Favourite novelist and why?

[Emil Miller]

As might be expected, many people using this forum mention the various novelists that inspire them to read, but which one is your particular favourite
and what makes that writer so singularly suited to your reading requirements?
In the interest of serious comment, please make an honest effort to avoid any mention of Harry Potter.

[Reread]

I am a huge fan of Tolkien. He was able to create an entire world in incredible detail; complete with languages, people, cultures, and traditions.

[optimisticnad]

As might be expected, many people using this forum mention the various novelists that inspire them to read, but which one is your particular favourite
and what makes that writer so singularly suited to your reading requirements?
In the interest of serious comment, please make an honest effort to avoid any mention of Harry Potter.

:lol:

Loved the last sentence.

I like Henry James: his cryptic style and brilliant use of language blows me away.

I like Charles Dickens for his imaginative characters.

I like John Fowles.

I like Jane Austen because her books are great chick lit.

I could go on but new year is dawning in an hour....

[optimisticnad]

Wait...did we have to pick one?

[Tallon]

It's very hard to say. Being quite young i tend to read one or two works of an author and then move on, saving the rest of their oeuvre for later.

I'm a big fan of Orwell, his simple but powerful style. I really like his journalistic works too, Homage To Catalonia, Road To Wigan Pier and Down and Out In Paris In London. Being a former history student his ability to capture the spirit of a time or place appeals to me.

Graham Greene, F.Scott Fitzgerald, and John Steinbeck are all contenders too but i need to read more of their work to judge fairly.

[Emil Miller]

:lol:

Loved the last sentence.

I like Henry James: his cryptic style and brilliant use of language blows me away.

I like Charles Dickens for his imaginative characters.

I like John Fowles.

I like Jane Austen because her books are great chick lit.

I could go on but new year is dawning in an hour....



Yes but it doesn't matter, because your comments are clear and concise.
You are unkind to Austen whose books do not equate to the kind of primary coloured wedges that young girls take to the beach.

[Emil Miller]

It's very hard to say. Being quite young i tend to read one or two works of an author and then move on, saving the rest of their oeuvre for later.

I'm a big fan of Orwell, his simple but powerful style. I really like his journalistic works too, Homage To Catalonia, Road To Wigan Pier and Down and Out In Paris In London. Being a former history student his ability to capture the spirit of a time or place appeals to me.

Graham Greene, F.Scott Fitzgerald, and John Steinbeck are all contenders too but i need to read more of their work to judge fairly.

Yes I see what you mean about Orwell but you should be very circumspect about the books you have mentioned. Orwell presented the world as he wanted people to see it; not necessarily as it was. He was, above all else, a political writer and it is important to bear this in mind when reading him, rather than taking his writing at face value.

[TheFifthElement]

In the interest of serious comment, please make an honest effort to avoid any mention of Harry Potter.

Last time I checked Harry Potter wasn't a novelist.

[Jozanny]

Okay. I will play, but I am only dipping into the trough once, and will not return to keep feeding. My favorite novelist is Henry James. It is from him that I spread my wings into fictional realism and naturalism, and never looked back from much of what was a glorious journey: James lived in the mist of a fortunate ferment from which he benefited, and in some ways superceded to carve out a place of his own. Fascinated by Balzac, disappointed by Flaubert, saddened by Zola, indebted to Dostoevsky, admirer of Turgenev, what is it that James does which turns his readers into a myriad of effusive disciples?

He takes the complexity of psychological consciousness and disperses it into near fairytale of a love story which can be both enthralling and terrifying, and suspensefully paced. One cannot but help root for Ralph to rescue Isabel from the nearly mundane wickedness of Gilbert Osmond's conventionality, or to hope that Milly Theale will be saved by love from her dreaded illness, or that the governess projects her charges from evil ghosts (until one begins to wonder about the governess...). He is the master of making narrative pregnant by not saying anything concrete, specific, and yet his sheer delight with the comedy of life sparkles through even unto his deathbed, whereon he paid tribute, in typical Jamesian fashion, to his man servant. I cannot say that Henry James made me the writer I became, but the gift of his voice has always inspired me to the perfect art of soulful imitation.

If it must only one Favorite be,
The lamp has to shine on The Master, for me!

[Emil Miller]

Last time I checked Harry Potter wasn't a novelist.

I know, but J.K. Rowling sounds literary enough to make some people forget the essential childishness of her creation.

[Virgil]

It's hard to pick one Brian. I believe that William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of all, but I fully understand that may be my personal preference. Now there are lots of novels I consider great, but in order for me to say that he's among my favorite novelists, He has to have written more than one that appeals to me, more than just appeals, stirs me. Others that I truely love are Joseph Conrad, DH Lawrence, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and now possibly Cormac McCarthy of the contemporary novelists.

[Emil Miller]

It's hard to pick one Brian. I believe that William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of all, but I fully understand that may be my personal preference. Now there are lots of novels I consider great, but in order for me to say that he's among my favorite novelists, He has to have written more than one that appeals to me, more than just appeals, stirs me. Others that I truely love are Joseph Conrad, DH Lawrence, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and now possibly Cormac McCarthy of the contemporary novelists.

Thanks Virgil, but you haven't said what it is about Faulkner (if he's the one you are going for) that makes you want to read him.

[Dr. Hill]

Dostoevsky is a god.

[LitNetIsGreat]

There are lots of novels I like but I am struggling to think of a favourite novelist.

[LostPrincess13]

Hello there, I'm quite sure I haven't read as much as you all have, and being young and easily succumbed to popular literature, it is not easy for me to pick just one novelist so do forgive me if i choose to list a number of them...:D
I enjoy the works of Sidney Sheldon and James Patterson because of their fast-paced mystery stories. I get an adrenaline rush whenever I get close to solving the case.:D
I'm touched by the works of Paulo Coelho and Mitch Albom whose creative accounts of life are simply heartwarming. I like how Coelho paints that vivid picture of the human soul; you can almost reach in and bask in the beauty of human emotion. Albom's simplicity in style makes it easier for the reader to connect and empathize with the characters in the story. You don't have be an authority in literature to be able to understand him.
I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. At first, I found it rather tiring and stressful (considering the numerous characters and plot twists), but as I got through the first chapter, I found it exciting and 'refreshing'. Her philosophies may sound rather unconventional to most people, but to those who 'have been there', she serves as an inspiration to people who are advocates of the power of mind and reason; she continues to remind 'those people' that they are not alone.

Thank you for that poll. I really enjoyed myself.:D

[papayahed]

The novels in my top ten don't necessarily reflect my favorite authors, I haven't read enough of any of them to make the call.

While none of his novels are in my top ten I have to go with Stephen King. I've read a good deal of his books. I haven't read any of his books for years but as a teenager his books pulled me into reading like no other. I couldn't get enough of reading, he brought me into the story like no one had before.

[Emil Miller]

Dostoevsky is a god.

OK, but why?

[Dr. Hill]

All I know is that I am nearing the end of The Brothers Karamazov and, even though I prefer Crime and Punishment to every book I've ever read, this is fantastic beyond belief, and shows Dostoevsky's absolute art at composing complicated storylines and amazing characters. He is definitely the greatest of all time.

[stlukesguild]

I'm almost ready to go with Proust due to the wealth of his characters, his concentration upon internal dialog and memory, and the rich sensuality of his language. In the long run, however, I think I would go with Cervantes... also in response to a single novel. I suppose one might give him added points for having virtually "invented" the novel... but then again, that has nothing to do with personal taste. Simply put... I find Don Quixote and Sancho to be two of the greatest delineated characters ever produced in the history of literature... rivaling, if not surpassing, those of Shakespeare. The work is laden with the most marvelous ironies in writing. Like Flaubert's Mme Bovary or Sterne's Tristam Shandy... two other ranking quite high on my list...Don Quixote explores and parodies the very nature of the novel and the act of reading... but undoubtedly conveys a great love of the same. It plays upon and even mocks the great tradition of heroic romances from Beowulf and Orlando and King Arthur to El Cid... and ends in becoming the greatest of romances itself. The Don and Sancho begin as the most comic buffoons... the most ridiculous of heroes... and the end in becoming the most believable ind the most noble because of the depth of character and their true human frailties. The novel must also rank as perhaps the greatest tale of friendship in the whole of literature... setting an example for their only possible rivals: Tristam Shandy and Huckleberry Finn. It is one of the few novels I have returned to and read again and again.

[Thespian1975]

Agatha Christie. She is one author I can return to again and again and never be disappointed.

She may not be the best writer but her plots are brilliant.

[NickAdams]

Samuel Beckett is my favorite novelist at this moment, but I still have so much to read. I enjoy Beckett for both his humor and depth; the humor I refer to is usually at the expense of narrative conventions, like the narrator of the first part of Molloy not being able to remember conversations in verbatim or refusing to share what he feels is irrelevant; another example, this time descriptive, comes from the second chapter of Murphy:
"Age. Unimportant.
Head. Small and round.
Eyes. Green.
Complexion. White.
Hair. Yellow
Features. Mobile.
Neck. 13 3/4.
Upper arm. 11".
Forearm. 9 1/2.
Wrist. 6".
Bust. 34".
Waist. 27".
Hips, etc. 35".
Thigh. 21 3/4".
Knee. 13 3/4".
Calf. 13'.
Ankle. 8 1/4".
Instep. Unimportant.
Height. 5'4".
Weight. 123 lbs.

She stormed away from the callbox, accompanied delightedly by her hips, etc."

I know a lot of his allusions are lost on me, but I still get a great amount of pleasure from his work. I have yet to read his last three novels (Malone Dies, The Unnamable and How it Is) and I hear Unnamable is his masterpiece, but Molloy stands as my favorite. His work, for me, relies on the history of literature, but he makes use of that history quite well. I see him as a bibliophiles delight.

[Emil Miller]

Agatha Christie. She is one author I can return to again and again and never be disappointed.

She may not be the best writer but her plots are brilliant.

This is amazingly prescient. I have just this very moment turned off a television Agatha Christie mystery on the grounds that it is much too contrived, and although I do like to relax very occasionally with a British detective story, they are often much too reliant on the reader/viewers suspension of belief to be worthy of genuine consideration.

[TheFifthElement]

Well, I'll stop being glib, it fails me. Angela Carter was the writer who first made me see writing as an art form. She made me sit up and pay attention. This from The Company of Wolves (which was made into the most terrible movie)

One beast and only one howls in the woods by night.

The wolf is carnivore incarnate and he's as cunning as he is ferocious; once he's had a taste of flesh then nothing else will do.

At night, the eyes of wolves shine like candle flames, yellowish, reddish, but that is because the pupils of their eyes fatten on darkness and danger; if a wolf's eyes reflect only moonlight, then they gleam a cold, unnatural green, a mineral, a piercing colour. If the benighted traveller spies these luminous, terrible sequins stitched suddenly on the black thickets, then he knows he must run, if fear has not struck him stock-still.

But those eyes are all you will be able to glimpse of the forest assassins as they cluster invisibly round your smell of meat as you go through the wood, unwisely late. They will be like shadows, they will be like wraiths, grey members of a congregation of nightmare; hark! his long, wavering howl...an aria of fear made audible.

The wolfsong is the sound of the rending you will suffer, in itself a murdering.

she gets more treacly than that.

More recently, and on the theme of beautiful prose Cormac McCarthy and jon mcgregor stand out for me. And for their sparseness and intricate stories Paul Auster and Haruki Murakami.

[Dr. Hill]

From the excerpt there, not sure if I would enjoy it :\ Little bit flowery.

[Tallon]

Yes I see what you mean about Orwell but you should be very circumspect about the books you have mentioned. Orwell presented the world as he wanted people to see it; not necessarily as it was. He was, above all else, a political writer and it is important to bear this in mind when reading him, rather than taking his writing at face value.

I don't believe i take much of anything at face value, i'm a fence sitter if anything. Plus it is not so much Orwell's politics that particularly interest me but the little human things he talks about, like in Homage where he talks about how childish the Spanish soldier's attitude to war was, swinging a machine gun in his face for a picture etc.

[Virgil]

Thanks Virgil, but you haven't said what it is about Faulkner (if he's the one you are going for) that makes you want to read him.

Good question. I will have to put my thoughts together and get back here.

[book_jones]

John Steinbeck is probably my favorite. I love the way he writes about people. I get completely lost in his characters. I love so many authors though that it's a little hard to pick a favorite.

[TheFifthElement]

From the excerpt there, not sure if I would enjoy it :\ Little bit flowery.

and I thought she was talking about the woods ;)

I think with Carter you love her or you hate her. Her prose is syrupy and evocative, but actually it tends to work very well with the scenarios she writes about. I guess she's kind of an overblown fairy tale-teller. The except is from her short story collection The Bloody Chamber which is a retelling of various fairy tales or classic stories, such as: Little Red Riding Hood, Puss in Boots, Beauty and the Beast and Dracula. Some of them are brilliant.

[Delta40]

I always enjoyed CS Lewis. I never got into Lord of the Rings for some reason. Drag me to the village green, put me in stocks and throw vegetables at me if you must.

[bazarov]

Dostoevsky - he can write such a complicated stuff in such a brilliant way, he's knowledge of human soul, his characters are the best and still such a different... I don't know any author who described so greatly people from all parts of society; nobles, killers, priests, intelectuals, whores, gamblers, prisoners...I think some authors made a cliche and go around it, but he creates something new and unique in his books.

[JBI]

Favorite novelist: Jane Austen,
Favorite novel:
As For Me And My House by Sinclair Ross, though that is because I have spent so much time reading and writing about it, even beyond its merits, as high as they are.

[Gretchen]

C.S Lewis, Tolkien, and Victor Hugo are great.
Tolkien and Lewis, for the world and the amazing stories they created. Hugo, for his writing, characters and plot.

[Jozanny]

Well, as I've been lurking, I will swoop in again to say, even though Brian is being tyrannical with us, the choice of one novelist was surprisingly easy for me to make, and I am not sure whether that is a positive or negative thing. Like most of you, I read a lot of books--although as I am getting older I am getting tired of reading too many stories, and hope to explore more non-fiction--but on my deathbed I know with absolute certitude that at least one of my nieces or nephews will be reading James to me as I expire.

Is this kind of tunnel vision necessarily good?

[Emil Miller]

Well, as I've been lurking, I will swoop in again to say, even though Brian is being tyrannical with us, the choice of one novelist was surprisingly easy for me to make, and I am not sure whether that is a positive or negative thing. Like most of you, I read a lot of books--although as I am getting older I am getting tired of reading too many stories, and hope to explore more non-fiction--but on my deathbed I know with absolute certitude that at least one of my nieces or nephews will be reading James to me as I expire.

Is this kind of tunnel vision necessarily good?


It isn't bad when it takes place against a well-read background.

[Emil Miller]

I don't believe i take much of anything at face value, i'm a fence sitter if anything. Plus it is not so much Orwell's politics that particularly interest me but the little human things he talks about, like in Homage where he talks about how childish the Spanish soldier's attitude to war was, swinging a machine gun in his face for a picture etc.

It is precisely in "the little human things" that one needs to remember Orwell's statement that he had never put pen to paper unless it had been in the cause of democratic socialism. It is the word 'never' that is applicable here.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, as I've been lurking, I will swoop in again to say, even though Brian is being tyrannical with us, the choice of one novelist was surprisingly easy for me to make, and I am not sure whether that is a positive or negative thing. Like most of you, I read a lot of books--although as I am getting older I am getting tired of reading too many stories, and hope to explore more non-fiction--but on my deathbed I know with absolute certitude that at least one of my nieces or nephews will be reading James to me as I expire.

Is this kind of tunnel vision necessarily good?

Have you read Author Author by David Lodge (about the life of James) I have had it on my bookshelf for ages? I've not read it.

[Jozanny]

Have you read Author Author by David Lodge (about the life of James) I have had it on my bookshelf for ages? I've not read it.

Heard of it Neely, but I have yet to get to Sheldon Novick's controversial The Young Master; he sent it to me as a gift because I was a nut case ten years ago and ranted at him in our correspondence. I feel guilty because I wasn't trying to get him to give me an expensive title out of pity.

Sometimes I don't realize the impact I have on other people. Actually, I should start it soon, as I do not read much biography--I have read some of Sheldon's articles though, on my own, and he is a delightful scholar. Often encouraged me to try my hand, but I don't want to write about James's lesbian sister:lol:.

[wessexgirl]

It is precisely in "the little human things" that one needs to remember Orwell's statement that he had never put pen to paper unless it had been in the cause of democratic socialism. It is the word 'never' that is applicable here.

What's wrong with that?

[Saladin]

Dostoevsky - he can write such a complicated stuff in such a brilliant way, he's knowledge of human soul, his characters are the best and still such a different... I don't know any author who described so greatly people from all parts of society; nobles, killers, priests, intelectuals, whores, gamblers, prisoners...I think some authors made a cliche and go around it, but he creates something new and unique in his books.

I concur that! I couldn`t say better then that. My favourite novelist is Dostoevsky, then there is a second place tie between Hamsun and Ibsen.

[bazarov]

I concur that! I couldn`t say better then that. My favourite novelist is Dostoevsky, then there is a second place tie between Hamsun and Ibsen.

Ibsen a novelist?

[Saladin]

Ibsen a novelist?

Hehe. My bad. I thought it were author. Nope he is of course playwriter and a poet.

[bazarov]

Hehe. My bad. I thought it were author. Nope he is of course playwriter and a poet.

No,no; I thought I missed something :D

[Emil Miller]

What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it but it does underline the fact that even the most off-hand references are there in the service of a political ideology rather than literature.

[andave_ya]

I'm vacillating between three, and I'm not sure if one of them is considered a novelist.

First, J.R.R. Tolkien. He's created an entire new world, beautiful and whole, with heroes and most importantly principles. I'm a sucker for principles and ideas. And heroes :p.

Second, Dorothy L. Sayers (she's the one I don't know whether she's considered a novelist.) I love her principally because of her Lord Peter mysteries, which are witty and elegant. Also, they're full of so many literary, musical, artistic references that every time I return to her I see something new in them :D.

Finally, Dostoevsky. I've only read Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, but those were incredible. His stories don't move very far for the 1000+ pages he writes, but all the intense psychological insights into human nature are unbelievable. I think he really opened my eyes to both the heights and depths of human nature.

[Hank Stamper]

I know, but J.K. Rowling sounds literary enough to make some people forget the essential childishness of her creation.

because harry potter was created for adults??? it still cracks me up when people get all haughty about harry potter... it is written for children and is an irrelevance to anybody interested in proper literature... get over it

my favourite author? jack kerouac
why? i love his prose style/his constant stream of consciousness.. i also like the way he looked at the world and his lust for spiritual fulfillment/liberation etc and the people he wrote about (as in his own words) - 'the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn...'

[promtbr]

I have to concur w/ Dr. Hill and Bazarov for Doestoevsky and can only echo the reasons they gave. I can't imagine another author who openly tackles such large human issues without constantly 'hiding behind a veil of irony'...
(please don't jump on this statement taking it to infer that I mean Dostoevsky does not make use of Irony...)

Though I would have a hard time pinning it down to a single favorite novelist finally. Beckett would be a VERY close second for me as well.
Nick Adams, the last chapter of Murphy was as fine an ending of a novel as I have encountered: All Out...

HAVE to mention my new favorite contemporary novelist, Andrei Makine (his prose is AMAZING)

[downing]

My all-time favourite novelist is by far Dostoevsky who I consider a genius.
Then I like Margaret Mitchell who made my childhood and pre-adolescence with Gone with the Wind.
Then we go with Henry James and his Portrait of a Lady.
And I cannot forget Thomas Hardy and Emily Bronte.

[Saladin]

No,no; I thought I missed something :D

You haven`t missed that part that he weren`t a novelist, but many have missed that part that he actually were a poet also. Ibsen wrote a whole collection of poems which he gave out. The collection is called Digte (Poems), one of his more famous poems is in there - Terje Vigen.

Terje Vigen is a poem written by Henrik Ibsen, published in 1862. Much of the story and setting is from the area around the town of Grimstad in southern Norway where Ibsen lived for a few years in his youth. It describes the dramatic saga of Terje who, in 1809, tried to run the English blockade of Norway's southern coast in a small rowboat in a desperate attempt to smuggle food from Denmark back to his starving wife and daughter. He was captured and imprisoned on an English prison hulk at Fjære and released in 1814 after the Napoleonic Wars were over, only to find that his family had died. He became a pilot, and years later rescued an English Lord who turned out to be the commander of the ship that had captured him. The denouement, as in most Ibsen works, should be understood by reading the original (links provided below).

From: Wikipedia.

One of the best poems i personally have read. Yes there is an english translation of it. You should check it out.

[Tallon]

It is precisely in "the little human things" that one needs to remember Orwell's statement that he had never put pen to paper unless it had been in the cause of democratic socialism. It is the word 'never' that is applicable here.

I don't believe that. What about his essay on how to make a good cup of tea? ;)

[Emil Miller]

I don't believe that. What about his essay on how to make a good cup of tea? ;)

It is some time since I read the essays but, if you were English at the time they were published, you would know that a cup of tea was the normal drink of the working class, but tea was drunk across the whole social spectrum and, naturally, it was the kind of thing that Orwell would home in on as an example of the social(ist) democracy that he was so concerned to promote.

[wessexgirl]

There is nothing wrong with it but it does underline the fact that even the most off-hand references are there in the service of a political ideology rather than literature.

I don't believe that for a moment. He was a writer first and foremost. So he was upfront about his political views. Loads of authors have views and agendas, it doesn't mean that they are lesser writers. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, and was a great influence on many others. I think it's a bit much to dismiss him as merely some sort of political activist with no feeling for literature. Look at his advice to writers. He cared a great deal about literature.

[Tallon]

It is some time since I read the essays but, if you were English at the time they were published, you would know that a cup of tea was the normal drink of the working class, but tea was drunk across the whole social spectrum and, naturally, it was the kind of thing that Orwell would home in on as an example of the social(ist) democracy that he was so concerned to promote.
I think you are over analysing slightly. I seriously doubt any writer writes purely for political means, even if they say they do.

[Emil Miller]

I don't believe that for a moment. He was a writer first and foremost. So he was upfront about his political views. Loads of authors have views and agendas, it doesn't mean that they are lesser writers. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, and was a great influence on many others. I think it's a bit much to dismiss him as merely some sort of political activist with no feeling for literature. Look at his advice to writers. He cared a great deal about literature.

On his own admission he was a political writer first and foremost. You are right to say that he had a great influence on many others but whether that influence was beneficial is a matter of opinion.
I did not mean to suggest that he wasn't interested in literature,he was, but the politics always came first.

[Emil Miller]

I think you are over analysing slightly. I seriously doubt any writer writes purely for political means, even if they say they do.

Why would a writer who was responsible for two of the most notable political novels of the 20th century i.e. 1984 and Animal Farm, want to write essays on - How to make a cup of tea, boys comics, picture postcards etc. etc. if he had no reason to do so? Whatever Orwell's faults, frivolity certainly wasn't one of them.

[JBI]

Why would a writer who was responsible for two of the most notable political novels of the 20th century i.e. 1984 and Animal Farm, want to write essays on - How to make a cup of tea, boys comics, picture postcards etc. etc. if he had no reason to do so? Whatever Orwell's faults, frivolity certainly wasn't one of them.

I think Orwell, like most authors, wrote for Ego - his essays seem to say as much. Perhaps he had political motives, but his own image seems central.

Either way though, he is so overrated and in many ways, dated. Animal Farm is hardly one of the best political books of the 20th century. In truth, it achieved nothing substantial except give some Westerners cause for ripping on the Eastern Block without understanding any of the issues.

[mayneverhave]

My favorite novelist is William Faulkner.

When Faulkner is lyrical, there are other writers that are more greatly so - Proust for instance. When Faulkner is experimental he is not so experimental as Joyce. Yet, in Faulkner I find the perfect blend of tragedy and comedy, the absurdist "tragicomedy" of the 20th century that finds its pinnacle in Beckett. In Faulkner I find an immediately readable, and yet simultaneously challenging writer.

To put it simply, I find no other novelist quite as moving as Faulkner. Before reading him, I absolutely detested Southern culture (I'm from Philly), but my reading has changed my mind.

[Jozanny]

I am inclined, for better or worse, to side with the deflation of Orwell; now, when I post that, I don't mean that Orwell wasn't a facile commentator. He was certainly that, but I read Dick Poleman daily, and though the man has the access and the academic support that makes him more successful as a columnist than I shall ever be at that level, he is, primarily, a pundit, and doesn't much pretend to be anything else. Orwell was a type of morphed precursor to the modern analyst, and as happens to analysts, he is dated. Saying that people don't really understand what fascism is, but know that it smells funny is a rather terrible estimate of what Mussolini and then Hitler almost wrought upon the world. They almost won the war, and if they had I certainly wouldn't have been born.

I also think his staying power has more of the cult of personality about it as opposed to what his work really offers the world. Communism is dead, as a system, but Marxism putters on in the fashionable left, and the neo-right putters on until it seemingly dies in an Austrian car crash, so how does this fable on the nature of exploitation that Animal Farm is, still have anything to tell us? I don't see it. 1984 I understand somewhat less, but I am not sure all that effort on breaking the human will is necessary in such a creative fashion, and that the novel amounts to anything more than quaint speculative fiction.

A free press is still propagada. The difference between state controlled media and the Fourth Estate isn't all that great a divide.

I need cigarettes, so I am going to bed so I can charge this old bucket so that it will drive me, with its little whizzes and protests, to my grocery stores. I just managed to shower without killing myself, I am happy to say, and hope that luck holds out, but we'll see if my thought processes continue to kick in on this later.

[hoope]

Charles Dickens .... for his work & amazing imagination in creating the character
and Jane Austen.. Tolkein ... & Stephanie Meyer for her work in TWILIGHT SAGA

[bazarov]

You haven`t missed that part that he weren`t a novelist, but many have missed that part that he actually were a poet also. Ibsen wrote a whole collection of poems which he gave out. The collection is called Digte (Poems), one of his more famous poems is in there - Terje Vigen.


One of the best poems i personally have read. Yes there is an english translation of it. You should check it out.

Well, thread was named Favorite novelist so I was bit confused :D
Thanks, I will check it.

[Tallon]

You guy's are more optimistic than me if you think that what Orwell was saying is no longer required and even if communism was dead that shouldn't take anything away from Orwell. Books don't become obsolete all of a sudden.
Incidentally i've never read Animal Farm and i prefer Homage, Down and Out and Aspidistra Flying to 1984.

[Emil Miller]

You guy's are more optimistic than me if you think that what Orwell was saying is no longer required and even if communism was dead that shouldn't take anything away from Orwell. Books don't become obsolete all of a sudden.
Incidentally i've never read Animal Farm and i prefer Homage, Down and Out and Aspidistra Flying to 1984.

I would tend to agree with you about the demise of Communism. It never goes away,it is merely suppressed or lies dormant until economic or political circumstances allow it to get its foot in the door. However, if you are going to continue on an Orwell kick, let me recommend Burmese Days and Coming Up For Air. If you read as much of him as I did when I was younger, perhaps you will eventually come to realise just what a manipulative writer he was.

[Tallon]

I've read all his work except Burmese Days, A Clergyman's Daughter and Animal Farm. I do own Burmese Days and Animal Farm though. I think he is probably the only author i've read 6 novels of, that why i suggested him, although i prefer the writing style of many others.

[bazarov]

Either way though, he is so overrated and in many ways, dated. Animal Farm is hardly one of the best political books of the 20th century. In truth, it achieved nothing substantial except give some Westerners cause for ripping on the Eastern Block without understanding any of the issues.

As an Orwellian expert, I agree with this. People are surprised with novel not because it's great but because they suck in history.
But still, great fairy tale about good and evil :D

[Mopey Droney]

For me it is between Proust and Dickens. These are the two writers who I invariably feel completely satisfied when I set down their books, a sensation I sadly don't get very often considering how much I read. They are of course very different writers and therefore I like them both for very different reasons.

Proust I think is the most insightful of all writers. On almost every other page he makes concrete one of those things that we all "know" but never say ourselves. His pages are full of those moments where we point and say "ah-ha! that sort of thing!" that make us feel a little smarter, but more importantly make us feel a little bit less alone, and isn't that why we read in the first place?

Dickens on the other hand is, for me, an emotional ride unlike anything else I have experienced in any other artistic medium. I suppose on a forum of literary-minded people I shouldn't have to defend my love of Dickens like I am often called upon to do by my more obsessively Contemporary Fiction Fan friends, but I will do it anyway. It was like Orwell said in his essay on Dickens... Dickens was a novelist with a reformer's heart, but unlike many reformers-turned-novelists he didn't aim his sights at our minds to get us to change any specific policy, but at our hearts. Dickens had the supposedly naive belief that there is no use to make a change of structure if you cannot also make a change of heart, and that's what Dickens does for me. I think, unlike many other writers like Wilde or more recently Bret Easton Ellis, after you have read Dickens you may end up a better person than you were before.

[Mopey Droney]

As far as Orwell goes I much prefer his essays to his fiction. I'll go so far as to say I don't like his fiction at all.

[Emil Miller]

I've read all his work except Burmese Days, A Clergyman's Daughter and Animal Farm. I do own Burmese Days and Animal Farm though. I think he is probably the only author i've read 6 novels of, that why i suggested him, although i prefer the writing style of many others.

Well, I dont know exactly how old you are but I would be surprised if you are still of the same opinion twenty years hence. It's experience that finally determines one's assessment of a writer; in demonstration of which, I print below an earlier post of mine with regard to Orwell.

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

[wessexgirl]

Well, I dont know exactly how old you are but I would be surprised if you are still of the same opinion twenty years hence. It's experience that finally determines one's assessment of a writer; in demonstration of which, I print below an earlier post of mine with regard to Orwell.

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

Why is it heartening to see such a negative response to Orwell, except maybe the fact that someone feels as you do, which is something we all like to feel? (I like to know there are people who dislike Gatsby ;)).

I won't say how old I am, but I'm probably older than Tallon. I can say that I still like Orwell. We don't all like the same things, that would be very boring, but to say to someone, in effect, "wait until you're older, you'll see how wrong you are about him" is a touch patronising. I know we probably get different things from authors at different ages, and can probably appreciate certain aspects of things as we mature, but I really think you are doing Orwell a disservice. It seems to be his politics which you are so against, as surely as a fan of Maugham, you know how Orwell was influenced by him, in the literary sphere, obviously not in the political one.

The man wrote two iconic books on the evil of totalitarian regimes, which have stood the test of time. His subject matter was prescient, but even if you take that away from him, his writing was excellent. I think you seem to have a problem with the substance of his work, ignoring his style, which as I say owed a debt to Maugham. I appreciate both, and acknowlege him as one of the great writers of the 20th century.

[Mopey Droney]

I think what attracts me to Orwell are the occasions when he is level-headed and conservative in a nevertheless contrary way, like in "Politics and the English Language".

(Ironically, the title of the piece is redundant. :))

[Tallon]

Well, I dont know exactly how old you are but I would be surprised if you are still of the same opinion twenty years hence. It's experience that finally determines one's assessment of a writer; in demonstration of which, I print below an earlier post of mine with regard to Orwell.

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

I hope i won't have the same opinions in twenty years time, i wonder who i will dislike then that i like now? But i doubt very much that i will dislike Orwell, i get immense pleasure from reading his books and like i said it's not even a completely political matter. I'm old enough to have a history degree and know a little about what Orwell was writing about so it's not as if i'm a young naive idealist.

[prendrelemick]

Probably the first time I've ever agreed with JBI about anything;) But Jane Austin is for me, the best. (and no, I'm not a chick)

When I read her, I sense a shining intelligence bursting through the gaps between the words on the page, giving a joyous luminescence to her work. It's as if she only needs to put into physical words about half the story she is telling, the rest enters the reader's head subliminally. Then there's her control, her wit, her subversive tone, always there but just out of reach. No one can portray and capture a character as sharply and with as few words as she does.
As for her plots, well ok they are on the level of today's chick-lit, but then that just proves she was 200 years ahead of her time.:)

[sixsmith]

Politically Orwell was wrong on several fronts ( notably the nature of the British empire and democracy) and clung to his socialist vision even after, i think, he knew that it was probably incompatible with the liberty which he so cherished.

Nevertheless as Wessex Girl points out, the man remains relevant. His core achievements, Animal Farm and 1984, are still highly relevant, widely read and to my mind, quite brilliant. Moreover, his journalism is exemplary both in its lucid, compressed style and its attempts to deflate received wisdom.

[dingyjoe]

stephanie meyer is the best for reinventing vampires....
and for being imaginatve.

[dingyjoe]

so sorry about double post my comp keeps doing it.
:(

[Emil Miller]

Why is it heartening to see such a negative response to Orwell, except maybe the fact that someone feels as you do, which is something we all like to feel? (I like to know there are people who dislike Gatsby ;)).

I won't say how old I am, but I'm probably older than Tallon. I can say that I still like Orwell. We don't all like the same things, that would be very boring, but to say to someone, in effect, "wait until you're older, you'll see how wrong you are about him" is a touch patronising. I know we probably get different things from authors at different ages, and can probably appreciate certain aspects of things as we mature, but I really think you are doing Orwell a disservice. It seems to be his politics which you are so against, as surely as a fan of Maugham, you know how Orwell was influenced by him, in the literary sphere, obviously not in the political one.

The man wrote two iconic books on the evil of totalitarian regimes, which have stood the test of time. His subject matter was prescient, but even if you take that away from him, his writing was excellent. I think you seem to have a problem with the substance of his work, ignoring his style, which as I say owed a debt to Maugham. I appreciate both, and acknowlege him as one of the great writers of the 20th century.

Wessex Girl,
On previous threads, you and I have agreed that Maugham and Greene are wonderful writers and I know that Orwell acknowledged his debt to Maugham, of whom there can be no greater supporter than myself, but it is obvious that there can be no common ground between us on the question of Scott Fitzgerald and Orwell. The reason for this is to do with female and male psychology. Now, in order to save this thread from becoming bogged down in a debate about the merits or demerits of Orwell, I will send you a personal message explaining what I mean.

[kilted exile]

Definitely Dickens. A lot of the reasons have been mentioned previously by Opti & Mopey. The other aspect I dont think that has been brought up yet tho' is his wit & humour.

[Jozanny]

Sorry Brian:) I guess I barged in on Orwell in cranky mode while my breakfast sausage was frying; I am not well versed in his work, though I've gotten some of it through the back door publishing my own commentary--but of what I do know of his polemic, I don't need more, which says enough for me.

Did someone mention Dickens as a favorite?:D (I kid, I kid)

[Dr. Hill]

stephanie meyer is the best for reinventing vampires....
and for being imaginatve.

:( Stephenie Meyer?

[Sepulchrave]

I'm torn between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Mervyn Peake. Very difficult.

Why Fitzgerald? I found his prose utterly haunting. The Great Gatsby features perhaps the best concluding pages to a novel that I've ever read -- poignancy just seeps out of the pages. I like how there's an almost dream-like quality to his work, and his prose style is scarily good. One of the toughest challenges for a writer, in my opinion, is trying to maintain a balance between opulence and simplicity. When something is too simply expressed (Hemingway, for example) the prose style comes across as quite dull and lifeless to me. When one goes over the top, however, and words becomes ridiculously flowery, that can certainly be irritating too. Fitzgerald strikes a lovely balance -- there are moments of beautiful, colourful prose, but they are always channelled and reigned in. It never becomes superfluous. He never even approaches the unashamedly aesthetic style of, say, Wilde. (Although I actually like Wilde, and I think he pulls that style off. Very few people can, though.)

Why Peake? Well, it's ironic, considering what I just said above, but his opulent style is what initially grabbed my attention. He writes -- well, as if he's painting. And he was a painter, mind you. Some may call it flowery, but I personally think it works beautifully, and creates an utterly distinctive atmosphere for his work. His Gormenghast series is like a strange mix between Poe, Emily Brontë and his own unique flavour. Very hard to summarise, actually -- a truly striking creation.

[bazarov]

:( Stephenie Meyer?

Somebody mentioned why number of posts is relevant :lol:

[Emil Miller]

because harry potter was created for adults??? it still cracks me up when people get all haughty about harry potter... it is written for children and is an irrelevance to anybody interested in proper literature... get over it'[/I]

It is never a wise thing to make an entry on a thread without reference to preceding entries, because you are likely to misconstrue an individual post's
meaning. In this case you would find that I am in complete agreement with you that HP is for children and is definitely an irrelevance on this forum.
Which is why I asked, when I started the thread, that people refrain from mentioning the Potter pest that has already reduced some interesting threads to the level of school playground chatter.

[Hank Stamper]

It is never a wise thing to make an entry on a thread without reference to preceding entries, because you are likely to misconstrue an individual post's
meaning. In this case you would find that I am in complete agreement with you that HP is for children and is definitely an irrelevance on this forum.
Which is why I asked, when I started the thread, that people refrain from mentioning the Potter pest that has already reduced some interesting threads to the level of school playground chatter.

i was merely commenting on your accusation that harry potter is a 'childish' creation... it tickled me as stating the bleedin' obvious! the rest was purely rhetorical and not necessarily aimed at you

but i apologise for sullying your thread with such playground drivel... :D

kerouac?

[stlukesguild]

kerouac?

Oh please, no!

[Dr. Hill]

I hated "On the Road". I don't know what it was, but I thought it loved itself too much, and was a bit pretentious. The story didn't interest me and the characters were stereotypical. I like some of Kerouac's poetry, though.

[Hank Stamper]

kerouac?

Oh please, no!

care to expand? i take it you are familiar with more than just on the road??

[Hank Stamper]

I hated "On the Road". I don't know what it was, but I thought it loved itself too much, and was a bit pretentious. The story didn't interest me and the characters were stereotypical. I like some of Kerouac's poetry, though.

i can appreciate that the story wouldn't interest some people... but what was stereotypical about his characters? maybe they have become stereotypes of counter-culture through a modern lens - but i dont see how when he wrote on the road they were stereotypes.. they were based on his friends for starters

and i agree that kerouac was pretentious - maybe that is why i like him so much!

i find it the same when i read paul theroux - he is infuriatingly pretentious at times, but i love reading him (his travel stuff at least)

[Mag Master 21]

I hated "On the Road". I don't know what it was, but I thought it loved itself too much, and was a bit pretentious. The story didn't interest me and the characters were stereotypical. I like some of Kerouac's poetry, though.

Thank God there is another who agrees with me on this. I ended up reading it since this seems to be on everyone and their mother's short list of "must reads."

It was PAINFUL to get through and was thoroughly uninteresting. The only saving grace was the last portion in Mexico.

In all, it is by far the most overrated book I have ever read in my life. It seems to be a favorite of the high school underachievers who were forced into reading the novel for class.

To keep this post on topic to the OP's original question posed, I would say it's a toss-up among Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Salinger. Each for their own merits, but I have never come away from their writing feeling let down (with exception of Grapes of Wrath - I know I'm in the super-minority here).

[Jozanny]

Since this thread is about members favorite novelists, I am not sure how fair it is to contend with those choices, so I am trying to steer clear of those arguments, but Kerouac's gurus act like he is the American Gandhi, which is what wearies me.

He is closer in terms of technique to The Confessions of Rousseau, and my feeling is, the readers need to treat these recollections with a grain of salt, but Kerouac did not invent a *new* form; there are plenty of authors who combine travel writing with memoir. Steinbeck has something similar with his dog, Travels With Charlie or the like. I don't feel like Googling it exactly, since it isn't necessary for my point.

Which is: Beat fanatics lose all sense of perspective. I do not think Kerouac is particularly bad, or even lousy, but I do not think he is either transformative or generative. He is not Cervantes. He isn't Flaubert, doesn't have the insight of Dostoevsky, Henry James, or even Tocqueville.

[Hank Stamper]

Since this thread is about members favorite novelists, I am not sure how fair it is to contend with those choices, so I am trying to steer clear of those arguments, but Kerouac's gurus act like he is the American Gandhi, which is what wearies me.

He is closer in terms of technique to The Confessions of Rousseau, and my feeling is, the readers need to treat these recollections with a grain of salt, but Kerouac did not invent a *new* form; there are plenty of authors who combine travel writing with memoir. Steinbeck has something similar with his dog, Travels With Charlie or the like. I don't feel like Googling it exactly, since it isn't necessary for my point.

Which is: Beat fanatics lose all sense of perspective. I do not think Kerouac is particularly bad, or even lousy, but I do not think he is either transformative or generative. He is not Cervantes. He isn't Flaubert, doesn't have the insight of Dostoevsky, Henry James, or even Tocqueville.

nothing wrong with a bit of debate :D

i think all literature should be taken with a pinch of salt... i dunno if i would label myself a beat fanatic.. in any case im pretty sure my sense of perspective is intact..
and my enjoyment of kerouac is not based on a presumption that he invented a new form - he did, however, capture that sense of disillusionment one feels with the banality and drudgery of everyday life and the will to resist it... i think that is why i (and those 'high school underachievers') can identify with him.. i am not saying kerouac is superior to the writers you mention, far from it... but for me, kerouac has more relevance to my life than cervantes or flaubert

[LitNetIsGreat]

I must admit to a bit of a soft spot towards Kerouac, especially Dharma Bums. It is very true, as Jozanny says that he is no Cervantes, Flaubert, Dostoevsky, Henry James, or Tocqueville, but on the other hand not many people are.

[Dr. Hill]

True, but the reason they're so great is because "not many people are".

[Tallon]

I enjoyed 'On The Road'. It is nice to read a book every now and again that has a certain fire and spirit to it. Especially when one has been reading books about the love lives of the English gentry alot. Plus it's a little unfair to blame Kerouac for some of the young pretentious types who are fanatical about him.

[blp]

Dostoyevsky for his understanding of the irrational. It's as if he discovered it.

Conrad for his incredible style.

Kathy Acker for turning the novel into a chaotic rattlebag of consciousness.

[dfloyd]

their rhyming and brevity,

[Emil Miller]

I haven't had any connection with Dr Seuss but isn't he for children? If so, why not try Noddy in Toyland by Enid Blyton?

[GX4146]

Austen because reading her makes me laugh and feel good. she taught me to be more tolerant on those people who lack consideration. i admire her style, even if it's simple. she utilized what little she has (people, events, etc) and created something all her own, that's a sign of a great artist.

[shud-shee]

Nabokov. Just look how he disparaged Sartre or praised Borges. Eloquence is a petty word to describe his style. Besides I'm from Russia.

[hellsapoppin]

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/JamesAMichenerSitting.jpg



As a youth, I greatly enjoyed the TV show ''Adventures In Paradise" which was based on Michener's Tales of the South Pacific. Over the years, I read a number of his other books including,

Sports In America

Centennial

Alaska

Legacy

A Miracle In Spain

Recessional

Fires of Spring


Each of these books were enjoyable. Somehow, whenever I read them, it was as if the author was personally communicating to me.

Now that I have read Fires ..., I can understand why Michener's writing and stylism has been so appealing to me: the book was largely a portrayal of his highly tragic and painful life -- a life that is largely like my own. No wonder there has been such a life long connection between his work and myself!

[seanlol]

Charles Dickens

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

I hated "On the Road". I don't know what it was, but I thought it loved itself too much, and was a bit pretentious. The story didn't interest me and the characters were stereotypical. I like some of Kerouac's poetry, though.

I went through a phase were I loved anything he did. Now, not so much. I agree with a previous poster; there's a fire to his writings, whether he be pretentious or not is a bit irrelevant to the fact that his story can capture people for whatever matter of time.

His poetry rules too. My favorite haiku of his is about everyone's favorite Russian poor man!

'The Storm,
like Dostoevsky
Builds up as it lists.'


oh and on topic:
My favorite novelist has to be James Joyce. Simply for the reason that I will be dissecting his work for ages to come. The same goes for Proust. I've come to 'miss' them when I don't read them for a while!

[alakungfu]

George Eliot. She has a way of bringing out the sentimentalist in the reader so that they sympathize with the character without overinvesting and tangling the emotions. She could well be the driving force behind the lines of "Gone With the Wind."

[phoenix151]

Jack London

"Eric Miles Williamson's main concern in "Oakland, Jack London, and Me" is that London, for nearly 100 years the most acclaimed American author worldwide, is not officially included in the canon of American Letters - those writers deemed worthy of study in college courses. London is seldom included because students can understand him without the brilliance of teachers or the pyrotechnics of literary theorists. But Williamson finds London a very complex writer, indeed.

In fact, at its deepest level, this book — part memoir, part literary essay — defines greatness in literary art. The great writer is first and foremost passionate. And passion leads to conflicts, contradictions, flaws. London’s work demonstrates all three. When he hits his stride as in “The Call of the Wild? and “The Sea Wolf? where truth seems elusive and conflictive, London is as great as any writer in the canon, certainly carrying more impact than John Updike and John Cheever, both of whom Williamson finds as dull as the suburbs they write about.

Williamson finds the key to understanding London in this basic principle: “In a capitalistic society, we succeed by stomping on the hopes, if not the very lives, of other people."? London and Williamson learned that lesson as children in Oakland, Calif.

Those who determine the canon generate from America’s upper crust, insulated within Ivy League schools, he says. They don’t know that people “at the lower fringe of the working class . . . live with terror in their bones . . . . that is entirely justified by their situations."? They’ve seen their friends, their relatives, their siblings and their neighbors descend into “the abyss, the human cesspool."?

Williamson tells of his fellow laborers losing arms, legs and lives while the only thing that mattered to their employers was finding someone to replace them. London used literature to escape the abyss, and developed his own conflicted identity. He hated the people he left behind, seeing them as lazy, but he loved them because they were his people. He enjoyed being rich but he hated living among rich people. He never got over the fear that fate might send him back to the abyss.

London wrote for survival, demanding of himself 2,000 words before breakfast. Williamson sees this need for survival as London’s passion. The passionate writer cannot develop a consistent aesthetic theory but must put on paper whatever drives his mind on a given day. This is Williamson’s answer.

This inconsistency, he says, should be the reason to include London in the canon. London never successfully depicts one system of thought as superior but, Williamson writes, his “better stories contain elements of both philosophies (because) London could not reconcile his diametrically opposed feelings toward the common man . . . . (Thus), we can only live in a state of rueful social and moral contradiction.�?

It is the tension that grows from this contradiction that makes great art. An Oakland kid who grew up to be a novelist himself and earned a Ph.D. from New York University, Williamson is right in thinking he’s the perfect person to assess London’s worth. He has brought one of America’s great writers more alive for all."

[Equality72521]

Charles Dickens

Fell in love with A Tale of Two Cities. There was no going back after that.

[shimane22]

Franz Kafka! (Everything, but especially The Trial) Magnificent! Kafkaesque! :)

Also:
Nicolai Gogol (Dead Souls, The Overcoat) My all-time favorite satirist.
Haruki Murakami (Everything) His tales are entrancing, bizarre, perfect...
Jack Kerouac (On the Road and the Dharma Bums) Yep, I'm one of those people.
Harry Mulisch (The Assault) A terrific, underappreciated work.
Salman Rushdie (Midnight's Children, the Satanic Verses) Both are masterpieces!
Natsume Soseki (Kokoro) Great bildungsroman.
Kobo Abe- the Japanese Kafka? The Woman in the Dunes is haunting...

[PoeticPassions]

Fyodor Dostoevsky
Theodore Dreiser
Milan Kundera (everything he writes is absolutely amazing)
F. Scott Fitzgerald (The Great Gatsby is not even his best work... his prose and style are wonderful--the way he utilizes language is stunning)
John Steinbeck
Vladimir Nabokov

[WICKES]

My personal favourite is Evelyn Waugh.

He was funnier than P G Wodehouse, but also able to write beautiful, exquisite prose without being too wordy or experimental. He also captured the emptiness and nihilism of post- WW1 Europe.

Aldous Huxley is another fav., followed by Orwell, P G Wodehouse and D H Lawrence

[Emil Miller]

My personal favourite is Evelyn Waugh.

He was funnier than P G Wodehouse, but also able to write beautiful, exquisite prose without being too wordy or experimental. He also captured the emptiness and nihilism of post- WW1 Europe.

Aldous Huxley is another fav., followed by Orwell, P G Wodehouse and D H Lawrence

Your summation of Waugh is spot on, despite my great admiration for Wodehouse. It is interesting that you mention Orwell, who was an exponent of the liberal/left, while Waugh was an apostle of the catholic/right.

[rozreads]

It's J.K.'s name sir...that an allusion to Catcha 22 in case you didn't catcha it...

[MarkBastable]

Martin Amis for language.

Robinson Davies for erudition.

Wodehouse for wit.

King for story.

Moorcock for imagination.

[rozreads]

In my book (sorry about that) nobody compares to the great Mark Twain...because he is the most wonderful satirist who ever lived. Who else can write a sentence taking up half a page and kept you interested til the very end?

[amb]

I'd have to say Gene Wolfe. I think he's the closest that sci-fi or fantasy comes to true literature. His writing is beautiful, and his novels are very complex, and subtle. And honestly, I think that his imagination, and ability to invent a world exceed the vaunted Tolkien's.

[Knetch]

My favorite writer is Hesse. At eighteen, I am able to identify myself with many of the character's in his novels, particularly in Demian and Beneath the Wheel. My favorite of his books is probably Magister Ludi and now that I am thinking of pursuing a career as an Academician, the questions the novel arises on the virtue of a life that is very deep in some aspects and terribly
deficient in others fascinates me. As for Narcissus and Goldmund, words can hardly describe its effect on me when I read it. Overall, I am sure most of Hesse's allure is a product of my age and insecurities, as well as my interests, but I'm sure I'd like him at what-ever age.