The February 2011 Elections For The OLN Literary Hall of Fame!

[Lord Macbeth]

Well, Shakespeare was our lone inductee for the inagural January ballot, maybe fittingly...

But hopefully this time a few will get over that lofty 75% mark to punch theirn ticket to the OLN Hall of Fame!

10 votes a person out of the 50 listed below, 75% to get in, at least 5% to stay on the ballot for next time, ballot open all month...

Let the ballot battle begin! (As soon as the poll is posted, 50 names take a while to put in!) ;)

[Big Dante]

Victor Hugo

[Lord Macbeth]

My votes above:

Homer
Dante
George Bernard Shaw
T.S. Eliot
Mark Twain
Sophocles
Friedrich Nietzsche
Edgar Allan Poe
Franz Kafka
Samuel Beckett

[Desolation]

Leo Tolstoy
Fyodor Dostoevsky
James Joyce
Friedrich Nietzsche
Emile Zola
Gustave Flaubert
Albert Camus
Franz Kafka
Samuel Beckett
Thomas Mann
Herman Melville

It appears that I accidentally voted for 11 authors...I'm sorry. :sick:

[aliengirl]

Dante
T.S. Eliot
George Bernard Shaw
Mark Twain
Leo Tolstoy
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Charles Dickens
Anton Chekov
Victor Hugo
Franz Kafka
-----------------------------------------

Edit: Something unexpected happened. When I clicked on 'Vote Now' it said that some security token is missing and so it can't complete this task. Well, I have posted my choice here. Will try to vote later.
Btw, has it happened to anyone before?

[Lord Macbeth]

Wow, Homer, Dante, and Dostoyevsky each only have 50%, and Tolstoy has 40%.

Can an author NOT named "William Shakespeare" finally break that 75% mark and stay there?

[cyberbob]

Wells, Poe, Hemingway.

[JuniperWoolf]

I can't believe that I'm the only one who voted for Ovid so far, you goons.

Ovid
Mary Shelley
Sophocles
James Joyce
Henry David Thoreau
Oscar Wilde
Vladimir Nabokov
George Orwell
Virginia Woolf
Ernest Hemmingway

Also, I plea for some Steinbeck on the next one.

The "OLN" threw me off for a second as well, because we usually call ourselves "lit-net."

[papayahed]

you goons.

Thank You! It is my belief that "goon" is grossly under utilized and needs to make a come back. (Along with solid but one step at a time)





The "OLN" threw me off for a second as well, because we usually call ourselves "lit-net."

Agreed, OLN took me a minute to figure out.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wow, only one for Cervantes? What the hell, lol. I wish I would've looked at the poll results before voting so I could've thrown one in for him. I was sure he'd be in the top five.

[Seasider]

I am surprised that I voted for 3 Greek authors since I know no Greek.
1. Homer
2.Sophocles
3.Hugo
4.Chaucer
5.Zola
6.Aeschylus
7.Orwell
8.Pope
9.Byron
10.Woolf

[Lord Macbeth]

OK...I'm starting to wonder:

Is 75% a good idea?

I hate to lower the standards here, but really--WHY do Homer and Dante lead with ONLY 13/27? Don't get me wrong, they should be the next ones in--and maybe one or two others, but definitely those two deserve to be next--but ONLY 13/27? That's LESS than half, let alone 75%

WHY is no one voting for these titans?

[The Rainmaker]

13/27 is pretty good actually. I think the flaw is in the number of nominations vs. the number of votes. Better to 'induct' top 2-3 each month or this could go on for generations before even Kafka makes it, let alone Hesse or Coetzee.

[papayahed]

I think you have too many choices, it would probably help to narrow down the nominees to maybe ten or twenty.

75% is a good number, but depends if you want this to be a true hall of fame like the baseball hall of fame or like the rock and roll hall of fame where they let everybody in.

[MarkBastable]

OK...I'm starting to wonder:

Is 75% a good idea?

I hate to lower the standards here, but really--WHY do Homer and Dante lead with ONLY 13/27? Don't get me wrong, they should be the next ones in--and maybe one or two others, but definitely those two deserve to be next--but ONLY 13/27? That's LESS than half, let alone 75%

WHY is no one voting for these titans?

Is the question: is seventy-five percent too high an entrypoint, whichever writers are subject to the voting?

Or is the question: whatever the entrypoint, why are only half the voters voting for the writers you expected them to?

[kelby_lake]

This is a pretty lengthy list of nominees and I agree that cutting it down would probably be a better idea :)

[MarkBastable]

I think you have too many choices, it would probably help to narrow down the nominees to maybe ten or twenty.

75% is a good number, but depends if you want this to be a true hall of fame like the baseball hall of fame or like the rock and roll hall of fame where they let everybody in.


It also depends on what it's a Hall of. If it's really Fame, Jackie Collins ought to waltz in there way ahead of Kit Marlowe.

[Emil Miller]

I think you have too many choices, it would probably help to narrow down the nominees to maybe ten or twenty.

75% is a good number, but depends if you want this to be a true hall of fame like the baseball hall of fame or like the rock and roll hall of fame where they let everybody in.

Shouldn't the penultimate word to the post be 'anybody' ?

[Alexander III]

It's not about the % or number or nominees. Simply the people on this site are not well read enough.

Imagine a football HOF group of voters who had not seen the majority of the nominees play and knew about them trough solely word of mouth. It would be a farce.

We have the same problem here.

Also expecting people to vote Dante and Homer simply due to reputation is wrong, if they have not read them they should not vote for them simply because they have been told to.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm still astounded Cervantes only has 1 vote. Come on, people, he only invented the modern novel! At this point, he won't even be on the next ballet.

Man, I wish I could change my votes.



It's not about the % or number or nominees. Simply the people on this site are not well read enough.


So, should we even have the poll, then? If we had to narrow down the criteria to only people who have read all these authors, how many would even be able to vote?

[JuniperWoolf]

It's not about the % or number or nominees. Simply the people on this site are not well read enough.

*sigh* Don't act like a tool. Not only is it annoying, but there are a lot of people here who are smarter and more educated than you are - meaning that you will get schooled eventually and if you go into it with this "I'm better than everyone" attitude, your crash back to eath will be oh so much more devestating.

Also, is that a chain and a popped collar edited onto your Arthur Rimbaud avatar?

[Alexander III]

*sigh* Don't act like a tool. Not only is it annoying, but there are a lot of people here who are smarter and more educated than you are - meaning that you will get schooled eventually and if you go into it with this "I'm better than everyone" attitude, your crash back to eath will be oh so much more devestating.

Also, is that a chain and a popped collar edited onto your Arthur Rimbaud avatar?

I never said I was more well read that anyone, I believe I had included myself amongst those who simply have not read enough. Hence the problem, the poll is to vast in scope, I can think of only a handful of people on the forums who might have read a major work by every author on that list.

People were blaming it on the % and number of nominees and I simply pointed out that I did not think that was the problem.

And also I have no problem with getting "schooled". If I make a mistake and someone shows me I made a mistake, and proves what I said to be wrong; I would have no problem or shame in that. The only one who assumes that I have the "I am better than everyone attitude" is you.

As for my avatar, there is a famous wall in paris in which a graffiti artist drew the head of Rimbaud and gave him a body with modern clothing. He did this while there were protests, and the image he created formed a kind of rally point and symbol for the opposition. When I went to paris, I came upon it by chance and thought it a interesting form of graffiti, interesting and also very beautiful considering the detail which the artist put into creating the image. But yea, it's mostly a thing only parisians would recognize and even though only some parisians.

[MarkBastable]

Actually, the people here are precisely well-read enough to be the voters for submitting writers to the LitNet Hall of Fame, on account of the fact that the LitNet Hall of Fame is to be populated by those for whom members of LitNet vote, so whatever those LitNet members have read is exactly what should have been read by the people who vote for writers to populate the LitNet Hall of Fame.

That might be a different bunch of writers to those that would populate an Alexander III Hall of Fame for writers. But, then again, no one's asking the rest of us to vote for that.

[Alexander III]

Actually, the people here are precisely well-read enough to be the panel for submitting writers to the LitNet Hall of Fame, on account of the fact that the LitNet Hall of Fame is to be populated by those for whom members of LitNet vote, and whatever those LitNet members have read is exactly what should have been read by the people who vote for writers to populate the LitNet Hall of Fame.

That might be a different bunch of writers to those that would populate an Alexander III Hall of Fame for writers. But, then again, no one's asking the rest of us to vote for that.

That first paragraph is something, which I had not thought of.

But nonetheless, on the whole, I am saying this poll doesn't work because virtually everyone here has not read major works by EVERY single writer on the list.

Personally I would love it, if it were deemed acceptable that one may judge and rank a work of literature without ever having read it. It would make my university life so much easier, I could avoid reading all those dull works that we have to study! But then again my professors (unfortunately) do not posses the advanced views of you guys, they are limited in their mindset and believe that someone must read a work of literature before being able to critique it...Oh damn them and their limited views !

[MarkBastable]

Personally I would love it, if it were deemed acceptable that one may judge and rank a work of literature without ever having read it. It would make my university life so much easier, I could avoid reading all those dull works that we have to study! But then again my professors (unfortunately) do not posses the advanced views of you guys, they are limited in their mindset and believe that someone must read a work of literature before being able to critique it...Oh damn them and their limited views !

I don't think they do expect you to have read everything. They expect you to have read the stuff you pass an opinion on. Which is why, if you say that The Inferno is the best book you've ever read, no one says, "Ah - but have you read Finnegan's Wake, Portnoy's Complaint and Flaubert's Parrot?"

It's also the reason that we all get to vote - so that individual biases in both breadth of reading and personal preference are mitigated by the collective and summed experience of the voting population.

So no one is expected to have read everyone on the list. It's kind of assumed that your very presence here is an indication of an interest in the topic, and that you are therefore qualified to contribute to the overall decision. But no one's expected to make it on their own.

[Alexander III]

I don't think they do expect you to have read everything. They expect you to have read the stuff you pass an opinion on. Which is why, if you say that The Inferno is the best book you've ever read, no one says, "Ah - but have you read Finnegan's Wake, Portnoy's Complaint and Flaubert's Parrot?"

It's also the reason that we all get to vote - so that individual biases in both breadth of reading and personal preference are mitigated by the collective and summed experience of the voting population.

So no one is expected to have read everyone on the list. It's kind of assumed that your very presence here is an indication of an interest in the topic, and that you are therefore qualified to contribute to the overall decision. But no one's expected to make it on their own.


The question which had originally arose, was why was the poll not working? I answered why the poll was not working as intended, and I believe my answer to be perfectly correct. Dante and Homer are the best writers on the list now, then why are they not clearly above 75% That was the question. Why is the HOF not working as an actual HOF. And I gave the answer, people are not going to vote for Date or Homer without having read them. They will vote their favorites, it is natural, it is what I did as well, I can only vote for those whom I have read.

Hence why the HOF concept is not working, it is not a HOF it is a HOP (hall of popularity)


Also about your first point your are right, but the question posed here is different to that which you make your point from.

This is not a "which is the best book you have read?" question

This is a question more like:

"which of these 3 is the greatest writer?"

A) D'Annunzio
B) Oscar Wilde
C) Gautier

Now, if I asked you that question what would your honest answer be?

[cyberbob]

Seriously though, it's just too many freaking nominees.

33 people have casted 259 votes averaging to 7.8 votes per person (I voted for 3).

Most voters feel that most of these names deserve to be HOFers so they vote for too many and dilute each vote.

If it was a problem of being well read, you'd see lots of guys with 0 votes. If only more guys did have 0 votes someone might've reached 75% by now.

If everyone was perfectly well-read, they might all vote for every name on the list, making each % = closer to 0.

[Lord Macbeth]

I agree that Alexander III maybe overstepped a bit in saying that LitNet's population is not, on the whole, well-read--I've so far found most to be at least what I would myself consider reasonably well-read...now, to those who join, readthis poll, and ask "WHO is Dante?" or "Why is this 'Cervantes' person so important?" to such people we may THEN rightly say "READ A BOOK!" ;) But on the whole, most here seem well-read (the reason I joined, I read a few forum posts before joining o check to see if this was an active place but also to make sure I wasn't going to get a bunch that thinks the latest fantasy novel or Rowling's series are the greatest things ever written; don't get me wrong, I may carry the "Lord Macbeth" mantle here, but this is not Literary Snobbery, I enjoy HP as the equivalent of sort of "literary M&Ms," tasty and fun but not a GOURMET or anything too new...by that same token, if someone told me that it WAS the greatest work ever and totally original...they'd be shown the literary door, or, better yet, the actual literature! :p

On the OTHER hand...

Perhaps our diversity in our readings and to some degree a BIT of a lack of the classics as Alexander III seems to hint at is the issue; I'll freely admit that while I've read at least some parts and parcels by about 4/5 of that list and probably a major work, seen (for the playwrights) or read for about 2/3s of them, I haven't read EVERYONE.

We're only human, and not all of us have even been "alive" long enough to read all the greats...after all, I'm 20, but I've only been reading classics at all for half of those years, and then only critically for about 6 of those 20 years. Internet forums are largely a place for youngER people--not necessarily all and not all teens, but certainly it can be said that Internet forums is one area that youngER people are generally more prevalent--and after all...

Before I read even a single page of Shakespeare I had to read the Complete Works of Seuss, and before I would EVER have given the workhouses and factories in Dickens' works a thought I had to first read up on a factory owned by someone by the name of Wonka... ;)

My point being that while we ARE, by and large, reasonably well-read, to varying degrees, to be sure, not all of us have read EVERYTHING, and that might be fracturing the ballot.

I'll give my own mea culpa, for example--while I've again read something by almost everyone on that list, the only, say, "A-lister," Top 10s I have read next to nothing by are Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, half because I've been busy with other writers--I intend to get to at least one of them this year--and half because they weren't taught by my high school when I attended, and in fact, if I hadn't had an INCREDIBLE English instructor--so great I and a core of us too him for Honors 11th and 12th--I would never have even have heard of them in my HS days...and if it hadn't been for his absolute INSISTENCE that the Russians MUST be read and that the faculty was foolish for overlooking them, I'd have probably never have ever read Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, which is now a favorite of mine, the book/poem AND opera (as a bonus aside, the Waltz WITH Chorus for Tchaikovksy's opera version is probably my single-most-listened-to piece of music, the one piece of music I really feel, silly as it might sound, is ME in some way...)

My point?

MOST of us here are well-read...but we are "specialized" according to who we broke in with.

I was a huge fan of Greek and English myths, as well as plays...and when this same instructor told me personally that he thought that though I was already top of my class I could be even BETTER and more-analytic and well-read if I started ro read philosophy...

It's a small surprise, then, I "specialize," and subsequently vote for, the Greeks, European playwrights and poets, and philosophical writers like Nietzsche, Kafka, and Camus.

And for others, maybe it was the American Novelists--and that's who tHEY voted for.
And for others, maybe the Russians were their first love, and they voted for THEM.
And for others, perhaps the Romantic Poets and Victorian Novelists won their hearts and so THEIR votes.

And on and on and on.

Shakespeare got over 75% because...he's SHAKESPEARE, EVERYONE is taught him, he's almost certainly THE greatest playwright ever, one of the greatest poets ever, and many--myself included--would call him the greatest author ever, and even those who rank someone higher generally place the Bard in the Top 5.

But Dostoyevsky's not universally taught, nor is Dante...Homer, I think, is a bit more universal in the schools, but still...




So I propose this:

-Obviously we'll leave Will alone, he's been elected on his own, over 75%...as he should be
-Starting NOW, we'll have TWO ballots every month, a Preliminary and an Electory Ballot
-In the case of the Preliminary, we'll do it as we are now, with 50 on the ballot and 10 votes per person; the Top 20 will move on to the Electory Ballot and automatically transfer to the next ballot, as will any on the Preliminary with more than 5%
-In the case of the Electory, each person shall have 5 votes for the 20 people, and THERE it'll take 75% or more to get elected.
-The Preliminary will run though the first two weeks of the month, the Electory the latter two

THAT WAY we have the same high standards, 75%, we keep 50 on the ballot, and by narrowing the field for the Electory Ballot we can avoid splitting without narrowing the whole field altogether, since I don't think many, if any, on this list deserve to be dropped.

What say you all?

[Lord Macbeth]

(If we DO go that route, I'll take the Top 20 after tomorrow and come Monday we'll begin the Electory Ballot.)

[Alexander III]

Seriously though, it's just too many freaking nominees.

33 people have casted 259 votes averaging to 7.8 votes per person (I voted for 3).

Most voters feel that most of these names deserve to be HOFers so they vote for too many and dilute each vote.

If it was a problem of being well read, you'd see lots of guys with 0 votes. If only more guys did have 0 votes someone might've reached 75% by now.

If everyone was perfectly well-read, they might all vote for every name on the list, making each % = closer to 0.

There is a max of 10 votes per person

[Virgil]

Good Lord, you forgot to put William Faulkner on that list. And I would have put DH Lawrence on as well, though that might not be a must as Faulkner. And now that I think of it, where is Joseph Conrad?

My picks:
Homer
Dante
TS Eliot
Tolstoy
Dostoevsky
Joyce
Chaucer
Cervantes
Flaubert
Virgil

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Holy crap, Virgil is right! No Faulkner or Conrad? For shame (I quickly read the list, checking names as I went)!

But, people, I think you're taking this a bit too seriously. This is a poll for a literature forums that anyone can join. It's not like this is in any way official. It's just for fun.

What you people aren't taking seriosuly enough, though, is that Cervantes only has one vote. AHHHHH!!!!!

[cyberbob]

^ I hate Don Quixote.

Have it drilled into your brain every year since elementary like us border town kids and you'll have no sympathy for Cervantes.

[MarkBastable]

The question which had originally arose, was why was the poll not working? I answered why the poll was not working as intended, and I believe my answer to be perfectly correct. Dante and Homer are the best writers on the list now, then why are they not clearly above 75% That was the question. Why is the HOF not working as an actual HOF. And I gave the answer, people are not going to vote for Date or Homer without having read them. They will vote their favorites, it is natural, it is what I did as well, I can only vote for those whom I have read.

Hence why the HOF concept is not working, it is not a HOF it is a HOP (hall of popularity)


Also about your first point your are right, but the question posed here is different to that which you make your point from.

This is not a "which is the best book you have read?" question

This is a question more like:

"which of these 3 is the greatest writer?"

A) D'Annunzio
B) Oscar Wilde
C) Gautier

Now, if I asked you that question what would your honest answer be?



Well, yeah. As I implied in an earlier post, if it's a Hall of Fame, there's no reason for a voter to have read any books by any of the writers. All you need to vote on is who you think most people have heard of.

[mal4mac]

OK...I'm starting to wonder:

Is 75% a good idea?

I hate to lower the standards here, but really--WHY do Homer and Dante lead with ONLY 13/27? Don't get me wrong, they should be the next ones in--and maybe one or two others, but definitely those two deserve to be next--but ONLY 13/27? That's LESS than half, let alone 75%

WHY is no one voting for these titans?

Who made you God to decide they should "definitely" be the next ones in?

I voted only for people I *really* like reading and want Dickens or Tolstoy to be the next in.

I think you need to rethink the 75%! Given the voting spread, I think a simple "most votes" will have to be the decider.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

^ I hate Don Quixote.

Have it drilled into your brain every year since elementary like us border town kids and you'll have no sympathy for Cervantes.

Your personal bad experience doesn't change the fact that he is one of the most important authors ever.


Who made you God to decide they should "definitely" be the next ones in?


Well, he made the poll, so he is God of it. Plus, he is correct; Homer and Dante should get through.

[Lord Macbeth]

Who made you God to decide they should "definitely" be the next ones in?

I voted only for people I *really* like reading and want Dickens or Tolstoy to be the next in.

I think you need to rethink the 75%! Given the voting spread, I think a simple "most votes" will have to be the decider.

It was just my opinion, YEESH...

Well, I gave my plan, with the Preliminary and the Electory, and the former just requires the Top 20, and then the latter the 75%--since out of a field of only 20 SOMEONE among these titans should get at least that much.

What do you folks say to that?

[Alexander III]

Who made you God to decide they should "definitely" be the next ones in?

I voted only for people I *really* like reading and want Dickens or Tolstoy to be the next in.
.

Perfectly proves my point.

What he said explains why this has turned into a hall of popularity, as opposed to the hall of fame which was intended.

Personally I think we should go back to the author vs author showdowns. Those were entertaining and interesting, good conversation popped up. Here people just list a bunch of names, there is no debate or conversing of the actual authors.

[MarkBastable]

Perfectly proves my point.

What he said explains why this has turned into a hall of popularity, as opposed to the hall of fame which was intended.

Personally I think we should go back to the author vs author showdowns. Those were entertaining and interesting, good conversation popped up. Here people just list a bunch of names, there is no debate or conversing of the actual authors.

See, that's a good point. It matters not a whit who gets in - but talking about it would be entertaining.

So I'd go for the 'pick two and have them vicariously slug it out' approach.

I'd suggest Dickens vs Tolstoy for the first bout.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Perfectly proves my point.

What he said explains why this has turned into a hall of popularity, as opposed to the hall of fame which was intended.

Personally I think we should go back to the author vs author showdowns. Those were entertaining and interesting, good conversation popped up. Here people just list a bunch of names, there is no debate or conversing of the actual authors.
Why don't you begin a conversation then instead of bellyaching about it.

[jmnixon95]

Voted for five, because only five stuck out as fantastic.

Dostoevsky
Nietzsche
Nabakov
Twain
Hemingway

[Lord Macbeth]

Perfectly proves my point.

What he said explains why this has turned into a hall of popularity, as opposed to the hall of fame which was intended.

Personally I think we should go back to the author vs author showdowns. Those were entertaining and interesting, good conversation popped up. Here people just list a bunch of names, there is no debate or conversing of the actual authors.

I fail to see why the two are mutually exclusive...?

We can do BOTH!

(And in any case, you're being a bit unrealistic in your high-mindedness, Alexander III--the Baseball HOF, the Football HOF, ANY HOF inevitably becomes half-merit, half-popularity/taste...after all, arguably most if not all the folks here are worthy, so who gets in first? TASTE largely decides.)

[Lord Macbeth]

And anyway, I'm not prepared to give up yet...

Take the Top 20 here, start tomorrow with an Electory Ballot like I tired, and let's at least try that before abandoning the idea altogether, since I know from other forums this CAN be fun and CAN lead to discussions and CAN work...

If given the chance and time by the voters.

After all, how many authors succeeded THEIR first time out? Still ironing out the kinks!

[Alexander III]

I fail to see why the two are mutually exclusive...?

We can do BOTH!

(And in any case, you're being a bit unrealistic in your high-mindedness, Alexander III--the Baseball HOF, the Football HOF, ANY HOF inevitably becomes half-merit, half-popularity/taste...after all, arguably most if not all the folks here are worthy, so who gets in first? TASTE largely decides.)

I have no problem with the thread as it is, it is not my cup of tea but others seem to enjoy it. I was simply pointing out that the expectation that Dante and Homer should be in should be altered. Who goes in will be the most read.

So there is no point complaining that Cervantes or Dante or Homer must get in, which half the people commenting before me were saying.

But yes someone should create another author vs author showdown thread !

[Lord Macbeth]

I have no problem with the thread as it is, it is not my cup of tea but others seem to enjoy it. I was simply pointing out that the expectation that Dante and Homer should be in should be altered. Who goes in will be the most read.

So there is no point complaining that Cervantes or Dante or Homer must get in, which half the people commenting before me were saying.

But yes someone should create another author vs author showdown thread !

Alright--who would you suggest? We were planning tha big America Writer showdown, with the South, North, Midwest, and West going at it...

Four each--atl least one poet and one novelist each, and the other two can be anything...

[JuniperWoolf]

Why are we pretending that this even matters? It's just a litnet poll for fun, it doesn't personally affect Dante much, does it?

[Lord Macbeth]

Why are we pretending that this even matters? It's just a litnet poll for fun, it doesn't personally affect Dante much, does it?

True, but he might throw those who dare not vote for him into the Eleventh Circle! ;)

Hey, 200th post--and on a post concerning damnation, no less...IS THIS A DAGGER I SEE BEFORE ME?!

No.

Just more posts to come. :p

[Whifflingpin]

How come no-ones asked "how come Mary Shelley's got more votes than Percy?"
Which leads to maybe another poll - which writer has contributed most to the cinema?

[OrphanPip]

How come no-ones asked "how come Mary Shelley's got more votes than Percy?"
Which leads to maybe another poll - which writer has contributed most to the cinema?

Because she has nicer legs.

Personally, I think even her mother and father are more important writers than she is. Her mother is pretty much the first major liberal feminist, and her father was one of the first anarchist philosophers. They were both huge influences on the development of Liberalism in the 19th century.

Mary Shelley on the other hand, wrote a decent story about a monster.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why are we pretending that this even matters? It's just a litnet poll for fun, it doesn't personally affect Dante much, does it?

This.

[Lord Macbeth]

OK, so if no one objects, I'll try that Electory idea, so look out tomorrow for that, the Top 20 on this list, 5 choices per person from that crop, and let's see if we can't work this (and have some FUN, too...)

Also, look out for the nominations for the National and Regional Teams for the "International Literary League Tournament," where a team of 5--one poet, one playwright, one novelist, and then the other two are free to be dispersed as is seen fit--in the thread bearing that name.