Printable View
You really have a thing against Dostoevsky, don't you? I mean, seriously, at some point, a line must be drawn even with personal tastes... To say Tolstoy is better than Dostoevsky is one thing, but to call D. the most overrated writer is just...wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe
I don't like your inclusion of Sartre either :D
I really hate Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad writer exactly, but that world weary pose, the boasting, lying and exaggerating in his personal life (especially the way he convinced everyone he was a war hero...I mean ffs, the guy drove an ambulance on the Italian front, it's not like he was an infantry officer at the Somme or Verdun), the macho posteuring etc- there is something obnoxiously adolescent and insincere about Hemingway that I find repellent. You only have to look at his most devoted fans!
Paolo Coehlo is awful. He belongs on a shelf with Californian, New Age garbage. I think all those Latin American 'magic realism' writers are overrated. Read Hermann Hesse instead!
As for Orwell, I think the criticism a bit harsh. He was absolutely spot on in his attacks on Stalin's Russia at a time when many British intellectuals were defending and forgiving Stalin anything just because he wasn't Hitler.
p.s J K Rowling is for kids, so give her a break. At least kids read her and learn positive lessons: about loyalty, love, comradeship etc. If it wasn't for her those same kids would prob. be playing soulless, violent video games. It's not like they'd be reading Keats and Dickens instead (though I must admit, as a kids writer she's not in the same league as Roald Dahl)
But he was one of the all time great creators of characters. In that respect he deserves to be compared with Chaucer, Shakespeare, Cervantes and Tosltoy. Secondly, he captured a period/ place like few writers I know. When you think of Victorian London/ England/ Britain you think of Dickens. Thirdly, he shook the conscience of a nation that was becoming ever richer yet ignoring the misery and suffering of so many of its inhabitants. Very few writers have ever had so much influence for good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nossa
However, I do know what you mean. He can be long winded (though perhaps that's because people back then had more time- no TV, no radio, no CDs, no cars etc etc) and sentimental.
Oh, Dickens could do the characters. You have to give him that.
Whilst I enjoyed Twilight, the writing was that of a 13 year old with a thesaurus.
He really is one of the all time greatest creators of characters. Only Shakespeare, Chaucer, Cervantes and a handful of others can compare. Among novelists he is almost supreme in that respect. People like Micawber, Scrooge, Bill Sykes etc seem almost archetypal.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Sartre was a surprise appearance. Nausea is an incredible novel. Read a bit of Mysticism then read it - astonishing. It really reads like a wide eyed innocent undergoing the full mystic/ Zen experience only NOT enjoying it- finding it hellish rather than uplifting. Scary stuff.
I just love Dickens, many people deplore the "simplicity" and "naivety" of his writing, but I think that it is precisely that which makes the charm of his books, as it is not simple simplicity and naivety, Dickens was an extremely smart man, and a man who really knew how to write.
As for Dostoevsky, I really like his books, however I do have to agree with the fact that he is somewhat overrated. It often seems that many people consider him the alpha and the omega of literature... but it just seems to me like the guy is not such a good novelist. There is something very sketchy and unrefined in his books (he wrote very fast, yeah, yeah I know, but it's the result that I read). No doubt he created a lot for literary theory and gave food for thought for philosophers and psychologists, but as a novelist, he was no Tolstoy. However, just like Tolstoy didn't have the depth of a Dostoevsky...
Dostoevsky was consistently good. There are no bad books written by this one writer. There are no so-called 'minor works'. Tolstoy's career was a slippery slope apart from the two famous books. Too much religion. I think Tolstoy was a 'one-hit wonder' but that 'one-hit' (War and Peace) happens to be the greatest of the great novels. As far as the depth of characterisation is concerned, Dostoevsky leads the way by a huge margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Let me disagree with this view of Tolstoy. His short-novels are masterpieces, those short stories I've read of him were very good, and I find Resurrection better than Anna Karenina. Many people seem annoyed by some "religious ranting" from Tolstoy, but the fact is that in most of his works, more obviously in his major works, there is always some ranting. Agriculture for Anna Karenina, Philosophy of history for War and Peace, and then religion for Resurrection. Tolstoy was considered one of the greatest Russian writers before War and Peace and Anna Karenina. One could argue that his religious turn made him write worse, I'd argue that it only made him write less (fiction) but the quality was still there. His non-fiction writings were always kind of boring, he just repeats himself way too much, be it his Confessions or his rantings in War and Peace...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow
Which work exactly by Tolstoy have you found very much inferior to the status of a great writer like Tolstoy?
As for Dostoevsky, I haven't read all of him (Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, The Gambler, Notes From the Underground and some short Stories) and I've found all of them very good, but most of them gave me an impression of being sketchy, so what I am saying is that on a stylistic level, he is far from being perfect. I am not saying he is bad by any stretch of imagination, I really like Dostoevsky, I just don't find him to be what some people try to make of him. He is certainly not the "most" overrated however.
I re-read Anna Karenina thinking I had missed something but still find it among the most forgettable of the 'great books.' I found the religious ranting in Resurrection appalling. Dostoevsky is not irreligious but later Tolstoy is just simply blatant. I did not mind the 'forces of history' and their indifferent march in War and Peace but religion at that scale in Resurrection is just not very palatable.
You raise some interesting points but I think your judgement on Hemingway isQuote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
rather hard because he really was a larger than life individual. As for his writing, I'm afraid I have only read A Moveable Feast and thought it was well written.
I know nothing of Paulo Coehlo but your recommendation to read Hermann Hesse is sound.
I have already mentioned Orwell elsewhere on this thread but I think you are being disingenuous in saying that many British intellectuals forgave Stalin because he wasn't Hitler. The fact is they actually believed in Marxism and should have been old enough to know better.
It's obvious that J k Rowling is for kids, but try telling that to the adults who read her.
Whatever his faults, Dickens was a great writer but I would suggest that most people are more likely to equate Victorian London with Conan Doyle; not in the same league of course.
He did drive an ambulance on the Italian front, where he was wounded by shell fire in the leg, and as he was crippled, bleeding, and tending to his own wounds, he managed to drag another wounded soldier nearly a mile to safety. The soldier still died, but I give Hemingway an A for effort on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
After WWI he covered the Spanish Civil War as a journalist, where he made some documentaries, his hotel was bombed, and he dodged more shellfire in the street. If it were me, and I'd been wounded in a war, I would do everything I could to stay out of the way of any further such actions; but he actually embraced this lifestyle, faced his fears, and went back.
During WWII he outfits his fishing boat with bazooka's, arms a posse, and gets a special permit to hunt German U-boats off the coast of Key West. When he realizes how ridiculous this is, he signs on for an embedded journalist position on the German front lines, where he is subsequently brought up on charges for engaging the enemy with rifle fire, and killing two German SS officers with a grenade. As a journalist, he was considered a non-combatant and was technically in violation of the Geneva convention.
The man hunted lions. Lions! What more do you need? When his plane went down in Africa, for the second time, despite having multiple fractured limbs he pushes his wife and friend through the window he's too big for and then, amidst flames and smoke batters the escape hatch open with his head. Say what you want about his writing, he was one tough dude. Then you have the boxing, the bullfighting... If you don't think that's macho, I'm afraid to see the guy who does impress you.
Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Celine, James Jones, Orwell: all might have seen more action than Ernest Hemingway, but he lived, and he wrote better than any of them. In the modern age, writers are not men of action as they were in the time of Aeschylus, Horace, Dante, Cervantes, Sidney, Sir. Walter Raleigh, and Lope De Vega.
Macho macho man! I wanna be a macho man...:banana:
Wounded veteran is not a punchline, and in my family we respect the men and women who put their lives in harms way for the sake of their loved ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
This is a punchline. Many veterans did not fight at all for their loved ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Well, like I said I don't dislike his books (though personally I think he is very overrated), but there is something nauseatingly adolescent about him. Many people who met him found him an overbearing braggart and liar. I read once that the story about rescuing the wounded man is now thought to have been grossly exaggerated. He covered the Spanish civil war, but he was a non combatant (as in WW1 and WW2). I'm sorry, but why didn't he go to Britain and sign up to fight the Nazis when Britain was all alone in 1940? People like Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon would have pissed themselves laughing if they'd been swapping war stories and all Hemingway could come up with was "well, my Hotel got bombed in Spain". Probably no hot water either! He always reminds me of John Wayne- both macho posturers who never really experienced the full horror of war (which was why they never grew out of the macho nonsense- the men who really had to do the fighting just wanted to forget it).
As for the hunting/ bullfighting, it doesn't take guts to shoot a lion. D H Lawrence (a much better writer) shows up the bullfight for what it is in 'The Plumed Serpent': an ugly, barbaric little piece of human cowardice and cruelty.
I do think he wrote well about the spiritual emptiness/ loss of meaning of the 20th century and he was right to try and find a solution in a more primitive, natural, authentic way of living. I also thought 'Fiesta'/ The Sun Also Rises was excellent but I can't take the posing and exaggerating. Had he been a piolet in the Battle of Britain or an infantry officer at Verdun then I'd maybe see it differently.
Hey, you forgot to mention the latest fad, F.R.E.E.D.O.M :flare:Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Probably because he was in his forties, walked with a limp, and had a history of other ailments which made him 4F. As far as his contribution not being dangerous or meaningful, I remember a little thing called 9/11. You might have heard about it. You see, a bunch of "ambulance drivers", fire fighters, and policemen ran into a burning building to pull survivors from collapsing wreckage. Well this "ambulance driver" went to a place every bit as scary as that. He took out the maimed, the bleeding, the dying, the groaning remains of humanity; let it seep into his clothing and fester in his mind. He dropped them off at the hospital week after week, and then he went back over and over to do it again. That's a patriot. That's a hero who's service does not deserve to be slighted or mocked by men who weren't there and didn't do or see half of the things he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
I think he joined the ambulance core for three reasons. 1)The United States hadn't declared war by the time he went overseas. 2)His father was a doctor, and he wanted his father to be proud of him as a preserver of life, not a destroyer. 3) Dos Passos and E.E. Cummings had already done the same thing. I think he wanted to be where the action was, unlike Faulkner who joins the Royal Canadian Airforce, never sees combat, crashes a plane after hostilities are over and then tells wild stories for years about his dogfights over Germany.
I read a number of Hemingway's books in my early twenties, and thought his writing was highly overrated. Being that I am older now, and hopefully possess a bit more experience and wisdom, I thought I might actually give the guy's books a second chance.
But after reading about his "exploits" just now, I think I'll pass. I'm even less impressed with him than before. I tend to agree with Wickes. Hunting (any animal) is hardly heroic. The fact that he hunted innocent animals and pointlessly taunted bulls indicates to me a severe disconnect with nature, a sheer lack of compassion for fellow creatures, and a desire for unnecessary bloodshed or pain. Boxing?...dear lord...if two dumb mugs want to beat the **** out of each other for "fun" and silly looking belts, let the morons have at it.
Arming a fishing boat with a bazooka?! It sounds to me like he wasn't just a war hawk of sorts, but a dramatic pea head to boot. Good thing he realized how goofy he appeared to be, and pulled himself together enough to go shoot some real people. Apparently, non-human animals were not enough of a challenge for him.
Seems to me he canceled out whatever merits he gained as an ambulance driver by performing other various bloodthirsty "feats" of ignorance and apathy.
Mate, if such thing makes you dislike an author (and not his writing) then you've just dismissed a ton and a half of good literature. I'm not sure I see the connection in the fact that you will not read the books of a dead author because he happened to hunt and did some crazy things.Quote:
Originally Posted by integrity
Might as well say: "I'm not going to read Borges, he never did anything in his life, so his writings are going to be boring!"
If we are taking Hemmingway's life into account, as we probably shouldn't, since it is his work which is important, then we must not forget his misogyny, alcoholism, and the fact that he seems overall to be a bit of an a@#hole. But that isn't the point. His prose has its importance, but many of his works are rather rubbishy. For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises, and his Short Stories seem to be the most enduring, with the rest being sustained by the fact that a) he didn't die too long ago, and b) the popularity of the other works keeps him in print.
No doubt he was a great author, but compared to many of his contemporaries, he is quite minor in the grand scheme of American novels, though perhaps central in the development of the American Short Story.
I'm not the most seasoned reader, but of all the books I have read William Golding goes to the top of my list of the most overrated of writers. Nothing he has written is substantially deep or evocative, and Lord of the Flies isn't a very good allegory of human nature.
I tend to agree with this. Tribalism is not necessarily barbaric, nor is savagery so quaintly schematic in terms of being able to plot one's points toward regression.Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobF
Today's gangs in the US, for example, don't need to be spearing pigs to be seen as devolving off of civic respect. Guns make human life very cheap these days, and murders don't even need motives--like it has been said about Cormac McCarthy's villains "killing seems to become just part of the conversation."
Reminds me of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Honestly JBI, only a person who hasn't read much Hemingway could refer to him as a minor writer. I've seen you misread him as a minimalist several times, and I've told you that's mostly just characteristic of his early work. You'll read Finnegans Wake but you won't put the slightest effort into reading For Whom the Bell Tolls, A Farewell To Arms, A Moveable Feast, or the Old Man and the Sea because you already have your opinion of Hemingway, somebody elses.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
As far as subject matter goes, when I want to know about the mating habits of Irish prostitutes, or I want to read the only book about a struggling young writer, or a book about Dublin, or Dublin, or Dublin again, I'll read Joyce. When I want to know what it's like to hunt a lion I'll read Hemingway.
And by the way, to whomever above was talking **** about boxing, I happen to like the sport.
Proust.
A couple of others like Golding, Hawthorne, Heller, Balzac, Austen, And pretty much any modern writer that is published.
Oh wait, and Twain. And most American writers. Most people who wrote in English.
And Steinback is insufferable.
His Iceberg theory was revealed to the world in 1932 with the publication of Death in the Afternoon, outlining his style, which though perhaps not as simplistic as his early work, was still minimalist. But either way, the point is whether or not he is a minor writer, or whether or not he is a major writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The first thing we need to assess is his contemporaries, off the top of my head, the ones that hit me first are O'Neal, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Porter, Carter, Cather and on a stretch, Wharton.
Of those, he is obviously better than Steinbeck and Porter, but Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby, and any of the major works of Faulkner seem far more enduring than even the best Hemingway. O'Neal is unique, as we are dealing with drama here, which seems outside of Hemingway, and most mainstream reading. The question then remains where is the spot for Hemingway.
In terms of short stories, as I mentioned earlier, he seems, with Faulkner and Porter, the most defining of the genre, far surpassing everyone, except for Faulkner. As for novels however, he is just one amongst many great writers, as named above. This is only American modernism however, as you mentioned above, there were a lot more writers working at the time, and I am sure there were a lot more as talented, or more talented writers we don't know about because of lack of scholarship/translation.
His place in the tradition of American literature is undisputed, but it is not a stretch to say exaggerated, as many of his works are dated (despite what you say) and the whole Lost-Generation bit which seems cemented in his early work has grown a little stale. Do I deny that he was a great writer? of course not, though I wouldn't place him above Willa Cather in my esteem.
[QUOTE=mortalterror;614301]..Quote:
As far as his contribution not being dangerous or meaningful, I remember a little thing called 9/11. You might have heard about it. You see, a bunch of "ambulance drivers", fire fighters, and policemen ran into a burning building to pull survivors from collapsing wreckage. Well this "ambulance driver" went to a place every bit as scary as that. He took out the maimed, the bleeding, the dying, the groaning remains of humanity; let it seep into his clothing and fester in his mind. He dropped them off at the hospital week after week, and then he went back over and over to do it again. That's a patriot. That's a hero who's service does not deserve to be slighted or mocked by men who weren't there and didn't do or see half of the things he did
Don't be ridiculous. Of course a man who risks his life as an ambulance driver/ fireman etc is brave and praiseworthy. I hugely admire the conscientious objectors in WW1 who served as stretcher bearers and won medals for rescuing men under shell fire. What I can't bear about Hemingway is his macho posturing, boasting and lying when he was never actually a combatant. It now seems to be generally accepted among biographers and scholars that he exaggerated and sometimes simply lied about his experiences in WW1 and Spain. Still, he needed to dramatise and exaggerate, wheras a man like Robert Graves in 'Goodbye To All That' simply tells of his time as an infantry officer in WW1 in a cool, precise, undramatic way because he had nothing to prove.
If you want to read about war, read something like 'The Last Enemy' by Richard Hillary: a British fighter pilot in the Battle Of Britain who was shot down over the channel and severly burnt/ disfigured. He wrote about the battle while recovering, rejoined the RAF shortly after publishing and was killed a few months later. He writes without a shred of self pity, sentimentality or drama. His little, almost forgotten, book is far more moving than anything that overrated bully Hemingway wrote.
He does write well about that I must say. Still, lots of writers write well about that period : Aldous Huxley, Evelyn Waugh, Hermann Hesse etc all capture the emptiness/ loss of meaning very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I must be quite a Philistine - Steinbeck is my favorite writer and I find Hemingway dreadful. For Whom the Bell Tolls is his only work that I've read cover to cover, so I'm certainly no expert and am definitely planning on reading more. But I just didn't see anything that justified all the praise heaped on him. If I was a Spanish civil war aficionado I may have enjoyed it immensely, but to me it was just a simple theme wrapped in an overly dramatized* book that was 200 pages too long.
* Particularly the ending
I am rather surprised at all this Hemingway fuss. I recently reread For Whom The Bell Tolls, and there are things to like in it, but Hemingway seems incapable of humanizing characters beyond Hollywood cliches. I was certainly not moved by what I should have been moved by in Rabbit's experiences, or the other peasant soldiers of the doomed Republic. I got much more, in fact, from a Granta contributor recently recounting an earlier travel writer's experiences in 1930's Spain.
But I am not here to trash the man either--there is something to be said for the reporting style he brought to fiction. Fitzgerald transcends Hemingway, Faulkner transcends both, but they were men of their era, and I disagree with JBI putting Wharton in their camp.
Edith Wharton, like Henry James, represented the last gasp of America in the Victorian age, and that she outlived James by a significant margin doesn't change that.
Let's all take a deep breath? (In and out... )
Both Hemingway and D.H. Lawrence are better as Travel writers.' Sea and Sardinia'' and ''A Moveable Feast'' are good. Can't read Henry James and don't think much of Grahame Greene.
In this particular case, I cannot separate the writer from his writing. Just as if Karl Rove or Dick Cheney wrote the most well-written fiction book loosely based on all the great things they've done for middle east, or if Michael Vick was the most eloquent writer on the planet, I would read none of their books because they are major jerks/idiots who lack the slightest amount of empathy or compassion and possess an acute disrespect for their fellow living creatures. These type of folks have nothing of value to impart to me at this time of my life. It's not about whether an author's life (in this case Hemingway's) was exciting or boring, it's about the moral character of the individual himself/herself. It permeates and shines through in a writer's works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
His alcoholism I couldn't give a crap about. Many authors are alcoholic. Or have some sort of addiction or self-destructive foible or idiosyncrasy (sometimes these shortcomings actually enhance the author's writing, making it more interesting or rich with understanding). But if the person appears to have a bloodthirsty streak for needlessly hurting fellow creatures, then that person more than likely has nothing meaningful to impart to me. It indicates a severe lack of depth in their perception of life.
Perhaps if I hadn't read Hemingway's works before and disliked them, I would give him another chance. But I have already read a few of his novels, and did not receive enjoyment or fulfillment from them. So why would I torture myself by reading his books again? Especially when the man's character is so repugnant to me?
For the person who enjoys boxing....good for you. Nothing like watching the spectacle of pointless bloodshed carried out by two willing individuals. I just wish and pray they would bring back the old gladiatorial "games" of Rome. I don't think there is enough gore or innocent animals involved in modern day fighting.
(By the way, Etienne, is that Borat as your avatar? ;-)
Well of course, but then the reason would be that you disliked his writing, not that the man was a hunter...Quote:
Originally Posted by integrity
No, Andrei Bely :lol: I think I'll have to change it it's confusing people :lol:Quote:
(By the way, Etienne, is that Borat as your avatar? ;-)
For what it is worth I would just like to throw my coins into the Hemingway well and say that personally I find his novel A Moveable Feast to be easily his best work. Hemingway seems to be at his best in this novel because it is closely biographical and therefore it seems to step away from the “Hollywood” aspect of some of his other novels. Fiesta is also one of his best works. Both these works while not outstanding by any means present a flavour of continental life that I find very attractive.
In this particular case, I cannot separate the writer from his writing. Just as if Karl Rove or Dick Cheney wrote the most well-written fiction book loosely based on all the great things they've done for middle east, or if Michael Vick was the most eloquent writer on the planet, I would read none of their books because they are major jerks/idiots who lack the slightest amount of empathy or compassion and possess an acute disrespect for their fellow living creatures. These type of folks have nothing of value to impart to me at this time of my life. It's not about whether an author's life (in this case Hemingway's) was exciting or boring, it's about the moral character of the individual himself/herself. It permeates and shines through in a writer's works... if the person appears to have a bloodthirsty streak for needlessly hurting fellow creatures, then that person more than likely has nothing meaningful to impart to me. It indicates a severe lack of depth in their perception of life.
Integrity brings into play an intriguing question. Can we separate the artist from the art? Can a real a@#hole produce great art? Do we find it impossible to divorce who the artist was from what the artist did? I think such questions are in need of another thread altogether... and so:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...810#post614810
I want to read more Hemingway but what on earth happens in The Old Man and The Sea?! It is apparantly 'one of the most profound stories ever told' but all they're currently doing is eating fish and reading about baseball!
It's purely a personal opinion, but...
Jane Austen
...
*runs*
Anyone would be overrated with her amount of rating
This story may be apocryphal but I read somewhere that Dan Brown decided to become a writer when he was lying on a beach reading a best seller and he said to himself 'I could write a better book than that.'Quote:
Originally Posted by teejay17
Whoever the author was is the person we are looking for.
Oh, Stephenie Meyer has imagination but her writing is terrible. She doesn't exactly have a way with words.
from a very prose-centric perspective i agree, jack kerouac is so often terribly careless in terms of style and technique in generalQuote:
Originally Posted by mister_noel_y2k
Stephenie Meyer is definitely the most overrated author ever in my book. I am sick to death of hearing about her and seeing her books, and people gushing over her, when she is a mediocre writer at best.
Even when I was in highschool I could not have stood to read her and was reading works of higher quality.