Wow, I don't actually know Kafka and Sitaram, but I would nominate Ray Bradbury and Ayn Rand. Deep down I also don't quite like Hemingway's style but I'm probably gonna get butchered for saying that.
Printable View
Wow, I don't actually know Kafka and Sitaram, but I would nominate Ray Bradbury and Ayn Rand. Deep down I also don't quite like Hemingway's style but I'm probably gonna get butchered for saying that.
I am not a big Hemingway fan either. I hated Old Man and the Sea, but A Farewell to Arms wasn't so bad. Still, I doubt I'd read it again.
The first bad author that came to my mind was Dan Brown, followed by that chick who wrote the Lovely Bones.
But then, what can you expect from bestsellers?
Oh, I so hated the Lovely Bones, over-rated, cannot believe it was a bestseller. I also read the Dogs of Babel, that one was over-rated too.
I'm sorry everyone but I have been told on good authority that I am the worst writer. I have poor grammer, poor spelling, poor visualization, poor use of wordage, ect, ect.. Matter of fact the only good news is that I have no where else to go but up. :)
I really dislike Tim Winton - we have to read one of his novels for English class, and Im absolutely hating it!!!!! :(
*hmmm...I feel bad for saying that he is a bad author :( *
Really? I thought Life of Pi was awesome, and it was a bestseller.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthejeep
I also was going to read The Lovely Bones, but maybe I should skip it? What is it about anyway? As for Dan Brown himself, I'm not really sure how to judge him. I didn't mind him in The Da Vinci Code, but didn't like him at all in Angels and Demons.
I agree Ajoe, D.B. not soooo bad a writer. Life of Pi was good, but everyone talks and talks and talks about these books just 'cause Madame Oprah speaks of them, or they appeared on Martha Stewart for some ungodly reason, like an overplayed song on the radio. Tiring.
I read The Lovely Bones because ( I am so ashamed of this) the book cover was this soft, taunting blue. A young girl is murdered and she tells the story of the lives she left behind whilst seeing them from heaven. That's on the backcover, so don't fear I'm saying too much. To me, it was slow, I wanted to shake the book to speed up the dispension of words into my head and just get it the hell over with.
Katherine Ann Porter......snore....snore....
Well, from the modest number of books I've read, I'd say Catherine Coulter's writing were so far the corniest.
Uhhh.....yeah, okay.......I notice a few disparaging remarks concerning E. Hemingway in this thread........a few of which have gone unnoticed (by me) for several months.....so I'll just note my two cents worth at this point in time and hope the scattering shot catches you all.......... *sticks out tongue*
Agreed here, baddad. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
I can easily respect anyone's opinion, especially while, myself, having a taste in literature that rarely appeals to others. I could never grow tired of Ernest Hemingway, the little I have read of his (only one novel and most short stories), but I realize how readers could not fully enjoy his work, his style seeming so unique.
If we are trying to see which one of the most famos authors sucks the most (Prestige Vs. Quality).... i would have to say George Orwell...
1984 is not sciense fiction, as is generally classified. If you want to classify it as Sci Fi, then you need to know that it has thousands of "genre errors" that were pointed out at their time by Asimov, Clarke, Card, among others. There is no scientiffical base whatsoever in NOTHING that he says in this book, and his foresight was really bad.
Regarding his other big work, Animal Farm, i regard it as a very very cheap metaphore, and i see absolutely no value in it.
Talking about both his works at the same time, Orwell just strived to find new ways to attack communism, he tried in sci fi... he sucked. He tried in "metaphore" he sucked. And i really dont see any point in basing a life's work in attacking communism.
Of course, Senator MacCarthy thought this was VERY functional, along with all the other Commie Haters in the US and the world at that time, and thought "Hey, this is a nice book for our kids to read so they can learn to hate Stalin"... so they bloated up this books, as Anti-Commie propaganda, and it became famous just because the guy could write two sentences in a row and hate communism at the same time... which is a long way from being a good writer.
Of course, when we read 1984 today... and we see things that are slowly appearing on reality, its Capitalism the one that's doing them... ironic, huh?
I want to clarify that im not against neither capitalism or communism (In this thread, im just against George Orwell)... not trying to make politics here...
No, me boy, it isn't correct at all.
1. Orwell is one of the authors who managed to raise the very low level of post-war fiction, ok, he is not Joyce, but there are so many writers worse than him, today every one becomes a writer, even the Pope!!!
2. He attacked stalinism, not communism (a difference that your very politicians DO KNOW SO WELL!!!)
Communism is not a political nor economic theory but a particular social sistem Karl Marx regarded as the final consequence of capitalism.
Most of Marx's economic theories is nowadays shared by the whole world; there is no capitalism against socialism, there have been two different ways to look at society and economy, and one has failed, it wasn't better or worse, it just ended; anyway the second is living its decadence, you know: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
James Joyce
Hands down.
On George Orwell.......[QUOTE=AlucardArg].....and it became famous just because the guy could write two sentences in a row and hate communism at the same time...
Ouch!!.......thats gotta hurt......even if your dead.......