Why does one author have to be better ....

than another to the point of exclusivity. I read posts where Dickens is disliked and Tolstoy is praised and vice versa. Now that I have reached the supposedly golden years, I am reading mostly the classics which I haven't read yet. But to give an example, I look on all authors as friends. I have read most of Dickens and the four major novels of Tolstoy. I don't think of one as being better than the other. I wouldn't want to read one exclusively over the other. Both authors have a lot to give the reader. Whether I am reading Sinclair Lewis or Hemingway, Tolstory or Dostoevsky, Pynchon or Salinger, I enjoy the writing and wouldn't want to read one over the other. I have many friends, and they are all different. But I wouldn't want to choose one over the other, treating one as a friend and abandoning the other. If a writer has reached the stage where he is considered a composer of classic literature, I want to read him/her so that I can further learn from the experience. I want to read somthing from every classicist writer be it Fielding, Sterne, Dickens, or a modern such as Scott Fitzgerald.

Too often that seems to be the whole point of discussion on LitNet: who's the best writer, who's the most over-rated writer, what "classic" is over-rated, who's the best Romantic poet, whose better, Shakespeare or Dante, etc... etc... Yes, we all have personal opinions... and admittedly some opinions are better than others... but surely I agree about the notion of liking one writer to the exclusivity of an other. I feel that there is undoubtedly a real obsession with the Russians at LitNet and that Dostoevsky (not to mention Orwell) may be a bit too overrated by a lot of younger readers... but in no way do I think Dostoevsky is an overrated writer in general or that he is not a brilliant author worthy of being read by anyone interested in literature. I sometimes suspect there's a misguided notion that dismissing the achievement of this or that major writer will make one look more sophisticated or free-thinking. In other words, this person comes off as able to dismiss the works of those literary figures that we nearly all studied in school and argue instead for some less-well-known writer that few may have read: Tu Fu or Ferdowsi or Racine or Calderon. Certainly, we all remember as teenagers those who turned up their noses smugly at the big names among the music that was then popular (perhaps we were one of them) and declared with an air of superiority (of knowing something all the rest of the unthinking masses didn't) that this or that obscure band was infinitely superior to such popular schlock. We are currently organizing a discussion of the poetry of Leopardi over on the poetry boards with the goal of discussing the text... our interpretations... our thoughts... with the stated goal of avoiding comparisons along the line of Leopardi is better than X while Y is infinitely better than Leopardi at his finest. Such at least is the goal. I would certainly be interested in far more discussions of actual works of literature as opposed to the endless popularity contest, but admittedly I have been dragged into them as much as anyone else.

By the way... I think both Dickens and Tolstoy were giants and I would not be without either.

A little thing that is similar which bothers me is the so-called negating of one author because another author did it "better". I cannot think of how many times some says something like, "I love Lovecraft", and someone else jumps in with, "Poe is better." Leaving aside the subjectivity of a value judgement, what's to say that someone cannot love the secondary and tertiary masters of a genre/style in addition to the archetypes?

I think this, in general, stems from an immaturity, an insecurity in needing to bolster one's self by professing a love for only the "best".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

than another to the point of exclusivity. I read posts where Dickens is disliked and Tolstoy is praised and vice versa. Now that I have reached the supposedly golden years, I am reading mostly the classics which I haven't read yet. But to give an example, I look on all authors as friends. I have read most of Dickens and the four major novels of Tolstoy. I don't think of one as being better than the other. I wouldn't want to read one exclusively over the other. Both authors have a lot to give the reader. Whether I am reading Sinclair Lewis or Hemingway, Tolstory or Dostoevsky, Pynchon or Salinger, I enjoy the writing and wouldn't want to read one over the other. I have many friends, and they are all different. But I wouldn't want to choose one over the other, treating one as a friend and abandoning the other. If a writer has reached the stage where he is considered a composer of classic literature, I want to read him/her so that I can further learn from the experience. I want to read somthing from every classicist writer be it Fielding, Sterne, Dickens, or a modern such as Scott Fitzgerald.

---

There is no reason to rate one author over another. Read what you like, enjoy it as you like. Rating authors who is good, better or best, who is most important, all silliness. It comes down to appreciating what you appreciate and nothing more.

I think its all to do mainly with personal taste. A person might see the superiority in an novel that another sees as inferior. Thats why polls on which is the best book etc dont work and all the disagreements and arguments flare up. Just because one person says a book is a great, doesnt necassarily mean we all have to agree. Variety is the spice of life after all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I sometimes suspect there's a misguided notion that dismissing the achievement of this or that major writer will make one look more sophisticated or free-thinking. In other words, this person comes off as able to dismiss the works of those literary figures that we nearly all studied in school and argue instead for some less-well-known writer that few may have read: Tu Fu or Ferdowsi or Racine or Calderon.

---

I make no pretensions to sophistication. After I get done reading those authors I have a glass of whiskey and watch videos of street fights. As far as the accusations of liberal thinking are concerned, I consider it a weakness of mind, a lack of character and conviction which forbids undisciplined people from coming to decisions. I think it's important to rank authors and their works objectively, so that we do not waste our time on mediocrity. Seen in this light, ranking authors is instrumental in forming early opinions about works of literature. It shows that people are applying the same agonistic thinking skills learned from analyzing the internal texts to the external history that the books exist in.

Now, now, Mortal... I knew you would catch the little reference to Racine... but you'll notice I've added Ferdowsi as well?:hand:

As for a personal "ranking"... well I suppose we all have something of an idea along these lines. T.S. Eliot speaks of the canon as forming some ideal order that continually changes... if ever so slightly... each time we discover a new author of real merit. But arguments as to whether Dante is better than Milton become tiresome and have nothing to do with why I read (besides... it should be obvious to all but the illiterate that Dante is the far superior writer:D).

As for your degree of sophistication... I suppose it would depend upon what sort of whiskey you are drinking.:sosp:

I agree with much of what has been said above. I think that, in part, the ranking to exclusion fetish is derived from our preoccupation with the notion of a canon: the (in no way incorrect) idea that there is accumulated value in, er, 'western' (:brow:) culture worth hanging on to. There's only so much room, so inevitably some authors (i.e the one's you don't particularly like) don't make the cut. Of course, that's entirely the wrong way to approach it, but I suspect that's how it often plays out. Moreover, it seems to me that lists and rankings are a pervasive element of modern life. It's the 'top 5 desert island' syndrome. A list is digestible and convenient. It can be recited and evaluated quickly. Serious discussion takes time and thought.

Well, making lists and such is fun. And some writers are better than others. So, if I were to simply why people like to rank one author above another I'd say it's this: intellectual game.

It's because it is easier to rank authors than to read them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myrna22

There is no reason to rate one author over another. Read what you like, enjoy it as you like. Rating authors who is good, better or best, who is most important, all silliness. It comes down to appreciating what you appreciate and nothing more.

---

Actually there is a lot of motives to rank over one another. For example, reading what you like is obviously, ranking what you like more. The same way it is ingenous to think we can pull absolute afirmations like those in the Dickens/Tolstoy case, it is ingenous that we can not find enough reasons to see why Shakespeare is superior and why even so, you may not like him.

Reggardless, this is not just here. In a football forum most topics are about who are the best, who is overated, underated, that you can not compare two different things, etc. In the end I just have to replace "did not played in europe" or "played in the past not in moderm era" for "did not wrote long stuff" and "is not from Canada" and we have evidences that Pele scored more goals than Dante.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

In the end I just have to replace "did not played in europe" or "played in the past not in moderm era" for "did not wrote long stuff" and "is not from Canada" and we have evidences that Pele scored more goals than Dante.

---

You are the man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

I think its all to do mainly with personal taste. A person might see the superiority in an novel that another sees as inferior. Thats why polls on which is the best book etc dont work and all the disagreements and arguments flare up. Just because one person says a book is a great, doesnt necassarily mean we all have to agree. Variety is the spice of life after all. :)

---

I have to agree with you. For me part of being a good author (to me personally) is that I'm entertained by their work. Take Grapes of Wrath as a good example. It's touted as a great work, and I would rather have a root canal than ever try and read it again. Some people love it, though, and to them it is great. If someone could give me a list of non-judgment based criteria that describes a good author, then we could see about sorting them out. Until then, I suppose it is all in what you enjoy reading. I tend to figure that if you are published then you must be doing something correct. That isn't to say I enjoy all published work, but I'll give credit where it is due for being in print :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's because it is easier to rank authors than to read them.

---

You know JBI as much as I agree with this statement, it's sort of funny that I find it easier to read Tolstoy and Dickens then to say which is better.

Rereading this thread I want to draw a slight distinction. I stand by my statement that it bothers me when people try to negate one author or another because someone else did "it" better, but I also agree with The Comedian. There is a lot of entertainment value in deciding a criteria of greatness and making arguments as to which author most fully fulfills them. In many ways this is the root of literary criticism in the West. One could enter a lively discussion, without insults and immaturity, in which assessments of Dickens's and Tolstoy's success was looked at in accordance with a novelistic rubric. In essence I think what bothers me is not ranking so much as trying to dismiss authors from discussion, in reality the discussion itself can be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

than another to the point of exclusivity. I read posts where Dickens is disliked and Tolstoy is praised and vice versa. Now that I have reached the supposedly golden years, I am reading mostly the classics which I haven't read yet. But to give an example, I look on all authors as friends. I have read most of Dickens and the four major novels of Tolstoy. I don't think of one as being better than the other. I wouldn't want to read one exclusively over the other. Both authors have a lot to give the reader. Whether I am reading Sinclair Lewis or Hemingway, Tolstory or Dostoevsky, Pynchon or Salinger, I enjoy the writing and wouldn't want to read one over the other. I have many friends, and they are all different. But I wouldn't want to choose one over the other, treating one as a friend and abandoning the other. If a writer has reached the stage where he is considered a composer of classic literature, I want to read him/her so that I can further learn from the experience. I want to read somthing from every classicist writer be it Fielding, Sterne, Dickens, or a modern such as Scott Fitzgerald.

---

Personally I also take the approach where I try to survey as much as possible across the whole field of literature, taking in various authors from various backgrounds or "movements". I do this so that I am as rounded as I possibly can be, as I have taken literature passed the stage where it is just for pleasure or something I do to pass the time. It means much more to me that this. It is a way of life, sort of.

However, this does not mean that I am going to like everything from every area equally. If this were indeed so I would be suspicious of the person who claimed it. There are always particular writers or areas, or thoughts, or movements which are going to resonate more than others within the reader. Whether this is Romantic over Realist, Modernist over Post-Modernist or simply a preferred authorial style.

For me there are always two bodies of thought operating within me as a reader. One that can stand back and view literature almost scientifically, coldly, the way you have to approach "texts" during most formal essays of a degree. Here I can read anything and write from a critical point of view objectionably, or I would like to think I can at least have a good go at it - I've managed to read Samuel Richardson so that is at least a pat on the back for me in this area! Then, two, there is the other me which takes literature as something that is motivated entirely by passion and instinct. Here I read for what moves me, what makes my reading colourful, beautiful, here is where my personal interest lies and is the main reason why I even bother reading - because it love it. Sometimes the two come together.

With this in mind it is entirely possible for me, for example, to appreciate Dickens in the first category but not in the second. I can argue why he was a talented writer in the way he could pull a sentence or paragraph together, the way he could set a scene, the way he could create caricature, the way his stories uncover social injustice as a critique of Victorian or early capitalist society or whatever. However within the second category he does little for me outside of descriptive passages. I find his characters tedious and at the moment at least, I am not interested in them at all. By the same brush stroke I am not overly thrilled by most Post-Modern texts, I’m personally not that interested. I know why they are doing what they are doing, but as a generalisation I am not bothered about exploring them in category two, that is for personal interest and fun. I could read them for study coldly, but for kicks probably not.

So, I would never read one author or area of thought in exclusivity to another one because literature is something of study to me, even after my degree and beyond. However, I could on a personal level quite happily exclude and reject even quality authors almost completely from my personal canon. Every year I pick up Dickens for personal interest and put him back down again just as quickly. Many authors or movements work against each other in style and application so in the end it is only natural that you are going to prefer one over another.