The Best Work of All-Time?

[Lord Macbeth]

"You can't really make that call." "Eras are so different." "Art is subjective."

Now that we have THAT out of the way...let's just give our opinions and have fun with it. ;)



Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
Best Sonnet of All-Time?
Best Other Poem of All-Time
Best Short Story of All-Time?
Best Novella of All-Time?
Best Serial of All-Time?
Best Comedic Play of All-Time?
Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?
Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?
Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?

And from those 10 nominees and categories--deliberately left somewhat broad, so you can interpret them how you wish for, as we've already acknowledged, art is subjective--the final envelope, please...

Best Work of All-Time?

Definitions:

"Best"=literary and cultural significance FIRST, and THEN personal taste.

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?

*This one is pretty self-explanatiory, we all know what epic poetry is and what isn't...The IOliad, The Odyssey, Beowulf, Dante, on the comedic side of it "The Rape of the Lock," we know what this is.

Best Sonnet of All-Time?

*I decided to set sonnets apart here as they are arguably the most recognizable and certainly one of the most influential and popular forms of poetry in history, with everyone from Petrarch to Spenser to Shakespeare to modern poets writing them. Italian and English/Shakespearean/Spenserian sonnets all count, just so long as it fits the rules...14 lines and all that jazz.

Best Other Poem of All-Time

*It can be a couplet, cinquain, limerick, anything that's not an epic poem or a sonnet is fair game here.

Best Short Story of All-Time?

*This is maybe the trickiest definition, between Short Story and Novella, and that's the case in real life, too...for simplicity's sake let's just say if if goes into chapters or past that 30 page mark it's a novella, and below that it's a short story, as no matter your print size, generally if you're at 30 pages, it's ceased to be all that short of a story.

Best Novella of All-Time?

*The flip side of what's been said above; if it's longer than 30 pages and/or has chapters, pretty much can fit in here...think Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

Best Serial of All-Time?

*This can be a periodical serial or a serial of books, so this can apply to, say, Great Expecations, where the story is one long serial that was released via newsprint, or a series of short stories a la the Sherlock Holmes stories, or the Harry Potter book series.

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?

*Pretty self-explanatory, I think.

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?

*Also pretty self-explanatory.

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?

*Also pretty self-explanatory.

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?

*Also pretty self-explanatory.



And with that, let the nominations and pondering begin!

[Lord Macbeth]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?

The Iliad by Homer.

For me this is one of the harder categories to choose from, as so much of classic literature--and the BEST classic literature at that--is found here. The Odyssey and Dante's The Divine Comedy, The Inferno in particular, were the other two vying for this spot for me; Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and The Aneid all merit mention as well. But for me the origin was the big deciding point, and Homer's epic might not have started EVERYTHING, just as Plato didn't invent philosophy, but just as Plato's writings of his mentor Scorates popularized and cemented philosophy's place, so to did Homer's works do that as well. The Epic of Gilgamesh came far before this, and actually might have topped Homer's epic if it had been discovered earlier and thus had more of an impact on literature, as it's almost a certainty it influenced the great blind poet to some extent. It was a lost work, however, now thankfully regained, but too late to make this list for me, and so with some of the most memorable lines, motifs, characters, and linguistic devices in literature full-stop, and on top of that the fact that it was the one that really got things rolling Homer's The Iliad wins the war for supermacy in this category.

Best Sonnet of All-Time?

Sonnet 18: Shall I Compare Thee To A Summer's Day? by William Shakespeare.

Following what might've been the hardest category to decide for me is the easiest--NO other sonnet is so remembered, beloved, and poured over as this one; they teach it (albeit badly, sadly, as they do with much of the Bard's work) in public schools all over the Western World, and EVERYONE knows those lines, and many will be able to quote from the actual body of the poem. "Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May" and all that. Spenser and Petrarch surely wrote their fair share of good sonnets, as have other, more modern poets, but I think most would agree Shakespeare owns this category, 154 sonnets, and Sonnet 18 is as legendary as nearly any of his plays. The final push for this placement is the HUGE effort made to derive meanings from this play, and interpretations seem endless--it's not a woman, but a man, it's a man he's describing but the love is universal, it's evidence Shakespeare might've been gay, it's evidence Shakespeare had a great friend. On and on, but regardless, "So long as men can breathe or eyes can see" people will be reading this sonnet--the greatest sonnet of All-Time.


Best Other Poem of All-Time?

The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot. I STONGLY considered giving this to The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe, but I feel this poem is more meaningful, even MORE symbolic than Poe's masterpiece, and we'll be seeing Poe on this list soon enough. Eliot's masterpiece is simply brilliant, and if you love allusions, symbolism, and literary references to emphasize a point, as I do, this is simply Literary Analysis Heaven.

Best Short Story of All-Time?

The Fall of the House of Usher by Edgar Allen Poe. I must freely admit that I make this selection with one serious caveat--as much as I truly want to and plan to, I have never yet, to day, read Franz Kafka's "Metamorphosis" with enough conviction to truly give it justice. I hAVE read it, but not nearly as closely as I usually do, as...well, having about four other books and plays to read for my various English classes as an English major, I just haven't read it as closely or looked into it as deeply as I would like. As it is, that is sole work I cna think of that may be BETTER than Poe's short stories, particularly this one, so perhaps this spot will change in the future, but for now, Poe reigns here. In addition, I have ANOTHER confession to make--I actually prefer The Cask of Amontillado and possibly The Mask of the Red Death to this work; however, I DO love this work, and in terms of overall influence it can't be beat.

Best Novella of All-Time?

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Another category that's very broad, and a lot of possible entries. I personally don't care for his style, but without a doubt Conrad's Heart of Darkness deserves attention. Certain works of Hemmingway can be considered as novellas. However, as said, I don't care for Conrad's style, and I think Hemmingway's best works are more firmly in the "novel" category, and Steinbeck's work is one of the best works in American literature, and one of the best example of a character-driven plot and characters that we can truly develop a deep connection to in such a short time.

Best Serial of All-Time?

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. I strongly considered the Sherlock Holmes stories here, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is a fantastic author and The Great Detective himself is not only one of my absolute favorite literary characters but also someone I truly do indentify with...I DO feel like Holmes sometimes, and I am a bit of a Sherlockia Nerd. In addition to THAT I am also an admitted Harry Potter fan; they're not serious literature, they're pretty much the comic book equivalent of a novel, but I love them and my friends ADORE them, so they provide something fun to talk about. All that being said, neither series is something too significant for literature, and Dicken's work--one of his best--truly is. Seeing Pip and all the people of Dickens' England grow, learn, and love over a twenty year period is simply a joy, the language flows beautifully, the dialogue is convincing, striking that difficult-to-reach point in Victorian-Era literature where the characters speak beautifully-written lines while still ahving those lines of dialogue sound organic and, for the most part, actually like something a person of that era and status mgith actually say. I do not believe that we have had, before or since, a series, play, poem, or novel that has developed characters, locales, and situations so convincingly over such a long period of time, twenty or so years in the story, a great many months as Dickens wrote it as a serial. Expectations SHOULD be great entering into this work--and it will not disappoint.

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?

Lysistrata by Aristophanes. Taming of the Shrew, Twelfth Night, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and The Merchant of Venice ALL strongly contended for this spot, as did Tartuffe and The Imaginary Invalid by Moliere, and Servant of Two Masters by Carlo Goldoni. While the plays have VERY serious philosophical and theological themes, Waiting for Godot by Sameul Beckett and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard may also merit consideration here. However, this glut of choices, ironically, works against the field. Godot and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, really, serio-comic, and since they gnerally merit serious consideration due to their overtones, I can't quite qualify them here. Moliere and Goldini's works are funny, to be sure, but not as polished as Shakespeare's. And here we come to the problem with Shakespeare here--his brilliance allowed him to produce an IMMENSE valoume of work and of his 37 plays at least 2/3 are classics, with a solid 1/3 of those being of such a high qualify it's often highly difficult, if possible, to rank them. As we'll see with the tragedies, he DOES have a way out of that; in regards to his comedies, however, ANY of the above works can be argued to be "the best," and some not even mentioned could join in that fray. As a result, for me they all slit each other's throats. On top of all of that, however, is the sheer brilliance of Aristophanes' work, and the ENORMOUS influence it has over the genre, as we see with Shakespeare. The Bard's comedies are famous for boasting some of the strongest and best female characters in all of literature, especially up to that point. But for all of that, where does this concept of female characters being dominant come from? The comedies of the Greeks...and no comedy does this so well, expemplifies this concept so perfectly as Lysistrata.

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?

Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Getting back to the idea expressed above about Will's work, how do we make the case for a TRAGEDY in particular? His comedies are great, but his tragedies are even more the stuff of literary legend. Othello. king Lear. Romeo and Juliet. Julius Caesar. Macbeth. (Did someone say my name?) It can be argued the history play Richard III crosses into this territory, and if so it certainly stands there with the rest. Even a so-called "poor" Shakespearean tragedy, such as Titus Andronicus, still packs a great amount of clout (and I would debate it's "poor" quality, I believe it to be a work that's rough around the edges, sure, but still a great mood piece, especially considering it was his first tragedy, and we'll see so many of these ideas used again in later, better plays.) And besides all of THAT...besides jsut SHAKESPEARE'S works, what about all the OTHER great tragedies? Oedipus Rex and Antigone by Sophocles. The Bacchae by Euripides. The Spanish Tragedy and Tamburlaine by Shakespeare's contemporaries Thomas Kyd and Christopher Marlowe, respectively. The MANY great works of Henrik Ibsen, from Hedda Gabler to A Doll's House to Ghosts. Tennessee Williams' titanic pieces, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and The Glass Menagerie. Death of a Salesman and The Crucible by Arthur Miller. The aforementioned Godot and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Amidst that MODEST selection of great tragedies (and that IS a relatively modest compilation, many, MANY more) HOW do we select The Melancholy Dane's tragic tale? Even if we accept Shakespeare as the greatest playwright, as most will, and take just his tragedies, how do we pick Hamlet? Isn't it just as difficult to select one of his tragedies as it is his comedies? I would argue that this is not the case. While all of his other tragedies are legendary, I would argue that Hamlet is trancendental, even more so than his other works. Nearly every character has been examined at length, and nearly every mode of interpretation has been explored. The play has arguably ceased to BE a play...it's been talked about, referenced, done, known, felt so much and to such a degree that Hamlet almost IS alive, and the character that so often is mentioned as possibly the most human in literature seems to have a life of his own. An analysis of Hamlet and his play done in proper would, should fill an entire book, or at least a full post. For now, however, it is enough to say that among the greatest creations of man in literature, Hamlet stands above the rest for being the best work of tragic theatre and arguably transcending the theatre at the same time.

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?

Candide by Voltaire. Not a lot to say about this one, it simply seems the perfect novelized-satire, and the jokes and points about society stand up just as well--better, in places--to this day. Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels raises a challenge, but Candide seems up to it, and if placed in context even more so, though either work could admittedly be welcome in this spot.

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. This was a CLOSE one, and I'd be remissed if I didn't mention George Orwell's 1984, which damn near took this spot and could very possibly take over this spot should it hold up in a few decades. Needless to say, this is one of those categories where there are a TON of possible candidates--Cervantes' Don Quixote, which is quite possibly the greatest work in the Spanish language, the many works of Dickens, Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, Melville's Moby Dick, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Hemmingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls and A Farewell to Arms (a personal favorite of mine that i recommend to ANYONE who hasn't read it yet, short and simply INCREDIBLE, one of the greatest works of the last century), Austen's Pride and Prejudice, and so many more. I would, however, AGAIN be remissed if I didn't mention ANOTHER work that, even more than these works, nearly took the spot, and that would be Fydor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, as well as one of his other masterpieces, The Brothers Karamazov. In fact, in terms of the greatest NOVELIST of All-Time, that COULD very well be Dostoyevsky, with Hemmingway and a few others in the mix as well. With all that said, then, why Les Miserables? First, because it's author is someone who ALSO whou would have to be entered into that "Greatest Novelist Ever" debate, namely Victor Hugo, who was and remains simply incredible. I said earlier that I thought Great Expectations by Dickens captured the development of both characters and society better than any otehr serial, and I'd stand by that, be it a book series or a traditional serial, no one does it better than Dickens. In terms of overall, however, I'd tie him with Hugo for that honor. That being said, I don't believe his works have the sheer WEIGHT to compete with Hugo's masterpiece, and that's what does in many of these works for this lofty title--the sheer wight and scope, emotionally, mentally, and physically (in terms of the sheer size and depth of the novel) surpasses most of the authors here, leaving, again, Dostoyevsky and Orwell, who's work may not have the length Les Miserables has, but it certainly has the emotional and even MORE certainly the MENTAL weight, with the huge themes in his book and a style so bleak and dystopic that "Orwellian" is now its own adjective to describe such control and bleakness and despair...such MISERY, and that. after all, is the title and a titular issue of Hugo's work. So now the greatest question yet--between these three titans and their titanic works, Les Miserables, Crime and Punishment, and 1984, how does Hugo's work win out? This time we can't claim that one of these authors' pieces have their throats cut by similar pieces of importance, and so distinguishing them is difficult, for while all three authors DO have additional works--and masterpieces at that, as Hugo, Dostoyevsky, and Orwell boast The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, The Brothers Karamazov, and Animal Farm, respectively, their above works still remain distinct and generally cited as their best and most prominent work; Orwell is a slight exception, as Animal Farm may also be mentioned and thus create a bit of a question as to which is his opus, but this isn't too serious a question or issue, as that speaks more to the general quality of Orwell's writing than to any blurring of what his opus might be, and 1984 still carries enough of a majority and is more readily refrenced and recognized. That being said, Orwell's books DO blur more than the other two, and his works ARE more recent, making it more difficult to ascertain just how well they'll hold up, for while the fears, issues, and themes 1984 deals with are very much part of the human condition, and as immortal as the never-seen "Big Brother" is, these questions are just enough to keep him from the spot, though this is more the case of a work recieving a score of 99 our of 100 than its "falling short." Dostoyevsky's works suffer from the same slight blur, but not at all too much; rather, the issue with Dostoyevsky is how much his work's philosophical takes can be truly take ans unique, as Nietzsche and, to a lesser extent, Kierkegaard expressed similar ideas in their philosophical works, with Kierkegaard predating Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche having an arguably greater effect in Europe. Clinching, however, and appopriately enough, is Hugo's work itself. The characters are simply IMMORTAL, adn the story somehow carries about five stories (at least) within it in threads that run concurrent, interweave, and yet still remain distinct and resolve in distinct, convincing, and highly-dramatic ways. Jean Valjean is arguably the greatest protagonist of any novel, and Javert arguably one of the most conflicted and complex antagonists, to the point we're left asking if he truly is an antagonist...or simply one more of "The Miserables." Last but not least is the stylistiic significance of the work; Don Quixote may have introduce the modern novel, but Les Miserables seems to have perfected the art of it, and for that and all above, though facing incredibly heated competition, and Dostoyevsky and Orwell in particular have arguments on their side, Les Miserables certainly does seem to be the greatest achievement in the world of novels, so perfectly resonating, even to this day, you CAN almost swear to hearing the people sing.




And that's the list!

Just a brief take... ;)

RANKED, I'd say...

10. Of Mice and Men
9. The Fall of the House of Usher
8. Candide
7. Great Expectations
6. Sonnet 18
5. Lysistrata
4. The Waste Land
3. The Iliad
2. Les Miserables
1. Hamlet

So Hamlet...you finally get the Crown! ;)

[Patrick_Bateman]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
Divine Comedy
Best Other Poem of All-Time
Perfect Woman - William Wordsworth
Best Short Story of All-Time?
The Tell Tale Heart - Poe/The Lady With The Toy Dog - Chekhov
Best Novella of All-Time?
Old Man and The Sea - Hemingway
Best Serial of All-Time?
Eugene Onegin - Pushkin


the others require more thought

[dfloyd]

and I agree with most. I might choose another rather than Candide if I thought about it for awhile. But Candide will do. But what happened to Don Quixote? This book might be best comedic and dramatic novel, both. I read all the unabridged volumes (I have it in five volumes) of Les Miserables, but their are sections which are very dull, including Hugo's everlasting description of the battle of Waterloo. There are no DULL PARTS to Cervantes' novel. And the battle as described by Stendahl in The Charter House of Parma is better than as described in Hugo. I love Great Expectations and I have a copy with Dickens original ending where he doesn't end up with Estella. Also, the b&w movie directed by David Lean is the best Dickens movie ever. Starring John Mills, Alec Guiness, and a very young Jean Simmons as the young Estella. But I would have to say it is my second pick for serial. That would have to go to Dumas for the Count of Monte Cristo.

[mortalterror]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
*Divine Comedy. Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Paradise Lost, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Shahnamah, Masnavi, Jerusalem Delivered, Faerie Queene, Orlando Furioso, Beowulf, Os Lusiads
Best Sonnet of All-Time?
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day, Ozymandius, On his blindness, What Lips my Lips have Kissed, How Do I Love Thee Let Me Count the Ways, Loving in Truth, although Petrarch, Baudelaire, Ronsard, Wyatt, and others might have a claim.
Best Other Poem of All-Time
Bhagavad Gita, Book of Job, Gita Govinda, Song of Unending Sorrow, Rime of the Ancient Mariner, The Wasteland, although technically some of these can be classed as epic.
Best Short Story of All-Time?
The Snows of Kilimanjaro, To Build a Fire, The Cask of Amontillado, The Most Dangerous Game, The Gift of the Magi, Ball of Fat, Everything that Rises Must Converge, The Yellow Wallpaper, A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings,
Best Novella of All-Time?
Heart of Darkness, The Pearl, Heart of a Dog,
Best Serial of All-Time?
The Three Musketeers
Best Comedic Play of All-Time?
Lysistrata, or The Farce of Sodom, for a more thorough rundown of the history of comedy consult my supplemental blog entry here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?b=11109).
Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?
Hamlet
Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?
Catch-22, for a more thorough consideration of the comedic novel consult my history of comedy here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?b=11109).
Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?
Les Miserables, Moby Dick, War and Peace, Madame Bovary

[stlukesguild]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?

This one is easy: Dante- The Divine Comedy- No other work by a single author can match the breadth from the comic to tragic to spiritual, the brilliant characters (including the author himself), the audacity of the writer in virtually re-inventing his own cosmos, the profundity of the epic as spiritual growth of the author... to say nothing of the linguistic and formal invention. After the Comedia? The Odyssey, The Shah Nameh, The Faerie Queene

Best Sonnet of All-Time?- Shelley- Ozymandias- This is virtually an impossible selection. There are so many stunning sonnets from Dante, Cavalcanti, Petrarch, Ronsard, Sidney, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, on through Baudelaire, Valery, Richard Wilbur, etc... Shelley's poem on the fragility of life and art simply resonates deeply with me and sticks in my memory. Alternatives might include Shakespeare's Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day? or even better, My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun which is a brilliant variation on all the usual poetic conceits of love sonnets.

Best Other Poem of All-Time- Milton- Paradise Lost- I am following the argument that Milton's great work is not truly an epic poem. Be that as it may, I cannot think of a greater poem in the English language. The visual imagery is quite stunning... and heart-wrenching when one considers the blindness of the author. Other possibilities? Spenser's Epithalimion may be my single favorite non-epic poem... and then there's Tennyson's In Memoriam.

Best Short Story of All-Time?- Edgar Allen Poe- The Tell Tale Heart- As with the sonnet, this is almost an impossible selection. I might have gone just as well with any number of other tales from Hawthorne, Kafka, J.L. Borges, Checkov, etc... but admittedly I have always been enamored of the almost poetic aspects of this tale and the rich atmosphere suggested.

Best Novella of All-Time?- Goethe- The Sorrows of Young Werher- I almost went with The Heart of Darkness... but this great tragic Romantic tale made a deep impression on me when I read it as a teen... and it has stayed with me.

Best Serial of All-Time?

Novels- Proust- In Search of Lost Time- To my mind the greatest literary achievement of the 20th century. A rich, sensuous tapestry.

Stories- The Arabian Night's Entertainments- A brilliant collection of magical tales rich in character and sensual settings. Runner's Up: J.L. Borges- Collected Fictions (or Labyrinths if we must insist on a single volume)

Poems- Four Way Tie: Spenser- Amors (The Amoretti and Epithalimion)- To my mind the single most brilliant sonnet cycle. Where other poets invent an idealized, unattainable woman, Spenser documents his very real experiences in wooing his wife starting with his initial failings, developing into a relationship that blooms into real love that culminates with the great wedding poem, the Epithalimion. The language and imagery are worthy of Shakespeare at his most magical. Baudelaire- The Flowers of Evil- A brilliant collection of dark poems that must stand as the birth of Modern poetry. The atmosphere of decadence, urban sophistication and ennui, and eroticism is unmatched. Whitman- Leaves of Grass- Whitman achieves virtually the American equivalent and opposite to Baudelaire's European decadence... something even suggested by the very titles. This is surely the American literary achievement that seriously puts the US on the literary map and inspires endless followers from Pessoa to Neruda to Octavio Paz. Chaucer- The Canterbury Tales- Surely self-explanatory. Chaucer brilliantly develops a series of tales with characters that surpass any of his predecessors (ie. Boccaccio's Decammeron) especially achieved through the richness of variety in his narrators. We may forget the Wife of Bath's Tale... but who can forget the Wife of Bath?

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?- Shakespeare- A Midsummer Night's Dream- An exquisite dream fantasy of love, jealousy, confusion, and sheer poetry

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?- Shakespeare- Hamlet... if not Hamlet, King Lear or MacBeth (although Sophocles Oedipus Rex, Euripides' Medea, and Aeschylus Oresteia must surely rank close). I give Shakespeare the nod for breaking with conventions and bringing comedy, the love story, and other elements into play... successfully.

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?- Cervantes- Don Quixote... although I might go with Lawrence Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy on another occasion. Cervante's achieves the miracle of turning the bumbling Don and his side-kick Sancho into figures far more heroic than the perfect heroes of the traditional Romances. The characters of the Don and Sancho are perhaps even more richly and profoundly developed than any by Shakespeare... and as with Tristam Shandy, Cervantes achieves one of the greatest literary friendships of all time.

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?- Flaubert- Madame Bovary- I'd go with Bovary as the most perfectly realized novel... developed almost as if it were a poem. Runner's up? Tolstoy- War and Peace, Dostoevsky- The Brothers Karamazov, Melville- Moby Dick.

Greatest Single Work?- Dante- The Divine Comedy- See above.

[B. Laumness]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
The Iliad, Homer
The Odyssey, Homer
The Divine Comedy, Dante

Best Sonnet of All-Time?
L'Ennemi, Baudelaire
El Desdichado, Nerval
"Quand vous serez bien vieille", Ronsard

Best Other Poem of All-Time
Le Voyage, Baudelaire
De rerum natura, Lucretius
Une Saison en enfer, Rimbaud

Best Short Story of All-Time?
Vor dem Gesetz, Kafka
The Masque of the Red Death, Poe
La Nuit, Maupassant

Best Novella of All-Time?
Heart of Darkness, Conrad
Le Horla, Maupassant
Die Verwandlung, Kafka

Best Serial of All-Time?
À la recherche du temps perdu, Proust
La Comédie humaine, Balzac
Le Comte de Monte-Cristo, Dumas

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?
Dom Juan, Molière
A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare
Rhinocéros, Ionesco

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?
Hamlet, Shakespeare
Macbeth, Shakespeare
Phèdre, Racine

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?
Candide, Voltaire
Don Quixote, Cervantes
Gargantua, Rabelais

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?
L'Education sentimentale, Flaubert
Les Misérables, Hugo
La Chartreuse de Parme, Stendhal

[PeterL]

"Art is subjective."

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
Beowulf

Best Sonnet of All-Time?
None

Best Other Poem of All-Time
I don't know either.

Best Short Story of All-Time?
My opinion on this changes regularly.

Best Novella of All-Time?
"Inconstant Moon" by Larry Niven

Best Serial of All-Time?
The Carson of Venus series by Edgar Rice Burroughs

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?
I have no idea, and barely more interest.

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?
I have no idea, and barely more interest.


Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?
The Aluminum Man by G. C. Edmondson

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?
The Ship the Sailed the Time Stream by G. C. Edmondson

Best Work of All-Time?
The Ship the Sailed the Time Stream and To Sail the Century Sea by G. C. Edmondson
Taken as a unit the two are the greatest work of prose fiction of the 20th century and probably of all time.

[Dark Muse]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?

This was a tough one, but if I can only choose one I am going to have to go with The Inferno. That is a work I could easily read more than once, and I usually am not big for rereading.

Best Sonnet of All-Time?

I love the sonnets of Shakespeare but for me, my personal best, the one sonnet which sticks out foremost in my mind and which was the first thing to leap into my head when I saw this category is The World is Too Much With Us by Wordsworth. It is one of my all time favorite poems.

Best Other Poem of All-Time?

This one was obvious, no-contest, while there is a plethora of poems which I like a great deal, in choosing the single best, it has to be Annabel Lee by Edgar Allan Poe.

Best Short Story of All-Time?

This is a tough one, but I am going to have to go with Poe again. I feel like I ought to choose someone else since I just did him for poem, but I cannot deny that he is the master of the short story, and if I had to choose one of his works for this category is has to be Ligeia.

Best Novella of All-Time?

I am not sure what the maximum cut off is between a novella and a novel. If The Stranger counts as a novella than that is hands down my choice for this category.

Best Serial of All-Time?

This is a tough category, I cannot think of any off the top of my head so I may have to come back to this one.

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?

I absolutely love Shakespeare's As You Like It.

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?

This one was an easy, no-contest for me. Hands down it has to be Jean-Paul Sartre' No Exit. For me that is one of the most brilliant plays I have ever read. I absolutely love it and think it is an ingenious work.

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?

This one is tough, but I think I am going to have to go with Good Omens.

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?

Another hard one, because there are so many, but if I must choose only one, I am going to have to go with The Magus, which I thought was truly a stunning book, and it kept me on the edge my seat the whole time I was reading. It was so unlike anything I have read before, and it was one of the few books, that after reading it, I wanted to tell everyone I knew about it, because it was so awesome.

[Mr.lucifer]

Best Work?
The Night of scourge.

[JuniperWoolf]

"You can't really make that call." "Eras are so different." "Art is subjective."

Now that we have THAT out of the way...let's just give our opinions and have fun with it. ;)
Haha, well said.

'Kay.

*Best Epic Poem of All-Time?*
Ovid's Philomela and Procne.

*Best Other Poem of All-Time?*
Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, by Robert Frost.

*Best Short Story of All-Time?*
Hmm... A Clean, Well-Lighted Place by Hemingway.

*Best Novella of All-Time?*
Easy. Of Mice and Men, by Steinbeck.

*Best Serial of All-Time?*
Geez. I'll go with Flowers in the Attic, for the creepy incestual child sex (not that I'm in to that kind of thing).

*Best Comedic Play of All-Time?*
Romeo and Juliet, and I mean it (I like Mercutio a lot).

*Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?*
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof by Tennessee Williams.

*Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?*
Hmm... I don't really like comedy (it tries too hard). I thought that Don Quixote was pretty funny, I'll go with that.

*Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?*
The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck.

[Lord Macbeth]

Wow, a LOT of interesting and very diverse answers...not really any constants...

A few interesting notes, going category by category:

-Wow, no one else thinks Homer's work gets the nod for Best Epic Poem? Though losing out to Dante is certainly no shame, and T.S. Eliot went so far as to say that Shakespeare and Dante were THE poets, and that there was no "third," that they RULE over poetry...and he does have a case...still would've thought Homer might've gotten a bit more praise (both from the selections so far and from Eliot, if there IS a third it WOULD be Homer) but Dante's a great choice here.

-Interesting that only a couple others have pulled for Shakespeare to win the Sonnet category, I thought his Sonnet 18/Shall I compare Thee To A Summer's Day would be much more dominant in the vote-getting...instead there's a wide selection.

-A different pick for all, which makes sense, how broad it is...

-Again pretty diverse, though Poe has a couple of nods...

-Diverse as it's maybe the hardest to define...

-Dumas seems to have gotten some consideration here, albeit with different works, wasn't expecting that...I generally think of those works as being one work rather than worked out as a series, but I'm not a Dumas expert, so I suppose I'm wrong.

-Aristophanes and Shakespeare hold a good share of the votes here, which is probably how it should be...and to Ms. Dark Muse, interesting that you chose As You Like It, not as familiar with that play as others, wouldn't have guessed that, Much Ado About Nothing, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Twelfth Night all seem the apex of Shakespearean Comedy to me, and if it may be permitted, The Merchant of Venice, though that's now really a problem play as the Portia plot is very humourous and the Shylock story is actually somewhat of a tragedy...

-The one relative constant--while others that were deserving were mentioned, Hamlet seems a clear favorite choice in this category, and rightly so, as I'd argue (as shown in my above rankings) that I'd consider it not only the Greatest Dramatic Play of All-Time, but the Greatest Work of All-Time overall.

-Candide and Don Quixote the clear favorites, which is a bit surprising for me as while it does have some substantial humor in it, I always considered the latter piece a bit more serious, almost a tragedy with Quixote's Sisyphian attempts...after all, the verb "Quixotic" doesn't generally pertain to a comedic so much as a vain situation.

-Now HERE I'm a bit shocked...I expected a spread here, with so many BRILLIANT novels to choose from, but not a lot of support for Les Miserables or Crime and Punishment, at least not outright, and 1984 hasn't even been MENTIONED...after I went through all that trouble deciding between the three in that epic paragraph... ;)




Interesting replies, though, hopefully more will come in...in the meantime, anyone care to rank their picks (this IS a thread for the "Greatest Work of All-Time," after all, so which of your ten categorical selections do you feel wins the prize? I've already sung the praises of Hamlet in that department...any challengers?)

[keilj]

Best Other Poem - I don't read much poetry - but I think Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman deserve a mention

Best Short Story - The Rich Boy by Fitzgerald

Best Novella - Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway

some folks picked Of Mice and Men for this - Steinbeck's The Red Pony is better

Best Dramatic Play - Death of a Salesman by Miller

Best Comedic Novel - Roughing It by Twain

Best Novel - The Grapes of Wrath

[David Lurie]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
When I was in my teens I loved so much Iliad and Ramayana but now my choice is:
Orlando Furioso by Ludovico Ariosto

Best Sonnet of All-Time?
This is the tough one and this one has to be Italian - sorry Bard, I'm sure you understand. My first thought was Erano i capei d’oro a l’aura sparsi by Francesco Petrarca but in the end my choice is:
A Zacinto by Ugo Foscolo

Best Other Poem of All-Time?
Even tougher than the sonnet, I'm going with my mother tongue once again, though L'Après-Midi d'un faune by Mallarmé is tempting me, my choice is:
La ginestra by Giacomo Leopardi

Best Short Story of All-Time?
Pirandello? Poe? Borges? Kafka? no one of them but:
Le Horla by Maupassant

Best Novella of All-Time?
The Judge and His Hangman by Dürrenmatt

Best Serial of All-Time?
not much choice here unless you are willing to consider potterish stuff and I'm not. Honorable mention to Kristof's The Notebook, The Proof, The Third Lie but there is only one choice to make here:
à la recherche...

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?
Much ado about nothing or As you like could have been my choice here but when I studied Latin in high school I developed a deep love for Plautus, so my choice is:
Amphitruo by Plautus

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?
forgive me Sophocles but I have never been moved in my life like the first time I saw Iphigenia in Aulis by Euripides and considering I have spent 3 months of my life studying the Greek text I have no other choice than:
Iphigenia in Aulis by Euripides

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?
The Pickwick papers by Dickens? how much I loved it when I was twelve and I loved it again when I was twentysix and I read it in English, but no matter how much I love it I'm going to choose a way superior book:
Don Quixote by Cervantes

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?
The Best novel has no boring sections I gladly skip when I re-read it so nor Hugo, nor Fedor, nor Lev, nor Manzoni, nor Stendhal, nor Balzac, will do it for me, I guess it has to be Wolfgang von:
Faustus or Elective Affinities by Goethe

Best Work of All-Time?
La Divina Commedia di Dante Alighieri

[OrphanPip]

Meh, I'm just going to put my favorites

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?

For me, it has to be Spenser's Faerie Queene.

Best Sonnet of All-Time?

Sonnet 73 by Shakespeare.

Best Other Poem of All-Time

I'm gonna go with Yeats' "The Second Coming" for today.

Best Short Story of All-Time?

A Good Man is Hard to Find - Flannery O'Connor

Best Novella of All-Time?

Heart of Darkness - Conrad

Best Serial of All-Time?

Great Expectations - Dickens

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?

The Country Wife by William Wycherley or Tartuffe by Moliere

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?

Another nod to Williams from me, Glass Menagerie is a personal favorite, though I really like Henrik Ibsen's Hedda Gabbler too.

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?

I don't really read comedic novels.

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?

Anna Karenina - Tolstoy

[DanielBenoit]

I pretty much agree with all of the choices by MortalTerror, SLG and B. Laumness.

Note: All of these are personal preference.

Best Epic Poem: Homer's two works cut it for me, though I have yet to read Dante.

Best Sonnet: Shelly's Ozymandias: Not only that, but one of the most compact and memorable poems in our language. Any number of Shakespeare's sonnets easily make the cut as well though I'll list his 66th sonnet in order to stand out. Milton's sonnet On His Blindness is definitely one of the most moving.

Best Poem/Collections: "The Tint I cannot take is best" by Dickinson, Leaves of Grass by Whitman, 1819 Odes by Keats, Epithalimion by Spenser, Tintern Abbey by Wordsworth, The Waste Land by Eliot, The Second Coming by Yeats, Book V of the Masnavi by Rumi, Song of Solomon, Paradise Lost by Milton, Psalm 23, any number of short poems by Du Fu or Wang Wei.

Best Short Story: An Encounter by Joyce, The Hunter Gracchus by Kafka, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Borges, The Snows of Kilimanjaro by Hemingway.

Best Novella: The Dead by Joyce, Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky.

Best Comedic Play: As You Like It, though I Love Labour's Lost is certainly an underrated one and is Shakespeare at his most musical and playful. Measure for Measure is one of his best as well, but it's far too bitter to be considered a "pure" comedy.

Best Tragic Play: King Lear: The Bard's greatest achievement and whose power is comparable only to the Book of Job. Hamlet follows very close behind along with Henry IV; both which contain Shakespeare's two greatest creations: Hamlet and Falstaff. Outside of Shakespeare there is of course Sophocles' Oedipus Rex and what I consider the two best plays of the 20th century, Beckett's Endgame and Waiting for Godot.

Best Comedic Novel: I have yet to read Don Quioxte so it is impossible for me to even make a proper judgement.

Best Dramatic Novel: Ulysses by Joyce.

And now, how about some extras questions?

Best Religious Work: The Book of Genesis. The Book of Job, The Book of Ecclesiastics, The Gospel of Thomas, The Tao Te Ching and the Bhavagad-Gita.

Best Non-Fiction Work: Book 3 of Essais by Montaigne, Experience and The Conduct of Life by Emerson, Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche, Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard, Symposium by Plato.


Best Work: King Lear - The most devastating and profound work of literature I have yet read. The human condition in five acts.

[Alexander III]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?

This is a though one, I have to give the nod to the Iliad, the poem which set the standard in the west for the epic. Such aesthetic and psychologic insight is given into war, religion and men that it truly is a masterpiece.

Best Sonnet of All-Time?

When I Have Fears I May Cease To Be, by Keats. I think this sonnet posses the most powerful final couplet in the english language. Though I think Ozymandius is defiantly the runner up, two of the finest sonnets which english romanticism produced. Also I feel I have to mention my third place allocation, which is Rimbaud's sonnet, Sleeper In The Valley.

Best Other Poem of All-Time

I am torn between Byron's Don Juan and Orlando Furioso. Have to give it to Don Juan though.

Best Novella of All-Time?

Have to say René by Chateaubriand

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?

This goes to the master of comedy, Molliere's Tartuffe.

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?

This one was the easiest by far to answer, Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?

Have to say Les Miserables, personally I did not find a single section dull. Hugo's prose was beautiful throughout and the description of Waterloo was one of my favorite parts.

[Lord Macbeth]

More intersting opinions...

-It IS opinion-based, of course, and there isn't a right or wrong answer...but to hose that took something other than Hamlet's tragedy or a Shakespeare play...really, I LOVE Arthur Miller and Sophocles and Euripides, but I don't think Shakespeare can really be beaten in the tragedy department, he has at least FOUR--Hamlet, King Lear, MacBeth, and Othello--that could easily win Best here...and Hamlet's right up there for Best of Al-Time Overall, even a lack of length can't count against it, it's a LONG play, the Bard's longest, and takes four hours or more uncut to do--just ask Kenneth Branaugh. So I'm not attacking picks here or anything, just curious why you chose over Shakespeare here, since here he seems to be THE choice (in the "Sonnets" category as well he's strong, but there he has Spenser and Petrarch and all the rest, and he DOES have a ton of competition from Sophocles, Euripides, and Ibsen, Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller are in the mix as well, but Shakespeare's tragedies are so good I don't even knopw where to begin to defend my position...just my position, of course, but still--why take another throne away from Prince Hamlet, or at least his creator?)

-To whomever made it, nice nod to Plautus, one of if not the favorite source of Shakespeare for his comedies...

-I won't touch the "Religious Work" category, but in terms of Best Non-Fiction Book, ie philosophy (mainly, unless we want to get into textbooks and chemistry books...I don't think so...) I think it's a three-way tie: for literary, subjective, and existentialist minds Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche is the Superman of the contest, for the more analytic and objective-minded A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant is the counterpoint to Nietzsche's work (or rather Nietzsche is the counter to Kant, as he came after him) and for those seeking the most important and influential philosophy text to date there are MANY, but for two thousand years of dominance and essentially being the first great text that lit the flame for Western Philosophy, Plato's The Republic gets the nod.

Two more categories:

-Best For-The-Cause Text of All-Time?

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. A VERY close second is Thomas Paine's Common Sense, but due to the length of Marx's work and the worldwide effect, he just wins out here (though you'd think with his ideals he'd be somewhat disgusted at the idea of some being ranked above others...) ;)

-The Farenheit 451 Award For The Text You Most Wished Was Burned Day 1:

A bit ironic the "award" name here, given the fact that Bradbury's great text is all about NOT burning books, and as literature lovers we should be apalled at the idea...

But I don't think my pick will be too irksome--Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.

I honestly think we could've done without that book, and if the publisher had just decided to burn all the copies straightaway, would any of us really be shedding any tears of sorror or outrage?

Just saying...

[DanielBenoit]

Haha, I didn't like Farenheit 451 either, way too overrated with rather sophomoric prose.

-Best For-The-Cause Text of All Time: Being somewhat a Marxist myself I would indeed choose either The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital, though the former is certainly a lot more easier to get through.

This category is really vague though. Is it a political category? Would The Republic count? Is this meant for books with a purely rhetorical approach and one that is advocating a specific idea or cause? If so I would also choose the Declaration of Independence which is almost a cliche to say now because it is so exceedingly worshiped in this country, though it is easy to see why. Any of the works of Jefferson, Paine and Franklin are very eloquent and capture the spirit of what one likes to think of the birth of America.

Mill is quite good too, though I think above all I would choose any of the speeches or letters of MLK as my personal favorites for "cause-oriented" non-fiction.


-Book I wished were burned:

None really, the very idea of burning any books disgusts me. That said, I think the world would be a lot better without Mein Kampf (poorly written anyway), The Turner Diaries (the equivalent of neo-Nazi porn) and maybe Tolstoy's god-awful essay on Shakespeare I think tops them all (just kidding ;) ).


EDIT: Thinking it over again, for the political/rhetorical category I think I'll change my opinion and list Montaigne's On Cannibals for my personal favorite. It was radically ahead of its time in criticizing colonialism and it gives an unusual sympathetic perspective on the natives and even goes so far as to consider the West, with all of its barbarous wars and state tyranny, as no more civilized than the primitive cultures of pre-Columbian America. (Note: The title is misleading, as with many of Montaigne's essays.)

[OrphanPip]

Book written for a cause?

I'm gonna go with Bacon's Novum Organum. The first articulation of the scientific method in the West, and with the work of Descartes, the foundation of modern science. I say it's a work for a cause because Bacon was trying to argue for state sponsorship and funding of science. (And if we look around today he seems to have succeeded ;))

[mortalterror]

I pretty much agree with all of the choices by MortalTerror, SLG and B. Laumness.
Those are three righteous dudes.


It IS opinion-based, of course, and there isn't a right or wrong answer...but to hose that took something other than Hamlet's tragedy or a Shakespeare play...really, I LOVE Arthur Miller and Sophocles and Euripides, but I don't think Shakespeare can really be beaten in the tragedy department, he has at least FOUR--Hamlet, King Lear, MacBeth, and Othello--that could easily win Best here...and Hamlet's right up there for Best of Al-Time Overall, even a lack of length can't count against it, it's a LONG play, the Bard's longest, and takes four hours or more uncut to do--just ask Kenneth Branaugh. So I'm not attacking picks here or anything, just curious why you chose over Shakespeare here, since here he seems to be THE choice (in the "Sonnets" category as well he's strong, but there he has Spenser and Petrarch and all the rest, and he DOES have a ton of competition from Sophocles, Euripides, and Ibsen, Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller are in the mix as well, but Shakespeare's tragedies are so good I don't even knopw where to begin to defend my position...just my position, of course, but still--why take another throne away from Prince Hamlet, or at least his creator?)

If we want to consider The Oresteia by Aeschylus or The Oedipus Cycle by Sophocles as one play in three acts then they are better than Hamlet and about the same length. I've seen the 8 history plays of Shakespeare performed as though they were one continuous story like Wagner's Ring Cycle. Anne Carson came out with a translation of three Oresteia plays by three different authors Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, but I wish somebody would put on a version together with all of the prequels and sequels by Racine, Goethe, and Seneca. You could call it The Fall of the House of Atreus, and include six of the greatest dramatists of all time! It would take all day to watch, but wouldn't it be worth it?

There has been a lot of talk for Shakespeare based on Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, and Richard III. But let us not lose sight of Aeschylus' Agamemnon, Prometheus Bound, Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, Antigone, Euripides' The Bacchae, Medea, Electra, Iphigenia in Aulis, Seneca's Thyestes, De Vega's Fuente Ovejuna, Racine's Phedre, Athalia, Andromache, and the Thebaid, Calderon's Life is a Dream, Kalidasa's Sakuntala and the Ring, Wang Shifu's Romance of the Western Chamber, Chikamatsu's Chushingura, Goethe's Faust, Ibsen's A Doll's House, Beckett's Waiting For Godot, and O'Neill's Long Day's Journey Into Night, any one of which is a contender for greatest tragic play ever written.


To whomever made it, nice nod to Plautus, one of if not the favorite source of Shakespeare for his comedies...
I didn't mention him in my post; but I did mention him on my blog which I've linked to already. Although he is not as good as Aristophanes, he is still hilarious, and my favorites of his are the Pot of Gold, The Menaechmus Twins, The Braggart Soldier, and the Haunted House. Anybody who doesn't have the time to read his twenty or so plays should either see a performance of Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors, Moliere's Amphitryon, or watch the modern cinema adaptation of his work A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060438/).


I won't touch the "Religious Work" category, but in terms of Best Non-Fiction Book, ie philosophy (mainly, unless we want to get into textbooks and chemistry books...I don't think so...) I think it's a three-way tie: for literary, subjective, and existentialist minds Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche is the Superman of the contest, for the more analytic and objective-minded A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant is the counterpoint to Nietzsche's work (or rather Nietzsche is the counter to Kant, as he came after him) and for those seeking the most important and influential philosophy text to date there are MANY, but for two thousand years of dominance and essentially being the first great text that lit the flame for Western Philosophy, Plato's The Republic gets the nod.
As far as I'm concerned, almost all of the best work is religious to some degree. There are heaps of religion and gods and fate and justifying the ways of gods to men in Homer. All of the Ancient Greek plays are performed at religious festivals and their themes are composed around explaining some rite or other still held by their society. You got your Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Bhagavad Gita, Lotus Sutra, Dhammapada, Masnavi, the Shahnamah written by the deeply religious Firdawsi trying to reconcile Persian nationalism and it's Zoroastrian traditions with modern Islamic teaching, The Aeneid with it's pietas, Les Miserables with it's modern Christ figure on the path from sinner to saint, The Book of Job and other Hebrew writings, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, the list goes on and on.

I haven't read much philosophy outside of Plato and Aristotle, so I can't comment on Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Spinoza, Hegel, Berkeley, Hume, Descartes, Mills, Aquinus, Kempis, Boethius, Augustine, Avicenna, Averroes, Erasmus, More, Hobbes, Marx, Schopenhauer, or Wittgenstein. But what I have read of Nietzsche did not leave me half as impressed as when I read Plato's Republic or Montaigne's Essays.

If we were selecting a best non-fiction book outside of philosophy, I'd have no difficulty choosing The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. The prose is heavenly. Best scientific work? Again, I'm a novice but how about Darwin's Origin of Species?


-The Farenheit 451 Book For The Text You Most Wished Was Burned Day 1:

A bit ironic the "award" name here, given the fact that Bradbury's great text is all about NOT burning books, and as literature lovers we should be apalled at the idea...
I burned a book once. It was a friend of mine's. H.D.'s The Gift if I recall correctly. Neither one of us could stand her writing; so after he finished it for a class we stuck a knife in it and pinned it to a wall for the semester. Then during summer we had a weenie roast with smores and we tore pages out to cast into the flames. It was a lot of fun. It's not like it was the last copy on earth.

I don't mind book burning. A person has a right to do what they want with their personal property. I nearly burned my Koran on September 11th, when I heard how those guys had chickened out, and backed down from doing it; but I wanted to finish reading it first, so I guess that makes me a ***** too. The world doesn't end when someone burns a book. It's not a sacred relic, or a human life. If it were you couldn't buy one for five dollars. I see the act of destruction as another form of speech or protest, the way some people will burn a flag.

Still, as much as I hate it, I wouldn't burn the last copy of Ulysses if I got the chance, just because I know how much other people like it.

[DanielBenoit]

I nearly burned my Koran on September 11th, when I heard how those guys had chickened out, and backed down from doing it; but I wanted to finish reading it first, so I guess that makes me a pussy too.

You're right, you do have a right to burn whatever the hell you want; but my God, do you know what a feat of ignorance that is? Does it specifically say in the Qu'ran to start killing innocents and flying planes into buildings? "To kill an innocent life is to have killed all mankind." I wonder where that verse came from? Not to mention that Muslim extremism makes up a very very small minority of the Islam population.

And btw, that clown pastor was smart in backing out; Extremist groups were already making threats against American troops.

Anyway, I suppose because of the Crusades I should burn my New Testament, or maybe I should burn the U.S. Constitution because of Hiroshima, genius.

You're right though, the world doesn't end when somebody burns a book. It's utterly stupid how extremists have to start killing people just because someone has a different opinion. I'm not criticizing the act of burning the Qu'ran; I'm criticizing why you're burning the Qu'ran.

[mortalterror]

EDIT: Thinking it over again, for the political/rhetorical category I think I'll change my opinion and list Montaigne's On Cannibals for my personal favorite. It was radically ahead of its time in criticizing colonialism and it gives an unusual sympathetic perspective on the natives and even goes so far as to consider the West, with all of its barbarous wars and state tyranny, as no more civilized than the primitive cultures of pre-Columbian America. (Note: The title is misleading, as with many of Montaigne's essays.)

Yeah, but you are forgetting that after all of that "Noble Savage" rhetoric he flips the whole essay with the final lines which amount to "But what the hell do they know? They don't even wear pants!"


You're right, you do have a right to burn whatever the hell you want; but my God, do you know what a feat of ignorance that is? Does it specifically say in the Qu'ran to start killing innocents and flying planes into buildings? "To kill an innocent life is to have killed all mankind." I wonder where that verse came from? Not to mention that Muslim extremism makes up a very very small minority of the Islam population.

And btw, that clown pastor was smart in backing out; Extremist groups were already making threats against American troops.

Anyway, I suppose because of the Crusades I should burn my New Testament, or maybe I should burn the U.S. Constitution because of Hiroshima, genius.

I didn't want to burn it to protest Muslims. I wanted to burn it to protest censorship, and to protest the media fear mongering. I think all this fear flying about over what "THEY" will do if "WE" do anything is incredibly cowardly and racist. This is still America after all.

I would have no problem with you burning your Bible. I'm a Presbyterian but when I was in college, I didn't have a hammer handy so I pulled my KJV off of the shelf to pound a nail. What you do with your property is your own business. Seriously, go use the Book of Mormon for rolling papers. There are a couple billion of them.

[Lord Macbeth]

I understand your position with the Oedipus Cycle, mortalterror, but I still do not agree.

If we do take your idea and take those plays as one, as they were meant to be, three plays as one VERY long play--an ancient equivalent of The Lord of the Rings in that regard, and that IS how they are meant to be read and performed after all--and if we do the same with Shakespeare's Histories...

King John, Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, Henry V, Henry VI, Henry VIII...

Eight plays, and within that the classics Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V...four plays against the three in Oedipus' cycle...the other plays of various quality, but on the whole relatively good...

It'd seem to produce a richer tapestry--Oedipus Rex and Antigone are classics, Oedipus at Colonus is a fair play, and against that the four classics of Shakespeare's cycle and the four that vary in quality...even if we argue that Oedipus Rex and Antigone are INDIVIDUALLY "superior" as plays, they are still set against four Shakespearean classics, the aggregate of which MUST be at least as great, all four of those plays rank among the Bard's best, and the Bard ranks among the best in literature if not THE greatest writer, so...

Really, I definitely don't mean to diminish Sophocles' efforts, after Shakespeare his plays might very well be my choices for the next-best tragedies, it would certainly be between he and Henrik Ibsen...but even still anyway I look at it, eight vs. three, two classics vs. four, the sheer weight of the Histories seems to trump the Oedipus Cycle if viewed this way.

And if the HISTORIES can do this, and they're of a lesser quality, in the minds of most, than the TRAGEDIES...

So unless you're T.S. Eliot and have to your credit the infamous "Hamlet and His Prblems" essay detailing how that work is a failed attempt at art by Shakespeare (the one work of Eliot's I think was totally off the mark, though his idea of an objective correlative nevertheless is an important tool in literary criticism) I'll maintain the Bard is the greatest tragedian ever, though given stiff competition from Sophocles, Euripides, Kyd, Marlowe, Ibsen, Tennessee Williams, and Arthur Miller. :)

[mortalterror]

King John, Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, Henry V, Henry VI, Henry VIII...

Eight plays, and within that the classics Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V...four plays against the three in Oedipus' cycle...the other plays of various quality, but on the whole relatively good...

It'd seem to produce a richer tapestry--Oedipus Rex and Antigone are classics, Oedipus at Colonus is a fair play, and against that the four classics of Shakespeare's cycle and the four that vary in quality...even if we argue that Oedipus Rex and Antigone are INDIVIDUALLY "superior" as plays, they are still set against four Shakespearean classics, the aggregate of which MUST be at least as great, all four of those plays rank among the Bard's best, and the Bard ranks among the best in literature if not THE greatest writer, so...

But it works the other way too. The aggregate of all the flaws in the history plays works against them, and the bad plays Henry VIII, Henry VI parts I,II, and III bring down the good ones Richard III, Henry IV part I, and Henry V. Every play in The Oedipus Cycle or the Oresteia is an all time classic. Oedipus at Colonus and The Furies are almost as good as Oedipus Rex and Agamemnon. There may be less quantity in the classics but the quality is high and even.

You wouldn't want to read all of the History plays as much as you'd want to read all of the Oedipus Cycle. Besides, I wasn't trying to match three plays of Shakespeare's against three plays of Sophocles or Aeschylus. I was commenting on how much longer Renaissance plays are than Ancient Greek plays, and implying that you'd have to triple their size to get the same line length, so it's like comparing short stories or novellas to novels. In these two exceptions, it would be alright to group three plays, present them as a whole, and they would remain unified and of an even enough quality to compare them to the longer plays of Shakespeare. In fact, I think they would come off better than Hamlet could by itself because they have much tighter plotting than Shakespeare's play, and The Oresteia is essentially the same story.

[Lord Macbeth]

But it works the other way too. The aggregate of all the flaws in the history plays works against them, and the bad plays Henry VIII, Henry VI parts I,II, and III bring down the good ones Richard III, Henry IV part I, and Henry V. Every play in The Oedipus Cycle or the Oresteia is an all time classic. Oedipus at Colonus and The Furies are almost as good as Oedipus Rex and Agamemnon. There may be less quantity in the classics but the quality is high and even.

That's why when I speak of Shakespeare as the greatest dramatist, I don't mention inferior works of his like Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winters Tale, Troilus and Cresida, Timon of Athens, all three Henry VIths, or the abominable Henry VIII. When I match Shakespeare against Aeschylus I don't think it's important to bring up lesser plays of his like The Persians or The Suppliant Maidens. Ajax, Electra, and Philoctetes are all good plays but they are as nothing compared to Sophocles' famous trilogy.

It's like when people read the Bible and they talk about how great it is they aren't talking about Deuteronomy, 2nd Samuel, and Nehemiah. Those are the ones they mean when they say they don't like reading the Bible. They are in a completely different timber than Job, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, The Song of Solomon, and Revelations. That's why when I read the Bible or Shakespeare, it's best to read selectively.

You wouldn't want to read all of the History plays as much as you'd want to read all of the Oedipus Cycle. Besides, I wasn't trying to match three plays of Shakespeare's against three plays of Sophocles or Aeschylus. I was commenting on how much longer Renaissance plays are than Ancient Greek plays, and implying that you'd have to triple their size to get the same line length, so it's like comparing short stories or novellas to novels. In these two exceptions, it would be alright to group three plays, present them as a whole, and they would remain unified and of an even enough quality to compare them to the longer plays of Shakespeare. In fact, I think they would come off better than Hamlet could by itself because they have much tighter plotting than Shakespeare's play, and The Oresteia is essentially the same story.

Firstly, how "abominable" any Shakespeare play is...even his worst works still have their moments, still have their lines...and Trolius and Cressida and Timon of Athens aren't all that bad, FAR below his standard, but I think they actually suffer for that fact, if they were written by another writer of the period we might appreciate what they do well more (and they certainly do have aspects which are very good, the more modern relationship between Trolius and Cressida and the possible rejection of ascetisicm by Timon are both themes which seem far more modern and are written of more today, hence their negative reception in Shakespeare's day) instead of suffering against seemingly-unfair comparison with the "big boys" of the Bard, Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet King Lear, Othello, Richard III, and Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, besides which are all the comedies, The Merchant of Venice, which sort of straddles the line between the two categories, Coroilanus, which T.S. Eliot famously described as not only far better than Hamlet but perhaps Shakespeare's finest play, and Titus Andronicus, which has always been looked down upon by scholars as being the worst or near-worst of Shakespeare's works, but I believe it to be VASTLY underrated and underappreciated, it really is a Shakespearean Sweeney Todd, low on elegance but high on atmosphere, and Julie Taymor's movie version really does it justice, if you've never seen it...simply BRILLIANT.

The Histories together may not measure up cohesively to the Oedipus Cycle, but in terms of having as much aggregate literary worth? Again, even if you wish to throw out the "clunkers," we're left with four plays that rank high, and perhaps it's no coincidence that they themselves are their own cycle, from Richard III to Henry V is a great story with overarching themes and characters, the three Henry plays serving as the main body and probably the best coming-of-age tale ever staged with one of if not the greatest comedic character in Falstaff, the changing relation between he and Prince Hal/Henry V really is one of Shakespeare's best pairings, and then Richard III ALONE is a masterpiece, and in this context serves as perhaps the greatest "prequel" in history.




Maybe the Histories don't measure up to the Oedipus Cycle play-by-paly, but I still think that taken as a whole, or, perhaps more appropriately, the Richard III-Henry V cycle-within-the-cycle of histories, the aggregate of literary worth matches respectably, if not exactly.

But I cannot pin an argument for Shakespearean Tragedy's supremacy on the Histories...it'd be like arguing the 1980s 49ers dynasty was the best ever in the NFL without making mention of Joe Montana and the West Coast Offense. ;)

So I'll go out on a limb and say that Hamlet-Macbeth-King Lear is a greater threesome of tragic plays than the Oedipus Cycle in the same way "Madame Butterfly"-"La Boheme"-"Tosca" are a better selection of musical pieces than Beethoven's 9th Symphony--the sum is FAR greater than the parts in the case of Beethoven's work than in Puccini's three, unconnected operas, but on the merits of the parts ALONE Puccini's works are superior, as the parts by themselves may be brilliant, but cannot match the sheer bredth of brilliance exhibitied by one of the operas.

Sophocles' works ARE great, but their connectivty is, in this respect, both a strength and weakness in terms of their merit--apart they are but great, together they are THE Cycle, yes...but that cannot change the fact that they are still caught in the situation of trying to maintain their OWN identity while remaining a PART of a greater whole. Shakespeare's Tragedies, by contrast, may not connect (at least not systematically, thematically it can be argued that they DO, but that's a whole different matter) but are BY THEMSELVES the greatest staged tragedies in history.

To put it into perspective, we receive the full extent of Oedipus' suffering in three doses, three parts--even with the enormity of the traedy in Oedipus Rex, the tragic fall THERE somehow seems less BY ITSELF than, say, Hamlet, Macbeth, or LEar suffering, as THEY have all of their tragic woes compacted into one enormously-powerful piece, in his ONE PLAY we have more of a sense of what Hamlet's suffering or Macbeth's fall from grace or Lear's tragic condition means, how it feels, than Oedipus, not because Oedipus is an inferior character or Sophocles an inferior playwright, but because Oedipus' true suffering is stylistically stretched out over three plays, so going work-by-work we only recieve a half or a third or what his overall suffering may be, and that third or half is far less than the huge whole that Hamlet gives us in one play.

As a CYCLE, Oedipus may be King--and if THAT'S the argument, then perhaps he should be placed in the "Best Serial" category, for if that is the argument, that the series of his sufferings in the trilogy ammounts to a huge whole, then he should seem to fit there as it then IS a series (and if that's the argument and he is determined to be a Series/Serial/Cycle, then surely he msut be the greatest, THAT is a fact I won't dispute, nor do I think most would, if we view him like this.)

But as a PLAY, as ONE WORK, I'll go on record and say ANY of Shakespeare's "big gun" Tragedies, Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, Othello, those four (Romeo and Juliet is famous but cannot hold a candle to Oedipus, the same applies to Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus just is not as relatable as Oedipus, as much as TS. Eliot adores him and that play, Richard III in this line of reasoning should seem committed to a cycle of its own, and so to seperate it would be to commit the same fallacy, and Richard III as a character and play ALONE is not as good as Oedipus, and Julius Caesar is a great work but neither Casear nor Marc Antony is strong enough to beat out Oedipus) are all superior to ANY of the plays in the Oedipus Cycle BY THEMSELVES, in a play-to-play analysis.

I'll finally make two last assessments (because I'm already so far in I might as well) and name Iago from Othello The Best Antagonist of All-Time, certainly for the stage, and even in works of literature, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more worthy candidate...Lucifer from Paradise Lost, perhaps, but other than those two...

And I'll finally posit that The Best Dialogue/Monologue Line of All-Time should be awarded to...what else?

"To be or not to be, that is the question..." from Hamlet, for not only having what is INDISPUTABLY the most quoted and known line of literature in the West this side of "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" but for the utter brilliance and perfection of that monologue.

I don't use that term lightly or often in discussing literature, but I honestly think that's about as perfect a monologue, as good a selection of text you can put togetether as potentially possible, I do not see any way at the moment to top that, do not see any flaws with any of the lines, they're all brilliant, all work, it's a tour de force, a total examination of the human condition--in one monologue, and with SO MANY lines that are not only poignant but also so popular they're part of our cultural awareness as peoples in the West.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."
"The Undiscovered Country..."
"To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or To take arms against a sea of troubles..."
"To die, perchance to dream, aye, there's the rub..."

And, the line I will unashamedly and forever defend as being The Human Experience Captured In One Line,

"To be or not to be, that is the question."

[JCamilo]

You're right, you do have a right to burn whatever the hell you want; but my God, do you know what a feat of ignorance that is? Does it specifically say in the Qu'ran to start killing innocents and flying planes into buildings? "To kill an innocent life is to have killed all mankind." I wonder where that verse came from? Not to mention that Muslim extremism makes up a very very small minority of the Islam population.

And btw, that clown pastor was smart in backing out; Extremist groups were already making threats against American troops.

Anyway, I suppose because of the Crusades I should burn my New Testament, or maybe I should burn the U.S. Constitution because of Hiroshima, genius.

You're right though, the world doesn't end when somebody burns a book. It's utterly stupid how extremists have to start killing people just because someone has a different opinion. I'm not criticizing the act of burning the Qu'ran; I'm criticizing why you're burning the Qu'ran.

Burning books is a healthy act. They use a vast ammount of space, some insects like to eat it, fungus too. Paper just paper, something that is detroyed by Time anyways.
It is even helpful, let's try everyone to burn our copies of Don Quixote and see if this will make any difference... after all copies of Don Quixote are burned everyday anyways and if I send you an email you will delete without remorse...


As a CYCLE, Oedipus may be King--and if THAT'S the argument, then perhaps he should be placed in the "Best Serial" category, for if that is the argument, that the series of his sufferings in the trilogy ammounts to a huge whole, then he should seem to fit there as it then IS a series (and if that's the argument and he is determined to be a Series/Serial/Cycle, then surely he msut be the greatest, THAT is a fact I won't dispute, nor do I think most would, if we view him like this.)

I would erase it all. Oedipus King alone is near perfect. It needs no argument, if anything, the talent of Shakespeare was creating tragedies as good as Oedipus King, not the other way around. He did not failed doing so, so he is great and of course, he did more than once which is an amazing feat, but Hamlet, King, Macs and all can be measured by the quality of Oedipus King.
By the way, no writer is perfect and those older guys certainly have the help of the fact their worst attempts are not saved in a hard drive, but if we are going to pick one to be unchallenged it is not Shakespeare, it is Dante. He basically answers all questions you posted without needing an argument. Where there is need of argument, something went wrong.


I'll finally make two last assessments (because I'm already so far in I might as well) and name Iago from Othello The Best Antagonist of All-Time, certainly for the stage, and even in works of literature, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more worthy candidate...Lucifer from Paradise Lost, perhaps, but other than those two...

Really? Does matter that Satan is the antagonist of book of job too? That a certain white whale does not even need to say a word? That Heitor is the antagonist of Iliad? And Prometheus have the same role in his own plays (which made Zeus the antagonist), that Sharyar is the antagonist of Scherazade? And Oedipus himself is the villian and the hero? Not that this matters much...


And I'll finally posit that The Best Dialogue/Monologue Line of All-Time should be awarded to...what else?

"To be or not to be, that is the question..." from Hamlet, for not only having what is INDISPUTABLY the most quoted and known line of literature in the West this side of "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" but for the utter brilliance and perfection of that monologue.

Well, the Fall of the House of Harold Bloom starts with too much bests... Plato dialogues are the archetypical dialogues... That Molly Bloom girl did much more with her monologue that our vain philosophy... Lucifer and Ahab go eating the books they are when they talk... oh well...

And I think Juvenal panis et circus is very quoted, perhaps even more than this one... or in a world of absolute incapacity to determine absolutes, all statistics are in vain (and art is not subjective, this is not true, so that is not what I am saying here)



I don't use that term lightly or often in discussing literature, but I honestly think that's about as perfect a monologue, as good a selection of text you can put togetether as potentially possible, I do not see any way at the moment to top that, do not see any flaws with any of the lines, they're all brilliant, all work, it's a tour de force, a total examination of the human condition--in one monologue, and with SO MANY lines that are not only poignant but also so popular they're part of our cultural awareness as peoples in the West.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."
"The Undiscovered Country..."
"To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or To take arms against a sea of troubles..."
"To die, perchance to dream, aye, there's the rub..."

And, the line I will unashamedly and forever defend as being The Human Experience Captured In One Line,

"To be or not to be, that is the question."

The same can be said about any of the greats. Not just Shakespeare. He is of course the dominant name of western literature, his influence unboundable. But his quality is not so absolute that he does not admit a tea party with guys lie Plato, Sophocles, Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Dante, Cervantes... But since mortal pointed at him, it is not a matter of style, but Gibbon Fall and Rise will make all english kings eat dust. And this really if we do not bring confucious to the table, to name one...

[mortalterror]

Maybe the Histories don't measure up to the Oedipus Cycle play-by-paly, but I still think that taken as a whole, or, perhaps more appropriately, the Richard III-Henry V cycle-within-the-cycle of histories, the aggregate of literary worth matches respectably, if not exactly.

My point was to the length of the plays. It's not fair to ask a craftsman to do what another equally talented craftsman can do with one third of the time and materials. Agamemnon may be just as well written as Hamlet, but there's no way it will contain as much awesome stuff. It's like comparing novellas to novels. The entire Oresteia is about 3750 lines long, and Hamlet is just over 4,000. Both tell the story of a mad prince and his sidekick who's father's ghost appears to tell them that their uncles murdered them to usurp their kingdom and marry their wives. I happen to think that Aeschylus tells the tale with a bit less fat on it. There is no running off to England, only to be kidnapped by pirates and murder his friends, and still be back for the next scene. There's no silly play within a play or people skulking behind tapestries spying on each other. The story in Aeschylus' hands is a well oiled machine where every piece fits neatly together. In Shakespeare's, it's a divinely inspired mess. It's a marvel that it even works at all.

Again, I'm not saying that Sophocles or Aeschylus' wrote better trilogies or that their three best would beat Shakespeare's three best. I'm stating rather simply that as to size, on a line by line basis they should stack up well. There are as many good and beautiful things in The Oedipus Cycle or the Oresteia as there are in Hamlet.

[kelby_lake]

Best Sonnet of All-Time?

Sonnet 18: Shall I Compare Thee To A Summer's Day? by William Shakespeare.

Following what might've been the hardest category to decide for me is the easiest--NO other sonnet is so remembered, beloved, and poured over as this one; they teach it (albeit badly, sadly, as they do with much of the Bard's work) in public schools all over the Western World, and EVERYONE knows those lines, and many will be able to quote from the actual body of the poem. "Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May" and all that. Spenser and Petrarch surely wrote their fair share of good sonnets, as have other, more modern poets, but I think most would agree Shakespeare owns this category, 154 sonnets, and Sonnet 18 is as legendary as nearly any of his plays. The final push for this placement is the HUGE effort made to derive meanings from this play, and interpretations seem endless--it's not a woman, but a man, it's a man he's describing but the love is universal, it's evidence Shakespeare might've been gay, it's evidence Shakespeare had a great friend. On and on, but regardless, "So long as men can breathe or eyes can see" people will be reading this sonnet--the greatest sonnet of All-Time.


Sonnet 18, read out of the sequence, is a nice love poem. But read as part of the sequence, it is an unashamed avowal of love for this guy who he's been telling to marry and have children. The relationship doesn't go well and near the end of the sonnets, the narrator becomes cynical towards love- Sonnet 18 is from more innocent days.

Its universal power for me is not "You are the prettiest thing ever and when you die, you'll live on here." It's how innocent and unashamed it is, and how despite the many problems this relationship may face, this document is a reminder of the power of that first love.

[DanielBenoit]

I didn't want to burn it to protest Muslims. I wanted to burn it to protest censorship, and to protest the media fear mongering. I think all this fear flying about over what "THEY" will do if "WE" do anything is incredibly cowardly and racist. This is still America after all.

Excuse me for making assumptions. Everyone has a right to burn whatever they want; I just don't like the reasons why people burn some things. For instance, that pastor in Florida who was planning to burn the Qu'ran on 9/11 was because he believed that "Islam was of the devil" and that it was Islam itself which had caused the attacks.

Anyway, I just don't think burning a Qu'ran or anything is going to help at all in protesting Islamic extremism. That's just my opinion though.

[kelby_lake]

Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
Okay, I haven't exactly finished any. I liked parts of The Faerie Queene. Does The Waste Land count? I might go for that, seeing as it's the only one I've finished.

Best Sonnet of All-Time?
I have to hand it to Shakespeare, really. Sonnet 18 has already been suggested- for me it is the pivotal moment in the sequence. But I might go for Sonnet 61, because I love the jealousy and uncertainty of it, and the last two lines are great. Honourable mention goes to Sonnet 129, the angry rough sonnet on lust.

Best Other Poem of All-Time

There are loads but I'll go for Les Noyades by Algernon Swinburne, because there are lines that are just so powerful. This has to be the most seductive last verse of a poem:

But you would have felt my soul in a kiss,
And known that once if I loved you well;
And I would have given my soul for this
To burn for ever in burning hell.

I'm also adding Neutral Tones by Thomas Hardy, because I love how poignant it is.

Best Short Story of All-Time?
Hmm, none are coming to mind at the moment. I might go for The Diamond as Big as The Ritz, just because it's so weird and extravagant.

Best Novella of All-Time?
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka. Depressing, surreal and powerful. And he managed to get himself into the English language as an adjective, so he must be pretty cool.

Best Serial of All-Time?
Corn Flakes ;)

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?
Why does everybody find Lysistrata so funny? I like tragic plays and darkly comic plays. But I'll go for Noises Off because it's very clever.

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?
Ooh, I don't know what to choose! I'll go for Measure for Measure. The scenes between Angelo and Isabella are some of the most powerful scenes in the history of drama. But I'm also adding The Seagull by Anton Chekhov, because it's just brilliant.

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?
I love Vanity Fair so I'll go with that :)

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?
Oh, so many... I haven't finished Anna Karenina but it's becoming a strong contender.

[stlukesguild]

I'll go out on a limb and say that Hamlet-Macbeth-King Lear is a greater threesome of tragic plays than the Oedipus Cycle in the same way "Madame Butterfly"-"La Boheme"-"Tosca" are a better selection of musical pieces than Beethoven's 9th Symphony

I'm with you on Shakespeare... but while I quite love Puccini... I'd take Beethoven's 9th.

[Lord Macbeth]

The same can be said about any of the greats. Not just Shakespeare. He is of course the dominant name of western literature, his influence unboundable. But his quality is not so absolute that he does not admit a tea party with guys lie Plato, Sophocles, Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Dante, Cervantes... But since mortal pointed at him, it is not a matter of style, but Gibbon Fall and Rise will make all english kings eat dust. And this really if we do not bring confucious to the table, to name one...

I know, I was just saying that all those immortal lines in ONE monologue makes it, for me, the greatest selection of text in history.


Best Epic Poem of All-Time?
Okay, I haven't exactly finished any. I liked parts of The Faerie Queene. Does The Waste Land count? I might go for that, seeing as it's the only one I've finished.

Best Sonnet of All-Time?
I have to hand it to Shakespeare, really. Sonnet 18 has already been suggested- for me it is the pivotal moment in the sequence. But I might go for Sonnet 61, because I love the jealousy and uncertainty of it, and the last two lines are great. Honourable mention goes to Sonnet 129, the angry rough sonnet on lust.

Best Other Poem of All-Time

There are loads but I'll go for Les Noyades by Algernon Swinburne, because there are lines that are just so powerful. This has to be the most seductive last verse of a poem:

But you would have felt my soul in a kiss,
And known that once if I loved you well;
And I would have given my soul for this
To burn for ever in burning hell.

I'm also adding Neutral Tones by Thomas Hardy, because I love how poignant it is.

Best Short Story of All-Time?
Hmm, none are coming to mind at the moment. I might go for The Diamond as Big as The Ritz, just because it's so weird and extravagant.

Best Novella of All-Time?
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka. Depressing, surreal and powerful. And he managed to get himself into the English language as an adjective, so he must be pretty cool.

Best Serial of All-Time?
Corn Flakes ;)

Best Comedic Play of All-Time?
Why does everybody find Lysistrata so funny? I like tragic plays and darkly comic plays. But I'll go for Noises Off because it's very clever.

Best Dramatic Play of All-Time?
Ooh, I don't know what to choose! I'll go for Measure for Measure. The scenes between Angelo and Isabella are some of the most powerful scenes in the history of drama. But I'm also adding The Seagull by Anton Chekhov, because it's just brilliant.

Best Comedic Novel of All-Time?
I love Vanity Fair so I'll go with that :)

Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time?
Oh, so many... I haven't finished Anna Karenina but it's becoming a strong contender.

Nice picks, most of them I like...

But Measure for Measure is a COMEDY...not a dramatic play (but a nice nod to the staged brilliance of Noises Off!) :)


Sonnet 18, read out of the sequence, is a nice love poem. But read as part of the sequence, it is an unashamed avowal of love for this guy who he's been telling to marry and have children. The relationship doesn't go well and near the end of the sonnets, the narrator becomes cynical towards love- Sonnet 18 is from more innocent days.

Its universal power for me is not "You are the prettiest thing ever and when you die, you'll live on here." It's how innocent and unashamed it is, and how despite the many problems this relationship may face, this document is a reminder of the power of that first love.

It's true that Shakespeare wrote that for hire and for a close male friend of his, the so-called "Lovely Boy."

However, I don't think that lessens the meaning, he may have written it for hire, but still...and I don't think the fullest power of it is "You are the prettiest thing ever and when you die, you'll live on here" but rather second portion of that emphasized, "You will live IN HERE [in the narrator's heart and in the poem's body] eternally, and eternally youthful and beautiful in my mind's eye."

[keilj]

Firstly, how "abominable" any Shakespeare play is...even his worst works still have their moments, still have their lines...and Trolius and Cressida and Timon of Athens aren't all that bad, FAR below his standard, but I think they actually suffer for that fact, if they were written by another writer of the period we might appreciate what they do well more (and they certainly do have aspects which are very good, the more modern relationship between Trolius and Cressida and the possible rejection of ascetisicm by Timon are both themes which seem far more modern and are written of more today, hence their negative reception in Shakespeare's day) instead of suffering against seemingly-unfair comparison with the "big boys" of the Bard, Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet King Lear, Othello, Richard III, and Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, besides which are all the comedies, The Merchant of Venice, which sort of straddles the line between the two categories, Coroilanus, which T.S. Eliot famously described as not only far better than Hamlet but perhaps Shakespeare's finest play, and Titus Andronicus, which has always been looked down upon by scholars as being the worst or near-worst of Shakespeare's works, but I believe it to be VASTLY underrated and underappreciated, it really is a Shakespearean Sweeney Todd, low on elegance but high on atmosphere, and Julie Taymor's movie version really does it justice, if you've never seen it...simply BRILLIANT.

The Histories together may not measure up cohesively to the Oedipus Cycle, but in terms of having as much aggregate literary worth? Again, even if you wish to throw out the "clunkers," we're left with four plays that rank high, and perhaps it's no coincidence that they themselves are their own cycle, from Richard III to Henry V is a great story with overarching themes and characters, the three Henry plays serving as the main body and probably the best coming-of-age tale ever staged with one of if not the greatest comedic character in Falstaff, the changing relation between he and Prince Hal/Henry V really is one of Shakespeare's best pairings, and then Richard III ALONE is a masterpiece, and in this context serves as perhaps the greatest "prequel" in history.




Maybe the Histories don't measure up to the Oedipus Cycle play-by-paly, but I still think that taken as a whole, or, perhaps more appropriately, the Richard III-Henry V cycle-within-the-cycle of histories, the aggregate of literary worth matches respectably, if not exactly.

But I cannot pin an argument for Shakespearean Tragedy's supremacy on the Histories...it'd be like arguing the 1980s 49ers dynasty was the best ever in the NFL without making mention of Joe Montana and the West Coast Offense. ;)

So I'll go out on a limb and say that Hamlet-Macbeth-King Lear is a greater threesome of tragic plays than the Oedipus Cycle in the same way "Madame Butterfly"-"La Boheme"-"Tosca" are a better selection of musical pieces than Beethoven's 9th Symphony--the sum is FAR greater than the parts in the case of Beethoven's work than in Puccini's three, unconnected operas, but on the merits of the parts ALONE Puccini's works are superior, as the parts by themselves may be brilliant, but cannot match the sheer bredth of brilliance exhibitied by one of the operas.

Sophocles' works ARE great, but their connectivty is, in this respect, both a strength and weakness in terms of their merit--apart they are but great, together they are THE Cycle, yes...but that cannot change the fact that they are still caught in the situation of trying to maintain their OWN identity while remaining a PART of a greater whole. Shakespeare's Tragedies, by contrast, may not connect (at least not systematically, thematically it can be argued that they DO, but that's a whole different matter) but are BY THEMSELVES the greatest staged tragedies in history.

To put it into perspective, we receive the full extent of Oedipus' suffering in three doses, three parts--even with the enormity of the traedy in Oedipus Rex, the tragic fall THERE somehow seems less BY ITSELF than, say, Hamlet, Macbeth, or LEar suffering, as THEY have all of their tragic woes compacted into one enormously-powerful piece, in his ONE PLAY we have more of a sense of what Hamlet's suffering or Macbeth's fall from grace or Lear's tragic condition means, how it feels, than Oedipus, not because Oedipus is an inferior character or Sophocles an inferior playwright, but because Oedipus' true suffering is stylistically stretched out over three plays, so going work-by-work we only recieve a half or a third or what his overall suffering may be, and that third or half is far less than the huge whole that Hamlet gives us in one play.

As a CYCLE, Oedipus may be King--and if THAT'S the argument, then perhaps he should be placed in the "Best Serial" category, for if that is the argument, that the series of his sufferings in the trilogy ammounts to a huge whole, then he should seem to fit there as it then IS a series (and if that's the argument and he is determined to be a Series/Serial/Cycle, then surely he msut be the greatest, THAT is a fact I won't dispute, nor do I think most would, if we view him like this.)

But as a PLAY, as ONE WORK, I'll go on record and say ANY of Shakespeare's "big gun" Tragedies, Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, Othello, those four (Romeo and Juliet is famous but cannot hold a candle to Oedipus, the same applies to Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus just is not as relatable as Oedipus, as much as TS. Eliot adores him and that play, Richard III in this line of reasoning should seem committed to a cycle of its own, and so to seperate it would be to commit the same fallacy, and Richard III as a character and play ALONE is not as good as Oedipus, and Julius Caesar is a great work but neither Casear nor Marc Antony is strong enough to beat out Oedipus) are all superior to ANY of the plays in the Oedipus Cycle BY THEMSELVES, in a play-to-play analysis.

I'll finally make two last assessments (because I'm already so far in I might as well) and name Iago from Othello The Best Antagonist of All-Time, certainly for the stage, and even in works of literature, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more worthy candidate...Lucifer from Paradise Lost, perhaps, but other than those two...

And I'll finally posit that The Best Dialogue/Monologue Line of All-Time should be awarded to...what else?

"To be or not to be, that is the question..." from Hamlet, for not only having what is INDISPUTABLY the most quoted and known line of literature in the West this side of "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" but for the utter brilliance and perfection of that monologue.

I don't use that term lightly or often in discussing literature, but I honestly think that's about as perfect a monologue, as good a selection of text you can put togetether as potentially possible, I do not see any way at the moment to top that, do not see any flaws with any of the lines, they're all brilliant, all work, it's a tour de force, a total examination of the human condition--in one monologue, and with SO MANY lines that are not only poignant but also so popular they're part of our cultural awareness as peoples in the West.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."
"The Undiscovered Country..."
"To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or To take arms against a sea of troubles..."
"To die, perchance to dream, aye, there's the rub..."

And, the line I will unashamedly and forever defend as being The Human Experience Captured In One Line,

"To be or not to be, that is the question."


You could have shortened this post and just said: "I love Shakespeare"

[kelby_lake]

I know, I was just saying that all those immortal lines in ONE monologue makes it, for me, the greatest selection of text in history.



Nice picks, most of them I like...

But Measure for Measure is a COMEDY...not a dramatic play (but a nice nod to the staged brilliance of Noises Off!) :)

I know it is conventionally a comedy but it's normally played as a drama with comic bits. Shakespeare was pretty modern in that not all of his plays are purely comic- they have mixtures of comedy and tragedy.


It's true that Shakespeare wrote that for hire and for a close male friend of his, the so-called "Lovely Boy."

However, I don't think that lessens the meaning, he may have written it for hire My point is that this is the first one that it doesn't look like he has written for hire. The sonnets before it are obviously written for hire but this one is the start of the dramatic sonnets., but still...and I don't think the fullest power of it is "You are the prettiest thing ever and when you die, you'll live on here" but rather second portion of that emphasized, "You will live IN HERE [in the narrator's heart and in the poem's body] eternally Yes, that is powerful. It's a repeated theme throughout the sonnets though, so I can't really single it out for that (although it's probably the best phrasing of it), and eternally youthful and beautiful in my mind's eye It's kind of sad though, because it transpired that the love object is not worthy of the praise. It's the fantasy of him that's immortalised, rather than the actual person.."

My thoughts.

[Syd A]

For sonnet, I'd have to go with Sonnet - To Science, by Poe. It explores the eternal struggle between science and poetry, between the rational and the emotional, the objective and the subjective. It may give the illusion that Poe was a science hater, but in fact he was a science buff and explored many scientific themes in his works.

[Lord Macbeth]

You could have shortened this post and just said: "I love Shakespeare"

You have no idea how often I get that...OK, maybe you do. ;)

And to an exten that's true, but still, I honestly DO think he's the greatest writer that has yet lived; I'm not one who elevates him to the status of demigod, or worships every work, he wrote his share of bad pieces, too--to be honest, I find most of Romeo and Juliet very fair and it certainly is one of the most overrated pieces in history in terms of the actual textual merit of the play, influence-wise less so, but still not nearly as good as others make it out to be--and I won't even call him a genius, I don't believe in that term at all...

But while he does have VERY close competition for the honor--Dostoyevsky, Sophocles, Dante, Homer, and many more--I do believe he is the greatest ever, and so it IS a bit hard not to go on about him sometimes...especially in a "Best Ever" thred. ;)

[Lord Macbeth]

My thoughts.

I do agree that Measure For Measure has plenty of dramatic parts, and perhaps even a dramatic plot, but I believe it's tonal strucutre and resolution is comedic, hence my (and it's usual) classification of it as a comedy.

Shakespeare plays DO contain a mix of comedy and tragedy, regardless of the genre, of course...that's part oif why they're so great, so accessible...I'd best stop here before I continue, give ten pages praising the Bard, and wind up being accused of being a Shakespeare-fiend. ;)

[kelby_lake]

I do agree that Measure For Measure has plenty of dramatic parts, and perhaps even a dramatic plot, but I believe it's tonal strucutre and resolution is comedic, hence my (and it's usual) classification of it as a comedy.


Hence the creation of the genre 'problem plays'. I'm standing by it as a dramatic play because the message is not comic. Although Shakespeare uses the structure of a comedy and there are comic moments in the play, the intent of the play is not to make people laugh.

[Alexander III]

"and I won't even call him a genius, I don't believe in that term at all..."

You have peaked my interest could you please expand a little more on what you mean by this ?

[Alexander III]

?????

[JCamilo]

I think you have hijacked the thread talking about literature... :D

[Alexander III]

Come on Macbeth, I really want to hear your opinions on that, it would be a fascinating debate !

[Lord Macbeth]

Alright then, why I wouldn't call Shakespeare or Mozart or Einstein or anyone a genius, because I do not believe in the term:

1. For starters, I'd argue that to call anyone a genius is to, in a sense, deify them, or at least make them appear to be unreachable in their accomplishments, and I believe that this is a horrible way to live and a horrible way to commend someone. When we make the claim "Shakespeare is a genius" we seem to be inferring that he is a cut above the rest, which is fine, but implicit in that remark is the idea that not only is he a cut above the rest but, as "genius" is often connected with the idea of being naturally gifted, that Shakespeare--or whoever bears the title "genius"--is UNTOUCHABLE in their being a cut above the rest, that even if you worked your entire life you could never equal those called a genius. To put what I am saying into perspective, take two people who we would often call "geniuses," Mozart and Beethoven. Let us suppose that Mozart is called a genius and considered untouchable, that there is absolutely no way his level can ever be reached again, and to try to do so is folly--does Beethoven, then, even TRY to write music? Beethoven was influenced by Mozart, he certainly cared about how much the Boy Wonder accomplished, would heve, then, have been put off, or even discouraged, if he felt "I can NEVER match THAT." Consider public schools--too often they teach Shakespeare and teach him incorrectly.

(And this is coming from someone who is, as has already been established, a Shakespeare fiend...too often they teach the wrong plays of Shakespeare, 95% of kids are NOT ready to fully tackle Hamlet or King Lear when they are middle or high school students, and so they get a poor experience reading and trying to grasp something they simply are not ready for, become frustrated, and are put off the greatest playwright and, possibly, plays in general forever, OR the schools teach Romeo and Juliet, which is ALSO a poor one to teach as THAT play is not only one of Shakespeare's earliest and thus less-polished tragedies, the plot of the play was already a bit cliche in the Bard's day, NOW it is so cliche kids just can't and won't take the play seriously...what makes the play GOOD and BETTER than its plot is the LANGUAGE, the imagery and language that Mercutio, Romeo, and, to a certain extent, Juliet use and call to mind--if you are trying to INTRODUCE Shakespeare and that form of language, which DOES require some getting used to, to someone for the first time, a play which depends heavily upon a good understanding of that styleo of language is the literary equivalent of a swim instructor pushing a first-time swimmer into the deep-end of the ppol, they're just not ready and will drown in the langauge and lose Shakespeare for life. My answer? What would I teach? Macbeth aand/or Titus Andronicus for a tragedy, as both plays are short for Shakespeare, are action-heavy enough so that kids can get through and have at least some understanding of what's going on and what the themes are by just the action alone...they'll be able to get both are Gothic, with the Witches and spells in the former and the gruesome deaths in the latter...they'll be able to grasp the idea of ambition in the former as Lady Macbeth's nagging of Lord Macbeth--oh, great lol--is a relatively modern idea and so it's not archaic, and in the latter the theme of revenge is VERY blatant, first with Tamora causing death to so much of titus' family and then what happens to Lavinia followed by Sweeney Titus' plan...AND both are GREAT around Halloween, which kids love, the former play has Witches and spells and decapitations and kings, and the latter play has rape, murder...yes, basically rape and murder to the nth degree, which is a bit much for schools--but then again, if you're going to teach Hamlet you're dealing with a brother killing a brother to marry his wife and then the son killing everyone and his girlfriend going insame and drowning herself, and if you teach Romeo and Juliet then you have two teens essentially committing suicide together, so any way and any play you pick from Shakespeare that's a tragedy you WILL get some pretty dman dark themes--and kids can stomach them, damnit, so let them try, and let them ease in with action-heavy ones like Macbeth or Titus Andronicus, of which I would personally prefer the former to be taught because the latter IS rather rough around the edges and not quite the Shakespeare we come to know, hence it's better to save that play after a few other tragedies have been taught so you can go back and say "See, this is where he started, this is where Macbeth's gory methods and Hamlet's feigned insanity and King Lear's giving up power and so on all come from." Macbeth is Shakespeare's shortest tragedy, one of his best--I obviously love it, hence the name...though I DO like Hamlet even more, "To be or not to be" and "Tomorrow and tommorow and tomorrow" are #1 and #2 in terms of monologues for me, as you can tell by my signature--is more action-heavy, so the kids don't have to have a PhD in Elizabethan Literature to understand what's going on, and it has WITCHES...PERFECT FOR HALLOWEEN!) :)

OK, rant over, we now return you to Lord Macbeth's Discourse on the Disallowance of Genius, already in progress...

So, aside from once again showing how shamelessly I hope to be able to get a doctorate in English--and make Shakespearean Studies part of my thesis--what was the point of all of that?

If you raise someone up to a level AND imply that such a level is unattainable, generally people care not to even TRY to reach that level. Again, Mozart was regarded well--or at least well enough that he wasn't totally ignored--in his time, so if Beethoven was told from a young age "Mozart is a GENIUS," with the implication that he (Mozart) had some sort of divine or natural gift that Beethoven could NEVER hope to equal...well, that's wuite a bit of discouragement from quite a young age--does Beethoven even try to write music? And if he does, does he try and copy Mozart the Genius so closely--as he IS a "genius," after all, who wouldn't want to copy that?--that he lacks any style of his own and just produces unoriginal knockoffs of "The Magic Flute" and "The Marriage of Figaro" and the rest of Amadaeus' catalogue?

Coming back to the idea of Shakespeare and teaching him improperly, elevating him to the level of genius and teaching him in a way that he seems inscrutablie, teaching Hamlet and then feeling so discouraged and irritated that your teacher says you've gotten the play all wrong and missed Hamlet's motives completely...well, not only are you more likely not to read more Shakespeare, and thus will miss out on a great deal of literary fuel that COULD help you reach a plateau of greatness someday, properly harnessed, but you're also more apt to just say "I just don't get it...I must not be any good at this...I'M NO ENGLISH GENIUS."

NEITHER was Shakespeare.

Consider how many people endeavour to write poetry today and, intentionally or just unconsciously, copy a style or a writer they LOVE, or that they know is a "genius." They wish to emulate them, to capture that role of genius, they wish to raise themselves up, which is fine, but end up doing so through plagiarism, which is NOT, and leads to inferior works (and I'm aware of the irony of condemning plagiarism and praising Shakespeare in the same post, but bear with me.)

To call someone a "genius" serves, ultimately, to have an almost religious effect on them within that field, hence my reason for claiming that such a word deifies the person in question. Those taught in the Christian tradition generally don't believe they can be greater than Jesus, and from a religious standpoint, that may be fine and may not be, that's a religious matter and not one for this discussion--but to apply that to LITERATURE, to say "I must humble myself before the Almight Holy Trinity of Peotry, Homer, Dante, and Shakespeare, and I can never be greater than them" discourages originality and effort and encourages emulation to the point of plagiarism, if efofrt is even exerted at all.

That is my Argument from Discouragement and Emulation.

My Argument from Practicality:

2. NOW take Shakespeare (again.) Take Titus Andronicus. It is influenced heavily by the works of Ovid and by Kyd's brutal style. Shakespeare takes these ideas, these influences, and builds, grows...as I've already mentioned, the gore here becomes Macbeth, feigning insanity plays a role in many Shakespeare plays, including Hamlet, a distinguished leader giving up power only to see it fall into the hands of those unworthy and to see himself ruined a la King Lear, and star-crossed lovers as in...well, many of his plays. The language builds, his style builds.

His GENIUS IS BUILT.

It is NOT a GIFT, or NATURAL, or DIVINE.

It is CAUSED.

Consider--what if Shakespeare never happend across Ovid's work? Or if he never was able to see or read or know of Kyd? Hamlet and Kyd's Hieromimo share a good deal of similarities--murdered family members, revenge plots, putting on a play to expose and avenge said murder--so would we have Hamlet, or even Titus Andronicus, without The Spanish Tragedy?

Literature is built on influence, and influence is built on CAUSES...NOT the divine.

Genius is acquiered, NOT given by nature or divine providence.

Shakespeare BEGINS his career with a play that is about 1/3 Ovid/Roman poetic style, 1/3 Kyd, and 1/3 Shakespeare.

He ENDS his career with The Tempest, which alludes to other works and ideas, as Shakespeare--and arguably msot if not all good writers--is known to do, but is still a wholly original play.

He ACQUIRED the ability to do that, it was the result of CAUSES.

He starts with a great degree of emulation but GROWS OUT OF IT, he is never told these men are geniuses, never told he cannot be as good, Kyd and Ovid were not held to that level, only something like The Holy Bible or, form a philosophical point of view, the works of Aristotle had that sort sway in Shakespeare's day.

To give an an analogy:

Suppose that "genius" IS given, that it's like tons of dynamite, waiting to explode with brilliance...

The carrier of the dynamite STILL needs to come across a match sometime in his or her life, OTHERWISE it all comes to nill.




Those are my two arguments put briefly, since I do have to go...if you wish to discuss this more, by all means, but for now I must go.

(Oh--and for a comedy Much Ado About Nothing as the plot is somewhat modern as is the language and it is HILARIOUS...Macbeth and Much Ado About Nothing and the kids will love the Bard, but all this, my ramblings are but "A tale told by and idiot, Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.")

;)

[JCamilo]

Ok, I think after that I will emulate the impact of Shakespeare by using a goatee...

[Lord Macbeth]

Ok, I think after that I will emulate the impact of Shakespeare by using a goatee...

???

Is that a lampooning of my idea, a joke, both, neither...whaaaa??? :)

[Silas Thorne]

My picks, just personal choice here:

Best Epic Poem of All-Time? The Odyssey
Best Sonnet of All-Time? Shakespeare, Sonnet 73
Best Other Poem of All-Time? At present, I am a great fan of Dylan Thomas’ ‘The Force That Through the Green Fuse Drives the Flower’.
Best Short Story of All-Time? ‘The Tell-tale Heart’ by Edgar Allen Poe
Best Novella of All-Time? ‘Siddharta’ by Herman Hesse...though if someone tells me it’s not a novella but a novel, well, then Joseph Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’.
Best Serial of All-Time? ‘Treasure Island’ by Robert Louis Stevenson (It originally was serialized in the children’s magazine ‘Young Folks’), or ‘Crime and Punishment’ by Fyodor Dostoevsky (since it was published in 12 installments in a Russian literary magazine).
Best Comedic Play of All-Time? ‘Waiting for Godot’ by Samuel Beckett. Yes, it’s bitter painful humour, but I still think of this as comedy. I like the comedy more in Shakespeare’s tragedies than his comedies, so won’t put Shakespeare down here.
Best Dramatic Play of All-Time? ‘King Lear’ by William Shakespeare
Best Comedic Novel of All-Time? Torn between ‘Slaughterhouse-Five’ by Kurt Vonnegut and ‘A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court’ by Mark Twain.
Best Dramatic Novel of All-Time? It’s so hard to answer this, but I’ll go with ‘The Glass-Bead Game’ by Hermann Hesse.

[Alexander III]

Hmm Macbeth, your objection to the term genius appears to be one not to the genius itself but to the word symbol of genius. Personally I have never associated genius with the connotation of an unsurpassable mind, if anything I believe it inspires. When men call Shakespeare a genius, it inspires future and present writers to equal and better him.

As for your second remark, here is my opinion. In Italian schools, dante is done in high school, in england, Shakespeare. I personally believe those two works should not be done in high school but saved for university. Both of them are of such a vast an intricate complexity that a student in high school while he may appreciate it, shall undoubtedly stubble to truly understand it, and this indeed puts most of literature.

[stlukesguild]

Yes... I don't understand your denial of genius thing at all. It would seem that you are afraid of establishing the notion of an artist of unsurpassable brilliance, but the alternative sets up a false notion that if any individual were to simply work hard enough he or she too could write something to rival Shakespeare, compose something to equal Mozart, or paint something to surpass Rembrandt. The reality is that this is not true. I'm not saying that Shakespeare or Mozart or Rembrandt will never again be rivaled or surpassed... but rather that this will necessarily be achieved by a individual who is also a genius.

It is but wishful thinking to assume that some individuals are not more intelligent than others... sometimes far more intelligent than others. We would not even think to deny that some individuals are stronger than others, or taller than others, or more agile than others. We know from studies of the human brain by Howard Gardner than there is not a single measure of intelligence but multiple "intelligences" and that what was long denoted as "talent"... outstanding ability in art, music, writing, sports... even in something such as a game like chess... is not merely an innate "talent" but rather the result of a different and superior ability to think in certain ways. In other words, Michael Jordan was not simply better fit physically than his opponents in basketball (indeed he wasn't particularly larger or faster than the majority of players in the NBA). Nor was it simply the result of effort. He didn't necessarily work or practice harder than everyone else. Rather than attributing this difference to "talent," Gardner's studies on the brain recognized that he simply able to out-think most of his opponents... to visualize occurrences well ahead of what other players might be able to do... just as the average NBA player can certainly out-think or visualize well beyond the average individual, or the chess master can visualize moves in chess far beyond the average chess player.

Will Shakespeare or Michelangelo be surpassed? For such to happen it will demand a confluence of circumstances. Shakespeare and Michelangelo were admittedly both in the right place at the right time. Michelangelo was the man with the abilities needed by an ambitious Pope who wished to re-establish the cultural, political, and religious superiority of Rome. The commissions for the Sistine frescoes took Michelangelo from being just one of many brilliant artists of the era to an entire new level. Shakespeare, in a like manner, was in the right place at the right time. He came to the burgeoning London at the time when the English language was bursting with ambition and possibilities. He entered the theater which was barely out of its nascent state and equally open to possibilities. We have to wonder what his status might have been had he been limited to the lyrical poem (as the majority of the aristocratic poets were) or come upon London under Protestant control with the closing of the theaters.

In other words. There will be new writers to rival Shakespeare, painters to rival Michelangelo, and composers to rival Mozart... but this will demand the lucky confluence of events: an individual of incredible abilities within a certain field of endeavors... a genius... in the right place at the right time: given the proper patronage and support, driven to surpass himself or herself.

[mortalterror]

Will Shakespeare or Michelangelo be surpassed? For such to happen it will demand a confluence of circumstances. Shakespeare and Michelangelo were admittedly both in the right place at the right time. Michelangelo was the man with the abilities needed by an ambitious Pope who wished to re-establish the cultural, political, and religious superiority of Rome. The commissions for the Sistine frescoes took Michelangelo from being just one of many brilliant artists of the era to an entire new level.

Don't forget that Michelangelo was raised from childhood to be an artist by the Medici's in the Renaissance city of Florence. There aren't a lot of late bloomers in the top spots. Most of the greats have their "confluence of circumstances" rather early and every subsequent event adds to that early advantage, snowballing the innate advantages. Malcolm Gladwell writes very insightfully about this subject in his book Outliers.

[Lord Macbeth]

Alexander III, I most certainly do believe the term "genius" is associated with a notion of someone being "gifted" or having "natural talent," and as I said, I do not at all agree with that assessment.

stlukesguild, while I agree that it is not simply a matter of effort to attempt to surpass the giants of the various fields, Shakespeare and Mozart and the rest, I disagree strongly with the notion that ONLY those "gifted" by different aspects of their inherited genes, or likewise that only a genius can surpass a genius, in the sense that we take "genius" to be an inherited state.

There are various rumors and stories of Mozart acting his age, namely childish, albeit innocently childish at times (he WAS rather young, after all.)

Consider, for a moment, if Mozart had been raised in an environment that somehow stifled any "genius" we might suppose him to have, as much as I disagree with that idea. Mozart's family, say, lives in the gutter, and Mozart never sees a violin in his life, let alone sheet music.

NOW let us take a look at the brilliant composer Ludwig Giacomo Pytor Sullivan.

Ludwig Pytor Giacomo Sullivan does NOT possessn that quality or qualities we here attribute to the makeup of an innate sense of genius. He comes from a simple family, say, a family of barbers. His family isn't in the gutter, but by no menas rich, and all they have in the wasy of musical instruments is that old piano that they've had for generations in their oh-so-very-old house. Now, Ludwig Giacomo Pytor Sullivan is a pretty mischevious person, and has a love of storytelling, his father telling him fanciful stories as a boy each night before tucking him to bed.

Ludwig Giacomo Pytor Sullivan, then, sneaks in the theatres and opera houses as a boy, being as mischevious as he is and having a love for the stories and atmosphere, not to mention the rush most children get from doing something they're not supposed to do.

One night he sees The Marriage of Figaro, the play, by Peter Beaumarchais.

The very next day his father receives a letter that great-uncle Wolfgang has just died and he and his family inherit an unseemly-amount of money, and within a year young Ludwig Giacomo Pytor Sullivan is off at a musical academy, and supplements his existing piano-playing talents and imagination with a knowledge of the rest of musical instruments, theory, and the like, but retains his own, unique technique that he has harnesses and honed through years of piano playing and his own personality.

So it should come as no surprise to you that Ludwig Giacomo Pytor Sullivan, in fact, writes an operatic version of The Marriage of Figaro, many more works, and as such his name (all four of them) becomes synonymous with musical brilliance, even musical genius down through the ages...and a young Mr. Beethoven hears his work and gets his own ideas about music...and many years later an Oscar-winning film called "Giacomo" is released and is a smash.

And all the while Mozart dies in near annonymity.




Yes, that IS a rather fantastical case of cause and effect (one worthy of one of Mozart or Shakespeare's comedic plays or pieces, perhaps) but this does not seem to weaken the point I am attempting to make as it can, and generally will, be argued that the occurance of genius itself is a fantastical case--if everyone was a genius, no one would be, after all, it is, whether innate, acquired, or otherwise, a relative term.

A person CAN, through extraordinary will and just a little bit of luck, surpass those that are given gifts...if Mozart had lived in 5000 B.C., we would not know his name. If he lived today, most likely, we would not know his name.

Any innate talent is nearly entirely dependent in its worth upon both the situation the talented party finds himself in and the actions and of the talented party and those around him.

If Shakespeare never sees or comes to know of Kyd, we likely don't get Hamlet.
If Shakespeare never writes Hamlet, Stoppard never writes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
If Stoppard never writes that...who knows yet?

Again, as I said before, as much as I don't grant the case or status of innate genius (and that statement is not to be confused with one stating that I don't agree with the gene pool perhaps dealing a rather favorable hand to Shakespeare and Mozart and to others) even if I WERE to do so, I STILL would be forced to conclude that it is still so very dependent upon the whats, wheres, and whens the "gifted" party might encounter, and how then and the others about them reacted...

Shakespeare might be holding an Ace and Ten of Clubs...and we might say that that's a decent starting hand, surely better than a Three of Hearts and Six of Diamonds?

But suppose the following cards, instead of being the Jack-Queen-King of Clubs we "know" to have happened, and hence we "have" Shakespeare, came up a pair of Threes and two Sixes?

A Full House, Shakespeare doesn't get the hand he needed and folds...

And Billy Shackspore instead writes "Hamnet," "Otello," "McBee," "King Claudius," "A Hard Summer's Day's Night," "Much To Do About Something," "The Florentine Fleecer," and "The Crucible." (FAR before it's time, that last one...)

Genius is at best a good starting hand in game's poker game, and at worst is a gross mistake.

[stlukesguild]

Lord MacBeth... drinking a bit much before the last post...? You are certainly rambling rather incoherently. But let's simply address the central argument you make:

A person CAN, through extraordinary will and just a little bit of luck, surpass those that are given gifts...

Examples, please. Where do we find the plodding, dutiful worker surpassing the genius? Certainly the highly motivated and ambitious individual of some talent will ultimately surpass the genius who has never had the right breaks, the right connections, etc... but to what extent? I'm going to assume that there is a level of genius involved in nearly all of the artists who achieved something of true brilliance and lasting merit. But again... just as there are very clear differences between the abilities of the professional and the amateur basketball player... there are differences between the artist of genius and the dutiful duffer... and differences between the artists of the highest abilities (Bach, Mozart, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Dante, Milton...) and artists of lesser genius (Herrick, Chopin, Ravel, Delacroix, Vivaldi, Bellini, Verlaine, etc...)

Let's take J.S. Bach... a towering musical genius that makes Mozart look like a mere slacker. Now certainly Bach had some advantages over many in that most of his family had been musicians for generations... But unlike Handel he's never afforded years living in Italy (the then capitol of music). He never hooks up with the sort of patrons that can get him the really enviable positions at royal courts. He's never had the access to the best musicians and performers of the time. He's not given direct exposure to the other leading composers of his era as he might have gotten in a great urban center. He's never had a patron of real ambition that pushed him into something truly grandiose... hell, he never is even afforded a chance to try his hand at opera (one of the greatest losses in music). Instead, he's stuck laboring away at small courts and later in the position of kapellmeister... laboring away and churning out endless works for the enlightenment of dutiful bourgeois as they attend church... to be performed by less than brilliant local musicians, and to be criticized on a frequent basis by his less than musically astute employers. During his life-time, Handel, Vivaldi, Biber, Rameau, Hasse, and any number of other composers are far more known. Immediately after his death his music is almost forgotten... out of fashion. And still his achievements dwarf those of composers with far greater connections, fame, wealth, etc...

William Blake, Schubert, Schumann, Baudelaire, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Vermeer... and we can name any number of other artists in any genre all struggled with poverty and a lack of recognition for much of their lives... and yet...? An even far greater number of artists in every genre began their careers from rather humble backgrounds and struggled for some time before attaining any recognition (Monet, Picasso, Rubens, Shakespeare, Rousseau, Cervantes, Wagner, Beethoven, etc...).

Now I will not argue Edison's aphorism that "Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration"... but I will suggest that that "one percent" may be absolutely crucial... and at times the other 99% is useless without it. None of the artists I have named were slackers... contemplating their navels and waiting for inspiration to strike. They continued to push themselves... even lacking patrons or an audience. Of course the reality is that no "genius" has ever achieved something of merit at the highest level without putting forth the greatest effort... without the drive and ambition.

What I might suggest, however, is that there is something to the notion of the genius "failing" in life... failing to achieve what is suggested by his or her potential... as a result of not being in the right place... And this would seem to demand a certain self-recognition... a knowledge of where one's greatest abilities lie. One of the greatest challenges is for the individual to discover where their "genius" truly lies. Of course, it would seem in most instances (or at least in those instances in which the individual achieved something a great merit), there is an interweaving of passion and obsession, with the ability or "genius". But there are those who also struggle to find themselves...

If we take an artist like Cezanne... in all reality he was a duffer in comparison to most. His drawing abilities are mediocre at best. He was not exactly intellectually brilliant. He was socially rather crude and stunted (his childhood friend, Zola, was embarrassed by him to the point of writing a less-than-veiled caricature of Cezanne in his novel, The Masterpiece.) A facile technician such as John Singer Sargent or Bouguereau could paint circles around Cezanne... and yet Cezanne's achievements far outstrip those of either artist as he eventually discovers his real strengths... removed from any outside influences, isolated in the South of France... able to spend endless hours... days... months... even years working and reworking a single painting.

Again... you put forth the notion of the rather mundane... perhaps slightly clever and witty individual who through a tenacious drive and ambition... and a few lucky breaks... surpasses the achievements of the "genius". It would seem an attractive myth... suggesting that anyone might surpass Shakespeare if only he or she worked hard and caught a few breaks. Somehow, however, I remain unconvinced.:sosp:

[mortalterror]

Let's take J.S. Bach... a towering musical genius that makes Mozart look like a mere slacker.

His sheer output would be hard for Mozart to match, since he lived almost twice as long.


An even far greater number of artists in every genre began their careers from rather humble backgrounds and struggled for some time before attaining any recognition (Monet, Picasso, Rubens, Shakespeare, Rousseau, Cervantes, Wagner, Beethoven, etc...).

I guess both Beethoven and Picasso did toil in obscurity for a number of years, seeing as they were both child prodigies and didn't achieve any real fame until their mid to late twenties.

[Lord Macbeth]

As I just GAVE an example of the un-gifted worker surpassing the genius in the case of Ludwig Giacomo Pytor Sullivan and Mozart, I'll wait until you adress THAT example before reading the rest of that...

But in the meantime, and just on the side, let me pose a different outlook...call it Point #3 in my argument:

If we take Bundle Theory in philosophy to the extreme and say that WE are nothing but properties we would seem to come to the conclusion that we do not exist, but rather the various properties that "make us up" exist and jsut so happen to be arranged in a manner that gives the sense that we exist as a distinct and special entity when, in fact, we are nothing more than properties to be given and taken away, with no self--constructed, innate, or otherwis--then we would seem to be at a roadblock, a dead-end in our search for meaning and ethical nature and all of the rest that we might say makes up the human experience...after all, if it's not "the human experience," with something that makes us distinctly human--be that a Platonic Form's ideal of a human being, a soul, Difference via Personality, anything--but rather mere properties...ALL further lines of reasoning are rendered moot.



Is that conclusion a logical one?
It could be, it depends on how far you're willing to take Bundle Theory and Materialism.
SHOULD we accept that conclusion?
I'd argue no, for it'd seem that either we then live an existentialist lie of sorts, creating our own idea of what's truth and what's beauty (drive-by Keats reference) and live in our own menagerie of illusion...or else accept an argument that seems to render our being and any further exploration of our being moot and, more than meaningless, never having any substance, as WE wouldn't exist, but, rather, the features of us would, and that is all. Accept the latter and there is nothing further to human experience; hence the latter, even if it is potentially a falsehood, is preferable.

What on earth is the reason for my seemingly--ridiculous example?

If we accept YOUR notion of "only a genius may ever equal or surpass the doings of a genius" then we seem to be left with a sililar dilemma from an artistic point of view:

I'M not a genius, adn I would suppose you are not...

Would it then be futile of us to ever wish to write? According to you, if we're not natural geniuses we could never DREAM of approaching Shakespeare or Dante or Homer and all the rest...so what's the point? Why tell a story if you know it can never be as important as another's? Isn't part of the reason we value Shakespeare's writings, genius or no, even today because they seem to pertain to us, to the human condition and experience like no other writer? He's called The Greatest Writer of All-Time for that reason; beyond the aesthetic, or his plays and sonnets' value within systems of literary theory and merit, we value the Bard because he has an uncanny ability to...

"Hold as 't were, the mirror up to nature."

THAT is what the value of his "genius," his works are, not merely for entertainment, but that his works can, more than any others--or at least more than any of our "non-genius" attempts--divine and peer into the human heart, mind, and soul, and come out the other side with truths and ideals that strike so very much at our core.

The same goes for Dante and Homer.
And Mozart and Beethoven in music.

So if he can find truths far greater and far more vividly than I ever can...why should I, a non-genius, eve look?

Why should I ever write?

If I accept your idea of genius, sir, any attempts on my part, on nearly all of mankind's part to find our place, to compose, to write, to act, to be...

All if that is futile, for the impassioned leader can never quite measure up to a Casear, the person who heeds Neitzsche's advice and treates writing as a craft and works and works, writes and writes, feels and feels to try and hone their skilss--they can never be as good as Shakespeare. And any future musician can never compose works to rival Mozart if he is not blessed with some gift.

Genetics are the beginning of the story--workmanship, experience, and effort is the end of it, the difference between those with MISSED potential and those who OVERachieve.




For man to grow, he cannot accept what has already beeen accomplished as "The Finest Achievement of Man" in that field.

For man, the greatest works are ALWAYS to be written tomorrow...or at least that is how we should look at things, I would argue, if our own works, if the great works of the pats, if ANY works are to hold any meaning.

[JBI]

Meh, there is something to be said of circumstance, but at the same time, I read certain works, and think, one in a billion chance of ever coming into creation - the work is just pure brilliant than the conditions required would have needed a capacity for such an understanding of the world. Sure much was also needed, but the original seed seems relevant. Circumstance still requires a mind able to absorb things.

So on the whole, we get a mind with a high IQ, and a rather creative thought pattern - it is possible - and we play the circumstance odds, and out comes a Mozart. Now, that does not get rid of the importance of circumstance, but we still must realize that some people have an aptitude to learn music - a natural sense of it. For instance, there have been examples of children overhearing people play instruments, and then sitting down on a piano and repeating it, without any education - it has happened. How do we understand that if not to say there is a natural talent required? Sure much can be practiced and learned, but the capacity, for at least some things, must be there.

[JCamilo]

Frankly, the discussion is silly... as Genius goes, anyone who achives Shakespeare or Dante merit will be called Genius and then it will be true that only genius can surpass genius...

Now I scowl at the notion of the hard work... Before Jordan we had Pele, and true, many players can have a Pele's Day and score 5 goals in a single game. Be amazing in a single tournament. Or have a great year. But having a Pele's life? (Which did not stopped Maradona, Beckenbauer, etc to have their own life).

And no, saying Dante is a genius does not means only his work matters. Neither that people will only be happy if works surpass the comedy. There is something named Ambition that moves the imagination of some artistis who set up exactly to beat down those limits. Joyce, Flaubert, Victor Hugo, Tolstoy, Proust are as much genial as ambitious. We do have several relevant works that are not that Genial. Dumas for example (which didnt had even the 99% of Edison hard work, which by the way, is when Edison had his Homer Simpson day, as putting into maths proportion an argument like this) or Bram Stoker Dracula.

As the example you gave, I am sorry. I think you wrote a fable.

[stlukesguild]

I guess both Beethoven and Picasso did toil in obscurity for a number of years, seeing as they were both child prodigies and didn't achieve any real fame until their mid to late twenties.

Ummm... I suppose fame has its worth... but I rather think it is somewhat lacking when accompanied by continued poverty or financial uncertainty.

Picasso lived in abject poverty during most of his early years... through what is generally known as the Blue and Rose periods. He met with the Steins (Gertrude and her brother) who began to purchase some of his work at this time... still he was far from successful well into the analytical cubist years. The style was not exactly highly popular immediately. One of Picasso's early collectors, Dr. Barnes, wanted nothing to do with cubism. It isn't really until after WWI that Picasso hooks up with Olga Khokhlova, a ballerina and daughter of a Russian general, that the artist was introduced to many individuals in high society and became truly successful as an artist (this would put him around age 40). The clash between Picasso's bohemian background and habits and Olga's social aspirations would eventually lead to the demise of their marriage.

Beethoven was successful (by the standards of the average musician of the time) as a virtuoso pianist... but his hearing loss, beginning in his late 20's/early 30's effectively ended this venue of income. For most of his earlier career he depended upon the patronage of various aristocratic figures, including Prince Joseph Franz Lobkowitz, Prince Karl Lichnowsky, Baron Gottfried van Swieten, Count Ferdinand von Waldstein, and most importantly Archduke Rudolph. He was rejected for a position at the royal theater and most courts due to his known irascible manners. He made some money from teaching and some from the publication of his music, but at a time when copyright laws were unheard of, publication was no great source of income. His income fell off drastically during the Napoleonic wars. Beethoven was able to survive upon his music alone, but he was never really without financial worries until his final years when the The Philharmonic Society of London offered a more-than-generous commission for a symphony and string quartets. Beethoven never attained the financial security and success such as that achieved by Rossini, Donizetti, Wagner, etc...

[mortalterror]

I'm just saying that when you are a composer to royalty, Mozart, Haydn, and Salieri are your tutors, and people recognize you as a leading talent of your generation you are no longer struggling in obscurity. If you are saying that he wasn't financially secure, then who is? Mark Twain and Balzac made and lost several fortunes over their storied careers. Most artists don't make very good businessmen.

[stlukesguild]

As I just GAVE an example of the un-gifted worker surpassing the genius in the case of Ludwig Giacomo Pytor Sullivan and Mozart, I'll wait until you address THAT example before reading the rest of that...

Ummm... you gave an invented personae with an invented narrative as an example of the individual of middling or limited ability rising to the level of genius achievement. And this is proof of your theorem?

Your philosophical arguments are merely mental Onanism and in no way address the very concrete scientific studies of the human brain and multiple intelligences.

If we accept YOUR notion of "only a genius may ever equal or surpass the doings of a genius" then we seem to be left with a similar dilemma from an artistic point of view:

I'M not a genius, adn I would suppose you are not...

This presumes that we know who doesn't have a given "genius" before the fact. Now what if we take Einstein. At age 5 he had speech problems. At the Luitpold Gymnasium (the equivalent of high-school) he had difficulties with the authorities and resented the school's regimen and teaching methods. He dropped out in 1895. Einstein applied directly to the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule in Zürich, Switzerland, but failed the entrance examination. He finished secondary school in Aarau and then entered a four year program in math and physics at the Polytechnic in Zurich. After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years in an unsuccessful search for a teaching post. Eventually he took a job in Bern as an assistant examiner at the Patent Office. He was repeatedly passed over for promotion.
Now from this biography, one would have little reason to presume that Einstein was the genius who would shake the foundations of the scientific community a few years later with his publication of his four groundbreaking papers... including the one on relativity.

By the same token, almost no one living in London in 1820 would have recognized William Blake as anything more than a struggling printmaker and an eccentric crank... certainly not an artistic and literary genius. No one living in Delft in 1630 would have even known Vermeer except perhaps as the owner of a bed and breakfast and manager of his mother-in-law's rental properties. An artistic genius? This would not be recognized until the late 19th century.

In other words... I have little knowledge whether you have a genius for writing that has yet to be realized... or recognized... and you have no idea whether I have a genius for painting that has yet to be known.

Some geniuses are clearly towering figures in their own lifetime: Dante, Goethe, Michelangelo, Rubens, Leonardo, Picasso, Wagner, Victor Hugo, Tolstoy, Handel... others may be seen as "respectable" or even unknown... or struggling... until they are recognized years later: Schubert, Bach, Baudelaire, William Blake, Rembrandt, John Donne... even Shakespeare.

Would it then be futile of us to ever wish to write? According to you, if we're not natural geniuses we could never DREAM of approaching Shakespeare or Dante or Homer and all the rest...so what's the point?

Because most artists are not creating with the notion that they are in a competition where the aim is number one... or nothing. Artists create because they have a passion for creating... be it is art. music, poetry... or whatever. Most recognize that the truly towering figures in art are rare. Not everyone can be a Michelangelo or Leonardo or Rembrandt or Rubens... but that does not mean that Bonnard:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1114/5134304620_5d86a7fa71_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/5134304750_780315bb67_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/5134306804_45bdbcb190_z.jpg

or Vuillard:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5133707569_bb352e1b21_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/5133707761_9971b4ec95_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4031/5133707959_0809798651_z.jpg

or even a relative unknown, like the American Impressionist, Daniel Garber:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1147/5133708039_9c8beff2d1.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1374/5133708117_4d3ae7cff1.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/5133708235_c1f6cba608.jpg

... are without merit... or even a degree of genius. Indeed, they all may be seen to have brought something to painting that Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Picasso did not.

And there is that rare occasion when then "lesser" genius will produce that single work of unquestioned genius:

Gentile da Fabriano's Adoration of the Magi-

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1061/5133769291_843482a081_b.jpg

Leoncavallo's Pagliacci or Lawrence Sterne's Tristam Shandy.

You might also need to consider Samuel Johnson's proclamation "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." While it may be an exaggeration... it would seem absurd that the artist should not continue to paint simply because he realizes he may never rival Michelangelo... especially if he or she is able to make a living doing what he or she loves. I doubt that J.K. Rowling ever considered abandoning writing simply because it was clear she could not equal Dante or Homer. Again... it would seem you are presuming that the purpose of art... or the reason one makes art... is simply to engage in a competition.

By the way... I'm currently listening to the delicate lute work of Sylvius Leopold Weiss. He is no Bach, Mozart, Beethoven... but he achieved something quite special with his own unique genius:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzM3pzeCLIs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJBIS3fLnkE&feature=related