Lit Net Top Author?

Just because I don't appreciate Shakespeare as much as you do, doesn't mean I haven't read a lot of literature..
and I have. Not everyone LOVES Shakespeare. Whether you've read a lot of literature or not.
Yes, i'm 17. So what. What does age have anything to do with it? in my case, nothing. You don't even know me.

You're making assumptions about me because I said I don't like Shakespeare. I'm not stupid, i'm not "uncultured" i'm not whatever you may be thinking because I don't appreciate much of Shakespeare's work. How much and what literature I have read has nothing to do with my liking of Shakespeare. Period. Your comments were insulting and quite unpleasant. You must greatly underestimate your follow man if you are so willing to pass me off with a comment like " You're 17 ". I know what you implied - it was pretty uncalled for. Like I said, age means very little these days. If you can't understand that then that's your problem, and your loss.

Literary snobs...
give me a break.

I know plenty of people who have brilliant minds and they don't enjoy much of Shakespeare's works. But I guess they're just "17" right?

I didn't say he wasn't good at what he did. I just do not enjoy his work.

Also the comment about "half the people ... " i've spoken to, haven't read Shakespeare.

Where do you get this from?
What gives you the right to make such a comment - based on what fact? air?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

Just because I don't appreciate Shakespeare as much as you do, doesn't mean I haven't read a lot of literature..
and I have. Not everyone LOVES Shakespeare. Whether you've read a lot of literature or not.
Yes, i'm 17. So what. What does age have anything to do with it? in my case, nothing. You don't even know me.

You're making assumptions about me because I said I don't like Shakespeare. I'm not stupid, i'm not "uncultured" i'm not whatever you may be thinking because I don't appreciate much of Shakespeare's work. How much and what literature I have read has nothing to do with my liking of Shakespeare. Period. Your comments were insulting and quite unpleasant. You must greatly underestimate your follow man if you are so willing to pass me off with a comment like " You're 17 ". I know what you implied - it was pretty uncalled for. Like I said, age means very little these days. If you can't understand that then that's your problem, and your loss.

Literary snobs...
give me a break.

I know plenty of people who have brilliant minds and they don't enjoy much of Shakespeare's works. But I guess they're just "17" right?

I didn't say he wasn't good at what he did. I just do not enjoy his work.

---

Oh dear, lima, chillax, will ya?
stlukesguild is a good man, not a literary snob.

Okay, fine, alright. I'll take the literary snob comment back because unlike some people - i'm not going to assume.


I just don't like it when people pass judgements on me without getting to know me.
And then when people do get to know me, they act surprised or something.
I don't get it. But I don't get people, so there you go.

Also i don't need to chill out.. relax.. chillax, whatever the heck it is.

I'm just defending myself, like anyone else would.

Perhaps it would be better if you gave a reasoned response as to why exactly shakespeare sucks or is overrated.

With so many people & also the fact you still really new to the forum there is little way to know people & so we end up having to judge them by their comments and info available from the profile & unfortunately there are a number of 17 y.o kids who are like StLukes suggests - if you dont wnat to be taken for one of them it would be benificial to provide reasoning.

I think his writing is fantastic, very clever and quite brilliant.

But I never found his work entertaining like many others did. It didn't capture my attention or made me feel a way someone who writes that beautifully should.


Perhaps people should hold back from expressing their judgements until I give my reasoning. My age has nothing to do with who I am.

Well, I don't want to get into the thick of a heated battle, but lima, when you posted that you felt that Shakespeare was 'overrated', well that may get under the skin of a lot of people here. And, as Kilted has pointed out, when there is a new poster with only a few posts that we can get to know them on, well a reasonable backup to such a statement would be in order. To maybe fill others in on why you felt that he was overrated, ya know?

Just my two bits worth. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

I think his writing is fantastic, very clever and quite brilliant.

But I never found his work entertaining like many others did. It didn't capture my attention or made me feel a way someone who writes that beautifully should.


Perhaps people should hold back from expressing their judgements until I give my reasoning. My age has nothing to do with who I am.

---

Permit me to defend stlukesguild here. (Let it be known that I waiver in my defence, for I am more a friend to limajean. Nonetheless, this conflict needs resolving.)

Though I must admit that stlukesguild's comment, "And Mozart sucks too. Give me a break," was a tad provocative, I don't think he was judging you much at all. He referred to your age because most 17 year olds, that is, the people you talk to about Shakespeare (the assumption that you talk mostly to those who are your own age is logical here), haven't read him, unless it was mandated that they do so. He didn't say anything like, "You're 17, and as such you don't know what you're talking about." His judgements, I believe, targets the people you talk to about Shakespeare, not you.

My goodness, this topic has been severely thrown off track.

Look, I can see that most people are going to disagree with me and clearly can not see nor understand my point. Yes I am 17. Perhaps I should stamp that on my forehead to prevent anyone engaging in any form of literary discussion with me. My point is, my age has little to do with who I am. I can understand and do acknowledge the stereotypes associated with my age and literature, but before that be applied to me, I ask that all of you who are judging me - make an attempt to gain insight in to my character and try to dissociate yourself from the age group that I belong to. Before passing me off as just another 17 year old who spits on Shakespeare's work.

And no Dori, I have to disagree with you. I think there was a strong sense of " Oh, she's just another 17 with little understanding of literature " due to my comment about Shakespeare.

Now, on my opinion of Shakespeare. That is just it, an opinion. And why should I not be entitled to it? it may get under the skin of a few of you, but that is inevitable. It is the beauty of free expression and discussion. Also, my comment about him being overrated I feel has been blown out of proportion and though I have not explained what I meant - I feel that comments were made in attack before I had the opportunity to explain myself, or, with the exception of Kilted, anybody asked me for my reasoning.

I do not disagree that he was a genius. He was a brilliant writer who I do agree, many can not live up to. I think I should have been more specific. When it comes to entertaining, I believe this is where his work falters. His work does not engage me. The tragedy does not make me feel sympathetic, and the comedy doesn't make me laugh. So in that sense, yes to me, he is overrated. But I do not dare to argue that he wasn't a brilliant writer.

But I do argue that maybe we should all be a little more open about people's opinions.
I know I have a lot to learn. I understand that. But I think we all do - no matter our age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

I do not disagree that he was a genius. He was a brilliant writer who I do agree, many can not live up to. I think I should have been more specific. When it comes to entertaining, I believe this is where his work falters. His work does not engage me. The tragedy does not make me feel sympathetic, and the comedy doesn't make me laugh. So in that sense, yes to me, he is overrated. But I do not dare to argue that he wasn't a brilliant writer.

---

Well ok then :)

For age -- this makes no nevermind in my world, just so you know, kay?

And yeah, EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, you are correctamundo. :nod:

BUT: we should all get back to Baz's thread now -- this has greatly dented his intention, je suppose...

I've probably come off quite rude and stubborn. My apologies if I have.
I am a fighter, and I get quite worked up when it comes to discussions/debates.

I sometimes lack the ability of being able to express myself properly - for lack of a better word. It leads to great misunderstanding. So i'm sorry if I offended any of you. And I take responsibility for the misunderstanding - if any. I didn't explain my opinion very well, if at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

But I do argue that maybe we should all be a little more open about people's opinions.
I know I have a lot to learn. I understand that. But I think we all do - no matter our age.

---

This is slightly dangerous. On a normal scale, we would not except the opinions of an 8 year old concerning anything (unless the given 8 year/old was some William James Sidis type prodigy), and for good reason - their mind is underdeveloped and they simply have not had the time to accumulate the knowledge that a 45 y/o or even a 20 y/o would have.

That being said, on the surface, in dealings with a 17 on an intellectual level, we must be careful. Even you must admit that the average 17 year old doesn't have the working knowledge of literature that a college age student might have. Not that they can't, but that we must show preliminary caution - That's it.

Aside from that, age matters not, and now my only fault with you is in your dislike of Shakespeare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiz_paws

BUT: we should all get back to Baz's thread now -- this has greatly dented his intention, je suppose...

---

Agreed. I think we can just tell Baz to skip page 6 when he counts. :D

And just so you know, lima, my comment, "Take it back!" was meant in jest.
Even though I treasure Shakespeare's work, I was only trying to be comical. :)

mayneverhave,
Yes, I agree. Like I said in my earlier post. I understand and acknowledge the stereotypes associated with my age. But I have been well educated and experienced in my - so far, short life - more than most people three times my age.

I understand that I have to fight my way out of that stereotype and not expect to be looked upon differently until I do. But it is hard sometimes. Like I said, I am quite often misunderstood.

I know Dori :)

Meh who cares if she doesn't like Shakespeare. That is her loss - let's move on - people are entitled to opinions, and I doubt anything you will say will budge her's. As for Shakespeare - it's not as if he is short of votes or admires on this thread.

limajean... when you make sweeping proclamations that go against the general consensus of experts in the field in which you are speaking without offering the least rational or basis for your opinion... and when you react in a blatantly emotional manner to a perceived slight... you seem to be playing right into what many may imagine to be the stereotype of the age group that you are so passionate to disassociate yourself with. I will venture that at age 17 I had read far more literature than the average teen... and probably a good deal more than a majority of adults. In spite of that, I will openly admit that my knowledge and my understanding of literature was far less than it is today for the very fact that I have had far more time to read... to gain further experiences in the field. Perhaps you are an exception to the majority of 17-year-olds (and you will notice that my original post was directed at the average 17-year-old and admitted to exceptions); perhaps you already have read deeply and are experienced not only in Shakespeare, but Donne, Spenser, Jonson, Wyatt, Sidney, and Traherne as well. Perhaps you have already earned your Masters Degree and are working upon your Doctorate. Of course were that at all true I would expect something a bit more in depth than "Shakespeare is overrated."

Now that you have offered a degree of reason behind your evaluation of Shakespeare, allow me to challenge it, if you will. You have stated that Shakespeare is overrated... this assumes that his reputation far exceeds his merits. You suggest that you personally do not find him entertaining. Fair enough... but then what actually amounts to "entertaining" according to your standards? I would suggest that what is entertaining to me covers a broad spectrum. I find a sort of intellectual pleasure in work that is challenging. Like the next guy, I can also appreciate marvelous narrative twists and turns. Shakespeare's greatest strengths do not lie in the invention of narrative (most of which were borrowed) but rather in the invention of characters and in the language. In English, only Milton... and perhaps Spenser... approach Shakespeare in his marvelous use of the language. No one approaches him in the invention of characters who have a depth and complexity that makes them almost human. Certain writers, such as Cervantes or Sterne have a few major characters that rival those of Shakespeare. Shakespeare has a legion of such characters. The drama of Shakespeare is the development of these complex characters with often conflicting motivations who reveal themselves through their thoughts (in the form of monologue or dialog) in response to the exterior conflict or drama in which they act out their roles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

limajean... when you make sweeping proclamations that go against the general consensus of experts in the field in which you are speaking without offering the least rational or basis for your opinion... and when you react in a blatantly emotional manner to a perceived slight... you seem to be playing right into what many may imagine to be the stereotype of the age group that you are so passionate to disassociate yourself with. I will venture that at age 17 I had read far more literature than the average teen... and probably a good deal more than a majority of adults. In spite of that, I will openly admit that my knowledge and my understanding of literature was far less than it is today for the very fact that I have had far more time to read... to gain further experiences in the field. Perhaps you are an exception to the majority of 17-year-olds (and you will notice that my original post was directed at the average 17-year-old and admitted to exceptions); perhaps you already have read deeply and are experienced not only in Shakespeare, but Donne, Spenser, Jonson, Wyatt, Sidney, and Traherne as well. Perhaps you have already earned your Masters Degree and are working upon your Doctorate. Of course were that at all true I would expect something a bit more in depth than "Shakespeare is overrated."

Now that you have offered a degree of reason behind your evaluation of Shakespeare, allow me to challenge it, if you will. You have stated that Shakespeare is overrated... this assumes that his reputation far exceeds his merits. You suggest that you personally do not find him entertaining. Fair enough... but then what actually amounts to "entertaining" according to your standards? I would suggest that what is entertaining to me covers a broad spectrum. I find a sort of intellectual pleasure in work that is challenging. Like the next guy, I can also appreciate marvelous narrative twists and turns. Shakespeare's greatest strengths do not lie in the invention of narrative (most of which were borrowed) but rather in the invention of characters and in the language. In English, only Milton... and perhaps Spenser... approach Shakespeare in his marvelous use of the language. No one approaches him in the invention of characters who have a depth and complexity that makes them almost human. Certain writers, such as Cervantes or Sterne have a few major characters that rival those of Shakespeare. Shakespeare has a legion of such characters. The drama of Shakespeare is the development of these complex characters with often conflicting motivations who reveal themselves through their thoughts (in the form of monologue or dialog) in response to the exterior conflict or drama in which they act out their roles.

---

I don't mind discussing this with you, but i'd prefer to do it out of this thread. I've 'hijacked' it enough.

Whoa. What happened here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

Yes, i'm 17. So what.

---

Well, I'm about to turn 50 and I agree with you.

I actually thought your answer was what the thread was about - our individual choices rather than conformation to literary establishment rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Perhaps it would be better if you gave a reasoned response as to why exactly shakespeare sucks or is overrated.

---

Boring? Irrelevant to the 21st century? Anti-Semitic?

If you need more, start a thread, in which I will gladly participate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

This is slightly dangerous. On a normal scale, we would not except the opinions of an 8 year old concerning anything (unless the given 8 year/old was some William James Sidis type prodigy), and for good reason - their mind is underdeveloped and they simply have not had the time to accumulate the knowledge that a 45 y/o or even a 20 y/o would have.

---

Patronise much?

To me, in respect of literature, any reader's perspective is as valid as another - if they can read and understand, so be it.

I haven't changed my opinion on Shakespeare since I was 16/17, and I've read a hell of a lot more books since then. If anything, the diverse and brilliant range available to us in 2009 makes the place of Shakespeare in literature today quite laughable, in my opinion.

But as I said, that would require a new thread so Baz can get back on his numbers. I imagine that Billy-boy will come out on top, or second to Dostoevsky, by the looks of the votes so far, so the result will reflect a majority view, but it won't make it the right view.

Edit: in fact, I've started a new thread myself, here, so come one and all...

To me, in respect of literature, any reader's perspective is as valid as another - if they can read and understand, so be it.

Come on. That has to be the dumbest thing I've read here in a long time. The perspective of anyone who can read is just as valid as any other? Does that apply to other discipline's as well? My medical opinions are just as valid as those of my doctor? My opinions on quantum physics are just as relevant as those of Stephen Hawking? In every field there are those who invest a great more in terms of effort, time, experience, etc... It would seem that the opinions of those generally hold more weight. This is not to say that they themselves always agree... nor that at times they are not wrong. In my own field I doubt I am going to consider the opinion of someone with next to no experience in art with the same degree of weight as I might the opinion of another artist or an art critic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The perspective of anyone who can read is just as valid as any other? Does that apply to other discipline's as well? My medical opinions are just as valid as those of my doctor?

---

No, it's an invalid analogy. Bring that to the Shakepeare thread, although we had that as a subject recently, because it doesn't belong here.

Mod Note
Can we please return to the topic of this thread which is "Lit Net Top Author". Any more off topic posts that disregard another members opinion, which they are entitled to, shall be removed. The Athiest has opened another thread for this discussion, please continue it there.
Niamh

:lol: Please, respect others opinion! Someone respects your ''like list'', you can at least respect his ''dislike list''.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

#1 (Bazarov won't need me to fill this one in.)

---

Dan Brown?! No....

Hmmm, this is a hard one. Is it who we think are the top 5 most important, or the top 5 we most enjoy, or the top 5 we think are the "best"??

I guess I'll sort of hybrid my list (though it's in no particular order):
1. Flaubert
2. Dickens
3. Dreiser
4. Faulkner
5. Twain (had to have somebody whose name didn't start with an 'F' or a 'D')


Though I am thinking that Henry James, and Tolstoy, and Stendahl ought to be on there....and there are some modern writers who I adore like Richard Russo and Tim O'Brien and Oscar Hijuelos...and I am sure that Proust will be on there once I don't have mushy, mommy-of-small-children brain and get to read him.

So, more couple of days are in front of you. Post your votes!

Oh this is way too difficult... I mean, Dostoevsky is one of my favorites... but is he the best? what constitutes best? Maybe Joyce, in his genre (stream of consciousness) is the best? Or Fitzgerald in his style and prose? Dostoevsky for his psychological realism... Shakespeare for sure is part of the great writers. And Milton, Steinbeck, Dreiser oh my! goodness, I can't make a choice.

Just going to stick with Dostoevsky because I have read all of his novels and most of his short stories, and as such feel like I have the best knowledge of his work. Ok. that's it. My vote is locked in.

1. Steinbeck
2. Dostoevsky
3. Salinger
4. Hemingway

Voting is closed; results today or tomorrow. Close at the top, as expected.


EDIT: IGNORE THIS POST

You can stop counting any time you choose, but I have to question the validity of the poll if you stop at 39 voters out of a possible 57,000. The top books list had at least twice as many votes cast before it got shut down, and I think it was a more representative sample. Two thirds of the posts here are just conversational.

I did say it will be closed on February 14th, check start of the thread (30 days ago). Also, check when did last 3 posters post. If you really want, you can still vote, but if there is no interest, I see no point. I would like more voters, of course.

P.S. Believe me, Shakespeare is 2 votes in front of Dostoevsky; do you really think I want to close it like that? :D

You should keep it open for a few months to give more people a chance to vote. LitNet book went on for a long time before it was comprised.

I disagree - you should close it - I would think most people who were here at the creation of the thread have already voted. The LitNet top authors should reflect LitNet top authors, not those of the random people who pop in here, leave their results, and leave. All the LitNetters who are frequenters, I would think, have already voted anyway.

I agree mostly with JBI, but the truth is also that some members with huge number of posts haven't voted. Don't know why...Maybe solution would be to make it sticky so everyone can see it?

April fool's day is OK for deadline?

Dostoevsky :thumbs_up

I know I'm supposed to pick five, but he's my whole top 5 :blush:

Excellent!

1)A.S.Pushkin
2)Jane Austen
3)E.M. Remarque
4)Charlotte Bronte
5)J.R.R. Tolkien

Oh, it was difficult choice

Jassica, agree, really diffucult)
Here is mine
1) Pushkin (no doubts)
2) Lermonov
3) Bradbury
4) Conan Doyle
5) Yesenin

P.S. Jess, why no Yesenin in your list?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I agree mostly with JBI, but the truth is also that some members with huge number of posts haven't voted. Don't know why...Maybe solution would be to make it sticky so everyone can see it?

April fool's day is OK for deadline?

---

Is this mean the voting is not yet close?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iCherry

P.S. Jess, why no Yesenin in your list?

---

I wrote only writers, not poets) (Pushkin I wrote as writer)
Don't know, why...