who is the most overrated writer ever?

ayn rand, chuck palahniuk, martin amis, hemingway, dickens

All of them and none of them

Might sound wishy washy, but it's such a subjective subject that it boils down to how well trained one is in observing and appreciating various aspects and qualities of a work of fiction (not to mention the author's intention)

There was a true tale I heard of a tribe living rough somewhere in Africa whom some anthropologists came across. They were amazed how no element of their lifestyle owed anything to the last two thousand years of civilisation.

Fearing that this tribe would one day be gobbled up by the march of progress if left to their own devices they returned with a television and satellite dish, thinking that some education of the outside world would be of benefit.

Everyday and every night every member of the tribe sat transfixed to the passing parade of images from the magic lantern, not bothered by disrupting questions from the intruders

The anthos began to wonder and worry if they'd done the right thing. Would this machine consume their culture instead of enhancing it?

Then suddenly one day about a month later, they noticed something about the tribesmen - they were no longer watching, but had returned to the way they were before the interlopers' arrival

Though a relief, it was also confusing

'Why have you all stopped watching?' one was asked

'That is a very clever machine,' he replied, 'and it tells many stories - but unfortunately it does not tell 'our' stories'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrytus

chuck palahniuk, dickens

---

Indeed, good man :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrytus

hemingway

---

You imbecile.


:mad5:

Dan Brown = TERRIBLY overrated.

Same with John Steinbeck. Couldn't even get through "The Pearl" or even some of his short stories. Didn't capture my interest.

The most overrated writer is Lord Byron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anymodal

The most overrated writer is Lord Byron

---

Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.

---

Never heard about him, but he seems to have a similar profile than Bryon :sleep:

I'll put my vote in for Dickens, and judging from this site alone, Orwell.

:banghead:

Someone should make a poll with the most popular overrated writers :P

The term overrated is just so, well, dumb. All it means when someone says an author is overrated, and especially when it comes to tried and true greats like Wordsworth and Byron, is that that person doesn't like that writer, and rather than accept that their opinion isn't necessarily the sole determiner of artistic worth in the universe, that author is therefore "overrated." It's quite childish, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

The term overrated is just so, well, dumb. All it means when someone says an author is overrated, and especially when it comes to tried and true greats like Wordsworth and Byron, is that that person doesn't like that writer, and rather than accept that their opinion isn't necessarily the sole determiner of artistic worth in the universe, that author is therefore "overrated." It's quite childish, really.

---

Not to mention that the variable of "overrated" makes no empirical sense. How could this be determined, outside of "my favourite author can beat up your favourite."

:iagree:

I disagree. I'd like to point out that you are assuming that Bryon is a true great, and thats precisely what the debate is about.
Now, of course that in the bottom line there are nothing but opinions, there are no real absolute values. There is no absolute way to put The Illiad above some crapy best seller from last year.
But we live in a society and we set our artificial values so that we can compare our views in a reference frame. That's why we state that Homer is better than Paulo Cohelo (that would we childish too, extending your argument). Hence we can also argue that a writer is worse than another, but of course we should keep in mind that that is valid for a given system of values.

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shevek

Not to mention that the variable of "overrated" makes no empirical sense. How could this be determined, outside of "my favourite author can beat up your favourite."

---

I do agree that is ultimately true, though. You are right, it can't really be determined outside of our favoritisms. But it doesn't prevent us to establish variables for the sake of a discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anymodal

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.

.

---

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

Hm, i am not particularly fond of english literature (although some of my favorite writers wrote in English...) so i would say that many english writers appear to me to be overrated. Jane Austen i find to be an abysmal writer for example. The tone, the plots, everything bore me to death and i am glad i won't ever have to read anything by her again.
Hobbes is another english writer (non-fiction) that is BORING (and wrong).

Of French writers maybe Camus, not that i think he is a bad writer, but he seems to be hailed as one of the best, and i don't agree there. I recall how tiresome The Plague seemed to me, although i read it many many years ago. I tried to re-read the Stranger recently, but gave up since it seemed trivial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anymodal

I disagree. I'd like to point out that you are assuming that Bryon is a true great, and thats precisely what the debate is about.
Now, of course that in the bottom line there are nothing but opinions, there are no real absolute values. There is no absolute way to put The Illiad above some crapy best seller from last year.
But we live in a society and we set our artificial values so that we can compare our views in a reference frame. That's why we state that Homer is better than Paulo Cohelo (that would we childish too, extending your argument). Hence we can also argue that a writer is worse than another, but of course we should keep in mind that that is valid for a given system of values.

---

I don't assume he is a true great. I recognize that he's seen as a true great by such a large community, be it academic or otherwise, that my sole opinion counts for little to nothing, just as your claim of him being overrated does. Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet." Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion.

And there are plenty of ways to put The Iliad above contemporary, bad fiction. That's what the whole of literary analysis does. Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?

Quote:

---

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets".

---

This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc. So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.

Byron's influence goes much further than the stories he wrote. So, he is probably a true great. Many anongst those deemed 'great' have not had such influence. Whether you like his weird way of feeling above the rest (literally in some cases) or not, you just can't say he's overrated. And I am sure, characterisation is not the only thing he was great at.
Even when he was alive, he was the first case of celebrity mania. Diana-esque.

I would say Virginia Woolf is overrated because it's very hard to read her novel, but then I probably don't like Modernism.

Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.

Indeed, there are only opinions in this world, but some opinions are more founded than others.

Wordsworth and Byron are not :sleep:, to fall asleep with Byron you'd have to do your very best, maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.

Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base. What is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind. Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding. If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.


That is not to say one does not have preferences, as St.Lukes always says, he does not enjoy Joyce, but nonetheless he can see the beauty and genius behind his work, it just so happens that stylistically it does not mingle as well with him as others such as Proust or Mann. But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.

I

But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of,
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love.


II

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.


Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.

maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.

---

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

J.H. Rawling perhaps? I'm not sure if that's how to spell his name.

If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y.

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...




...but some opinions are better than others.:ciappa:

Never heard of Wordsworth...

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.

I would say that Jonathan Franzen is a bit overrated. I admire that he writes in traditional storytelling tradition, but he grates a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y.

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...




...but some opinions are better than others.:ciappa:

Never heard of Wordsworth...

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.

---

I have a decent and just reply to this which involves aesthetic speculative theory using Longinus and Romanticism but I unfortunately got drunk and I don't trust myself to respond now; but dammit I am not behaving cowardly and ignoring your point I am merely waiting for the time when I can express my sentiments coherently. Tomorrow morning, because I really do wish to have this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

---

It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized.
(Not that is important to the debate but I disagree with the part of self-hating white Europeans that... etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet."
Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion.

---

Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.

Quote:

---

Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?

---

I do judge of course works by it's historical relevance. But then again, history is not a certain thing. It is something to argue about. When we speak of Homer its really easy to agree, it's an easy subject. But with Byron is a different story, because it is much more debatable, the historic relevance of Byron is something you can question.

Quote:

---

This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc.

---

Yes it is. And no I don't think you could say that with Shakespeare with lightness.

Quote:

---

So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.

---

The point being what I prevoisly said here (*)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anymodal

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.

---

If? Ruben Dario is considered a true great and came from Nicaragua.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base.

---

I would like to hear more about this please. Especially the part where you teach us how to absolutely judge universal beauty.

Quote:

---

what is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind.

---

Quote:

---

Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding.

---

Disagree with both

Quote:

---

If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. (...) subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

---

To say that objectivity corresponds to what the majority thinks is a falacy.

Quote:

---

But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.

---

I don't know if you are trying to say I can't apreciate Byron because i am ignorant. If that's your point its not my problem. That's a text book argumentum ad hominem, trying to attack the other to invalidate the others arguments instead of arguing against them. And by the way I am more or less as prepared as anyone here to read Byron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I

But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of,
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love.


II

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.


Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.

---

If you read what I said you will see that I like him. Only saying that he is overrated not that he is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anymodal

It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized





Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.


I do judge of course works by it's historical relevance. But then again, history is not a certain thing. It something to argue about. When we speak of Homer its really easy to agree, it's an easy subject. But with Byron is a different story, because it is much more debatable, the historic relevance of Byron is something you can question.


Yes it is. And no I don't think you could say that with Shakespeare with lightness.


The point being what I prevoisly said here (*)

---

All good points. Sometimes, if I'm in a churlish mood especially, I forget these are just casual forums in which to throw around ideas. That diatribe could've been aimed at any of the previous posters--I just happened to read yours.

I still think the idea of overratedness is silly, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

---

Oh, of course he is! I can imagine he comes across as a bit boring and efeminate to others. That's all I wanted to say. Far from myself, if Byron is boring, I suppose Wordsworth is even more sleep-inducing.

I can think of a few overrated Flemish writers. No-one knows them, duh. Most of them can't write for toffee. It's peculiar, but the tanslators of good writers seem to do a good job...
Including the one deemed greatest in our language area. A few of his works have been translated into English where he apparently achieved moderate success, but inthe original language... Let's just say it was a stark contrast to go from a Nobel Prize winner to that... Ironically Hugo Claus was always 'on the shortlist' :rolleyes:.

Literature is NOT subjective or objective. It's intersubjective. You can think of this as objectivity through multiple subjectivities if you'd like. Although, a better way of conceiving it is shared agreement through multiple subjectivities. A masterpiece is a masterpiece because many people recognize it as such and can offer reasons to support their opinion and often notice the same good qualities independent of each other.

It is perfectly fine to think any given writer overrated (your subjective viewpoint), which doesn't automatically equate to "I think this writer is bad." Rather it means, "You think this writer is the 3rd best poet in English. I would agree he is decent, but vastly overrated. I would place him as the 100th best poet in English at best." Although it could mean, "I think he is bad." This is not something that only happens in Lit Net Forums or other internet vent zones; plenty of critics throughout time have considered various celebrated works overrated. The Canon is not static and critics don't always agree with each other.

Not all opinions are equal. Some people are good readers, some people are inferior ones. Nevertheless, as I mentioned already even good readers don't always agree, hence the subjectivity part of intersubjectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

---

Thank you WICKES for this astute summation of the situation in relation to Byron et al. It is obviously the case and you have been both succinct and non PC in making it. I wouldn't change anything about it except possibly the word 'infected' to one of infested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

---

And yet amazingly here in America there are plenty of mediocre novels written by white middle class still being published every day. All you have to do to discover this fact is step into basically any bookstore and you'll be bombarded with countless examples. And you can even study Byron in almost any major university with little trouble!

:nopity:

How has someone not heard of Wordsworth? I'm honestly a little bit shocked. The Lyrical Ballads are probably one of the most widely read poetry collections in the English language. I can get not wanting to read through the entire Prelude though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

And yet amazingly here in America there are plenty of mediocre novels written by white middle class still being published every day. All you have to do to discover this fact is step into basically any bookstore and you'll be bombarded with countless examples. And you can even study Byron in almost any major university with little trouble!

:nopity:

---

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. How is that not total bull****? Oh an Marry Shelley we barley did, because she was a woman who was already appreciated so we had to study other women poets who were not as appreciated...

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I think you overstate it though, Alex. Even if courses are given with, what may be, the misguided attempt to rediscover unappreciated authors, the DWM are still well represented in academia and are under no real threat of being removed from the curricula of major universities.

Also, there are many benefits to studying less known poets of the Romantic period, in that it gives the student a broader perspective on Romanticism and helps them to better understand the context the big 6 found themselves in.

I'm taking just the grad courses in my department as a simple sample of what is being taught in English departments:

http://www.mcgill.ca/english/graduate/2012-13-courses

Shakespeare makes it into 3 courses, Milton and Spenser into 2, and Whitman shares an entire course solely with Emily Dickinson. Apart from a class on Victorian popular literature, most of the courses listed on that site (ignoring the film studies courses) are teaching the usual DWM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

How has someone not heard of Wordsworth? I'm honestly a little bit shocked. The Lyrical Ballads are probably one of the most widely read poetry collections in the English language. I can get not wanting to read through the entire Prelude though.

---

Yeah, gotta say, that one made the eyebrows go up.

I made a mistake the other day. I meant to say J.D.Salinger. Also there is a novel I had to read when I was in school I've heard some say is over rated- A Separate Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

I'll put my vote in for Dickens, and judging from this site alone, Orwell.

---

Dickens ? Are we talking about Charles, or some unknown Want-Ad smearer from your neighborhood ? Ähh...the "Down and Out in Paris and London"-Orwell ?

If so,...
Please name your weapons, Sir...or take your medication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. How is that not total bull****? Oh an Marry Shelley we barley did, because she was a woman who was already appreciated so we had to study other women poets who were not as appreciated...

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

---

Well, the problem with Wickes' statement and Emil's characteristic cheerleading about the evil PC boogeyman is that it deals with two different ideas: What gets published and what gets praised.

As I already noted in the post in which you responded, plenty of white dudes (mediocre or otherwise) get published these days and the suggestion otherwise is the phantasm of someone who can't handle a few people of color getting published alongside them.

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.