who is the most overrated writer ever?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Repeat that about twenty thousand times and maybe you'll believe it yourself.

Quote:

---

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

---

If by aptly you mean according to the mores and trends of his era, then you might be correct. Those values aren't really relevent in today's envoirnment though.

Masterpieces that are greater pieces of literature than any other literature produced by any others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

If by aptly you mean according to the mores and trends of his era, then you might be correct. Those values aren't really relevent in today's envoirnment though.

---

Read the "hath not a jew arms" speech it is affirming that all people are equal, is this is not a relevant and desired principle in today's environment?

Since no one's convincing anyone else, let's all just agree to disagree. Please. When someone's mind is already made up they're not going to change it.

Ha ha so now you're trying to make me second guess myself. I stand by my claim, and by the way, I didn't write the second quote. Although, when you say that the racism portrayed there isn't really relevent in today's environment, any racism will always be relevant, even if it isn't Christain's and Jews, it still portrays racism in general and as a whole.Too, remember Shakespeare wrote for different times, but the messages in The Merchant of Venice on racism will always be relevant.

To seasong: With no disrespect I am merely pointing out why Shakespeare is regarded as the best ever and how just because it is not enjoyable because it is written in Middle English to him doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's no need to argue about it.

Quote:

---

Shakespeare is essentially literature in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best?

---

'Greatness' is relative.There are a variety of factors involved in the choice of books including cost, the instructor's personal whims, trends of the day, the socio-political stance/standing of the institute and a tendency to rely on lists generated by 'critics'. Your arguement, i.e: because shakespeare is taught in most schools, it is great' makes logical thought cry.

Quote:

---

Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.

---

These are probably the most regurgitated phrases in the history of literature. 'But their (your favourite authors) works are masterpeices that combine blah blah blah with blah blah blah' is a meaningless sentence. You can find a deeper meaning in a pile of steaming dog **** if you put your mind to it. Please back your claims and adjectives with solid examples.

The original intent, in any case, was not to discuss the merits of Shakespeare. Your over the top, fanboyish, head-in-the-mud obstinately repetitive defense of Shakespeare only serves to highlight my belief in the over-ratedness of Shakespeare's works.

Did you also know Shakespeare has sold over 2 billion copies worldwide? 4 times more than the nearest American - Danielle Steel. So he can't be too unenjoyable.

Ah, again getting personal. I am merely saying what the world thinks by the popularity of Shakespeare, the fact critics LOVE HIS WORK and that his work is essential literature at school. (Not essentially, sorry about that, my mistake.)

Quote:

---

Read the "hath not a jew arms" speech it is affirming that all people are equal, is this is not a relevant and desired principle in today's environment?

---

It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...7221/demon.htm

Did Shakespeare also tackle sexism? equalism? women's rights? gay rights? When Shakespeare talks about equality, is his willing to consider the buggerer, the sodomite or the rugmuncher as an equivalent?

Shakespeare is not merely taught at school due to cost and "the instructor's personal whims". Such a claim is laughable. Did you happen to know the GOVERNMENT dictates what should be taught? Probably not. The instructor doesn't choose. Shakespeare is chosen because his is masterpieces, popular, well written and with great underlying messages that is one of the reasons that make him so great.

And now that I think of it, the greatest novel ever would have to be either The Pilgrim's Progress or Don Quixote. Both masterpieces.

Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.

Brendan> Please avoid flooding the thread by multiple posts one after another. If you would like to add any more comments, use the EDIT button which is on the right bottom corner of your posts.

Further posts with personal comments/insults will be deleted with or without any futher notice.

It might be a good idea to start another thread under Shakespeare section to discuss his place in Literature History.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...7221/demon.htm

---

Ok, without turning this thread into a discussion of Merchant of Venice. I would say the play is a satire, and shakes is questioning more the prevalent attitude of the time that Jews were somehow inferior. The recognition that it is actually classified as one of his comedies I think suggests that it is a satire. If you wish to continue this start a thread in the MOV section about it.

Firstly,
I love Kilted's picture

Secondly,
I enjoy Shakespeare's works immensely

but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing.

That's my two cents.

Shakesperian Drama (Tragedy in particular) is virtually the basis of the modern dramatic theory. Up until the 1920s-1930s, academics considered Plato as the god of dramatic theory, finding Shakespeare flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maria L

but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing.

---

I disagree. Take any given film (ok, NOT "Weekend at Bernie's"--although you can find some Shakesperean elements there too, e.g. the mistaken identity theme) and you'll see that virtually every single one follows a dramatic arch and structure built on the Shakesperean foundations

Quote:

---

To seasong: With no disrespect I am merely pointing out why Shakespeare is regarded as the best ever and how just because it is not enjoyable because it is written in Middle English to him doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece.

---

I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.

But I consider Shakespeare an overrated author because I have always found his works to be extremely boring. Repetition of things again and again. Philosophic but on many places annoying dialogues. For example, all those things Romeo said to Juliet again and again. I have read Romeo and Juliet quite a time ago so I am afraid that I can't quote that passage though I would have loved to.

As for philosophic references, I agree that this man is very crafty but those writers who say things simply, and so more precisely, I personally consider them better. I don't see what's the point of making things up when they can be expressed in a more simple and concise manner. Some people call it an art, or beauty. But I don't see the beauty in reckoning one's brain off just so one can get the meaning behind Shakespeare's oh-so-clever-dialogues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.

---

I already responded to this idea elsewhere. I love Shakespeare too - but he's not the be-all, end-all of literature. His skill lay primarily in a very facile use of language and an astute understanding of human nature/behavior. But most writers have that. We've all figured out that you think he and Joyce (and Joyce - though original - does not deserve to be ranked next to Shakespeare - but again: isn't that just my opinion?) are pretty nifty. So what's next? I'm not really concerned about these so-called experts in world literature and their opinions - American literature is equally brilliant in its own way. Anybody with sufficient knowledge of literature would know that British and American literature are built on different foundations and are concerned with different ideas and intentions. I believe Shakespeare enjoyed a good story - and that he would've gotten a kick out of Mark Twain, enjoyed Steinbeck's descriptive mastery, admired Crane's irony, marvelled at Faulkner's structural innovations, nodded his head at Hemingway's masterful understatement and praised Melville's epic sweep.

Stating that one country's literature is better than another is tantamount to "literary racism." Real lovers of literature don't draw national "color lines." Books are books - the nationality of the author is trivial and true literary scholars don't get caught up in pointless comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

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.

---

Ditto on Dan Brown. I kept hearing and kept hearing and kept hearing how spectacular "The DaVinchi Code" was and it turned out to be one of the biggest let downs ever.
I also think Ernest Hemingway is overrated. I enjoy his stories, but his style drives me up the wall. And I'm, so tired of hearing how he was a "master of dialogue". His dialouge, quite frankly, is among the worst I've ever read. I mean, here's a typical Hemingway conversation:

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: Truly?
Robert Jordan: Yes, I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: We will help you blow up the bridge.
Robert Jordan: Will you help me blow up the bridge?
Andselmo: We will help you.
Robert Jordan: Alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.

---

Shakespeare didn't write in Middle English. If you want to see Middle English, read Chaucer.

Ah and should dialogue be life like then

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: The ... what .... the who .....
Anselmo: Yes . si Hey turn off that engine .. hey I SAID?
Robert Jordan: Yes turn off that engine I cant hear ... cant hear .
Anselmo: Turn it off hey turn .
Robert Jordan: Anselmo?
Andselmo: Turn it off TURN IT OFF!!.
Robert Jordan: ***** what ***** Anselmo who are you on about.

Gee no wonder Franco won. The Republicans spoke too normally!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

---

I'd be interested to know how you could possibly write an entertaining and thought-provoking play that deals with the subject of racism and not have one or more of the characters act in a racist manner.

You are making the cardinal mistake of confusing Shakespeare with his characters. By the same logic you'd have to call Vladimir Nabokov a paedophile or Bret Easton Ellis a psychopath. The character is not the author!

Zippy,

I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EAP

Zippy,

I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.

---

Creating characters that have particular opinions and attitudes does not indicate that the author shared those opinions, but it means that the author was aware of such opinions and put those into the character. If you see of the characters in The Merchant of Venice as prejudiced against Jews, then you can be sure that Shakespeare intended that the audience saw that in the characters, but it does not mean that he shared that prejudice. On the other hand, I would be surprised if Shakespeare did not have feelings against Jews, but I'm not personally acquainted with him,. so I don't know for sure.

Why would you be surprised if he 'did not have feelings against Jews'? That's a very double-edged sword you're wielding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.

But I consider Shakespeare an overrated author because I have always found his works to be extremely boring. Repetition of things again and again. Philosophic but on many places annoying dialogues. For example, all those things Romeo said to Juliet again and again. I have read Romeo and Juliet quite a time ago so I am afraid that I can't quote that passage though I would have loved to.

As for philosophic references, I agree that this man is very crafty but those writers who say things simply, and so more precisely, I personally consider them better. I don't see what's the point of making things up when they can be expressed in a more simple and concise manner. Some people call it an art, or beauty. But I don't see the beauty in reckoning one's brain off just so one can get the meaning behind Shakespeare's oh-so-clever-dialogues.

---

Not a big fan of Romeo and Juliet either, but try reading Hamlet and King Lear. On the other hand you have to think about why the dialogue was written that way, Shakespeare didn't write his plays for people to read them but for people to see them, audiences don't always pay attention to what's going on on the stage, repetition was part of his game. I don't think there's a single character study that comes close to Hamlet and King Lear is one of the most epic tales ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Why would you be surprised if he 'did not have feelings against Jews'? That's a very double-edged sword you're wielding.

---

Yes, it is a two-edged sword; I realized that while was writing. Anti-Jewish semtiment was the general rule in England in Shakespeare's time. As an author, he certainly was aware of it, but I doubt that he completely evaded that part of his era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark F.

Not a big fan of Romeo and Juliet either, but try reading Hamlet and King Lear. On the other hand you have to think about why the dialogue was written that way, Shakespeare didn't write his plays for people to read them but for people to see them, audiences don't always pay attention to what's going on on the stage, repetition was part of his game. I don't think there's a single character study that comes close to Hamlet and King Lear is one of the most epic tales ever.

---

I read the play, and all I know is that the repetition left a really bad impression on me. Anyway, a single sentence in the end of a play can be very important. The ending of the story depends on it, and if the audiences are not paying attention to it, they are responsible for it. Same is the case with the whole play. A good play-wright doesn't have to repeat his lines for the sake of it. And I don't think that he meant it as a game. Repetition might have been just his style. Of course, I can be wrong in that but it's my thought.

Yes, I haven't read Hamlet and King Lear yet. I might someday try King Lear though. Its story (I read it somewhere) appeals me. :)

I'm going to have to say JD Salinger. I really don't understand why Catcher in the Rye is such a beloved book. It just made me angry at the end because it just Friggin ends!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate that.

Dan Brown. His fame is based purely on the premise of his book rather than the execution of it. There's certainly nothing in the prose. JK Rowlings. The life and times of a prepubescent wizard. Need I say more? Hemmingway. I actually liked his style of prose, but his works fairly drip machismo. I couldn't take it. Ayn Rand. Bitter, bitter woman. The rant that is Atlas Shrugged did not deserve 1100 pages. Also, Robert Jordan -he's like the song that never ends- and Tolkien -there is such a thing as too much detail. We don't need to know the family tree, thanks.

Who said Victor Hugo? How could you? *weeps in a corner* And Hawthorne, his exploration of human nature-- overrated? :bawling:

I agree J.K. Rowling is overrated. I don't like her books. The story is more like a common fairy tale and the characters are boring. Don't even mention reader could solves the problems in the book much before Harry and it becomes really uninteresting to sit there and reading his thoughts while you have already know the main idea. It get me furious. There were some periods while I have reading such things, on my mind was only: "how someone could be so dull?". But that actually is because of the retardation and this kind of retardation is shallow in my opinion. As for the descriptions and so on, there are not very good. I couldn't feel myself a part from this world, not after I became twelve years old. As for the style of writing I don't see something really special. It is true most of the people are attracted by the book, but it is only because the plot. And the mark for the good literature, in my opinion this is the writing style, is not really on good level.

i must agree with Adudaewen that J.D Salinger seems to me to be overrated, but this is based upon the fact that i myself did not enjoy 'Catcher in the Rye' and therefore was unable to see what all the fuss was about. (i am currently studying a module in which i will have to study the book again, perhaps my view will be altered).

i must also agree with papercut that Dan Brown is immensely overrated. 'The Da Vinci Code' sold well because of its own generated hype, if purely based upon his writing style and ability the book would have failed to be as big a success as it was. Having read 'The Da Vinci Code' i decided to read 'Angels and Demons' (recommended by my boyfriend's mother) to see if perhaps Dan Brown was able to write different genres. I was bitterly disappointed to find that the text followed the exact same premise as his previous text, down to kidnappings, murders and code-breaking.

Dan Brown isn't even rated as a good author...everyone is aware that his books are crap.

I tend to like books for what I can get from them. Sometimes its just a good yarn ......so I like Grisham. Sometimes its the thrill of discovering another mind, sometimes something else. There are authors whose works I detest and whose minds as revealed in their works I detest. The great Soviet writer Babel asks a question in one of his stories about whether it is possible to live without enemies and answers that it is not. I agree and detecting ones enemies in literature is a worthwhile exercise. Literature like all things is political and whether we say we like a book for this reason or for that reason it all boils down to the fact that we recognise some attitudes as directly opposed to the way we understand the World and Life. This may sound unusual to young readers but .........there you go ............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liesl

i must agree with Adudaewen that J.D Salinger seems to me to be overrated, but this is based upon the fact that i myself did not enjoy 'Catcher in the Rye' and therefore was unable to see what all the fuss was about. (i am currently studying a module in which i will have to study the book again, perhaps my view will be altered).

---

I'm so glad to see someone else agree with me, mostly because I was beginnign to think maybe it was just me!!! I am also beginning to think that its just a guy thing that maybe we women can't understand because all of my guy friends just LOVED Catcher in the Rye. Liesl, if your view does alter please explain it to me!:D

No Salinger's novel is not as good as many say but then what book that gets 'cult' status can measure up to the fame thrust upon it. I wonder if it is true that Salinger has a vault full of unpublished manuscripts.
I'm not a great fan but then I don't mind him either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: Truly?
Robert Jordan: Yes, I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: We will help you blow up the bridge.
Robert Jordan: Will you help me blow up the bridge?
Andselmo: We will help you.
Robert Jordan: Alright.

---

Heh, I'll actually agree with that, I liked the premise of the book, and I alos liked the story of The Old Man and the Sea but I really think that any of his books that go past 300 pages are too drawn out for his style. Most of For Whom the Bell Tolls was just Robert Jordan walking from place to place. I'd have to say the only two exciting or interesting parts were Pilars description of the execution of the fascists in her town, and the final stand of El Sordo(which was also drawn out a bit).

I can actually deal with drawn out novels and I do enjoy most of them for their descriptiveness, The Tale of Genji, Moby Dick, Don Quixote. But for some reason Hemingways style just doesnt work at all for a book being long.

Nora Roberts....She can give housewives a thrill..but there is a way to get that thrill without dumbing yourself down....though I suppose without Nora Roberts what else would they sell in the aisles at Target?...

Hemingway by far IMO is the most overrated author of all time. I think he is a horrible writer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark F.

Paulo Coelho, I've read "The Alchimist" and it was so poorly written and simplistic, I really felt like I'd just wasted my time.

---

I agree absolutely.

You are very hard on Mr H. No doubt his style can grate and he seems desperately easy to parody but look a bit closer at some of the short stories and at 'A Farewell to Arms'. That pared down style takes a bit of doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark F.

Dan Brown isn't even rated as a good author...everyone is aware that his books are crap.

---

Unfortunately I've met people who actually believe that he is a good author!!
(can you imagine that?).

Overrated authors..let me think..one name comes in mind.Paulo Coehlio. And of course the lady with the Harry Potter series. By far the most unoriginal books ever created. If you are into fantasy literature you know what i mean.
Also I think that Orwell is a bit overrated. I don't know..just a thought!:blush: