Who wrote the best prose in the 20th century?

[WICKES]

In the English language I mean. My vote goes to Evelyn Waugh. Horrible man? He certainly was. Plenty of writers were more original and had greater insight/intellectual depth too, but I really cannot think of anyone else who wrote such perfect, exquisite prose. D H Lawrence wrote some magnificent passages, Scott Fitzgerald is up there and so is P G Wodehouse (people dismiss him as a lightweight comic writer- which he was- but he ALSO happened to write beautifully).

What do you think? I'm talking purely about prose style.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

I enjoy the novels of Waugh and Wodehouse, and they each have a unique style, but their English style is nowhere near the two masters of English language in the 20th century-Joyce and Nabokov, in that order. I think 'Ulysses' is the best written novel in English of the 20th century, but that Nabokov wrote several masterpieces in English (Ada, Pnin, Speak Memory, Lolita and Pale Fire) in different styles, each as beautiful as the other, though Joyce writes in (and parodies) several different styles in 'Ulysses'.

I have no time for D.H Lawrence, and I have only read 'The Great Gatsby', though there are better stylists than Fitzgerald.

[patrickbeverley]

I'd say Ernest Hemingway, but since I read Franny and Zooey I'm seriously beginning to think it may have been J. D. Salinger.

Actually, no, what am I thinking. Virginia Woolf.

[jgweed]

One might mention Maugham or, especially, Lawrence Durrell.

[johann cruyff]

Stylistically,I guess few can measure up with Nabokov. I've only read Ulysses and Dubliners in translation though,so I can't tell about Joyce. What I can safely say is that I hated the way The Great Gatsby was written,I just found it to be too...dry(can't think of a better word).

[PeterL]

I think that the question is much too broad to elicit useful answers. There are many writers who have had perfectly good styles, and, if one liked a given writer's style, etc., then that writer's prose would be best. I can't completely separate style from content, because the style of language is essential to conveying the tone of writing and can be used to in characterization. There are writers with pretty styles who didn't use the style to add to the content of the writing, so the style was wasted.

[mayneverhave]

Outside of English - Proust

In English, for me it's Faulkner, though Joyce is very good also (and Faulkner obviously owes a lot to him)

[Kafka's Crow]

James Joyce and Samuel Beckett, all the rest are pygmies compared to these two giants. Language melts and transforms in their hands. In Joyce's case it grows and becomes more expressive, on the opposite scale, in Beckett's hands it shrinks and empties itself of everything. There were never two great opposites like these, there was never such an outrageous retort to the so-called 'anxiety of influence.'

[NickAdams]

I think that the question is much too broad to elicit useful answers. There are many writers who have had perfectly good styles, and, if one liked a given writer's style, etc., then that writer's prose would be best. I can't completely separate style from content, because the style of language is essential to conveying the tone of writing and can be used to in characterization. There are writers with pretty styles who didn't use the style to add to the content of the writing, so the style was wasted.

One could say that Joyce's style was the content.


James Joyce and Samuel Beckett, all the rest are pygmies compared to these two giants. Language melts and transforms in their hands. In Joyce's case it grows and becomes more expressive, on the opposite scale, in Beckett's hands it shrinks and empties itself of everything. There were never two great opposites like these, there was never such an outrageous retort to the so-called 'anxiety of influence.'

Well put. This contrast can also be seen in William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Joyce packed the flesh of language and Beckett dangled its bones.

[The Atheist]

Too easy.

No prizes for guessing my vote.

:D

[NickAdams]

Too easy.

No prizes for guessing my vote.

:D

George Orwell.

[blackbird_9]

Hemingway, Joyce, and Fitzgerald. My FAVORITE literary era <3

[kelby_lake]

Nabokov, Fitzgerald...pretty much anyone who I can argue has a style can go on...Kafka...

[PeterL]

One could say that Joyce's style was the content.


True, one could.

[NickAdams]

Nabokov, Fitzgerald...pretty much anyone who I can argue has a style can go on...Kafka...

I've read that Kafka has much more of a style in German; there is more of an impact with the verbs ending the sentence.

[John Goodman]

Nabokov and Fitzgerald, with Cormac McCarthy being a less mentioned but very beautiful writer.

[Mark F.]

Hemingway, Salinger, Faulkner, Beckett, Kafka, Camus, Bukowski's dialogue, some of Hunter S. Thompson's narratives, Ellroy's style in some of his later works, Cormac McCarthy (Suttree), Fitzgerald.

[Big Al]

Cormac McCarthy.

[mortalterror]

1.Hemingway
2.Faulkner (sometimes)
3.Fitzgerald
4.Nabokov
5.Kerouac (But only in On the Road)
6.Woolf

I don't think it's the style that makes Salinger so memorable, and as much as I love Thompson he's much too hit or miss. Still, there are so many other characteristics to judge an author by. Steinbeck's style is dog meat but look at what beautiful books he's written. If we were to expand this census to French, then Proust obviously deserves a mention; so too does Marquez if we expand it to Spanish as well.

I think it's important to point out that most of the people on this list were born around 1900 and are representative of a distinct literary era that emphasized style over many other important literary aspects. I think the reason that most people pull a blank when thinking about more contemporary authors is because the criterion we judge them by, or the criterion they judge their own work by, has changed.

[Big Al]

Perhaps I'm simply a philistine, but I cannot stand Nabokov's writing style. Lolita was a grueling chore.

[toni]

I am torn between Franz Kafka and D.H Lawrence, but I''l just go for Kafka.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

There are writers with pretty styles who didn't use the style to add to the content of the writing, so the style was wasted.


This, of course, opens up a wide-range of new questions, such as "What is content?", and, as somebody has already pointed out, sometimes a writer's style can be the content. Nabokov is a perfect example of this, though he has his roots in Russsian symbolism (Bely, Blok) rather than Joyce, the other main exponent of 'style is content'. Quite often writers who value content over style do not have a great (or original) style.


Perhaps I'm simply a philistine, but I cannot stand Nabokov's writing style. Lolita was a grueling chore.

Yes, well, you said it. :p (It is not as much of a chore as 'The Brothers Karamazov though.)

[WICKES]

Anthony Burgess did some great things with language. A Clockwork Orange (which owes a big debt to Joyce- someone Burgess studied and admired) is startlingly hypnotic. When bits of the book are quoted in the film they are dazzling- partcularly with Mc Dowell's English accent.

When it comes to non fiction, Aldous Huxley's essays (i.e The Doors Of Perception) achieve near perfect prose. In fact, before Huxley became more concerned with ideas than plot and language, his novels were exquisitely written. Like Evelyn Waugh's novels they had a sort of upper class elegance and shine. D H Lawrence's travel writings contain fine writing. The English/ British travel writer Norman Lewis wrote superbly as well (Graham Greene called him one of the greatest prose stylists of the 20th century). C S Lewis wrote excellent literary criticism and deserves a mention.

What about Virginia Woolf? How is her prose rated? I know she is considered one of the 'Modernists', but what about her prose style? Is it any good?

Joseph Conrad and Henry James haven't been mentioned either.

[patrickbeverley]

James Joyce and Samuel Beckett, all the rest are pygmies compared to these two giants.
Why write a sentence as pompous as this? Really, what is the point?


What about Virginia Woolf? How is her prose rated? I know she is considered one of the 'Modernists', but what about her prose style? Is it any good?
It's wonderful.

[raider60]

I think this boils down to personal taste, and although I've been an avid reader for over forty years tomorrow I could pick up a book and find, to me, that author writes the best prose--

[NickAdams]

Anthony Burgess did some great things with language. A Clockwork Orange (which owes a big debt to Joyce- someone Burgess studied and admired) is startlingly hypnotic. When bits of the book are quoted in the film they are dazzling- partcularly with Mc Dowell's English accent.

I would have no interest in A Clockwork Orange, if it was written any other way.

[PeterL]

This, of course, opens up a wide-range of new questions, such as "What is content?", and, as somebody has already pointed out, sometimes a writer's style can be the content. Nabokov is a perfect example of this, though he has his roots in Russsian symbolism (Bely, Blok) rather than Joyce, the other main exponent of 'style is content'. Quite often writers who value content over style do not have a great (or original) style.


I agree, and that I why I question the value of this thread. Some who have excellent style don't have much content, and the real masters of style use it to convey additional content, like Lovecraft and Nabokov.

[PeterL]

I think this boils down to personal taste, and although I've been an avid reader for over forty years tomorrow I could pick up a book and find, to me, that author writes the best prose--

I agree.

[mortalterror]

It's not a matter of personal taste, and I'll tell you why. The same eight to ten names keep coming up over and over again with regularity. If it were a matter of personal taste then you could expect that the sample would be larger after the number of opinions we've registered. Which one of the ten is absolutely the best is still up for debate but we've effectively reached a general consensus.

There were many more great writers in the twentieth century, English and otherwise, than this handful of names. However, we do not consider their merits to be as great in the area of original prose style as the names already mentioned. Other novelists, playwrights, short story writers, and essayists have left their mark in other ways. Either by their content, their dialogue, or the strength of their ideas, they are noteworthy. If the question could be answered as randomly as you imply then their names would surely receive numerous accolades here as well. The list is conspicuous by their absence and points toward a quorem.

[kelby_lake]

Basically, how I work it is: 'Would I still like this book if it was exactly the same story but written by someone else?'

Are we adding playwrights in?

[Big Al]

It's not a matter of personal taste, and I'll tell you why. The same eight to ten names keep coming up over and over again with regularity. If it were a matter of personal taste then you could expect that the sample would be larger after the number of opinions we've registered. Which one of the ten is absolutely the best is still up for debate but we've effectively reached a general consensus.

There were many more great writers in the twentieth century, English and otherwise, than this handful of names. However, we do not consider their merits to be as great in the area of original prose style as the names already mentioned. Other novelists, playwrights, short story writers, and essayists have left their mark in other ways. Either by their content, their dialogue, or the strength of their ideas, they are noteworthy. If the question could be answered as randomly as you imply then their names would surely receive numerous accolades here as well. The list is conspicuous by their absence and points toward a quorem.

It's not a matter of personal taste because many people name the same authors? That simply indicates that many people on this board have similar taste, and also probably that they read the same books. Also note that many of the posts here criticize many of the authors frequently mentioned.

Either way, I don't understand how a "general consensus" somehow transcends personal taste.

[NickAdams]

Basically, how I work it is: 'Would I still like this book if it was exactly the same story but written by someone else?'

The comic/content writer is less likely to withstand your test than the humorous/style writer.

Works of content are not as reusable as works of style. Style can be quoted, but can content? Who is the most quoted 20th century writer?

From Mark Twain's essay How to Tell a Story:

"The humorous story is told gravely; the teller does his best to conceal the fact that he even dimly suspects that there is anything funny about it; but the teller of the comic story tells you beforehand that it is one of the funniest things he has ever heard, then tells it with eager delight, and is the first person to laugh when he gets through. And sometimes, if he has had good success, he is so glad and happy that he will repeat the "nub" of it and glance around from face to face, collecting applause, and then repeat it again. It is a pathetic thing to see."

[Kafka's Crow]

Why write a sentence as pompous as this? Really, what is the point?


People who know what I am on about have already agreed, the rest don't matter (beat that!)

Honestly, some downright pygmies are mentioned in this thread. I thought we would easily agree on Beckett, Joyce and Nabokov. Virginia Woolf, bah! Fitzgerald! Faulkner, Waugh, Priestly? Was there ever a 20th century writer who was not the greatest of them all? What next, Dan Brown? How can anybody beat 'Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed'. Pompous my a**

[PeterL]

It's not a matter of personal taste, and I'll tell you why. The same eight to ten names keep coming up over and over again with regularity. If it were a matter of personal taste then you could expect that the sample would be larger after the number of opinions we've registered. Which one of the ten is absolutely the best is still up for debate but we've effectively reached a general consensus.

There were many more great writers in the twentieth century, English and otherwise, than this handful of names. However, we do not consider their merits to be as great in the area of original prose style as the names already mentioned. Other novelists, playwrights, short story writers, and essayists have left their mark in other ways. Either by their content, their dialogue, or the strength of their ideas, they are noteworthy. If the question could be answered as randomly as you imply then their names would surely receive numerous accolades here as well. The list is conspicuous by their absence and points toward a quorem.

Those two paragraphs say, when boiled down to naked meaning: It's a matter of several people having the same personal tastes, but we prefer to call those tastes something else.

I understand that reasoning. When someone agrees with me, that person is right; that's how most people operate.

[NickAdams]

People who know what I am on about have already agreed, the rest don't matter (beat that!)

Honestly, some downright pygmies are mentioned in this thread. I thought we would easily agree on Beckett, Joyce and Nabokov. Virginia Woolf, bah! Fitzgerald! Faulkner, Waugh, Priestly? Was there ever a 20th century writer who was not the greatest of them all? What next, Dan Brown? How can anybody beat 'Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed'. Pompous my a**

:lol:

I would have disagreed with you about Faulkner, but I have read both Beckett and Joyce. Faulkner would not be effective if he tackled the stories Beckett and Joyce did. Faulkner was gifted, but Beckett and Joyce got more out of the english language (Joyce so much so that he had to reach outside of it in FW). We understand Faulkner by examining the story, which is communicated with prose, but we examine Beckett and Joyce by their prose. If the unexamined life is not worth living, is the unexamined prose worth readning?

I do disagree with the accusation that Kafka's statement was pompous. It seemed less self-important and more Beckett-Joyce-important. When we judge who wrote the best prose we agree that there is a hierarchy and pygmy seems to be a lower and humorous notch on the rating meter.

[The Atheist]

It's not a matter of personal taste, and I'll tell you why. The same eight to ten names keep coming up over and over again with regularity. If it were a matter of personal taste then you could expect that the sample would be larger after the number of opinions we've registered. Which one of the ten is absolutely the best is still up for debate but we've effectively reached a general consensus.

And the consensus is always right.

Gotcha.

[mortalterror]

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that when many people hold an opinion in common by definition it ceases to be a personal opinion. It is not the opinion of one person alone but several, from disparate walks of life and varied backgrounds. As our sample grows, certain trends can be interpreted, variations are moderated and human truth is discovered. Absolute perfect truth is impossible, even for scientists but to deny trends and the overlap of human experience is just plain ignorant.

[Big Al]

It doesn't cease to be a personal opinion because no two people look at something in exactly the same way. In the context of this thread, some people might mention James Joyce because specific technical qualities, style, use of language or emotional impact are appealing to them, but no two people will like James Joyce's work for exactly the same reasons.

Besides that, I'm also disturbed by the notion that truth arises from a consensus of opinion, because it greatly devalues the arguments of the dissenters; the fact that there are fewer of them makes no reflection on the strength of their arguments. Belief in God is a good example; most people do believe in some sort of higher power -- does that mean it's true? I would beg to differ on that point.

[stlukesguild]

So... there are no absolutes... and thus there is no way to possibly suggest that one artist is greater than another... for after all its all subjective... relative... personal opinion. Thinking but makes it so? Have I got that right? Thus Dan Brown is as great a prose stylist as Shakespeare if I believe it to be so? Absolute nonsense. The value of art and art works is established by a consensus of opinion... of those who have put forth an effort into the study, understanding, comparison, and appreciation of said art form. This includes the historians, critics, art collectors, teachers, artists/writers, and serious art lovers. Of course... I can hear it now... charges of "elitism" with these so-called-experts. Of course... all art IS ELITIST in nature... it involves or invokes a challenge to the work of predecessors and followers. It also might be pointed out that the "elitism" of the art experts is an elective affinity: some are willing to put for more effort than others. Does this mean the "experts" always agree? Certainly not... of course there are general consensuses: To declare that Shakespeare was a bad writer, or Mozart was a bad composer, or Michelangelo a poor artist generally would be looked at as proof of the questionability of the speaker's judgment... not taken seriously for consideration. The closer in time a work is to us, the more disagreement there is likely to be... as the work has not been fully absorbed by the culture and subsequent artists... nor given a less passionate comparison with the achievements of others. Yes, experts disagree... this does not mean that I'm going to take a public poll the next time I become ill and ignore the opinions of those snooty experts, the doctors. Joyce and Beckett the greatest prose writers of the 20th century? Certainly difficult to refute. Most of the other possibilities are seriously indebted to one or the other: Nabokov, Faulkner, Woolf, McCarthy. Proust may be the sole challenge to Joyce's centrality. If I were to think to put ant other writer forth, I'd certainly feel that perhaps I should give some form of proof or reasons for challenging what certainly seems to be a consensus in the literary world... and not merely argue that there can be no "best" because its all relative.

[Big Al]

So... there are no absolutes... and thus there is no way to possibly suggest that one artist is greater than another... for after all its all subjective... relative... personal opinion. Thinking but makes it so? Have I got that right?

Correct.


Thus Dan Brown is as great a prose stylist as Shakespeare if I believe it to be so?

Why not? It all depends on your conception of "great," and what qualities you value in a writer.


The value of art and art works is established by a consensus of opinion...

The value of a work of art is completely in the eye of the one beholding the art. The judging of art is not a democratic process -- it is an intensely personal experience. If I dislike a painting or a musical composition, why should it make any difference to me what anybody else thinks?


of those who have put forth an effort into the study, understanding, comparison, and appreciation of said art form. This includes the historians, critics, art collectors, teachers, artists/writers, and serious art lovers. Of course... I can hear it now... charges of "elitism" with these so-called-experts. Of course... all art IS ELITIST in nature... it involves or invokes a challenge to the work of predecessors and followers.

I'm reminded of a quote by the great filmmaker Werner Herzog: "Film is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates." Such is the case, I believe, with every artistic field. I find your definition of art as something objective, something that belongs to the elite and can be judged with a scientific precision, to be baffling. To me, the greatest of art lies in its ability to invoke powerful emotions and express truths of human existence; I believe that art is first and foremost a visceral experience, and so anybody with human emotions and experiences is perfectly capable to judge art, whether or not they study its history or collect it (besides, collecting art usually requires a great deal of money, and I certainly don't think that is any kind of criteria by which to judge the level of one's appreciation). For example: I am a huge fan of cinema, and I have watched a wide range of films from every decade. However, I don't read scholarly articles on film, nor do I study its history -- I experience cinema simply by watching it. Does my opinion count less than somebody who has taken film classes?


It also might be pointed out that the "elitism" of the art experts is an elective affinity: some are willing to put for more effort than others. Does this mean the "experts" always agree? Certainly not... of course there are general consensuses: To declare that Shakespeare was a bad writer, or Mozart was a bad composer, or Michelangelo a poor artist generally would be looked at as proof of the questionability of the speaker's judgment...not taken seriously for consideration.

By you, perhaps, but not me. You seem to be asserting that a person who does not like an artist's work should not be taken seriously because the consensus of "experts" (who are susceptible to the biases of the "experts" who teach them, and so on) disagrees. I find that somewhat appalling, actually -- the elite will not tolerate dissent from the un-learned commoners, eh?


The closer in time a work is to us, the more disagreement there is likely to be... as the work has not been fully absorbed by the culture and subsequent artists... nor given a less passionate comparison with the achievements of others. Yes, experts disagree... this does not mean that I'm going to take a public poll the next time I become ill and ignore the opinions of those snooty experts, the doctors.

Most of us don't consider art a science any more than we consider medical diagnosis and treatment an art form. That's a pretty bad analogy.


Joyce and Beckett the greatest prose writers of the 20th century? Certainly difficult to refute.

It's also completely arbitrary and unnecessary to "refute."


Most of the other possibilities are seriously indebted to one or the other: Nabokov, Faulkner, Woolf, McCarthy. Proust may be the sole challenge to Joyce's centrality. If I were to think to put ant other writer forth, I'd certainly feel that perhaps I should give some form of proof or reasons for challenging what certainly seems to be a consensus in the literary world... and not merely argue that there can be no "best" because its all relative.

No, I suppose a better alternative would be to declare one artist to be the best because many educated people disagree with you. That seems like a much better idea. And for the record, I don't think that "proof" has any place in the world of art. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

I love healthy, intellectually stimulating debate as much as the next guy, and I have passionate convictions, as do most individuals. But what you're proposing is something else entirely. Of course, I haven't taken any classes on literature, nor have I studied its history in any great detail -- I'm just a guy who likes to read, so I'm probably not qualified to voice my opinion or argue with the more educated members here.

[Jozanny]

Joyce and Beckett the greatest prose writers of the 20th century? Certainly difficult to refute. Most of the other possibilities are seriously indebted to one or the other: Nabokov, Faulkner, Woolf, McCarthy. Proust may be the sole challenge to Joyce's centrality. If I were to think to put ant other writer forth, I'd certainly feel that perhaps I should give some form of proof or reasons for challenging what certainly seems to be a consensus in the literary world... and not merely argue that there can be no "best" because its all relative.

I side with luke on this by siding in another way: There is a reason for the literary canon. It changes and will continue to, but slowly, but there is a reason for it, and that is, the authors on it have changed literature, influenced language and perception in ways that altered the world. I find it more interesting to study them and learn what they did and how they did it rather than fight over *the best* or *the greatest*. Threads like this generally do fall into the trap of subjective taste, and it bores me. I am not partial to Joyce, for instance, but that doesn't mean I do not recognize that he put Ireland on the world map, and that he and Proust basically divide Modernism between them. This isn't learned overnight.

[Big Al]

I side with luke on this by siding in another way: There is a reason for the literary canon. It changes and will continue to, but slowly, but there is a reason for it, and that is, the authors on it have changed literature, influenced language and perception in ways that altered the world. I find it more interesting to study them and learn what they did and how they did it rather than fight over *the best* or *the greatest*. Threads like this generally do fall into the trap of subjective taste, and it bores me.

These are essentially my feelings, although I find threads like this interesting because of subjective taste, and I lose interest when people make posts asserting that there is actually some right answer to the question (especially if they mention Beckett; I'm forced to ask, "Why?). But I completely share your sentiment that "it more interesting to study them and learn what they did and how they did it rather than fight over *the best* or *the greatest*."

[Jozanny]

These are essentially my feelings, although I find threads like this interesting because of subjective taste, and I lose interest when people make posts asserting that there is actually some right answer to the question (especially if they mention Beckett; I'm forced to ask, "Why?). But I completely share your sentiment that "it more interesting to study them and learn what they did and how they did it rather than fight over *the best* or *the greatest*."

But what troubles me is just exactly how kids are being taught to think these days. The OP stated he thought Waugh was the best 20th century prose stylist, but then immediately asked who was the best, and here we are, clubs in hand:sick: . With a different frame of reference, we might have had something like *I believe Waugh reinvigorated comedy of manners in the English tradition because of...*
reason a
reason b

Is it that hard, even informally, to learn how to make a thesis statement and back it up with valid points? Superlatives should be treated with caution, but they run amok in lit net. Even I caught the hang of it and asked about the best coffee in general chat. It is okay to have fun with it, but it also is not wrong to learn there are stronger and weaker ways to frame an argument, and one stronger way is to create a specific topic.

[Virgil]

Well this is a fiesty thread for such a non-controversial topic. :lol: Shall I throw in my two cents? ok, why not. Of course I fully acknowledge this is based on my subjective opinion and certainly I have not read everything or everyone.

My list would include Joyce, Hemingway, Waugh, Orwell, Kipling, Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, E.M. Forster, Virginia Woolf. But the very best for me is actually D.H. Lawrence. He has his flaws, actually all of them do, but I can't help feel he wrote the most fluid, rhythmic prose that really at his best reached the level of poetry. No surprise, he was a poet too.

Let me put in a plug also for Cormac McCarthy. He's got a regional twang, but he too really reaches for me when he's on. Let me note for those who are currently reading The Road that this novel is bare of his fine prose, reflecting the bare scenes of the story.

[Big Al]

I don't think he's been getting quite the same treatment as perhaps Joyce or Fitzgerald because he's a more modern writer, but I think that both on a stylistic and an ideological level Cormac McCarthy is as great as any of the others. Blood Meridian has some of the most intensely detailed and breathtaking passages that I have ever read.


But what troubles me is just exactly how kids are being taught to think these days. The OP stated he thought Waugh was the best 20th century prose stylist, but then immediately asked who was the best, and here we are, clubs in hand:sick: . With a different frame of reference, we might have had something like *I believe Waugh reinvigorated comedy of manners in the English tradition because of...*
reason a
reason b

Is it that hard, even informally, to learn how to make a thesis statement and back it up with valid points? Superlatives should be treated with caution, but they run amok in lit net. Even I caught the hang of it and asked about the best coffee in general chat. It is okay to have fun with it, but it also is not wrong to learn there are stronger and weaker ways to frame an argument, and one stronger way is to create a specific topic.

Well I think it depends on the reason behind the topic. If the OP -- perhaps out of curiosity, perhaps for recommendations -- simply wanted to see who the members of this board considered the greatest, then is any further detail truly necessary?

[kelby_lake]

There are quite a lot who I think are good- Cocteau...

[Stanza551]

Hat in hand I read those great writers but I've never found nothing so magic as:

Robert Walser (He is almost forgotten and mistreated because His prose is dynamite, you risk to see beyond normality
Joseph Conrad
Jorge Luis Borges
Lytton Strachey
Mario Praz (sse his forma mentis is unique)
Raymond Queneau
Nabokov
Joyce is so crunchy, an odd experiment)
Unamuno
Nietzsche, is unbelievable.

Check them out ;)

[Desolation]

I heartily endorse the bid for James Joyce & Samuel Beckett

I'd add, as personal favorites:
Thomas Pynchon
Vladimir Nabokov
William Faulkner
Gertrude Stein

[Chris 73]

Adding a few different names for varieties sake, not claiming they're as good as some of the giants already mentioned but worth recommending. I'd add that I'm a genre fan who enjoys the odd bit of general or classic literature.
Harold Pinter, Angela Carter, Gene Wolfe, Ray Bradbury (For Something Wicked This Way Comes, some of his other work could be a bit ropey) Daniel Woodrell,Ursula K Le Guin and I've just read Hilary Mantell for the first time and was rather impressed.

For those previously mentioned in the thread Hemingway is the one writer I'd most like to try more of.

[grechzoo]

I heartily endorse the bid for James Joyce & Samuel Beckett

I'd add, as personal favorites:
Thomas Pynchon
Vladimir Nabokov
William Faulkner
Gertrude Stein

you sir, must be my intellectual twin.

my favourites list lines up with yours exactly minus mr stein who will be added to my to-read pile as soon as I click "post". Pynchon has only just recently blown me away, and I haven't even got close to reading his 3 big masterworks.


Can you do me a favour and help me add further names to my to-read pile? i.e. your other general favourite authors. (doesn't have to be prose based.)

[CauseAndEffect]

20th century writers that've especially knocked me out include David Foster Wallace (especially his essays), Ellen Gilchrist, John Cheever, J.D. Salinger, and Flannery O'Connor.


People who know what I am on about have already agreed, the rest don't matter (beat that!)

Honestly, some downright pygmies are mentioned in this thread. I thought we would easily agree on Beckett, Joyce and Nabokov. Virginia Woolf, bah! Fitzgerald! Faulkner, Waugh, Priestly? Was there ever a 20th century writer who was not the greatest of them all? What next, Dan Brown? How can anybody beat 'Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed'. Pompous my a**

It's easy to identify as someone who likes books culturally perceived as "great." Surprise surprise, your top three are white males widely acknowledged as "difficult" and firmly seated near the top of the traditional canon. That they keep coming up might have more to do with the board's population than inherent greatness, especially since literary "value" changes over time and place.

[stlukesguild]

It's easy to identify as someone who likes books culturally perceived as "great." Surprise surprise, your top three are white males widely acknowledged as "difficult" and firmly seated near the top of the traditional canon.

It's also easy to identify someone having just completed their Sophomore studies in World Lit by the manner in which they ape the professors' politically correct rants about Dead White Males and such nonsense... and in response to a five-year-old post, no less. Why do we always get these new members who jump in guns a blazing?

That they keep coming up might have more to do with the board's population than inherent greatness, especially since literary "value" changes over time and place.

Actually there are probably more female members here than male, so I'm not certain about your argument. certainly the site is predominantly English-speaking and thus there is a bias toward English-language literature. Proust should undoubtedly make the list as should Calvino... but it all depends upon one's interpretation of what qualifies as the "best prose". I might add Borges, Mann, Hesse, Garcia-Marquez... and a number of others as marvelous writers of prose... but if I am thinking of writers whose prose is almost poetic in its memorable turns of phrase and innovations of language there are fewer choices from among those I've read... and I give no consideration to race, nationality, gender, sexual preference, or their favorite color in making these choices.

[miyako73]

The question is: what is "the best prose"?

Is it wordy like Nabokov's?

Is it easy to read like Amy Tan's?

Is it manic like Jack Kerouak's?

Is it different like Junot Diaz's?


It's easy to identify as someone who likes books culturally perceived as "great." Surprise surprise, your top three are white males widely acknowledged as "difficult" and firmly seated near the top of the traditional canon.

It's also easy to identify someone having just completed their Sophomore studies in World Lit by the manner in which they ape the professors' politically correct rants about Dead White Males and such nonsense... and in response to a five-year-old post, no less. Why do we always get these new members who jump in guns a blazing?


St. Luke, why do you always resort to ad hominem and slight someone not your friend? So what if s/he has not taken any literature class at all? Respond to his/her comments. Don't put him/her down with your "I'm up here" or "You're a dumb newbie" diatribe. The moderators of this site should really correct your condescending style and insulting way of responding to comments. Maybe a warning if it's impossible to reprimand a holy cow.

[stlukesguild]

St. Luke, why do you always resort to ad hominem and slight someone not your friend? So what if s/he has not taken any literature class at all? Respond to his/her comments. Don't put him/her down with your "I'm up here" or "You're a dumb newbie" diatribe. The moderators of this site should really correct your condescending style and insulting way of responding to comments. Maybe a warning if it's impossible to reprimand a holy cow.

It seems to me that making assumptions that another member's preferences for given authors (based on a 5-year-old post) is rooted in racism or sexism (or simply ignorantly going along with the crowd) because he didn't include a token woman or non-Westerner in his short list of 4 or 5 favorite writers of 20th century prose is perhaps not the best way to start off when first joining any group. "Arrogance" and "condescension"... and "holy cows"? I'll leave that to the moderators to discern who falls into that category.

[miyako73]

Just calling your attention and the moderators'. That's all. You're shooing people away from this forum. Newbies are here to learn about literature not to read your personal attacks and insults.

[CauseAndEffect]

[COLOR="#B22222"]...but if I am thinking of writers whose prose is almost poetic in its memorable turns of phrase and innovations of language there are fewer choices from among those I've read... and I give no consideration to race, nationality, gender, sexual preference, or their favorite color in making these choices.

Okay, so it was certainly unfair for me to jump on you for a 5-year-old post. I was annoyed, and I should've paid more attention. Still, if it'll contribute to the debate, I'll say something about why.

When you make claims like other than writer X and Y, nobody else was writing anything important, I can't help but think of the immense amount of literature you're dismissing. That you're basically just pulling from the "top" of the canon makes it worse; you can't tell me that there's not at least a hint of snobbery in that claim. I mean, fine, you're not into writers writing for entertainment. But an awful lot of literature that is transformative has been written beyond Beckett, Joyce, and Nabakov--writers like George Saunders, David Foster Wallace, Lydia Davis, Katherine Mansfield, Junot Diaz, Milan Kundera, Anton Chekhov, David Mitchell, Ellen Gilchrist, William Gaddis, Edwidge Danticat etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Certainly it's poor form for a new forum member to post particularly angry replies. I guess this strikes home for me; conversations about literature that begin and end with 3 writers--especially those 3--turn people away from reading.

[stlukesguild]

Okay, so it was certainly unfair for me to jump on you for a 5-year-old post. I was annoyed, and I should've paid more attention. Still, if it'll contribute to the debate, I'll say something about why.

When you make claims like other than writer X and Y, nobody else was writing anything important, I can't help but think of the immense amount of literature you're dismissing.

OK... now that introductions are out of the way, allow me to say that I have known Kafka's Crow long enough on this forum to know that he is an admirer of far more writers than the three he listed. Indeed, I would suggest that his post was largely tongue-in-cheek. The danger of jumping in guns-a-blazing is that you haven't had time to feel out the situation and discern when others are serious or not.

Personally, I'm somewhat wary of these games of "Who is the best...?" Especially in literature, where we are all so limited by accessibility of language. I prefer, "Who is your favorite...?" or better yet, discussions of what you like of dislike about a given writer... but like everybody else, I get caught up in the game.

That you're basically just pulling from the "top" of the canon makes it worse; you can't tell me that there's not at least a hint of snobbery in that claim.

I'll not speak for Kafka's Crow, but I'l admit a great many of my favorite writers are from the "top" of the "canon": Dante, Shakespeare, William Blake, Cervantes, Aeschylus, Baudelaire, Proust... Is this because I'm snobbish? To what end? The last time I thought that what I read would impress someone I was in high-school and naively imagined that lugging about War and Peace would impress the girls more than ability at throwing a football. I also love Thomas Traherene, Firdausi, Julio Cortazar, Eugenio Montale, Augusto Monterroso, Novalis, and Friederich Holderlin. Isn't there just as much of a snobbishness involved in proclaiming oneself an aficionado of this or that more obscure writer... making oneself out to be so much more knowledgeable than those who only know the writers from World Lit 101? Personally, I read for pleasure, so I read what I like. Unlike KC, I'm not a big Joycean... I prefer Kafka, Proust, Borges, and Calvino myself.

Certainly it's poor form for a new forum member to post particularly angry replies. I guess this strikes home for me; conversations about literature that begin and end with 3 writers--especially those 3--turn people away from reading.

Perhaps that's true. But it can be just as off-putting to be confronted by a huge sprawling list. Perhaps of more use is a discussion as to just why one values these 2 or 3 writers from a given era and genre over others. It doesn't mean we all will agree. But it can be enlightening.

:nod:

[Pierre Menard]

It's easy to identify as someone who likes books culturally perceived as "great." Surprise surprise, your top three are white males widely acknowledged as "difficult" and firmly seated near the top of the traditional canon. That they keep coming up might have more to do with the board's population than inherent greatness, especially since literary "value" changes over time and place.

There are no quotas in art. There does not need to be any recognition of 'minority writers' solely to appease some asinine notion of 'inclusion' just for the sake of it. Could it be that KC genuinely loves those writers and sees them as the best prose has to offer? Is it possible that they are actually deserving of immense praise? I mean, Beckett was hugely influential and did great things with language, Joyce was a king within modernism, Nabokov's skill and command of language is pretty undeniable.

The traditional canon is full of some of the greatest writing the world has ever seen. It's to be expected that a lot of people's favourites come from within, especially when they are still going strong with the test of time.

[ftil]

I'm reminded of a quote by the great filmmaker Werner Herzog: "Film is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates." Such is the case, I believe, with every artistic field. I find your definition of art as something objective, something that belongs to the elite and can be judged with a scientific precision, to be baffling. To me, the greatest of art lies in its ability to invoke powerful emotions and express truths of human existence; I believe that art is first and foremost a visceral experience, and so anybody with human emotions and experiences is perfectly capable to judge art, whether or not they study its history or collect it (besides, collecting art usually requires a great deal of money, and I certainly don't think that is any kind of criteria by which to judge the level of one's appreciation). For example: I am a huge fan of cinema, and I have watched a wide range of films from every decade. However, I don't read scholarly articles on film, nor do I study its history -- I experience cinema simply by watching it. Does my opinion count less than somebody who has taken film classes?

Beautifully said. It is power of art to evoke emotions that move us deeply. It is also a depth of human experience expressed in art that moves us. I can’t stand art whether it is literature, painting, or movie that is void of feelings as it reflects the inner emptiness of the artist. I agree that people with rich soul and feelings are fully capable of judging art. Those who don’t have it…….must depend upon others for their opinion.




You seem to be asserting that a person who does not like an artist's work should not be taken seriously because the consensus of "experts" (who are susceptible to the biases of the "experts" who teach them, and so on) disagrees. I find that somewhat appalling, actually -- the elite will not tolerate dissent from the un-learned commoners, eh?



I love healthy, intellectually stimulating debate as much as the next guy, and I have passionate convictions, as do most individuals. But what you're proposing is something else entirely. Of course, I haven't taken any classes on literature, nor have I studied its history in any great detail -- I'm just a guy who likes to read, so I'm probably not qualified to voice my opinion or argue with the more educated members here.


Hey, you are not alone. My opinion about art has been discounted many times……. because I am not art historian. :lol: I would stop loving art, if I had to believe what so-called authorities say. No individuality, no independent thoughts, no feelings but blind conformism and intellectual paralysis. Scary!

[osho]

In fact it is art only, and nothing else that gives beauty to things, for the world is not devoid of feelings - pains, humiliations, pleasures and the like and all else art does is spin thoughts, feelings, enigmas into a beautiful piece whether you call it poetry or prose. And it is the artist who immortalized prose. James Joyce's mastery of art is exemplary of this fact.

[Phocion]

St. Luke, why do you always resort to ad hominem and slight someone not your friend? So what if s/he has not taken any literature class at all? Respond to his/her comments. Don't put him/her down with your "I'm up here" or "You're a dumb newbie" diatribe. The moderators of this site should really correct your condescending style and insulting way of responding to comments. Maybe a warning if it's impossible to reprimand a holy cow.
hahaha, what a load of drivel. Just because you dislike someone's tone gives you no right to change it, and i have a great distrust of someone that would invoke authority for such a minor quibble. Quite pathetic in my opinion.

Just so we're sure, this is not an ad hominem attack; rather, i felt your quasi-concerned attitude and desire to stick one's nose where it doesn't belong to be indicative of the overweening modern culture of offense, and the desperate need to protect everyones feelings (to basically treat all as children).

In short: chill the hell out, and stop caring about what other people are doing so much.

[Alexander III]

St. Luke, why do you always resort to ad hominem and slight someone not your friend? So what if s/he has not taken any literature class at all? Respond to his/her comments. Don't put him/her down with your "I'm up here" or "You're a dumb newbie" diatribe. The moderators of this site should really correct your condescending style and insulting way of responding to comments. Maybe a warning if it's impossible to reprimand a holy cow.


A famous gambler and libertine from Venice once said, that it was an intelligent man's 'duty' to take advantage of a fool at every occasion he could.

[miyako73]

I don't see any advantage in insulting someone I don't know Online. How will I know the person I insult Online does not get off from my insult and verbal abuse? Stressing myself for someone's orgasm is definitely not an advantage.

[bIGwIRE]

I saw Kerouac's "On the Road" mentioned a few times here. I would like to add "Desolation Angels" to that recommendation. Parts of it are beautiful.

Also, one of my favorites that I haven't seen mentioned yet is Thomas Wolfe. "Look Homeward Angel" is magical.

[osho]

I am tirelessly reading ranges of styles. I do not like everything of Joyce though I am moved by his syntactic skills and word-power. Who says Dickens had not mastered prose writing? And the heart of darkness is an unforgettable piece and the awesome human situation so vivaciously described goes beyond words. Everyone has a different taste and different understanding or appreciation of the beauty he or she has beholden. The intensity stiffens or dims with time. Sex for instance is a strongly appealing activity and when one ages it lessens and so is the effect of romance, art, music in some degrees. Poetry appeals to us differently in our mellifluous youthful expression and it wanes with time

[kelby_lake]

Fitzgerald :D

[Alexander III]

I don't see any advantage in insulting someone I don't know Online. How will I know the person I insult Online does not get off from my insult and verbal abuse? Stressing myself for someone's orgasm is definitely not an advantage.

Why would anyone insult someone, that is for adolescents on youtube. I said he said taking advantage of, which in the end is a form of charity, as a stupid and humble man gives the world no opportunity to play with him, the arrogant fool however, he is the favorite plaything of men. And he shall be toyed with and taken advantage off untill he grows wise or humble. It is Rooseveltian charity.

[miyako73]

If you meant "benevolent assimilation," that is a dangerous thing. The voiceless, after learning how to speak, will cut the throats of those who yell at them.

[Alexander III]

If you meant "benevolent assimilation," that is a dangerous thing. The voiceless, after learning how to speak, will cut the throats of those who yell at them.

Why must you reduce simple things into complexities of meaninglessness. I know you are studying like myself at a university, but it saddens me to say you seem to be shaped by sophists rather than renaissance men.

[miyako73]

No. I've been shaped by history, besides culture, society, community, and family. Wars, murders, and massacres happen even to this day because of that "Rooseveltian charity." Read some Mark Twain, and you'll understand why that charity you mentioned gets into my nerves.

[Alexander III]

No. I've been shaped by history, besides culture, society, community, and family. Wars, murders, and massacres happen even to this day because of that "Rooseveltian charity." Read some Mark Twain, and you'll understand why that charity you mentioned gets into my nerves.

1) New guy makes rather foolish and arrogant post

2) Old guy ridicules foolish and arrogant new guy through the medium of satire

3) You say Old guy behaved in a cruel way

4) I defend old guy's playing and shaming with new fool, with allusion to Casanova and sarcastic tone of voice.

5) Wars murders and massacres still happen to this day...

Now what I declare is that it is you who is the cruel one! I merely wished to display my god-like abilities in the realm of satire and you deny me my chance of flamboyance by creating a post which is already a satire of itself, and to add sauce to the hunger, an unrecognized satire of itself. How can one augment what is already at its Zenith? Shame on you Miyako, for depriving me of my stage.

[miyako73]

Hehehehe. Had you not mentioned "Rooseveltian charity, it would not have rained on your parade. The stage is now yours. Dance; I'll watch.

Maybe this excerpt from what I've been writing can show you the seriousness of what I've expressed that you considered satirical.

"I did think of my wild ancestors while sitting at the dining table across from my father, who mentioned how some of our town’s early residents the colonialists labeled as savages were shipped to the U.S. and exhibited to the public while homesick and semi-naked in the middle of Midwestern winter at the St. Louis World's Fair in 1904. Many generations later, their own flesh and blood would be going to the land of the blue-eyed. I felt as though I was an inexperienced gladiator travelling to the land of the lions. I had many misconceptions about Americans then. I thought Beverly Hills 90210 was America and I would struggle to fit in. From his story, I understood what my father wanted to tell me: that I should not make a spectacle of myself. Pride had always been his thing."

The lesson: don't drop big words if you're not sure how others will respond.

[AuntShecky]

You know what? "Who is the best. . ." and similar threads reminds me of a bunch of guys hanging around the locker room making meaningless comparisons, if you catch my drift. "Author So-and-so is the best and you're full
of baloney if you think he isn't!"-- that sort of thing is less productive than navel-gazing.

Say, I got a crazy idea! What say instead of arguing over the status of authors we go read a couple of them?

[qimissung]

R e m i n d e r

Please refrain from posting in this section of the Forum

if you feel you are unable to show respect towards those who do not share your thoughts and beliefs.

Posts containing personal and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning.

And, stay on topic and stop arguing.

[Alexander III]

The lesson: don't drop big words if you're not sure how others will respond.

My bad for mentioning 'benevolent assimilation', I should have known that a clever youth would have ridiculed me for using such a weighty word.

[miyako73]

Let's go back to talking about prose:


If this paragraph is deserving of the Pulitzer, I don't know what is not anymore.

"The Good Teachers of El Redentor never squeezed anything close to a mea culpa from the girl. She kept shaking her head, as stubborn as the Laws of the Universe themselves — No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No NoNo No No No No No No No No No No No No No. Not that it mattered in the end. Belicia’s tenure at the school was over, and so were La Incas dreams of re-creating, in Beli, her father’s genius, his magis (his excellence in all things)."

Junot Diaz
The Wondrous Life Of Oscar Wao.