The overlooked masterpieces

[gar_nichts]

I often found that among the works of renowned writers,the most impressive ones always belong to the less famous group,let along popular.

For example,Villette,while being mature and profound,has long been overshadowed by Jane Eyre,and usually misunderstood as a mere autobiographical record instead of an intricate,yet delicate work of art.The power of the protagonist is painfully astounding as well as intellectually provoking,with a hint of existential thought,which,concerning Charlotte's identity as a mid-victorian female,was daring and rare.

As far as I know,Coriolanus is the least mentioned Shakespearean tragedy alongside Timon.Few people read it for assignment,and even fewer read it for pleasure(even though Coriolanus was my personal favorite,I have to admit that it was not a comfortable reading experience).Many readers seem to find the hero brutal and arbitrary,thus feeling reluctant to empathize with him.But since when did tragic defects reduce the effects of a tragedy?Is hubris(in various forms) not supposed to be the core of all tragic heroes?And I don't think the Macbeths or Lear at the beginning of the play or Iago or even Othello when killing Desdemona hold any moral superiority over Coriolanus,still they're way more popular,having their names quoted in the papers of English students all over the world. Fame is just so unfair.

My favorite writer,Dostoevsky,shared the same fate.When he was alive,his most provoking works,like Notes From the Underground and The Possessed,were often simply ignored or ruthlessly attacked by his contemporary critics.When The Grand Inquisitor was first posted,nobody considered it as significant.It was only after his death his true literary(and philosophical) achievements were rightly admitted,even then people only paid attention to works like Crime and Punishment(with the exciting plot etc.),and forgot excellent novellas like The Sentence and The Meek One on the shelf.

These are the overlooked masterpieces I can think of by now.Any one share some similar reading experience?

[Poetaster]

Mason and Dixon by Thomas Pynchon is one massively overlooked masterpiece.

[Marbles]

There is an argument, or a belief if you will, among the appreciators of literature that, thanks to collective human wisdom, 'the best and the bright' always come up at the top in time, even if they were neglected and dismissed at the time of publication, and continued to be overlooked for long after the writer's death.

The other part of the belief says that the books thrust with great publicity and congratulatory plaudits, and therefore massive sales, are relegated to the dustbin of history not long after the initial excitement wears off and this happens because the work has little or no literary merit, and was only lauded in the first place for the wrong reasons (political reasons, for reasons of whatever is in vogue in a particular time etc).

There is no doubt that most literature produced during any given period is of the throwaway variety, but if the above is true, how can a book be a literary masterpiece and persists to remain in relative obscurity for much after as long a time it takes for the best to come up and the mediocre to go down?

How long, in your opinion, does it take a masterpiece to be recognised and celebrated and a heap of nothing to be dismissed and forgotten?

[Marbles]

Bad internet connection. It made two copies of the same post. So I am editing this one with the explanation.

[Aylinn]

How long, in your opinion, does it take a masterpiece to be recognised and celebrated and a heap of nothing to be dismissed and forgotten?

I think the problem with literature reminding overlooked is that there are far fewer serious literature readers than average readers, so I guess it is probably luck how quickly someone who is able to fully appreciate the book/books will read it and to how many people she or he will recommend it/them, and then how many of them will read it/them and like it/them.

[R.F. Schiller]

The Real Life of Sebastian Knight by Vladimir Nabokov. This novel was ignored when first published and still is pretty much ignored nowadays, put I think it is one of his best. It did have a few high-profile supporters though. It was Nabokov's friend Edmund Wilson's favourite out of all his works as well as Flannery O'Connor's (she wrote a blurb on my edition).

[stlukesguild]

There is an argument, or a belief if you will, among the appreciators of literature that, thanks to collective human wisdom, 'the best and the bright' always come up at the top in time, even if they were neglected and dismissed at the time of publication, and continued to be overlooked for long after the writer's death.

The closest we may come to an objective opinion as to what is or is not a "great" work of art is to be found in the collective opinions of those who have the most invested in the appreciation, presentation, preservation, etc... of art. This group would be comprised of "experts", professionals, and academics; subsequent artists, and well-informed art lovers. Some works of art may be deemed little more than "period pieces". They speak eloquently to the audience of a given time and place... but soon appear dated. Certain artists and certain works of art are judged as greater or less so by one era than another. This is often due to the fact that the work/artist is seen as more or less important to the tradition/values of that given era. The Modernists... following T.S. Eliot, placed greater value upon the Metaphysical Poets than upon the Romantics... because they shared similar sensibilities. A work of literature may also be overlooked due to a lack of accessibility. A poet writing in Polish, Hungarian, Czech, Norwegian, Dutch... even Russian... will be quite handicapped in comparison to a poet writing in French, German, Italian, Spanish, or English... due largely to the dearth of qualified translators. This ties into the reality that some stages are bigger than others. Had Michelangelo been born in the Ukraine or Transylvania and painted the same frescoes upon church walls there he would in no way rank as highly as he now does. The private chapel of the Pope in Rome was a very big stage that brought his work exposure to endless subsequent artists. Shakespeare, writing in English... the language of two nations that would long dominate Western... and world culture... had an advantage over nearly any Spanish, German, Polish, Russian, etc... writer.

The other part of the belief says that the books thrust with great publicity and congratulatory plaudits, and therefore massive sales, are relegated to the dustbin of history not long after the initial excitement wears off and this happens because the work has little or no literary merit...

Popularity has little or nothing to do with artistic merit... for or against. The idea that something popular cannot be great is as stupid as the idea that because something is popular it must be great.

How long, in your opinion, does it take a masterpiece to be recognised and celebrated and a heap of nothing to be dismissed and forgotten?

Generally, the longer something survives, the greater the likelihood that its reputation is well deserved. It is hard to offer anything at all approaching an objective judgment of something from our own time. It takes time for the hype and marketing and other external influences to leave off. It also takes time in order to be able to discern what was truly "original" from mere "novelties" or "gimmicks".

[Oedipus]

The interesting thing is the way in which some authors (and this really applies to music as well, or other arts), gain a great reputation among the fans of the art in question but do not "cross-over" into widespread popularity, while others do. For example, while the average person on the street probably couldn't name them, Fernando Pessoa and Bruno Schulz have very good reputations among those who have read them. I think it is fairly common for the 'discovery' or 'rehabilitation' of an obscure author to occur; but the 'cross-over' seems to need to happen soon after death -- unless another hugely popular figure is responsible.

[JCamilo]

My favorite writer,Dostoevsky,shared the same fate.When he was alive,his most provoking works,like Notes From the Underground and The Possessed,were often simply ignored or ruthlessly attacked by his contemporary critics.When The Grand Inquisitor was first posted,nobody considered it as significant.It was only after his death his true literary(and philosophical) achievements were rightly admitted,even then people only paid attention to works like Crime and Punishment(with the exciting plot etc.),and forgot excellent novellas like The Sentence and The Meek One on the shelf.

These are the overlooked masterpieces I can think of by now.Any one share some similar reading experience?

I do not think Dostoieviski fits your example. Most of his career he was considered a sentimental writer, writing popular novels, not a genius at all. After his death, some works were considered his main works, usually Brothers K, Crime and Punishment, Notes from Underground, The Idiot and The Possessed, whcih are very representative and explamples of his best works. Perhaps the missing "masterpiece" , a minor one, is Bobok, a bit unique work from him, not his usual psychological realism.

This can be an example with Melville, his whale devours books like Billy Budd, Benito Cereno, minor works close to M.Dick, but very good books. Kakfa too, Metamorphosis and The Process often clouds The Castle and his short stories (which are his best works in my opinion). Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights get in the way of her poetry too.

[stlukesguild]

...the average person on the street probably couldn't name... Fernando Pessoa...

The average person is irrelevant when it comes to the arts. The average person likely doesn't invest much in the appreciation of art. The average person... the masses... have a huge impact upon the initial sales of certain works of art... Pop Music and popular fiction and films... but they have little impact upon what art survives over time. The average person or the masses simply aren't interested. The voices that matter in the survival of art are an elective affinity... those who choose that art, music, literature, architecture, film, etc... matters... and put forth the effort in terms of time, thought, and money needed to support the arts.

[country doctor]

Mason and Dixon by Thomas Pynchon is one massively overlooked masterpiece.


great news! the doc picked this up a couple of weeks ago at a local library used book sale...a bag of books for five bucks! but that's another story...a quite good one, though...

put it on the winter to-read list...

right now, general lit chatters?

'infinite jest'...picked up at typed book sale...

good stuff, to be sure...

[JCamilo]

...the average person on the street probably couldn't name... Fernando Pessoa...

The average person is irrelevant when it comes to the arts. The average person likely doesn't invest much in the appreciation of art. The average person... the masses... have a huge impact upon the initial sales of certain works of art... Pop Music and popular fiction and films... but they have little impact upon what art survives over time. The average person or the masses simply aren't interested. The voices that matter in the survival of art are an elective affinity... those who choose that art, music, literature, architecture, film, etc... matters... and put forth the effort in terms of time, thought, and money needed to support the arts.

Pessoa is quite pop in Portuguese speaking countries, probally the only poet that is quoted in both sides of Atlantic. Only Camões come close to him.

This poem:

Navegadores antigos tinham uma frase gloriosa:
"Navegar é preciso; viver não é preciso".

Quero para mim o espírito [d]esta frase,
transformada a forma para a casar como eu sou:

Viver não é necessário; o que é necessário é criar.
Não conto gozar a minha vida; nem em gozá-la penso.
Só quero torná-la grande,
ainda que para isso tenha de ser o meu corpo
e a (minha alma) a lenha desse fogo.

Só quero torná-la de toda a humanidade;
ainda que para isso tenha de a perder como minha.
Cada vez mais assim penso.

Cada vez mais ponho da essência anímica do meu sangue
o propósito impessoal de engrandecer a pátria e contribuir
para a evolução da humanidade.

É a forma que em mim tomou o misticismo da nossa Raça.

is well known even to non-readers. As much you can consider Poetry to be well know. That Pessoa is less popular outside the portuguese word is more about his translations than his accessibility to the average reader. But reggarding the topic, without doubt, his more simple poems (like the one afore mentioned) certainly blurry his overall work, like his prose texts like The Book of Disquiet.

[JBI]

There is another issue - that of influence. Texts can remain highly relevant due to their respective reputations. If a text is "forgotten" or -"Archived" then maybe it will not have an influence, and see its relevance diminish by being unread. Such textual problems exist in lets say, Christopher Smart, who is very much the most inventive (if crazy) poet in the English language.

[Oedipus]

...the average person on the street probably couldn't name... Fernando Pessoa...

The average person is irrelevant when it comes to the arts. The average person likely doesn't invest much in the appreciation of art. The average person... the masses... have a huge impact upon the initial sales of certain works of art... Pop Music and popular fiction and films... but they have little impact upon what art survives over time. The average person or the masses simply aren't interested. The voices that matter in the survival of art are an elective affinity... those who choose that art, music, literature, architecture, film, etc... matters... and put forth the effort in terms of time, thought, and money needed to support the arts.

Survival in the sense you mean - survival only to those who choose this "elective affinity" - is an anemic sort of survival; what is often forgotten it seems is that many writers have been and will continue to be outside the academic world of literature. Not every genius or talent will have the contact with "those who choose... put forth the effort", and they will read what is available to them. In that sense plebeian popularity is quite important. So as JBI says, influence can be restrained by a lack of reputation; so if reputation is limited to intelligentsia influence will decrease.

[mona amon]

Yes, there is such a thing as perennial popularity - sometimes a work becomes a classic because of its universal ability to appeal to the masses. For instance, 19th century romance novels, especially Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre. These two are the archetype for practically every chick-lit novel from Mills and Boon to Twilight. The crowd-pleasing elements include a fairly ordinary heroine which most women can identify with, and rich, powerful hero with dark secret who is head over heels in love with heroine. In Twilight the author was so successful in isolating the elements that made Jane Eyre popular (right down to giving the hero the same name as Mr Rochester) that she was able to get by with no artistic ability whatsoever. So a popular favourite remains a popular favourite, lives on in imitations and conversion to other popular media like films and so on, and critics and academicians continue to show interest, and it becomes a living breathing classic rather than a dead one which interests only the academics.


I often found that among the works of renowned writers,the most impressive ones always belong to the less famous group,let along popular.

For example,Villette,while being mature and profound,has long been overshadowed by Jane Eyre,and usually misunderstood as a mere autobiographical record instead of an intricate,yet delicate work of art.The power of the protagonist is painfully astounding as well as intellectually provoking,with a hint of existential thought,which,concerning Charlotte's identity as a mid-victorian female,was daring and rare.

Villette is a magnificent masterpiece, and I think the reason it has been overshadowed by Jane Eyre is because of the latter's crowd-pleasing elements I mentioned above. However, serious critics have mostly considered Villette the superior work. For instance, George Eliot, in a letter - "I am only just returned to a sense of the real world about me, for I have been reading Villette, a still more wonderful book than Jane Eyre. There is something almost preternatural in its power."

[mal4mac]

"Under the Greenwood Tree" by Thomas Hardy
"Barnaby Rudge" by Charles Dickens.

Did these guys write anything but masterpieces?

[gar_nichts]

I do not think Dostoieviski fits your example. Most of his career he was considered a sentimental writer, writing popular novels, not a genius at all. After his death, some works were considered his main works, usually Brothers K, Crime and Punishment, Notes from Underground, The Idiot and The Possessed, whcih are very representative and explamples of his best works. Perhaps the missing "masterpiece" , a minor one, is Bobok, a bit unique work from him, not his usual psychological realism.

This can be an example with Melville, his whale devours books like Billy Budd, Benito Cereno, minor works close to M.Dick, but very good books. Kakfa too, Metamorphosis and The Process often clouds The Castle and his short stories (which are his best works in my opinion). Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights get in the way of her poetry too.

Melville was indeed a good example.However,Crime and Punishment was already considered a psychological masterpiece in Dostoevsky's lifetime,almost everyone who'd read it admitted the book's mental depth.But his novels later were often attacked or praised due to Dostoevsky's political attitude instead of their literary merits or philosophical profundity,which were,to my opinion,what truly made Dostoevsky immortal.The Writer's Diary is another place filled with overlooked genius,for after reading it I found that many of his best short stories were originally posted on that magazine.There are plenty of excellent critical works and novellas in The Writer's Diary,yet I only have read about Camus or Berdyaev mentioned one of them once or twice.

And the four great tragedies also get in the way of the Roman plays.

[JCamilo]

Everyone who? Dostoievisky was attacked over and over for his "careless writings", "cheap drama",by the critics and other writers like Chekhov or Tolstoi. His turning points were Bakhtin studies, not only because he finds all those psychological deepth as he does a good work - in his most famous book, there is a chapter dedicated to show the changes on critical perpection of dostoievisky - to argue against those reducing dostoievisky works to sidney sheldon level. (not exactly sheldon, but you get it) and he shows there was a minority of critics who saw something positive on his works.

[gar_nichts]

Everyone who? Dostoievisky was attacked over and over for his "careless writings", "cheap drama",by the critics and other writers like Chekhov or Tolstoi. His turning points were Bakhtin studies, not only because he finds all those psychological deepth as he does a good work - in his most famous book, there is a chapter dedicated to show the changes on critical perpection of dostoievisky - to argue against those reducing dostoievisky works to sidney sheldon level. (not exactly sheldon, but you get it) and he shows there was a minority of critics who saw something positive on his works.

Nekrasov,Saltykov-Shchedrin and П. Н. Ткачев managed to overcome their opposing political stand to appreciate Dostoevsky's later works.Goncharov and Turgnev disliked his writing style from the beginning,but admitted his genius nonetheless.Gorki noted that there was a time when Tolstoy read Brothers Karamazov aloud at home and cried over the pages of Zossima's confession.Plus Tolstoy brought Brothers K to his deathbed.These guys‘ views often changed rapidly in their lifetime,so the credibility of such comments is sometimes suspicious.

[English reader]

The Chronicles of Amber series by Roger Zelazny are fantasy novels far superior to any harry potter or twilight books, and yet it's very rare for me to come across someone who has even heard of zelazny.

[JCamilo]

Nekrasov,Saltykov-Shchedrin and П. Н. Ткачев managed to overcome their opposing political stand to appreciate Dostoevsky's later works.Goncharov and Turgnev disliked his writing style from the beginning,but admitted his genius nonetheless.Gorki noted that there was a time when Tolstoy read Brothers Karamazov aloud at home and cried over the pages of Zossima's confession.Plus Tolstoy brought Brothers K to his deathbed.These guys‘ views often changed rapidly in their lifetime,so the credibility of such comments is sometimes suspicious.

Oh, please, Nekrasov was a friend, they exchanged compliments since ever. And Nekrasov was exagerating about Dostoievisky since early works, when he was nowhere the great writer of Brothers K. Saltykov-Shchedrin a rival, they exchanged some cheap blows. I do not know the third one, but those two account as the minority of critics more positive of Dostoievisky work (as a literary genius). Belinski, himself, responsable for the early fame of Dostoievisky didnt had a good view afterwards, attacking Dostoievisy aesthetics and praising more his "social view". As Gorki, he continues how Tolstoy was baffled about someone writting so badly and careless could produce something so truthful. I have no doubt he admired Dostoievisky, but wasn't a favorable critic, mostly because he could never understand him. After all Tolstoy acted as a character of Dostoievisy :D This the same volume of brothers k that he used to read, alongside many other books found on his room (death bed is a bit exagerated, considering how tolstoy died.)

As I said, Bakhutin has a chapter dedicated to explore the crtical view history on Dostoievisky, there is a great shift of themes, also of appraisal of his work, very few hinted to Dostoievisy aesthetics, a bit unable to perceive it, blinded by the Tolstoy's model. It is not that difference than what happened to Dickens, often reduced to a drama-social writer and no surprise, considering Dickens was one of D. models.

[kev67]

I suspect many of the works in the the Authors subfora are overlooked masterpieces. The book I am reading currently, The Odd Women by George Gissing is surprisingly good. Imagine yourself transported back over a hundred years, and subjected for the first time to modern feminist ideas.

Bookshops are so crammed with books, there must be many authors who do not get the readership they deserve.

[JBI]

The Chronicles of Amber series by Roger Zelazny are fantasy novels far superior to any harry potter or twilight books, and yet it's very rare for me to come across someone who has even heard of zelazny.

I've read them, and though they have some value I doubt they can be called masterpieces.

[English reader]

I've read them, and though they have some value I doubt they can be called masterpieces.

You have to give him credit for coming up with the idea of the Pattern and the land of Chaos, though.

[Eiseabhal]

Some books get a readership eventually and are remembered and some worthier texts sink into oblivion. Well that is not very important really. Do you know anyone (really) who says if it wasn't for text X I would be nothing ( I exclude Koranolators and Bibliolators) We read for entertainment not for enlightenment thank God!

[totoro]

I've seen a lot of authors - not just works, that are often overlooked. There are authors and works on this very forum that people have never talked about and it makes me wonder why. For example, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse by Vicente Blasco Ibáñez is a big one. The works of Andrew Lang, Horatio Alger and Irving Bacheller. The Master of Silence is one of my favorites. But for whatever reason no one ever mentions them.

[Marbles]

We read for entertainment not for enlightenment thank God!

Debatable.

Depends on how you approach the text and what it can or does give you. The enigma of existence, the world of the being, discovering a new truth about humanity - these are few of the things great writing (fiction/poetry) does. Like science, every new discovery at the same time is exciting and entertaining.

[ennison]

I think that I would mainly agree with Eiseabhal on this. Most of us learn through experience, whether we are readers or not but of course reading is an element of our experience. However I don't sit down to a book seeking knowledge of myself or others that I could not also get and better from just living day to day. I prefer to be amused, entertained, diverted by novels and if at the same time I can say Hmm that's an interesting idea so much so extra. But I often find that writers irritate me much more than enlighten me. Many of them are no more than mouthpieces for the latest trendy world view.

[mande2013]

I would say if a work in any artistic medium holds up over the course of the length of a full human life span or a saeculum if you will, it's set for all eternity. So anything "canonized" up until say the start of World War 2 has secured it's place. Hypothetically, there remains the potential for the likes of the Beat writers, DFW, and Pynchon to take a hit, "canonically" speaking, given whatever the fashions may be of the zeitgeist subsequent to the current one.

[Marbles]

However I don't sit down to a book seeking knowledge of myself or others that I could not also get and better from just living day to day

I believe the two are not mutually exclusive. It's exactly the complexity and diversity of our day to day and intellectual experience that makes us who we are. If books didn't help, every one of us would be a wise thinker just going out and working from 9 to 5.


But I often find that writers irritate me much more than enlighten me. Many of them are no more than mouthpieces for the latest trendy world view.

One must read discriminatory, identifying works worth reading and discarding what's just out of the ordinary or fashionable. If a reader goes by what's on the top shelves in bookstores, picking up books for their flashy covers and tantalizing storylines, she would just be wasting a lot of time on rubbish and, therefore, learn very little.

[romeoindespair]

F Scott Fitzgeralds This side of paradise

In my view a 1000 times better than catcher in the rye.

[ennison]

For the grosser the particles the nearer to the sink : to echo Mr Smart. And I suppose there's a faint affinity there with the Trotskyist notion of History as a dustbin. Many good things are lost. Some will be rediscovered. I am glad JBI sees something in at least one 18th century poet.

[ladderandbucket]

Recently saw a documentary about an overlooked masterpiece from the 1970s. The film was called Stone Reader and the book was called The Stones of Summer. It seems the book was highly rated, but for some reason it was not widely read and sank into obscurity. The author had a nervous breakdown and never wrote another book.

The guy who made documentary read the book 30 years later and spent two years trying to track down the author. I won't completely spoil the movie, but in the end he gets to meet the author and the book gets reprinted. It was quite moving to see him finally get some recognition for his work.

The book sounds great and I plan to read it soon. The film made me wonder how many other masterpieces have been written that few people have heard of. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands.