who is the most overrated writer ever?

[Desolation]

William Shakespeare...the most over-rated anything of all time.

[stlukesguild]

Oh yeah... and that Mozart dude... he kinda sucks too. And that Leonardo guy... a complete nothing.

[Desolation]

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.

[googlesque]

I used to think shakespeare was overrated and snobby... but I think alot of my prejudices against shakespeare (and alot of classic literature) was out of contempt for what other people say about him and making such grand statements (best writer ever!). alot of it was also due to my maturity... not saying ppl who think hes overrated are immature... but a vast majority of ppl who don't like shakespeare do not give him a chance.

shakespeare IS difficult reading (alot of elizabethan lit is)... but i think appreciation for shakespeare and actually alot of classic literature needs a personal desire (and an open mind)... that 'enjoiying' older literature DOES require some effort... kind of like listening to 'rock' music... you might not like so and so's album right away, but somehow it just sticks on you after a few repeated listenings.

and before ppl write off shakespeare as elite or snobbish... the guy married young, didn't go to college, was considered 'crude' by the critics of his time. even a couple hundred years after his death, some critics still didn't think much of him just because there attitude was that a man who came from 'peasant stock' couldn't be that great of a writer.

oh well, i just think its a loss if you dont give him a chance.

my vote for 'overrated' would probably be... hmm... maybe the beat generation. i think they were the first victim of a growing mass media... where the lifestyle took over the art. they definitely were good, and in some authors, great... but there meaning has been overrated in the sense that ppl take more out of what they did rather than what they wrote.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

Actually... I thought Blake understood that:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.

[PeterL]

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.

And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.

Would poetry or music be any different today, if Wordsworth or Mozart had not done what they did? That is an idea that is worthy of some thought. I can't say for sure, but i expect that poetry might be a little better now.

While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world...

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.

This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.

All knowledge is subjective. The only value in knowledge is that it is shared by others and is effective in some way. I suppose that Leeches enjoyed that poem about the gatherer of leeches, but leeching isn't used in medicine any more.

Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.

Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.

Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.

Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.

I would imagine that all of those people and many others were influenced by Shakespeare and many other writers, but most of them chose to write other than like Wordsworth.

[stlukesguild]

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined.

[Jozanny]

Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.

But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman. I never asked my instructors what actually elevated Shakespeare to the place we have him in, but I read a paper online that claims we can blame that on the Romantic Movement, and the argument seems persuasive to me. Part of what makes Shakespeare the Shakespeare of the modern canon is that directors can do so much with his material. Othello can be a radical subversion on purity; Macbeth can be a parable about Vietnam; Hamlet is an exploration of the police state and the difficulty of breaking it, and the comedies well neigh anticipate male pregnancy, if you ask me, which you did not. But his genius is pretty much what he is always subverting, or threatening to subvert, about the established order, and his intuitive understanding about the corrupting nature of power, or greed, or sex. If Bloom says Shakespeare created the human, that claim isn't much of a stretch. He took the conventions of Elizabethan theater and virtually single-handedly superattenuated them. Jonson, his contemporary, was a great playwright, so was Marlowe, but William Shakespeare, was, and to my mind pretty much remains, the transformative voice in literature. There is a saying: Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. It is a cliche, but still a basic truism.

[Desolation]

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined.

It's all subjective, and if you're unmoved by something, then naturally you're not going to think it's good, and if it's highly praised, you'll think it's over-rated. While if you really like something, you can't think that it's over-rated. You can't separate personal feelings from this sort of argument. I'll admit that Shakespeare had talent, but by no means is his talent on the same level of his praise.

[Desolation]

But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman.

That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone. And that he's over-rated here-and-now is really all that matters.

I like the rest of your argument, though.

[stlukesguild]

It's all subjective...

Yes, all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others. The merit of a work of art (as in any discipline) is best judged by the opinions of the experts in that field. Is that elitist? So be it. Art is elitist. Something every artist knows. Of course in speaking of "experts" I do not limit this to academics and literary critics (although they would certainly be included). The "experts" would include as well what Virginia Woolf calls the not-so-common "common reader"... that lover of literature who is willing to invest the time and effort into the study of and appreciation of literature. It would also, necessarily, include subsequent writers. There's not all that many writers of real merit who would think to dismiss Shakespeare as grossly overrated. Certainly, Tolstoy had issues (primarily on moral grounds) with Shakespeare, but one suspects that rather like Plato's issues (on the same grounds) with Homer the real issue was the latter writer;'s recognition that he could not surpass his predecessor. However, Kafka, Joyce, Milton, Blake, Borges, Goethe, T.S. Eliot (and on and on we may go) all considered Shakespeare a central figure. There is a clear difference between stating that you don't like a particular work of art or artist (personal opinion) and making a sweeping judgment that goes against the common thread without offering any proof in your favor.

[stlukesguild]

That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone.

And that, by the way. is also a stereotype. Certainly the reputation of the most important artists may grow as his or her influence continued to weave its way through the work of subsequent artists. Certainly there are those who were largely ignored during their own lifetime who are suddenly "discovered" in a later age: Van Gogh, Vermeer, William Blake, Thomas Traherne, Franz Schubert, etc... A great many (if not the majority) of artists of real merit are certainly recognized during their own life time... if not afforded the same level of recognition as will come later. Michelangelo and Raphael were commonly known as "El Divino" (the Divine One). Rubens was knighted in three countries and was the highest paid artist in Europe. Picasso was the first artist whose work broke the million dollar mark... in his lifetime. T.S. Eliot was clearly recognized as one of the most important and influential poets of his time. Nearly all of the Impressionists died quite wealthy. Goethe was so recognized that even the emperor, Napoleon could speak of him as "there was a man". Beethoven's funeral drew vast crowds in Vienna. Time doesn't necessarily canonize all artists... and it is far more likely to be objective in its judgments. There is often much at stake in the reputation of today's art stars be it the investment of collectors, dealers, publishers, etc... Time is far more commonly a leveler of opinions.

[Desolation]

Yes, all opinions are subjective.

Yes, and the answer to a question such as "who is the most over-rated writer ever" is PURELY opinion. There is no answer based on absolute fact. And as a lover of literature, I say that Shakespeare is over-rated.

I don't lean my views on the common thread, and think that it is foolish to do so. It's a very convenient way to claim that you have a better opinion than someone else, though, isn't it?

Anyways, after Shakespeare, my second choice for most over-rated writer would be T.S. Elliot.

[kelby_lake]

Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.

That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Personally I would rather read the Wordsworth, easily.

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

Damn, not be long, there goes Dante, Milton, Shakespeare and every other epic ever written, bummer! Though again you limit and reduce Wordsworth's poetry as only about "nature" (like there is something wrong with that anyway) but it is clearly much more than that:

There is a Yew-tree, pride of Lorton Vale,
Which to this day stands single, in the midst
Of its own darkness, as it stood of yore:
Not loathe to furnish weapons for the Bands
Of Umfraville or Percy ere they marched
To Scotland's heaths; or those that crossed the sea
And drew their sounding bows at Azincour,

What is he really talking about? What's the real point of the poem? War? Man's abuse of nature? Mankind's eternal lust for power? The selfish nature of the human? The folly of human endeavour? Darkness at the heart of mankind? A poem about a tree?

Yew trees were used in the past to fashion bows with due to their suppleness and strength and the fact that there is only one lone tree standing in "its own darkness" to me suggests much about the true nature of mankind. His ever present lust for power and social status at the expense of others. The ugly human.

At the end of the poem there is hope though and a path forward. It is not all bleak as the narrator rises above and rejects the folly of mankind:

And Time the Shadow; there to celebrate,
As in a natural temple scattered o'er
With altars undisturbed of mossy stone,
United worship; or in mute repose
To lie, and listen to the mountain flood
Murmuring from Glaramara's inmost caves.

He realises that time is precious, although short, when he says "Time the shadow" notice of course the personification of time, but we do not dwell on the negative. Instead we appreciate life for its richness, we worship the small things, quietly "in mute repose" we "lie, and listen" to the richness of life around us.

Even though there is only one lone tree left, as all the others have been used to kill long ago, there is still a grain of hope, a love of life and a deep understanding of the beauty of the world. Yes there is more in that one lone tree than in all the folly mankind, in all of its dashing and conquering, and murdering and fighting. If only we could learn to see the world as the voice in that poem.

A beautiful and wise little piece.