I happen to think Jane Austen is a very influential and compassionate author. I enjoy her books. In my opinion, F. Scott Fitzgerald seems a little overrated.
Printable View
I happen to think Jane Austen is a very influential and compassionate author. I enjoy her books. In my opinion, F. Scott Fitzgerald seems a little overrated.
Oh my, I don't think I can forgive that comment. I love Fitzgerald.Quote:
Originally Posted by kjt1981
Please don't bite my head off, but might I mention Dickens? Yes, fabulous ideas, but rewriting the same ones into a thousand different novels gets triesome...
Oh, and how could I forget...
STEINBECK
.
I do not really like Hemingway very much, ditto the verbose Victor Hugo, though I have only read "Les Misérables", I found it boring. I do not really like Joyce very much, I think he is pretentious; this may be because I do not "get" his work, but I found Ulysses to be pretentious, though I can admit to its "artistic worth". "Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man" was also distinctly average, in my opinion. I guess a lot of authors have minor works which are fallaciously regarded as being "classics" simply because that specific author wrote them-Charles Dickens, for example wrote many book, not all of which are in my opinion "classics", or even "good. Balzac, on the other hand, wrote a lot of books, most of which could be considered classics. Beckett is a bit hit and miss for me-I love "Molloy", "Malone Dies" was hit and miss, but "The Unnamed" was (for me at least) gibberish.
Dan Brown is also over-rated, though I did not expect him to be that great.
Maybe not an author but definitely a book. Well it's a short story..."The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. It's supposed to be a powerful feminist piece but I thought it was totally over the top and ridiculous. It seemed like a spoof. I'd be interested in talking to someone else who's read it actually, and see if they liked it...
I've not read her other things though. I may be interested in reading her autobiography, cos she seems like an interesting person. But 'The Yellow Wallpaper' sounded like a joke all over. And it's supposedly her most famous piece.
I have to disagree; :D I think 'The Yellow Wallpaper' is ingenious. I've written essays about it, and I think that although the plot has a relatively simple and linear structure, there is a multitude of symbolisms and layered meanings that can be discovered. If you just start from her description of the wallpaper as "a smouldering unclean yellow", you can reach interesting conclusions. Check for the definitions the MacMillan English Dictionary gives for smoulder . One of them reads "to feel very strong emotions that you do not express in words, especially anger or sexual feelings".
Moreover, she says that the paper is "strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight". Check De Vries' Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery and the symbolisms for "sun". "male creator", "King, ruling by divine right", etc.
In conclusion, the reason this story is considered a powerful feminist piece is not what's on the surface of the story (which personally I find intriguing as it is), but what's underneath
i certainly agree with Iago that 'The Yellow Wallpaper' is a wonderful text. I particularly like it for the slow burning descent into madness and the powerful effect it eventually had upon Charlotte Perkins Gilman's doctor Weir Mitchell to rethink his prescription of rest cure.
I think Paulo Coelho is hugely overrated. Everybody told me that The Alchemist was wonderful and that it would change my life. Sure, it was good, but I don't hink it was that special.
I guess Coelho has to be seen within the social context (as, indeed, it is the case with all writers). Judging Coelho by his text alone, he surely is rather average. But part of the "myth" is the social impact his books have created.
I love 'The Yellow Wallpaper' as well.
Maybe we're only discussing classic authors who are overrated, but the most overrated author I have ever attempted reading is Robert Jordan.
Robert Jordan? Definitely. His “The Wheel of Time” series are a little disaster in my opinion. Ok, he has an imagination, but why everything is just like a soup opera? I know this sounds utterly rough and impolite, but I have never enjoyed his style. I mean his books are not beautiful at all!
As for Coelho I like his books and his a bit melancholic style of writing. But as almost every bestseller his works are a bit overrated. They are just too popular to be jugged with a clear mind.
YAY! I'm not alone in despising Robert Jordan or thinking his books are fantasy soap operas. This makes me very happy.
Hehhe, it was the same with me too. By now everybody was saying to me: “This is a great book you should read it”. Well, I read it. It was just terrible. I couldn’t stand it. And the way the story is finishing in such a hurry in the end if the first book; it isn’t complete and full-blooded. It was a great disappointment. Of course now, I am almost scared to say my opinion in public, because everybody says ‘You are mad! This book is Awesome!”
I
hate
Dan
Brown.
Such non-sense. I could only get through three chapters.
AMEN! Why on earth are his horribly written books so popular?
Oh, thank God! It is not only me after all! Huh, they like them just because these books are scandalous. I don’t think this is a good reason enough to read and like something. Are they all mad? Even if we stop thinking about the flat plots, based only on the unexpected turns, where is the esthetic pleasure of the beautiful prose? I didn’t find it anywhere; am I supposed to look for it with a magnifying glass?!
William Shakespeare. James Joyce. Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Margaret Atwood = totally overated.
perhaps you could say some novels like 'Alias Grace' or 'Oryx and Crake' are overrated (not i myself because i love Atwood's writing style) but i cannot understand how anyone could read 'The Handmaid's Tale' is overrated. As dystopian literature it is up there with Orwell's '1984'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maria L
I like the covers of Tom Robbins' books a great deal more than I like the actual literature.
P.S. Margaret Atwood = awesome.
How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!? Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated. And neither did Joyce produce such novels hailed as classics of 20th century litearture by being overated. I agree, however, entirely with blackbird 9. Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.
Jane Austen is not overated; she is a brilliant novelist, it's just she wrote in the old ways, meaning that today her merit is not as greatly revered. I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.
*jaw drops*Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
But Twain is hillarious, and Hemingway is...not.
I'm not sure it's possible for "overrated" authors to change the way books are written. Hemingway's style has been tremendously influencial - and his stories have the sly ability to appear very simple (when in reality they are not at all so): but that's part of the artistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
As far as Mark Twain - huh? He too was involved in changing the face of American Literature - how can you be overrated if you're capable of doing that?
As far as Margaret Atwood goes, her poetry, short stories and novels (Handmaid and Oryx were excellent) reveal a considerable writer of vision.
I admit, Handmaid's Tale is a moving novel
but otherwise I don't appreciate Atwood too much.
As for more authors who are overrated, I think I have changed my mind.
No author can be overrated. It is just the amount of publicizm their books get.
I.E: Dan Brown went Hollywood and his books became known worldwide.
The only reason authors are considered "overrated" is when some idiot who has never read in his life decides to pick one up and realizes hey - reading's not that bad! Then the book get's publicized and even more idiots read it. Then, these books become famous - even when they're not that great...
It has nothing to do with the author at all!
Haha, I think that's an overestimation of Shakespeare, so I guess that means I think Shakespeare has just become overrated (by Brendan Madley).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
With the help of ten fingers and a keyboard.Quote:
How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!?
Subjective claim, nonsensical sentence.Quote:
Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated.
Joyce did write some decent short stories, I am not familiar with all of his novels, but his magnum opus, Ulysses is the definition of unreadable twaddle.Quote:
And neither did Joyce produce such novels hailed as classics of 20th century litearture by being overated.
That's neither here nor there though, so if you re-read the sentence you wrote again, you'll realize that claims like 'classics of 20th century' are precisely the reason people call his works over-rated. Ulysses has definitely become a classic, there's no denying that certainly - doesn't make it a particularly good book though.
I am not aware of many people who rate Dan Brown's stuff to begin with. How can you be over-rated if no body even rates you?Quote:
Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.
That's just semantics. Unless specifically stated otherwise, whenever people are talking about an author being 'over-rated', it is generally taken for the granted that they mean his literary canon, not his character as a person.Quote:
The only reason authors are considered "overrated" is when some idiot who has never read in his life decides to pick one up and realizes hey - reading's not that bad! Then the book get's publicized and even more idiots read it. Then, these books become famous - even when they're not that great...
It has nothing to do with the author at all!
There's a difference between fame and appreciation. Authors like Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, Nora Roberts, Sydney Sheldon and (to a certain extent) J. K. Rowling are famous but hardly anybody 'rates' them. [rightly or wrongly] On the flip side, Shakespeare, Joyce, Tolkien, Twain, Poe and Austen are considered and accepted as literary giants even by those who haven't read them.
rebuttal mood I see.
Well said. Overrated depends on how the novels are being judged. Tom Clancy's novels are judged on their entertainment value, whereas Shakespeare is judged for his literary merit and the effects his works have on society. One might say that while Clancy's novels are entertaining, they may not go down in history as being the most relevant to history and society. While some say that Shakespeare is the most influential writer of the english language, his work may be boring and difficult to understand (I disagree with this last point, but I have heard it said). When one judges an author of being overrated, one must mention on what level the author's work is judged.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
Ask anybody qualified on world literature and they will tell you the merits of Shakespeare and Joyce. Something great does not neccessarily have to be readable by everybody. It is the prose and depiction of life that is of the true merit.
And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.
There is certainly no American who can match the ability of: Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Scott, Austen, Archer, Doyle, Kipling, Buchyan, Defoe, Woolf, Conrad, Marlowe, Thackeray, Swift, Fielding, Bronte Sisters, Shelley, Stoker, Joyce, Disraeli, Gaskel, Collins, Carroll, Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Potter, Trollpe, Eliot and Hardy to name some British legends.
Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is. Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.
The only qualficiation needed to comment about a book or an author is a familiarity with their works.Quote:
Ask anybody qualified on world literature and they will tell you the merits of Shakespeare and Joyce.
For a book to be good, it has to be readable. If you can't even read the book, its impossible to judge the remaining attributes.Quote:
Something great does not neccessarily have to be readable by everybody. It is the prose and depiction of life that is of the true merit.
Sigh.Quote:
And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.
Tolkien
Martin
Poe
Dostoevsky
Murakami
Mieville
MacLeod
Banks
Acroyd
Roy
Rushdie
King
Kay
Helprin
Christie
Orwell
Ishiguro
Bradbury
Clement
Simmons
Dick
Clarke
Le Guin
Matheson
Hardy
Bronte (E)
Buglakov
Manto
Hoeg
Voight
Powers
McCarthy
Bakker
Fowles
Jackson
Enough or do you want more names?
I understand where you are coming from about the way that a book is being judged, but I'm still trying to get over you saying that giants such as Shakespeare and Twain were and are overrated.:bawling:
Shakespeare was one of the most influential play writes of all time. You cannot deny this. Even today, his works are being adapted to movies and Hallmark cards, books and T.V. Sorry. I guess that I'm just having a hard time figuring out how you can call someone overrated when they have influenced world culture as a whole for about 400 years. How is that by the way? How do you defend your statement. The man perfected iambic pentameter for God's sake! And the sonnet! And the classic Petrarchan Sonnet!
So with that, I give you my overrated author: James Joyce. Unreadable drivel indeed. There is a line between s of c and bunches of letters put together. If you want stream of consciousness, read Jabberwockee.
Le'sigh. Ever heard of copyright?Quote:
Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is. Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.
No EAP. None of them are superior in terms of prose or ideas contained in the work. Ask any person qualified on world literature and they will concur with me. I don't hate Mark Twain, don't say he's bad, but slightly overated in terms of the ideas in his novels. That's not to say he couldn't write.
EAP: Observe by everybody. You can't judge it because you can't read it but those of us who have can.
From Wikipedia: William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, and the world's preeminent dramatist.[
Those who have judged him as the greatest know what to look for: prose, ideas, imagery, ectera, other than pure enjoyment, which is what is implied by you saying any person familiar with the text may judge it properly. No, you couldn't be more wrong.
His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth. This is one of the many things I mean by ideas with the prose.
P.S. That first sentence from my last post was from Wikipedia.
prophitus,
Please realize that influencing cultures does not by itself does not make something deserving of accolodes. Hugo Gernsback's sci-fi efforts kick-started the modern sci-fi genre, yet no body in their right minds would call him a good writer.
Shakespeare's influence and his mastery of English language is undeniable, however, he is not the be-all and end-all of fiction. There's beauty in his works, but they are also boring, verbose, annoying and are based around themes which are largely irrelevent these days. Feminism, racism, classism, global expansion and technological ascendency are some of the key issues faced by our world, and in this day and age, I find the emphasis placed on his works to be over-the-top misguidedness.
I find his characterization to be worthless and very much a product of his era, values and morality included. The less said about the 'plots' the better. Of course, in drama, dialogue is the most important bit, but as I detailed earlier, his dialogue has little emotional value or empathizable characteristic for me.
Just a quick point I think Racism is dealt with quite aptly by Shakes in Merchant of Venice, I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could find examples of the other themes as well
Ah, you are saying this from a point of enjoyment of his work. The world he wrote for has gone. Just because we today cannot fully understand the Middle English does not decrease the ability of the work. And also, enjoyment is only one of the factors that makes a great writer. Ideas and prose also come into it; refer to: His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth.
Shakespeare is essentially literature in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best? Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.