I have him on my mind. But no, I decided to try again :). I'd hate if I missed something great out of Faulkner just because my experience with Absalom Absalom.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine_enl
Printable View
I have him on my mind. But no, I decided to try again :). I'd hate if I missed something great out of Faulkner just because my experience with Absalom Absalom.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine_enl
As a Hemingway fan, I'd be interested in hearing why people find him overrated? As far as I'm concerned, he has written four classic novels and a number of classic short stories.
His style did vary. He became famous for his detachment as a narrator and working with implied feelings, but give For Whom the Bell Tolls a try if you want Hemingway in another mood, a novel filled with descriptions and inner thinking of its main characters. It also deals explicitly with a number of moral themes.
Old Man and the Sea is Hem at his most sentimental, but it's a beautiful story. And the best of the lot would probably be A Farewell to Arms.
I'm just trying to say that he did not always write in the same manner. If you've never given him a try, look up Indian Camp online and get a feel for his traditionally terse yet highly rich prose.
Hemingway rocks.
Gertrude Stein is COMPLETELY OVERRATED. I do not care how many critics insist that she is some founding member of modernism - her writing is terrible!
I honestly, REALLY second every word in that quote...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
couldn't really put it any better myself!
Heminway is the schiznet!
Shakespeare is the most overrated :D.
Let me inject Paulo Coelho, unless of course we are only supposed to be bashing classic authors. The Alchemist is not even suitable for a boat anchor. It is definitely below any classical author mentioned here.
Before I start I'll admit that what I say may have been said on this thread many times already but I only read a few pages back (partly because of time restrictions and partly because my laptop has decided that every time I go somewhere on the internet it's going to open a new window...I don't know if I've accidently changed the settings or my laptop's just having an off day...anyway).
Firstly, it really isn't fair to put authors like J.K.Rowling and Stephenie Meyer in this thread since they are not highly rated in the first place so can't really be overrated. It's like saying junk-food is overrated! Nobody says it's nutritious but sometimes it's nice to indulge. But you can't compare it with a really good meal from a nice restaurant.
Secondly, as for the question, I'm not sure who to pick. There are novels I've read that I didn't feel lived up to the hype but whether they are overrated or I just didn't enjoy them personally is hard to say. I think I'll add my vote to Joyce (partly because I'm currently studying for my Modern Lit exam and I can see Ulysses sitting on my bed...)
I'll admit that all I have read of Joyce is Ulysses so I may be judging him unfairly. I can also admit that there is some merit to the novel but it reads like an experiment. A really really really long experiment. I'm glad I read it but mainly because I feel like it's something you can hold up as an achievement. I feel like it would be the same if I ran a marathon; I wouldn't enjoy it but I'd be proud I did it. ;)
I think when Virginia Woolf wrote Mrs Dalloway she said something about taking Joyce's idea but making it actually work or doing it better or something. I completely agree. Ulysses is pretty interesting as an experiment but, for me, as a novel it doesn't really work.
Wait! Scrap my last post because I know who I think the most overrated writer EVER is. I can't believe I didn't think of him before. Wordsworth. I absolutely fail to see how he got his position in the literary canon! Unlike writers such as Joyce or Fitzgerald or Emily Bronte, who's works I don't like as much as their hype but can see some merit in, I don't see anything in any way special about Wordsworth.
It's not because I think he was a pompous, arrogant arse - which I do - but I don't see one thing that makes his writing more worthy than thousands of other mediocre poets. I thought for a long time that I just didn't like the romantic poets but then I read some others and I do. I LOVE Blake and I really enjoy some of Coleridge and I'll have a read through some Shelley now and then but I just can't stand Wordsworth.
I know people have been criticised on this thread for throwing out a writer of well repute and then leaving at that with no explanation so I'm trying to think how I can best justify my opinion. The problem, mainly, is that that is just it with Wordsworth...there's nothing. He leaves me cold. I feel like there's no feeling in his poetry whatsoever and I can't even say I think he's technically good. I feel like he was a poet who tried to make up for a lack of quality with quantity. His poetry seems longer than it needs to be (I know I said something similar about Joyce and thought I'd clarify; I have no problem with a text being long if it needs to be but I think needless length is one of the biggest sins writers commit) and padded out with...nothing. It's all so nothingy.
I know that hasn't been very explanatory, more like a rant, but after my last exam tomorrow I'll maybe dig up some Wordsworth and give examples of what I mean.
he appears to have weird feelings for nature in Nutting
If he isn't the worst, then Wordsworth is certainly near the top of the list.
Disregarding J K Rowling and other obvious writers of non-literary fiction - although I wouldn't like to give that term a definition - the king of the overrated writers is Ian McEwan, who has not written anything worth reading for a very long time. Followed very closely be the prancing prince of dross -Martin Amis.
The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!
I don't think it's possible to accurately answer this question with only one writer, but since the question was posed in the singular, I'd have to say Ayn Rand, not because her writing style was necessarily bad but because her love of plutocracy and unfettered capitalism strike me as amazingly stupid and loathsome. BTW, she thought that smoking was really cool and that cigarette health warnings were some sort of socialist plot, and guess what she died of? Well, at least she proved the existence of poetic justice...
The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!
Yes... a mediocre writer and less-than-mediocre thinker turned into a cultural icon: a brilliant artist and profound philosopher. :sick:
No, Rand was a better writer than Wordsworth.
Maybe you don't like Ayn Rand's philosophical viewpoint but shouldn't you be judging her as a writer? I happen to find the anarchy implicit in George Orwell's philosophical viewpoint equally stupid and loathsome but have to admit he is a very good writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Quixote Jr
About Salinger, i completely agree. I read his book after getting a great recommendation for it and found it lacking. It was just teenage angstQuote:
Originally Posted by Pip
Whose dystopian musings served as inspiration for what was destined to become, according to several infallible critical sources, 2007’s Videogame of the Year: BioShock! Indeed, case in point. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
And, a bit lonely on this side of the seesaw perhaps, but my vote’s for Tolstoy/his battalion of translators...just never could get into that campy Karenin business.
Some of Coleridge's work is pretty dull, as can be Wordsworth.
Max Frisch. Montauk was practically unreadable. It jumped from scene to scene in the most confusing manner possible.
First off, apples to oranges. And secondly, Wordsworth is a beautiful poet.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
They both wrote in the English language. As for your other assertion: Tastes vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
But to call him overrated...
He has been put in the Canon, but he had no great influence in his day, except among the people that he associated with, and he has had little influence since. If the people who created the canon were looking for a Romantic who influenced later writing, then Byron would have been the one. Rating Wordsworth as worthy of being read is excessive, unless one trying to point out how not to write well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.
Wordsworth has no influence excepting upon those around him. Well certainly he did have an influence on Coleridge, Shelley, and Browning... positive and negative. One would also certainly Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, both of whom ranked Wordsworth along side Milton and Shakespeare. American literature and the centrality of nature and the writer's subjective response to nature certainly influenced Emerson, Thoreau, Tuckerman... even Whitman. Just a little research will reveal Wordsworth's importance and influence on writers as different as Pushkin, John Stuart Mill, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Poe, Keats, etc... It is not a far stretch to suggest that a great majority of the English poets after Wordsworth wrestled with his influence. Admittedly there was a rebellion against his work (and more often against what he became later) as there is in emulation or adulation. In either case, he most certainly was not some unknown figure who only impacted those immediately in his own sphere of contact.
As to Wordsworth's merit... certainly suggesting that he is one of the worst writers of all time is an absurdity. I personally prefer Blake... and Keats... but Wordsworth produced a body of poetry of unquestionable beauty, to my mind... and poetry that has been more than slightly influential upon the work that followed.
You'd actually be surprised how much influence Wordsworth had in his own day - there were quite a few editions of Lyrical Ballads alone brought out in his life time. He was even made a household name - though by then he wasn't much of a poet anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
As one of my professors put it (she is a modernist scholar, with a specialty in Eliot and Richard Wilbur), "Wordsworth's Ode is the greatest 19th century poem." Certainly, that may be a stretch, but it certainly would be top five, in terms of the way it changed poetic understanding. Perhaps you may be interested in reading Abrams' Mirror and the Lamp, where he discusses the transition in poetic thought brought about by, primarily, Wordsworth.
No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the art. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world; but the sonnets communicated something of value. Perhaps if Wordsworth had been a little more extreme, then his writing would have been as humorous as Coleridge's; but Wordsworth wrote as if he expected to be taken seriously.Quote:
As one of my professors put it (she is a modernist scholar, with a specialty in Eliot and Richard Wilbur), "Wordsworth's Ode is the greatest 19th century poem." Certainly, that may be a stretch, but it certainly would be top five, in terms of the way it changed poetic understanding. Perhaps you may be interested in reading Abrams' Mirror and the Lamp, where he discusses the transition in poetic thought brought about by, primarily, Wordsworth.
Wordsworth was an innovator, and as such was hugely influential on his peers and future generations. You may not like his work personally, but there is absolutely no denying that he's worthy to be in the literary canon. I can't help thinking you must be teasing us Peterl.
That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era. Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.Quote:
Wordsworth has no influence excepting upon those around him. Well certainly he did have an influence on Coleridge, Shelley, and Browning... positive and negative. One would also certainly Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, both of whom ranked Wordsworth along side Milton and Shakespeare. American literature and the centrality of nature and the writer's subjective response to nature certainly influenced Emerson, Thoreau, Tuckerman... even Whitman. Just a little research will reveal Wordsworth's importance and influence on writers as different as Pushkin, John Stuart Mill, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Poe, Keats, etc... It is not a far stretch to suggest that a great majority of the English poets after Wordsworth wrestled with his influence. Admittedly there was a rebellion against his work (and more often against what he became later) as there is in emulation or adulation. In either case, he most certainly was not some unknown figure who only impacted those immediately in his own sphere of contact.
Opinions vary. There may be value in a few of his poems, but the overwhelming bulk of Wordsworth writing was not very good. I won't claim that he was the worst English poet ever or even the worst of the 19th century, but i wonder what he would have written after the Tay Bridge collapsed in a storm.Quote:
As to Wordsworth's merit... certainly suggesting that he is one of the worst writers of all time is an absurdity. I personally prefer Blake... and Keats... but Wordsworth produced a body of poetry of unquestionable beauty, to my mind... and poetry that has been more than slightly influential upon the work that followed.
Byron's so much better than Wordsworth, as is Shelley and Blake.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Wordsworth IS overrated- when you learn poetry in school, the only 'old' poets you really know are Shakespeare and Wordsworth, mainly because of the latter's amusingly apt (or maybe not) name.
That just came to my mind too. There were many better poets than Wordsworth during that era, but more attention is poured onto him than he deserves. Even Leigh Hunt was as good a poet, but he is largely forgotten today.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Wordworth and nature..hmm...nature poems are the worst type. The Prologue- yawn.
Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.
No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.
And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.
While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world...
That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.
This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.
Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.
Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.
Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.
Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.
Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.
Actually... I thought Blake understood that:
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
William Shakespeare...the most over-rated anything of all time.
Oh yeah... and that Mozart dude... he kinda sucks too. And that Leonardo guy... a complete nothing.:rolleyes:
Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.
Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.
I used to think shakespeare was overrated and snobby... but I think alot of my prejudices against shakespeare (and alot of classic literature) was out of contempt for what other people say about him and making such grand statements (best writer ever!). alot of it was also due to my maturity... not saying ppl who think hes overrated are immature... but a vast majority of ppl who don't like shakespeare do not give him a chance.
shakespeare IS difficult reading (alot of elizabethan lit is)... but i think appreciation for shakespeare and actually alot of classic literature needs a personal desire (and an open mind)... that 'enjoiying' older literature DOES require some effort... kind of like listening to 'rock' music... you might not like so and so's album right away, but somehow it just sticks on you after a few repeated listenings.
and before ppl write off shakespeare as elite or snobbish... the guy married young, didn't go to college, was considered 'crude' by the critics of his time. even a couple hundred years after his death, some critics still didn't think much of him just because there attitude was that a man who came from 'peasant stock' couldn't be that great of a writer.
oh well, i just think its a loss if you dont give him a chance.
my vote for 'overrated' would probably be... hmm... maybe the beat generation. i think they were the first victim of a growing mass media... where the lifestyle took over the art. they definitely were good, and in some authors, great... but there meaning has been overrated in the sense that ppl take more out of what they did rather than what they wrote.
Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Would poetry or music be any different today, if Wordsworth or Mozart had not done what they did? That is an idea that is worthy of some thought. I can't say for sure, but i expect that poetry might be a little better now.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
All knowledge is subjective. The only value in knowledge is that it is shared by others and is effective in some way. I suppose that Leeches enjoyed that poem about the gatherer of leeches, but leeching isn't used in medicine any more.Quote:
While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world...
That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.
This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.
Quote:
Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.
Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.
Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.
Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.
I would imagine that all of those people and many others were influenced by Shakespeare and many other writers, but most of them chose to write other than like Wordsworth.