Why does one author have to be better ....

than another to the point of exclusivity. I read posts where Dickens is disliked and Tolstoy is praised and vice versa. Now that I have reached the supposedly golden years, I am reading mostly the classics which I haven't read yet. But to give an example, I look on all authors as friends. I have read most of Dickens and the four major novels of Tolstoy. I don't think of one as being better than the other. I wouldn't want to read one exclusively over the other. Both authors have a lot to give the reader. Whether I am reading Sinclair Lewis or Hemingway, Tolstory or Dostoevsky, Pynchon or Salinger, I enjoy the writing and wouldn't want to read one over the other. I have many friends, and they are all different. But I wouldn't want to choose one over the other, treating one as a friend and abandoning the other. If a writer has reached the stage where he is considered a composer of classic literature, I want to read him/her so that I can further learn from the experience. I want to read somthing from every classicist writer be it Fielding, Sterne, Dickens, or a modern such as Scott Fitzgerald.

Too often that seems to be the whole point of discussion on LitNet: who's the best writer, who's the most over-rated writer, what "classic" is over-rated, who's the best Romantic poet, whose better, Shakespeare or Dante, etc... etc... Yes, we all have personal opinions... and admittedly some opinions are better than others... but surely I agree about the notion of liking one writer to the exclusivity of an other. I feel that there is undoubtedly a real obsession with the Russians at LitNet and that Dostoevsky (not to mention Orwell) may be a bit too overrated by a lot of younger readers... but in no way do I think Dostoevsky is an overrated writer in general or that he is not a brilliant author worthy of being read by anyone interested in literature. I sometimes suspect there's a misguided notion that dismissing the achievement of this or that major writer will make one look more sophisticated or free-thinking. In other words, this person comes off as able to dismiss the works of those literary figures that we nearly all studied in school and argue instead for some less-well-known writer that few may have read: Tu Fu or Ferdowsi or Racine or Calderon. Certainly, we all remember as teenagers those who turned up their noses smugly at the big names among the music that was then popular (perhaps we were one of them) and declared with an air of superiority (of knowing something all the rest of the unthinking masses didn't) that this or that obscure band was infinitely superior to such popular schlock. We are currently organizing a discussion of the poetry of Leopardi over on the poetry boards with the goal of discussing the text... our interpretations... our thoughts... with the stated goal of avoiding comparisons along the line of Leopardi is better than X while Y is infinitely better than Leopardi at his finest. Such at least is the goal. I would certainly be interested in far more discussions of actual works of literature as opposed to the endless popularity contest, but admittedly I have been dragged into them as much as anyone else.

By the way... I think both Dickens and Tolstoy were giants and I would not be without either.

A little thing that is similar which bothers me is the so-called negating of one author because another author did it "better". I cannot think of how many times some says something like, "I love Lovecraft", and someone else jumps in with, "Poe is better." Leaving aside the subjectivity of a value judgement, what's to say that someone cannot love the secondary and tertiary masters of a genre/style in addition to the archetypes?

I think this, in general, stems from an immaturity, an insecurity in needing to bolster one's self by professing a love for only the "best".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

than another to the point of exclusivity. I read posts where Dickens is disliked and Tolstoy is praised and vice versa. Now that I have reached the supposedly golden years, I am reading mostly the classics which I haven't read yet. But to give an example, I look on all authors as friends. I have read most of Dickens and the four major novels of Tolstoy. I don't think of one as being better than the other. I wouldn't want to read one exclusively over the other. Both authors have a lot to give the reader. Whether I am reading Sinclair Lewis or Hemingway, Tolstory or Dostoevsky, Pynchon or Salinger, I enjoy the writing and wouldn't want to read one over the other. I have many friends, and they are all different. But I wouldn't want to choose one over the other, treating one as a friend and abandoning the other. If a writer has reached the stage where he is considered a composer of classic literature, I want to read him/her so that I can further learn from the experience. I want to read somthing from every classicist writer be it Fielding, Sterne, Dickens, or a modern such as Scott Fitzgerald.

---

There is no reason to rate one author over another. Read what you like, enjoy it as you like. Rating authors who is good, better or best, who is most important, all silliness. It comes down to appreciating what you appreciate and nothing more.

I think its all to do mainly with personal taste. A person might see the superiority in an novel that another sees as inferior. Thats why polls on which is the best book etc dont work and all the disagreements and arguments flare up. Just because one person says a book is a great, doesnt necassarily mean we all have to agree. Variety is the spice of life after all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I sometimes suspect there's a misguided notion that dismissing the achievement of this or that major writer will make one look more sophisticated or free-thinking. In other words, this person comes off as able to dismiss the works of those literary figures that we nearly all studied in school and argue instead for some less-well-known writer that few may have read: Tu Fu or Ferdowsi or Racine or Calderon.

---

I make no pretensions to sophistication. After I get done reading those authors I have a glass of whiskey and watch videos of street fights. As far as the accusations of liberal thinking are concerned, I consider it a weakness of mind, a lack of character and conviction which forbids undisciplined people from coming to decisions. I think it's important to rank authors and their works objectively, so that we do not waste our time on mediocrity. Seen in this light, ranking authors is instrumental in forming early opinions about works of literature. It shows that people are applying the same agonistic thinking skills learned from analyzing the internal texts to the external history that the books exist in.

Now, now, Mortal... I knew you would catch the little reference to Racine... but you'll notice I've added Ferdowsi as well?:hand:

As for a personal "ranking"... well I suppose we all have something of an idea along these lines. T.S. Eliot speaks of the canon as forming some ideal order that continually changes... if ever so slightly... each time we discover a new author of real merit. But arguments as to whether Dante is better than Milton become tiresome and have nothing to do with why I read (besides... it should be obvious to all but the illiterate that Dante is the far superior writer:D).

As for your degree of sophistication... I suppose it would depend upon what sort of whiskey you are drinking.:sosp:

I agree with much of what has been said above. I think that, in part, the ranking to exclusion fetish is derived from our preoccupation with the notion of a canon: the (in no way incorrect) idea that there is accumulated value in, er, 'western' (:brow:) culture worth hanging on to. There's only so much room, so inevitably some authors (i.e the one's you don't particularly like) don't make the cut. Of course, that's entirely the wrong way to approach it, but I suspect that's how it often plays out. Moreover, it seems to me that lists and rankings are a pervasive element of modern life. It's the 'top 5 desert island' syndrome. A list is digestible and convenient. It can be recited and evaluated quickly. Serious discussion takes time and thought.

Well, making lists and such is fun. And some writers are better than others. So, if I were to simply why people like to rank one author above another I'd say it's this: intellectual game.

It's because it is easier to rank authors than to read them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myrna22

There is no reason to rate one author over another. Read what you like, enjoy it as you like. Rating authors who is good, better or best, who is most important, all silliness. It comes down to appreciating what you appreciate and nothing more.

---

Actually there is a lot of motives to rank over one another. For example, reading what you like is obviously, ranking what you like more. The same way it is ingenous to think we can pull absolute afirmations like those in the Dickens/Tolstoy case, it is ingenous that we can not find enough reasons to see why Shakespeare is superior and why even so, you may not like him.

Reggardless, this is not just here. In a football forum most topics are about who are the best, who is overated, underated, that you can not compare two different things, etc. In the end I just have to replace "did not played in europe" or "played in the past not in moderm era" for "did not wrote long stuff" and "is not from Canada" and we have evidences that Pele scored more goals than Dante.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

In the end I just have to replace "did not played in europe" or "played in the past not in moderm era" for "did not wrote long stuff" and "is not from Canada" and we have evidences that Pele scored more goals than Dante.

---

You are the man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

I think its all to do mainly with personal taste. A person might see the superiority in an novel that another sees as inferior. Thats why polls on which is the best book etc dont work and all the disagreements and arguments flare up. Just because one person says a book is a great, doesnt necassarily mean we all have to agree. Variety is the spice of life after all. :)

---

I have to agree with you. For me part of being a good author (to me personally) is that I'm entertained by their work. Take Grapes of Wrath as a good example. It's touted as a great work, and I would rather have a root canal than ever try and read it again. Some people love it, though, and to them it is great. If someone could give me a list of non-judgment based criteria that describes a good author, then we could see about sorting them out. Until then, I suppose it is all in what you enjoy reading. I tend to figure that if you are published then you must be doing something correct. That isn't to say I enjoy all published work, but I'll give credit where it is due for being in print :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's because it is easier to rank authors than to read them.

---

You know JBI as much as I agree with this statement, it's sort of funny that I find it easier to read Tolstoy and Dickens then to say which is better.

Rereading this thread I want to draw a slight distinction. I stand by my statement that it bothers me when people try to negate one author or another because someone else did "it" better, but I also agree with The Comedian. There is a lot of entertainment value in deciding a criteria of greatness and making arguments as to which author most fully fulfills them. In many ways this is the root of literary criticism in the West. One could enter a lively discussion, without insults and immaturity, in which assessments of Dickens's and Tolstoy's success was looked at in accordance with a novelistic rubric. In essence I think what bothers me is not ranking so much as trying to dismiss authors from discussion, in reality the discussion itself can be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

than another to the point of exclusivity. I read posts where Dickens is disliked and Tolstoy is praised and vice versa. Now that I have reached the supposedly golden years, I am reading mostly the classics which I haven't read yet. But to give an example, I look on all authors as friends. I have read most of Dickens and the four major novels of Tolstoy. I don't think of one as being better than the other. I wouldn't want to read one exclusively over the other. Both authors have a lot to give the reader. Whether I am reading Sinclair Lewis or Hemingway, Tolstory or Dostoevsky, Pynchon or Salinger, I enjoy the writing and wouldn't want to read one over the other. I have many friends, and they are all different. But I wouldn't want to choose one over the other, treating one as a friend and abandoning the other. If a writer has reached the stage where he is considered a composer of classic literature, I want to read him/her so that I can further learn from the experience. I want to read somthing from every classicist writer be it Fielding, Sterne, Dickens, or a modern such as Scott Fitzgerald.

---

Personally I also take the approach where I try to survey as much as possible across the whole field of literature, taking in various authors from various backgrounds or "movements". I do this so that I am as rounded as I possibly can be, as I have taken literature passed the stage where it is just for pleasure or something I do to pass the time. It means much more to me that this. It is a way of life, sort of.

However, this does not mean that I am going to like everything from every area equally. If this were indeed so I would be suspicious of the person who claimed it. There are always particular writers or areas, or thoughts, or movements which are going to resonate more than others within the reader. Whether this is Romantic over Realist, Modernist over Post-Modernist or simply a preferred authorial style.

For me there are always two bodies of thought operating within me as a reader. One that can stand back and view literature almost scientifically, coldly, the way you have to approach "texts" during most formal essays of a degree. Here I can read anything and write from a critical point of view objectionably, or I would like to think I can at least have a good go at it - I've managed to read Samuel Richardson so that is at least a pat on the back for me in this area! Then, two, there is the other me which takes literature as something that is motivated entirely by passion and instinct. Here I read for what moves me, what makes my reading colourful, beautiful, here is where my personal interest lies and is the main reason why I even bother reading - because it love it. Sometimes the two come together.

With this in mind it is entirely possible for me, for example, to appreciate Dickens in the first category but not in the second. I can argue why he was a talented writer in the way he could pull a sentence or paragraph together, the way he could set a scene, the way he could create caricature, the way his stories uncover social injustice as a critique of Victorian or early capitalist society or whatever. However within the second category he does little for me outside of descriptive passages. I find his characters tedious and at the moment at least, I am not interested in them at all. By the same brush stroke I am not overly thrilled by most Post-Modern texts, I’m personally not that interested. I know why they are doing what they are doing, but as a generalisation I am not bothered about exploring them in category two, that is for personal interest and fun. I could read them for study coldly, but for kicks probably not.

So, I would never read one author or area of thought in exclusivity to another one because literature is something of study to me, even after my degree and beyond. However, I could on a personal level quite happily exclude and reject even quality authors almost completely from my personal canon. Every year I pick up Dickens for personal interest and put him back down again just as quickly. Many authors or movements work against each other in style and application so in the end it is only natural that you are going to prefer one over another.

Neely... what you are describing is certainly the difference between saying "Dickens sucks," or "Dickens is grossly overrated," and and saying simply "Dickens does nothing for me." Its the recognition that there is a difference between accepting that a work of art or music or literature may be "great"... may be incredibly influential... innovative... important within the development of that art... and liking the same work. I fully accept that Picasso is indisputably the greatest artist of the 20th century... but I actually prefer several other artists. I do not need to undermine Picasso by suggesting that he is overrated or sucks simply because I prefer the work of another artist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

You know JBI as much as I agree with this statement, it's sort of funny that I find it easier to read Tolstoy and Dickens then to say which is better.

Rereading this thread I want to draw a slight distinction. I stand by my statement that it bothers me when people try to negate one author or another because someone else did "it" better, but I also agree with The Comedian. There is a lot of entertainment value in deciding a criteria of greatness and making arguments as to which author most fully fulfills them. In many ways this is the root of literary criticism in the West. One could enter a lively discussion, without insults and immaturity, in which assessments of Dickens's and Tolstoy's success was looked at in accordance with a novelistic rubric. In essence I think what bothers me is not ranking so much as trying to dismiss authors from discussion, in reality the discussion itself can be great.

---

That's not what I meant by read them. I meant interpret and discuss in depth. The ranking is irrelevant, as both writers are already so firmly canonized that the question of which one is better or not is without any real significance; simply put, it's like asking which is better, crushed ice or cubed ice, and then instead of drinking anything, just spending the time watching it melt.

I am not for dismissing mediocre works, but really, there comes a point when rank doesn't matter.

In that sense, 95% of the forum posts deal with ranking, or recommending, or "what do you think of x" or some other such pointless stuff, but is there really any constructive discussion that arises out of that? Does one enjoy Dostoevsky or Dickens any more knowing that their work is somehow better than the others? And does that tell you anything about their work?

So I see the point in dismissing Aragon, and Twilight and whatnot, but at the same time, one must distinguish from that, and from pointless bickering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

That's not what I meant by read them. I meant interpret and discuss in depth. The ranking is irrelevant, as both writers are already so firmly canonized that the question of which one is better or not is without any real significance; simply put, it's like asking which is better, crushed ice or cubed ice, and then instead of drinking anything, just spending the time watching it melt.

I am not for dismissing mediocre works, but really, there comes a point when rank doesn't matter.

In that sense, 95% of the forum posts deal with ranking, or recommending, or "what do you think of x" or some other such pointless stuff, but is there really any constructive discussion that arises out of that? Does one enjoy Dostoevsky or Dickens any more knowing that their work is somehow better than the others? And does that tell you anything about their work?

So I see the point in dismissing Aragon, and Twilight and whatnot, but at the same time, one must distinguish from that, and from pointless bickering.

---

I apologize for not making my first statement clear--I knew what you meant and was merely toying with the different notions of "reading" and "difficulty". I agree with your statement, and was just kidding.

As to the second half of your post, I think you have a strong point and it is indicative of the problems with certain discussions. I don't know what, constructive, arises from rankings but I do think there is a value that arise systemically.

That is, that in ranking novelists we must examine what we find valuable and what meets that criteria. Now, I don't want to ignite a whole bunch of claims that I am throwing out any other author, but surely deciding for ourselves why we read and what most challenges and furthers those practices is valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The ranking is irrelevant, as both writers are already so firmly canonized that the question of which one is better or not is without any real significance; simply put, it's like asking which is better, crushed ice or cubed ice, and then instead of drinking anything, just spending the time watching it melt.

---

I give this metaphor an 8.5/10. I've read a few better ones by St. Luke's and mono (where art thou?). But this one is solid, JBI. ;)

I still think ranking authors is fun, but to a degree, you're right, such rankings are only a bickering of taste. But they could be the start of a more in depth criticism and discovery too. Some posters here have only read a few literary books and are excited to read some more. I'm okay with a Tolstoy vs Dickens conversation. Sometimes the banter that starts it leads, eventually, to literary criticism. And sometimes not.

But I do agree that often the conversations don't go into enough detail so that fruitful comparisons can lead to a discussion of craft, technique, and form. If such detail were made, then we might be able to change the metaphor to something like this: deciding between Dickens and Tolstoy, if gone into true detail, is like finding the best contractor to build your house: you can't just look at the pictures on the website; you need to see if they use screws or nails, 3/4" or 1/2" drywall, poured or block foundations. . . . these things are important, lest your house crumble. ;)

lets not be silly, ranking is neither just a bickering of taste or just for fun. It is a natural (albeit something unreliable) human form of organization. I find funny people claiming they dod not rank, yet, they do have favorite authors who they read for "free". And ask them why they read this author, they will justify it and give you a crtieria for ranking. This author touched me more. This author is actually good, etc.
Academics, the most cold critics, they all are prone to ranking. Except it is an easy one, usually canonical. The problem with ranking is that, at deathbed, you can produce the most close to a cold ranking, but during lifetime... it is a pointless exercise to enclose in one single momment something absolutely changeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

... it is entirely possible for me, for example, to appreciate Dickens in the first category but not in the second. I can argue why he was a talented writer in the way he could pull a sentence or paragraph together, the way he could set a scene, the way he could create caricature, the way his stories uncover social injustice as a critique of Victorian or early capitalist society or whatever. However within the second category he does little for me outside of descriptive passages. I find his characters tedious and at the moment at least, I am not interested in them at all.

---

I find his characters fascinating. In what way is Nicholas Nickleby tedious? Or Scrooge? Or... well let's leave it there... there a hundred others. I'm a "common reader" and never read for 'professional reasons'. So I don't delve into the way he pulls a sentence together, although sometimes recognising that he has just written another marvellous sentence.

Given the almost universal acclaim that Dickens gets, and has had, from the beginning, from serious critics & readers (and especially given that you are going to teach literature!) I think you should raise heaven and Earth to try and fix this blind spot of yours.

Try reading critics, like Bloom, who concentrate on 'appreciating' Dickens, rather than tedious sentence chopping. Maybe you are too influenced buy Oscar Wilde? Although Oscar talked a lot of sense on a lot of subjects his comments on Dickens could be another example of a great writer getting something thing very wrong (like Tolstoy's attack on Shakespeare.) Dickens was too close to him, and was so much more successful than him, in all circles and on all measures, that it's not surprising his views appear jaundiced.

Try and read his novels with a fresh eye. I gave up on Joyce and Cervantes a decade ago, but tried them again recently, and really enjoyed them. Maybe you could do the same with Dickens? Why not try (at least) a novel a year and see if you can learn to appreciate him?

What will you do if a school child comes into school after Christmas and tried to impress her English teacher by saying she really enjoyed an adaptation of Christmas Carol. "I don't like Dickens"? You are at risk of becoming a Dickensian "character" :)

To clear up my comments that actually prompted this thread:

What I said about Tolstoy and Dickens was in response to Bloom who alledgedly said that Dickens was better. Bloom has/had a lot of influence and, even making his own personal list, he should not have referred to Dickens as 'better', because then he is not a critic. As his list is in a book of criticism, widely read, he should not act as the man, but as the critic. Hence he has no right to put any writer above another.

I personally, though, do have the right to state that I find Dickens not good, mediocre for me personally. Not all people in the whole world can find a certain writer good. It is impossible. If absolutely everyone finds him great, without exception, then we should doubt the quality of the writing itself or we should suppose that half of the people actually do not like him, but do not dare to state otherwise. It is not having a blind spot, it is having a clear opinion of what one likes. And that is better than being indecisive.

Dickens's characters do not speak to me. They do on film a little, but not to me when I read them, much like to Neely. I might be relatively inexperienced in really professional criticism on all fronts, but I don't think Neely is.

It is possible that Neely is influenced by Oscar Wilde, although I doubt it. But the comparison you draw between Tolstoy/Shakespeare and Wilde/Dickens does not hold up. Why? Because Tolstoy had the ludicrous idea that good should be rewarded and bad punished by God; that he would become happy if he gave away all his riches. 'If I do A, I will become B; if I do good, I will be happy'. Not even in Orthodox Christianity, that idea holds up. More to the point, he struggled with what he wanted: an ascetic's life. That is why he became relatively unhappy, despite giving away his riches. It is not because Jesus said so, that it will happen without exception. Tolstoy desperatly wanted to become an ascetic, but his own nature worked against that. When he finally got the courage to leave his home and family at the age of 82, he fell ill an died. Lear probably appealed to him, because that man does just the same as Tolstoy: gives away his riches, yet, wants to hold on to them. Does he become happy? No. Why not? Because that was not his nature. Maybe Tolstoy felt frustrated and recognised too much how Shakespeare was right?

Why would Wilde possibly consider to criticise Dickens for his over-sentimental work for antoher reason but the one he gave? He was not a person to be jealous, he did not even write the same style of works as he was a playwright (there was n competition), he even made allusions to Dickens's works. Yet, he did not find them great. Wilde was too much a properly educated person and too intelligent to lose himself in motives for critcism as Tolstoy did.

I could see a political motive in Bloom's preference of Dickens over Tolstoy as Tolstoy is a Russian and Bloom an American. Surely, anything is better than admitting that a Russian is a very good writer?

Still, rating writers according to preference is what we all do, because we all have our favorites. Hence, topics as 'the most over-rated' do make sense on a personal level.

Non sense, If saying Dickens is better than Tolstoy is not a work of criticism, then having a list is not either. And since when a critic does not rank or does not have preferences? As I recall, Bloom tries to justify his claim, so he is doing a critical work.
And frankly, the difference between Dickens and Tolstoy is a tiny line, so one can only have a personal preference, no matter if political or simple by the fact Tolstoy is anti-shakespearean or Dickens wrote in englsih (important factors on Bloom background, more than politics) and he is more than free to do so.
The notion that critics should not make vallue judgment when they can justify it is a considerable mistake.

The point it that Bloom had too much influence to make a statement of that nature.

Not all critics pronounce judgments based on whatever. Usually, what a critic should do is analyse and otherwise try to explain to others what is under the surface, not what people should read and what is great writing and what not. As rating is a personal business, a critic should not rate in the public domain. Otherwise a particular writer risks to be demonised or adored because of one critic like Bloom who has a lot of influence.

What if Bloom were to write that Dan Brown was a good writer? Or that Shakespeare was crap? About Shakespeare, we would think that the man had lost his mind and we would laugh the same way as we laugh at Tolstoy for his comments. About Dan Brown, some would take no notice, others would shout 'you see, even Bloom finds him great, so there must be something about him'.

Point is personal preference has no place in professional criticism, as Neely said.

First, The fact Bloom have a lot of influence is nowhere relevant of what kind of statement he can do or not.
Second, his judgment was not based on watever. As irrelevant as it was, he tried to justify it.
A critic who only waste time with the theories of what is in surface and not giving judgmental vallues are relativists who do nothing good for literature. Great critics will always have jugment of vallue, tell people what is good to read or not. And a critic which basis is the attack on political correctness, will do something very stupidy not doing so.
Second, the influence of critics to make an author be read or not is just temporary. Voltaire, who not only as critic, the most influential man in europe disliked Shakespeare a little and Dante. And this affected them somehow? Keats was demolished by critics when he first published, and? Virginia Woolf and her group reduced the importance of Robert Louis Stevenson and? Poe had strong attacks against Longfellow and Wordsworth, and? Coleridge Ryme of Ancient Marineer was attacked, and? Melville? No critic is more influential or able to write much better than a great writer and they have more power to deal with time than criticism. So, Bloom may say watever he wants.
And you are joking, isnt? What if Bloom... etc,etc. Lets deal with reality: Bloom Canon is a commercial attempt but even if all his mistakes he is far from just shooting stars, he is able to pull out information about all authors and justify watever his claims may be (usually those absolute vallue judgments are just a textual device to introduce the topic about the strengths of a given author). If you think that critics are not falible and not critic ever had a "dan brown is great day", then you are seriously mistaken. And they are not the holy scripture. Authors do talk better than criticis, and there is other critics.
As much as we must praise objectivism, it is impossible. Try the best, but you wont even write about a subject that give us no pleasure. The power of influence of an author is such that he is generating the critical essays too.

Bloom's Western Canon has no real influence on literary criticism. Everything after it too has minimal influence. His anthologies of essays have a little influence, but that isn't his work mostly.

Perhaps his early work on romanticism had a little bit of influence, but nothing particularly substantial. I haven't studied Stevens at length, so don't know about that book, but I assume it is one of many.

Simply put, Bloom wrote the book to make as much money as possible - that was the general consensus even after it was published. Everything since there has been written with the same intention.

Bloom is only a significant critic on the popular front, with people who don't read criticism.

Somebody like Frye almost never ranked works. And though much of his work has since been superseded, he still remains incredibly useful as a critic, and some works still hold fantastic value.

The vast majority of critics earn fame without valuing - in fact, Bloom is rather an exception, though he has switched from literary critic to self-help book writer.

Literary discussion is not about valuing, since value, in a "this book is bad" sense does nothing. The goal is to discuss the text, or the world around the text - Dickens being better than Dostoevsky says nothing of Dickens, or of Dostoevsky, only the person who gave him the rating.

But perhaps this degradation is the way of the future. Soon we will rate books out of 4 stars or whatever like they do cinema. The forum already has a board dedicated to it - though I guess the moderators are of the mind that this forum as well as the subforum should be dominated with such discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I find his characters fascinating. In what way is Nicholas Nickleby tedious? Or Scrooge? Or... well let's leave it there... there a hundred others. I'm a "common reader" and never read for 'professional reasons'. So I don't delve into the way he pulls a sentence together, although sometimes recognising that he has just written another marvellous sentence.

Given the almost universal acclaim that Dickens gets, and has had, from the beginning, from serious critics & readers (and especially given that you are going to teach literature!) I think you should raise heaven and Earth to try and fix this blind spot of yours.

Try reading critics, like Bloom, who concentrate on 'appreciating' Dickens, rather than tedious sentence chopping. Maybe you are too influenced buy Oscar Wilde? Although Oscar talked a lot of sense on a lot of subjects his comments on Dickens could be another example of a great writer getting something thing very wrong (like Tolstoy's attack on Shakespeare.) Dickens was too close to him, and was so much more successful than him, in all circles and on all measures, that it's not surprising his views appear jaundiced.

Try and read his novels with a fresh eye. I gave up on Joyce and Cervantes a decade ago, but tried them again recently, and really enjoyed them. Maybe you could do the same with Dickens? Why not try (at least) a novel a year and see if you can learn to appreciate him?

What will you do if a school child comes into school after Christmas and tried to impress her English teacher by saying she really enjoyed an adaptation of Christmas Carol. "I don't like Dickens"? You are at risk of becoming a Dickensian "character" :)

---

I quite enjoyed that post.:)

It is not that there are particular “blind spots” as far as Dickens is concerned with me; it is not as if I am saying that “Dickens sucks” as Stlukesguild rightly observed, or the fact that I necessarily need to read critically in order to discover Dickens because I am not critically blind as to why Dickens is considered a “good” or even “great” author – all I am saying is that he does little for me personally. I am disciplined enough to be able to read Dickens, or those I have little emotional connection to, and work with that “professionally” if you like, as I would expect that of myself as someone who teaches and is likely to teach further literature in the future. However, it is simply not possible to be able to connect emotively to every single author or body of work out there; it is a somewhat unrealistic expectation to hold over literature or life.

As far as Wilde is concerned, I happen to trust his critical eye over almost any other author/critic on earth. This does not mean though that I am blinded by his genius to the point where I yield my own critical acumen. As proof of this I can certainly accept the weaknesses in Wilde’s early work, particularly his poems and have mentioned this several time probably, so likewise I am not led by Wilde so that I cannot see for myself, even so, I am rarely if ever in dispute with Wilde, we sometimes disagree on very small points, but in the end he is always right. :)

Your remark that Wilde could have been jealous of Dickens or that he could have been too close to recognise Dickens’s talent is definitely incorrect. :hand: Dickens was already a well established literary figure by the time Wilde was in full-flow and there is no chance that Wilde was jaundiced, as you say, in regards to Dickens. Wilde was incredibly well read in all spheres of literature (as well as in history, philosophy, politics and modern science), from antiquity and beyond, as well as being fully immersed on what was going on in contemporary circles. He was very much at the forefront of his society in spotting and promoting contemporary talents from many spheres of literature, even writing early promoting the likes of Balzac and Dostoevsky, the bottom line is that Wilde’s views on Dickens were not coloured by anything other than his outstanding appreciation for art. It is not as if Wilde hated Dickens anyway, I even think that he requested Dickens to some degree in prison, I’ll double check that later...*

Anyway, there is no need to try to encourage me to read Dickens, I already do, and will continue to do so, though aside from enjoying certain descriptive passages or one or two other small pointers, I am unlikely to be a full convert to his work because he only very rarely speaks to me as an author. I’m just not that interested. Maybe in the future his works will speak to me in some way to a greater degree on a personal level, who knows? And as for being a Dickensian character I probably already am? :brow:

* Edit: Yes Wilde requested a cheap edition of Dickens's work with the comment "the Library here contains no example of any of Thackeray's or Dickens's novels. I feel sure that a complete set of their works would be as great a boon to many amongst the other prisoners as it would certainly be to myself." Don't take it from this comment that Wilde was particularly that fond of Dickens though as there are plenty of examples showing Wilde's lack of connection to Dickens's work both in style and subject matter - you could take it that Wilde like me (or me him) enjoyed Dickens "at arm's length" as it were...

It is not true that the vast majority of critics do their work with valuing, JBI. You may get some theoricists who are too worried with the structure of a work that they will not set any vallues, but the vast majority of critics? (And they are not always so blunt or clumsy, but when Ortega Y Gasset is talking about Dom Quixote, he is praizing the good points of the work, but since he is a very good writer, he does not say out loud: Dom Quixote is the best prose of spain, so that is why i dedicate to this book. You should read it if you ever want to know well spanish literature. But that is what he thinks is right and one of the main effects of his work).
It is pointless maybe, probally just a set point to start a essay or something, but they do. Bloom is not the first (maybe he was not the first about anything anyways) or a rarity.

You could also ask "What is classic writing?" Author preference is entirely dependent upon personal taste. I consider myself to be fairly well read having studied English Literature to MA level, however I remain open minded regarding suitable reading material. Take my advice and just read whatever you feel like at the time.

she doesn't ramble on. She is succinct and to the point. Brevity is next to Godliness. Maybe all posts should be limited to 250 words or less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

she doesn't ramble on. She is succinct and to the point. Brevity is next to Godliness. Maybe all posts should be limited to 250 words or less.

---

Agreed.

I think posts should be eight words or--

I think, to defend actual literary scholars, who put up with my frustrated ignorance on a daily basis, that what one can do best is look at the merits and detractions of historical authors without the simplicity of a subjective value statement.

I am not much for the melodrama of Dickens--but if I were to write about him I'd lose that statement, as he is arguably the most influential author of 19th century English literature, and not a few other Victorian writers owe their career to him.

It is easy for a modern reader to be impatient with him, but some advocates credit him with almost single-handedly restoring Christmas as an international holiday. We all have tastes, but every writer on our canon offers perspectives that alter the way we look through the lens. What does the writing do? This should always be the first question of a serious reader, and not, how do I feel about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's because it is easier to rank authors than to read them.

---

:yesnod: