the book for the first time I thought "Hey, what about Bombadil, he ought to be in the film!". Funnily enough, I don't even remember why he is important. But I'll find out soon enough :)


Bombadil's important because he's a guy with a bear who lives as a hermit in the woods. There's no good story without one of those!

[Guzmán]

First of all, of course im not blaming Tolkien for the film, that would be just plain stupid. What i meant was that I think his books are given too much praise for what they are. Personally, i find them corny to say the least and the writing does nothing for me. Second, I added my thoughts on the film which i found just as overrated as the books are.

[Mark F.]

I agree, the books are overrated even though I enjoy reading them.

[Evi]

"Two more authors not yet mentioned are Herman Melville (Call me a cab!) and Stephen Crane (Red Eyes From Trying to Stay Awake!) "

Pentragon,

Sorry, i am not sure if you are joking or talking serious about Herman Melville. Do you really belive that he is boring or it is just a joke?

Evi

[WaxenWings89]

I cannot bring myself to enjoy F. Scott Fitzgerald. His writing style and his method of telling stories is just too boring for me.

[CatherineH/L/E]

I knew I was giong to get a lot strife from my Steinbeck comment but I am not a fan of these "great American classics that change the world". I do agree that he is a suberb writer but he's just not my style. After reading a few of his books I didnt really have very much opinion of him but after reading Torilla Flat I lost all desire to read anything else he wrote.


And with the LOTR films I feel that Peter Jackson did capture the overall feeling of the books as best as anyone could do with such an amazing series. I didnt like how the missed the whole cleaning of the shire part and the one scene where Frodo turns against Sam though very powerful does not go alaong with the Sam/Frodo relashonship at that time in the books.

Sorry if I have offended anyone

[Mark F.]

I cannot bring myself to enjoy F. Scott Fitzgerald. His writing style and his method of telling stories is just too boring for me.

Have you read past chapter three of "The Great Gatsby"?

[Mark F.]

I knew I was giong to get a lot strife from my Steinbeck comment but I am not a fan of these "great American classics that change the world". I do agree that he is a suberb writer but he's just not my style. After reading a few of his books I didnt really have very much opinion of him but after reading Torilla Flat I lost all desire to read anything else he wrote.

And with the LOTR films I feel that Peter Jackson did capture the overall feeling of the books as best as anyone could do with such an amazing series. I didnt like how the missed the whole cleaning of the shire part and the one scene where Frodo turns against Sam though very powerful does not go alaong with the Sam/Frodo relashonship at that time in the books.

Sorry if I have offended anyone

No offense. What do you mean by "great American classics that changed the world"? Surely none of these novelists pretended they were going to change the world. It just sounds like a category you can dump anything you don't like into. Or maybe there's a list I never heard of?

[SheykAbdullah]

Emily Bronte. I don't like the Bronte sisters, or Jane Austen, but I wouldn't say I hate them except I once had to analyze whether Jane Eyre was lying to her diary. I had to write so many pages of inane spit-up that I think I went temporarily insane trying to find a hundred different ways to write "why would she lie to her own diary?" over and over and over again that the sight of that name still makes me nauseous all these years since.

Maybe my selection isn't really very fair becuase it isn't based on the quality of the book but it's use as literary thumbscrews, but my opinion of her remains colored to this day.

[cuppajoe_9]

"Dear diary: I won the lottery again, but this time they paid me in kittens."

[Pendragon]

"Two more authors not yet mentioned are Herman Melville (Call me a cab!) and Stephen Crane (Red Eyes From Trying to Stay Awake!) "

Pentragon,

Sorry, i am not sure if you are joking or talking serious about Herman Melville. Do you really belive that he is boring or it is just a joke?

EviAre you having a laugh? You could read Moby Dick out loud in your garden to bore the insects off of your veggies! And Crane! I had to analyze his "The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky" for a creative writing course. I managed to get the highest marks in the class and had my essay saved by the Professor for posterity, but I thought I'd go mad trying to muddle through the mess. I was making a joke about the first line: "Call me Ishmael." (Call me a cab!), but yeah, he's boring, right enough! :nod:

[Evi]

Pentragon,

What can i say? You find Herman Melville boring. It is your opinion. I love him, especially Mobby Dick so i thought that it was a joke. I guess it is a matter of opinions here.

By the way, who is your favorite author? Or your favorite novel?

Evi

[Mark F.]

I agree, I read the first half of "Moby Dick" and it's great. I had to stop cause I have about twenty books to read for university. "Bartleby The Scrivner" is also fun, very well written and very intelligent.

[subterranean]

it's not the most terrible book ever written, but for some reason mccourt just seems like a joke in himself. i'm not sure why. :sick:

Well, no comment about the author as I have only read Angela's Ashes so far.

[Shalot]

I agree, I read the first half of "Moby Dick" and it's great. I had to stop cause I have about twenty books to read for university. "Bartleby The Scrivner" is also fun, very well written and very intelligent.

I liked Benito Cereno but Moby Dick is just toooooo looonnnnngggg and that's why it's boring. I'm with Pendragon on this. And I had to read Joseph Conrad (I had Stephen Crane there first --- why do I get those two confused --- because they're both boring maybe?) Heart of Darkness for a high school lit class but I couldn't bring myself to read the whole book (and it was short, compared to Moby Dick). I passed the exam by reading cliff notes and criticism.

[stlukesguild]

I liked Benito Cereno but Moby Dick is just toooooo looonnnnngggg and that's why it's boring. I'm with Pendragon on this. And I had to read Joseph Conrad (I had Stephen Crane there first --- why do I get those two confused --- because they're both boring maybe?) Heart of Darkness for a high school lit class but I couldn't bring myself to read the whole book (and it was short, compared to Moby Dick). I passed the exam by reading cliff notes and criticism.

Personally I find Moby Dick and Heart of Darkness to be two of the absolute masterpieces of American literature. Moby Dick is a fascinating book blurring together several genres. On one level the novel is merely an adventure tale. It is also something of a series of essays/historical digressions on whaling and related themes, and then there are passages of absolutely visionary poetry. The work as a whole (and not merely the more poetic passages) is intentionally written is something of an archaic manner with a language that is almost Baroque... Biblical... and gloriously sensuous.

Heart of Darkness is similar in its use of a tough and ornate language and like Moby Dick it builds toward its climax slowly... but I must say that I find the author's mastery of the language to be brilliant... even more so when considering that Conrad's native tongue was not English. In this manner I can only compare him with Nabokov. I find the focus on the psychological "horror" to be far more interesting than the simple "horror" of ghosts, blood and guts, etc...

I might question whether those who found Moby Dick to be hard going found the "archaic" language a challenge... Just a question. I assume that prior to having a greater familiarity with various earlier poets and novelists I too might have found the book "boring".

[Shalot]

I liked Benito Cereno but Moby Dick is just toooooo looonnnnngggg and that's why it's boring. I'm with Pendragon on this. And I had to read Joseph Conrad (I had Stephen Crane there first --- why do I get those two confused --- because they're both boring maybe?) Heart of Darkness for a high school lit class but I couldn't bring myself to read the whole book (and it was short, compared to Moby Dick). I passed the exam by reading cliff notes and criticism.

Personally I find Moby Dick and Heart of Darkness to be two of the absolute masterpieces of American literature. Moby Dick is a fascinating book blurring together several genres. On one level the novel is merely an adventure tale. It is also something of a series of essays/historical digressions on whaling and related themes, and then there are passages of absolutely visionary poetry. The work as a whole (and not merely the more poetic passages) is intentionally written is something of an archaic manner with a language that is almost Baroque... Biblical... and gloriously sensuous.

Heart of Darkness is similar in its use of a tough and ornate language and like Moby Dick it builds toward its climax slowly... but I must say that I find the author's mastery of the language to be brilliant... even more so when considering that Conrad's native tongue was not English. In this manner I can only compare him with Nabokov. I find the focus on the psychological "horror" to be far more interesting than the simple "horror" of ghosts, blood and guts, etc...

I might question whether those who found Moby Dick to be hard going found the "archaic" language a challenge... Just a question. I assume that prior to having a greater familiarity with various earlier poets and novelists I too might have found the book "boring".


I know that Moby Dick is about more than a fishing expedition and hopefully one day, I will be in a place where I can fully appreciate its greatness. We all view things through our own lenses and we bring our own experiences into our understanding of a novel or poem or piece of art.

[ellen c]

I agree with you in regards to Finnegan"s Wake altho I must confess I gave up very quickly.
I spent a lot of time in Ireland in my youth and am part Irish/Welsh from a poor family so I was able to empathize with the stories in Dubliners

It took me a while to get into Ulysses and as a feminist I objected to his portrayal of women. Anyway, his wife said he knew nothing about women!

[ellen c]

I loved Moby Dick and I think Melville one of the greatest American writers
there is something spiritual about him and I have always wanted to go to his
(and Hawthorne"s) part of U.S.A
I am also a great fan of Conrad - his Heart of Darkness could have been written today with all the poverty and exploitation of the natives - he had a great command of the English language and was also a spiritual writer.

[Vedrana]

I don't thinbk anyone considers him a serious writer.

I'd have to agree with you. lol. In that case, a "serious" book I really thought was overrated (but knew I would be persecuted over if I mentioned) was 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. There, I've said it. You can all shoot me now.

[Mark F.]

I am also a great fan of Conrad - his Heart of Darkness could have been written today with all the poverty and exploitation of the natives - he had a great command of the English language and was also a spiritual writer.

Yes, it's called Apocalypse Now. Watch it, I think it's even better than the novel.

[ellen c]

what happened to tolerance - Joyce like many human beings had an addiction - he was not a very nice man and would certainly not qualify as anybody"s role model but he was a product of his times and environment and he did work very hard at being a writer.

[ellen c]

she had many advantages (material and social) over someone like Joyce and NO, I have never liked her - did she really say that about people - there are times when I feel like that too!

[Pendragon]

Pentragon,

What can i say? You find Herman Melville boring. It is your opinion. I love him, especially Mobby Dick so i thought that it was a joke. I guess it is a matter of opinions here.

By the way, who is your favorite author? Or your favorite novel?

EviTwain The Innocents Abroad which I was fortunate enough to read in the original unedited version. :) And yes, it is my opinion. Some have ripped into Tolkien, a favorite for me, but I allow their opinion without cross examination. And the name is Pendragon, as in King Arthur Pendragon. ;)

Add to the list of bad authors one that is local, that is his writing cabin, Ripshin, is just across the mountain, less than a mile from where my dad-in-law grew up, and he is buried in the graveyard where many of my family lie: Sherwood Anderson. I just cannot read his books. :p

[Pendragon]

[COLOR="Teal"]
I might question whether those who found Moby Dick to be hard going found the "archaic" language a challenge... Just a question. I assume that prior to having a greater familiarity with various earlier poets and novelists I too might have found the book "boring".No, it's not the language at all. I am a fan of Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley On Iverything and Iverbody, written in heavy Irish brogue, loved Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped, which has a lot of Scottish Brogue, my first King Arthur book was by Sidney Lainer, and written in old English, I read British Literature ancient and modern and have to keep up on the differences in terms and meanings. Peter Tremane is a favorite author, his Sister Fidelma series is set in Ireland in the late 660's. I also like Brian Jacques' Redwall series, where if there is a dialect of the English language spoken in the UK that he doesn't use, I would hate to hear it. No problem with language, the book is boring

[Bastet]

I'm with Pendragon on this one. I too found Moby Dick to be boring, and it wasn't a linguistic problem either. Sometimes in the past I found myself trying to read the book again, trying to find the beauty most people have found in it, forcing myself to like it, but there came a point when I thought: "why should I?". Thankfully, there're as many different types of books as different people to read them, so it's ok not to like something that everyone else seems to like. Now I see that I'm not the only one ;)

[Behemoth]

I'm afraid it's going to have to be Joyce, again, not that i'm going to sit here and bash him - I really enjoyed parts of Ulysses but at times I felt that the level of detail, and the sheer number of words was just totally unnecessary. It's a very challenging book and I felt alienated from it for much of the time. Won't be reading any of his others... :sick:

[Evi]

Dear Pendragon ( have i written it correctly this time?)

Sorry if i spelled uncorrectly your username ( or nick name or what ever here) I use as a username my own name( can you imagine that?) I didnt even bother creating a false name for me.
Anyway, as we said, it is a matter of opinions. And maybe this is the magic of literature generally : that sometimes a book can drive us away and we can dream. It is very logical that each of us can be driven away with other book.
Evi

[Pendragon]

Dear Pendragon ( have i written it correctly this time?)

Sorry if i spelled uncorrectly your username ( or nick name or what ever here) I use as a username my own name( can you imagine that?) I didnt even bother creating a false name for me.
Anyway, as we said, it is a matter of opinions. And maybe this is the magic of literature generally : that sometimes a book can drive us away and we can dream. It is very logical that each of us can be driven away with other book.
Evi Quite all right, Evi, I have used pseudonyms for writing purposes so long that they become part of me. My real name is Dale, nice to meet you. :)

Yes, opinions differ, and that is a good thing. Can you imagine how boring literature would be if everyone liked the same old thing? Anyone could write and the world would have no good authors to compete against each other and write gems for us to compare and discuss. We would know the plot and formula by heart, and it would be "Rerun, rerun, rerun." Fortunately, we all like different things and different authors, so the magic remains! :)

[Evi]

Nice to meet you Dale!


Evi

[Stewart]

Ach, I'll put the following in chains and toss them all into Room 101: Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, JRR Tolkien, and, based on the rambling nonsense that was Lisey's Story, Stephen King.

[Pendragon]

Toss Charles Dickens and The Bronte sisters after them. and good riddence! But I'll toss Tolkien a safty rope. He could write very well! ;)

[Stewart]

Tolkien: He could write very well! ;)
I would go so far as to say he could imagine very well. As for writing, well no. His prose, when he's not got everyone singing fricking pixie songs, is average at best. His legacy is the notion of fantasy worlds, not his writing.

[SleepyWitch]

well, maybe Tolkiens prose is average at best when you compare it to classics but it's certainly above average compared to other fantasy books.
(which doesn't mean that I agree with you :) )

[Pendragon]

I would go so far as to say he could imagine very well. As for writing, well no. His prose, when he's not got everyone singing fricking pixie songs, is average at best. His legacy is the notion of fantasy worlds, not his writing.
Well, without imagination there is no prose, poetry or fiction of any kind. And it isn't all that easy to write what you term "fricking pixie songs", or any other type of poetry. I have yet to see a vote against Lewis Carroll, and all of his work is full of what appear to be pure nonsense rhymes, but are cleverly constucted poems. I think what Evi and I said is right. Everyone has a different opinion and that is why we have such a great choice of authors and books! :D

[SleepyWitch]

I think what Evi and I said is right. Everyone has a different opinion and that is why we have such a great choice of authors and books!
count me in :)
I've still got a question, though (not because I want to argue with you, just out of curiousity): What is it you don't like about Dickens, Pen?
I've only read "Great Expectations" so far and liked it a lot because it was easy to read for a classic and the story was interesting too.
On the other hand, I tried to read "A Tale of Two Cities" once and just couldn't get into it. Which of his books have you read?

[Pendragon]

count me in :)
I've still got a question, though (not because I want to argue with you, just out of curiousity): What is it you don't like about Dickens, Pen?
I've only read "Great Expectations" so far and liked it a lot because it was easy to read for a classic and the story was interesting too.
On the other hand, I tried to read "A Tale of Two Cities" once and just couldn't get into it. Which of his books have you read?Well, I have read Great Expectations (The greatest expectation I had was that the book would mercifully end!), David Copperfield (It could have used a lot of magic, if the great illusionist David Copperfield had been around.) Oliver Twist (I did like The Artful Dodger!), A Tale of Two Cities, (Correction, Mr. Dickens, "It was just the worst of times."), A Christmas Carol (Best of his works, but so over used you grow tired of it!),Little Dorrit and The Old Couristy Shop. (Good-bye, Little Dorrit!) He cannot keep ones attention for any length of time.
:(

[Pendragon]

Actually I have all of Dickens' short stories, I cannot read most of them whithout wondering what was the point he was trying to make? Some are fair, but you get down on an author and all his works become suspect. It isn't logical nor fair, but I am afraid it is all too human. :nod:

[cuppajoe_9]

...A Tale of Two Cities, (Correction, Mr. Dickens, "It was just the worst of times.")...Oh, I am so not letting you get away with that. Two Cities is one of the greatest novels I have ever read.

Hard Times isn't too bad either, but considering your antipathy to the rest of Dickens' work, I won't recomend it to you.

[overmydeadbody]

Im not a great fan of victorian literature myself, but id recognise dickens as a good author just for Great Expectations (the onlt dickens ive read.) Now if you want a REALLLLY bad author who takes himself too seriously i have only two words. Stephen King. Anyone read Liseys's story yet?

[Pendragon]

Oh, I am so not letting you get away with that. Two Cities is one of the greatest novels I have ever read.

Hard Times isn't too bad either, but considering your antipathy to the rest of Dickens' work, I won't recomend it to you. Hey, Joe, mon ami, I'm not trying to get away with anything. In all fairness, the only part of A Tale of Two Cities that I find to be facinating is the opening paragraph. It isn't the worst book I have ever read, I just don't like it. Have a good time and I wish you a copy of the book signed by the author himself! :)
You probably wouldn't like a lot of the things I read either, I'm a heavy pulp-fiction fan, vintage 30's, 40's, and into the 50's from the old magazines. Some of the great authors started there, Edgar Rice Burroughs and H. P. Lovecraft are two, along with Dashiell Hammett and L. Ron Hubbard. :)

[cuppajoe_9]

You probably wouldn't like a lot of the things I read either, I'm a heavy pulp-fiction fan, vintage 30's, 40's, and into the 50's from the old magazines. Some of the great authors started there, Edgar Rice Burroughs and H. P. Lovecraft are two, along with Dashiell Hammett and L. Ron Hubbard. :)All non-essential reading is on hold for me until I slog through this semester, but I'll definitely need something pulpy over Christmas. I'll keep those boys in mind, thanks. (Except for L. Ron Hubbard. I'm not going to buy one of his books on the off chance that the royalties find their way back to his pocket. Besides, taking him seriously seems to have unfortunate side-effects, including jumping on couches and making a fool of yourself.)

[ennison]

Milton 'Cromwellian' therefore bad?? That's like saying Roosevelt New Deal therefore bad. A mistake surely.

[Pendragon]

(Except for L. Ron Hubbard. I'm not going to buy one of his books on the off chance that the royalties find their way back to his pocket. Besides, taking him seriously seems to have unfortunate side-effects, including jumping on couches and making a fool of yourself.)

Hee That about sums up my own opinion of Hubbard, but his old stories were pretty good before he decided they were some sort of religious experience. Hugh B. Cave wrote some awsome stories for the pulps, as did Robert E Howard (Conan, Red Sonja, Kull, Skull Face, Solomon Kane, boxing stories, westerns, Lovecraft Mystos, all from a man who sold his first story at age 15 and commited suicide at age 30!), Walter Gibson, Lester Dent, Norvell Page, Curtis Steel and Robert Hogan. You might recognize Gibson better if I told you he wrote The Shadow Magazine; Lester Dent wrote Doc Savage; Norvell Page was main writer on The Spider, Curtis Steel wrote Operator 5 and Robert Hogan wrote G-8 and His Battle Aces.:D

[ennison]

Try James Thompson if you like pulp. I used to read him at sea.

[Pendragon]

Try James Thompson if you like pulp. I used to read him at sea.Thank you. I'll see if I can trace him down through my resourses. I'll probably find it somewhere. He wasn't the guy who wrote The Phantom Detective by any chance, was he? :)

[ennison]

Amongst literate seamen with time to read he was a freqently borrowed author amongst what I guess was a fairly substantial load of dross. An American of the hardest boiled school. Almost depressingly grim. Some of the books I seem to remember were 'A Hell of a Woman', 'The Grifters'. Perhaps now that I think about it he called himself Jim not James. He wrote screenplays too. Was one of them 'Paths of Glory' ? I don't know the novel you've mentioned there . I'd say he was similar to Cain. Easy to read. Fine grip of idiom. Totally ammoral.

[Pendragon]

Amongst literate seamen with time to read he was a freqently borrowed author amongst what I guess was a fairly substantial load of dross. An American of the hardest boiled school. Almost depressingly grim. Some of the books I seem to remember were 'A Hell of a Woman', 'The Grifters'. Perhaps now that I think about it he called himself Jim not James. He wrote screenplays too. Was one of them 'Paths of Glory' ? I don't know the novel you've mentioned there . I'd say he was similar to Cain. Easy to read. Fine grip of idiom. Totally ammoral.Got it. Hardboiled detective fiction. I'll find it. I'm a pulp nut, so it's bound to be on one website or another. Thanks again. You like hardboiled, try the Mike Hammer series by Micky Spillane. http://pages.interlog.com/~roco/hammer.html There's a link for you. :)

[Hippolite]

I've been trying to figure out the appeal of "A Tale of Two Cities" ever since I quit after 100 pages. I'm sure there's some reason why people like that book and if somebody could explain the attraction to me maybe I could develop an appreciation. I’m apprehensive, though.

[Niamh]

The question is basically is that out of literarydom, among authors who are "serious" and write famous works, who just isn't that good. It doesn't have to be overrated just as much as a general lack of quality. I nominate... James Joyce, who created a tome so awful that it should reflect on his quality as a writer.

I totally agree with you about James Joyce. I had to study his Dubliners in college it made me want to tear my hair out.

Also Dickens. I think he is completely overrated and his books are quite depressing. Dan Brown is another. He got too famous for a few books that could have been written by someone in high school. Also i have a grudge against them as i had to look at The Davinci Code sitting in the no.1 spot of the bestsellers charts in work for over a year.(Charts go by sales of books bought within Dublin Airport only. Guess what everyone buys.) it moved to number three at one point, then the movie came out...:flare: Its finally gone but has been replaced by someone even more annoying... Cecelia Ahern.:bawling:

[SnámhDáÉan]

Its finally gone but has been replaced by someone even more annoying... Cecelia Ahern.:bawling:

:crash: . . . :lol:

[Dorian Gray]

I kinda like Angela's Ashes. My first book about the Irish.

But it was poorly written. So I vote for McCourt too. Can't believe he won the Pulitzer prize with that. The story was charming, but the writing? Movie was a piece of crap by the way. So many scenes and characters were missing.

Though at least that book I enjoyed. I just finished reading If Beale Street Could Talk and I really disliked it. Yuck. Yuck. But that writer isn't famous enough to be on this list.

(Also can't believe some mention the Brontë sisters and Charles Dickens. I love their writing. I wish people still wrote novels like that with such beautiful language.)

[Niamh]

Personally i think Wurthering Heights is possibly the most annoying book ever written. I couldn't even finish it. there is still bookmark marking the last page i read, somewhere in the middle, and it's been there fore at least five years. If this was a poll for the worst book, it would be one of my votes.

[Dorian Gray]

It's Wuthering Heights without an r. ;) Why do you find it annoying? I am too busy to finish it (college), but I read the first chapter maybe and loved the descriptions and dialogue. And of course I've seen several adaptations. So I'm familiar with the story.

[Pensive]

Personally i think Wurthering Heights is possibly the most annoying book ever written. I couldn't even finish it. there is still bookmark marking the last page i read, somewhere in the middle, and it's been there fore at least five years. If this was a poll for the worst book, it would be one of my votes.
I know many people who hate Wuthering Heights because of the deaths that take place in the novel. They find the whole death thing really depressing, and no wonder, it is disturbing to some extent but calling such a good novel bad just due to this is totally wrong, in my opinion. Do you also have the same reason for disliking it?

Other than this I can not see a reason as characters are well-written, and most of all plot is strong, though I agree that it is one of the gloomiest books I have ever read, yet poignant.

[Madhuri]

I know many people who hate Wuthering Heights because of the deaths that take place in the novel. They find the whole death thing really depressing, and no wonder, it is disturbing to some extent but calling such a good novel bad just due to this is totally wrong, in my opinion. Do you also have the same reason for disliking it?

Other than this I can not see a reason as characters are well-written, and most of all plot is strong, though I agree that it is one of the gloomiest books I have ever read, yet poignant.

I also think it was well written. Those who did not like the depressing nature did not see it for what the novel was, it was not meant to be good or have a happy ending. I think people should not read it expecting all will be good, just take the novel for what it is.

It was surely not the glomiest for me, there is another one that I read -- Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry (that was a very depressing novel for me).

[Niamh]

i just did not like the book. It didn't grasp my attention, i wasn't injoying the story or the characters and i dont see what the hype about it is. I've no problem with death in books, so my dislike of the book has nothing to do with that. But this is just my opinion, and i know many people who both like, and dislike the book. I'm sure there are books that you might find annoying and dislike that i might like.

[Dorian Gray]

i just did not like the book. It didn't grasp my attention, i wasn't injoying the story or the characters and i dont see what the hype about it is. I've no problem with death in books, so my dislike of the book has nothing to do with that. But this is just my opinion, and i know many people who both like, and dislike the book. I'm sure there are books that you might find annoying and dislike that i might like.

What kind of books do you usually read?

[Niamh]

I read a lot of different types of books. I read Fantasy, true crime, fiction, non fiction, medieval plays like Everyman and Mankind.I read drama and poetry and classic literature. I'll start up a favourite/ least favourite Literary work thread.:)

[Dorian Gray]

So why do you dislike Emma, Middlemarch and Northanger Abbey? I really liked those stories. Seen (film) adaptations of them too. I think Pride and Prejudice is a lot like JA's other books so I don't know why you only enjoy some of her work. I think it's the same style though NA is a bit strange and sinister I suppose. I've always really liked Emma. Mr. Knightly. Yummy.

[ennison]

Wuthering Heights is amazingly good - no sound argument against it. Dickens tended to get carried away by the exuberance of his own verbosity and was inclined to create cardboard characters but what an imagination. He's definitely a great English writer! And he is funny too.

[ennison]

Is that Flann's mug Snamh?

[ennison]

Cheeky? Ah'll gie yus all cheeky.

Dol sios an cladach maduinn dhomh, s an t-adhar ann gun deo
Bha sith feadh fuinn is mara ann, is taise bho na neoil
Cha chluinnte feadh a' chiuinis ach fann chiucharan aig eoin
Bha gach nichein tostach driuchdach anns a' chiuran cheoban cheo

Well tangentially it is a first (four) lines. So it just about belongs in this thread. It's by Deorsa Mac Iain Deorsa. Well stretching a point to say it belongs here. Guess I just got lost in translation!

[Capnplank]

Writers that had things to say but delivered it in a way I did not care for:

Theodore Dreiser
Jules Verne
Charles Dickens
F. Scott Fitzgerald
James Joyce


It seemed like Dreiser didn't even have anyone edit An American Tragedy. Most of the above are style conflicts though. They just write in a way that makes for an unenjoyable, stumbling presentation for me.

[alhara]

I have an unsuportable hatred for c.s. lewis its totllay irrational but i just couldn´t coupe with haveing the read the lion the witch and the wardrobe 5 times in school for 5 consecutive years.

[ennison]

Five years in Narnia. Sounds like a sentence of exile. Some school that! Had they lost the key to the cupboard? Actually I like Lewis. 'The Screwtape Letters' are very good.