who is the most overrated writer ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMarcopolos

For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. AHWOSG, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)

The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.

---

For me, sometimes "points" seem to distract books from the rhythms of life. That's what I love about Ulysses; it is first and foremost concerned with the sensations of perception, not any kind of moral or universal truth.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

In the world of cinema Hungarian director Bela Tarr has revolutionized the language of film by doing away with narrative and focusing on the passing of time and emotion through slow and contemplative camera shots. "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."

Still it leaves the question of whether this or that "point" being made is more important than another... and whether having something serious to communicate inherently makes the work better... or the lack thereof makes it worse. Looking at other artistic forms by way of analogy I again ask what is the "point" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet or Monet's Waterlilies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Looking at other artistic forms by way of analogy I again ask what is the "point" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet or Monet's Waterlilies?

---

Exactly, that's why Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytic, etc. forms of criticism can only go so far. Come to think of it, music hardly has any "point". With the exception of opera (whose music exists to express the stroy) really what other types of music really offer a "point"? That's why I side with aestheticism, "art for arts sake". Can one not find Rembrant's Night Watch or DaVinci's The Last Supper beautiful even if we may not know what is going on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMarcopolos

For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. AHWOSG, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)

The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.

---

I think you might be defining 'point' too narrowly. A point of a work of art is whatever the artist wants it to be. If they want it to be just an exercise in style, then that is the point and the validity of that point is not up for discussion. And if anyone were to limit the scope of its meaning, they would be limiting the freedom of art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

For me, sometimes "points" seem to distract books from the rhythms of life. That's what I love about Ulysses; it is first and foremost concerned with the sensations of perception, not any kind of moral or universal truth.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

In the world of cinema Hungarian director Bela Tarr has revolutionized the language of film by doing away with narrative and focusing on the passing of time and emotion through slow and contemplative camera shots. "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."

---

I believe the Twain quote was made in jest. As for the rest of your point, I can see what you're talking about, however, that kind of art, whether it be in print or on film, does not appeal to me. I don't want an art form to mirror life precisely, I want it to entertain and then educate or enlighten me, or at least try to.

As far as Ulysses, I'm not an expert on him, so I'll refrain from comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by escapologist

I think you might be defining 'point' too narrowly. A point of a work of art is whatever the artist wants it to be. If they want it to be just an exercise in style, then that is the point and the validity of that point is not up for discussion. And if anyone were to limit the scope of its meaning, they would be limiting the freedom of art.

---

Indeed. However, it does not mean I must enjoy it. I'm talking about my own perspective as an audience member, not as an artist. Obviously, an artist is free to choose to express him/herself any way they want. But don't expect me to pay attention to it if it's only a style exercise... my time is valuable.

As to the points about music above, I would say any song with lyrics has a story, and perhaps someone with more musical acumen than myself might argue that any musical composition tells a story in its own way. And to my ear, my favorite musical artists are the best storytellers -- with the flavoring of the musical style added to make it more (ear)-appealing.

As to visual art, I'm not an expert on that, so I haven't thought much about it. To my mind, though, it seems that even in that art form, the artist can capture a story on the canvas, albeit perhaps more open to interpretation by the viewer since it is static and visual.

ayn rand, chuck palahniuk, martin amis, hemingway, dickens

All of them and none of them

Might sound wishy washy, but it's such a subjective subject that it boils down to how well trained one is in observing and appreciating various aspects and qualities of a work of fiction (not to mention the author's intention)

There was a true tale I heard of a tribe living rough somewhere in Africa whom some anthropologists came across. They were amazed how no element of their lifestyle owed anything to the last two thousand years of civilisation.

Fearing that this tribe would one day be gobbled up by the march of progress if left to their own devices they returned with a television and satellite dish, thinking that some education of the outside world would be of benefit.

Everyday and every night every member of the tribe sat transfixed to the passing parade of images from the magic lantern, not bothered by disrupting questions from the intruders

The anthos began to wonder and worry if they'd done the right thing. Would this machine consume their culture instead of enhancing it?

Then suddenly one day about a month later, they noticed something about the tribesmen - they were no longer watching, but had returned to the way they were before the interlopers' arrival

Though a relief, it was also confusing

'Why have you all stopped watching?' one was asked

'That is a very clever machine,' he replied, 'and it tells many stories - but unfortunately it does not tell 'our' stories'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrytus

chuck palahniuk, dickens

---

Indeed, good man :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrytus

hemingway

---

You imbecile.


:mad5:

Dan Brown = TERRIBLY overrated.

Same with John Steinbeck. Couldn't even get through "The Pearl" or even some of his short stories. Didn't capture my interest.

The most overrated writer is Lord Byron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anymodal

The most overrated writer is Lord Byron

---

Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.

---

Never heard about him, but he seems to have a similar profile than Bryon :sleep:

I'll put my vote in for Dickens, and judging from this site alone, Orwell.

:banghead:

Someone should make a poll with the most popular overrated writers :P