who is the most overrated writer ever?

Quote:

---

Again... your argument brings us to another issue: is art for everyone?

---

The short answer to this is yes. If you're human, no matter how poorly educated, you make aesthetic choices on a daily basis. Both you and JBI are more exposed than I am in your multi-cultural data, but that may be due to things I cannot change: health, economics, even linguistic ability.

But as a published author, I have different strategies than either of you in my approach to aesthetic choice. I look for ideas in what I appreciate, and not necessarily the satisfaction, or solely that satisfaction, of aesthetic transcendence, with obvious exceptions. I don't steal from Shakespeare, and attend to a quality production for its own sake. Nearly every other writer, however, is a rival, in one form or another. "Stay away from doing this, or can I do this better, or I know I can't write at that level and need a reason not to suicide as quickly as possible, or hey, this I can steal and I had better steal it well..." That is how my mind works.

Quote:

---

Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem?

---

No, but everyone can subvert expectations, some of the time. Despite my deliberate push back, which is in other ways a form of respect, JBI is very good at this game.;)

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;723457]what I meant was more 'non poetry-intellectuals'- my made-up word for people who aren't well-versed in poetry or particularly intellectual, but are naturally susceptible to it as a living breathing feeling human. Most likely I am too sweeping in my judgement of Wordsworth, but everyone exaggerates things to make a point. You're no doubt speaking as someone who's very knowledgable about poetry, correct? I'm speaking as someone who follows a gut instinct, who judges on what they first see from poetic ignorance. Naturally my appreciation of different poetry will grow as I become more analytical and well-versed, but poetry should connect with people, regardless of whether they've studied it or not, otherwise it becomes the untouchable 'intellectual'

Again... your argument brings us to another issue: is art for everyone? Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem? . Thus my question as to why I should be impressed if Wordsworth were less popular than Blake among those to whom poetry is not a great passion and a subject they have put forth effort in studying?

Ouch.

People are naturally susceptible to poetry, as they are to music- topics about human experience and rhythm affects everyone, regardless of their intellectual capacity. Of course, the more intellectual people will be able to articulate why they feel a certain way more articulately, but does that make their opinion more important? As you have pointed out in mine, it may be written vaguely articulately, but does that instantly make it better than someone who disagrees but doesn't write how I write?

There are people, like in music and painting, who are more intuitive about art, and who might be able to pick up on layers that someone without that may not find.

Who cares if they've spent however many years poring over it? They still have the same biases and are unlikely to change them- they will see what they want to see. If they spend 20 years seeing it, great- they'll probably give more scholarly reasons for their thoughts- but Hitler spent a lot of time on Naziism. Does that make his opinions any more valid?

But kelby, if I may, you might want to stick your hasty responses in a word processor, sit on them a few, then revise? Posting with any degree of frequency sometimes leads to more confusion than necessary. I myself am having trouble getting your argument (define argument as closer to thesis here, as opposed to disagreement).

As I explained above, I am an extensively published poet who is at times hostile to poetry, and I'm basically indifferent to Wordsworth and Blake, which implodes your point, since you assume, in my anti-intellectual moments, that I would choose the religious wing nut over the grand old man of letters in his waning Victorian twilight. I'd prefer the pedestrian to the overwrought visionary, so maybe what you assume about those who don't get this in university is off. I had a fan from New England who was a farmer. Never did English Literature, but like me, loved the small press, and his analysis of my work would have knocked my buns right back in my wheelchair if my buns weren't in the wheelchair already, and if he was astute about what I published, he wasn't simple.

Is art for everybody?

The short answer to this is yes. If you're human, no matter how poorly educated, you make aesthetic choices on a daily basis. Both you and JBI are more exposed than I am in your multi-cultural data, but that may be due to things I cannot change: health, economics, even linguistic ability.

Jozie... again I'm not disagreeing with you. We all make aesthetic choices to one extent or another. Perhaps the question should have been made more specific: Is all art for all people? Again the answer remains Yes and No. As I suggested we each make the choice whether something is worth the effort of not. It is an elective affinity. For example Japanese Noh theater and Chinese opera did nothing for me in the little I have experienced. I was in no way intrigued enough to desire to explore more. As a result I wouldn't think to offer an opinion of the work... yet do we not continually find ourselves confronted with those who having little or no real experience of Modernist or Abstract painting, or contemporary poetry or opera feel free to throw out their opinions and imagine that they should have any merit whatsoever?

But as a published author, I have different strategies than either of you in my approach to aesthetic choice. I look for ideas in what I appreciate, and not necessarily the satisfaction, or solely that satisfaction, of aesthetic transcendence, with obvious exceptions.

Personally I don't separate the form from the content. I imagine that they are so intertwined as to be virtually one and the same.

I don't steal from Shakespeare, and attend to a quality production for its own sake. Nearly every other writer, however, is a rival, in one form or another. "Stay away from doing this, or can I do this better, or I know I can't write at that level and need a reason not to suicide as quickly as possible, or hey, this I can steal and I had better steal it well..." That is how my mind works.

And certainly I would imagine most artists' minds work in a similar manner.

Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem?

No, but everyone can subvert expectations, some of the time. Despite my deliberate push back, which is in other ways a form of respect, JBI is very good at this game.

I had a fan from New England who was a farmer. Never did English Literature, but like me, loved the small press, and his analysis of my work would have knocked my buns right back in my wheelchair if my buns weren't in the wheelchair already, and if he was astute about what I published, he wasn't simple.

Again, Jozie, you seem to be assuming that what I am suggesting is that it is the opinions of the academic scholars alone... those with a great degree of formal study under their belt. I made it clear that those whose opinions are of merit are those who have invested the time and effort into the study... the exploration of a given discipline. This need not mean formal "study". Your farmer, you have suggested, is certainly not knowledgeable about contemporary poetry without having invested some effort in the exploration of the small presses, etc... Hell my own knowledge of literature has been largely gained outside of any formal courses.

Actually luke, that last was for kelby. Only in the sense that there are lovers of literature who aren't the modern incarnation of an English Major. Her point seems to be the man on the street would enjoy Blake because Blake wrote shorter stanzas. I am as confused as you and wessexgirl are, I'm afraid, because making assumptions about what the average Joe's tastes are is still committing the fallacy of assumption. My ex-fiance is a dumb cop from the Bronx. In his attempt to placate me during our engagement he'd say, "I've read Nietzsche!"

Stereotypes abound ;)

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eryk

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

---

!!

Yes, I know his plays can verge into the melodramatic, but that's only because they study the extremes of human nature.

They're passionate, raw, consciously poetic, violent, lonely...perfect for the theatre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pip

Most overrated writer eh? I would nominate Salinger. I just don't understand what the big deal with The Catcher in the Rye is. I find his writing cliche, redundant, and really boring. Woolf is a close second though.

---

I actually enjoy Woolf's writing.

Like you, I do not understand the hype surrounding Salinger or The Catcher in the Rye. I thought the book was boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eryk

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

---

I second that. To be fair, I've only read Not About Nightingales, but it was sappy, tepid, frankly quite the let down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Endon

I second that. To be fair, I've only read Not About Nightingales, but it was sappy, tepid, frankly quite the let down.

---

His earlier and later work is weak, but the era from The Glass Menagerie (1948) to Night of The Iguana (1962) is a brilliant example of good theatre. If you watch The Glass Menagerie and don't cry, you must be evil...

Oh, definitely J.D. Salinger! I absolutely hated everything about The Catcher in the Rye...

And Faulkner, although I don't feel as strongly about him as I do J.D. Salinger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

His earlier and later work is weak, but the era from The Glass Menagerie (1948) to Night of The Iguana (1962) is a brilliant example of good theatre. If you watch The Glass Menagerie and don't cry, you must be evil...

---

Well I suppose I ought to give the man a fair chance. Not About Nightingales is just a big sloppy mess of clichés and bathos (no one will ever convince me otherwise!) yet I'm hoping A Streetcar Named Desire will reconcile me with him. And I guess I could give the Glass a go as well.

EDIT: I've just noticed that the Streetcar is from 1947, so before the era you've mentioned. What did you make of it?

Whoops- just worked out that Glass Menagerie- first commercial success- was actually in 1944.

I liked the play, and thought the film was a brilliant adaptation, although it skimmed over some of the parts, like Blanche and the schoolboy...

My personal favourites are Cat on A Hot Tin Roof (steamy and claustrophobic), The Glass Menagerie (terribly sad), Night of The Iguana (sort of tragicomic, less melodramatic than some), and Orpheus Descending (not a commercial success- Southern Gothic style- very moving however).

Oh i got an answer for this one:MİLAN KUNDERA:smash:

There are no overrated writers. There are just some people who like them and some others who don't. Even if you think a particular one is overrated, you're not better alone than the 213453268'23148 other people together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My name is red

Oh i got an answer for this one:MİLAN KUNDERA:smash:

---

But have you read more than The undearable lightness of being ? Is this bold statement only based on one novel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thomas212

But have you read more than The undearable lightness of being ? Is this bold statement only based on one novel?

---

No,I've also read Immortality.I actually enjoyed it to some extend way more than The Unbearable lightness of being,that's for sure.But still i think he is overrated.Especially,when some consider him as the last existentialist,I'm like that's enough.Existentialist?Not even near.You see,existentialism kind of a sour point with me :idea:

read through the first bit of the thread and have to say that I really enjoyed Hemmingway, Salingher and Fittsgerald, as a matter of fact those three athours have to be sopme of my favourites. I own and reread all there books, have collected all their short stories, and have consumed much of my time just discussing their works and sifting through there genius.

As of right now of all the authors I have ever read the best short story writer I have ever come across has been J.D. Salingher, his How to Write a Love Story wittingly belittles the traditional romance novel that has made ever real man's life hell when they begin a relationship. His writing I actually find quite underrated.

As for those who name Rowlings or Brown, it is no doubt they are overrated, they have to be if they are as popular as they are now, but in 50 years time they will take their place in literature like everyone else and will no longer be overrated. They have some talent and they both can tell a good story, so I would not really list them yet.

For me overrate, I wouldn't say overrated persay becasue his writtening is obviously influencial, it's just not my cup of tea and that is Charles Dickens.

I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...

I still remember choking on Faulkner in high school...only one book, but it was excrutiating.

Omg, i just saw that he won a Nobel Prize. Whoa is me!

And just read an excerpt from The Sound and the Fury. Can't say I appreciate the choppy little sentences. Though if memory serves, he also wrote many sentences that ran on and on like the Amazon or Mississippi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amuse

I still remember choking on Faulkner in high school...only one book, but it was excrutiating.

Omg, i just saw that he won a Nobel Prize. Whoa is me!

And just read an excerpt from The Sound and the Fury. Can't say I appreciate the choppy little sentences. Though if memory serves, he also wrote many sentences that ran on and on like the Amazon or Mississippi.

---

Faulkner's technical style shifts throughout that novel, ranging from simplistic and completely extroverted (Benjy) to lyrical and drawn out (Quentin).

Authors like these deserve the benefit of the doubt. Before you simply dismiss an author because he appears, on first notice, to be difficult, ask yourself "why would an author employ very long sentences?" You wouldn't pick up a Shakespearean play and say "Oh, Shakespeare uses 'thou' and 'ye', I give up!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helga

I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...

---

what world are you living in. You really don't like TKAM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

what world are you living in. You really don't like TKAM?

---

Guess there are philistines in every cultural epoch:nod:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helga

I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...

---

Finally! Someone who understands! What on earth are the people saying below me about 'philistines'? It's a so-so book not a grand classic.
There is probably a reason why she didn't write another book...

Definitely agree on J. K. Rowling. Read the first six books because I was young and everyone was reading them then got seven chapters through the latest one, put it down and haven't picked it up since.

Hi, Red,
I'm intrigued by your quote. Is that a quote of your own? If not, could you tell me where you read it? I liked the analogy of the apple/tree, but as soon as we form a thought or opinion of our own, we're doomed to the ground. Of course, we are in great company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

what world are you living in. You really don't like TKAM?

---

This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).

---

That's it! No Quidditch for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

That's it! No Quidditch for you!

---

Heh! who would want to be transported to a world where if you shake a stick up and down a few times, white sparks come out!

Steinbeck, Hemingway (sp?), Whitman, O. Henry, and Kather would be my choices.

Jewett is under-rated though. She is fun reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Heh! who would want to be transported to a world where if you shake a stick up and down a few times, white sparks come out!

---

:sick: That sounds like a creepy euphemism....

I don't understand all the votes for Steinbeck! His style is simplistic but his stories are deeply insightful. Of Mice and Men is an amazing story, I can get goose bumps just thinking about it. Plus, I can't help but love all the plugs for Monterey and Salinas =). Two books that stand out in my mind as particular objects of hatred are Grendel and Siddhartha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).

---

my thoughts exactly! haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oread

I don't understand all the votes for Steinbeck! His style is simplistic but his stories are deeply insightful. Of Mice and Men is an amazing story, I can get goose bumps just thinking about it. Plus, I can't help but love all the plugs for Monterey and Salinas =). Two books that stand out in my mind as particular objects of hatred are Grendel and Siddhartha.

---

I quite liked Of Mice and Men too... most likely my favourite work by Steinbeck, although I wouldn't call it his best... I don't see him as overrated... although I don't like East of Eden that much... thinking of overrated writers although I don't know so much anymore as I am not sure what current opinion is of him.. but Theodore Dreiser is definitely one of them in my mind.. Saroyan to an extent as well.. and Charles Bukowski is the most overrated poet ever... I despise his poetry almost to an irrational extent! :flare:

I truly enjoyed your input in this discussion and must agree that although some authors may be overrated currently, they will take their place among the entertainers of our day. Granted, they are not brilliant pieces of philisophical inquiry, but not all great literature is! :)

Ok my last post was actually just a reply to rabid_reader, but I forgot to quote :)

But to add my say into this muddle of writers who did more than I ever have, I would say that Cormac McCarthy is just one author I cannot quite grasp where his praise comes from. Maybe I need only to read other pieces of fiction, but after reading the reviews and comments on 'The Road' I picked it up and after a day put it down sadly discouraged. I was eager to finish it, hence the short time of reading it took, because I was looking for the proof of his praises. I think mainly I just didn't "get it"

As for some of the other authors on here, I am slightly saddened at the choices, not liking a book and not being able to appreciate its impact are very different things. I say this mainly pertaining to Kerouac. He was not the most talented writer, and certainly not the most creative... but he influenced an entire generation of beat writers, poets and citizens. I suppose it spoke to them at the time and so he deserves his praise, much like Britney Spears deserves recognition for single handlely starting a young female pop/stripper phase :)

But seriously, Kundera... Salinger... these men are amazing ;) That is all a matter of personal preference though.

The absolute worst writer I could think of is Alodous Huxley! Brave New World is so bad that i threw up a little in my mouth after finishing it. The entire time I was reading it I was thinking "when is this going to get good?"... it didn't get good at all.

I quite liked Brave New World

In my modest opinion it`s Leo Tolstoy. His style is awkward, his morals are hopelessly out of date, his books aren`t teaching, they`re preaching.

Socrates. Socrates is the most overrated writer ever.