For me, reading Sylvia Plath was very disturbing because I identified with her darkest works. It was like looking into a mirror. Such pain and anger.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
<shiver>
Printable View
For me, reading Sylvia Plath was very disturbing because I identified with her darkest works. It was like looking into a mirror. Such pain and anger.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
<shiver>
Truman capote writes like an old woman on the crapper, stuffed, pretentious, self-reverent; his voice comes through the distance of a tinfoil tube then through the telephone. There is no emotion not fabricated, no real human emotions AT ALL. He is depraved in all ways as a writer. Truman capote is by far the most overrated writer ever. He's actually one of the worst. This is not in response to the kerouac thing. Kerouac is vastly overrated also, but he at least has written several sentences of any value in his time, whereas capote has not written one.
To me, the greatest pleasure of writing is not what it's about, but the inner music that words make. Capote.Quote:
Originally Posted by thechampion
Haven't looked through enough of this thread to know if anyone has said this, but I can't stand Dan Brown. Anyone who claims to have facts in their work and not do the adequate research to make sure is just a raving lunatic.
YES! finally someone who understands...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by crazefest456
The public asks for crap and so Dan Brown gave them crap. Danielle Steel, John Grisham, Anne Rice, etc. It's a noble accomplishment in this world, actually.
I really never saw anything in Grisham's works that I found so awful. He's no literary genius, but he knows how to right an interesting story that really grips your attention.
okokok
I can see the cigarettes making sense, but the beats weren't exactly lightweights at drinking and probably wouldn't deign to wear a speedo.
Ah... but considering a "Beats Lover" one gets the image of a holdover from the good old days of teenage rebellion... sort of an aging hippie. I don't imagine such as still hitting the Jack Daniels on a regular basis.
ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I sometimes ask the same question, but what does that have to do with authors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Bartholomew
Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is overrated (referring to a few posts on the first page) seriously needs to think about his/her life. If you don't like him, you don't understand him.
This is the second "overrated author" thread I've read. The other one started with someone going after Jane Austen. It's far more entertaining that this one. However, there are some valid points made in that other thread, which I would appy to this one.
1. Ignore current bestseller writers. We have no indication we'll be talking about them a hundred years from now.
2. Back up your claim. If you are going to crawl out on a thin limb and declare Shakespeare overrated, you had better have some facts to back it up. Otherwise, it's a matter of your not enjoying the writing or underappreciating it or something more relative to you than the author or the writing.
3. Every author doesn't appeal to everyone. It's what makes all the forums on this network so interesting. Seek what you like or what intrigues you or what gives you joy or mystifies you.
4. Read more than one work from the author before you make a declaration on his or her work. Go to a forum and make a statement like "I just read xyz by whomever and found it unpleasant. What else should I read to have a better experience." Folks will help you out.
My recent candidate for overrated has been Henry James and I'm changing my tune. I read Portrait of a Lady (liked it) and The Wings of the Dove (hated it) and I'm currently reading The Ambassadors (really like it). I'm discovering the I don't have what it takes to fully appreciate his work, but I can see why it might be considered "literature". So, give some of these folks a break.
I'm not even going to take contemporary "writers" such as Dan Brown,Rowling,Houllebecq or Paulo Coelho into account: 99% of today's authors are grossly overrated in my opinion,including the aforementioned.
As for older authors...in no particular order:
Ernest Hemingway
Virginia Woolf
De Sade(no matter how bad you may think he is,he's even worse!His poor excuse for philosophy in his works is ridiculous.)
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Honore de Balzac
Ayn Rand
Boris Pasternak
All of these,especially Hemingway,are important,but I still think they're given too much credit.
De Sade(no matter how bad you may think he is,he's even worse!His poor excuse for philosophy in his works is ridiculous.)
Agreed 100% His "writing" is nothing more than the ramblings of a deranged mind... and even that makes him sound better than he is. As mind-numbingly repetitive as some angst-laden teenager's diary (without the angst) and as "deep" as the ramblings of some middle aged pervert posting comments on some porno blog.
Ernest Hemingway
Actually... I find the short stories quite good.
Virginia Woolf
Really? I quite like her.
Ayn Rand
Agreed again.
Boris Pasternak
Perhaps it is hard to understand why he won the Noble Prize solely on the basis of Doctor Zhivago... but his poetry is quite marvelous. Check out My Sister-Life if you can find it.
I nearly forgot--Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Sure, he has the occasional good comment, but for the most part, this man has everybody fooled. I detest his style; there is no logical flow to his ideas. He quickly jumps from idea to idea without transition. His writing is a series of quotes that makes for a frustrating experience.
Second, he says many things that are just stupid. Occasionally he'll lay some doosie on you like “No great man ever complains of want of opportunity” (tell that to MLK) or “There is a tendency for things to right themselves” (I guess there's no need to treat AIDS patients or pay our bills). Yet everyone treats this guy with extreme reverence even though much of his advice is chock-full of ignorance.
But my biggest gripe with Emerson is his belief that he and the rest of the artistic elite are "part and participle of God." Talk about arrogant. This guy thinks he's filled with divinity. I remember quotes where he boasts that he has seen the universe, that he understands the universe, that he is the universe--all because his body is formed from molecules that have drifted the cosmos. To me, Ralph Waldo Emerson is synonymous with hubris.
Ernest Hemingway
Actually... I find the short stories quite good.
Virginia Woolf
Really? I quite like her.
Okay,I have to admit,I don't think Hemingway,as a writer,is as overrated as some of his works(does that even make sense:brickwall ?) are.Most notably,The Old Man and the Sea.There's just something about that book that makes me want to slap the nearest person.
As for Virginia Woolf,I've read very little of her,granted,but I find her no better than Rand.
I'd agree for the most part, however the probably only exception would be someone who's been sniped at quite a bit in the couple of pages of this discussion I bothered to read: Ms. J.K.Rowling - I think it pretty safe to make a bet that whatever anyone thinks of her writing she's created a phenomenom which is going to be talked about for many many years to come - the franchise is now the most profitable ever: the first five movies taking more in box office gross than 22 james bond films put together (and yes all six star wars films too). The last book sold record numbers in record time.Quote:
Originally Posted by PabloQ
Of course this doesn't make her a good writer, the books arn't the best written in the world and the plots arn't even that original. However, you have to remember these are childrens books, they just happen to have attracted massive adult audiences as well. I'll concede though that even relative to other children's books of a similar style she's not the best, give me Tolkien's The Hobbit anyday.
P.S. In agreement with other comments - I can't believe anyone can seriously say Shakespeare is over rated and be able to back that up with anything other than "plays are boring" or "the language just doesnt mean anything". I've spent all day going over Romeo and Juliet for revision for a Shakespeare exam I'm sitting on Tuesday and if anything it's only deepened my love for the Bard and all his works... well.... most of his works ;-)
Where's the objectivity? These are the over-rated writers - at present, anyway.:flare:
I'm not sure who is the most overrated author. What I do know is that I recently received an 'Alice in Wonderland' DVD in the post. It was based on a novel by:
J. K. Rowling
at least, in Cyprus, it was, somewhere - apparently!!!:bawling:
What does it have to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
That's sick. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
Dan Brown gets my vote for most overrated author currently. He combines all the current conspiracy theories of the Church, throws in a bit of fiction, writes it like a Bond film on fast forward (it's so fast you just can't understand it!), throws in long-winded speeches about bogus history, then writes all this in a form of prose that would be apt for a 7 year old.
That's why he's a bestseller, his books are so easy to read. He makes the chapters so short that you sound smart by finishing 12 in one night without breaking sweat, then just rants on about Catholicism and Opus Dei until the cows come home.
Here's the four reasons why he's a bestseller:
1. His books are inexplicably easy to read.
2. The Vatican expressly said not to read them.
3. It pays out on the Church. Big time.
4. Gives an alternate interpretation of the Holy Grail, which has everyone prancing around in joy, even though it the theory was clearly explained as a clear coherent idea in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors of that book actually sued Brown for stealing their ideas.
I myself quite like the idea of Mary Maguedelin being the Grail, however there is so much bogus in the book that it leaves me feeling like a 7 year old and confused.
García Márquez without any doubt.. Hemingway's works is like the start of comercial literature.. Balzac needs diferent points of view
ah, i ve forgotten write the holy bible
You're kidding, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanS
Hemingway, Coelho; Rowling and Brown are not considered to be writers.
James fennimore cooper is the most overrated writer of all time. Mark twain bashed him in an essay and i have never read the last of the mohicans the same way again.
Well, Mark Twain also bashed Jane Austen. Twain wrote, "Just the omission of Jane Austen’s books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn’t a book in it." I'm not sure I buy into this though...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Axle1017
Nicholas Sparks. I thought the movies had more information then his books, and that time spent I'll never get back. Ever.
And I thought that I was missing something by not liking Jane Austen. Twain's critique of Fennimore Cooper is one of the most useful instructions in writing fiction that exists. I never could stand Fennimore Cooper, but I didn't know exactly why until I read Twain's piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dori
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt
BILLY COLLINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by mono
Ok, Ok, I'll give you he's not for everyone. He's dry!! His Poetry is not supposed to be "Deep" which is one of his greatest criticisms! I think he's fantastic. In fact, I'll be seeing him at the AWP Conference next week, perhaps If I see him around the hotel I'll let him know he made such a list, he'd probably find it funny!! (He's been to my college quite a few times actually. Nice guy)
He is only the former Poet Laurette to the USA after all :p :lol:
How could you possibly include Gabriel Garcia Marquez on a list like this? I'm dumbfounded. He is one of the great authors of our time. Shame for you :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanS
Especially when there are people like Dan Brown and, Gee let me think, anyone else on the "Best Sellers" table at any bookstore around the country.
Ernest Hemingway is also one of the greats. Everyone has a right to dislike an authors work, but it sure dosen't qualify them for the "Overrated authors" list.
Techincally.... Hunter S. Thompson was a "Journalist", he is found in the Journalism section at Boarders at least so that should qualify for something. :lol: and totally not overrated, maybe not for everyone. Certainly not for everyone actually, but not overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Padan Fain
and with that I am not going to read this thread anymore, its making me nuts! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Stephen King is neither an exception story teller nor writer. He has a talent for finding images and settings that evoke fear and disquiet, but that's about as fa as it goes. Everything of his I've read has left me disappointed.
I'm all for being an iconoclast, but Shakespeare is THE writer. You can rebel against it as did Virginia Woolfe in her essay, but you cannot deny it.
I have not read Marquez in his original language but 100 Years of Solitude was a wonderfully crafted novel and one of the finest I have read. I found Autumn of the Patriarch lacking, however.
I'll agree with the James Fenimore Cooper posting. Steinbeck and Hemingway were products of their time and excelled at articulating the spirit of that period. They are perhaps set on too high a pedestal but they are excellent writers.
Freud has been overrated for a very long time.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion of Mr. Thompson. To call him a "journalist" is practically blasphemy. Not only is he taking a writing style where objectivity is of the utmost importance and pissing all over it, but he's acting like he's had some sort of great realization, like he's made huge progress in the field of journalism. Talk about Hubris. He completely distorts events; what should be as objective as possible becomes a farce. I know that remaining completely objective is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean journalists should stop trying. "Gonzo" journalism turns a public service into a monument of narcissism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
That and the guy was just a lunatic. It's one thing to get high and ruin your own life, but it's another get high and ruin someone else's. For God's sake, the man thought it would be a good idea to give acid to the Hell's Angels--some of the most murderous, marauding guys around, a group of insane criminals. Would you give an already dangerous group of men psychedelic drugs? I hope not. Talk about irresponsible.
I can say with confidence that within fifty years time that Hunter S. Thompson will no longer be relevant.
While I agree that Freudian ideas about women are completely ridiculous (penis envy? This guy was clueless when it came to ladies), I do think that some of his ideas about men are true. I can certainly identify with the Id, Ego, and Super Ego. I think his idea of the Oedipus Complex is insightful and interesting. And men certainly are phallocentric. I think he has a very good understanding of the male mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias
Well, no matter how much you hate him or his lifestyle, the fact is he was a journalist. You can, of course, respectfully disagree, agree, jump up and down, do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around. But, it doesn't change the fact that he was a journalist. And a Pioneer. Now, I understand that many people do not find drugs and alcohol, and terrible behavior as something to be admired. And it most certainly is not. But, brilliant people very often do terribly stupid things. And perhaps he was not brilliant at all, but if not then he was very lucky to make the impact that he has. I will be a professor of Literature some day quite soon, and I'll make sure that 50 years from now, when I am in the twilight of my career, to mention him to my students as someone worth looking at. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HotKarl
Of course, don't take offense. I am simply respectfully disagreeing with your disagreement, and mean no harm at all.
Also, have you ever considered the fact that perhaps the beauty of his style of journalism was in his distorted perception? It isn't that he is delivering to the public a distorted view of events, he is delivering his view of events. Also, "Fear and Loathing" (I know terrible example but it is one that everyone should know) begins with him covering a sports event, but the book (which is considered a book of journalism, and not a fiction novel) becomes an account of narcotic induced lunacy in LV. This is the account of an addict, from the point of view of an addict. That in itself is a wonderful thing, who wants to read a report from someone who has never been there telling that kind of story? they wouldn't really know would they? But Thompson lets you in, shows you from the inside, which is the point of Gonzo Journalism.
I'm glad you agree with me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.
(Also, Autumn of the Patriarch is a "Poem" according to Marquez at least, and is based on actual Tyrants. I think he was trying to show the horrors of all the Caribbean tyrants in one man. Marques is quite political.) Some of his short stories I have found a bit "Lacking" but Writers also progress. "The General in his Labyrinth" is a better political one if you wanted to give his political literature another wing, though I think I much prefer his love stories:blush: .