Greatest living writer?

[wokeem]

Who do you consider to be the best (or at least your favorite) living author? The focus on these forums seems to rest mainly on the classics, (and rightfully so in my opinion as I have yet to encounter any works that have been published in the last fifty years or so that really even begin to approach the greatness of novels like Crime and Punishment or The Sound and The Fury,) so I was wondering who you find that comes the closest.

I would have to go with Cormac McCarthy. His style is very reminiscent of Faulkner's and in my opinion he has the best chance of any contemporary writer to end up being covered in the classroom setting someday. Blood Meridian and Suttree are both literary masterpieces (in my opinion at least) and I find everything else he has done to be head and shoulders above all of his contemporaries. I under stand that not everyone was a huge fan of The Road, (complaints I hear regarding it range from the somewhat repetitive dialogue, a weak ending, and McCarthy's lack of explanation regarding what destroyed civilization,) but I still found it to be a powerful read and the relationship that he establishes between the Man and the Boy to be one of the more emotionally affecting partnerships that I have ever encountered in a novel.

Thoughts?

[purplybob]

Philip Roth

[Manalive]

I'm not a fan of post-modernism but for posterity/longevity I'll say: Don Delillo, Cormac McCarthy; and maybe: Denis Johnson, and George Saunders.

[JuniperWoolf]

I like Margaret Atwood a lot.

[Travis_R]

I'm partial to Tom Wolfe myself.

[The Comedian]

Maybe Alan Moore. . . maybe.

[Cunninglinguist]

I feel like you're asking us to compare apples and oranges. Many of today's best writers are good in their own unique respect.

[MANICHAEAN]

John le Carre in his spy period prime.

[stlukesguild]

Of the novelists of whom I have read I'd have to go with Cormac McCarthy, Philip Roth, Jose Saramago, and Gabriel Garcia-Marquez. For poets I'd probably include Geoffrey Hill, Yves Bonnefoy, Homero Aridjis, Seamus Heaney, Adam Zagajewski, Richard, Howard, Richard Wilbur, W.S. Merwin, and Anne Carson. Merwin, Wilbur, Howard, Heaney, Hill, and Carson are all certainly deserving not only for their own poetic efforts, but also the efforts as exemplary translators... giving voice to Beowulf, Dante, Baudelaire, Moliere, Sappho, etc... I am especially drawn to Merwin for his long and prolific career producing a truly impressive body of poetry, translations, essays, and fascinating "fictions" (not exactly short stories) that fall within the tradition of Kafka, Borges, and Calvino. Carson, on the other hand, is a brilliant scholar/poet whose writings blur all distinctions between literary genre.

These are but thoughts off the top of my head. Seriously, this question is next to impossible to answer with any sense of confidence. The primary problem,. it would seem to me, is that of translations. How many novels contemporary novels or books of poems from Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Israel, China, India, Japan, etc... have most of us (in the English-speaking world) read? How many of the leading poets or novelists outside of the English-speaking world are even available in translation? (And the same question might surely apply to any country). Thus, the best I can say is "of the authors I have read, these are the ones who strike me as the finest..."

[JuniperWoolf]

Maybe Alan Moore. . . maybe.

Ahh, I forgot about him somehow. Yeah, he's my favourite too.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Noam Chomsky.

[dfloyd]

Woody Allen

[The Rainmaker]

Coetzee.

[Ristshot]

Pynchon has got to be up there.

[blazeofglory]

In fact most gradations I come across here come from the English speaking world and none has referred to any writers out of the confines of the narrow English speaking world. There are indeed great writers in every country in different languages, and we cannot rule out the possibility that they can be better though they are not in lime light in the degrees and manners their counterparts westerners are. Indian and Nepal are for instance countries of great cultural heritages. But few works get translated and still fewer are good translation works and therefore they are likely to be foreshadowed in the eyes of western critics and this is no justice at all

[Wilde woman]

I think Salman Rushdie deserves a mention.

[Scheherazade]

I think Salman Rushdie deserves a mention.For obviously not being the greatest living living writer?

[neilgee]

Bearing in mind Blaze's point I don't claim he's the greatest living author but one I think might still be read in one hundred years time is Seamus Heaney.

[sixsmith]

For obviously not being the greatest living living writer?

Indeed. Anyone capable of producing a flapping turkey like Fury is surely disqualified tout court.

St Lukes raises the obvious problem with the question but for the sake of playing along (and having no real handle on contemporary poetry), I'm going to say Philip Roth. In my estimation, at least three of his novels rank among the very best of post-war American fiction.

[TheFifthElement]

David Mitchell.

I agree with Saramago, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez too. Less so McCarthy; he has his good points but he's far too Faulkner-alike and that's already been done. He is good though. He'll probably be taught in American classrooms. Did someone mention J M Coetzee? He's pretty good too; Disgrace was a phenomenal novel.

Simon Armitage, for poetry. And Seamus Heaney.

[blazeofglory]

We say great, great, great. Great in terms of what? Style, erudition, content, theme, originality. I have recently read a book written by a Nepali writer and he is awe-inspiring given his command over style, vocabulary and of course thematically too, but the subject he chose is historical. The values lived in the novel are dead. The people and place he has kept in focus are nonexistent –the time gone by and the place mythical. Yet those who love all that is very old find the book irresistible and intriguing. I cannot argue against the book with them nor can I argue for it with those who opt for a new taste, topically modern.

Who is right? Those who side with the modern or with the ancient.

[wessexgirl]

I wouldn't say greatest, as that's too contentious, and only time will tell, but my favourite contemporary writer is Hilary Mantel. She's absolutely wonderful, and is very highly regarded over here (in the UK), but I don't know how widely known she is abroad.

[keilj]

Garth Ennis
David Milch

[Brad Coelho]

In terms of pure prose, Marilynne Robinson has the potential to be mentioned w/ the rest of the pantheon of top writers, especially if she thickens her resume over the next decade. I'm a big Delillo buff as well. I, unlike some of the board, do not feel bombarded by technique w/ his work. His style is singular & achieves an equal whimsy as well as depth which I find immensely difficult to pull off (a la Vonnegut), making him equally pleasurable as he is rich.

My eyes certainly have opened to works published in the '80s & '90s. Though I'm a classics guy at heart, I feel it's worth the effort to connect w/ some of these recent works.

[blazeofglory]

The subject must have been the greatest English writer so that it would have not done disservice to all those who shine in other languages too. Today all those write in English dazzle the rest best writers writing in other languages. English flourished with the discovery of America and of course with colonization. Other European countries too have been colonizers no doubt but with the discovery of the Americas English got greater ground and with the prosperity of America and scientific and technological advancement English got all the more prominence on a global scale. Most of great prizes were given to those who took English as a medium of expressions and those who wrote on an equal footing and at times even better were thwarted or got undermined.

If I say a few great African, Asian writers writing in their indigenous languages all will be apathetic to me. If I commend and recommend writers writing in English people would wow me.

There is injustice, partiality and there is no use in grumbling and yet finding this post in context I am expressing the feelings arising within me

[JBI]

Richard Wilbur in English

[Tolstoy's Beard]

Stephanie Meyers is pretty dope.

[Wilde woman]

Umberto Eco.


For obviously not being the greatest living living writer?

Ouch. Greatest is always subjective, but I would argue that Midnight's Children and The Satanic Verses are among the greatest books published in the last fifty years.

[Desolation]

I'm partial to Michel Houellebecq, but that might just be because he's the only one I've actually read.

[Modest Proposal]

What is incredible about Philip Roth is that he is publishing so often, into his 70s, and that his work is arguably better now then it's ever been.

I think Marquez and Rushdie both have published some of the greatest novels of the last 50 years but they both have a broad distance between their great work and... the rest of their work.

I don't understand the complaint that McCarthy is 'like' Faulkner. If their is anything I've seen in my reading it is that nothing is wholly 'new'. The best we can hope to do is have a new take on what is great, McCarthy has poured new and exploratory life into, arguably, the best American author.

Coetzee is obviously supremely talented and morally minded, but for some reason I haven't felt very moved by him artistically.

Honestly, I have no idea who the greatest living author is, and based on the fact that almost every single post mentions someone new, I don't think there will be anything close to a consensus for quite some time. What seems to be clear, is that unlike certain previous eras, there is NOT a clear 'greatest'.

[wokeem]

What is incredible about Philip Roth is that he is publishing so often, into his 70s, and that his work is arguably better now then it's ever been.


I've read Deception and Everyman and enjoyed both immensely. Any suggestions of further works by Philip Roth that are worth picking up?

[Jozanny]

My problem is with the superlative. There are very talented living authors, and at gunpoint I'd go with FifthElement and pick Mitchell, with grave reservations, because postmodern techniques, at their best, demand a significant price--but conceding this, I cannot play. I respect McCarthy but ultimately have to reject his vision of the human condition, just as some reject Mitchell for the same reason, although the two men approach this differently and Mitchell could wipe the floor with Cormac.

Nothing is the greatest, not even Shakespeare, and it is a lazy cheap intellectualizing to keep playing these personal best games with authors.

[Quark]

I've read Deception and Everyman and enjoyed both immensely. Any suggestions of further works by Philip Roth that are worth picking up?

American Pastoral (1997) might be his best. I think his first novel Goodbye, Columbus (1959) was also quite good, but it's a bit different than the two you mentioned. Of course, always take these recommendations lightly. People have different tastes. I actually found Everyman dull. It read like one long complaint about getting old. I think we all have aging relatives to remind us of that. I guess when you've outlived those relatives, you write a book about it. In any case, I'd at least read the blurb on American Pastoral as it's one of my favorites and it's one his more critically respected works.

As for the question in the OP, I'm curious whether the writer has to still be writing to qualify. Could you pick some well-established and soon-to-be-dead author, or do you want something more contemporary?

[sixsmith]

What is incredible about Philip Roth is that he is publishing so often, into his 70s, and that his work is arguably better now then it's ever been.

I think Marquez and Rushdie both have published some of the greatest novels of the last 50 years but they both have a broad distance between their great work and... the rest of their work.

I don't understand the complaint that McCarthy is 'like' Faulkner. If their is anything I've seen in my reading it is that nothing is wholly 'new'. The best we can hope to do is have a new take on what is great, McCarthy has poured new and exploratory life into, arguably, the best American author.

Coetzee is obviously supremely talented and morally minded, but for some reason I haven't felt very moved by him artistically.



In terms of 'great', or even 'very good' novels, I think we can safely deal in the singular when referring to Rushdie. I consider the three Marquez novels I have read (Solitude, Patriarch, Cholera) to be unquestionably top shelf.

I have the same reaction to Coetzee. Disgrace, for example, is a formally brilliant and politically powerful work. That power is, however, derived from a kind of anti-style, a prose so pared and exact that at the same time one is moved by (exactly as you say Modest) the novel's moral force, we are left feeling aesthetically under fed (and perhaps a little guilty for feeling that way).

[TheFifthElement]

If I say a few great African, Asian writers writing in their indigenous languages all will be apathetic to me. If I commend and recommend writers writing in English people would wow me.

There is injustice, partiality and there is no use in grumbling and yet finding this post in context I am expressing the feelings arising within me
I understand your frustration blaze. I think it's a valid point. The problem is, as stlukes mentioned, that novels by great contemporary non-English speaking writers take time to filter through to the English speaking world. It's not fair, but there it is.

I think it is also impossible to talk about who is the greatest living writer. But I think it is possible to talk about living writers who are great. That's the angle I've come from anyway.

I'd be very interested to hear about any great contemporary African or Asian writers you may have encountered. I particularly enjoy Japanese works, I love Haruki Murakami but I'm not yet sure if he's great. I'm waiting for 1Q84 to come out in English to find that out.

[mal4mac]

I think it is also impossible to talk about who is the greatest living writer. But I think it is possible to talk about living writers who are great.

But none can be considered as great as, say, Tolstoy and Dickens, simply because there has not been enough time to make the consideration. You could not compare, say, Roth to Tolstoy because Roth is too recent. In a hundred years time you can make that comparison (if Roth is still published...) In reading a modern author you do not have the 'wisdom of the ages' to help you decide if the author is 'really' that great. I used to read about one 'highly praised' modern novel to every acknowledged classic, but the modern novels were never as good, so I now read more classics. Recently I had Franzen's 'The Corrections" sandwiched between "Return of the Native" (Hardy) and Huck Finn. "The Corrections" was IMHO far inferior.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Besides Noam Chomsky,
forgot to assert Slavov Zizek.

[wokeem]

Nothing is the greatest, not even Shakespeare, and it is a lazy cheap intellectualizing to keep playing these personal best games with authors.

You're right, "greatest" was probably not the best way to word what I was after, since the entire concept of quality is more or less subjective. I was merely interested in finding out who people found to be their favorite living author, since the threads on this forum tend to focus primarily on the classics.





As for the question in the OP, I'm curious whether the writer has to still be writing to qualify. Could you pick some well-established and soon-to-be-dead author, or do you want something more contemporary?

I don't have any problem with that, actually even if they're recently deceased but they're works fall into a more contemporary category (Roberto Bolano for example) I'm all ears.

I'm mainly just interested in hearing everyone's opinion on their favorite contemporary literature since it doesn't seem to be discussed here often.

[Emil Miller]

I'm mainly just interested in hearing everyone's opinion on their favorite contemporary literature since it doesn't seem to be discussed here often.

Perhaps that's because it doesn't compare with what has gone before.

[Dodo25]

Perhaps that's because it doesn't compare with what has gone before.

People say that about any aspect of life. It can't be that bad, can it? Time will tell..

[Emil Miller]

People say that about any aspect of life. It can't be that bad, can it? Time will tell..

Notice the word "perhaps."

[Babak Movahed]

Stephanie Meyers is pretty dope.

hahahahahhahahhahahaha


umm I don't know I don't thing there is one that stands apart to the point of calling them the greatest but I'm kind of a Joyce Carol Oates fan myself

[Pecksie]

Probably Amos Oz.

[David Lurie]

Who do you consider to be the best (or at least your favorite) living author?

I don't understand what's wrong with this question, I don't understand the language thing nor the time line thing, the answer - even if someone had read all the novels of all time and of all languages - will always be a subjective one.
"Best of" lists are useless because in most cases they are unannotated but if we try to motivate our choices - illustrate the criteria behind them - they can be useful.
Then I disapprove this so common negative attitude towards contemporary art - be it novels, music, architecture or else - for me it's the symptom of a society with a low self-esteem and - what's worse - forgetful that art is mirror of an era, the best way to understand what's goin' on and where we're going, this is what I expect from art and that's why I am interested in the works produced by alive and kicking artists.
And when I say alive and kicking I imply that Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Mario Vargas Llosa - and perhaps Salman Rushdie too - are out of the race since at least two decades have passed from their last significant opus.
Edward P. Jones could be my first choice, "The known world" is the best novel I have read in the new century, the language is magnificent and then Jones deals with slavery from an unusual point of view, so he is able to offer a new perspective on a central period in the history of the US; the collections of short stories Jones has published are great examples of his art - especially the second volume "all aunt hagar's children" - the language of this writer is so thick, so intricate, you can read it ten times and you will always find more treasures in it.
J.M. Coetzee is another candidate of mine, Disgrace is an incredibly powerful book - maybe even more than "the known world" since it deals with our time and its power is shown by the birth of the "Lucy syndrome" theory about post-apartheid South Africa - furthermore Coetzee is delivering his amazing fictional autobiography, one of the most original literary ideas I can remember in a long time.
The French LeClezio is alive but not much kicking nowadays, but his compatriot Jean-Cristophe Rufin is one of my favourites, quite a larger than life character: one of the first to join Médecins Sans Frontières, then an ambassador and since 2008 he is a member of l'Académie française, Brazil Red is his masterpiece, recollecting a forgotten colonial adventure of the French in Brazil he depicts an incredibly modern tale about the clash of civilizations and the madness behind the very idea of colonial conquest. "Lost Causes" - where Rufin draws largely on his experience in the humanitarian field - is an illuminating novel about this central - and controversial - theme of our time.
OK, I guess I have made my point :biggrinjester:

[WildWildEast]

Joycd Carol Oates
Margeret Atwood
Toni Morrison
Cormac Mccarthy
Sebastian Faulks

[JBI]

Besides Noam Chomsky,
forgot to assert Slavov Zizek.

Thinkers, maybe, but writers? Chomsky isn't exactly fun reading. Zizek is worse.

[Jozanny]

Chomsky and Zizek are theorists of a professional class who publish, but they cannot be called writers. As a caste, poets and writers don't earn that kind of respect; their legacy does but that is different.

And for those who object to my earlier objection, I will try to reframe it: I have been here three years, and seen dozens of best worst and greatest threads, and there is, essentially, no such thing, living, dead, or otherwise, and I find it disturbing that students, young people, or common readers think in such terms. One does not compare Tolstoy to Faulkner and single out which is *greater*. People compare Tolstoy to Gogol or his rival, Turgenev, and in context, this is what creates classic literature.

Even when I was JBI's age, I never asked myself who were the greatest writers, but I studied what great writing was, and is. I still do, but ranking systems really aren't worth my time.

[stlukesguild]

I disapprove this so common negative attitude towards contemporary art - be it novels, music, architecture or else - for me it's the symptom of a society with a low self-esteem and - what's worse - forgetful that art is mirror of an era, the best way to understand what's goin' on and where we're going...

I'm not certain I fully believe this. When one considers what the living conditions and experiences of the masses are at any given point in history it becomes doubtful that Michelangelo, Mozart, or Dante represent a mirror of a given era. Yes, they are certainly a product of their eras... but in many ways they are far more connected with other eras... with other artists of other times and places... than they are with their own time. Of course history deems these artists to have been the best products of their time and as such we fall for the illusion that the writings of Shakespeare is the voice of the "Shakespearean era".

...this is what I expect from art and that's why I am interested in the works produced by alive and kicking artists.

If this is what you expect from art, in many ways you may be sadly disappointed... or deluded. In most instances artist are not prophets. They have no more insight or understanding of the world around them than anyone else, and the ideas to the contrary are but latent Romantic notions of artists as visionaries. Where artists excel is simply in giving form to their perceptions through the language of their art, be it painting, film, poetry, music, etc...

And when I say alive and kicking I imply that Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Mario Vargas Llosa - and perhaps Salman Rushdie too - are out of the race since at least two decades have passed from their last significant opus.

If we are going to narrow the field of who or what counts as a "contemporary" or "living" writer, then let's get specific: authors under the age of ____? authors who have published a critically acclaimed work within the last ____? years of at least ____? pages in length if a novel or ____? number of pages if a collection of poetry.

Seriously... sticking with only the writers who have published at least one acclaimed work within the last decade I don't know that I would change many on my initial post:

Of the novelists of whom I have read I'd have to go with Cormac McCarthy, Philip Roth, Jose Saramago, and Gabriel Garcia-Marquez. For poets I'd probably include Geoffrey Hill, Yves Bonnefoy, Homero Aridjis, Seamus Heaney, Adam Zagajewski, Richard Howard, Richard Wilbur, W.S. Merwin, and Anne Carson. Merwin, Wilbur, Howard, Heaney, Hill, and Carson are all certainly deserving not only for their own poetic efforts, but also the efforts as exemplary translators... giving voice to Beowulf, Dante, Baudelaire, Moliere, Sappho, etc... I am especially drawn to Merwin for his long and prolific career producing a truly impressive body of poetry, translations, essays, and fascinating "fictions" (not exactly short stories) that fall within the tradition of Kafka, Borges, and Calvino. Carson, on the other hand, is a brilliant scholar/poet whose writings blur all distinctions between literary genre.

McCarthy, Roth, Saramago, and Garcia-Marquez have all released acclaimed works within the last decade including Garcia-Marquez whose recent works included Living to Tell the Tale (the first part of his autobiography that merges fact and fiction) and his novella, Memories of My Melancholy Whores. McCarthy clearly continues to produce works that resonate powerfully such as The Road and No Country for Old Men even if these do not (?) rise to the level of earlier achievements such as Child of God, Blood Meridian, and the Border Trilogy. The same is true of Roth, who shows no real sign of petering out.

My own preference is more for poetry and so I am probably more on firm footing there. Still I would stick firmly with the poets I listed... perhaps only adding one: Charles Wright.

Geoffrey Hill is an incredibly dense poet of the tradition going back through Hart Crane, T.S. Eliot, and Ezra Pound... to Blake and Milton. Like Milton, Blake, Pound, and Eliot especially, he is a poet of the public and political rather than the personal embraced by so many of the "confessional" school of poetry. Like Blake, as a political poet Hill rages against the stupidities and horrors of our century... without ever slipping into cliche or sloganeering.

Yves Bonnefoy has been recognized for decades as France's greatest living poet. He continues to publish new books of poetry. His most recent, La Longue Chaine de l'Ancre dates from 2008, while his previous collection, Les Planches courbes/Curved Planks... one of his greatest achievements... was translated into English in 2006. Bonnefoy merges multiple stylistic elements including Surrealism and formalism. Bonnefoy has also written any number of books on art and literature.

Homero Aridjis is perhaps the leading poet of Mexico. His output is quite voluminous including poetry, essays, and novels... in Spanish and English. His Persephone is a prose poem of erotic frenzy, rooted in the myth of of Persephone, the goddess of Greek mythology who was kidnapped by Pluto, became his wife and queen of the underworld and returned to Earth each spring as a symbol of fertility. Aridjis Eyes to See Otherwise (a recent collected poems) and Solar Poems establish him as a master of metaphor and evocative imagery... sensual... erotic... full of profound wonder at the world and beauty.

Seamus Heaney is the Nobel Prize Laureate poet from Ireland. His poems... often elegiac... are commonly rooted in profound observations of the small details of everyday life and the experiences of the local surroundings (perhaps not unlike Robert Frost) which can take on larger social and political meanings. His language is knotty and hard-wrought... suggestive of Celtic art and even Gerard Manley Hopkins.

Adam Zagajewski is a Polish poet whose books include Mysticism for Beginners (1997), Without End: New and Selected Poems (2002) and Eternal Enemies: Poems (2008). Like a great many East European writers who lived through the horrors of the 20th century, his poems exhibit a definite gravitas and are elegiac in nature. His poems may contemplate streets in Kraków, beaches and fields in Sicily, the sites of ancient Greece, the grounds of north central European history or poetic idols and friends such as Czeslaw Milosz, Joseph Brodsky, Alexander Wat, and W.G. Sebald... but all of these subjects or experiences are taken personally... and transformed through a piercing and mystical language.

Richard Howard is an American poet best known for his dramatic monologues (ala Robert Browning) in which the poet re-imagines an ever-surprising array of historical personages: artists, poets, scientists, etc... ranging from Proust, Nadar, John Ruskin, Walt Whitman, Pierre Bonnard, Napoleon, Jane Morris... to Browning himself. His poems are incredibly sophisticated and witty... gloriously sensual and erotic... and decidedly Francophile (he is also a brilliant translator from the French... his Les Fleurs du Mal may be the best translation of Baudelaire's entire masterwork).

Richard Wilbur is another brilliantly sophisticated Francophile American poet. Like Howard, Wilbur is a great translator from French, his translations of Moliere, Cornielle, through Andre Breton are among the finest made. His original writings include not only poetry, but essays and children's books. His poetry... for which he is best known... is exquisitely polished and formally wrought like diamond. As a result, Wilbur is a slow worker... turning out but a few poems in a given year.

W.S. Merwin shares with Wilbur and Howard a mastery of the art of translation... yet where the previous two poets are clearly Francophone, Merwin is far more interested in Spanish and Asian poetry. Indeed, his translation efforts are multi-fold including Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Middle English), Dante's Purgatorio (Italian), El Cid (Spanish), Mandelshtam (Russian), etc... Beyond his poetry and translations, Merwin has written any number of essays as well as a marvelous body of parables/fantasies/short stories/poetic meditations/fictions ala Kafka and J.L. Borges that are exquisite works in their own right. Merwin's poems often have political/social overtones... confronting issues such as the Vietnam War or the ecology. His latest poems are densely imagistic, dream-like, and full of praise for the natural world.

Anne Carson is a brilliant poet/scholar whose writings often... in a decidedly Post-Modernist manner... blur all distinctions between literary genre. She has translated Sappho and Aeschylus... and written poems/essays that merge translation with invention. Her Autobiography of Red... a novel (?) in verse form... updates the myth of Geryon and Herakles. In the collection, Plainwater her poem Cannicula di Anna presents a 53-section poem partially set in the paintings of the 16th-century artist Perugino blurred with fantastic anachronistic occurrences.

Charles Wright... my last addition... is a poet who has produced an impressive oeuvre of poetic collections including Country Music: Selected Early Poems, Chickamauga, Littlefoot, Black Zodiac, and The World of the Ten Thousand Things: Poems 1980-1990.

Journal and landscape
Discredited form, discredited subject matter
I tried to resuscitate them both, breath and blood
making them whole again.

These lines by Wright offer some view into his poetry which explores/explodes the discredited... the landscape... the poems of meditation while listening to Miles Davis... the poem of meditation upon mortality that includes Lester Young and Earl Scruggs...

JoZ... good to see you bristling as ever. I largely agree that these "best of" threads are a waste of time... except when they lead someone, perhaps, to explore a writer of real merit they might not have otherwise considered... or heard of. Other than that... what is the point? If we go so far as to even accept that Shakespeare was the greatest writer ever what does that mean? Is the goal of art somehow akin to the goal of baseball? Shakespeare is the Yankees and he's won the World Series again so we can all go home? Yes, artists engage in a dialog with each other... even across time and space... and yes, I agree with Walter Pater and T.S. Eliot that each artists strives to attain recognition... to gain a place in the "canon"... but each strives to achieve something of merit on his or her own terms. Ultimately, discussions as to whether Shakespeare is better than Dante, Homer, or Dostoevsky are as pointless as ignorant proclamations that Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, or Dostoevsky suck. They are essentially an attempt to validate one's own personal opinion: "I didn't enjoy Tolstoy... thus Tolstoy sucks." But how often do discussions that aim for more of the meat and potatoes of critical inquiry peter out? Recently we saw the Leopardi thread die... in spite of JBI's declared passion for his work and already I have my doubts about the Dante discussion. Keeping such dialog afloat demands serious concerted effort and how many of us have the time or are willing to put forth such?

[Jozanny]

luke, I am doing the best that I can with the discussions, but if I am going to rescue myself at all from my problems I have to get back to work, and and focus on asking for help from the right people with my personal stuff. I really do love Dante, always have, maybe it is genetic, but I have to take it slowly:nopity:

[antiprefix]

Jhumpa Lahiri

Junot Diaz (I wish I could include the proper mark over the i)

E.L. Doctorow

Edwidge Danticat

****in' Tobias Wolff

[David Lurie]

I'm not certain I fully believe this. When one considers what the living conditions and experiences of the masses are at any given point in history it becomes doubtful that Michelangelo, Mozart, or Dante represent a mirror of a given era. Yes, they are certainly a product of their eras... but in many ways they are far more connected with other eras... with other artists of other times and places... than they are with their own time. Of course history deems these artists to have been the best products of their time and as such we fall for the illusion that the writings of Shakespeare is the voice of the "Shakespearean era".

I don't know much about Shakespeare, but since you mention Dante I can tell you one thing for certain: you cannot separate his life and works from the 13th century, it is impossible to fully understand "La Divina Commedia" ignoring the political, cultural and social situation of Florence and Italy at the time of Dante Alighieri - and the active role he played in it. Is it more common Dante's involvement and activity or Shakespeare's invisibility?
Seeking the link between artistic expression and the life of its time is what archeology does all the time.
Is really history to deem these artists as having been the best of their time? I call it cultural industry advertising.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]...this is what I expect from art and that's why I am interested in the works produced by alive and kicking artists.

If this is what you expect from art, in many ways you may be sadly disappointed... or deluded. In most instances artist are not prophets. They have no more insight or understanding of the world around them than anyone else, and the ideas to the contrary are but latent Romantic notions of artists as visionaries. Where artists excel is simply in giving form to their perceptions through the language of their art, be it painting, film, poetry, music, etc...


Disappointment? Why? At 43 my thoughts about the arts are the result of my experience rather than an abstract expectation, so can art be a mirror of an era? yes but please remember that mirrors can be found in numerous shapes and sizes ;)
I don't believe in prophets and I agree with what you have written " Where artists excel is simply in giving form to their perceptions through the language of their art, be it painting, film, poetry, music, etc..." but what is the result of this skill artists possess? sometimes it can produce visionary results, some other time illuminating results, most of the time uninteresting results.

[stlukesguild]

I don't know much about Shakespeare, but since you mention Dante I can tell you one thing for certain: you cannot separate his life and works from the 13th century, it is impossible to fully understand "La Divina Commedia" ignoring the political, cultural and social situation of Florence and Italy at the time of Dante Alighieri - and the active role he played in it. Is it more common Dante's involvement and activity or Shakespeare's invisibility?
Seeking the link between artistic expression and the life of its time is what archeology does all the time.
Is really history to deem these artists as having been the best of their time? I call it cultural industry advertising.

The idea that art is "a mirror of society" or "an era" ignores the fact that it only mirrors certain aspects of that society/culture... those with which the artist had connections or was indebted to or aspired to. Yes, Dante deals with the culture of his time... but only to the realities of lords, princes, dukes, popes, etc... who were central in the politics of Europe... and most importantly Tuscany and Florence. These figures, however, represent but one aspect of society... and not even the majority. At the same time... it must be recognized that Dante is equally involved in a dialog with his predecessors... with Virgil, Augustine, Homer, Cavalcanti, etc...

I'm don't buy the idea that the strongest artists of an era... the artists who become part of the "canon" if you will, only achieve this position as a result of cultural advertising or the machinations of society. Far too often, the artists who are recognized as the best of their time are far from being the ideal representatives for the maintaining the powers that be. Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Mozart, Beethoven, William Blake, Shelley, etc... are not exactly ideal representatives. The artists that survive do so because of a continued relevance to the combined audience constructed of the "experts" (scholars, critics, historians, etc...), subsequent generations of artists, and the art-loving public. Some artists... James Joyce, for example... owe far more to the "experts" and subsequent artists; others... such as Alexandre Dumas... owe far more to the continued admiration of the public.

SLG (quote) If this is what you expect from art, in many ways you may be sadly disappointed... or deluded. In most instances artist are not prophets. They have no more insight or understanding of the world around them than anyone else, and the ideas to the contrary are but latent Romantic notions of artists as visionaries. Where artists excel is simply in giving form to their perceptions through the language of their art, be it painting, film, poetry, music, etc...

Disappointment? Why? At 43 my thoughts about the arts are the result of my experience rather than an abstract expectation, so can art be a mirror of an era? yes but please remember that mirrors can be found in numerous shapes and sizes
I don't believe in prophets and I agree with what you have written " Where artists excel is simply in giving form to their perceptions through the language of their art, be it painting, film, poetry, music, etc..." but what is the result of this skill artists possess? sometimes it can produce visionary results, some other time illuminating results, most of the time uninteresting results.

I am writing from the perspective of a working artist... and one who has spent years surrounded by working artists. I agree that art can result in illuminating and visionary results... but artists as a whole... while usually quite educated... are not inherently visionaries or prophets or philosophers for that matter with a deeper or more profound understanding of human nature, political or social realities, religion, etc... They do have a far more profound grasp of how to give ideas tangible form... be it visual, aural, or in word. Neither are artists necessarily scholars or critics (Remember the great aphorism, "God doesn't engage in theology."). In a great many instances the artists are closer to a conduit... not necessarily the most adept at discerning what their own work is about... how it relates to the achievements of others... etc...

[Jemmy Bloocher]

Thomas Pynchon, Cormac McCarthy, Neal Stephenson.

[The Atheist]

Who do you consider to be the best (or at least your favorite) living author?

Excellent!

I'll play, but with a couple many people will never have heard of:

Tom Sharpe
Ben Elton



Nothing is the greatest, not even Shakespeare, and it is a lazy cheap intellectualizing to keep playing these personal best games with authors.

Lighten up, Jo!

I think it's cheap intellectualising to make that kind of comment.

The language and the art - of writing - are evolving all the time, and aside from this being a great way of making a list of people that will encourage others to read those authors, it's basic human instinct to play, "who's the best?"

Whether you're trying to compare footballers, sculptors, chess players or writers, this kind of discussion is perfectly valid, and completely meaningless as there will never be a consensus.

Unless it's boxing and Muhammad Ali.

:D


Chomsky and Zizek are theorists of a professional class who publish, but they cannot be called writers. As a caste, poets and writers don't earn that kind of respect; their legacy does but that is different.

And for those who object to my earlier objection, I will try to reframe it: I have been here three years, and seen dozens of best worst and greatest threads, and there is, essentially, no such thing, living, dead, or otherwise, and I find it disturbing that students, young people, or common readers think in such terms. One does not compare Tolstoy to Faulkner and single out which is *greater*. People compare Tolstoy to Gogol or his rival, Turgenev, and in context, this is what creates classic literature.

Even when I was JBI's age, I never asked myself who were the greatest writers, but I studied what great writing was, and is. I still do, but ranking systems really aren't worth my time.

[Jozanny]

Valid and meaningless. Atheism's variation on the profound, no doubt. :rolleyes:

[The Atheist]

Valid and meaningless. Atheism's variation on the profound, no doubt. :rolleyes:

What on earth does atheism have to do with the subject?

Probably 95% of life is meaningless - but enjoyable. Forum discussions fall into that arena, they're designed to be a pastime, not an inflexible set of rules as to what may and may not be a valid discussion.

[Jozanny]

You certainly seem to be attributing to me a great deal of power that I in fact do not have, as in 90% of these threads I barely bother to post, and the fact that I find them shallow will not cease the ubiquity with which they are started. As a writer I take literature seriously, even when it is comic, as with Fielding, Dickens, Toole, or even Zadie Smith.

More importantly, to channel Heidegger, there are much greater riches involved in examining the thing itself, just like baseball is far more rewarding if one studies the game, the players, and the statistics, rather than simply knowing the World Series team for the current year. Applying superlatives to anything without having the knowledge to make your case is worse than mindless, it is an abuse of your own potential.

I am too pressed for time to give the best that I have in discussing authors, but when I commit to make the time, and engage other critics and scholars, this is my real religious faith, the acquisition of new perspectives through real engagement with the works.

[Quark]

Applying superlatives to anything without having the knowledge to make your case is worse than mindless

I suppose that's where I come into this. Some of the best recent American fiction I've read is Franzen's The Corrections, Stuart O'Nan A Prayer for the Dying, and Phillip Roth's American Pastoral. I don't really care for bulk of the authors' work, though, and that always seems to be the case. I like one work by an author, but find the rest of their writing not worth the read. Franzen has a new book coming out in August--maybe that will be good--but for the most part I haven't cared for much else these people have put into novel form. It's difficult coming up with an author who has been consistently "great" through enough works to be called the "greatest." Cormac McCarthy came up in the OP, but I've always felt he was trying a little too hard. He doesn't appear to know how to create a dramatic situation except by jamming in a bunch of extreme situations, big issues, and obvious icons from American mythology. There's a real want of nuance and originality in his novels that I've never been able to get around. All the good press that J.M. Coetzee is getting in this thread, though, makes me interested in his work. I've heard quite a lot about him, but never actually taken the time to read one of his novels.


Recently we saw the Leopardi thread die

It went for over a month and was posted in almost 200 times. What do you want? No, I think the discussion went very well, and with some luck the Dante, Dickens, and Poe bookclubs get going soon. I think there's plenty of space for both close literary analysis and hopelessly vague "Greatest X" threads. My only complaint is that these kinds of threads seem to get featured on the "General Literature" part of the forum, while bookclubs get relegated to less traveled author's pages. Wouldn't it makes sense to put bookclubs in a more prominent place?

[Jozanny]

Quark, that makes two, since sixsmith also ranks Franzen very highly, but my problem with The Corrections is the book is one long sequence on the father's death and the mother's ironic end of life freedom as a result, and to me, this amounted to a rigor without a reason for it. I get that as the father becomes sicker through Alzheimer's we get more clues about the dysfunction of the children, but what for? Gary blows a wad on a bad bet, the more obstinate son doesn't resolve but hooks up with the doctor, and the daughter outs herself to mom who then accepts her daughter's lesbianism. There was too much detail for me. Why did I need it? I can accept that life goes on and closure doesn't necessarily exist, but I did not get much from the book beyond a mirror on my own obsessive replay of emotional injury, and more to the point, having such discussions is what keeps the strength of literature alive.

I realize it is my field and that in my maturity I have gathered experience, as you have and others, and we learn from each other, and that some people don't, but I do not derive much pleasure from keeping scores and lists, and this is my last comment on the matter.

[JBI]

Meh, stop bickering. If anyone is going to bicker, they should just realize that the thread is ridiculous, in that the bulk of posters rarely consider non-English writers.

Lets be honest, the scope of discussion on this forum rarely deviates beyond 19th century Russian novelists, and American and British novelists. Drama is ignored almost completely, Poetry, reduced to more catalogue than anything else (I am guilty of that too, as I admit, I got caught up and didn't manage to post on the Leopardi thread as I originally intended), and wider-ranging works, unknown.

That's the real problem, that such a thread has no meaning, especially from my viewpoint. Lets be honest, I stated Wilbur in English, but that holds no ground; nobody else would have chosen him, I bet, and even so, he is just one poet who hasn't really written much in a while, given his age.

From where I sit, English and American literature (English in the England sense) is no more important than Chinese or Italian, or French literature. I am not American, therefore feel no need for such an American-centered view of literature (in the sense that the US "literary culture" has a distinct aesthetic, based on marketing, availability, and trends in scholarship), nor do I believe that England, or Ancient Greece are particularly strong traditions that make them stand out above others.

Simply put, the same names being rehashed in the same genre in near-identical threads don't go anywhere. Perhaps I should check the sub-forum, but alas, I can never find the discussions as I really don't frequent these forums that often anymore (time is more scarce now).

I guess this sort of debate is the American debate though; it holds the ground of American scholarship as well, and American views of literature. The will-to-the-best as it were, what Harold Bloom calls "agon" in the sense that every author is out to win top prize at the Dionysus festival is heavily an American phenomenon (it exists, but not in that exact vision, which pushes a far greater emphasis on the individual within the tradition, rather than the tradition over the individual.).

Seriously, if we are doing a debate, why not just discuss contemporary literature, or comparative literature - either spatially (comparing and discussing different countries and traditions) - linearly (comparing different time trends) - or inwardly, closely examining what is inside a work. The actual valuing process is far stronger then, when there actually is something to discuss.

Why else do you think the Nobel Prize itself turned to being so political of late; because, quite simply, an aesthetic question over that much space, that many authors in that many languages, is bound to be a failure; their only hope is to find some lesser-known politically progressive author, and at least show that they have cause behind their choice, rather than are judging a trend which is like trying to play fortune teller of the world.

Simply put, the value game is just so ridiculous, and can have bad consequences to. For instance, English writers viewing French authors caused the bulk of French literature to go unknown even until recent times. Think about it - between Racine and the Symbolists, how many poets can one name?

One would have to look at the history, with romantic critics, and even earlier critics before them, setting a standard that regarded French poetry as inherently flawed and boring, to the point where Coleridge dismissed the lot as fancy, and the poems needed to be "rediscovered" and not even until recently (though between Villon and Baudelaire, it seems nobody knows what happened besides a select few).

That's what this sort of discussion really does - it doesn't open up new dimensions, it merely reinforces the same boring answers. I want to hear more about what people find interesting, what makes the books people read books worth reading. As such, no matter how much discussion of Harry Potter there is, nothing is ever going to be agreed upon; better to just give up.

[Jozanny]

JBI, I would certainly opt for a diverse diet of foreign authors, but most Canadian writers I know by name recognition vary little from the best of us down here, and getting Asians in translation has a higher price tag, etc--and I don't really complain about the classics here, that is still a core curriculum, and there is the book club--it just seems that we do not go to ground much online and really think. It just tends to be click your apps and then move on.

[JBI]

JBI, I would certainly opt for a diverse diet of foreign authors, but most Canadian writers I know by name recognition vary little from the best of us down here, and getting Asians in translation has a higher price tag, etc--and I don't really complain about the classics here, that is still a core curriculum, and there is the book club--it just seems that we do not go to ground much online and really think. It just tends to be click your apps and then move on.

It doesn't matter even; when is the last time someone here read a French novel? It isn't as expensive as you make it out to be, to get foreign authors, especially if you buy them used, but even not, they are still accessible.

It's more of an American condition than anything else; besides a Spanish population now reading in Spanish, most people seem to not bother looking outside of their own nationality. Books in Canada, as a whole are 1.5x to 2x as expensive as down south (import tax because most are printed through American presses), yet people here still find time and money to read - I think the excuse of price and mediocrity holds little now.

For instance, Penguin in recent years has brought a better number of texts out. Anyone can pick them up. Columbia university has put out a great number of East Asian texts in translation at affordable prices - anybody could pick those up. French literature, Italian literature besides Dante, even Russian literature besides Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. The problem is, people aren't interested.

The Norton world literature is very much the American tradition with authors from elsewhere footnoted in - the pre-modern stuff is far better than the modern, as American literature, and even English literature are not able to exclusively dominate. The truth of the matter is though, that as good as American, or even English literature are, they are hardly a spec on the grand scheme of literature.

In terms of literary culture, there are a great many with strong written traditions. English literature (this is in the sense that we have it now, after Chaucer) was itself originally an imitation of French (and then became an imitation of French again after Charles the 2nd came back with French-styled Neo-Classicists). There are phenomenal writers, but on the whole, most, because of the position of English in the world, are taken a little more seriously than they would outside of the frame of reference - so we say, for instance, The English romantics are good, but are they better than their German, Italian, French, or Russian counterparts? Or we expand it further - is the American Modernism any more important than, lets say, the Japanese modernist movement, of which people here know absolutely nothing about, despite being quite a bit in translation for over 40 years now?

I am not trying to belittle things, just trying to point out how fixated people are - it isn't as if translation is what is holding us back, as much as it is one's own lack of interest.

That's why these things are rather harmful - because quite simply, they just reinforce an ethnocentric canon that is so ignorant as to be laughable in contemporary contexts; even Bloom's canon is more expansive than the general consensus on these forums.

So, for all those suggesting a best living author, one must question exactly how many living authors one is selecting from? is it 10 that you have read, 100? In how many languages? The lack of seriousness that these threads can be regarded with almost justifies their merger together; we only need one "who do you like" thread - there should be a recommendation thread sticky linking to all these discussions, and then we can get rid of this unneeded traffic. It's already enough that the same boring poets get to publish in the poetry section with their crappy doggerel without reading before posting anyway.

[stlukesguild]

It doesn't matter even; when is the last time someone here read a French novel? It isn't as expensive as you make it out to be, to get foreign authors, especially if you buy them used, but even not, they are still accessible.

It depends upon what we are talking about here with your French novels. Seriously, I have seen Hugo, Proust, Camus, Zola, Flaubert and others show up in discussion. If you are speaking of contemporary French novels, well then I need to agree with JoZ... access is less than ideal... and even more limited if the reader does not read French and needs a translation. I have translations of Michel Rio, Marguerite Yourcenar, Emmanuel Carrère, Georges Perec, Michel Tournier, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Maurice Blanchot, and a few others. None are really contemporary... and few are really accessible unless you truly know where to look. Let's face it, translating a work of literature is a major undertaking and investment. It is not something likely to be done by either the translator of publisher unless one is somewhat certain of the aesthetic merits... or commercial viability of the author. Latin-American writers seem to do quite a bit better in this than others... perhaps as a result of the large Spanish-speaking population in the US. World politics also influences the availability of works. Following the rise of the Japanese economy, Japanese literature began to show up in translation... just as Chinese is doing now. Tensions in the Middle-East, on the other hand, have spurred a greater interest in Middle-Eastern literature.

It's more of an American condition than anything else; besides a Spanish population now reading in Spanish, most people seem to not bother looking outside of their own nationality. Books in Canada, as a whole are 1.5x to 2x as expensive as down south (import tax because most are printed through American presses), yet people here still find time and money to read - I think the excuse of price and mediocrity holds little now.

Somehow I doubt your nationalistic notions of the well-read nature of Canadians to Americans. Amazon.com and the giant mega-book stores like Borders and Barnes and Nobles are not thriving off Canadian readership.

For instance, Penguin in recent years has brought a better number of texts out. Anyone can pick them up. Columbia university has put out a great number of East Asian texts in translation at affordable prices - anybody could pick those up. French literature, Italian literature besides Dante, even Russian literature besides Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. The problem is, people aren't interested.

I don't know where you get this idea. Fernando Pessoa, J.L. Borges, Jose Saramago, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Pablo Neruda, Amos Oz, Italo Calvino, Paul Celan, Hermann Hesse, Yevgeny Yevtuschenko, Kenzaburō Ōe, Haruki Murakami, Naguib Mahfuz, and many others can be found in most any large chain book store, and copies of the same can be found in the used book stores. Many of these writers, indeed, are quite popular. The breadth of non-English is far greater if we look further back: Kafka, Goethe, Hugo, Baudelaire, Tolstoy, etc... The fact, however, that The US and Britain should focus upon Anglo literature is no more surprising than the fact that Italians probably read far more Italian literature. As for Canada... I largely suspect that the average Canadian reader is no more multi-cultural in his or her reading than the average American. If French literature in more popular, there would seem to be an obvious reason for that... as well as the popularity of Chinese literature among certain population bases. My guess is that Chinese literature is no less popular and accessible in the large Chinese enclaves in the US.

The Norton world literature is very much the American tradition with authors from elsewhere footnoted in - the pre-modern stuff is far better than the modern, as American literature, and even English literature are not able to exclusively dominate. The truth of the matter is though, that as good as American, or even English literature are, they are hardly a spec on the grand scheme of literature.

That's impossible for even you to suggest. What literature of the present will prove itself to have the staying power and continue to resonate is impossible to say. Considering the visual arts... where linguistic barriers do not exist... American and British (surprisingly) art has proven itself far more than the vast majority of what is coming out of Russia, China, Japan, Africa, etc... (Not to suggest they have produced nothing of merit). You know as well as anyone that the strongest art has almost always risen from the Imperial political/economic super-powers while the rest of the world attempts to play catch-up or copy-cat.

In terms of literary culture, there are a great many with strong written traditions. English literature (this is in the sense that we have it now, after Chaucer) was itself originally an imitation of French (and then became an imitation of French again after Charles the 2nd came back with French-styled Neo-Classicists). There are phenomenal writers, but on the whole, most, because of the position of English in the world, are taken a little more seriously than they would outside of the frame of reference - so we say, for instance, The English romantics are good, but are they better than their German, Italian, French, or Russian counterparts? Or we expand it further - is the American Modernism any more important than, lets say, the Japanese modernist movement, of which people here know absolutely nothing about, despite being quite a bit in translation for over 40 years now?

Yes... British literature comes through French literature which in turn comes from Italian literature... but then again, German music was clearly rooted in Italian music... and yet rapidly surpassed the model. Yes, French literature is arguably as strong as English... but German? Spanish? Italian, Polish? They all have moments and writers of real brilliance... but I doubt most Poles would suggest that Polish literature rivals English any more than Polish music rivals the Germans or Polish art rivals the Italians. Some cultures have simply achieved more within a given art form than others... including your beloved Chinese or my Japanese and Persians. Of course the very question of who is the greatest living writer is skewed. How could it not be so... unless one were to have been fluent in every known language and have read everything by every living writer? The only possible way to answer such a question is to offer up a suggestion based upon those writers one has read.

[Quark]

my problem with The Corrections is the book is one long sequence on the father's death and the mother's ironic end of life freedom as a result, and to me, this amounted to a rigor without a reason for it.

The father's slow illness I thought was the least interesting part of the book. It read like a weak version of Tolstoy's Ivan Ilych. He thinks his life is moving forward--socially, economically, etc.--but really it's moving backward toward mortality. This has been done before, and done better. What I thought was engaging about the book was how it showed the lack of direction American society had during the nineties and early 00's. That's so much of what the novel is about. The old motivations like Chip's left Marxism, Denise's feminism, and Gary's eighties-style thirst for wealth and suavity have all exhausted themselves. Elsewhere, Franzen points out that even the novel itself as a form has exhausted itself, and his book seems to be about that feeling of disenchantment and aimlessness. It's the opposite of what you might get in a Balzac novel where all the characters have strong attractions and endless willpower. In Lost Illusions, for example, Sechard and Lucien each feel as though they're on some track to something better, and they channel all their energy into some live, energetic form of art or production. Just as Balzac had his ear to the times and was aware of his own craft's place in society, it seems like Franzen is able to represent those kinds of feelings in his own work--or at least in The Corrections. It's also just a funny book.


It doesn't matter even; when is the last time someone here read a French novel?

Four days ago, JBI. I just finished Illusions Perdues, and before that I read through four other Balzac novels for an article I'm putting together. Do you seriously think you're the only one acquainted with world literature? If you're really curious why the "General Literature" part of the forum hosts so many "favorites" or "greatest" threads that bring up the same names, look at the OP to these threads. It's almost always newbies with less than 50 posts who start threads on LitNet. Nothing against newbies, but they haven't been around enough to know where these things usually go. Many of them also are in their late teens or early twenties, and have gotten into literature fairly recently. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But, at the same time, I'm not going to expect a university student in the middle of Utah to be some great citizen of the world. So, I'm probably not going to talk about recent French poetry with them. No, I'm going to stick to well-known, American lit: the kind of stuff found in a Barnes and Noble or reviewed in The New York Times. I'm not doing this to be "ethnocentric" (far be it for me); instead, I'm doing it because that's what I can assume people know.

As for your point about "traffic," if you want a wider range of discussions I suggest you start those discussions yourself. You can't cede the conversation to someone else and then complain that they're not talking about what you want to talk about. When was the last time you started a thread? It was 2009, right? I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think you could introduce these issues to the forum in a slightly more productive way.

[Babyguile]

From whom I've read, and as JBI has correctly assumed they are from English-speaking countries only: Margaret Atwood surely, and Carol Ann Duffy, not only for her poetry but for her drama and childrens fiction.

[JBI]

It doesn't matter even; when is the last time someone here read a French novel? It isn't as expensive as you make it out to be, to get foreign authors, especially if you buy them used, but even not, they are still accessible.

It depends upon what we are talking about here with your French novels. Seriously, I have seen Hugo, Proust, Camus, Zola, Flaubert and others show up in discussion. If you are speaking of contemporary French novels, well then I need to agree with JoZ... access is less than ideal... and even more limited if the reader does not read French and needs a translation. I have translations of Michel Rio, Marguerite Yourcenar, Emmanuel Carrère, Georges Perec, Michel Tournier, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Maurice Blanchot, and a few others. None are really contemporary... and few are really accessible unless you truly know where to look. Let's face it, translating a work of literature is a major undertaking and investment. It is not something likely to be done by either the translator of publisher unless one is somewhat certain of the aesthetic merits... or commercial viability of the author. Latin-American writers seem to do quite a bit better in this than others... perhaps as a result of the large Spanish-speaking population in the US. World politics also influences the availability of works. Following the rise of the Japanese economy, Japanese literature began to show up in translation... just as Chinese is doing now. Tensions in the Middle-East, on the other hand, have spurred a greater interest in Middle-Eastern literature.
Very true, however one must not doubt what is already available. To take a note from history, Japanese literature has been absorbed so thoroughly into Western literature - Haiku is now a more dominant form in the US than in Japan I would wager - all of which we have to thank post-war policy for, as the US government decided then it needed to "know the enemy" that they were occupying - the result, perhaps the greatest work in translation in human history (I can give you footnotes for this on request, so if you think I am making any of this up, just ask).


It's more of an American condition than anything else; besides a Spanish population now reading in Spanish, most people seem to not bother looking outside of their own nationality. Books in Canada, as a whole are 1.5x to 2x as expensive as down south (import tax because most are printed through American presses), yet people here still find time and money to read - I think the excuse of price and mediocrity holds little now.

Somehow I doubt your nationalistic notions of the well-read nature of Canadians to Americans. Amazon.com and the giant mega-book stores like Borders and Barnes and Nobles are not thriving off Canadian readership.


Though we have argued in the past over who reads more (with statistics seeming to favor Canada, though still showing not as high as would be liked readership levels) the point was of the price. Yes, Barnes and Noble, and Amazon are American companies, and with the exception of Harlequin, all the presses that put books out in English generally are American or foreign too. My point was that even though a penguin is 6$ in the US, and 15$ in Canada (when the dollar is sitting at 95~cents) people in Canada still manage to read, which shows that generally the cost isn't as significant a factor as Joz claimed (though I admit, good editions are more expensive), and the use of Internet Shopping to buy books now has quite easily made getting texts both cheap and convenient.



For instance, Penguin in recent years has brought a better number of texts out. Anyone can pick them up. Columbia university has put out a great number of East Asian texts in translation at affordable prices - anybody could pick those up. French literature, Italian literature besides Dante, even Russian literature besides Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. The problem is, people aren't interested.

I don't know where you get this idea. Fernando Pessoa, J.L. Borges, Jose Saramago, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Pablo Neruda, Amos Oz, Italo Calvino, Paul Celan, Hermann Hesse, Yevgeny Yevtuschenko, Kenzaburō Ōe, Haruki Murakami, Naguib Mahfuz, and many others can be found in most any large chain book store, and copies of the same can be found in the used book stores. Many of these writers, indeed, are quite popular. The breadth of non-English is far greater if we look further back: Kafka, Goethe, Hugo, Baudelaire, Tolstoy, etc... The fact, however, that The US and Britain should focus upon Anglo literature is no more surprising than the fact that Italians probably read far more Italian literature. As for Canada... I largely suspect that the average Canadian reader is no more multi-cultural in his or her reading than the average American. If French literature in more popular, there would seem to be an obvious reason for that... as well as the popularity of Chinese literature among certain population bases. My guess is that Chinese literature is no less popular and accessible in the large Chinese enclaves in the US.

Accessible, yes, popular - that is debatable. My point was the denationalization of literature, to create the aesthetic acceptance, rather than the nationalized tradition that has dominated since English Romanticism. Simply put, as for translators, Americans are without a doubt the most significant contributors to translation into English - American academics are probably first in the world in coming out with excellent translations from almost everywhere - however, that does not imply a denationalization of literature. Simply put, from the earliest levels - grade school - until the highest level - graduate writing, the American literature and concept tradition are less open minded. If we have a spectrum of ethnocentric, versus acceptance, probably something like The Netherlands would be at the top for most denationalized acceptance of literature, and though not at the bottom, the US would not be at the top; there is a general consensus that Americans care more about American literature than world literature, at it is reflected in how people read.



The Norton world literature is very much the American tradition with authors from elsewhere footnoted in - the pre-modern stuff is far better than the modern, as American literature, and even English literature are not able to exclusively dominate. The truth of the matter is though, that as good as American, or even English literature are, they are hardly a spec on the grand scheme of literature.

That's impossible for even you to suggest. What literature of the present will prove itself to have the staying power and continue to resonate is impossible to say. Considering the visual arts... where linguistic barriers do not exist... American and British (surprisingly) art has proven itself far more than the vast majority of what is coming out of Russia, China, Japan, Africa, etc... (Not to suggest they have produced nothing of merit). You know as well as anyone that the strongest art has almost always risen from the Imperial political/economic super-powers while the rest of the world attempts to play catch-up or copy-cat.

Perhaps true, however, I don't wish to seem snobby, but I do read in more than one language (however slowly) and I do read widely, so perhaps one's own judgment should be considered - I was merely implying that, given that the resources are there, it could be perhaps interesting to discuss these things, rather than state it. Italy, even in the 15th century and earlier, was never a Statist power, keep in mind, and Germany, even around Goethe's time wasn't either. To think that cultural hegemony is so possibly reduced to such terms is too dangerous an accusation, though perhaps ironic, given the socio-economic beating that said super-power seems to be hit with. Or are we to assume that Chinese art will dominate once again?

Besides which, up until the Renaissance, China contained what is thought to be by academics, around 70% of the world's GDP - Zheng He's fleat at the beginning of the Ming period got Farther than any other explorer would until Columbus - I guess you need to catch up on your "good art" as clearly we can dismiss Western literature before industrialization as automatically inferior to the super-power that was the East (and let us not forget the places in between who were dominating far above their Western counterparts for centuries).

Strangely enough, Heian Japan was a so called "copy-cat" culture (though the old Fengshui building plans were beginning to be abandoned, after earthquakes deemed that this geomancy was a little faulty) - yet if you look at what was produced then, and even up until the Mongol invasions of Japan - all the time with Japan stuck in a state of deference for Chinese art and literature, with people such as Enin making voyages, and court life and fashion modeled after Tang and Song fashion - still managed to produce texts that not only rival, but also surpass in many ways their neighbors to the West.



In terms of literary culture, there are a great many with strong written traditions. English literature (this is in the sense that we have it now, after Chaucer) was itself originally an imitation of French (and then became an imitation of French again after Charles the 2nd came back with French-styled Neo-Classicists). There are phenomenal writers, but on the whole, most, because of the position of English in the world, are taken a little more seriously than they would outside of the frame of reference - so we say, for instance, The English romantics are good, but are they better than their German, Italian, French, or Russian counterparts? Or we expand it further - is the American Modernism any more important than, lets say, the Japanese modernist movement, of which people here know absolutely nothing about, despite being quite a bit in translation for over 40 years now?

Yes... British literature comes through French literature which in turn comes from Italian literature... but then again, German music was clearly rooted in Italian music... and yet rapidly surpassed the model. Yes, French literature is arguably as strong as English... but German? Spanish? Italian, Polish? They all have moments and writers of real brilliance... but I doubt most Poles would suggest that Polish literature rivals English any more than Polish music rivals the Germans or Polish art rivals the Italians. Some cultures have simply achieved more within a given art form than others... including your beloved Chinese or my Japanese and Persians. Of course the very question of who is the greatest living writer is skewed. How could it not be so... unless one were to have been fluent in every known language and have read everything by every living writer? The only possible way to answer such a question is to offer up a suggestion based upon those writers one has read.

That isn't the point - the point is that there are Polish authors who rival American ones, so rather than debate who the best one is, we aught to compare what makes certain writers better, and try to expand our understanding of good and bad, either vertically, or horizontally - there are other novels besides the ones by Victorian authors, after all. And I think you know as well as I, that my post was not directed particularly at you - as you hardly are the sample generalization of the trends on this forum (you are just as ex-centric as I am, sorry to say). I would just like to pose the question to our American and English posters - if you weren't American or English, and your first language was not English, would you still value the same books that you value now - if anybody is answering yes, then I will just assume they are playing ignorant. The standpoint is clear - there is a geographic limitation, and a linguistic divide in the world - perhaps then such a debate could benefit from a more rounded examination of this divide, as the trend amongst writers, especially poets, is to read in more than one tradition (one cannot read and understand Pound, Stevens, or Moore, for instance, without considering their encounter with China, and one cannot read Eliot, without considering his romance with Symbolist literature, and one cannot read etc.)

[JBI]

As for your point about "traffic," if you want a wider range of discussions I suggest you start those discussions yourself. You can't cede the conversation to someone else and then complain that they're not talking about what you want to talk about. When was the last time you started a thread? It was 2009, right? I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think you could introduce these issues to the forum in a slightly more productive way.

You make a good point, though, if you follow things - I don't post here often anymore - not really since 2009. There was a trend where people would only nominate "obvious" authors (that is, authors with their own subforums already, who have already come up constantly) and when finally a not-so-common author gets through, the whole thing collapses and nobody reads the thing.

Of course, I will admit it, I do not post here often, and have a hard time maintaining post commitments - the Leopardi thread is proof of that - but I neglect the forum in general, as I have very little time of late (now I started posting again since it is the summer so my schedule is more accepting). But simply put, it isn't French literature that gets discussed here, even if some of us do read it. It isn't Italian either, and I think you know as well as I, that were I to post, as I used to, my posts would quickly sink to the bottom, as they used to.

[David Lurie]

Latin-American writers seem to do quite a bit better in this than others... perhaps as a result of the large Spanish-speaking population in the US.

They enjoy worldwide success, maybe the fact that the 20th century has seen a bunch of exceptional of writers coming out of Latin-America - like Borges, Marquez, Vargas Llosa and Cortazar - has helped this trend.


Italians probably read far more Italian literature.

I was goin' to say "we don't" - basing this evaluation on the reading habits of myself and people I know - then I have thought "let me be less superficial" so I have checked some of the best sellers lists we have here and ... I can confirm, Anglo-American literature is much more read in Italy than Italian literature, we have a few mystery authors who dominate the charts with every new book they publish - Camilleri and Carofiglio mainly - and not much more.

[stlukesguild]

If we have a spectrum of ethnocentric, versus acceptance, probably something like The Netherlands would be at the top for most denationalized acceptance of literature, and though not at the bottom, the US would not be at the top; there is a general consensus that Americans care more about American literature than world literature, at it is reflected in how people read.

Of course the question that immediately comes to mind is just how rich is the Netherlandish tradition in literature? Art? Certainly. Music? A few magnificent examples (I'm listening to Dietrich Buxtehude right now). But literature? Maurice Maeterlinck, Cees Nooteboom... and I can barely think of any more. Indeed, I could come up with far more Czech, Polish, or Portuguese writers. As a small nation jammed between France, Britain, and Germany a multi-nationalistic view is surely a necessity.

...when is the last time someone here read a French novel?

Quark-Four days ago, JBI. I just finished Illusions Perdues, and before that I read through four other Balzac novels for an article I'm putting together. Do you seriously think you're the only one acquainted with world literature? If you're really curious why the "General Literature" part of the forum hosts so many "favorites" or "greatest" threads that bring up the same names, look at the OP to these threads. It's almost always newbies with less than 50 posts who start threads on LitNet. Nothing against newbies, but they haven't been around enough to know where these things usually go. Many of them also are in their late teens or early twenties, and have gotten into literature fairly recently. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But, at the same time, I'm not going to expect a university student in the middle of Utah to be some great citizen of the world. So, I'm probably not going to talk about recent French poetry with them. No, I'm going to stick to well-known, American lit: the kind of stuff found in a Barnes and Noble or reviewed in The New York Times. I'm not doing this to be "ethnocentric" (far be it for me); instead, I'm doing it because that's what I can assume people know.

As for your point about "traffic," if you want a wider range of discussions I suggest you start those discussions yourself. You can't cede the conversation to someone else and then complain that they're not talking about what you want to talk about. When was the last time you started a thread? It was 2009, right? I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think you could introduce these issues to the forum in a slightly more productive way.

I must agree with Quark here. It is easy to complain about the Anglo-centric or American-centric view of literature taken by a group of posters... most of whom are American, British, Canadian, Australian (ie. English is their native language) and most of whom are quite young a of limited experience with literature. The alternative is to make an effort to bring a broader perspective to the dialogs. I have made an effort, however small, through the threads I began on German, Spanish, French, and non-Western literature. As you yourself admitted, you did not even find the time to bring much to the discussion of your own beloved Leopardi. It is hard to carry on a dialog single-handedly... something I greatly applaud Quasimodo for with his continuing posts on contemporary poets.

[JBI]

Of course the question that immediately comes to mind is just how rich is the Netherlandish tradition in literature? Art? Certainly. Music? A few magnificent examples (I'm listening to Dietrich Buxtehude right now). But literature? Maurice Maeterlinck, Cees Nooteboom... and I can barely think of any more. Indeed, I could come up with far more Czech, Polish, or Portuguese writers. As a small nation jammed between France, Britain, and Germany a multi-nationalistic view is surely a necessity.


To reply to that, I will say probably richer than the American tradition, as being multi-nationalist, it has a far wider range of tradition and literature at its disposal. It isn't about where the text is produced, but how good the text that is produced is. Surely you would know that. But then, why are you still not moving from this sense of Hegemonic supremacy (which actually was a standpoint of early American writers, trying to "prove" themselves as it were (as well as Canadians to a lesser extent, though I guess that fell through)). What being accepting means, is that you get the best texts, and can appreciate far more. As an aesthete such as yourself, I would think you would look on such a standpoint as far more aesthetically pleasing to your own sensibilities.

[The Atheist]

Simply put, the same names being rehashed in the same genre in near-identical threads don't go anywhere.

Well, if it's a common phenomenon, that would be a reason to have a sticky thread for it and leave it for people who choose to have a go.

[Kotetsu1442]

Well, on the actual topic of this thread, at the risk of sounding not only a complete newbie but also a ridiculously mainstream, young American, I would say that Stephen King is worth mentioning. If it helps, I'm not just saying that because his is a common, household name and I've never actually seen any of his movies (Though I have a copy of The Dead Zone on DVD that I've been meaning to watch), so I'm not suggesting him as a favorite due to the cheap horror aspect of his writing that comes to mind when you say the name 'Stephen King,' but rather the creativity of his varied plots, characters, settings and ideas. I also appreciate his descriptive style and the way he can make an analogy that paints a picture from you in a way that is surprisingly universal. He's an interesting blend of highly educated scholar and casual everyday-man and while I wouldn't say that everything he writes is an instant classic, he's written plenty of memorable things that will stick with you throughout your life.

[Perscors]

Indeed. Anyone capable of producing a flapping turkey like Fury is surely disqualified tout court.

St Lukes raises the obvious problem with the question but for the sake of playing along (and having no real handle on contemporary poetry), I'm going to say Philip Roth. In my estimation, at least three of his novels rank among the very best of post-war American fiction.

Which three, if I might ask? (My guess, Zuckerman Bound, American Pastoral, Sabbath's Theatre, Operation Shylock...)

[Jozanny]

The father's slow illness I thought was the least interesting part of the book. It read like a weak version of Tolstoy's Ivan Ilych. He thinks his life is moving forward--socially, economically, etc.--but really it's moving backward toward mortality. This has been done before, and done better. What I thought was engaging about the book was how it showed the lack of direction American society had during the nineties and early 00's. That's so much of what the novel is about. The old motivations like Chip's left Marxism, Denise's feminism, and Gary's eighties-style thirst for wealth and suavity have all exhausted themselves. Elsewhere, Franzen points out that even the novel itself as a form has exhausted itself, and his book seems to be about that feeling of disenchantment and aimlessness. It's the opposite of what you might get in a Balzac novel where all the characters have strong attractions and endless willpower. In Lost Illusions, for example, Sechard and Lucien each feel as though they're on some track to something better, and they channel all their energy into some live, energetic form of art or production. Just as Balzac had his ear to the times and was aware of his own craft's place in society, it seems like Franzen is able to represent those kinds of feelings in his own work--or at least in The Corrections. It's also just a funny book.

This is a very good synopsis of what Franzen attempts Quark, and you are perhaps faster on your feet than I am in defending what you like, but I do not think Franzen quite pulls it off without exhausting the reader, as I was exhausted by Denise's escapades and Chip's self-involved inflictions by the time Edna declared herself a new chapter.

This is not to say I don't like Franzen, but I think he is closer to the ground than Mitchell, or even Ferris, who is closer to Franzen's realism while bettering Cormac McCarthy on a minimalist approach, and is on my wishlist after reading a quite powerful sample. I would recommend The Unnamed as a worthwhile read that has an actual point to its upheaval.

And with that, I guess this is my exit. Kisses for you and luke; not sure when I may be back.:auto:

[sixsmith]

This is a very good synopsis of what Franzen attempts Quark, and you are perhaps faster on your feet than I am in defending what you like, but I do not think Franzen quite pulls it off without exhausting the reader, as I was exhausted by Denise's escapades and Chip's self-involved inflictions by the time Edna declared herself a new chapter.

This is not to say I don't like Franzen, but I think he is closer to the ground than Mitchell, or even Ferris, who is closer to Franzen's realism while bettering Cormac McCarthy on a minimalist approach, and is on my wishlist after reading a quite powerful sample. I would recommend The Unnamed as a worthwhile read that has an actual point to its upheaval.

And with that, I guess this is my exit. Kisses for you and luke; not sure when I may be back.:auto:


Have to disagree with both you and Quark here Joz. Indeed, my position with respect to The Corrections is perhaps the exact inverse of Quark's. The demise of the once mighty patriarch, who in his pomp had such a profound effect on his children ,an influence which continues to resonate as they approach middle age, is for mine the novel's centrifugal force, and is the site of some of Franzen's best prose moments.

Where the novel falters, and falters badly, is where Franzen seeks to make explicit his 'directionless America' motif. The follies of the Lambert children inform his overarching trope, but, to some extent, they survive scrutiny within the familial and psychological landscape that he establishes. But I cant help but moan when, for example, Edith reflects on the relative stability of modern American society, because Franzen is blowing the novel's strength, its penetrating and engaging characterisation, on a kind of pop sociology. The Edith i know, the woman that I have discovered in the preceding few hundred pages, would not think like this. Jonathan Franzen would think like this.

Such moments, with their attendant incongruity, are undoubtedly borne from out of the novel's attempt to humanise the DeLilloan template, a goal evinced in the essay you mention Quark. Of course, one doesn't go to DeLillo for the characters because they are, for the most part, representations of DeLillo himself. But one does go The Corrections for its characters, and thus it is frustrating when Franzen can't just let them be.

[The Atheist]

Well, on the actual topic of this thread, at the risk of sounding not only a complete newbie but also a ridiculously mainstream, young American, I would say that Stephen King is worth mentioning.

Bravo!

I started a thread a couple of years back that King deserves to be considered a literary giant. Not a popular view among those whose teeth were cut on heavy tomes of "great" writers, but I'm quite sure he deserves his place.

Some of his books are definitely pulp and should never have been turned into print, but The Green Mile, It and several of his other books are at least as meritorious as many works considered to be "great literature".

[JBI]

Bravo!

I started a thread a couple of years back that King deserves to be considered a literary giant. Not a popular view among those whose teeth were cut on heavy tomes of "great" writers, but I'm quite sure he deserves his place.

Some of his books are definitely pulp and should never have been turned into print, but The Green Mile, It and several of his other books are at least as meritorious as many works considered to be "great literature".

His place where? Meritorious by whose standards? As a Jewish Pentaglot Canadian of mixed descent, he has no real "merit" as a great author. What he is best at is of no concern for me; he is good at creating the traumatic experience of white American darkness come to life in a sort of horrific metaphor (the clown in It, tormenting the marginalized as vehicle for the degraded, backward stasis that envelopes the town - but even that - that doesn't make the book comparable to a book that draws on similar issues, such as Light in August by Faulkner, or Heart of Darkness by Conrad.

One has to question whether this is relevant in the mass sense of the word, not just to an American audience. To me, he has no grounding; he is a boring writer, who is neither challenging or particularly gifted; he is good at starting, but awful at finishing, as he writes without direction. His most popular books tend to be amongst his worst, and his appeal is that the pages are easy to turn, as brevity is clearly not one of his talents.


That being said, I see nothing wrong with reading him - but to assume just because something speaks to such a perspective it is worthwhile misses the point - the point is that the dialog aught not to speak just to the present, but to the past, and future as well, and also across landscapes. There are enough good writers who already do that to choose from. King to me just isn't one of them, from my standpoint as uninterested.

[sixsmith]

Which three, if I might ask? (My guess, Zuckerman Bound, American Pastoral, Sabbath's Theatre, Operation Shylock...)

Sabbath's Theatre, The Counterlife, Portnoy's Complaint. Though I think you could make a case for the other books you mention.

[The Atheist]

His place where? Meritorious by whose standards?

People with an appreciation for literature.

His place is that of a great author.


As a Jewish Pentaglot Canadian of mixed descent, he has no real "merit" as a great author.

What?


What he is best at is of no concern for me; he is good at creating the traumatic experience of white American darkness come to life in a sort of horrific metaphor (the clown in It, tormenting the marginalized as vehicle for the degraded, backward stasis that envelopes the town - but even that - that doesn't make the book comparable to a book that draws on similar issues, such as Light in August by Faulkner, or Heart of Darkness by Conrad.

Double what?

It and a book about racism or a book set in the Congo? In what way are they of "similar" issues? It features a supernatural demon, which I don't think Faulkner or Conrad were into. If you want to compare Light in August to something of King's, you need Graveyard Shift.


One has to question whether this is relevant in the mass sense of the word, not just to an American audience.

Triple what?

Was Julius Caesar relevant to 16th century England?


To me, he has no grounding; he is a boring writer, who is neither challenging or particularly gifted; he is good at starting, but awful at finishing, as he writes without direction.

That's ok; I feel that way about Billy S. Each to our own.

Aside from the National Book Award, King has as many admirers as detractors.

I especially like Orson Card's comment, responding to Snyder's criticism: "Let me assure you that King's work most definitely is literature, because it was written to be published and is read with admiration. What Snyder really means is that it is not the literature preferred by the academic-literary elite."

That sums it up quite well to me - the man's biggest crime is to sell books at a time when "literary value" may only be conferred on books which don't sell.

Asserting he writes without direction is plain silly - or it shows a lack of readership of his books.


His most popular books tend to be amongst his worst, and his appeal is that the pages are easy to turn, as brevity is clearly not one of his talents.

Well, I'd need to see some sales figures to argue that, but I know his biggest seller was It, so your premise seems somewhat unlikely.



That being said, I see nothing wrong with reading him - but to assume just because something speaks to such a perspective it is worthwhile misses the point - the point is that the dialog aught not to speak just to the present, but to the past, and future as well, and also across landscapes. There are enough good writers who already do that to choose from. King to me just isn't one of them, from my standpoint as uninterested.

Have you actually read his books?

Just for the record, I make no assumptions about King - or anyone else, for that matter - but I fail to see him as inferior to any other writer, and better than most.

That you see others as more worthwhile carries no more validity than my assertion that he is as good as any of them.

[JBI]

People with an appreciation for literature.

His place is that of a great author.



What?



Double what?

It and a book about racism or a book set in the Congo? In what way are they of "similar" issues? It features a supernatural demon, which I don't think Faulkner or Conrad were into. If you want to compare Light in August to something of King's, you need Graveyard Shift.



Triple what?

Was Julius Caesar relevant to 16th century England?



That's ok; I feel that way about Billy S. Each to our own.

Aside from the National Book Award, King has as many admirers as detractors.

I especially like Orson Card's comment, responding to Snyder's criticism: "Let me assure you that King's work most definitely is literature, because it was written to be published and is read with admiration. What Snyder really means is that it is not the literature preferred by the academic-literary elite."

That sums it up quite well to me - the man's biggest crime is to sell books at a time when "literary value" may only be conferred on books which don't sell.

Asserting he writes without direction is plain silly - or it shows a lack of readership of his books.



Well, I'd need to see some sales figures to argue that, but I know his biggest seller was It, so your premise seems somewhat unlikely.



Have you actually read his books?

Just for the record, I make no assumptions about King - or anyone else, for that matter - but I fail to see him as inferior to any other writer, and better than most.

That you see others as more worthwhile carries no more validity than my assertion that he is as good as any of them.

What pairs It, or others of his texts (generally the ones considered best by critics) to Conrad, or Faulkner, or others is his preoccupation with the American demon, usually an American small town, white demon. If you look at the lineup of "The Losers" in It, you have all marginalized characters. Racism and alcoholism, anti-semitism, classism, etc.. What the text realizes is a demon representing the town. The clown is the town, its violence and inherent destructiveness. That is a good idea, but like all others, the form the violence takes as a narrative doesn't work - the ending isn't satisfactory on those grounds, because, quite simply, it ends up treating the monster as a monster, undercutting the metaphor from before for the sake of closure.

What I said before about "Jewish Canadian, etc." was in reference to the post you quoted, but perhaps others' voices are "what?s" to you only.

There is no justification that King is particularly great, or well liked. I guarantee you that within the academy, feelings are mixed, and he, from what I understand, seems only to be read within an American context, something which by necessity shackles him to his time period.

I don't care what Orson Card says, for the simple fact, that he also has some choice words to spew about homosexuals, and, the simple fact he himself is not a particularly good author - if you are going to call in an "authority" at least choose one who doesn't happen to be of the same, or similar ideology to King (and one wonders why he likes him so much, though Card is a far more extreme version, and has his own obsession with a jingoist America far worse than King).


Like I said before, I understand there is some merit in his work, but I think you are merely stretching polemic for the sake of it - a great author? yeah right. He isn't, and probably doesn't even consider himself on par with Marquez, or Roth, or any other number of excellent living authors who actually know how to write works with significant resonance.

[sixsmith]

JBI, I suspect that I share roughly the same opinion of Stephen King as you do but I'm a little perplexed as to how an author's (or novel's) 'relevance' has anything to do with literary merit. Unless you mean that a work is somehow 'relevant' where it is aesthetically successful?

[JBI]

JBI, I suspect that I share roughly the same opinion of Stephen King as you do but I'm a little perplexed as to how an author's (or novel's) 'relevance' has anything to do with literary merit. Unless you mean that a work is somehow 'relevant' where it is aesthetically successful?

The text, I am implying, does not speak to me, meaning it's extent of merit is shackled to a select few. Even the most restricting books - James Joyce's Ulysses for example, is able to transcend its original audience, and speak to those outside of its geographic zone. IT is a strong preoccupation amongst American novelists and writers in general, that suggests American-centered content is somehow "Great Literature" but I am just implying that this "great literature" is merely an American construction around its own preoccupation with itself.

Lets face it, a great author need not only be great for a small demographic. It is the failure of American institutions to see this which is the same suggestion that supports King and other mediocre authors winning American awards, but also in a different form generates American Literary Criticism (English criticism focusing on American literature) and also gives Harold Bloom his rant. Simply put, what Benedict Anderson termed an "Imagined Community" that is, a sort of connection between Americans based on a presumed shared set of values, is merely limited in scope; King is American, and I argue cannot transcend that. So to me, he lacks relevance, and therefore is not aesthetically pleasing as he speaks to nothing that speaks to me.

If we compare that to Marquez coming out of Columbia, who is able to speak to me, and others who neither speak Spanish, nor have been to Columbia, we must question what greatness really is. As Atheist put it, what relevance does Julius Caesar have for 16th century England? The truth is, plenty, since Julius Caesar is not about history, and is not a story limited in its relevance.

King's fiction neither engages anything outside of his vision, or engages much other literature beyond literature of a focus around his vision. He is flimsy in his crafting, and does not speak to me from where I am. As a narrative, his narrative needs relevance to those who read it, otherwise will lack in an entertainment quality - the same way a Britney Spears gossip article is only aesthetically pleasing to those who follow it, so too is King only pleasing to those within his vision's limited scope.

[The Atheist]

Like I said before, I understand there is some merit in his work, but I think you are merely stretching polemic for the sake of it - a great author? yeah right. He isn't, and probably doesn't even consider himself on par with Marquez, or Roth, or any other number of excellent living authors who actually know how to write works with significant resonance.

The only question I wanted you to answer is the one you've ignored:

Have you read Stephen King?

[_Shannon_]

Depends on what you mean by "greatest". And whether or not we're talking about English language writers. And whether or not we're talking about novelists. Most technically proficient? Or the one who has and will turn out to have the most far reaching impacts on what is both written and read? If it's the latter, and we're limiting the discussion to those who write novels in English--then I think a seriously strong case can be made for JK Rowling. If it's the former, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Oscar Hijuelos. I think Mr. Ives' Christmas is one of the greatest contemporary masterpieces out there. Technical proficiency is difficult, because so many contemporary authors are really hit or miss with their novels. Everything I have ever read by Oscar Hijuelos has been good. Time has weeded out the wheat from the chaff in regards to writers of the past and their lesser novels are not considered so much as part of their "greatness".


Oh...never mind...I see the thread has already been hijacked to bicker about one author in particular

[The Atheist]

Depends on what you mean by "greatest". And whether or not we're talking about English language writers. And whether or not we're talking about novelists. Most technically proficient? Or the one who has and will turn out to have the most far reaching impacts on what is both written and read? If it's the latter, and we're limiting the discussion to those who write novels in English--then Ithink a seriously strong case can be made for JK Rowling. If it's the former, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Oscar Hijuelos. I think Mr. Ives' Christmas is one of the greatest contemporary masterpieces out there. Technical proficiency is difficult, because so many contemporary authors are really hit or miss with their novels. Everything I have ever read by Oscar Hijuelos has been good. Time has weeded out the wheat from the chaff in regards to writer's of the past and their lesser novels are not considered so much as part of their "greatness".


Oh...never mind...I see the thread has already been hijacked to bicker about one author in particular

We can soon un-hijack it.

Another name, who definitely comes under the sector of influence is Richard Dawkins. I'm no Dawkins fan, but there's no doubt that his books are extremely influential and as far as I can tell, pretty well written. I'd certainly have him on any "greatest writer alive" list.

[Kotetsu1442]

Oh...never mind...I see the thread has already been hijacked to bicker about one author in particular

The funny thing is that I brought up that author as an attempt to move on from a previous bickering. We're human, we bicker, it's part of what we do :-). But we are also certainly capable of moving on, so feel free to continue the actual topic.

[_Shannon_]

But we go back to..what kind of writer are we talking about...novelists? Essayists? Poets? Biographers? Memoirists (yes I did just make up that word)?

Do you think Dawkins will have long-lasting influence on what and how we read? Or that he's merely in the forefront now because of the popular dialogue about the Religious Right, Terrorism, and the Texas Schoolboard? I dunno--I've read Dawkins, and one or two others I know have....but mostly not. Why do you think he will turn out to be so influential??

[Scheherazade]

But we go back to..what kind of writer are we talking about...novelists? Essayists? Poets? Biographers? Memoirists (yes I did just make up that word)?

Do you think Dawkins will have long-lasting influence on what and how we read? Or that he's merely in the forefront now because of the popular dialogue about the Religious Right, Terrorism, and the Texas Schoolboard? I dunno--I've read Dawkins, and one or two others I know have....but mostly not. Why do you think he will turn out to be so influential??I think Shannon brings up an interesting point here:

How do we determine the greatness of a living writer? What is more important in this consideration? That the writer is influential in his own time (but may not be so in future because times change) or that his influence proves "everlasting" through time (and maybe place)?

[JBI]

The only question I wanted you to answer is the one you've ignored:

Have you read Stephen King?

Had I not read him, I would not comment.

[hoope]

Bravo!

I started a thread a couple of years back that King deserves to be considered a literary giant. Not a popular view among those whose teeth were cut on heavy tomes of "great" writers, but I'm quite sure he deserves his place.

Some of his books are definitely pulp and should never have been turned into print, but The Green Mile, It and several of his other books are at least as meritorious as many works considered to be "great literature".

I would also liek to mention Stephan king :) but not as teh GREATEST LIVING WRITER but one of the best currently ...
.. and Paulo Coelho is diffinately one of the GREATEST .. and ofcourse i will go with the rest to the point that Cormac McCarthy is a great writer :)

[Scheherazade]

.. and Paulo Coelho is diffinately one of the GREATEST .. Say it ain't so...

His books are so sugar-coated that it is a miracle they don't cause cavities.

[JCamilo]

Paulo Coelho is a shame to brazilian literature. He is nowhere near the best living brazilian writers (Ariano Suassuna, Manoel de Barros)...

[The Atheist]

But we go back to..what kind of writer are we talking about...novelists? Essayists? Poets? Biographers? Memoirists (yes I did just make up that word)?

Anyone who writes; it doesn't matter what kind of writing. It could as easily be a journalist as a novelist.


Do you think Dawkins will have long-lasting influence on what and how we read? Or that he's merely in the forefront now because of the popular dialogue about the Religious Right, Terrorism, and the Texas Schoolboard? I dunno--I've read Dawkins, and one or two others I know have....but mostly not. Why do you think he will turn out to be so influential??

I think you're overlooking his better works from that angle.

If I had to pick one book as his best and most influential, I'd go for The Selfish Gene. It shows non-biologists how to understand genetics, which may turn out to be the most important subject ever. I actually think books like The God Delusion detract from him as they are aimed at a very narrow audience (and contain lots of errors). He's by far best when he sticks to his specialist subjects - biology and genetics.

He took his role of Chair of Public Understanding of Science to a whole new level and has helped make biology mainstream.

Will his influence last? I'd say it's likely, because so many people have actually learnt something by reading his books. Also, I certainly know of no other author whose works have mainly sold by word of mouth. Sales of TSG continue some 34 years after its first publication.


I think Shannon brings up an interesting point here:

How do we determine the greatness of a living writer?

I can work out an algorithm based on sales, votes by literati and perceived influence, but I suspect it will show Dan Brown as #1.

:D


What is more important in this consideration? That the writer is influential in his own time (but may not be so in future because times change) or that his influence proves "everlasting" through time (and maybe place)?

In longer terms, the influence after death must be the telling factor.

[_Shannon_]

I can work out an algorithm based on sales, votes by literati and perceived influence, but I suspect it will show Dan Brown as #1.

:D



In longer terms, the influence after death must be the telling factor.

LOL!! I think, currently, it'd show Stephanie Meyer...

You know--I wonder...there were people like...say...Sherwood Anderson who was really, really important to Hemingway, Fitzgerald, et al.....super influential...and yet hardly read today. John Dos Passos and Ford Maddox Ford are like that, too. Heck Pound is the same way.

My argument for JK Rowling is because Harry Potter has influenced book sales and reading habits so, so profoundly. Now will the changes brought be permanent--probably not, but it sure has changed the book business in our lifetime. (please don't mistake this for arguing that Harry Potter is the best literature out there....which I do not believe--just that it's more influential than any other book(s) in my lifetime).

I also don't know if that's even important in regards to figuring out "greatness"...but it might be one way of looking at it.


Anyone who writes; it doesn't matter what kind of writing. It could as easily be a journalist as a novelist.



I think you're overlooking his better works from that angle.

If I had to pick one book as his best and most influential, I'd go for The Selfish Gene. It shows non-biologists how to understand genetics, which may turn out to be the most important subject ever. I actually think books like The God Delusion detract from him as they are aimed at a very narrow audience (and contain lots of errors). He's by far best when he sticks to his specialist subjects - biology and genetics.

He took his role of Chair of Public Understanding of Science to a whole new level and has helped make biology mainstream.

Will his influence last? I'd say it's likely, because so many people have actually learnt something by reading his books. Also, I certainly know of no other author whose works have mainly sold by word of mouth. Sales of TSG continue some 34 years after its first publication.

I don't think I agree--but I think you make a good case. I'll have to think about it some more.

[The Atheist]

My argument for JK Rowling is because Harry Potter has influenced book sales and reading habits so, so profoundly. Now will the changes brought be permanent--probably not, but it sure has changed the book business in our lifetime. (please don't mistake this for arguing that Harry Potter is the best literature out there....which I do not believe--just that it's more influential than any other book(s) in my lifetime).

Has HP actually changed reading habits, though?

From what I've seen, non-reading kids have read the HP series, then don't read anything else.

If it does encourage longer-term reading, then it's certainly influential, but if it's all one-off, it's just a fad of no consequence.

[JBI]

Anyone who writes; it doesn't matter what kind of writing. It could as easily be a journalist as a novelist.



I think you're overlooking his better works from that angle.

If I had to pick one book as his best and most influential, I'd go for The Selfish Gene. It shows non-biologists how to understand genetics, which may turn out to be the most important subject ever. I actually think books like The God Delusion detract from him as they are aimed at a very narrow audience (and contain lots of errors). He's by far best when he sticks to his specialist subjects - biology and genetics.

He took his role of Chair of Public Understanding of Science to a whole new level and has helped make biology mainstream.

Will his influence last? I'd say it's likely, because so many people have actually learnt something by reading his books. Also, I certainly know of no other author whose works have mainly sold by word of mouth. Sales of TSG continue some 34 years after its first publication.

Does that mean he is a good writer though...

To me, for all his specialties in science, he seems to be rather ignorant outside of that field, so when he applies his theories of science to create a political doctrine, arguably the result is disastrous; Atheism, as a movement, as a result of said thinkers, has gone from being an open minded, liberating, speaker for the oppressed in the world into, under he in and his friends' influence, a movement of bullies and bigots who are neither free-thinking, nor liberating, but are rather bullies who think their self-superior attitude and "truth" somehow justify them as better than others.

Simply put, the results you speak of have done nothing but stir a political mess, where thugs can go out on the internet under veiled names, and assault the beliefs of others because they feel that because they are religious, they are by definition wrong. It has brought an intolerance to popular discourse that is neither beneficial, nor progressive, but rather just a form of bigotry, though I won't name names of those who practice such practices at every opportunity on the religious texts subforum, tisk tisk (or perhaps used to, as I do not check there anymore, so cannot verify.


In truth, I know very little about science, and am personally not a believer in any faith, nor do I harbor "agnostic" notions. But the idea of atheism, as a movement, and as a doctrine, is sickening, hypocritical, and bigoted at best, and it is fueled by people supporting Dawkins as a prophet, despite the fact that, for the most part, Atheism has existed in some form or another since religion. He has turned science into a political movement, thereby popularizing it, whereas the discourse of science aught not ever have to debate religion, or discuss religion, as religion is not in any way related to science. He has made a mockery of the whole institution, and rather than sell science, which he is not, or educate, which he perhaps used to, he is giving a political view, something his "objective" science aught to abhor.


Just think of the ending of Inherit the Wind, where E. K. Hornbeck, a stand-in for H. M. Mencken, is dressed down by Clarence Darrow's stand-in, for being just as closed minded, and bigoted as the religious zealots in the South he is apposing.


That being said, as a writer, is he even that great? Even great political writers and social critics, like the aforementioned Mencken go into obscurity quickly, and, quite simply, he isn't the most interesting of authors from a purely literary standpoint.

And again, it seems funny how his writing and speaking change over the ocean. In England, for instance, he doesn't seem to have the same polemic edge, whereas in the US he does; simply put, he is stirring a political pot in the US, whereas I guess in England, where the population seem to take religion generally without seriousness, he is merely preaching to the choir against a rather marginalized minority.

[The Atheist]

Does that mean he is a good writer though...

No, but he is a "good" writer. He presents a difficult and technical subject in everyday English and does it extremely well.


To me, for all his specialties in science, he seems to be rather ignorant outside of that field, so when he applies his theories of science to create a political doctrine, arguably the result is disastrous;

I did note that his anti-theist work detracts from his scientific work.

The rest of your post is yet another boring and baseless tirade against atheism, so I've ignored it as being irrelevant to this discussion.

[JBI]

No, but he is a "good" writer. He presents a difficult and technical subject in everyday English and does it extremely well.



I did note that his anti-theist work detracts from his scientific work.

The rest of your post is yet another boring and baseless tirade against atheism, so I've ignored it as being irrelevant to this discussion.

I beg to differ, since when was something such as atheism a thing that needed to be debated. Whether you believe or not is your own business, and aught not to be political. As to rendering the difficult into English - he does so by dumbing it down, the same way Steven Hawking's Short History of Time has no equations - it is popular science, meaning it is dumbed down science, to give people an interest to perhaps pursue more, or to give people a general idea so they can not believe in some other general idea, which oversimplifies and crowds. Simply put though, Hawking has admitted he has been wrong in the past about certain things, whereas Dawkins fails to really bring out the idea that debate and theory are prevalent within scientific methodology (I am sure he knows that too). He isn't teaching a science that means anything; he is merely giving a basic level of education for those who will not actually investigate science, or will move on to understanding science at a level that laughs at his oversimplification.

And, after that, can we say that he is a) the best in that field, of popular science, and b) justified then as being a good writer. Seems more like Bill Nye than anything else, and I wouldn't give Mr. Nye a Nobel Prize.

And if you find my posts boring, you are welcome to. I am sure I am not the only one who finds your posts rather annoying, but I don't find the need to dismiss you because of it, and that is nothing next to what one may think is a rather distasteful avatar that posters coming to discuss literature have been forced to stare at for years, next to your rather vexatious style of taking 1 sentence, if not less from each paragraph and reworking a response of cutting and pasting to suit your own agenda, totally fudging and misquoting the contexts. But then again, I mean no offense, just pointing out that, for somebody who is so interested in the freedom of expression and debate that constitute an open discourse and a world devoid of religion, you seem quite adamant on calling everyone who disagrees with you a ranter, take a look in the mirror.

I at least can admit I am arrogant, rather too self-proud, and self-righteous. Tartuffe much?

In truth, I have never once seen you actually discuss a book, and as of now, all you have done is contradict people, and make bold statements, but you have never even given any textual examples or insightful evidence. You merely dismiss people based on your own word, calling my criticism of King a tirade, and my criticism of Dawkins baseless simply because it disagrees with you. You seem educated enough; if you want to dispute me, rather than try to butcher my posts with your hideous misquoting, make a response that actually examines my arguments, and comes up with a, yes, fact/evidence based argument to counter it. If you want to show that Dawkins is a good writer, I welcome you to, the same with King - give me an example, something, not just some base assault on my integrity as a poster.

[OrphanPip]

Dawkins didn't politicize science though. Many experts, and many more layman, have always used science as justification for political action. We need only look at the craze of eugenics pseudoscience at the turn of the century in the USA and Germany to see how easily science is politicized.

I don't care for Dawkins' philosophy of atheism, but there is a need to stand up to irrational restrictions to science, like the continual assault on the teaching of evolution. As long as the Discovery Institute in the USA continues to publish religiously driven pseudoscience, there is a need for authors like Dawkins.

Edit: I wouldn't consider him the greatest living writer, though Ancestor's Tale may be one of the greatest layman explanations of evolution I've ever read.

[The Atheist]

In truth, I have never once seen you actually discuss a book, and as of now, all you have done is contradict people, and make bold statements, but you have never even given any textual examples or insightful evidence.

I guess this proves the point that because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, as I am easily the most-active poster in Orwell, Huxley and Swift.


.... and my criticism of Dawkins baseless simply because it disagrees with you.

You really need to check what you're reading, because the comment I made referred to your criticism of atheism, not Dawkins, and I will quote myself so you can see the difference:


The rest of your post is yet another boring and baseless tirade against atheism...

And if you'd taken the time to read, you would have noticed I agreed with your criticism of Dawkins here:


I did note that his anti-theist work detracts from his scientific work.

Really, if you're going to respond to my posts, I think it's incumbent on you to actually read what I wrote rather than creating strawmen of what you wish I'd written.


Edit: I wouldn't consider him the greatest living writer, though Ancestor's Tale may be one of the greatest layman explanations of evolution I've ever read.

I wouldn't either, but I see him as at least the equal of many names mentioned here so far.

[windup_bird]

Salman Rushdie

[ktr]

the answer is mccarthy. in case anyone is still wondering. duh

[dfloyd]

In the 1960 Stanley Kramer movie, Inherit the Wind, H. L.Memcken, not H. M., was portrayed by the dancer, Gene Kelly. Clarence Darrow was portrayed by Spencer Tracy. William Jennings Bryan was acted by Frederic March. Speaking of great writers, H. L. Mencken was no slouch.

[minstrelbard]

the answer is mccarthy. in case anyone is still wondering. duh

So saith legions of Oprah fans ...

:wink5:

[Ein]

I honestly think Chuck Palahniuk is one, he has a style that is completely his own, not to mention the fact that he is very gritty about the world around him. He explores what makes you uncomfortable, and then holds it up to your face for you to see.

He almost reminds me of De Sade...

And Neil Gaiman, I find his work to be like a multi-layered vortex.

[ktr]

So saith legions of Oprah fans ...

:wink5:

youre so cute! a book being in her club totally de-values it and the author, amirite? lol@ anna karenina, what a stupid book. tolstoy, what a sell out joke.

[minstrelbard]

youre so cute! a book being in her club totally de-values it and the author, amirite? lol@ anna karenina, what a stupid book. tolstoy, what a sell out joke.

Well, your post was a little disrespectful to the other members here, so I had a little fun with it. I put the winky on to make it all right.

[Scheherazade]

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

~

[ktr]

Well, your post was a little disrespectful to the other members here, so I had a little fun with it. I put the winky on to make it all right.

I guess you won then, damn, i should have come better prepared.

[JBI]

youre so cute! a book being in her club totally de-values it and the author, amirite? lol@ anna karenina, what a stupid book. tolstoy, what a sell out joke.

IT cheapens it significantly, in the sense that we shouldn't need an edition with an Oprah stamp to pick up a copy of Faulkner or Marquez. It's as if the world needs her OK to proceed to read books already so well known by those versed in the discourse as to make the whole thing laughable.

[ktr]

IT cheapens it significantly, in the sense that we shouldn't need an edition with an Oprah stamp to pick up a copy of Faulkner or Marquez. It's as if the world needs her OK to proceed to read books already so well known by those versed in the discourse as to make the whole thing laughable.

I could have been more clear, but who would have guessed someone would take this route with such an argument.

I dont care about oprah, i dont care what books are in her little collection - i did not know mccarthy was in it, and i only knew tolstoy was because there was an adorable sticker on that relatively new translation by peaver n volohnsky (sp, whatever their names are) - i did not, nor did i even insinuate that anyone, let alone an entire world - should proceed to read anything because she gave her approval.

that being said, her approval of a masterpiece does not diminish the value of it. anna karenina did NOT get worse because of her sticker.

conversely, writers aiming to please some weird popular idea of what a novel should be in order to enter oprahs canon (lol) surely may de-value literature, and not only in their own works - but that's another discussion altogether.

[the facade]

Milan Kundera :)

[YW1990]

How many novels contemporary novels or books of poems from Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Israel, China, India, Japan, etc... have most of us (in the English-speaking world) read? How many of the leading poets or novelists outside of the English-speaking world are even available in translation? (And the same question might surely apply to any country).

This really bothers me as well. The fact that there's a world of literature that i can't access. Who knows? Some of them may even surpass the writers and the books that i really enjoy now.

[mal4mac]

Does that mean he is a good writer though...

... he seems to be rather ignorant outside of that field, so when he applies his theories of science to create a political doctrine, arguably the result is disastrous; Atheism, as a movement, as a result of said thinkers, has gone from being an open minded, liberating, speaker for the oppressed in the world into, under he in and his friends' influence, a movement of bullies and bigots who are neither free-thinking, nor liberating, but are rather bullies who think their self-superior attitude and "truth" somehow justify them as better than others.



I disagree, he was quoting Keats from memory on Radio 4 last week.

He doesn't write about politics, or talk about it much. Can you point out where he has created a political doctrine from his science? I've read and listened to Dawkins quite often and can't remember encountering his political doctrine.

I don't find Dawkins to be a bully at all! Have you any evidence for this? He appears open-minded to me, and very liberating.

There's no evidence for a self-superior attitude. I think his posh English accent & confidence can make superficial listeners think he is like this, and being a Northerner I've had to try to ignore it at times :) But he's basically a confident chap with liberal views and a fine figurehead for the atheist stance.

He's also on record as saying he wishes he could write like Keats, and other poets, showing a great deal of self-deprecating modesty. I find his prose to be amusing and the model of clarity, much more worth reading than the prose of many modern novelists.

In England he doesn't need the same polemic edge, because the extreme fundamentalism he feels to be the main problem is not quite so prevalent here, so he tends to be confronted by mild religious types. But, if you listened to BBC Radio 4's "Start the Week", the Monday before last, you will see that religion is still strong in the UK. In this case he had an interesting, friendly debate with the chief rabbi.

In the UK we still have unelected Bishops in the House of Lords, Christians are far from being a marginalized minority. Imagine if fundamentalist leaders in the US were just given seats on the senate without having to go through the bother of being elected?! I would predict a riot.. and rightly so...

[Can]

I think J.K Rowling

[Emil Miller]

I think J.K Rowling

Lost for words.

[tonywalt]

Gabriel García Márquez

[prendrelemick]

I think J.K Rowling


That's good, your opinion is no less relevant than anybody else's

[cafolini]

For all hogs and warts, I vote for J.K. Rowling. Although there are so many other fine writers. For example, my 3-year-old nephew, Isidoro, who developed The Flying Pancake and The Shooting Syrup. But you must admit that Harry Potter's team upon discovery of the philosophical stone are superb in their amazement.

[prendrelemick]

Gabriel García Márquez

He's got to be a contender. The beauty and clarity of his prose, combined with his skill as a stoyteller puts him right at the top.

[Stewed]

I read until I saw Amos Oz, then skipped to the end to agree. I mean, he stands out in my mind. Maybe there's better.

[Stewed]

If people are arguing about Oprah, I'd like to add that she's gotten a lot of people to read good books who I couldn't have persuaded to read them. You guys do like people to read good books, right?

[kinesj]

Cormac McCarthy

[Chris 73]

I was about to say Harold Pinter but remembered cancer got him a couple of years back,now I'm stumped. I guess my reading habits are a little to restricted to genre at the moment. I'd say Daniel Woodrell but I'm like a broken record about that guy. Alan Moore maybe? Just started to get into Ursula LeGuinn recently (on The Left Hand Of Darkness at the moment) She's not exactly subtle but I find her work so very interesting that I'm kicking myself for not trying her earlier.

[Arrowni]

Arto Paasilinna.

[astrum]

Toni Morrison is definitely up there. I love her work.

In fact, I just stumbled upon a video interview with Toni Morrison recently: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ToniM

[cafolini]

There are many good writers of the 20th century. Toni Morrison is definetely up there, beyond the fact that she won the Nobel prize, which many others also might have deserved.

[tonywalt]

Geraldine Brooks is a very impressive writer, from down under - loved March and Calebs Crossing.

[McGrain]

Rushdie. Rushdie is an absolute beast. You could spend the rest of your life reading The Satanic Verses and probably not reach the bottom of that particular well...toss in a very decent chunk of readability and some very reasonable readability and I believe you have yoruself a lock.

For company, I'd hand him Chimandia Ngozi Adiche. Deep and affecting.

Cormac McCarthy.

[McGrain]

Just to wade in a little bit on the Oprah argument. I don't watch that program. We had something similar in my country (Richard and Judy) which I also did not watch. But I don't see anything wrong with it at all. There is so much information out there. Someone you trust to cut that down for you a little bit is a good thing. If you get a reviewer you trust you hang on to that reviewer for dear life.

I've read maybe three dozen books based upon the say so of posters on this forum. Was that book, that reading experience cheapened for that? Of course not.

[PeterL]

I wonder how "greatest writer" should be defined in this usage. I suppose that the best definition would be the one who has made the most money from writing. It can't refer to quality of characters, plor, prose, or whatever, because those are completely subjective

[McGrain]

Chosing cash reaped is just as arbitrary really. You'd be as well saying copies sold, longevity etc.

I agree, it is a slippery one though.

[ashulman]

Thomas Pynchon
Phillip Roth
Cormac McCarthy

With Don Delillo close behind.

[PeterL]

It looks like Agatha Christie and Shakespeare share the top spot for sales. Danielle Steele is tops among living writers. I know her name, but that's all I know of her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors

I should take up writing crime fiction. It looks like Romance and crime with horror a bit behind dominate among the current and recent authors on the top 100 list. I certainly couldn't write Romance, but I might be able to do crime fiction.

[Labben]

Louis de Bernières and Philippe Claudel are two of the best living writers I have read, but there are undoubtedly many great contemporary writers I have yet to discover.

[tonywalt]

And, forgot to add, Haruki Murakami and as for an "up and coming author" I'd say Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's shows promise.

[FROADS]

Mario Vargas Llosa.

[krishna_lit]

J.K.Rowling, for me, undoubtedly. She has inspired a whole generation of children towards stories and proved that imagination is something that's most precious. Her work is going to live as long as the Earth is fed from the Sun light.

What those books meant for my life, they do so to infinite children around the planet too.. That is something of a living. Ain't it!

[NedSiegel]

Salman Rushdie. His brand of magic realism is true genius (Midnight Children is my favorite)

[WICKES]

[COLOR="DarkRed"] Yes, French literature is arguably as strong as English... but German? Spanish? Italian, Polish? They all have moments and writers of real brilliance... but I doubt most Poles would suggest that Polish literature rivals English any more than Polish music rivals the Germans or Polish art rivals the Italians. Some cultures have simply achieved more within a given art form than others... including your beloved Chinese or my Japanese and Persians. Of course the very question of who is the greatest living writer is skewed. How could it not be so... unless one were to have been fluent in every known language and have read everything by every living writer? The only possible way to answer such a question is to offer up a suggestion based upon those writers one has read.

Yes, this is true. It's odd that the way certain cultures excel in one area and not another. For example, compare Holland to Britain: Holland has produced some extraordinary painters (Vermeer, Rembrandt, Van Gogh), far greater than the whole of the British isles. Yet in literature the English alone have a literary history that is quite staggering and surpasses not just Holland but most of the individual European nations, with the exceptions of France and Ancient Greece. Or take music. So far as classical music goes, the Germans are in another league to the British (Wagner, Beethoven etc). But in post-war pop/ rock and roll, the British have produced a list of groups and singers that is equalled only by the USA (I'd say the Brits just edge it: the Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zep, The Smiths, Radiohead etc etc).

[Volya]

Although I have only read one of his books (The Kite Runner) I do believe Khaled Hosseini is one of the greatest writers of our time. I shall have to read his other books to see if they are as good.

[Emil Miller]

But in post-war pop/ rock and roll, the British have produced a list of groups and singers that is equalled only by the USA (I'd say the Brits just edge it: the Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zep, The Smiths, Radiohead etc etc).

:lol: Don't forget these guys.

http://youtu.be/9p5vO26F21E

[Juan Perez]

Kenzaburo Oé (tied with Gabriel García Márquez)

[mjb]

looking at my known literature ( Europe , north and South America , Australia, English Africa)
experience
Marquez the the most important book, it stands out likeMoby Dick
Cortez is the most consistent high level with both power and beauty
Cormic McCarthy the most dense (Pynchon comes close, )
M Robinson the most surprising without the use of razel dazzle and may be the deepest

of poets
Geoffrey Hill seems to be the most reaching of poets
ANNE Carson the one who has the strength of approach and purpose

I only know French enough to say about other languages, but I am unaware of any other poet
who has both the ambition and completion than these two

I love Richard Wilbur