The overlooked masterpieces

[mal4mac]

"Under the Greenwood Tree" by Thomas Hardy
"Barnaby Rudge" by Charles Dickens.

Did these guys write anything but masterpieces?

[gar_nichts]

I do not think Dostoieviski fits your example. Most of his career he was considered a sentimental writer, writing popular novels, not a genius at all. After his death, some works were considered his main works, usually Brothers K, Crime and Punishment, Notes from Underground, The Idiot and The Possessed, whcih are very representative and explamples of his best works. Perhaps the missing "masterpiece" , a minor one, is Bobok, a bit unique work from him, not his usual psychological realism.

This can be an example with Melville, his whale devours books like Billy Budd, Benito Cereno, minor works close to M.Dick, but very good books. Kakfa too, Metamorphosis and The Process often clouds The Castle and his short stories (which are his best works in my opinion). Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights get in the way of her poetry too.

Melville was indeed a good example.However,Crime and Punishment was already considered a psychological masterpiece in Dostoevsky's lifetime,almost everyone who'd read it admitted the book's mental depth.But his novels later were often attacked or praised due to Dostoevsky's political attitude instead of their literary merits or philosophical profundity,which were,to my opinion,what truly made Dostoevsky immortal.The Writer's Diary is another place filled with overlooked genius,for after reading it I found that many of his best short stories were originally posted on that magazine.There are plenty of excellent critical works and novellas in The Writer's Diary,yet I only have read about Camus or Berdyaev mentioned one of them once or twice.

And the four great tragedies also get in the way of the Roman plays.

[JCamilo]

Everyone who? Dostoievisky was attacked over and over for his "careless writings", "cheap drama",by the critics and other writers like Chekhov or Tolstoi. His turning points were Bakhtin studies, not only because he finds all those psychological deepth as he does a good work - in his most famous book, there is a chapter dedicated to show the changes on critical perpection of dostoievisky - to argue against those reducing dostoievisky works to sidney sheldon level. (not exactly sheldon, but you get it) and he shows there was a minority of critics who saw something positive on his works.

[gar_nichts]

Everyone who? Dostoievisky was attacked over and over for his "careless writings", "cheap drama",by the critics and other writers like Chekhov or Tolstoi. His turning points were Bakhtin studies, not only because he finds all those psychological deepth as he does a good work - in his most famous book, there is a chapter dedicated to show the changes on critical perpection of dostoievisky - to argue against those reducing dostoievisky works to sidney sheldon level. (not exactly sheldon, but you get it) and he shows there was a minority of critics who saw something positive on his works.

Nekrasov,Saltykov-Shchedrin and П. Н. Ткачев managed to overcome their opposing political stand to appreciate Dostoevsky's later works.Goncharov and Turgnev disliked his writing style from the beginning,but admitted his genius nonetheless.Gorki noted that there was a time when Tolstoy read Brothers Karamazov aloud at home and cried over the pages of Zossima's confession.Plus Tolstoy brought Brothers K to his deathbed.These guys‘ views often changed rapidly in their lifetime,so the credibility of such comments is sometimes suspicious.

[English reader]

The Chronicles of Amber series by Roger Zelazny are fantasy novels far superior to any harry potter or twilight books, and yet it's very rare for me to come across someone who has even heard of zelazny.

[JCamilo]

Nekrasov,Saltykov-Shchedrin and П. Н. Ткачев managed to overcome their opposing political stand to appreciate Dostoevsky's later works.Goncharov and Turgnev disliked his writing style from the beginning,but admitted his genius nonetheless.Gorki noted that there was a time when Tolstoy read Brothers Karamazov aloud at home and cried over the pages of Zossima's confession.Plus Tolstoy brought Brothers K to his deathbed.These guys‘ views often changed rapidly in their lifetime,so the credibility of such comments is sometimes suspicious.

Oh, please, Nekrasov was a friend, they exchanged compliments since ever. And Nekrasov was exagerating about Dostoievisky since early works, when he was nowhere the great writer of Brothers K. Saltykov-Shchedrin a rival, they exchanged some cheap blows. I do not know the third one, but those two account as the minority of critics more positive of Dostoievisky work (as a literary genius). Belinski, himself, responsable for the early fame of Dostoievisky didnt had a good view afterwards, attacking Dostoievisy aesthetics and praising more his "social view". As Gorki, he continues how Tolstoy was baffled about someone writting so badly and careless could produce something so truthful. I have no doubt he admired Dostoievisky, but wasn't a favorable critic, mostly because he could never understand him. After all Tolstoy acted as a character of Dostoievisy This the same volume of brothers k that he used to read, alongside many other books found on his room (death bed is a bit exagerated, considering how tolstoy died.)

As I said, Bakhutin has a chapter dedicated to explore the crtical view history on Dostoievisky, there is a great shift of themes, also of appraisal of his work, very few hinted to Dostoievisy aesthetics, a bit unable to perceive it, blinded by the Tolstoy's model. It is not that difference than what happened to Dickens, often reduced to a drama-social writer and no surprise, considering Dickens was one of D. models.

[kev67]

I suspect many of the works in the the Authors subfora are overlooked masterpieces. The book I am reading currently, The Odd Women by George Gissing is surprisingly good. Imagine yourself transported back over a hundred years, and subjected for the first time to modern feminist ideas.

Bookshops are so crammed with books, there must be many authors who do not get the readership they deserve.

[JBI]

The Chronicles of Amber series by Roger Zelazny are fantasy novels far superior to any harry potter or twilight books, and yet it's very rare for me to come across someone who has even heard of zelazny.

I've read them, and though they have some value I doubt they can be called masterpieces.

[English reader]

I've read them, and though they have some value I doubt they can be called masterpieces.

You have to give him credit for coming up with the idea of the Pattern and the land of Chaos, though.

[Eiseabhal]

Some books get a readership eventually and are remembered and some worthier texts sink into oblivion. Well that is not very important really. Do you know anyone (really) who says if it wasn't for text X I would be nothing ( I exclude Koranolators and Bibliolators) We read for entertainment not for enlightenment thank God!

[totoro]

I've seen a lot of authors - not just works, that are often overlooked. There are authors and works on this very forum that people have never talked about and it makes me wonder why. For example, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse by Vicente Blasco Ibáñez is a big one. The works of Andrew Lang, Horatio Alger and Irving Bacheller. The Master of Silence is one of my favorites. But for whatever reason no one ever mentions them.

[Marbles]

We read for entertainment not for enlightenment thank God!

Debatable.

Depends on how you approach the text and what it can or does give you. The enigma of existence, the world of the being, discovering a new truth about humanity - these are few of the things great writing (fiction/poetry) does. Like science, every new discovery at the same time is exciting and entertaining.

[ennison]

I think that I would mainly agree with Eiseabhal on this. Most of us learn through experience, whether we are readers or not but of course reading is an element of our experience. However I don't sit down to a book seeking knowledge of myself or others that I could not also get and better from just living day to day. I prefer to be amused, entertained, diverted by novels and if at the same time I can say Hmm that's an interesting idea so much so extra. But I often find that writers irritate me much more than enlighten me. Many of them are no more than mouthpieces for the latest trendy world view.

[mande2013]

I would say if a work in any artistic medium holds up over the course of the length of a full human life span or a saeculum if you will, it's set for all eternity. So anything "canonized" up until say the start of World War 2 has secured it's place. Hypothetically, there remains the potential for the likes of the Beat writers, DFW, and Pynchon to take a hit, "canonically" speaking, given whatever the fashions may be of the zeitgeist subsequent to the current one.

[Marbles]

However I don't sit down to a book seeking knowledge of myself or others that I could not also get and better from just living day to day

I believe the two are not mutually exclusive. It's exactly the complexity and diversity of our day to day and intellectual experience that makes us who we are. If books didn't help, every one of us would be a wise thinker just going out and working from 9 to 5.

But I often find that writers irritate me much more than enlighten me. Many of them are no more than mouthpieces for the latest trendy world view.

One must read discriminatory, identifying works worth reading and discarding what's just out of the ordinary or fashionable. If a reader goes by what's on the top shelves in bookstores, picking up books for their flashy covers and tantalizing storylines, she would just be wasting a lot of time on rubbish and, therefore, learn very little.