who is the most overrated writer ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Set of Keys

Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

---

Hi Set of Keys, interesting user name.

I was truly appalled to see Oscar Wilde's name up there and also Henry James. I honestly don't know much about the other authors you listed....only a small amount about Plath and some about Updike - both considered fine authors.

Could you give some reason you found these authors sh!t, as you put it?

I am still pretty stunned. I usually only read this thread but I found I needed to speak out this time.

It would be interesting for me to know what authors you do like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FacialFracture

Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

---

Everyone here at lit net knows I agree with that. Yes, I do think there isn't much there for an adult. ;) I think Bulowski's an example of arrested development, frozen at the emotional age of sixteen. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FacialFracture

Philip Roth.

I'm a twenty-something WASP female, so I'm sure I don't fit the profile of his intended readers, but I really resent the few days I devoted to Portnoy's Complaint. I appreciate that many people find something worthwhile in his writing, but if I want weirdly self-congratulatory tales of frenzied adolescent masturbation and indulgent neuroses I'll...well...I just never want those things.

---

While I definately enjoy his writing, I do think the constant critical fawning over him is overblown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Set of Keys

Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

---

while you may not like these authors, It isn't really nice or proper to refer to something as "Sh!t" could you maybe give a reason for disliking Plath and Wilde?

************************************************** ***

Most overrated author? Charles Dickens. His works are extremely boring and just drag on and on. Great Expectations has to be one of the worse books I've ever read yet people are always quoting him and proclaiming his amazing style.

Balooney!

quote-Set of Keys-Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

quote-Janine-I was truly appalled to see Oscar Wilde's name up there and also Henry James. I honestly don't know much about the other authors you listed....only a small amount about Plath and some about Updike - both considered fine authors.


Indeed! My thoughts as well. I can live without Plath and Updike... and while Eco appeals to my bibliophile nature... especially in The Name of the Rose... I can survive quite well enough without him... But Henry James and Oscar Wilde categorized as http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2.../icon_turd.gif!!??!!
Surely sir (or Madame) you have some impediment of which you have not bothered to inform us.:lol:

facial fracture- Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

Everyone here at lit net knows I agree with that. Yes, I do think there isn't much there for an adult. I think Bulowski's an example of arrested development, frozen at the emotional age of sixteen.:D

Oh Virgil... you are so right. Now be prepared for a drubbing from the Beats Brigade.

To Stlukesguild: Here, here on the Updike stuff. I'd have to remove Plath and James; thanks for not sugar-coating your opinion. quasi

Okay, I'll jump in and support Set of Keys' bashing of Wilde; I've never liked his writing. I wouldn't say he's "irrefutably sh*t" though--especially since people have been refuting his alleged sh*tiness all over the place.

I find Wilde to have an annoying, preening quality in his writing, and I've always thought he seemed too eager to be clever; I hated The Importance of Being Earnest, I was underwhelmed by Portrait of Dorian Gray, and I've never bothered delving in any more than that.

Because this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work. In my experience, his well-known witticisms are so often in the mouths of people who overheard them somewhere, or saw them outside of their original context, that I'd be happy never to hear any of them again.

So, basically, whether Wilde is "irrefutably sh*t" or not doesn't concern me...but I will agree with his being overrated simply because I see a large part of his reputation being built on snippets from works that don't share the popularity/public familiarity of their author's name.

Henry James? Not a fan of his writing

In the words of HG Welles "Like and elephant attempting to pick up a pea".

Dean Koontz. I honestly don't know how he has sold so many books. "it was cold outside so i put a coat on". I shouldn't really have to say any more... but I will. Koontz is like a disease, he is a plauge on the simple minded folk who could be using their spare time expanding their minds. p.s If you read Koontz I wasn't talking about you- your not simple minded. :-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Oh Virgil... you are so right. Now be prepared for a drubbing from the Beats Brigade.

---

:lol: Yeah I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quote

facial fracture- Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

---

Then you've never understood Bukowski, not one iota of him. Sad considering all the big books you read.

this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work.

Actually I would think that Shakespeare or the King James Bible more likely fit the bill of the most oft quoted yet unread by the one doing the quoting. Certainly taken out of context the quotes may have a rather different meaning than intended...rather like Shakespeare's series of good moral point such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when one forgets just who mouths these. Personally, I far prefer the so-called "preening" aesthetes such as Wilde, Pater, Proust, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Nerval, Gautier, and Mallarme far more than many of the "realists" of the time. But then I suppose that's a personal preference... rather like Wagner as opposed to Brahms (although in reality I actually like both in that equation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work.

Actually I would think that Shakespeare or the King James Bible more likely fit the bill of the most oft quoted yet unread by the one doing the quoting. Certainly taken out of context the quotes may have a rather different meaning than intended...rather like Shakespeare's series of good moral point such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when one forgets just who mouths these. Personally, I far prefer the so-called "preening" aesthetes such as Wilde, Pater, Proust, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Nerval, Gautier, and Mallarme far more than many of the "realists" of the time. But then I suppose that's a personal preference... rather like Wagner as opposed to Brahms (although in reality I actually like both in that equation).

---

Affectation!

Affectation!

Based upon experience.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

Then you've never understood Bukowski, not one iota of him. Sad considering all the big books you read.

---

Here they come! :D

stlukesguild--You're right, Shakespeare's work and the King James version of the bible are quoted more often by people who haven't read them than anything by Wilde. I suppose my argument regarding Wilde could really be made about any author/work that has been absorbed into Western culture in such a way that it is seen or heard, fragmentarily, everywhere...and it's an argument that becomes progressively less supportable as the authors/artists/works in question get older and more ingrained into our culture (e.g., The Bible).

I stand by not liking Wilde (who is certainly better than...oh, let's say, Bukowski), and I gave my reasons for it; I didn't say my logic would be consistent. I like Rimbaud, Proust, and what little Baudelaire I've read. It is just a matter of preference, but what else are people going to base their idea of "overrated" anythings upon?

Most overrated are Joyce, and Shakespeare. (And maybe also Dickens).

Not because they are bad authors, for they aren't bad.
But because everyone is expected to like them. And if one dares to admit he did not like one of them, he's considered unintelligent, uneducated, without real taste in literature, etc. Everyone must like them because everyone knows that they're THE authors, the greatest writers in all time. Because people are not allowed to make their own opinion about them.

Most people didn't really read anything by them, but they are almost always top on different lists "TOP 100". It's not that they're famous, they're legends, that are really worshipped, it's like a cult. Just look at Shakespeare - you can find in in hundreds of versions, for children of different age, retold in different ways etc. Or Joyce with national holidays and people "replaying" Bloom's travel across Dublin...

And as for those who say Joyce deserves it because he invented modernism - well then, I'd say Laurence Stern desereves it even more. But unlike Joyce, poor Stern is underrated...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiculík

Most overrated are Joyce, and Shakespeare. (And maybe also Dickens).

Not because they are bad authors, for they aren't bad.
But because everyone is expected to like them. And if one dares to admit he did not like one of them, he's considered unintelligent, uneducated, without real taste in literature, etc. Everyone must like them because everyone knows that they're THE authors, the greatest writers in all time. Because people are not allowed to make their own opinion about them.

Most people didn't really read anything by them, but they are almost always top on different lists "TOP 100". It's not that they're famous, they're legends, that are really worshipped, it's like a cult. Just look at Shakespeare - you can find in in hundreds of versions, for children of different age, retold in different ways etc. Or Joyce with national holidays and people "replaying" Bloom's travel across Dublin...

And as for those who say Joyce deserves it because he invented modernism - well then, I'd say Laurence Stern desereves it even more. But unlike Joyce, poor Stern is underrated...

---

1) Shakespeare is a far more read author than Joyce. Comparing bowdlerized versions of Shakespeare’s plays to Blooms day in order to prove the cultish nature of these authors’ admirers is ludicrous

Shakespeare’s works have been criticised negatively. Samuel Johnson did so, as did Tolstoy and T.S. Eliot to a certain extent.

Joyce’s work is regularly denigrated in the Irish press at Blooms Day with little rebuttal. And the idea that nearly everyone who goes around saying they’ve read Ulysses has not actually read the book is absurd. Anyone I know who has read that book can quote a least a couple of memorable lines or talk about scenes that they particularly liked, even after their first read.

2) Sterne is not underrated. If you’re thinking of Johnson’s dislike of the book (“Nothing odd will do long”) then you need to look at other critical opinions. I haven’t read a single modern critic who underrates Tristram Shandy.

And Sterne did not have a hand in inventing modernism. People used to think Tristram was “Stream-of-consciousness” but most critics nowadays dismiss this notion. Sterne wrote Tristram in one distinct style. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in various different styles.

I would never say a contemporary writer was over-rated, although there are many. It would smack of professional jealousy. I would love to say that yours truly was in fact a professional, but at the moment I would be lying. I am, however, jealous.

Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.

Joyce, Sterne, Dickens,Melville-- over-rated? No way, man! The quartet has produced true "classics" in the sense that you can the works over and over and still find something new. Every one should read Moby Dick at various stages of one's life, every couple of decades, for instance. Same with Ulysses.Re: Joyce: I want to have Anthony Burgess's guide in my lap (same title: "Re: Joyce")when I go to read Finnegan's Wake. Next garage sale/used book sale I'll be searching for copies of both of those books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

I would never say a contemporary writer was over-rated, although there are many. It would smack of professional jealousy. I would love to say that yours truly was in fact a professional, but at the moment I would be lying. I am, however, jealous.

---

:lol: I too am jealous, but I'm enough of a clod to come out and say that certain contemporary writers are over rated. :D

Quote:

---

Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.

---

I understand the difficuties of reading Faulkner, but let me just say that the difficulities he puts to the reader are critical to the aesthetics of the works. At least in his top rated fiction. The difficulties do integrate with the themes.

As to Poe, i completely agree. I won't quite say there's no there there; let me say there's not much there there. ;)

Hi Everyone! I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and just laughing and laughing to myself. I keep wondering what the point of all this is actually. Last night I was at my library and I was talking to my librarian and told her about it. I guess one could call this thread - 'author bashing'. Anyway, I told her it seems several people said Shakespeare was over-rated and mentioned a few other great authors. I must say, I really gave her a good laugh.

Shakespeare - r e a l l y? I can't even fathom this being said! At first I was so outragged and wanted to strike back, but I am not really the fighting type, like some people we know (;) . Actually, glad to see these people maintaining their composure and staying so so calm. I am proud of you and you know who you are....:lol:!

Thanks everyone for keeping me entertained. I am really speechless for once.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hi Everyone! I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and just laughing and laughing to myself. I keep wondering what the point of all this is actually. Last night I was at my library and I was talking to my librarian and told her about it. I guess one could call this thread - 'author bashing'. Anyway, I told her it seems several people said Shakespeare was over-rated and mentioned a few other great authors. I must say, I really gave her a good laugh.

Shakespeare - r e a l l y? I can't even fathom this being said! At first I was so outragged and wanted to strike back, but I am not really the fighting type, like some people we know (;) . Actually, glad to see these people maintaining their composure and staying so so calm. I am proud of you and you know who you are....:lol:!

Thanks everyone for keeping me entertained. I am really speechless for once.;)

---

Actually yesterday i think was my first post here too, but I've read along. I've wanted to strike at times too, but I think whether one feels a writer is over rated is a personal opinion and every one is entitled. Once I got over that it became amusing for me too. :lol:

So let me now say something controversial: John Irving is over rated. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Actually yesterday i think was my first post here too, but I've read along. I've wanted to strike at times too, but I think whether one feels a writer is over rated is a personal opinion and every one is entitled. Once I got over that it became amusing for me too. :lol:

So let me now say something controversial: John Irving is over rated. ;)

---

Totally! ;) :lol: but somehow I like the movies they have made from his books. Over-rated, as a author? Absolutely!

So, is this really icky writer my aunt recommended to me once - Nicholas Sparks - they also made some films from his icky books - films were also real icky!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambert

And the idea that nearly everyone who goes around saying they’ve read Ulysses has not actually read the book is absurd. Anyone I know who has read that book can quote a least a couple of memorable lines or talk about scenes that they particularly liked, even after their first read.

---

I've never said that everyone who says they've read Ulysses actually has not.
I don't have - never did - anything against people who actually read Ulysses (or any other book by any other author) and liked it or disliked it.
But in my opinion, most of population has not read Ulysses. Yet, if you'd ask them to name some really great book, many would name Ulysses. At least that's my experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambert

2) Sterne is not underrated. If you’re thinking of Johnson’s dislike of the book (“Nothing odd will do long”) then you need to look at other critical opinions. I haven’t read a single modern critic who underrates Tristram Shandy.
I never said he vas underrated by critics, I meant it generally. Ask common people if they heard of Laurence Sterne, they'd ask "Laurence who?" But ask them if they ever heard of Shakespeare, or Joyce, and they'd think you're mad for even asking. Or look at reactions here - most people were shocked by the idea that they are overrated - how can they be overrated, when they are great classics, when they are legends! Well, such reactions are exactly the reason why I think they are overrated...

And Sterne did not have a hand in inventing modernism. People used to think Tristram was “Stream-of-consciousness” but most critics nowadays dismiss this notion. Sterne wrote Tristram in one distinct style. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in various different styles.

---

I never heard of stream-of-consciousness in connection with Sterne, I usually heard his name in connection with modernism and postmodernism.

This has been one of the most entertaining threads to read. I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great. Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language. Did I get that right?
First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.
Secondly, I dismiss any comment that says "I read one work by so and so and I didn't like it." OK, but that doesn't make the author or his/her body of work overrated. It just means you didn't like the read for whatever reason.
Thirdly, declaring someone as overrated does not mean that the author is a bad writer. It means the expectations built by the author's reputation don't meet individual standards of what warrants that reputation.
Fourthly, where are the Russians? Are you telling me that no one, and I mean no one thinks Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Gogol aren't overrated on some level. I'm not saying they are; I was expecting one of those guys to pop on the thread and I was surprised nobody took a shot at them.
Finally, the correct answer is Henry James. I hadn't heard the HG Wells quote before, but just the other day I felt as though James was trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. I'm slugging my way through "The Wings of the Dove" and I think I'd rather try to wade through a swamp. I'd move faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PabloQ

This has been one of the most entertaining threads to read. I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great. Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language. Did I get that right?
Secondly, I dismiss any comment that says "I read one work by so and so and I didn't like it." OK, but that doesn't make the author or his/her body of work overrated. It just means you didn't like the read for whatever reason.
Thirdly, declaring someone as overrated does not mean that the author is a bad writer. It means the expectations built by the author's reputation don't meet individual standards of what warrants that reputation.
First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.

---

:lol: Hi PabloQ, and welcome to Lit Net. I get all you wrote;) and I :lol: and :lol: 'ed. You have really entertained me totally! I must tell others to read your profound and intuitive post. This thread has greatly entertained me as well. I, as you, have just read along often and I share this sentiment - "I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great." :lol: :lol:

I agree that one reading of an author could hardly qualify a person to announce that that author is over-rated.

Now, I do question your statement "Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language." oh I see you added "Did I get that right?" - you have a really good sense of humor Pablo! ;) I bet you won't find another site where this statement has been said online. :lol:

Quote:

---

First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.

---

Seriously.......???? :rolleyes:

Thanks for all the laughs today....good way to start my day out!!!

Quote:

---

Fourthly, where are the Russians?

---

Yeah, where are the Russians?!:confused:

Quote:

---

Are you telling me that no one, and I mean no one thinks Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Gogol aren't overrated on some level. I'm not saying they are; I was expecting one of those guys to pop on the thread and I was surprised nobody took a shot at them.

---

Even D.H.Lawrence took a shot at Dostoyevsky in his famous essay on 'The Inquisitor', and also I think he had a few things to comment on about Tolstoy. Oh, yikes, I realise now I have put Lawrence's name out there to be shot, at as well.:bawling: I saw a post way back taking a big punch at the author, but now I see no one much answered that guy and he has not resurfaced. I tried to find the post but lost it now - I was going to have a rebutal for him.

Quote:

---

Finally, the correct answer is Henry James. I hadn't heard the HG Wells quote before, but just the other day I felt as though James was trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. I'm slugging my way through "The Wings of the Dove" and I think I'd rather try to wade through a swamp. I'd move faster.

---

Is that why I tried to read the book several times now and abandoned it, or went on to other novels by other authors? I have only read some James short stories and I enjoyed those, but I felt like I was wading through a swamp too, with "Wings of the Dove"....I just though the boredom came from having known the story from the film. I loved the film version with Helena Bonham Carter, but the book is pretty weighty - still I cannot judge the man having read only the short stories and one small novel, so far - think it was "Washington Square". I like that book. Oddly enough I still plan on reading 'WOTD" eventually.

My final question still is - and what is the point of this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

My final question still is - and what is the point of this thread?

---

I've come to the conclusion that the point is to express some pent up frustration at seeing certain writers praised while one doesn't see why.

Now I'm going to express something that will probably cause some controversy. You know me, I don't shy from controversy. ;)

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I've come to the conclusion that the point is to express some pent up frustration at seeing certain writers praised while one doesn't see why.

---

Yes, good point, I think....just that often it seems more like 'author bashing' to me.

Quote:

---

Now I'm going to express something that will probably cause some controversy. You know me, I don't shy from controversy. ;)

---

Virgil, you don't say..... :lol:

Quote:

---

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

---

Are there a lot of threads and posts on Orwell? I really had not noticed. I read "Animal Farm" in high school - it was required. We had a strange list of books that were required in my HS. I usually just groaned and read them....no wonder I hated reading then. But "Animal Farm" was ok and clever at the time. Now I am not sure if it would interest me much. I kept hearing about 'Big Brother' and I never did get around to reading 1984 - but I saw the film - does that count? Actually, it was a pretty decent film...it had some fine actors - Burton, John Hurt.

Don't smash :crash: your computer - we would all miss you and your contraversal ways! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

---

It does seem like every time I turn around there is another post about 1984. Maybe we should have a thread about authors and/or works that are over/under discussed on the LitNet.

Yes bluevictim, Your idea might be a real good one. Also, I was just saying this to someoene today - we should start another thread called 'under-rated authors'...what do you think of the idea? Seriously, there are many authors who never got their due recognition, expecially in the past. Some had to die first to be heard or noticed...sad, really.

Orwell does get an incredible amount of attention on Lit Net. I can't begin to explain why, though. I do think that Animal Farm and 1984 are good books. Even Homage to Catalonia is an interesting read, but, once you divorce Orwell from the political and historical dimensions that make his writing unique, his writing doesn't impress that much. Animal Farm approaches topics like idealism, hypocrisy, and societal control. Yet, other novel do so as well--and they often do so with more success. I'll have to look into the Orwell threads more when they reappear on the "Recent Forum Posts" page. Maybe it will change my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

---

I understand your point. Animal Farm is a fair allegory, but it does not stand the test of time. In the 1950's is was relevant, but the relevance has diminished. I completely agree with you about 1984; it is a pretty good novel, it has also lost much of its relevance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature.

---

Amen to all that :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer. :crash:

---

Well, about our societies and how democratic they are and were in the past, this needs discussion Virgil, but not in the forum ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Orwell does get an incredible amount of attention on Lit Net. I can't begin to explain why, though. I do think that Animal Farm and 1984 are good books. Even Homage to Catalonia is an interesting read, but, once you divorce Orwell from the political and historical dimensions that make his writing unique, his writing doesn't impress that much.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Are there a lot of threads and posts on Orwell? I really had not noticed.

---

Orwell and Shakespeare are top two, ask Logos who is the first one! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Orwell and Shakespeare are top two, ask Logos who is the first one! :D

---

Hi bazarov, Wow, I will have to ask Logos, as you suggest. Well, popularity doesn't guarentee that an author is actually a good one. I pass no judgement here - only stating a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hi bazarov, Wow, I will have to ask Logos, as you suggest. Well, popularity does insure an author is actually a good one. I pass no judgement here - only stating a fact.

---

Discussion on Specific Authors & Books
This forum is for specific discussion on any of the authors and books featured on this site. Most Popular: William Shakespeare, George Orwell.


Familiar? Above Authors List...

Yes, I agree with you. Orwell is really good in my opinion, but there are many writers much much better than him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Yes, I agree with you. Orwell is really good in my opinion, but there are many writers much much better than him.

---

Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell :lol: :lol: :lol:

---

Join the club!:lol: :lol: The Atheist is the president. :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Join the club!:lol: :lol: The Atheist is the president. :lol: :lol:

---

Thanks, if I menage with all my reading I will take part too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Join the club!:lol: :lol: The Atheist is the president. :lol: :lol:

---

Good one, Baz! :lol: :lol: :lol:

This thread continues to entertain me....thanks! ;) :thumbs_up

Alexei, I never said I did not like Orwell. Actually, I do (so you are not alone), but just have not read much by him. He certainly had his prominent place in literature.