Greatest Novel of all time, and Greatest Writer of all time, in your opinion

[RiteStuff]

you probably have seen this question before...and have made lists of your top novels and writers...but if you had to just choose 1, 1 novel that you consider the greatest novel of all time, and also who you consider the greatest writer of all time

of course your favorite writer does not have to be the writer of your favorite novel, but it certainly can

Greatest Novel of all time:

Greatest Writer of all time:

[tonywalt]

Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger.

In terms of the best writer: Vladimir Nabokov

David Foster Wallace was the best writer of late, although I cannot say any of his books are in my top 10 - but damn, he could write.

David Foster Wallace non fiction: Shipping Out and Ticket to the Fair are the best (funny as hell) essays I've ever read.

[Marbles]

It's seems a bit unfair to select one great novel and one great writer among so many worthy names and titles.

[RiteStuff]

It's seems a bit unfair to select one great novel and one great writer among so many worthy names and titles.
perhaps...but i think its possible to choose just 1 author and novel that you put above (even slightly above) your other favorite writers and books

[ladderandbucket]

Always difficult to know whether to go with my favourites, or the the ones I see as being the best.

Favourites would be:

Moby-Dick

Cormac Mccarthy

Best:

Blood Meridian

Shakespeare

I am liable to change my mind about any of these, except for Shakespeare being the best.

[runningwithit]

It's seems a bit unfair to select one great novel and one great writer among so many worthy names and titles.

I'm with marbles here, though Herman Melville's Moby Dick was a great work -his writing was very inspirational to me.

[Clopin]

I have no idea about 'greatest' but some of the most enjoyable novels for me have been Jane Eyre, Crime and Punishment, The Waves, Fathers and Sons and A Confederacy of Dunces.

[Carousel]

Shakespeare wrote novels!!! Now there’s a thought.

[ladderandbucket]

Shakespeare wrote novels!!! Now there’s a thought.

Well, the question was to name the greatest novel, and the greatest writer.

[HCabret]

Greatest Novel: Breakfast of Champions
Greastest Writer: Kurt Vonnegut

[Pike Bishop]

Greatest novel--Middlemarch by George Eliot

Greatest novelist--Henry James

Greatest writer--William Shakespeare

[jennyg]

My favorite one is a book I read a couple of years ago, Marginus Morius, by a greek writer, Stelios Chalkitis. I heard that it was recently released in English as well. I loved the plot, but I was particularly astonished with the writer's "fresh" view of things. It was just so different than anything alse I ' ve read so far. Really loved it!!!

[WICKES]

Greatest writer of all time is Shakespeare, no question.

As for greatest novel, I'm not sure. In the English language, well, Middlemarch perhaps? Or Lawrence's Women in Love?

I'd have to go for Dickens as the greatest novelist (in English). Others may be technically better, or more innovative and original, but no other novelist I know has created so many believable, living, 3 dimensional characters and had them move about on such a vast stage. He has a boundless sympathetic imagination and seems able to reach out beyond his class, gender and even sexuality to inhabit other minds and bodies, always with sympathy, always with understanding. I so admire the boundless creative energy you find in Dickens. I hate the word genius, but if Dickens was not a genius I don't know who was. All life is there in his books, but it is life magnified and exaggerated. I recently watched a debate between two academics on who was the greater writer, Dickens or Orwell. The man arguing in favour of Dickens said "Orwell is a very interesting and a very important writer, but Dickens is a world". That is the best way to describe him. Who else in the English language wrote novels that together form a world in themselves? Certainly not Lawrence or Woolf or Hemingway. They all seem limited in comparison to Dickens. There is something so exhuberant, so limitless and uncontainable about his imagination that it is almost frightening.

[kev67]

Greatest writer of all time is Shakespeare, no question.

As for greatest novel, I'm not sure. In the English language, well, Middlemarch perhaps? Or Lawrence's Women in Love?



Martin Amis and Julian Barnes thought Middlemarch was the best novel in the English language. I am not sure I would agree. I find the question impossible to answer.



I'd have to go for Dickens as the greatest novelist (in English). Others may be technically better, or more innovative and original, but no other novelist I know has created so many believable, living, 3 dimensional characters and had them move about on such a vast stage. He has a boundless sympathetic imagination and seems able to reach out beyond his class, gender and even sexuality to inhabit other minds and bodies, always with sympathy, always with understanding. I so admire the boundless creative energy you find in Dickens. I hate the word genius, but if Dickens was not a genius I don't know who was. All life is there in his books, but it is life magnified and exaggerated. I recently watched a debate between two academics on who was the greater writer, Dickens or Orwell. The man arguing in favour of Dickens said "Orwell is a very interesting and a very important writer, but Dickens is a world". That is the best way to describe him. Who else in the English language wrote novels that together form a world in themselves? Certainly not Lawrence or Woolf or Hemingway. They all seem limited in comparison to Dickens. There is something so exhuberant, so limitless and uncontainable about his imagination that it is almost frightening.


Do you have a link?

[Pike Bishop]

Greatest writer of all time is Shakespeare, no question.

As for greatest novel, I'm not sure. In the English language, well, Middlemarch perhaps? Or Lawrence's Women in Love?

I'm with you on both, Wickes. I supported Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time on another thread, a few less perceptive than you surprisinglythe attacked the notion.

As to Middlemarch, it is truly the greatest novel in English. Eliot completely reconfigured that moment in England's history when the industrial age and modern beliefs entered into and against the beliefs of the era. She then fills it with a Bakhtinian matrix of veiwpoints and actions of its many complex and/or effectively archetypal characters like Dorothea Brooke, Lydgate, and Ladislaw; all with Eliot's typical profundity. I actually listened to an interview with Frank Gehry where the interviewer asked him which architect taught him the most about framing. He said nobody taught him more about framing than Eliot through Middlemarch.

[Poetaster]

She then fills it with a Bakhtinian matrix of

Could you do me a favor? Summarize Bakhtin and his Chronotope? I don't think I've ever properly understood it.

[Pike Bishop]

I've never done much chronotopic analysis, as I've never done much historicist or even New Historicist criticism. Most of what I drew from Bakthin's book was his theories of the dilogic nature of the novel, which he had previously addressed in his books on Rabelais and Dostoevsky. I can tell you, however, that the chronotope and/or chronotopic analysis has two aspects. The first is identifying the time/space (chronotope) of the text itself and which genre it occupies in relation to the cultural modes of its present time and those of its past that could have influenced it; so in that sense, it's not far from New Historicism. The second aspect of the chronotope is how the time/space of a particular novel, as well as the possibly different time/spaces of its characters, inform its dynamics.

In Middlemarch, we already have a particular chronotopic setting in that it is set at the advent of Britain's Industrial age, 50 years before the novel is written. So, the narrator's perspective is chronotopically different from its subject. Another example, is the character Lydgate, a well-educated doctor from the city who enters a town rife with superstitions, making him decidedly chronotopically different from the other characters.

I hope that helps.

[Poetaster]

I've never done much chronotopic analysis, as I've never done much historicist or even New Historicist criticism. Most of what I drew from Bakthin's book was his theories of the dilogic nature of the novel, which he had previously addressed in his books on Rabelais and Dostoevsky. I can tell you, however, that the chronotope and/or chronotopic analysis has two aspects. The first is identifying the time/space (chronotope) of the text itself and which genre it occupies in relation to the cultural modes of its present time and those of its past that could have influenced it; so in that sense, it's not far from New Historicism. The second aspect of the chronotope is how the time/space of a particular novel, as well as the possibly different time/spaces of its characters, inform its dynamics.

In Middlemarch, we already have a particular chronotopic setting in that it is set at the advent of Britain's Industrial age, 50 years before the novel is written. So, the narrator's perspective is chronotopically different from its subject. Another example, is the character Lydgate, a well-educated doctor from the city who enters a town rife with superstitions, making him decidedly chronotopically different from the other characters.

I hope that helps.

Yes, it does. That's basically what I thought it was - but to have it written down by someone else has set it slightly more solidly in my head. Thanks, I really mean that.

[Calidore]

I've never done much chronotopic analysis, as I've never done much historicist or even New Historicist criticism. Most of what I drew from Bakthin's book was his theories of the dilogic nature of the novel, which he had previously addressed in his books on Rabelais and Dostoevsky. I can tell you, however, that the chronotope and/or chronotopic analysis has two aspects. The first is identifying the time/space (chronotope) of the text itself and which genre it occupies in relation to the cultural modes of its present time and those of its past that could have influenced it; so in that sense, it's not far from New Historicism. The second aspect of the chronotope is how the time/space of a particular novel, as well as the possibly different time/spaces of its characters, inform its dynamics.

In Middlemarch, we already have a particular chronotopic setting in that it is set at the advent of Britain's Industrial age, 50 years before the novel is written. So, the narrator's perspective is chronotopically different from its subject. Another example, is the character Lydgate, a well-educated doctor from the city who enters a town rife with superstitions, making him decidedly chronotopically different from the other characters.

I hope that helps.

Now I've learned a new term, and explained so that it's understandable to someone like me whose last English class was senior year of high school in 1984. Thanks, and hope to see more of this kind of post.

Of course, since I'm on Pike's ignore list, this will have to be quoted by someone who isn't for him to see it. Would someone mind, please?

[Pike Bishop]

Yes, it does. That's basically what I thought it was - but to have it written down by someone else has set it slightly more solidly in my head. Thanks, I really mean that.
No problem. Poetaster. I'm glad to help. I wish I had a chronotopic explanation for Ecurd. If I did, maybe I could take him off my ignore list

[North Star]

Now I've learned a new term, and explained so that it's understandable to someone like me whose last English class was senior year of high school in 1984. Thanks, and hope to see more of this kind of post.

Of course, since I'm on Pike's ignore list, this will have to be quoted by someone who isn't for him to see it. Would someone mind, please?
Alright.

[RiteStuff]

anyone else

[stlukesguild]

Why limit the options to the greatest "novel"? There are many other literary forms.

The single greatest book IMO is Dante Allighieri's Comedia.

The greatest writer that I am aware of is IMO William Shakespeare.

The greatest novel? I'd personally be torn between Lawrence Sterne's Tristram Shandy, Cervantes Don Quixote, Flaubert's Madame Bovary, Hugo's Les Miserables, and Melville's Moby Dick.

[Methinks]

Lolita.
Sound and the Fury.
The Road.

Also: the three authors of those books are top tier.

[Nikonani]

James Joyce might be the first novelist to write in its mature form, and he's certainly the best novelist in that mature form. Ulysses may have its faults over Joyce's ambition, but it's the first true novel and the best true novel since. I hardly see this as arguable -- the only other real contender is perhaps Flaubert and (less-so) Proust.

As for the best writer, Edmund Spenser.

[Haran Alkarin]

Greatest novel (or any other literary form) is hard to say one, as every work of art is completely debatable whether a classic book is greater than the other.

Greatest writer is easier, more objective answer is Shakespeare, many people write about him and his works, whether Christians, Atheists, feminists, leftists, nazists, communists, ... Shakespeare's work is so wide and influential in a sense of universality that is impossible to find in any other author. So I think he's the greatest writer.

[Eupalinos]

Greatest writer is easier, more objective answer is Shakespeare, many people write about him and his works, whether Christians, Atheists, feminists, leftists, nazists, communists, ... Shakespeare's work is so wide and influential in a sense of universality that is impossible to find in any other author. So I think he's the greatest writer.
Shakespeare has had his detractors as well; has Homer? Doubtless more people prefer Shakespeare to Homer than Homer to Shakespeare, for one thing more people read English than ancient Greek. But if there's a supreme writer who close to everyone can agree on it would seem to be Homer.

Universality in art is a false notion. We're speaking of things that nothing but one species of ape in the cosmos can identify.

Nikonani, why do you think Joyce was 'the first novelist to write in its mature form'? How would you characterize the novel's mature form?

stlukesguild, I'd be interested in the reasons behind your choice of novels. Why do you prefer those to Proust or Dostoevski or Stendhal, or to Middlemarch for that matter? The love of Les Miserables on the site has long puzzled me. In literary criticism it does not seem to often be held as exemplary of the medium.

Is Rabelais a novel?

[Haran Alkarin]

Shakespeare has had his detractors as well; has Homer? Doubtless more people prefer Shakespeare to Homer than Homer to Shakespeare, for one thing more people read English than ancient Greek. But if there's a supreme writer who close to everyone can agree on it would seem to be Homer.

Very unlikely, I doubt that many intellectuals would agree that Homer is greater example of aesthetic and human condition than Shakespeare. Shakespeare's body of work is also vastly larger. But that's just my opinion.

Even in Influence issues, Daniel S.Burt puts Shakespeare and Dante as first and second place:
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=bdtJx5KrZkMC&dq=Top+literary+100&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_navlinks_s

According to him: "Only the passing of the heroic acts that Homer chronicled so magnificiently, more remote in its values to the modern reader than the medieval world of Dante and the Renaissance of Shakespeare, has determined his placement below both"

[Eupalinos]

A good many classicists may disagree with you. I'm sure many self-proclaimed intellectuals have neither read Shakespeare's entire canon nor Homer in Greek. But in any case, what is your view of Homer? I believe we can all agree the Shakespeare corpus is more diverse in terms characters and situations portrayed. Do they cut to the heart of the matter as do certain scenes in Homer of what it is to be life on a planet? Is there any single instance in Shakespeare that exemplifies the human condition to match book 24 of the Iliad? Do either Shakespeare or Dante include the life of the body as does Homer? I will concede that both portray psychological states in greater nuance than does Homer, but then you could take both epics as monumental allegories on the state of humankind both psychologically and physically.

I still don't know of a famous denunciation of Homer. Presumably there are some.

Such literary lists tend to be biased in favor of whatever language the author is writing in. I immediately guessed that half of Burt's first ten would be Anglo-Saxon, and I was correct. Aeschylus comes after 13 English language authors.

[Eupalinos]

Sorry, I didn't respond to the quote from Burt. The heroes represent lives being pushed to their fullest potential of experience, like the athletes in Pindar. I don't think it in any way lessens these poets' meaning that we sometimes think we can't identify with the specific acts and culture they depict; and besides, I think it's an illusion. Humans have not changed that much.

[Haran Alkarin]

You're right in saying that the list is Anglo-centric, though the arguments of writers are the best in the book.

As to Homer, since I never read Homer in Greek, I do not want to do a bad judgment. But Shakespeare recreated everything around it, either by language, characterization, plot (an underrated part of his genius) is very unlikely that Homer did anything on the same scale. Classicists even admitted that Virgil improved Homer in language.

As to the topic, I'm thinking in considering that War and Peace would be my guess for greatest novel.

[JCamilo]

Shakespeare plots are neither his or great (and it didnt matter) and Homer is just the father of the entire literature that was praticed for 2000 years. He has the greatest scope of influence, but this does not mean exactly qualitty, because when you get at Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante level the difference is a coma, which is often misplaced in the sentence.

[Haran Alkarin]

Shakespeare plots are neither his or great (and it didnt matter) and Homer is just the father of the entire literature that was praticed for 2000 years. He has the greatest scope of influence, but this does not mean exactly qualitty, because when you get at Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante level the difference is a coma, which is often misplaced in the sentence.

Shakespeare's plays are worked by the plot made exclusively for the theater, he had to create a storyline that made parallel with the breaking of classical rules. Othello has one of the best plots ever, King Lear as well. There is not complete originality, Homer himself only narrated the epic of a story already known.

What do you mean by father of literature? literature exist with or without Homer. You are aware that Homer was 1500 years without being read, studied or appreciated in the West? So it is doubtful whether he had more influence than Shakespeare.

[JCamilo]

Both plots of Lear and Othelo are borrowed and what make it one of the best plot ever? The whole solution to the story witth Iago napkin is simplistic and not even worth Iago himself. I am well aware there is litle originality in this world, so, if you are, there is no point praising a man for "recreating" anything. Praising Shakespeare for his plots is like praising Kant for his poetry.

The entire western literature was build after Homer. Simple as that. Literature does not exist without him. And there is no such 1500 years without him being read (the direct reading of his original was gone, but indirect reading of his works in partial translations existed). And he was always appreciated. Virgil was paying his nod to him and 1300 years after Dante was doing the same. And influence is not popularity, it is not based only on reading. You can tell his influence when people are still using his metrics, when Virgil - who borrowed from him - was the universal model, when his characters are everywhere, when epics are still considered the greatest literary form, when his expressions are used everywhere, when his stories could be found even in the 1001 nights, etc. There is no point, Shakespeare has a handful of centuries of influence, the other 3 milleniuns. His rivals are in eastern or in religious texts only.

[Haran Alkarin]

Both plots of Lear and Othelo are borrowed and what make it one of the best plot ever? The whole solution to the story witth Iago napkin is simplistic and not even worth Iago himself. I am well aware there is litle originality in this world, so, if you are, there is no point praising a man for "recreating" anything. Praising Shakespeare for his plots is like praising Kant for his poetry.

The entire western literature was build after Homer. Simple as that. Literature does not exist without him. And there is no such 1500 years without him being read (the direct reading of his original was gone, but indirect reading of his works in partial translations existed). And he was always appreciated. Virgil was paying his nod to him and 1300 years after Dante was doing the same. And influence is not popularity, it is not based only on reading. You can tell his influence when people are still using his metrics, when Virgil - who borrowed from him - was the universal model, when his characters are everywhere, when epics are still considered the greatest literary form, when his expressions are used everywhere, when his stories could be found even in the 1001 nights, etc. There is no point, Shakespeare has a handful of centuries of influence, the other 3 milleniuns. His rivals are in eastern or in religious texts only.

The theatrical plot had to be worked out, sorry if I confuse, Shakespeare just took the stories (not the plot, not the narrative skeleton), Shakespeare's plays do not follow the classical decorum, you see in his plays all these scenes blood, wars, betrayals, murders, none of this exists in your sources. I think there's a feeling of underestimation against Shakespeare in this field.

Sorry, humanities is not my thing, I'm too technical, but how there would be no literature without Homer? Homer did not invent the literature, their tradition was oral, it just was one of the first and best to do so. Old Testament is older, there were Indian epics, Hesiod was the same period that he (although in a couple of decades later), Of course that he influenced much of this literature, but it is part of this tradition, not the creator. We can agree that Homer had influence for a longer period of time, but not that he necessarily had more influence than Shakespeare whose impact survives in oral tradition (theater), in movies, novels, poetry, music, operas, etc, in huge quantity .. Everything at a time wherein the influence of Homer is greatly reduced where there are numerous forms of arts that did not exist in the past, I think Shakespeare certainly has more influence, but that's my opinion.

I am aware that influence is not popularity, but popularity is influence, the popularity of Shakespeare or Homer in his day were just that, if they do not influence, I do not know what it is.

[Eupalinos]

Instead of translating 'greatest' into 'most influential', perhaps we can consider a writer's depiction/perspective/philosophy of life and discuss why one means more to us than another and why one seems the 'greatest' out of those we know. Technical achievement is an aspect but it doesn't have to be the whole thing, and influence and popularity shouldn't, it seems to me, have very much to do with it at all.

[UlyssesE]

I find this an impossible question! At least just to pick one. There are too many different expressions of literature, and too many different types of stories in those different expressions. That being said: if I had to pick, it would be Ulysses, and James Joyce. A huge accomplishment in literature, and utterly amazing for its scope and breadth of meaning, a wonder of prose, imagination, and interpreation firmly rooted in the mundane life of one mundane man.

[Margerma]

If to ask me "which book you would recommend to anybody?" I would say Daniel Keyes "Flowers for Algernone". This is must-have, must-read, A-m-a-z-I-n-g... however I would agree - it is impossible to say which book is "the greatest". In which way?

[Ecurb]

"The Great American Novel" was written by Phillip Roth (and it's quite good, too, especially if you're a baseball fan, although some of it is pilfered from the best non-fiction baseball book, "The Glory of Their Times" by Lawrence Ritter).

[JCamilo]

The theatrical plot had to be worked out, sorry if I confuse, Shakespeare just took the stories (not the plot, not the narrative skeleton), Shakespeare's plays do not follow the classical decorum, you see in his plays all these scenes blood, wars, betrayals, murders, none of this exists in your sources. I think there's a feeling of underestimation against Shakespeare in this field.

I do think most people who go further into thinking about it like you do will notice his part on the changes of classical drama. Just most people will not think at all about it.


Sorry, humanities is not my thing, I'm too technical, but how there would be no literature without Homer? Homer did not invent the literature, their tradition was oral, it just was one of the first and best to do so

I am not claiming withou Homer there would be no literature. I am saying we have literature with Homer, it is the reality we have. I am sure you can argue all he invented coould be eventually achive by other, but notice, the same argument could be done towards Shakespeare. All his inovations could be eventually achived by some. If we further, someone would write the entire Divina Comedia if wasnt for Dante.


Old Testament is older, there were Indian epics, Hesiod was the same period that he (although in a couple of decades later),

OT is older? As far I know most dates place it close to the youngest dates attributed to Homer (who usually has oldest dates also mentioned). As Indian Epics, I mentioned Western Literature (of course, this could also count for the OT).


Of course that he influenced much of this literature, but it is part of this tradition, not the creator. We can agree that Homer had influence for a longer period of time, but not that he necessarily had more influence than Shakespeare whose impact survives in oral tradition (theater), in movies, novels, poetry, music, operas, etc, in huge quantity .. Everything at a time wherein the influence of Homer is greatly reduced where there are numerous forms of arts that did not exist in the past, I think Shakespeare certainly has more influence, but that's my opinion.

Shakespeare is a part of a tradition as Homer was. But the point, Iliad is the starting point for western literature, it is the starting point for the epic tradition. Homer time changed? Sure, which is how powerful he is. He had survived the destruction of his culture and even the idiom. Shakespeare had no such test yet. As for other forms? Just as Homer had influence in Oral Tradition (Theatre is oral, but not oral tradition exactly, and shakespeare had not). And new arts? Homer is perfectly fine with cinema, heck, he had influence enough to have computer virus named after his Trojan horse. Comic books? Which Marvel-DC character goes afteer Shakespeare? I suppose Stan Lee may have created some Hamet, but greek myths are everywhere in comcis, because of course the heroic tradition is closer to them. Sure, Wonder Woman have no links to Homer, but Hulk, who is a mad Achiles (and faced tagged along with Agamenon, Ulisses, Heitor, etc). It is not like Shakespeare is huge, he is, right now probally more influential, but 100 years do not cover 1000 years.

I am aware that influence is not popularity, but popularity is influence, the popularity of Shakespeare or Homer in his day were just that, if they do not influence, I do not know what it is.[/QUOTE]

[Haran Alkarin]

i do think most people who go further into thinking about it like you do will notice his part on the changes of classical drama. Just most people will not think at all about it.

Agree to disagree then. You would say that Homer's plot is not great nor his when he narrated a already known story ? the same thing with Shakespeare.


I am not claiming withou homer there would be no literature. I am saying we have literature with homer, it is the reality we have. I am sure you can argue all he invented coould be eventually achive by other, but notice, the same argument could be done towards shakespeare. All his inovations could be eventually achived by some. If we further, someone would write the entire divina comedia if wasnt for dante.

Well, you do "Literature does not exist without him", literature would be without Homer or Shakespeare, the question is how these guys influence this literature (as they surely do), my point was that these guys are part of the tradition and not creators to the point of this tradition does not exist without them. The way you said it appeared that Homer had invented the literature or whatever parent. I did not say that their achievements could be made by other people, if anyone write like Dante, great, what's the point?


Ot is older? As far i know most dates place it close to the youngest dates attributed to homer (who usually has oldest dates also mentioned). As indian epics, i mentioned western literature (of course, this could also count for the ot).

Old Testament's writting is placed around 950 a.c, Homer is around 760-710 a.c


Shakespeare is a part of a tradition as homer was. But the point, iliad is the starting point for western literature, it is the starting point for the epic tradition. Homer time changed? Sure, which is how powerful he is. He had survived the destruction of his culture and even the idiom. Shakespeare had no such test yet.

Well, if he's been for 1,500 years without being read or influencing directly (not indirectly through Virgil) so I think he is not so powerful, rock paintings have been preserved for 10,000 years. Shakespeare also survive outside of idiom, also there was more cultural changes in two hundred years than in two millennia, everyone writes about it, everyone adapts it to his ends. We can say that Homer also has not passed this test.


As for other forms? Just as homer had influence in oral tradition (theatre is oral, but not oral tradition exactly, and shakespeare had not). And new arts? Homer is perfectly fine with cinema, heck, he had influence enough to have computer virus named after his trojan horse. Comic books? Which marvel-dc character goes afteer shakespeare? I suppose stan lee may have created some hamet, but greek myths are everywhere in comcis, because of course the heroic tradition is closer to them. Sure, wonder woman have no links to homer, but hulk, who is a mad achiles (and faced tagged along with agamenon, ulisses, heitor, etc). It is not like shakespeare is huge, he is, right now probally more influential, but 100 years do not cover 1000 years.

I know that theater is not oral tradition, it was only a comparison, oral tradition of Shakespeare is part of their art and lives on. Not sure what you mean by these examples, I did not say that Homer is dead. but it is obvious that Shakespeare has influenced more literature and art in huge quantity than Homer in all its longevity, the guy has all the western theater on his back, half of all the world's productions are his, he influenced a whole language, Shakespeare is the writer who recreated everything around it and cast a shadow that touched almost everything since. compared to him, Homer is just too old. All this discussion it is unnecessary. We would be in an infinite loop debating a futile exercise to compare such different writers.

[JCamilo]

Agree to disagree then. You would say that Homer's plot is not great nor his when he narrated a already known story ? the same thing with Shakespeare.

Who said I wouldnt? Iliad "plot" is irrelevant. Odissey has something else, but plot is more or less an obssession from XIX century onwards. Shakespeare or Homer (or Dante, Virgil) shrugged off limited plots because of their capacity to explore language.




Well, you do "Literature does not exist without him", literature would be without Homer or Shakespeare, the question is how these guys influence this literature (as they surely do), my point was that these guys are part of the tradition and not creators to the point of this tradition does not exist without them. The way you said it appeared that Homer had invented the literature or whatever parent. I did not say that their achievements could be made by other people, if anyone write like Dante, great, what's the point?

The point is that you seem very keen to praise Shakespeare achivements "that could be done by others" and the point is that in this reality it was Homer and Shakespeare who did. The other possible universe where someone else did, is irrelevant.


Old Testament's writting is placed around 950 a.c, Homer is around 760-710 a.c

Since when? The oldestt biblical writtings ever found are from 6 century ac. not 10th.




Well, if he's been for 1,500 years without being read or influencing directly (not indirectly through Virgil) so I think he is not so powerful, rock paintings have been preserved for 10,000 years. Shakespeare also survive outside of idiom, also there was more cultural changes in two hundred years than in two millennia, everyone writes about it, everyone adapts it to his ends. We can say that Homer also has not passed this test.

We have been here. Homer was read all this period. The original text that wsa lost. And indirect reading is a powerfull evidence. Homer has not passed the test? More cultural changes? Like the change from orality to writting culture?




I know that theater is not oral tradition, it was only a comparison, oral tradition of Shakespeare is part of their art and lives on. Not sure what you mean by these examples, I did not say that Homer is dead.

You claimed new forms of expression thaT Shakespeare had influence. I just pointed the presence of Homer there - in one case, comic books, Homer influence is even bigger.


but it is obvious that Shakespeare has influenced more literature and art in huge quantity than Homer in all its longevity,

Obviously, something you claimed but failed to show any evidence.


the guy has all the western theater on his back,

Sure? Western theater wa for 2000 years under the back of Sophocles, Aeschylus, Eurypides, authors under Homer influece. And Italian and French drama had their own tradition which also have a huge resistence towards Shakespeare.


half of all the world's productions are his,

Sorry, but what do you mean here?


he influenced a whole language,

Very good. The old greek is based on Homer. They even persecuted artists as Sappho who wrote in other dilacted.


Shakespeare is the writer who recreated everything around it and cast a shadow that touched almost everything since.

His Shadow is not even big enough to cover Dante or Cervantes.


compared to him, Homer is just too old. All this discussion it is unnecessary. We would be in an infinite loop debating a futile exercise to compare such different writers.

Homer may be nodding, but in his sleep he is too big.

[stlukesguild]

Homer is always problematic. We are uncertain whether "he" every existed as a single blind poet composing the Iliad and the Odyssey. There are arguments that the two epic poems were the product of two distinct poets at the least. The idea that a single poet named Homer was responsible for the two epics is not voiced until the 4th century BCE. Some scholars suggest that Homer was a fictional character/poet and that the Iliad and Odyssey were the product of generations of oral poets passing the works down until they were given a definitive form around the 22nd century BCE although no complete manuscripts exists dating earlier than the 10th century CE.

It matters little to me whether Homer was a real poet... or whether his epics were the product of many poets and editors over the years... a Bible of sorts. The Iliad and the Odyssey still rank among the greatest literary achievements... along with the plays of Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Euripides (My God! Imagine if we had all the plays lost by these three!), Dante, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Firdowsi, the Bible, the Arabian Nights, and a number of others.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, when I mean Homer, I mean rather the books Iliad and Odissey and the being that is their author. Of course, it is fitting that people managed to make Shakespeare a Homer with the silly controversy about his existense. Poetic even.

[Vota]

Of the limited number of books that I would qualify as being great, a couple stand out to me.

The Iliad and the Odyssey. I place these in the same position because without The Iliad, The Odyssey loses much of its meaning. The fact that Odysseus went through so much during that war, and so many people died during it, and maybe even more tragically, on the way back from it or at home even, provides background context that is fundamental to properly appreciating the epic poem. Much Like how hollow reading Lord Tennyson's Ulysses poem would be without at least having read The Odyssey prior to it.

I also would place War and Peace right there for a trinity of top reads. I read one short story by Tolstoy that made me teary eyed within it's 15 or so pages and I knew right then that I would love his writing. W&P did not disappoint me. I have never read a book that large in under three weeks.

As for top writer, that's tough. I'm not sure I can place someone there yet. Obviously Homer and Tolstoy are near my pinnacle of top writers, but that "could" change as I read more. I will note that Shakespeare has impressed me tremendously. I started off reading Hamlet and greatly enjoyed it. I then started read Macbeth, which I enjoyed, but found lacking in comparison to Hamlet. At this point I decided to read his works in chronological order and was impressed at being able to see a noticeable difference between his first works and what many consider to be his greatest. His genius and uncanny ability with language to describe the human condition are undeniable. I think what really sealed the deal for me was when I looked up Shakespeare quotes and read several dozen in a row. It's hard to believe that much wisdom and perception could have came from one person. Shakespeare is the man.

I would like to add that Shakespeare is quite popular now, whereas Homer for a long time was considered the preeminent writer by many scholars.

[Haran Alkarin]

Who said I wouldnt? Iliad "plot" is irrelevant. Odissey has something else, but plot is more or less an obssession from XIX century onwards. Shakespeare or Homer (or Dante, Virgil) shrugged off limited plots because of their capacity to explore language.

What? arbitrary descriptions do not valid your argument, characters and language of Shakespeare do not work without plot. Hamlet and Iago work all their strategy by the plot (exposition, climax, fall). Plot is not irrelevant, even for Homer or Virgil. Even Comedy of Dante is worked by plots in circles, spheres, etc.., XIX century onward? Aristotle's Poetic dude! Aristotle considered plot (mythos) the most important element of drama Plot for you there is only in crime novels?


The point is that you seem very keen to praise Shakespeare achivements "that could be done by others" and the point is that in this reality it was Homer and Shakespeare who did. The other possible universe where someone else did, is irrelevant.

But who said it was you "All his inovations Eventually Could be achived by some. If we further, someone would write the entire Divine Comedy if wasnt for Dante."


Since when? The oldestt biblical writtings ever found are from 6 century ac. not 10th.

In fact he is older, Mosaic tradition put the Torah in 1400 BC, while we not know who Homer was, his oral tradition last long, his writing was as late as 400 BC while Jahvist writing existed for about 900-800 BC, excerpts poetry of the Song of Deborah are dated 1100 BC, centuries before Homer.


We have been here. Homer was read all this period. The original text that wsa lost. And indirect reading is a powerfull evidence. Homer has not passed the test? More cultural changes? Like the change from orality to writting culture?

Be read by a few dozen scholars not show influence or power, this is done to any unknown book, but Homer was gone, their stories only survived in recounts, the first mass translations were published only after printing in the sixteenth century. That's a fact. Cultural changes as totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century use Shakespeare as a tool for political purposes..


You claimed new forms of expression thaT Shakespeare had influence. I just pointed the presence of Homer there - in one case, comic books, Homer influence is even bigger.

I think it's not necessary, is not it? 1,500 films, almost all drama forms (not only theatrical) Thousands novels, 300 operas, many others. Homer might be the firstborn, but Shakespeare is certainly more universal and appealing.


Obviously, something you claimed but failed to show any evidence.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000636/ 1082 films
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0392955/ 41 films


Sure? Western theater wa for 2000 years under the back of Sophocles, Aeschylus, Eurypides, authors under Homer influece. And Italian and French drama had their own tradition which also have a huge resistence towards Shakespeare.

Modern Western theater, meant, all modern western theater is encrusted in Shakespeare, classical Greek are important, but they are not great successes.


Sorry, but what do you mean here?

Most Performed playwright of all time


Very good. The old greek is based on Homer. They even persecuted artists as Sappho who wrote in other dilacted.

Certainly, but it is unlikely that he invented words or just have used a language that already existed, as indeed is the case.



His Shadow is not even big enough to cover Dante or Cervantes.

I said "Since" nevertheless Shakespeare is the most produced playwright in Spain and Italy.


Homer may be nodding, but in his sleep he is too big.

I'm sure. Like all the cave paintings.


@Slukesguild
Of course, always comes to Homeric question, but it is not important, as the joke of Mark Twain about Shakespeare, if they were not written by him, would be written by someone else with the same name. What matters is what we have.

[Eupalinos]

The intellectual laziness of judging an author by the quantity of cultural products (most of which are themselves aesthetically void) we BELIEVE they've inspired is ludicrous beyond description. Most adaptations/transmutations of this or that artwork are also founded on heaps of trash that few bother to think about. It is as though we are actively trying to avoid thinking about the meaning of these works by the use of these worthless standards.

Interpretation hazards a risk. It is never wholly demonstrable or foolproof. But that is life. Embrace the risk and try thinking like a human being worthy of the Iliad, the Commedia, The Tempest. This most performed, most read, most liked nonsense has nothing to do with a responsible and responsive engagement with works of intense consciousness such as these.

There are rival merits. There is not one standard. If you want utmost variety and breadth in representation of human states, you will likely turn more often to Shakespeare and Dante than to Homer. Others may find an ultimately more enduring depiction of life in the Greek.

Plot is distinct from narrative. Poets can borrow many or all their narrative elements, but still be masterful in terms of their unique handling of plot. I cannot conceive of how plot does not account for a considerable amount of the commanding power of the Iliad or Hamlet (or the Greek plays or the best Don Juans and Fausts or the reenactment of Bovary in Karenina and so on).

[Haran Alkarin]

Agree. It's silly to compare writers, but it's always interesting to examine the production of each, like it or not the greatest diversity of works influences a lot in assessing the writers, both Shakespeare and Homer did much and well done.

How plot is distinct of narrative? You can elaborate on that? I am aware that Homer and Virgil use more narrative than Plot.

[Eupalinos]

Narrative is the abstract of the story, a linear series of events. Plot is the arrangement, the structuring of the pieces of narrative. Narrative requires the thinking up of what will happen, of what the story is. Plot requires a mind that can give those happenings the best possible order and timing. Shakespeare, we know, did not do much of the former, but it is evident in the plays themselves that he did a great deal of the latter, sometimes matchlessly. Dante did a lot of both. Basically a story can have a subpar narrative but brilliant plotting and vice versa.

[JCamilo]

What? arbitrary descriptions do not valid your argument, characters and language of Shakespeare do not work without plot. Hamlet and Iago work all their strategy by the plot (exposition, climax, fall). Plot is not irrelevant, even for Homer or Virgil. Even Comedy of Dante is worked by plots in circles, spheres, etc.., XIX century onward? Aristotle's Poetic dude! Aristotle considered plot (mythos) the most important element of drama Plot for you there is only in crime novels?

Please, do not quote me out of the context. You asked me if I considered Homer's plot as great. We are talking about the importance of plot for the merit of those authors. Answering as If I am saying there can be narratives without plots is not a good dialogue. I have no idea what you mean by plots in circles about Dante. The Comedy has several stories, but they are, as frame stories go, unrelated to the rather simple plot of the Comedy. And it was quite irrelevant, Dante was not a storyteller, everything, every small tale he shows are circustances for him to cause determinated emotion, not to show case a story. As Aristoteles. Please tell me, how Aristoteles plot definition works for Homer? Or Shakespeare?



But who said it was you "All his inovations Eventually Could be achived by some. If we further, someone would write the entire Divine Comedy if wasnt for Dante."

Yes, by answering your claim that anything homer did could be done by others. I just placed a mirror before you and you didnt like the reflection.



In fact he is older, Mosaic tradition put the Torah in 1400 BC, while we not know who Homer was, his oral tradition last long, his writing was as late as 400 BC while Jahvist writing existed for about 900-800 BC, excerpts poetry of the Song of Deborah are dated 1100 BC, centuries before Homer.

You are exagerating the dates. Homer would never from 400 BC, as he is already dead and mentioned by secundary sources and the Homeriades are already know. The range for Homer date go from 8th to 12 century, I know the 12th century date is far fetched, but so is for Deborah Song. It is more or less accepted the oral version of the hymn is older, added to the narrative of Judges latter. The date is hardly on stone. Mosaic tradition does not count, right? That may end placinng Homer at Troy to talk with Muses.

Anyways, what I said? Not only that homer was the father of eastern literature, but that his rivals were eastern and religious texts. And what you bring to me? Religious texts from middle eastern. I do not even to go arguing about dates, I know there were writings prior to Homer, Gilgamesh predates Homer, etc. but those are not the literary western tradition that stars with Homer.




Be read by a few dozen scholars not show influence or power, this is done to any unknown book, but Homer was gone, their stories only survived in recounts, the first mass translations were published only after printing in the sixteenth century. That's a fact. Cultural changes as totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century use Shakespeare as a tool for political purposes..

Again? Influence is not only reading. Homer was not only read by scholars, he settle up a model who was a role for 2000 years when the model was gone and translations have started. He never faded.




I think it's not necessary, is not it? 1,500 films, almost all drama forms (not only theatrical) Thousands novels, 300 operas, many others. Homer might be the firstborn, but Shakespeare is certainly more universal and appealing.

The point here is not that Shakespeare influence on movies is big or not. It is that unlike you claimed, Homer has influence on those modern form of expressions as well. Since you are dodging about Homer influence on comic books, i guess you have accepted the point. As more universal, that is ridiculous. Those guys are who they are because they are as universal as possible.




http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000636/ 1082 films
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0392955/ 41 films

oh, shakespeare is more popular than homer in... wait, the list of movies show influence? What about movies about Simbad? What about movies about The Divine Comedy?And when in the movie their recite Tennyson's Ulysses? Any movie about Yeats' Life? You know, several works that also show Homer's influence?



Modern Western theater, meant, all modern western theater is encrusted in Shakespeare, classical Greek are important, but they are not great successes.

Yeah, Classical Greek threatre is a complete failure. Hamlet may own his pants to Oedipus and those dramas are on the stage for 2500 years, but they are not a great success.



Most Performed playwright of all time

We do not have the information at all. Shakespeare is good, not god.




Certainly, but it is unlikely that he invented words or just have used a language that already existed, as indeed is the case.

He was helping to invent an entire new way to use language and you think that is unlikely he would invent words? :D





I said "Since" nevertheless Shakespeare is the most produced playwright in Spain and Italy.

Yes and I mean it. He cannot cover all since his time as Cervantes and Dante are too big and covered areas Shakespeare shadow couldn't reach.



I'm sure. Like all the cave paintings.

Do you understand time is also an enemy of Shakespeare right. In 1000 years when english is gone, the idea of England a fable, people will also use the silly chronological argument for some of their favorite writers?

[ennison]

Which is the best view? It's definitely the 360 degree from the top of the Beinne Bhuidhe.

[LadyDedlock]

Greatest novel: War and Peace
Greatest writer: Charles Dickens