Who is the most underrated writer ever?

[Kyriakos]

A companion to the other thread :)

Although i guess the most underrated writers are not even largely known, i think we can discuss some which are a bit known, but not nearly as much as we think they deserve to be.

I would like to nominate Constantine Cavafy. He is rapidly becomming more and more famous, but i think he deserves a spot in the pantheon of best poets of recent aeons.

Nerval is a bit on the periphery of letters these days too.

[Lokasenna]

To bang my usual drum, I have long since come to the conclusion that Tolkien is the greatest writer of the 20th century, and it continually surprises me that he is not recognized as such. Feel free to pelt me with rancid tomatoes, or whatever makes you happy, for challenging the orthodoxy.

On a similar-ish note, I think Lovecraft is generally ignored, though his academic star is slowly on the rise. He might have been firmly in the realm of pulp fiction, but the man was a very talented wordsmith whose gift for evoking the disturbing and the grotesque is almost certainly on a level with Poe.

Finally, a recent one that troubles me is the seeming lack of interest in Gore Vidal amongst the academic community at the moment. He's clearly important, but almost no one seems to be writing on him. Very odd.

[Desolation]

There's no doubt in my mind that there have been writers out there who were on par with the greats, but who never got published for one reason or another...So, they would probably be the most under-rated.

Drawing from writers who have been published, I'd go with William Gaddis and Flann O'Brien...Both are mildly well-known, but not as often read/discussed as many of their peers (like Thomas Pynchon and Samuel Beckett, respectively).

[kev67]

I am sometimes surprised that Larry McMurtry rarely seems to be regarded as being amongst the top authors. His work does not seem to feature highly (if at all) in the top ## lists.

[Summer M]

[...] I think Lovecraft is generally ignored [...] the man was a very talented wordsmith whose gift for evoking the disturbing and the grotesque is almost certainly on a level with Poe.


Thou shalt not take the name of the Poe on vain! Seriously, there is no comparison. First, Lovecraft was sort of a monomaniac with the Cthulhu-type creatures and the "we're alone in a hostile universe" theme. Poe was far more versatile.

Second, Lovecraft was quite tedious. I gave up on At the Mountains of Madness when the line "I'll never forget those horrible creatures", or something like that, was repeated for the fiftieth time.

Lovecraft was a good writer, but nowhere near Poe.

[stlukesguild]

Loka... I agree with you with regard to Lovecraft (Literature that gets classified under certain genre... science fiction/horror/mystery... always gets the short shift) and certainly Vidal. Read him, people!!! But we'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to Tolkein.:rolleyes5:

[stlukesguild]

Fernando Pessoa! His reputation has certainly grown over the years... after being virtually an unknown... but come on! This guy should be spoken of in the same hushed tones as afforded to T.S. Eliot, Kafka, Beckett, J.L. Borges, and Italo Calvino!!:lol:

[dfloyd]

an obvious answer would have been F. Scott Fitzgerald. But academia discovered him, and today there is hardly a college student who doesn't have him as assigned reading and the bookstores are filled with his novels such as The Great Gatsby or Tender Is the Night.

Today it is the American Nobel prize winner Sinclair Lewis. When I was in college in the 1960s, his novels were hard to come by, and 50 years later I haven't seen his works in the book stores.

Academia feels his novels outdated so he wont be rediscovered as was Scott Fitzgerald. How many of you on this forum have read Main Street, Babbitt, Elmer Gantry, Arrowsmith, Doddsworth, It Can't Happen Here, et al.

[Jack of Hearts]

The Italian writer Giovanni Arpino. He's mostly unknown in the US, and probably in most of Europe too. But he wrote a work called Il buio e il miele (Darkness and Honey). It doesn't exist in English (had to read it in French translation), but you all know it as the inspiration behind the 1990's Al Pacino film Scent of a Woman. The book is world class literature, as are his other works The Novice and A Crime of Honor (both fairly rare but available in English- maybe only one printing in the 1960's).








J

[Anton Hermes]

I'd go with William Gaddis and Flann O'Brien...Both are mildly well-known, but not as often read/discussed as many of their peers (like Thomas Pynchon and Samuel Beckett, respectively).

I'd agree that Gaddis and Flann O'Brien aren't very well known among average readers, but that only points out the cult-author paradox that makes these overrated/underrated debates futile: people who are familiar with their work claim they're the greatest writers of all time!

I'd add that I think they're both amazing writers, regardless of their "rating."

[Summer M]

Today it is the American Nobel prize winner Sinclair Lewis. When I was in college in the 1960s, his novels were hard to come by, and 50 years later I haven't seen his works in the book stores.

Academia feels his novels outdated so he wont be rediscovered as was Scott Fitzgerald. How many of you on this forum have read Main Street, Babbitt, Elmer Gantry, Arrowsmith, Doddsworth, It Can't Happen Here, et al.

!

Lewis was a genius, and his works were brilliant tragicomic portraits of American society. It's a shame he's been forgotten, because so much of what he's written is relevant today.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Bukowksi!

[Jack of Hearts]

The Buk getting pissed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUeGsTjIj0A)







J

[tonywalt]

Bukowski (books and poetry)

Raymond Carver.

Also David Foster Wallace never got the commercial success he should have gotten (albeit tons of critical acclaim)

Lorrie Moore one of the better authors out there but has not written a whole lot.

[GatorAbe]

Richard Yates

What a loss it would've been had the recent movie Revolutionary Road, or the republication of his short stories into a single volume, or oddly enough, Toa Lin titling his most recent novel Richard Yates not brought the deserved attention to his works.

For his period, I'd put his short stories right up there with the likes of Cheever and Carver (also underrated.) and his singular short stories collections, especially Liars in Love, up there with other famous 20th century collections such as Tales from the Jazz Age, Flappers & Philosphers, Dubliners, and In Our Time.

I've also always thought Yates served as an invisible transition point between F. Scott Fitzgerald 1920's works and Carver, Ford, and Russo more minimalistic styles. His sentences and story structure beckon Fitzgerald yet he shaves away a lot of Fitzgerald's loftier language and moments, seemingly easing the way for the purely minimalistic methods Carver was famous for.

[stlukesguild]

Bukowksi!

Mutatis... I think you posted him in the wrong thread. You surely must have intended to place him in the "Most Overrated Writers" thread.:p

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Bukowksi!

Mutatis... I think you posted him in the wrong thread. You surely must have intended to place him in the "Most Overrated Writers" thread.:p

Yeah, you're right. Ayn Rand definitely deserves to be mentioned here, though!

[Anymodal]

To bang my usual drum, I have long since come to the conclusion that Tolkien is the greatest writer of the 20th century, and it continually surprises me that he is not recognized as such. Feel free to pelt me with rancid tomatoes, or whatever makes you happy, for challenging the orthodoxy.


I don't think he is the greatest, but I agree that he was underrated for a long time.
Also I think Dino Buzzati deserves more recognition.

[stlukesguild]

Somehow... once again... reading your words while looking at your avatar... it all makes perfect sense.

[Anymodal]

Why the agression

And what do you think is wrong with what I said. I shouldn't be asking, of course you should explain yourself if you disagreed

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He may have been referring to me while you posted in the interrum. Peter Griffin does say a lot of stupid stuff, after all.

[Anymodal]

You are right. Sorry stlukesguild

[Kyriakos]

Maybe Arthur Machen, although he has written his own share of not so good books...
But i think he deserved to be on the same level of fame as Lovecraft, and he definitely is not.

[Motherof8]

George Eliot seems a bit underrated to me.

[crusoe]

George Eliot seems a bit underrated to me.

I second that my dear, indeed I do.

[Raven Falcon.]

Dante is quite underrated these days.

[Lokasenna]

I'm not sure either George Eliot or Dante are underrated! Both are tremendously popular, and rightly so.

George Eliot continues to be one of the leading writers of the Victorian period, and one who holds popular appeal even among the non-academic - Middlemarch is often held up as one of the finest novels ever written. And as for Dante, well, he's universally considered one of the most important writers ever, in any language. Surely?

They are rather far removed from the other people on this list!

[Anymodal]

How is Dante underrated?? He is among the 5 greatest writers of all time according to almost everyone

[crusoe]

I'm not sure either George Eliot or Dante are underrated! Both are tremendously popular, and rightly so.



WHERE besides the UK is Eliot tremendously popular ?
Yes, in certain circles Dante IS popular, for all the others that
name is just an Olive Oil-Brand...

[Alexander III]

Yes, in certain circles Dante IS popular, for all the others that
name is just an Olive Oil-Brand...

I remember St.Lukes used to have a signature with an Ovid quote: "There is no difference between the man who does not read good books and the man who cannot read good books". And I agree with him. The majority of our western population is illiterate, and it would be cruel and unjust to expect more from them. But amongst the literate community, I have yet to hear anyone who would claim that Dante is not amongst Literature's finest. Of course one could say that anglo-phones value Shakespeare above Dante too much, but then again calling Napoleon a greater general than Alexander, or vice versa is hardly over or underrating one or the other.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There is a brand of olive oil named Dante?

[Desolation]

Yes, Dante and George Eliot are monstrously under-rated.

...Just like Homer, William Shakespeare, Gustave Flaubert, Jane Austen, Leo Tolstoy, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, and John Steinbeck.

[Kyriakos]

:D You forgot Kafka and Dostoevsky :)

But seriously, some writers can indeed be said to be underrated. It is just that the thread, as specified in the OP, cannot focus while remaining practical on the most underrated, since they will be virtually unknown. So some degree of fame can be had for a writer, and he can still be deemed underrated.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I actually thought of one. Daniel Abraham. He's an excellent fantasy writer--too good to attain the fame he deserves, apparently.

[JCamilo]

Well, if someone thinks Dante is the greatest writer ever, being one of the "5" is underating him. :D

But there is a big number of canonical writers that are "Underated". For example, Virgil. Desolation didnt joke about him (or Ovid). And the notion of classic, for like 1500 years was basically : writing as well as Virgil. It is him the classical bigger influence, not homer.

We have Voltaire. Sure, everyone knows him and quote him. But this is Oscar Wilde. Voltaire was just the intelectual center of europe, not just one comic in the stages. Unlike Wilde well crafted buffonery, Voltaire did those things while changing the way the entire europe thought. And his prose? Get Candide and you have the same perfect Flaubert always looked for and apparently Voltaire did it while joking about, not suffering. Even the entire romantic french movement who hated him could not say a word about his prose.

And thinking about Voltaire, it is abusive how french playwriters like Racine or Moliere are left behind. The same goes for Lope de Vega. What, only Shakespeare can survive? And Pushikin? It needs to be either Dostoievisky or Tolstoy? It is not like those guys are unknow like Camoes, Pessoa or Machado de Assis because of the portuguese. It is just because they are seems as dated, fashions, etc.

[Anymodal]

But there is a big number of canonical writers that are "Underated". For example, Virgil. Desolation didnt joke about him (or Ovid). And the notion of classic, for like 1500 years was basically : writing as well as Virgil. It is him the classical bigger influence, not homer.
I largely disagree that Virgil was the classical bigger influence in any period. No one has greater influence than Homer, for anyone who studied Virgil read first Homer :P


We have Voltaire. Sure, everyone knows him and quote him. But this is Oscar Wilde. Voltaire was just the intelectual center of europe, not just one comic in the stages. Unlike Wilde well crafted buffonery, Voltaire did those things while changing the way the entire europe thought. And his prose? Get Candide and you have the same perfect Flaubert always looked for and apparently Voltaire did it while joking about, not suffering. Even the entire romantic french movement who hated him could not say a word about his prose.

And thinking about Voltaire, it is abusive how french playwriters like Racine or Moliere are left behind. The same goes for Lope de Vega. What, only Shakespeare can survive? And Pushikin? It needs to be either Dostoievisky or Tolstoy? It is not like those guys are unknow like Camoes, Pessoa or Machado de Assis because of the portuguese. It is just because they are seems as dated, fashions, etc.
I didn't know Voltaire was seen as just one comic and not fully apreciated. In any case I think he is one the big writers too.

[JCamilo]

It is not true that people studied Homer then virgil. Latin was more accessible and influential than greek and Homer was pretty much lost for most of medieval age. You can easily say Virgil contribution to Homer immortality is imense. He is the reference for most of scholars, as you can see Dante picking him ahead of homer, Bewoulf being a germanic attempt at Virgil and and leibniz picking Aeneid as the perfect book.

I mean Wilde being the comic author, not Voltaire. He took too seriously his dramas (a bit too much).

[OrphanPip]

I largely disagree that Virgil was the classical bigger influence in any period. No one has greater influence than Homer, for anyone who studied Virgil read first Homer :P

This isn't necessarily true because Latin was widely known and Virgil was preserved through the Middle Ages in Europe, and continued to be read, Homer didn't get reintroduced into Europe until the 1450s, and Greek didn't become widely known amongst the educated until the 1520-50s or so. That being said, those writers who took Virgil as their initial model (like Dante for instance, who only knew of Homer secondhand from Roman sources, like many of the Greeks that he name drops) would have encountered the influence of Homer through Virgil.

Before the reintroduction of Homer by the Byzantine scholars who escaped the Turkish invasion by fleeing west to Italy, Homer was only available in fragments of the Iliad in Latin translation. The Odyssey was completely unknown to Western audiences at the time.

[namenlose]

Virgil was more directly influential than Homer since the summit of his fame to the ends of the Enlightenment, but it does not mean he is necessarily better than him or more important to the formation of the poetic tradition. Since Homer is one of the prime fountains of western culture, comparable to the Bible and Plato, it is arguable that his indirect influence may have been even greater than the literary relevance of Virgil, even if he was the main model for perfection of verse and poetic authority for a greater period of European history.

[Anymodal]

Your arguments seem reasonable to me. I didn't take into account the situation of the translations. It's a very interesting subject. It left me wondering, and there is no article in wikipedia about the translations of Homer, if anyone has any good link please post it.

[JCamilo]

Borges has one "Versions of Homer', just being Borges made it a good reading. For the most part, the classical translation in england is Champman, Marlowe, Pope, etc.

This show how much Virgil is lost. People talk as if he is just the continuity of Homer and not the guy who defines more what epic tradition is. All you think of epic, the national poetry, already less religious, founded on writing tradition we find in Virgil, not in the oral storytelling of Homer. This does not make Homer worst or less important, but Virgil still the classical tradition not homer (And btw, there is excellent room for Virgil merits over Homer. Not about influence.) and the fact homer came first would not make him more influential than Virgil, just like Lentini is no more than Petrarch.

[stlukesguild]

Well, if someone thinks Dante is the greatest writer ever, being one of the "5" is underating him.:biggrin5:

Well... I'm one of those who would place Shakespeare above Dante... relegating him to a "lowly" second place... but I would place the Comedia above any other single work of literature... including anything by Shakespeare.

But there is a big number of canonical writers that are "Underated"...

We have Voltaire. Sure, everyone knows him and quote him. But this is Oscar Wilde. Voltaire was just the intelectual center of europe, not just one comic in the stages. Unlike Wilde well crafted buffonery, Voltaire did those things while changing the way the entire europe thought. And his prose? Get Candide and you have the same perfect(ion) Flaubert always looked for and apparently Voltaire did it while joking about, not suffering. Even the entire romantic french movement who hated him could not say a word about his prose.

I agree with everything here... except for your underestimating Oscar Wilde:nonod: Voltaire is grossly underrated in the English-speaking world... largely, one suspects, because of the tensions or animosities that existed between England and France during that period of time. Looking at the collections of the Louvre and the National Gallery of London you will discover that both the great French and British museums house little by the most important artists of their rival nation from the same period as when Voltaire lived.

And thinking about Voltaire, it is abusive how French playwriters like Racine or Moliere are left behind. The same goes for Lope de Vega. What, only Shakespeare can survive? And Pushikin? It needs to be either Dostoievisky or Tolstoy? It is not like those guys are unknow like Camoes, Pessoa or Machado de Assis because of the portuguese. It is just because they are seems as dated, fashions, etc.

I actually think Racine, Moliere, and even Cornielle... to say nothing of Montaigne, Diderot, and Rousseau have all fared better than Voltaire... at least in terms of availability of quality translations in English. I agree that they are grossly underrated on LitNet... as is Pushkin and Checkov and Pasternak (Yes! It always has to be Dostoevsky... the favorite of young self-styled Bohemians who have moved on from Catcher in the Rye and Bukowski). I agree that Luís de Camões and Machado de Assis... and even Pessoa are all greatly underrated due to the fact that they wrote in Portuguese... where Garcia Lorca, Neruda, Borges, Cortazar, Octavio Paz, Antonio Machado... and even older writers such as Fernado de Rojas, Calderon, and San Juan de la Cruz have benefited from the large Hispanic population in the US... and the increasing ties between the US and Latin America. Perhaps the increased trade between the Americas will result in a greater recognition and appreciation of Portuguese/Brazilian literature and culture. Jose Sarmago opened the door to a serious recognition of Portuguese literature... maybe when Brazil gets the Olympics in another four years we'll see more of an interest in Brazilian culture... beyond Carnaval and Brazilian porno:lol:

[JCamilo]

And thinking about Voltaire, it is abusive how French playwriters like Racine or Moliere are left behind. The same goes for Lope de Vega. What, only Shakespeare can survive? And Pushikin? It needs to be either Dostoievisky or Tolstoy? It is not like those guys are unknow like Camoes, Pessoa or Machado de Assis because of the portuguese. It is just because they are seems as dated, fashions, etc.

I actually think Racine, Moliere, and even Cornielle... to say nothing of Montaigne, Diderot, and Rousseau have all fared better than Voltaire... at least in terms of availability of quality translations in English. I agree that they are grossly underrated on LitNet...

I think Voltaire has a continual publishing life, I recall a list saying he is one of the top 10 censored authors in america :lol:

The thing, he is even quite popular, as he was a jack-of-all-trades and french had an epigrams strong tradition, Voltaire ends popular in the internet age, even if his most quoted line is not his. But he ended treated as a philosopher without philosophy, a poem and drama writer of no substance, a buffon, a elitist...




as is Pushkin and Checkov and Pasternak (Yes! It always has to be Dostoevsky... the favorite of young self-styled Bohemians who have moved on from Catcher in the Rye and Bukowski).

The thing is that they build the golden age of russian literature as if it started with Tolstoy vs. Dostoievisky, leaving behind gogol, turgueniev and of course, the true starter and one of the most versatiles russian authors, Pushkin, out of it. And he is incridible popular, don't know how he is so easily missed.


I agree that Luís de Camões and Machado de Assis... and even Pessoa are all greatly underrated due to the fact that they wrote in Portuguese... where Garcia Lorca, Neruda, Borges, Cortazar, Octavio Paz, Antonio Machado... and even older writers such as Fernado de Rojas, Calderon, and San Juan de la Cruz have benefited from the large Hispanic population in the US... and the increasing ties between the US and Latin America. Perhaps the increased trade between the Americas will result in a greater recognition and appreciation of Portuguese/Brazilian literature and culture. Jose Sarmago opened the door to a serious recognition of Portuguese literature... maybe when Brazil gets the Olympics in another four years we'll see more of an interest in Brazilian culture... beyond Carnaval and Brazilian porno:lol:

They are so massively uknown. Camoes sonnets are Petrach level - he is probally the best petrarchian sonnet writer i even see and most people mention only Lusiadas. But it is Pornochanchada, because there is always music. And comedy.

[namenlose]

This show how much Virgil is lost. People talk as if he is just the continuity of Homer and not the guy who defines more what epic tradition is. All you think of epic, the national poetry, already less religious, founded on writing tradition we find in Virgil, not in the oral storytelling of Homer. This does not make Homer worst or less important, but Virgil still the classical tradition not homer (And btw, there is excellent room for Virgil merits over Homer. Not about influence.) and the fact homer came first would not make him more influential than Virgil, just like Lentini is no more than Petrarch.

Of course Virgil can be compared to Homer in his merits, and the epic tradition, principally in later European models, followed mainly his model. Although in a lesser level, the same could be said about The Eclogues and The Georgics, which were of great importance in defining the form of all the lyrical poetry which followed them in Europe, in spite of their lack of popularity in our days. In my own personal opinion – and in that of many other great literary figures in the past of humanity –, the formal qualities of his works are practically unmatched, even though he had much more for him. His narrative consistency, verse structure, domain of poetic voice and authority, as well as his consolidation of both the lyrical and epic genres are great achievements that could be paralleled to that of Homer. I am in complete accordance with your argument that his works are much more distant to the general public today than those of Homer. His direct impact in the works of modern authors is certainly much smaller than it was some centuries ago, and his importance is rarely wholly recognized. Although respected, he is seldom read, and even the respect he receives is not entirely true to his real worth.

However, Homer has also many merits of his own, which are also comparable to those of Virgil. As you pointed out, he is not the consolidator of western tradition, but he is one of its main sources, which does not mean only that he came first, but that he stands out enough in his influence above subsequent works. Even The Aeneid reflects him in many aspects, and many of the major components of the epic genre, as well as of Greek and general literature as a whole, were developed by him. In characterization he would hardly be considered inferior to Virgil. Achilles, Hector and Odysseus are possibly greater characters than any figure by him, and their individual reputation and influence is greater than that of Aeneas. However, I don’t think either poet is certainly greater than the other. In my opinion, they both are practically equal figures and it would be difficult for me to choose one over the other.

[namenlose]

Camoes sonnets are Petrach level - he is probally the best petrarchian sonnet writer i even see and most people mention only Lusiadas.

I don't know if I would say he is the best, but one of the best certainly. It would be difficult to find a poet with a greater and more evident presence in his language's literature than Camoes. Even Fernando Pessoa, easily one of the best writers in Portuguese of any age, draw much of his poetic merit from his response to the aesthetics of his works, both resonating and exceeding his influence.

[JCamilo]

Yes, Pessoa was somehow forced to build his universe avoiding Camoes central figure. Each side of camoes surrounded by one of his personas.

As Virgil, he is victim of of his own central status. When the romantic generation started to look for a different tradition, Virgil figure was so central that all they had to do was avoiding him. Apparently hard due to his influence, but not so much, as they could work with those like Dante, who was around virgil influence, but not exactly him. No need to praise the real Virgil if you have the fictional guide of Dante. A bit of trojan horse :D

[namenlose]

As Virgil, he is victim of of his own central status. When the romantic generation started to look for a different tradition, Virgil figure was so central that all they had to do was avoiding him. Apparently hard due to his influence, but not so much, as they could work with those like Dante, who was around virgil influence, but not exactly him. No need to praise the real Virgil if you have the fictional guide of Dante. A bit of trojan horse :biggrin5:

Indeed :lol:

Milton had a similar influence over the english romantics, who were more influenced by Paradise Lost and his other works than writers of previous ages. Even Lucretius, although probably indirectly, seems to have had a greater influence in the poetic style of english literature since the romantic tradition, when the use of poetic voice became more personal and authors like Shelley and in a later moment Whitman adopted skeptical and even epicurean perspectives in their poetry.

And since we talked about brazilian literature, a writer who is a little unknown due to his use of word plays and poetical style is Guimarães Rosa. He is yet widely respected among a considerable part of the brazilian public, being judged by many as the best brazilian novelist after Machado de Assis, but "Grande Sertão: Veredas" is not as read as The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas and Dom Casmurro. Considering his experimental language, it's fairly improbable that his fame would be favored by translations.

[TheFifthElement]

Every woman who ever wrote anything.

[JCamilo]

Indeed :lol:

Milton had a similar influence over the english romantics, who were more influenced by Paradise Lost and his other works than writers of previous ages. Even Lucretius, although probably indirectly, seems to have had a greater influence in the poetic style of english literature since the romantic tradition, when the use of poetic voice became more personal and authors like Shelley and in a later moment Whitman adopted skeptical and even epicurean perspectives in their poetry.

And since we talked about brazilian literature, a writer who is a little unknown due to his use of word plays and poetical style is Guimarães Rosa. He is yet widely respected among a considerable part of the brazilian public, being judged by many as the best brazilian novelist after Machado de Assis, but "Grande Sertão: Veredas" is not as read as The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas and Dom Casmurro. Considering his experimental language, it's fairly improbable that his fame would be favored by translations.

The thing about Guimarães is that he, being so erudite, is also quite popular. In his city, kids guide tourists storytelling his main stories. It is quite a feat. However, I think he faces a similar translation fate as most portuguese writers, be then Machado de Assis or poets like Drummond. A new program from brazilian governament is giving incentives for translations of brazilians aboard. This will help as Rosa has already some following on France and Germany (he goes well enough in english to be listed among the 100 best novels of XX century by, i think NY Times, with Sagarana) but if even Eça de Queiroz, that alive had a reputation even with Zola, is basically forgotten, there is not much hope towards someone as Rosa.

[mal4mac]

I count an author as underrated if they make me sit up and shout, "I know he has a good reputation, but I didn't think he would be that good!" Some books that had that effect on me:

Thomas Mann - Buddenbrooks, the Magic Mountain
Fernando Pessoa - Book of Disquiet
Chekhov - Short stories

[Venerable Bede]

Every woman who ever wrote anything.

Really? I would hardly say that Jane Austen, George Eliot, Virginia Woolf and Mary Shelley (to name a few) are underrated. They appear in any discussion of great novelists.

[Pierre Menard]

I have to add another nod to Pessoa.

I've been blown away by The Book of Disquiet and his poetry (what I've read of it so far) is also excellent. A writer I feel one could truly say is 'unique'.

[PeterL]

The very most underrated is almost certainly someone that none of us have ever heard of.

Of the ones I know, G.C. Edmondson is certainly the least recognised great writer.

[crusoe]

There is a brand of olive oil named Dante?

yes, even with "his head" on the label. And if you don't like his works, you can toss him on your salad. At last a writer with a real use, hahahaha

[crusoe]

I remember St.Lukes used to have a signature with an Ovid quote: "There is no difference between the man who does not read good books and the man who cannot read good books". And I agree with him. The majority of our western population is illiterate, and it would be cruel and unjust to expect more from them. But amongst the literate community, I have yet to hear anyone who would claim that Dante is not amongst Literature's finest. Of course one could say that anglo-phones value Shakespeare above Dante too much, but then again calling Napoleon a greater general than Alexander, or vice versa is hardly over or underrating one or the other.

What "literate Community" ? There are many. The Cyberpunk "Literary Community" would p..s on your statement and the 19th Century french Naturalists wouldn't give one fig about your Dante...so ?
Hype, Turds and circling flies....hey, that's a great title for my upcoming Dante Olive-Oil Biography.
Get off the hype:lol:

[crusoe]

Yes, Dante and George Eliot are monstrously under-rated.


Reading her name in a crossword-puzzle isn't exactly "over-rated"...:nopity:

[WICKES]

I agree with everything here... except for your underestimating Oscar Wilde:nonod: Voltaire is grossly underrated in the English-speaking world... largely, one suspects, because of the tensions or animosities that existed between England and France during that period of time. Looking at the collections of the Louvre and the National Gallery of London you will discover that both the great French and British museums house little by the most important artists of their rival nation from the same period as when Voltaire lived.

Candide blew me away. I just couldn't believe (and still find it hard to believe) that that novel was written in 1759. It could have been written yesterday. In fact, I think it's still ahead of its time.

Wilde is an interesting figure. He divides the room. I remember seeing the professor of poetry at Oxford (an Irishman) on an arts review show talking about Wilde. He thought him absurdly over[I]rated. In fact, he thought only one work would survive and that was the Ballad of Reading Gaol. I'm in no position to judge, but I do think Wilde is revered as much for what he symbolizes to people as for what he wrote. I live in England, where everything, from kids TV to newspapers etc have been dumbed down over the last few decades. Life is increasingly shallow, crude, aggressive, ugly and materialistic. Things seem to be speeding up as well: there are more and more people, houses, noise and distractions. In such a world, Wilde seems like a refuge- a little oasis of elegance, class and civilization. He gives people a world of ultra sophisticated, intelligent people who have wonderfully urbane, civilized conversations in beautiful, polished language. We have two successful TV dramas running here atm, both set in the Edwardian period (one is a dramatisation of Parade's End). It is as if people are yearning for a more peaceful and civilized time. I don't know if it's the same in places like the USA, France and Canada?

I kind of share that logning. But I prefer Aldous Huxley to Wilde. His early novels give you all the brilliant conversation and wit you could ever want. But Huxley, though he certainly knew his literature, never gets carried away into aestheticism. Huxley was a true polymath who knew his science as thoroughly as his literature. This was a guy who got a first in Literature at Oxford, but who was descended from T H Huxley (Darwin's closest ally) and was the brother of Julian Huxley, one of the most important evolutionary biologists of the mid 20th century. And it shows. He has an amazing, dazzling breadth of knowledge and is just endlessly exciting. But I think it's his profound knowledge of science [I]as well as literature that sets him apart. Most great writers know their literature, but few are also first class scientists.

I heard someone on the radio just yesterday say that, in his opinion, J G Ballard was the most important novelist in the English language of the late 20th century and one of the few who would stand the test of time. I've never read a word of him myself.

[Alexander III]

I saw this on the interwebz today and thought it would be nice to share:


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma1jls5Iap1qe7dlao1_1280.jpg

[Pierre Menard]

^^^
Haha, that is great. Where did you find it Alex?


A girl I quite like recently told me she loved Bukowski. Fortunately her excellent taste in film balanced that out. :p

[tonywalt]

I'd love to meet a girl who loves Bukowski! They must be at least extremely cool, if not - then so much more!

[Alexander III]

^^^
Haha, that is great. Where did you find it Alex?


A girl I quite like recently told me she loved Bukowski. Fortunately her excellent taste in film balanced that out. :p

http://9gag.com/

Also I think that signature of yours is awfully pretty, who wrote that? Was it you? If so bravo that was very good.

[Kyriakos]

In a way it was him, since it is by Borges :)

[Pierre Menard]

Also I think that signature of yours is awfully pretty, who wrote that? Was it you? If so bravo that was very good.


Oh no, not me. I wish. As Kyriakos said, it's by Borges and one of my favourite quotes from the Argentinian master.



In a way it was him, since it is by Borges :)

I almost went to 'like' that comment. I've been on facebook too much today!

[Anymodal]

There is an Argentine, Domingo Sarmiento, who is considered one of the founders of our literature. He wrote "Facundo. Civilización y barbarie" (Fauncdo. Civilization and Barbarism). It was ment as a work of politics, but it turned out to be a master work of literature. Now it is a classic of Argentina, but I think he is underrated a little bit because it's unknown in other places. I think 'Facundo' deserves to be read more in other continents.
Here is an essay I found in google if you are curious to read more about it http://home.uchicago.edu/~aabbott/barbpapers/barbsarm.pdf

I think I'll make a thread about Sarmiento soon

[stlukesguild]

Alex is right. That translation of Borges is a bit stilted. I prefer the translations from DreamTigers... Borges' personal favorite collection undertaken while Borges was in the US and with his oversight. Not a huge difference... but it seems to flow better to me. Then again... it's a translation I have lived with for a good many years... so I may be biased:

Few things have happened to me, and I have read a great many. Or rather, few things have happened to me more worth remembering than Schopenhauer's thought and the music of England's words.

A man sets himself the task of portraying the world. Through the years he peoples a space with images of provinces, kingdoms, mountains, bays, ships, islands, fishes, rooms, instruments, stars, horses, and people. Shortly before his death he discovers that the patient labyrinth of lines traces the image of his face.

[Pierre Menard]

I actually agree with you StLukes. I believe Dreamtigers offers the best translation of Borges' prose that I've read (I don't have access to the Di Giovanni ones), however the translated quote in my sig was one of the first Borges quotes I saw and loved and it was in that translation so I have a weird connection to it.

[wordeater]

Dorothy L. Sayers

[Chris 73]

I actually thought of one. Daniel Abraham. He's an excellent fantasy writer--too good to attain the fame he deserves, apparently.

Most people who've read 'The Long Price Quartet' really do rate it highly(myself included). Unfortunately it didn't sell at all well and so his follow up 'The Dragons Path' whilst decent, was rather more generic and thus less interesting. Still a writer to watch for the future though.

For the umpteenth time I will champion Daniel Woodrell, 'Winter's Bone' is a modern classic.

[Emil Miller]

Dorothy L. Sayers

Dorothy L. Sayers work is that of a crime novelist and within the genre I don't think she is underrated. It's always difficult to take such authors seriously even though there have been some notable prose writers among them. Raymond Chandler is one who occasionally bucks the trend but, allowing for the fact that he is sometimes mentioned as a literary icon, he doesn't transcend the field in which he chose to write.

[ladderandbucket]

For the umpteenth time I will champion Daniel Woodrell, 'Winter's Bone' is a modern classic.
I agree, Winter's Bone is a great book. I also enjoyed The Outlaw Album and plan to read a lot more of his work in the future.

I will nominate Antoine de St-Exupery...not underrated but I think often overlooked. Possibly because he is most famous for a children's book, The Little Prince, or maybe because he was just not very prolific. His book Wind, Sand and Stars is a masterpiece and Flight to Arras should be up there with the best WW2 writing.

Robinson Jeffers wrote some astonishing poetry in the early 20th century. He fell out of favour for political reasons and most of his books are out of print now. Again, he is not underrated by those who have read him but I think he deserves wider recognition.

[Corona]

Since I happen to be Italian, I would like to cite Lorenzo Calogero as one of the best poets of the 20th century.
He may not have been as famous as Ungaretti, Quasimodo and Montale, but Calogero at his best was not inferior to them by any means and he surely is worth a study upon.
Another couple of italian poets underrated are Guido Gozzano and Dino Campana - check his "Canti Orfici" out - .
Anyway, it's difficult saying who's the most underrated writer ever, simply because it depends on what you mean by that.
I listed the previous writers because they are not much known even in my country, although there are entusiastic statements by both critics and poets about them.
And what about Carmelo Bene? Outside from France and Italy he probably wasn't very much known, not even after people like Gilles Deleuze and Manganaro wrote entire essays about his work.

[stlukesguild]

Well... if Lorenzo Calogero is even just as good as Montale from time to time I would agree he is very much under-rated. Unfortunately he is also unavailable in English.

Gozzano has a couple of books in English translation, and Campana's Canti Orfici was translated quite decently some 15 or so years ago... and from what I remember, it was indeed a worthy bit of poetry.

[Corona]

Well... if Lorenzo Calogero is even just as good as Montale from time to time I would agree he is very much under-rated. Unfortunately he is also unavailable in English.

Gozzano has a couple of books in English translation, and Campana's Canti Orfici was translated quite decently some 15 or so years ago... and from what I remember, it was indeed a worthy bit of poetry.

Yeah, I just recently came across Calogero's poetry and I really believe it's weird he's yet to be known even in Italy. Montale and Ungaretti were themselves great admirers of him, and Ungaretti even claimed Calogero with his poetry scaled them all down!
From what I can tell his style is quite unique, a lot different from Montale's

[Kant]

I nominate two. First, Rex Stout. Not counting the African Queen, and merely reading the Nero Wolfe books, he is easily the most underrated murder mystery writer. Yes, the characters are a bit static, and the plots are slightly systematic, but for entertainment value there are non better.

Second, C.S. Forester. Hornblower kicks all kinds of French boot-ay. His characters are dynamic, the plots fun and exciting, vocabulary diverse, and action scenes intense. Totally dig the Hornblower series.

[WICKES]

Philip Larkin. Perhaps the finest poet to have come out the British isles in the second half of the 20th century.