who is the most overrated writer ever?

[Alexander III]

I

But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of,
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love.


II

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.


Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.

[WICKES]

Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.

maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

[Motherof8]

J.H. Rawling perhaps? I'm not sure if that's how to spell his name.

[stlukesguild]

If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y.

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...




...but some opinions are better than others.

Never heard of Wordsworth...

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.

[tonywalt]

I would say that Jonathan Franzen is a bit overrated. I admire that he writes in traditional storytelling tradition, but he grates a bit.

[Alexander III]

If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y.

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion...




...but some opinions are better than others.

Never heard of Wordsworth...

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.

I have a decent and just reply to this which involves aesthetic speculative theory using Longinus and Romanticism but I unfortunately got drunk and I don't trust myself to respond now; but dammit I am not behaving cowardly and ignoring your point I am merely waiting for the time when I can express my sentiments coherently. Tomorrow morning, because I really do wish to have this discussion.

[Anymodal]

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized.
(Not that is important to the debate but I disagree with the part of self-hating white Europeans that... etc)

Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet."
Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion.

Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.

Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?

I do judge of course works by it's historical relevance. But then again, history is not a certain thing. It is something to argue about. When we speak of Homer its really easy to agree, it's an easy subject. But with Byron is a different story, because it is much more debatable, the historic relevance of Byron is something you can question.

This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc.

Yes it is. And no I don't think you could say that with Shakespeare with lightness.

So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.

The point being what I prevoisly said here (*)

[JCamilo]

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed The coirsair. But he is, I repeat, very much overrated.

If? Ruben Dario is considered a true great and came from Nicaragua.

[Anymodal]

Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base.

I would like to hear more about this please. Especially the part where you teach us how to absolutely judge universal beauty.

what is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind.

Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding.

Disagree with both

If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. (...) subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

To say that objectivity corresponds to what the majority thinks is a falacy.

But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.

I don't know if you are trying to say I can't apreciate Byron because i am ignorant. If that's your point its not my problem. That's a text book argumentum ad hominem, trying to attack the other to invalidate the others arguments instead of arguing against them. And by the way I am more or less as prepared as anyone here to read Byron.

I

But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of,
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love.


II

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.


Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.

If you read what I said you will see that I like him. Only saying that he is overrated not that he is bad.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized





Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.


I do judge of course works by it's historical relevance. But then again, history is not a certain thing. It something to argue about. When we speak of Homer its really easy to agree, it's an easy subject. But with Byron is a different story, because it is much more debatable, the historic relevance of Byron is something you can question.


Yes it is. And no I don't think you could say that with Shakespeare with lightness.


The point being what I prevoisly said here (*)

All good points. Sometimes, if I'm in a churlish mood especially, I forget these are just casual forums in which to throw around ideas. That diatribe could've been aimed at any of the previous posters--I just happened to read yours.

I still think the idea of overratedness is silly, though.

[kiki1982]

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

Oh, of course he is! I can imagine he comes across as a bit boring and efeminate to others. That's all I wanted to say. Far from myself, if Byron is boring, I suppose Wordsworth is even more sleep-inducing.

I can think of a few overrated Flemish writers. No-one knows them, duh. Most of them can't write for toffee. It's peculiar, but the tanslators of good writers seem to do a good job...
Including the one deemed greatest in our language area. A few of his works have been translated into English where he apparently achieved moderate success, but inthe original language... Let's just say it was a stark contrast to go from a Nobel Prize winner to that... Ironically Hugo Claus was always 'on the shortlist' .

[Drkshadow03]

Literature is NOT subjective or objective. It's intersubjective. You can think of this as objectivity through multiple subjectivities if you'd like. Although, a better way of conceiving it is shared agreement through multiple subjectivities. A masterpiece is a masterpiece because many people recognize it as such and can offer reasons to support their opinion and often notice the same good qualities independent of each other.

It is perfectly fine to think any given writer overrated (your subjective viewpoint), which doesn't automatically equate to "I think this writer is bad." Rather it means, "You think this writer is the 3rd best poet in English. I would agree he is decent, but vastly overrated. I would place him as the 100th best poet in English at best." Although it could mean, "I think he is bad." This is not something that only happens in Lit Net Forums or other internet vent zones; plenty of critics throughout time have considered various celebrated works overrated. The Canon is not static and critics don't always agree with each other.

Not all opinions are equal. Some people are good readers, some people are inferior ones. Nevertheless, as I mentioned already even good readers don't always agree, hence the subjectivity part of intersubjectivity.

[Emil Miller]

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

Thank you WICKES for this astute summation of the situation in relation to Byron et al. It is obviously the case and you have been both succinct and non PC in making it. I wouldn't change anything about it except possibly the word 'infected' to one of infested.

[Drkshadow03]

I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

And yet amazingly here in America there are plenty of mediocre novels written by white middle class still being published every day. All you have to do to discover this fact is step into basically any bookstore and you'll be bombarded with countless examples. And you can even study Byron in almost any major university with little trouble!

[OrphanPip]

How has someone not heard of Wordsworth? I'm honestly a little bit shocked. The Lyrical Ballads are probably one of the most widely read poetry collections in the English language. I can get not wanting to read through the entire Prelude though.