Printable View
The term overrated is just so, well, dumb. All it means when someone says an author is overrated, and especially when it comes to tried and true greats like Wordsworth and Byron, is that that person doesn't like that writer, and rather than accept that their opinion isn't necessarily the sole determiner of artistic worth in the universe, that author is therefore "overrated." It's quite childish, really.
Not to mention that the variable of "overrated" makes no empirical sense. How could this be determined, outside of "my favourite author can beat up your favourite."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
:iagree:
I disagree. I'd like to point out that you are assuming that Bryon is a true great, and thats precisely what the debate is about.
Now, of course that in the bottom line there are nothing but opinions, there are no real absolute values. There is no absolute way to put The Illiad above some crapy best seller from last year.
But we live in a society and we set our artificial values so that we can compare our views in a reference frame. That's why we state that Homer is better than Paulo Cohelo (that would we childish too, extending your argument). Hence we can also argue that a writer is worse than another, but of course we should keep in mind that that is valid for a given system of values.
There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.
I do agree that is ultimately true, though. You are right, it can't really be determined outside of our favoritisms. But it doesn't prevent us to establish variables for the sake of a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shevek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anymodal
I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.
Hm, i am not particularly fond of english literature (although some of my favorite writers wrote in English...) so i would say that many english writers appear to me to be overrated. Jane Austen i find to be an abysmal writer for example. The tone, the plots, everything bore me to death and i am glad i won't ever have to read anything by her again.
Hobbes is another english writer (non-fiction) that is BORING (and wrong).
Of French writers maybe Camus, not that i think he is a bad writer, but he seems to be hailed as one of the best, and i don't agree there. I recall how tiresome The Plague seemed to me, although i read it many many years ago. I tried to re-read the Stranger recently, but gave up since it seemed trivial.
I don't assume he is a true great. I recognize that he's seen as a true great by such a large community, be it academic or otherwise, that my sole opinion counts for little to nothing, just as your claim of him being overrated does. Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet." Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anymodal
And there are plenty of ways to put The Iliad above contemporary, bad fiction. That's what the whole of literary analysis does. Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?
This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc. So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.Quote:
There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets".
Byron's influence goes much further than the stories he wrote. So, he is probably a true great. Many anongst those deemed 'great' have not had such influence. Whether you like his weird way of feeling above the rest (literally in some cases) or not, you just can't say he's overrated. And I am sure, characterisation is not the only thing he was great at.
Even when he was alive, he was the first case of celebrity mania. Diana-esque.
I would say Virginia Woolf is overrated because it's very hard to read her novel, but then I probably don't like Modernism.
Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.
Indeed, there are only opinions in this world, but some opinions are more founded than others.
Wordsworth and Byron are not :sleep:, to fall asleep with Byron you'd have to do your very best, maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.
Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base. What is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind. Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding. If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.
That is not to say one does not have preferences, as St.Lukes always says, he does not enjoy Joyce, but nonetheless he can see the beauty and genius behind his work, it just so happens that stylistically it does not mingle as well with him as others such as Proust or Mann. But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.
I
But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of,
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love.
II
There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.
Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.
My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
J.H. Rawling perhaps? I'm not sure if that's how to spell his name.
If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.
Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y.
The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.
Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.
The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.
In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...
...but some opinions are better than others.:ciappa:
Never heard of Wordsworth...
My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.
A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.
I would say that Jonathan Franzen is a bit overrated. I admire that he writes in traditional storytelling tradition, but he grates a bit.
I have a decent and just reply to this which involves aesthetic speculative theory using Longinus and Romanticism but I unfortunately got drunk and I don't trust myself to respond now; but dammit I am not behaving cowardly and ignoring your point I am merely waiting for the time when I can express my sentiments coherently. Tomorrow morning, because I really do wish to have this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild