who is the most overrated writer ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

You'd actually be surprised how much influence Wordsworth had in his own day - there were quite a few editions of Lyrical Ballads alone brought out in his life time. He was even made a household name - though by then he wasn't much of a poet anymore.

---

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.

Quote:

---

As one of my professors put it (she is a modernist scholar, with a specialty in Eliot and Richard Wilbur), "Wordsworth's Ode is the greatest 19th century poem." Certainly, that may be a stretch, but it certainly would be top five, in terms of the way it changed poetic understanding. Perhaps you may be interested in reading Abrams' Mirror and the Lamp, where he discusses the transition in poetic thought brought about by, primarily, Wordsworth.

---

While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the art. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world; but the sonnets communicated something of value. Perhaps if Wordsworth had been a little more extreme, then his writing would have been as humorous as Coleridge's; but Wordsworth wrote as if he expected to be taken seriously.

Wordsworth was an innovator, and as such was hugely influential on his peers and future generations. You may not like his work personally, but there is absolutely no denying that he's worthy to be in the literary canon. I can't help thinking you must be teasing us Peterl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.

---

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.

Quote:

---

Wordsworth has no influence excepting upon those around him. Well certainly he did have an influence on Coleridge, Shelley, and Browning... positive and negative. One would also certainly Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, both of whom ranked Wordsworth along side Milton and Shakespeare. American literature and the centrality of nature and the writer's subjective response to nature certainly influenced Emerson, Thoreau, Tuckerman... even Whitman. Just a little research will reveal Wordsworth's importance and influence on writers as different as Pushkin, John Stuart Mill, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Poe, Keats, etc... It is not a far stretch to suggest that a great majority of the English poets after Wordsworth wrestled with his influence. Admittedly there was a rebellion against his work (and more often against what he became later) as there is in emulation or adulation. In either case, he most certainly was not some unknown figure who only impacted those immediately in his own sphere of contact.

---

Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era. Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.

Quote:

---

As to Wordsworth's merit... certainly suggesting that he is one of the worst writers of all time is an absurdity. I personally prefer Blake... and Keats... but Wordsworth produced a body of poetry of unquestionable beauty, to my mind... and poetry that has been more than slightly influential upon the work that followed.

---

Opinions vary. There may be value in a few of his poems, but the overwhelming bulk of Wordsworth writing was not very good. I won't claim that he was the worst English poet ever or even the worst of the 19th century, but i wonder what he would have written after the Tay Bridge collapsed in a storm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.

---

Byron's so much better than Wordsworth, as is Shelley and Blake.

Wordsworth IS overrated- when you learn poetry in school, the only 'old' poets you really know are Shakespeare and Wordsworth, mainly because of the latter's amusingly apt (or maybe not) name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Wordsworth IS overrated- when you learn poetry in school, the only 'old' poets you really know are Shakespeare and Wordsworth, mainly because of the latter's amusingly apt (or maybe not) name.

---

That just came to my mind too. There were many better poets than Wordsworth during that era, but more attention is poured onto him than he deserves. Even Leigh Hunt was as good a poet, but he is largely forgotten today.

Wordworth and nature..hmm...nature poems are the worst type. The Prologue- yawn.

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.

And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.

While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world...

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.

This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.

Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.

Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.

Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.

Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

Actually... I thought Blake understood that:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Shakespeare...the most over-rated anything of all time.

Oh yeah... and that Mozart dude... he kinda sucks too. And that Leonardo guy... a complete nothing.:rolleyes:

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.

I used to think shakespeare was overrated and snobby... but I think alot of my prejudices against shakespeare (and alot of classic literature) was out of contempt for what other people say about him and making such grand statements (best writer ever!). alot of it was also due to my maturity... not saying ppl who think hes overrated are immature... but a vast majority of ppl who don't like shakespeare do not give him a chance.

shakespeare IS difficult reading (alot of elizabethan lit is)... but i think appreciation for shakespeare and actually alot of classic literature needs a personal desire (and an open mind)... that 'enjoiying' older literature DOES require some effort... kind of like listening to 'rock' music... you might not like so and so's album right away, but somehow it just sticks on you after a few repeated listenings.

and before ppl write off shakespeare as elite or snobbish... the guy married young, didn't go to college, was considered 'crude' by the critics of his time. even a couple hundred years after his death, some critics still didn't think much of him just because there attitude was that a man who came from 'peasant stock' couldn't be that great of a writer.

oh well, i just think its a loss if you dont give him a chance.

my vote for 'overrated' would probably be... hmm... maybe the beat generation. i think they were the first victim of a growing mass media... where the lifestyle took over the art. they definitely were good, and in some authors, great... but there meaning has been overrated in the sense that ppl take more out of what they did rather than what they wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

Actually... I thought Blake understood that:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

---

Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.

And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.

---

Would poetry or music be any different today, if Wordsworth or Mozart had not done what they did? That is an idea that is worthy of some thought. I can't say for sure, but i expect that poetry might be a little better now.

Quote:

---

While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world...

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.

This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.

---

All knowledge is subjective. The only value in knowledge is that it is shared by others and is effective in some way. I suppose that Leeches enjoyed that poem about the gatherer of leeches, but leeching isn't used in medicine any more.

Quote:

---

Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.

Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.

Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.

Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.

---

I would imagine that all of those people and many others were influenced by Shakespeare and many other writers, but most of them chose to write other than like Wordsworth.