who is the most overrated writer ever?

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.

The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

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.

---

But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman. I never asked my instructors what actually elevated Shakespeare to the place we have him in, but I read a paper online that claims we can blame that on the Romantic Movement, and the argument seems persuasive to me. Part of what makes Shakespeare the Shakespeare of the modern canon is that directors can do so much with his material. Othello can be a radical subversion on purity; Macbeth can be a parable about Vietnam; Hamlet is an exploration of the police state and the difficulty of breaking it, and the comedies well neigh anticipate male pregnancy, if you ask me:p, which you did not. But his genius is pretty much what he is always subverting, or threatening to subvert, about the established order, and his intuitive understanding about the corrupting nature of power, or greed, or sex. If Bloom says Shakespeare created the human, that claim isn't much of a stretch. He took the conventions of Elizabethan theater and virtually single-handedly superattenuated them. Jonson, his contemporary, was a great playwright, so was Marlowe, but William Shakespeare, was, and to my mind pretty much remains, the transformative voice in literature. There is a saying: Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. It is a cliche, but still a basic truism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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.

The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined.

---

It's all subjective, and if you're unmoved by something, then naturally you're not going to think it's good, and if it's highly praised, you'll think it's over-rated. While if you really like something, you can't think that it's over-rated. You can't separate personal feelings from this sort of argument. I'll admit that Shakespeare had talent, but by no means is his talent on the same level of his praise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman.

---

That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone. And that he's over-rated here-and-now is really all that matters.

I like the rest of your argument, though.

It's all subjective...

Yes, all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others. The merit of a work of art (as in any discipline) is best judged by the opinions of the experts in that field. Is that elitist? So be it. Art is elitist. Something every artist knows. Of course in speaking of "experts" I do not limit this to academics and literary critics (although they would certainly be included). The "experts" would include as well what Virginia Woolf calls the not-so-common "common reader"... that lover of literature who is willing to invest the time and effort into the study of and appreciation of literature. It would also, necessarily, include subsequent writers. There's not all that many writers of real merit who would think to dismiss Shakespeare as grossly overrated. Certainly, Tolstoy had issues (primarily on moral grounds) with Shakespeare, but one suspects that rather like Plato's issues (on the same grounds) with Homer the real issue was the latter writer;'s recognition that he could not surpass his predecessor. However, Kafka, Joyce, Milton, Blake, Borges, Goethe, T.S. Eliot (and on and on we may go) all considered Shakespeare a central figure. There is a clear difference between stating that you don't like a particular work of art or artist (personal opinion) and making a sweeping judgment that goes against the common thread without offering any proof in your favor.

That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone.

And that, by the way. is also a stereotype. Certainly the reputation of the most important artists may grow as his or her influence continued to weave its way through the work of subsequent artists. Certainly there are those who were largely ignored during their own lifetime who are suddenly "discovered" in a later age: Van Gogh, Vermeer, William Blake, Thomas Traherne, Franz Schubert, etc... A great many (if not the majority) of artists of real merit are certainly recognized during their own life time... if not afforded the same level of recognition as will come later. Michelangelo and Raphael were commonly known as "El Divino" (the Divine One). Rubens was knighted in three countries and was the highest paid artist in Europe. Picasso was the first artist whose work broke the million dollar mark... in his lifetime. T.S. Eliot was clearly recognized as one of the most important and influential poets of his time. Nearly all of the Impressionists died quite wealthy. Goethe was so recognized that even the emperor, Napoleon could speak of him as "there was a man". Beethoven's funeral drew vast crowds in Vienna. Time doesn't necessarily canonize all artists... and it is far more likely to be objective in its judgments. There is often much at stake in the reputation of today's art stars be it the investment of collectors, dealers, publishers, etc... Time is far more commonly a leveler of opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Yes, all opinions are subjective.

---

Yes, and the answer to a question such as "who is the most over-rated writer ever" is PURELY opinion. There is no answer based on absolute fact. And as a lover of literature, I say that Shakespeare is over-rated.

I don't lean my views on the common thread, and think that it is foolish to do so. It's a very convenient way to claim that you have a better opinion than someone else, though, isn't it?

Anyways, after Shakespeare, my second choice for most over-rated writer would be T.S. Elliot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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

---

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

Personally I would rather read the Wordsworth, easily.

Quote:

---

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

---

Damn, not be long, there goes Dante, Milton, Shakespeare and every other epic ever written, bummer! Though again you limit and reduce Wordsworth's poetry as only about "nature" (like there is something wrong with that anyway) but it is clearly much more than that:

Quote:

---

There is a Yew-tree, pride of Lorton Vale,
Which to this day stands single, in the midst
Of its own darkness, as it stood of yore:
Not loathe to furnish weapons for the Bands
Of Umfraville or Percy ere they marched
To Scotland's heaths; or those that crossed the sea
And drew their sounding bows at Azincour,

---

What is he really talking about? What's the real point of the poem? War? Man's abuse of nature? Mankind's eternal lust for power? The selfish nature of the human? The folly of human endeavour? Darkness at the heart of mankind? A poem about a tree?

Yew trees were used in the past to fashion bows with due to their suppleness and strength and the fact that there is only one lone tree standing in "its own darkness" to me suggests much about the true nature of mankind. His ever present lust for power and social status at the expense of others. The ugly human.

At the end of the poem there is hope though and a path forward. It is not all bleak as the narrator rises above and rejects the folly of mankind:

Quote:

---

And Time the Shadow; there to celebrate,
As in a natural temple scattered o'er
With altars undisturbed of mossy stone,
United worship; or in mute repose
To lie, and listen to the mountain flood
Murmuring from Glaramara's inmost caves.

---

He realises that time is precious, although short, when he says "Time the shadow" notice of course the personification of time, but we do not dwell on the negative. Instead we appreciate life for its richness, we worship the small things, quietly "in mute repose" we "lie, and listen" to the richness of life around us.

Even though there is only one lone tree left, as all the others have been used to kill long ago, there is still a grain of hope, a love of life and a deep understanding of the beauty of the world. Yes there is more in that one lone tree than in all the folly mankind, in all of its dashing and conquering, and murdering and fighting. If only we could learn to see the world as the voice in that poem.

A beautiful and wise little piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

---

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the suggestion of Shakespeare as overrated, it's such a ridiculous notion. There's a vast difference between not liking someone's work personally, and stating that they are overrated, and I think some posters are confusing the two things.

I would like to know what makes you think Kelby that poetry shouldn't be about nature? It can be about whatever the poet wants it to be about. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it lesser poetry. And just to lay my cards firmly on the table, both Shakespeare and Wordsworth rightly deserve their places in the canon, whether they appeal to some readers or not, their work is not overrated, and their reputations are richly deserved, as attested by their contemporaries, scholars, critics, academics, and yes readers, over the centuries.

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

Damn, not be long, there goes Dante, Milton, Shakespeare and every other epic ever written, bummer!

Indeed. That also pretty much eliminates a majority of the Japanese and Chinese poetry that I've read. Hmmm... is there some rule book somewhere that I don't know about that spells out just what subject matter is allowable for poetry? It sounds like the old 19th century "heirarchy of art" in which subject matter was ranked for the convenience of painters: at the top of the heap we had the historical, mythological, and religious narratives followed closely behind by portraiture (and the "importance" of the sitter was part of the measure of the "importance" of the portrait)... then came genre scenes, followed by landscapes and still life. Poor ol' Turner and Cezanne... they never had a chance.:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

---

That's the silliest thing I've read so far on these forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

---

No, it is because Blake a) is hardly read, except for some early lyrics, and b), is incredibly misunderstood, even within those early lyrics. There are far easier poems to read than Blake's prophetic works. Blake is one of the most difficult poets I've encountered, and is very, very difficult to get into, because everything is kind of cryptic.

People think, when they read The Tyger, for instance, that they are reading a simple kids poem - in truth, most people get it the first time as Children, but I am yet to find a person that age who really knows what, "When the heavens threw down their spears / and watered heaven with their tears" means. In truth, most adult readers wouldn't be able to pick up the reference easily (Isaiah mixed with Milton).


Poetry without nature is almost impossible. Perhaps one can achieve the sense of nature almost joked upon by Stevens:

Quote:

---

And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place

---

But one realizes, quite early, that to not hear the subjectivity of the natural world is to be like the snow man - dead and frozen, part of Stevens' irony.

I didn't want to get into the Blake discussion myself... being an admitted fanatic... but yes, outside of his shorter lyric poetry Blake is an extremely difficult poet and I would agree a seldom read poet. And certainly his short lyrics can be as knotty as anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

---

That would be Poe’s entire Poetic Principle – in 10 words or less!