To Stlukesguild: Here, here on the Updike stuff. I'd have to remove Plath and James; thanks for not sugar-coating your opinion. quasi
Printable View
To Stlukesguild: Here, here on the Updike stuff. I'd have to remove Plath and James; thanks for not sugar-coating your opinion. quasi
Okay, I'll jump in and support Set of Keys' bashing of Wilde; I've never liked his writing. I wouldn't say he's "irrefutably sh*t" though--especially since people have been refuting his alleged sh*tiness all over the place.
I find Wilde to have an annoying, preening quality in his writing, and I've always thought he seemed too eager to be clever; I hated The Importance of Being Earnest, I was underwhelmed by Portrait of Dorian Gray, and I've never bothered delving in any more than that.
Because this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work. In my experience, his well-known witticisms are so often in the mouths of people who overheard them somewhere, or saw them outside of their original context, that I'd be happy never to hear any of them again.
So, basically, whether Wilde is "irrefutably sh*t" or not doesn't concern me...but I will agree with his being overrated simply because I see a large part of his reputation being built on snippets from works that don't share the popularity/public familiarity of their author's name.
Henry James? Not a fan of his writing
In the words of HG Welles "Like and elephant attempting to pick up a pea".
Dean Koontz. I honestly don't know how he has sold so many books. "it was cold outside so i put a coat on". I shouldn't really have to say any more... but I will. Koontz is like a disease, he is a plauge on the simple minded folk who could be using their spare time expanding their minds. p.s If you read Koontz I wasn't talking about you- your not simple minded. :-D
:lol: Yeah I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Then you've never understood Bukowski, not one iota of him. Sad considering all the big books you read.Quote:
Originally Posted by quote
this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work.
Actually I would think that Shakespeare or the King James Bible more likely fit the bill of the most oft quoted yet unread by the one doing the quoting. Certainly taken out of context the quotes may have a rather different meaning than intended...rather like Shakespeare's series of good moral point such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when one forgets just who mouths these. Personally, I far prefer the so-called "preening" aesthetes such as Wilde, Pater, Proust, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Nerval, Gautier, and Mallarme far more than many of the "realists" of the time. But then I suppose that's a personal preference... rather like Wagner as opposed to Brahms (although in reality I actually like both in that equation).
Affectation!Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Affectation!
Based upon experience.:D
Here they come! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
stlukesguild--You're right, Shakespeare's work and the King James version of the bible are quoted more often by people who haven't read them than anything by Wilde. I suppose my argument regarding Wilde could really be made about any author/work that has been absorbed into Western culture in such a way that it is seen or heard, fragmentarily, everywhere...and it's an argument that becomes progressively less supportable as the authors/artists/works in question get older and more ingrained into our culture (e.g., The Bible).
I stand by not liking Wilde (who is certainly better than...oh, let's say, Bukowski), and I gave my reasons for it; I didn't say my logic would be consistent. I like Rimbaud, Proust, and what little Baudelaire I've read. It is just a matter of preference, but what else are people going to base their idea of "overrated" anythings upon?
Most overrated are Joyce, and Shakespeare. (And maybe also Dickens).
Not because they are bad authors, for they aren't bad.
But because everyone is expected to like them. And if one dares to admit he did not like one of them, he's considered unintelligent, uneducated, without real taste in literature, etc. Everyone must like them because everyone knows that they're THE authors, the greatest writers in all time. Because people are not allowed to make their own opinion about them.
Most people didn't really read anything by them, but they are almost always top on different lists "TOP 100". It's not that they're famous, they're legends, that are really worshipped, it's like a cult. Just look at Shakespeare - you can find in in hundreds of versions, for children of different age, retold in different ways etc. Or Joyce with national holidays and people "replaying" Bloom's travel across Dublin...
And as for those who say Joyce deserves it because he invented modernism - well then, I'd say Laurence Stern desereves it even more. But unlike Joyce, poor Stern is underrated...
1) Shakespeare is a far more read author than Joyce. Comparing bowdlerized versions of Shakespeare’s plays to Blooms day in order to prove the cultish nature of these authors’ admirers is ludicrousQuote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
Shakespeare’s works have been criticised negatively. Samuel Johnson did so, as did Tolstoy and T.S. Eliot to a certain extent.
Joyce’s work is regularly denigrated in the Irish press at Blooms Day with little rebuttal. And the idea that nearly everyone who goes around saying they’ve read Ulysses has not actually read the book is absurd. Anyone I know who has read that book can quote a least a couple of memorable lines or talk about scenes that they particularly liked, even after their first read.
2) Sterne is not underrated. If you’re thinking of Johnson’s dislike of the book (“Nothing odd will do long”) then you need to look at other critical opinions. I haven’t read a single modern critic who underrates Tristram Shandy.
And Sterne did not have a hand in inventing modernism. People used to think Tristram was “Stream-of-consciousness” but most critics nowadays dismiss this notion. Sterne wrote Tristram in one distinct style. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in various different styles.
I would never say a contemporary writer was over-rated, although there are many. It would smack of professional jealousy. I would love to say that yours truly was in fact a professional, but at the moment I would be lying. I am, however, jealous.
Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.
Joyce, Sterne, Dickens,Melville-- over-rated? No way, man! The quartet has produced true "classics" in the sense that you can the works over and over and still find something new. Every one should read Moby Dick at various stages of one's life, every couple of decades, for instance. Same with Ulysses.Re: Joyce: I want to have Anthony Burgess's guide in my lap (same title: "Re: Joyce")when I go to read Finnegan's Wake. Next garage sale/used book sale I'll be searching for copies of both of those books.
:lol: I too am jealous, but I'm enough of a clod to come out and say that certain contemporary writers are over rated. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I understand the difficuties of reading Faulkner, but let me just say that the difficulities he puts to the reader are critical to the aesthetics of the works. At least in his top rated fiction. The difficulties do integrate with the themes.Quote:
Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.
As to Poe, i completely agree. I won't quite say there's no there there; let me say there's not much there there. ;)