who is the most overrated writer ever?

[PeterL]

Well, Mark Twain also bashed Jane Austen. Twain wrote, "Just the omission of Jane Austen’s books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn’t a book in it." I'm not sure I buy into this though...

And I thought that I was missing something by not liking Jane Austen. Twain's critique of Fennimore Cooper is one of the most useful instructions in writing fiction that exists. I never could stand Fennimore Cooper, but I didn't know exactly why until I read Twain's piece.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt

[Igetanotion]

What a painful thread to read! I realize, however, different people certainly have different tastes . . . sometimes very different tastes.
I certainly agree with J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown, but also I would like to add James Redfield, Dr. Phil, Gore Vidal, and Billy Collins.

BILLY COLLINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, Ok, I'll give you he's not for everyone. He's dry!! His Poetry is not supposed to be "Deep" which is one of his greatest criticisms! I think he's fantastic. In fact, I'll be seeing him at the AWP Conference next week, perhaps If I see him around the hotel I'll let him know he made such a list, he'd probably find it funny!! (He's been to my college quite a few times actually. Nice guy)
He is only the former Poet Laurette to the USA after all

[Igetanotion]

García Márquez without any doubt.. Hemingway's works is like the start of comercial literature.. Balzac needs diferent points of view

How could you possibly include Gabriel Garcia Marquez on a list like this? I'm dumbfounded. He is one of the great authors of our time. Shame for you

Especially when there are people like Dan Brown and, Gee let me think, anyone else on the "Best Sellers" table at any bookstore around the country.
Ernest Hemingway is also one of the greats. Everyone has a right to dislike an authors work, but it sure dosen't qualify them for the "Overrated authors" list.

[Igetanotion]

Dan Brown and Hunter S. Thompson

Techincally.... Hunter S. Thompson was a "Journalist", he is found in the Journalism section at Boarders at least so that should qualify for something. and totally not overrated, maybe not for everyone. Certainly not for everyone actually, but not overrated.

and with that I am not going to read this thread anymore, its making me nuts!

[Ozymandias]

Stephen King is neither an exception story teller nor writer. He has a talent for finding images and settings that evoke fear and disquiet, but that's about as fa as it goes. Everything of his I've read has left me disappointed.

[Ozymandias]

I'm all for being an iconoclast, but Shakespeare is THE writer. You can rebel against it as did Virginia Woolfe in her essay, but you cannot deny it.

I have not read Marquez in his original language but 100 Years of Solitude was a wonderfully crafted novel and one of the finest I have read. I found Autumn of the Patriarch lacking, however.

I'll agree with the James Fenimore Cooper posting. Steinbeck and Hemingway were products of their time and excelled at articulating the spirit of that period. They are perhaps set on too high a pedestal but they are excellent writers.

Freud has been overrated for a very long time.

[HotKarl]

Techincally.... Hunter S. Thompson was a "Journalist", he is found in the Journalism section at Boarders at least so that should qualify for something. and totally not overrated, maybe not for everyone. Certainly not for everyone actually, but not overrated.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion of Mr. Thompson. To call him a "journalist" is practically blasphemy. Not only is he taking a writing style where objectivity is of the utmost importance and pissing all over it, but he's acting like he's had some sort of great realization, like he's made huge progress in the field of journalism. Talk about Hubris. He completely distorts events; what should be as objective as possible becomes a farce. I know that remaining completely objective is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean journalists should stop trying. "Gonzo" journalism turns a public service into a monument of narcissism.

That and the guy was just a lunatic. It's one thing to get high and ruin your own life, but it's another get high and ruin someone else's. For God's sake, the man thought it would be a good idea to give acid to the Hell's Angels--some of the most murderous, marauding guys around, a group of insane criminals. Would you give an already dangerous group of men psychedelic drugs? I hope not. Talk about irresponsible.

I can say with confidence that within fifty years time that Hunter S. Thompson will no longer be relevant.

[HotKarl]

Freud has been overrated for a very long time.

While I agree that Freudian ideas about women are completely ridiculous (penis envy? This guy was clueless when it came to ladies), I do think that some of his ideas about men are true. I can certainly identify with the Id, Ego, and Super Ego. I think his idea of the Oedipus Complex is insightful and interesting. And men certainly are phallocentric. I think he has a very good understanding of the male mind.

[Igetanotion]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion of Mr. Thompson. To call him a "journalist" is practically blasphemy. Not only is he taking a writing style where objectivity is of the utmost importance and pissing all over it, but he's acting like he's had some sort of great realization, like he's made huge progress in the field of journalism. Talk about Hubris. He completely distorts events; what should be as objective as possible becomes a farce. I know that remaining completely objective is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean journalists should stop trying. "Gonzo" journalism turns a public service into a monument of narcissism.

That and the guy was just a lunatic. It's one thing to get high and ruin your own life, but it's another get high and ruin someone else's. For God's sake, the man thought it would be a good idea to give acid to the Hell's Angels--some of the most murderous, marauding guys around, a group of insane criminals. Would you give an already dangerous group of men psychedelic drugs? I hope not. Talk about irresponsible.

I can say with confidence that within fifty years time that Hunter S. Thompson will no longer be relevant.

Well, no matter how much you hate him or his lifestyle, the fact is he was a journalist. You can, of course, respectfully disagree, agree, jump up and down, do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around. But, it doesn't change the fact that he was a journalist. And a Pioneer. Now, I understand that many people do not find drugs and alcohol, and terrible behavior as something to be admired. And it most certainly is not. But, brilliant people very often do terribly stupid things. And perhaps he was not brilliant at all, but if not then he was very lucky to make the impact that he has. I will be a professor of Literature some day quite soon, and I'll make sure that 50 years from now, when I am in the twilight of my career, to mention him to my students as someone worth looking at.

Of course, don't take offense. I am simply respectfully disagreeing with your disagreement, and mean no harm at all.

Also, have you ever considered the fact that perhaps the beauty of his style of journalism was in his distorted perception? It isn't that he is delivering to the public a distorted view of events, he is delivering his view of events. Also, "Fear and Loathing" (I know terrible example but it is one that everyone should know) begins with him covering a sports event, but the book (which is considered a book of journalism, and not a fiction novel) becomes an account of narcotic induced lunacy in LV. This is the account of an addict, from the point of view of an addict. That in itself is a wonderful thing, who wants to read a report from someone who has never been there telling that kind of story? they wouldn't really know would they? But Thompson lets you in, shows you from the inside, which is the point of Gonzo Journalism.

[Igetanotion]

I have not read Marquez in his original language but 100 Years of Solitude was a wonderfully crafted novel and one of the finest I have read. I found Autumn of the Patriarch lacking, however..

I'm glad you agree with me!
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.
(Also, Autumn of the Patriarch is a "Poem" according to Marquez at least, and is based on actual Tyrants. I think he was trying to show the horrors of all the Caribbean tyrants in one man. Marques is quite political.) Some of his short stories I have found a bit "Lacking" but Writers also progress. "The General in his Labyrinth" is a better political one if you wanted to give his political literature another wing, though I think I much prefer his love stories .

[iloveoscar]

I love Jack Keroauc and I'm very upset to see his name pop up so often!! =( try reading the Dharma Bums, its an amazing book, and i agree with Shakespeare, I'm sorry but I just can't handle him.

[Idril]

I'm glad you agree with me!
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.

Oh man! That book was a beast! I counted once and there was one sentence that was 10 pages long! I had to bring a pencil with me whenever I read the book so I could make a mark where I finished because there were no obvious leave off points, no periods, no paragraphs, no anything. There were so many things that made that book difficult, along with the lack of puncuation was the fact that the narrator would change in the middle of these mamoth sentences and that wouldn't always be clear until a little way into the thought. But I do agree that it has it's worth, if you could deal with the format and get through it, the end feeling was very powerful. It was a disturbing book and I don't know that he could've acheived that intensity with a more conventional format.

[Igetanotion]

Idril,
I'm glad to see someone else on here read the whole thing
Did you also feel bad for the tyrant? A little even? I fealt bad. He did a good job, Marquez, got the point across well. Nothing like reading a book with desperate punctuation to make you feel the desired effect

[Idril]

Idril,
I'm glad to see someone else on here read the whole thing
Did you also feel bad for the tyrant? A little even? I fealt bad. He did a good job, Marquez, got the point across well. Nothing like reading a book with desperate punctuation to make you feel the desired effect

I was determined to finish the book, I was not going to let the beast defeat me, it became a matter of pride.

I did feel bad for the Tyrant...and then I felt bad for feeling bad for such a violent, cannibalistic despot. The physical effect it had on me because of the punctuation, because of the stream of consciousness type thoughts and the constant switching of narrators, was significant. It produced a sense of fevered reading and racing thoughts, it created this almost physical atmosphere of the haze of heat and it even affected my dreams. I got through the book pretty quickly, mostly just because there was no place to stop but when I was done, there was such a relief, not just because of hard task of reading the novel but also because I needed to get out of that mind set.

[liberal viewer]

I'm glad you agree with me!
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.
(Also, Autumn of the Patriarch is a "Poem" according to Marquez at least, and is based on actual Tyrants. I think he was trying to show the horrors of all the Caribbean tyrants in one man. Marques is quite political.) Some of his short stories I have found a bit "Lacking" but Writers also progress. "The General in his Labyrinth" is a better political one if you wanted to give his political literature another wing, though I think I much prefer his love stories .

:
: Obviously his master piece is One Hundred Years of Solitude, but Autum is an enriching experience as well, anyway, please don't call him "Marquez". He is García Márquez. And yes, one of the giants!
Cheers!