Most intellectual writers

I'm not sure what the TS meant by "intellectual" here but I shall equate as something that is enigmatic. Since that is the case now, Kafka towers above the rest. Why? I'm sure I will be re-reading his works more than any other author.

I would like to add Leo Tolstoy to this mix, primarily because of his moral thinking.
I think I read somewhere that his works influenced both Gandhi and MLK Jr.

A lot of writers are / were thinkers and some could actually think in whole sentences and even paragraphs! Some writers are merely sensualists who write as Picasso painted - with their p&@£)s. A writer like Borges ( politically very right-wing) was clearly a thinker. Rand thought she was a thinker too (hearty laugh). But if a writer is only a thinker then for the reader it becomes as difficult as ploughing through Calvin's Institutes - dense thought but little of the light of joy in language that gives a writer zip.

how the hell do you define an "intellectual" writer? it seems to me if you guys deem someone intellectual if you agree with them. ha!

Why are some people insisting on acting confused about what constitutes an intellectual? The word has a pretty clear and sensible meaning.

Anyways I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Aristotle, by all accounts (even Plato's) he was the most learned man of his era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ladderandbucket

According to his former tutor, David Foster Wallace could have made it as a professional philosopher. I've seen one of his papers and it looked extremely technical. He also wrote a book on infinity which looks similarly impenetrable. As for his fiction and essays, while I'm not a big fan of his style, he was certainly a talented and insightful writer. All in all he seems to have had an extraordinary mind.

---

"You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But ‘Infinite Jest’ [regarded by many as Wallace’s masterpiece] is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.” - Harold Bloom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

Aldous Huxley was a dazzling polymath who knew his science as thoroughly as his literature (unusual for great writers). He got a first from Oxford in Literature and yet could have been a scientist (like his brother and grandfather, both very distinguished biologists- his grandfather was Darwin's chief defender and friend).

---

"A fully fledged, fuzzy-brained California mystic." - John Carey on Aldous Huxley. I'd rate critics Harold Bloom and John Carey as "leading intellectuals"; they know how to demolish pretenders to that title!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

C S Lewis could read Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon by his mid 20s and was even able to read works written in Provencal!!

---

But he was a fuzzy brained Anglican fundamentalist. Just because you can read lots of different languages doesn't mean you have a great intellect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

Ian McEwan can be quite impressive as well.

---

I thought he was quite impressive in "Saturday" and "Solar", but having just read "Amsterdam", I'm not so sure. The plot is so implausible & silly that it has me wondering about his intellectual ability - certainly it shows that we should never take the Booker judges too seriously; they, for certain, are seldom intellectuals, and often crass celebrities and politicians (Douglas Hurd and Nigella Lawson were on the panel that chose Amsterdam, probably McEwan's worst novel.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypatia_

how the hell do you define an "intellectual" writer? it seems to me if you guys deem someone intellectual if you agree with them. ha!

---

The distinctive quality of the "intellectual" is not simple intelligence, which all great writers have, but the focus on writing about abstract, philosophical and esoteric matters. Given that all great writers usually bring in some philosophical considerations then all writers are intellectuals to some extent. But I don't think it would be wrong to say, "Aristotle is a more intellectual writer than Dickens." But "intellectual" doesn't mean "best"! I don't think you can say, "Aristotle was a better writer than Dickens", or, "You should read Aristotle rather than Dickens because he is better." In fact, I'll choose Dickens before Aristotle any day. Aristotle provides, to paraphrase Elseabahl, "dense thought but little of the light of joy in language that gives a writer zip."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

:eek2:You cannot be serious LOL

---

You are right. It is "intellektuelle" in German according to Google Translate.

J. S. Mill ? - Has to be up there in my opinion. Umberto Eco would have to be a contender for holding the literary crown at the moment. Any thoughts on Slavoj Zizek as today's representative of the Zeitgeist?

Here a list:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ma.../#.Ute319V9TWw

Good to see Dawkins and Pinker at 1 and 3. Both are clear thinking, clear writing, scientists. Both are far more deserving of the title "leading intellectuals" than jokers like Zizek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Here a list:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...45#post1250945

Good to see Dawkins and Pinker at 1 and 3. Both are clear thinking, clear writing, scientists. Both are far more deserving of the title "leading intellectuals" than jokers like Zizek.

---

The link points to this thread.

A. Huxley. Read his essays. Find out for yourself.

Isaac asimov?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypatia_

how the hell do you define an "intellectual" writer? it seems to me if you guys deem someone intellectual if you agree with them. ha!

---

Well, first you define intellectual, and then look for authors writing for those kinds of peoples.

As for the definition of intellectual, it shifted over the past couple hundred of years.