This is the worst question I have ever heard.
Printable View
This is the worst question I have ever heard.
There is no reason to dislike the "canon." It is necessary when preserving World Literature, or "highlighting" select pieces of literature. Hopefully I did not imply (somehow) that I do not find the "canon" essential.Quote:
I think what turns people off the notion of a "canon" is the idea that there is some universal list of essential reading and that one cannot be thought to be well read until he or she has conquered this.
Arguing that one author is greater than another is not necessarily unsound of mind. Although an argument of whether or not "Shakespeare is greater than Dante", or the reverse-- would take two posters a great deal of articulation, and effort, to present their arguments notably (which is not likely to happen on a thread created for the sole purpose to condemn acclaimed writers, as if they were revealing the names of heretics to be burned at the stake).Quote:
Stating that "Shakespeare is greater than Dante"
Correct in every sense, although I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history.Quote:
Shakespeare and Faulkner and Kafka and all the writers who are deemed as "classics" or part of the "canon" are thought of as such for a reason. Any individual reader may dislike or feel ambivalent about any given writer... but that doesn't mean that said writers are "overrated" or "boring"... It simply means that the individual reader didn't connect with that writer.
I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:Quote:
Seriously, I'd like to see posters make some attempt at defending absurd blanket statements such as "Kafka is overrated" (Oh really? Why? What arguments can you make in support of this statement of fact?)...
Art can exist for art's sake, not for the sake of entertainment. When someone claims that a novel is "boring," what they are really claiming is that they do not have the "tolerance" for that specific novel.Quote:
The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art.
All I educed from this is that you dislike stream of consciousness.Quote:
Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up.
I will again state, that I have not read DeLillo in ages, although it seems that the only resemblances they have to you is that you disagree with their reputation.Quote:
And DeLillo is somewhat like that, although he doesn't go about it by using confusing prose.
There is nothing wrong with placing style over substance. Those are essentials of modernism and postmodernism; by claiming you dislike style so much you have just exemplified on the fact that you dislike modernism and postmodernism, making you biased.Quote:
placing style over substance
Quote:
The criticisms they reserve, however, are, in my opinion, warranted.
These criticisms they receive, bringing back an old example of Faulkner being "dumbed down" literature, are just as warranted as my insults, then. For if the writers were alive they would be insulted even more so than the readers I have insulted.Quote:
And there is a big difference between disagreeing with somebody and insulting them.
I found the response to Nabokov comical, also-- it seems like Kipling didn't know how to write. The shock the San Francisco Examiner experienced when they found out that he was the youngest person to receive the Nobel (in literature) would have been priceless to view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
There is no reason to dislike the "canon." It is necessary when preserving World Literature, or "highlighting" select pieces of literature. Hopefully I did not imply (somehow) that I do not find the "canon" essential.
What many dislike in the "canon" is the idea that it is a universally agreed upon list as opposed to an abstract idea that varies according to the reader. What is "essential reading" for the English language reader is not necessarily the same as what is "essential reading" to the French or German... let alone Persian, Indian, or Chinese reader. Bloom's "canon" is a good list of books of real merit... but certainly not the last word on what books are or are not "classics".
Arguing that one author is greater than another is not necessarily unsound of mind. Although an argument of whether or not "Shakespeare is greater than Dante", or the reverse-- would take two posters a great deal of articulation, and effort, to present their arguments notably (which is not likely to happen on a thread created for the sole purpose to condemn acclaimed writers, as if they were revealing the names of heretics to be burned at the stake).
The notion of suggesting that this or that "classic" is the "worst book ever" and the author is "the worst author ever" seems to reveal far more about the reader than it does about the presumably "bad" author.
I'm sure the author of this thread (for some reason) made this thread in order for individual readers to express their ambivalence towards writers who have established themselves as part of history.
Again... I see nothing wrong with stating, "I really hated As I Lay Dying." That's a simple statement of personal opinion... one's own experience with a writer. To make what passes for a factual statement of judgement, however, "Faulkner is boring" demands some sort of logical argument.
I doubt you really would like to see how most posters would defend that statement. Take a look at one of them said in defense of claiming that Faulkner was overrated:
If an individual can't offer a strong argument as to why a given writer is overrated, then they probably should make such value judgments.
The whole point of entertainment is to prevent boredom. Being boring will always be a perfectly legitimate criticism of any form of art.
OK... let's start with the initial presumption. Is all art... in this case all literature... nothing more than entertainment? Personally, I am of the camp of Walter Pater, Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, and Gautier and as such I thoroughly embrace the notion that a central value of art is pleasure... but do we assume that all derive pleasure from the same sources? Some individuals find pleasure or are entertained by struggling through the New York Times crossword puzzles. Others need car chases, explosions, and scantily dressed girls on the big screen. Boredom is not a valid criticism unless it is defined... (Boring according to whom? by what standards?) and examples should be provided.
Faulkner purposely tries to make his work confusing. I can't respect an author who tries to make his work look like more than it is by muddling things up.
Is that seriously his goal? Again... according to what standard. Shakespeare was criticized by the French for his subplots and diversions. Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, Sterne's Tristram Shandy, and Byron's Don Juan are almost wholly constructed of diversions. Is Faulkner really that difficult? Considering it was As I Lay Dying that was initially mentioned how difficult is that book? A tale is being told by different members of the same family. The artist has abandoned the single omnipotent narrator and presents the narrative from the point of view of a variety of individuals. Is this idea really so difficult to grasp? Perhaps the author employed this form as a means of reinforcing the notion that any story is never as simple as it seems. It changes according to who is telling it... their agenda... their grasp of the facts... etc... This makes more sense than to suggest that the author is simply trying to be "difficult".
...placing style over substance...
This assumes that "substance" or "content" and "style" or "form" are two separate things. The reality is that in a successful work of art the two are so interwoven so as to be insuperable. Let's go to Shakespeare again. What is the substance of the majority of his sonnets. As one wag famously suggested, it is little more than "when I think of you, I feel blue". On one level this analysis is true... if we accept a grade-school approach to reducing a work of art to a simple "meaning" not unlike a dictionary definition. To me this seems akin to reducing a marvelous meal to the recipe. As Walter Pater pointed out, in Art, as in life itself, it is the experience not the end... not the "meaning" that matters. Reduced to the essentials, the meaning/content/substance of Shakespeare's poems is not profound. But as one recognizes that style... the language... the form is all part of the substance... of the whole experience... they become so much more.
Again, it is fully fine to admit I don't like that particular style of writing: "I don't like stream of consciousness" or "I don't like the use of multiple narrators". This is different from suggesting that the work is an example of style over substance when style and substance are essential to all art.
I agree that art can exist for its own sake. That doesn't mean that it can't be boring. You're the one who said that boring should not be used to describe by those not looking for "cheap entertainment" implying that it is some form of entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intuition
And I never claimed I disliked style at all. Style is fine. Even placing style over substance is fine as long as you still have some substance and don't use style to create the illusion that there is more substance than there really is (which I believe Faulkner does).
And I do not dislike all modernism and postmodernism, and even if I did, that would not make me biased against it. If that were the case, I could just say that you are biased in favor of Faulkner because you like him. See how pointless that is?
James Joyce is one of my favorite writers and I even like Hemingway and Fitzgerald. I also love some postmodernists like McCarthy. My beef is with the particular techniques Faulkner uses to deliberately make his writing more difficult to understand. I am not just talking about stream of consciousness. I'll put up some examples later on.
In art style is substance.
I agree completely; but as you have seen, some posters have the audacity to outright claim that some of the writers do not deserve the reputation they have gained from critics and give simple answers as to why they believe so.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
No disagreement there.Quote:
The notion of suggesting that this or that "classic" is the "worst book ever" and the author is "the worst author ever" seems to reveal far more about the reader than it does about the presumably "bad" author.
The former is not a statement I dislike, but it is usually fused with the latter when asked for a reason.Quote:
Again... I see nothing wrong with stating, "I really hated As I Lay Dying." That's a simple statement of personal opinion... one's own experience with a writer. To make what passes for a factual statement of judgement, however, "Faulkner is boring" demands some sort of logical argument.
I agree completely; but the one individual I was in debate with claimed that another individual disliked modernism because "it is boring." Which is what brought us to this stalemate.Quote:
If an individual can't offer a strong argument as to why a given writer is overrated, then they probably should make such value judgments.
Of course that does not mean it cannot be boring for certain individuals who require a "certain pace."Quote:
I agree that art can exist for its own sake. That doesn't mean that it can't be boring.
If it does happen to be some sort of entertainment, it does not exist upon entertainment; chances are that if someone in search of greater literature will not care to search for the novel that will entertain, but rather-- enlighten.Quote:
You're the one who said that boring should not be used to describe by those not looking for "cheap entertainment" implying that it is some form of entertainment.
Elaborate on this illusion you speak of. How does Faulkner give you this idea? Your retorts are far too broad.Quote:
Even placing style over substance is fine as long as you still have some substance and don't use style to create the illusion that there is more substance than there really is (which I believe Faulkner does).
If you dislike the entirety of the movement then you are bound to be biased.Quote:
And I do not dislike all modernism and postmodernism, and even if I did, that would not make me biased against it
Firstly, in this case, Faulkner is a single writer; modernism is a movement.Quote:
If that were the case, I could just say that you are biased in favor of Faulkner because you like him. See how pointless that is?
Secondly, I do not champion every single piece of literature Faulkner has written, but he has written (what critics refer to as) masterpieces. The latter I hold as great pieces of 20th century literature.
You claim that "even if you did" dislike modernism in its entirety, you would not be biased. Modernism encompasses a large amount of authors. To dislike them all, is simply biased.
The only pointless thing about that was you claiming that championing Faulkner was tantamount to containing malice for modernism.
You must articulate what those techniques are, until then we cannot defend upon what you consider to be "boring," and "dumbed-down," and what we do not believe exists.Quote:
James Joyce is one of my favorite writers and I even like Hemingway and Fitzgerald. I also love some postmodernists like McCarthy. My beef is with the particular techniques Faulkner uses to deliberately make his writing more difficult to understand. I am not just talking about stream of consciousness. I'll put up some examples later on.
Chances are what you're referring to, as I've said before, is his stream of consciousness/interior-monologue. There is a famous example in The Sound and the Fury in which the Harvard attendee Quentin is severely depressed. Towards the end of his monologue his mind is at the state of being completely deteriorated, and this is what causes the rambling paragraphs devoid of grammar. In my experience, most students discontinue reading the novel here.
Thank you.Quote:
In art style is substance.
I get the impression that many would put Edward Bulwer Lytton on the list of the worst ever. That he was the one who prompted Dickens to change the ending of GREAT EXPECTATIONS which according to George Gissing in CHARLES DICKENS: A CRITICAL STUDY is otherwise the perfect first person narrative. He also may have played a role in the fall out between Dickens and Thackeray which doesn't help his popularity. I've never actually read any of his works so I can't personally provide a judgment on that.
I think many regard Anthony Trollope as a writer of little merit because of the narrative tone and what Gissing calls a capital crime of fiction, acknowledging within the narrative that he his writing fiction. This opinion I am certainly not in agreement with. I've read several of his novels and have been quite impressed with them, for the psychological depth of characters, and Trollope's aptitude for complex social situations.
George Bernard Shaw, cannot be called a bad writer because as a playwright he is quite brilliant and philosophically deep, BUT, the novels he wrote very early in his career (I've read the two that were published in his lifetime) are somewhat lacking, I think in literary value, as the author himself acknowledged.
An argument could probably be made for James Fenimore Cooper.
I'm not willing to give a name because the worst writer ever is probably someone I've never read, but the worst writer I've read might be Clara Reeve, who produced a fairly cheap and uninspired offspring of Horace Walpole's THE CASTLE OF OTRANTO a few years after Walpole's novel was published.
Jackie Collins by far. Ok she isn't exactly considered 'literary'; but how the **** is she the most widely sold author?!?! Eh?
Chuck Palahniuk, another trendy jump-on-the-bandwagon author IMO. Though not as bad Jackie.
I'd like to evaluate some of the nominations I've seen (for the record I consider myself extremely well read when it comes to eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth century literature, but know almost nothing about literature after about 1920 so there are a lot of choices I can't evaluate).
I've seen a few people nominate Jane Austen. I'm surprised that they aren't more, because to really understand Jane Austen (more so than with other authors) you really need to slow it down a little bit and enjoy the irony in some of her sentences. I know a few people who enjoy her novels for the plots. I don't, but I love the novels because of the ambiguity. A good critic can make the case that MANSFIELD PARK is an anti-Jacobin novel, while another good critic can consider it to have the exact opposite orientation. Some have aligned her with Edmund Burke, others with Mary Wollstonecraft, still others with Godwin. To me that's the mark of a good work of art.
Samuel Richardson's nomination I can understand. I enjoyed PAMELA in the early chapters because of its perversity. You could legitimately claim that it lacks subtlety and psychological complexity. On the other hand, the novel was still a very new literary form at that point and he made some impressive contributions to the epistolary novel form.
Charles Dickens, while I would argue he isn't quite Thackeray's equal in genius, his sentences are beautiful and profound, and his characters memorable. As to comments about the serialization process, it had its disadvantages, but Dickens insisted it was the best way to create his art. It must be noted that many well known nineteenth century novels were written that way. I recommend reading George Gissing's book on Charles Dickens, because Gissing goes into depth on the serialization process and the impact that it had on each individual novel. I also think that not enough people have read THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP and BLEAK HOUSE.
I would be interested to know why the person who nominated Oliver Goldsmith considers him to be lacking in Literary Merit.
Can't agree with that either. Not because I have read Trollope (I should start on him really), but because it's a stupid argument. Adn I really mean 'stupid'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vavasor
I remember Austen 'hastening to a happy conclusion' (in Northanger Abbey?), I remember Saramago saying something about returning from a digression with a clever stroke of writers' craftmanship (what a horribly arrogant thing to say!). How are both of them not essentially great novelists? Both admit writing fiction and deconstruct to some extent their function as a writer: it is manipulative, without them we woudn't know what the characters are going to do, but we as readers are also at their mercy. We could then say that Austen and Trollope (if not many more) were way before their time instead of committing a sin.
Stupid argument, as I said.
I am going to go with Dick Francis. I feel some guilt as he was resident of Grand Cayman, but to hell with it.:coolgleamA:
... always remember .... "if everybody would do that same thing now" and you´re aways watched be an independant eye/brain combination ... " Greetz to Dick :aureola:
Maren
---------------------------------------
http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/...chipuchi/1.gif
http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/...chipuchi/1.gif
I have just reviewed 3 books from an American author, 3 books I found in my daughters bedroom hidden under her bed (yes I know its wrong to snoop) I was surprised by how truly bad these books are, they seem to be some sort of trilogy and the subject matter is sick, perverted and morally WRONG! The name of this barbarian with a type writer is Dr. Adam Ireland, his books are the Interzone series and my daughter bought them off of lulu, I have banned this author's books in my home henceforth. I have a proud Christian family and every word in his books are offensive to my values as a good Christian. My daughter has told me it was peer pressure that made her buy these evil books, saying that all the kids at school are reading them and she assures me she never read them but only bought them because all her friends had done the same. I am morally outraged by this author. I would suggest to all of you that if you value your relationship with Jesus then please DO NOT buy his books.:reddevil:
Looking at lulu, it's interesting that every review talks about how appalling and offensive this book is, yet most give it five stars. Those and the authors blurb seem to use its offensiveness as a selling point. Which makes me think, based on that and the above being the poster's only post, that this is actually reverse-psychology spam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Cutty
Socrates was the worst, he never wrote.