who is the most overrated writer ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crusoe

Dickens ? Are we talking about Charles, or some unknown Want-Ad smearer from your neighborhood ? Ähh...the "Down and Out in Paris and London"-Orwell ?

If so,...
Please name your weapons, Sir...or take your medication.

---

Yes, Charles. No, 1984-Orwell.

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships. He could put together a good adventure, though, I'll give you that. I just don't think he's as great as everyone makes him out to be.

Orwell? Gosh, I don't know where to start. I always figured 1984 was cheap, out-dated science fiction, meant to entertain by its shock value and novelty at the time. I never found any intriguing insights in it.

Okay, your turn. Shoot.

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era.

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.

The problem with this, is that the majority of students are not necessarily aware that a course on English Romanticism should probably include Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, and Coleridge or that the majority of the under-appreciated figures were probably "under-appreciated" for the simple reason that they weren't on the level of the Big 6.

I am all for expanding the "canon"... but not by falsely inflating the reputation of mediocre artists/writers/composers or downplaying of eliminating major figures. This is not because I bristle at the notion of multiculturalism ala Emile, but rather because I believe the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists and not push their personal political agendas... and because... as Alex suggests... I suspect that such biases are in part responsible for many students embracing an opposing Neo-Con attitude.

During my second year of art school we were required to take a year-long course on post Milton Western Literature. The teacher was a sworn American Modernist. As a result, we barely even touched upon any of the English Romantics... let alone Goethe, Hugo, Tolstoy, Dickens, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Kafka, Proust, etc... The majority of our reading focused upon American Modernism... a little Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, and Dickinson... and a lot of Eliot, Stevens, Frost, William Carlos Williams, e.e. cummings, Faulkner, Dos Passos, Hemingway, Bellow, Barthes, etc... as well as lots of American Modernist literary and art theory: again Eliot, Proust, Barthes, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, etc...

Now there is nothing wrong with studying American Modernism... but the course (in theory) was supposed to be a survey of the important Western literature after Milton. I had the advantage of having read many of the major figures that we had glossed over (Goethe, Hugo, Kafka, Baudelaire, etc...) on my own... but the majority of the students didn't. As a result of this experience, I will admit that I took a rather poor view of much of American Modernism for quite some time in response to my feeling cheated... feeling that the teacher had used her position to promote her own agenda... and feeling that the reputations of certain writers were inflated at the expense of others.

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships.

That's an odd criticism... for the simple reason that after Shakespeare, I can hardly think of another writer who has produced quite as many memorable characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era.

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.

---

The problem here is that the tutors concerned are blinded by their own self-righteousness. They imagine that they are above everyone else because they have the keys to the kingdom and, as such, need to spread the gospel of inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness which, by it's nature, means the nurturing of individual abilities. I say blinded, because they cannot see that by their actions they are paving the way for the forces that will eventually render them redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era.

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.

The problem with this, is that the majority of students are not necessarily aware that a course on English Romanticism should probably include Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, and Coleridge or that the majority of the under-appreciated figures were probably "under-appreciated" for the simple reason that they weren't on the level of the Big 6.

I am all for expanding the "canon"... but not by falsely inflating the reputation of mediocre artists/writers/composers or downplaying of eliminating major figures. This is not because I bristle at the notion of multiculturalism ala Emile, but rather because I believe the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists and not push their personal political agendas... and because... as Alex suggests... I suspect that such biases are in part responsible for many students embracing an opposing Neo-Con attitude.

During my second year of art school we were required to take a year-long course on post Milton Western Literature. The teacher was a sworn American Modernist. As a result, we barely even touched upon any of the English Romantics... let alone Goethe, Hugo, Tolstoy, Dickens, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Kafka, Proust, etc... The majority of our reading focused upon American Modernism... a little Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, and Dickinson... and a lot of Eliot, Stevens, Frost, William Carlos Williams, e.e. cummings, Faulkner, Dos Passos, Hemingway, Bellow, Barthes, etc... as well as lots of American Modernist literary and art theory: again Eliot, Proust, Barthes, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, etc...

Now there is nothing wrong with studying American Modernism... but the course (in theory) was supposed to be a survey of the important Western literature after Milton. I had the advantage of having read many of the major figures that we had glossed over (Goethe, Hugo, Kafka, Baudelaire, etc...) on my own... but the majority of the students didn't. As a result of this experience, I will admit that I took a rather poor view of much of American Modernism for quite some time in response to my feeling cheated... feeling that the teacher had used her position to promote her own agenda... and feeling that the reputations of certain writers were inflated at the expense of others.

---

Oh, don't get me wrong I think extremist leftist politics in academia can be really irritating too.

But it really comes back to expectations. Suppose you have a student who is focusing on Romanticism. If they take four or five different courses that deal specifically with Romantic literature, I imagine they're going to want to go beyond merely studying the Big 6 and even the major Romantics of other countries and perhaps want to learn more about some of the second-tier/third-tier figures, say a George Crabbe, or some of the Romantic women writers. I think your idea that "the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists" is correct if we're speaking about an introductory course or a survey.

Once we step beyond that point, I'm a little more skeptical; I would hope that once you're taking an upper level undergrad course on Romanticism or a grad level class that you're doing a little more than just being introduced to Romanticism and its major players. After all, there are many worthy writers beyond the obvious names.

I would hope most people don't walk into a major art museum, find the two or three extremely famous paintings by the big players (Leonardo and Raphael, let's say), then think the zillion paintings that make up the rest of the collection by talented artists that most people haven't heard of because those artists don't quite have the same stature as the top masters are merely just filler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

Yes, Charles. No, 1984-Orwell.

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships. He could put together a good adventure, though, I'll give you that. I just don't think he's as great as everyone makes him out to be.

Orwell? Gosh, I don't know where to start. I always figured 1984 was cheap, out-dated science fiction, meant to entertain by its shock value and novelty at the time. I never found any intriguing insights in it.

Okay, your turn. Shoot.

---

I play "Jaggers" from Great Expectations, followed by "Wemmick" from the same Book. I follow up with the whole gang from "Our mutual friend".
Before I strike you down with the Bleak House - Bunch, I'd like to ask:
What have you read by Mr.D ? Did you actually read a whole book or some of those Excuse-volumes for the more let's say "zipped approach" ? (...only asking)
Didn't you scream "YESSSS", when Nickelby gave Squeers the trashing of his Life ?

1984 was actually Orwell's vision of "Days to come" in England after WWII.
We all know that his idea for a name was 1948.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crusoe

I play "Jaggers" from Great Expectations, followed by "Wemmick" from the same Book. I follow up with the whole gang from "Our mutual friend".
Before I strike you down with the Bleak House - Bunch, I'd like to ask:
What have you read by Mr.D ? Did you actually read a whole book or some of those Excuse-volumes for the more let's say "zipped approach" ? (...only asking)
Didn't you scream "YESSSS", when Nickelby gave Squeers the trashing of his Life ?

1984 was actually Orwell's vision of "Days to come" in England after WWII.
We all know that his idea for a name was 1948.

---

I've read Great Expectations and recently finished A Tale of Two Cities and am about to read Hard Times for an english class. stluke mentioned that his characters are memorable, and that seems to be what you are getting at also. Since this is all subjective anyway, I'll mention that I didn't dislike them enough to regret reading them - they were entertaining. That said, the only two characters I remember from Great Expectations are Pip and Havisham, and the only details I remember about their personalities is that they were fairly one-dimensional. There's also something in his general style I don't like, a sort of condescending feeling I get from it. Don't get me wrong, I like simple and clear writing as much as anyone, but it's more than that - it's not that he's refraining from being snobbish, but that he cheapens his stories with a manipulating of one's affections I find unpalatable. The suspense and romance in his novels are never feelings that resonate with my own, or are something I can identify with. They seem like thin and weak emotions watered down for the sake of a quick thrill.

I don't mean to be harsh and rain on your Dickens parade - I'm interested in learning. What about (and this is addressed to stluke as well) his characters do you find fascinating? Can you elaborate on why you think I'm missing something? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lykren

I've read Great Expectations and recently finished A Tale of Two Cities and am about to read Hard Times for an english class. stluke mentioned that his characters are memorable, and that seems to be what you are getting at also. Since this is all subjective anyway, I'll mention that I didn't dislike them enough to regret reading them - they were entertaining. That said, the only two characters I remember from Great Expectations are Pip and Havisham, and the only details I remember about their personalities is that they were fairly one-dimensional. There's also something in his general style I don't like, a sort of condescending feeling I get from it. Don't get me wrong, I like simple and clear writing as much as anyone, but it's more than that - it's not that he's refraining from being snobbish, but that he cheapens his stories with a manipulating of one's affections I find unpalatable. The suspense and romance in his novels are never feelings that resonate with my own, or are something I can identify with. They seem like thin and weak emotions watered down for the sake of a quick thrill.

I don't mean to be harsh and rain on your Dickens parade - I'm interested in learning. What about (and this is addressed to stluke as well) his characters do you find fascinating? Can you elaborate on why you think I'm missing something? Thanks.

---

Hi Lykren... It should be fun and games. You're not harsh and I was only joking. Let's say, I'm an "open Fire - Sherlock Holmesy - 19th century kind of "reader", so Dickens is right up my alley. Your's is another avenue and that's cool. You know, Victor Hugo turns my stomach and why ? Beats me, I have not the faintest idea. That's how it is sometimes. Read you...

I'll preface this response by apologizing because you will all quickly find that I am going to constantly rise up in defense of Joyce. I study his works for a living, but I promise that I do attempt to be objective in my defenses. That being said...

I think that the biggest problem that people run into with Joyce is that they allow him to intimidate them. The result is that it becomes easy to write the works off as gibberish because, inititally, they have essentially defeated you. I only say this because I've often found myself in a similar position with Joyce. I gave up on Portrait and Ulysses several times before I committed to finishing them. I did so with a dictionary and pelnty of research materials always close by. Do I consider that to be a negative selling point for a novel? No, of course not. In reading the books, I learned more than I can possibly ever list. A novel that serves as an effective tool for learning and for critical thinking is never a bad thing. Having an author demand that you consider both the world and human existence in their entireties is a very frightening realization; attempting to accept that challenge, though possibly foolish, is empowering. Joyce's books are empowering. They challenge and they assault you, but when you feel that you've beaten them back, there's a sense of accomplishment and peace - not for the sake of impressing other's, but rather, for the sake of defeating your own fears and shortcomings.

However, yes, the language and the style are difficult, and yes, at face value, some of it appears to be what some call "gibberish." However, once you really dig into his works, especially Ulysses, and you get a sense of what exactly he accomplished in the text, it's almost impossible to not be stunned or even frightened by his ability.

Moving on, if nothing else, Ulysses changed the face of literature in the early 20th century. It was daring and dangerous, as Joyce had no qualms with both calling out the deficiencies of his predecessors in the very same sentences in which he celebrates them. He was also never afraid to borrow those author's characters, plunk them down in the middle of his own work, and allow them to see the modernized world, in hopes that they might shed light on the development of humanity.

It takes a lot of time and dedication, but once you've really gotten to the core, or what at first appears to be the core, of the novel, there's no denying that the man set out to record the history of existence in a single novel, over the course of a single, fictionalized day. And, the truth of the matter is that he succeeded. Yes, he's probably to be considered pretentious for it, but his goal was to analyze and discuss art, literature, philosophical thought, and the average pondering that is developed with newspaper in hand, taking a crap in an outhouse, all at once, with the result being the culmination of those experiences, encapsulated in his book. The only thing that could have made this effort truly pretentious would have been if he had failed at doing it. Ambition paired with success is not pretension, it is simply success.

I can understand why people would say Kerouac is over-rated due to On the Road, but i don't think you can really class that as a novel in the same way as other authors, its more of a 3 year diary entry than a novel and so i would disagree with those of you attacking it for lack of plot, etc etc. His other novels (also semi-autobiographical) like dharma bums and subterraneans are brilliant. Personally I agree with anyone who answered with Dan Brown.

People like Rowling and Dan Brown and Meyer are not "overrated" - they are only loved by non-literary types (and by literary readers who read them for distraction/entertainment) and not "rated" as high literature by anybody.

For someone to be "overrated" they need to be highly rated to begin with (but they don't deserve such high rate). The one I would say is the most overrated is Mo Yan, this year's Nobel winner who basically is a stooge for the Chinese government who imitates "magical realism" badly. He's not even as good as Alice Hoffman. Nobel Committee did a disservice to humanity by giving the award to Mo Yan.

Domestically I think Arthur Miller is kind of overrated, but I won't say he's the most

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason Pringle

People like Rowling and Dan Brown and Meyer are not "overrated"

---

Indeed - we mustn't confuse overrated with overpaid.


For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Indeed - we mustn't confuse overrated with overpaid.


For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.

---

Oh God Yes, Mark, I am still not over Women in Love.

Define non-literary types for me. I only ask because of the thread 'Define Literature' There was such a discussion on it and I see now that there may be a level of snobbery on what people read which categorizes them as literary or non-literary so I'm curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.

---

The problem with DH Lawrence is his philosophical passages are less interesting than the, um, action of the novel. Nevertheless, there's still some very good stuff in there- who doesn't love the wrestling scene from Women in Love? Ironically it's more erotic than anything in Lady Chatterley's Lover.