who is the most overrated writer ever?

[wessexgirl]

Nature poetry is, or can be, the height of pretentiousness. Now, nature can feature in poetry (Neutral Tones is a good example) but if all you're saying is 'Isn't nature lovely?', what's the point? Are we all supposed to bow down and praise the poet on their wonderful observations of what art can do so much better?

Ask a group of non-poetry intellectuals which they prefer and I bet the majority would choose Blake over Wordsworth.

This is a deeply flawed misreading of Wordsworth. Can I just ask how much of Wordsworth you have read Kelby? There's a heck of a lot more to Wordsworth's poetry than that. Just out of interest, you have mentioned reading him at Secondary School. Are you still a school student? If so, I can safely say that you will not have read a huge amount of Wordsworth's poetry for the syllabus, (I work in a Secondary School), and if you had studied him in greater depth, (as I did for my degree), you would know that he's more than that, and is universally acclaimed to be a very important poet. To dismiss him as you have with that trite statement smacks of desperation. Okay, you don't like him, everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, but that is an overly simplistic, and just plain wrong summing up of an extremely well-regarded pioneer of poetry.

I also don't understand your last statement. Why would a group of "non-poetry intellectuals" choose Blake over Wordsworth? Do you mean people who don't read poetry? Are you saying that as they're intellectuals, they deal in reason and not feelings, so would choose Blake, who is the antithesis to reason, whose works sing out with his own unique, personal spirituality, because Wordsworth is too wrapped up in emotion? You may prefer Blake to Wordsworth, but they are both part of the Romantic Movement, which was about feelings and emotions over reason and logic. Where's your proof of such a statement? And do you really think that Art can "do Nature" better than Nature?

[LitNetIsGreat]

There well might be some meaning behind the tree poem, but who would ever pick up on that unless you pored over it? We should study poems to gain a deeper or more accurate understanding, not to desperately search for an understanding.

Yes I am sure that there is "some meaning behind the tree poem" in fact I am absolutely sure there is and I gave my quick reading of it earlier. And I do say quick, it was not "poured over" but was instantaneously obvious to me, maybe that is because I don't just dismiss Wordsworth as someone who writes long poems about trees? This is where you are going wrong with Wordsworth, you are seemingly reducing him to someone who says "oh look at that nice tree" and in doing so you are missing the point with Wordsworth completely. You are not alone in doing this. This is fine, it doesn't really matter either way, but to say that he is overrated if you are not going to properly read him seems a little pointless to me.

Peter L

To the best of my knowledge, neither Wordsworth nor Blake Wrote a story that could compare with even "The Cask of Amontillado".

That's because they were poets.

[PeterL]

Peter L
Quote:
To the best of my knowledge, neither Wordsworth nor Blake Wrote a story that could compare with even "The Cask of Amontillado".
That's because they were poets.

That was my point.

[stlukesguild]

I also don't understand your last statement. Why would a group of "non-poetry intellectuals" choose Blake over Wordsworth? Do you mean people who don't read poetry? Are you saying that as they're intellectuals, they deal in reason and not feelings, so would choose Blake, who is the antithesis to reason, whose works sing out with his own unique, personal spirituality, because Wordsworth is too wrapped up in emotion?

Yes... I'm having difficulty getting what you are at here myself. "Non-poetry intellectuals?" So you are assuming that those who are intelligent but do not read poetry would prefer Blake. I'm not certain that says much in favor of Blake... and I am an admitted Blake fanatic myself. Perhaps presented with a seemingly simple poem like The Tyger you may be right... but how many would find Wordsworth's "Strange Fits of Passion I have Known" or "She Dwealt Among the Untrodden Ways" or "I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud" or "Intimations of Immortality" far more pleasurable than Blake's Milton, or Jerusalem? I am not asking which is better as I clearly prefer Blake... but I think you grossly underestimate Wordsworth... and I think you have thrown out some rather absurd reasons for doing so when you suggest that long poems about nature are inherently bad. Where is the dividing line between a long poem and a short poem... Is there a specific number of lines after which the quality inherently deteriorates? And nature as an inappropriate subject matter? Who decides what subject matter is appropriate? Do we honestly believe that any subject matter cannot result in great art... or schlock? Yeats suggests that all art may be reduced to a contemplation of sex and the dead... perhaps he is right: creation and destruction, life and death, love and hate, sex and violence... but even so it must be recognized that Wordsworth is not lacking even under such criticism. There is certainly more than a little meditation upon mortality within his poetry.

[stlukesguild]

I agree with Jozie with regard to Poe. As a poet he was mediocre at best... and often quite bad. As a short story writer...? He had his moments. I agree that he developed a certain unique, Gothic atmosphere which is often the strongest element of his strongest tales. It is for this reason that he had such an impact upon Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Gautier and others... as well as upon any number of influential visual artists. He is certainly not Baudelaire... but neither was Gautier for that matter. While Poe's nationality certainly assured him a place within literature survey's in the United States, I think you grossly overstate the worth of his nationality (another bit of those Canadian anti-American reflexes at work?). The reality is that it was far more likely the appreciation of the French writers and authors which sealed Poe's reputation early on.

[stlukesguild]

By the way... to return to Wordsworth... it is somewhat amazing that Wordsworth is dismissed as such an overrated poet with people continually pointing out that he had so many mediocre and poor poems... and yet what of Coleridge? His entire reputation virtually rests upon three (unquestionably great) poems.

[JBI]

I agree with Jozie with regard to Poe. As a poet he was mediocre at best... and often quite bad. As a short story writer...? He had his moments. I agree that he developed a certain unique, Gothic atmosphere which is often the strongest element of his strongest tales. It is for this reason that he had such an impact upon Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Gautier and others... as well as upon any number of influential visual artists. He is certainly not Baudelaire... but neither was Gautier for that matter. While Poe's nationality certainly assured him a place within literature survey's in the United States, I think you grossly overstate the worth of his nationality (another bit of those Canadian anti-American reflexes at work?). The reality is that it was far more likely the appreciation of the French writers and authors which sealed Poe's reputation early on.

His current reputation is built upon the fact that virtually every American schoolchild (and Canadian for that matter) reads him, and has him held up as the embodiment of good literature and poetry. Every kid is fed the raven - every kid is fed the Tell Tale Heart, and no one actually has stopped to ask if these works are actually any good (well, almost nobody).

This whole genre of Dark Romanticism in America - from Poe to Lovecraft to King - is completely built upon the acceptance of Poe as the model. The acceptance of Steven King, undoubtedly, stems from him as a continuation of the Poe vein - part of the American tradition, if you will. But what is there at the core? The poems seem to say one thing over and over again, with only one emotion, and the same words and phrases recycled again and again. The Tales, to me at least, seem rather silly.

Take The Tell Tale Heart, for instance. Let's compare it to something like the ending of Zola's Therese Raquin. Who is closer to the consciousness of the delusional victims? I don't think either are, but Zola at least has a tinge of flavor - from line one of Poe we get the same feeling, and it never alters, and when he finally confesses at the end, nothing really changes. Essentially, the works feature similar themes, but Zola, though his work is flawed, seems to have a style that makes things rather interesting, by assembling a better narrative, whereas Poe seems boring, and redundant.

By the way... to return to Wordsworth... it is somewhat amazing that Wordsworth is dismissed as such an overrated poet with people continually pointing out that he had so many mediocre and poor poems... and yet what of Coleridge? His entire reputation virtually rests upon three (unquestionably great) poems.

Nah, Coleridge had at least four. Kubla Khan, Christabel, Dejection, and the Ancient Mariner.

Wordsworth had about 10-15 fantastic poems, and about 10-20 more that were excellent.

Then again though, what poet in the West isn't just remembered for a few choice lyrics?

Even Shakespeare's sonnets have mediocre ones amongst them, and it seems people are only familiar with a maximum of 20 (though I would estimate that at least half are pretty good).

There's a misunderstanding, it would seem, amongst many people who don't really read poetry, that poets only write great poems. Thomas Gray, for instance, seems remembered for less poems than even Coleridge. Certainly outside of academic circles, and scattered readers very little outside of his Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard is unheard of (if people even read that anymore).

What of someone like Raleigh though? It seems people know his Response to Marlowe's Shepherd, but very little outside of that.

Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.

Readers who aren't primarily poetry readers like to think of the poetic tradition as something like the novel tradition, or the prose tradition in general. It isn't, and it cannot be reduced to that. Each poem is a separate entity, even within a cycle, yet talks to all poems, and is ultimately about the same question. To value a poet based on all their poems is ridiculous. Very few people write only good poems, in the sense that very few novelists write only good sentences. The difference is though, with the novelist, the bad bits don't get published, and go unheard of, or are destroyed, but with poetry, the mediocre bits are part of the whole. Every poet only ends up with a handful of memorable poems at any rate. Some poets have a handful of really great poems, some have a couple really great poems, some have one fantastic poem, and some have many fantastic ones. But when it comes to valuing, the person with the most fantastic poems cannot be valued over someone with fewer than they, because the poems cannot be compared like that.

[stlukesguild]

Ah yes... I forgot Dejection. Four it is... and two fragmentary at that... albeit who knows if we'd actually have wanted him to have finished Christabel or Kubla Khan.

[the_black_skye]

I'm just going to interupt and say John Steinbeck, I found Of Mice and Men, incredibly dry. But then again why would an adolescent Australian, relate with two deep southern, working class men?

[sixsmith]

I can't say that they are the most overrated of 'all time' but Salman Rushdie and Ian McEwan spring to mind. I think that their reputations are inflated due to the relative dearth of quality contemporary British fiction. Rushdie lives solely of the cred of 'Midnight's children'. I can't fathom McEwan's standing. His earlier, darker works are promising but his later works are uniformly sub-par - the nadir being the laughable "Saturday''.

[kelby_lake]

I also don't understand your last statement. Why would a group of "non-poetry intellectuals" choose Blake over Wordsworth? Do you mean people who don't read poetry? Are you saying that as they're intellectuals, they deal in reason and not feelings, so would choose Blake, who is the antithesis to reason, whose works sing out with his own unique, personal spirituality, because Wordsworth is too wrapped up in emotion?

Whoops, my bad here. I was writing pretty late at night- what I meant was more 'non poetry-intellectuals'- my made-up word for people who aren't well-versed in poetry or particularly intellectual, but are naturally susceptible to it as a living breathing feeling human. Most likely I am too sweeping in my judgement of Wordsworth, but everyone exaggerates things to make a point. You're no doubt speaking as someone who's very knowledgable about poetry, correct? I'm speaking as someone who follows a gut instinct, who judges on what they first see from poetic ignorance. Naturally my appreciation of different poetry will grow as I become more analytical and well-versed, but poetry should connect with people, regardless of whether they've studied it or not, otherwise it becomes the untouchable 'intellectual' thing it was to me years ago and, in part, now.

[Emil Miller]

I can't say that they are the most overrated of 'all time' but Salman Rushdie and Ian McEwan spring to mind. I think that their reputations are inflated due to the relative dearth of quality contemporary British fiction. Rushdie lives solely of the cred of 'Midnight's children'. I can't fathom McEwan's standing. His earlier, darker works are promising but his later works are uniformly sub-par - the nadir being the laughable "Saturday''.

I haven't read Rushdie, although having read reviews of some of his writing, I don't see what all the fuss is about. One wonders how well he would have fared had not The Satanic Verses given him enormous publicity because of the outrage it stirred up among muslims.

[Jozanny]

I am staying out of this argument about the Romantic poets. In truth, I only had a cursory study of them, and haven't read any of them in years, until coming here and *reseeing* Keats with fresh eyes, thanks to some posts.

In general terms, I have an ambivalent relationship with appreciating poetry, something that the astute lovers of the genre may have guessed by now. Why this is amounts to my own impatience with contemporary confessional narratives. Most of it is simply crap, which, coming from me, is an uncouth statement. Now, when it comes to great pieces from early and mid-20th names, things become a tad more complicated. I do not *love* Robert Frost, for instance, but respect him in the sense that one respects the Ibsen trope of the master builder. On occasion, I've admired Marianne Moore's wit, and Bishop can knock a few out of the ballpark. The Beats are almost a whole issue unto themselves, but they can be blamed for the fact that people like me can publish 300 poems and be bitter about the fact that I'll die in obscurity while individuals like Pinsky represent the academic norm. All I genuinely care about is publishing enough of my own work while being fairly stingy about admitting who are my betters, and by now some of you can imagine what I'd cop to on that score.

As we leave aside contemporaries it gets more complicated still, as I am equally ambivalent about formalism and yet can fall in love with Robert Browning, whose narrative abilities delight as oppose to threaten. Sonnets I can take or leave, no matter who adhered to them faithfully. Epics I place in a different class, as the epic is deceased, and not really poetry anymore. (Astounding statement, but I will defend that on another day.) I have no love lost for Yeats, poor fellow, and yet I count Donne more among the living as much as I assign Yeats one grave among so many of the entombed.

For being a poet, my knowledge is not markedly extensive, despite how grounded and how well read I've been in modern literary journal poetry, but as to the Romantics, Wordsworth wrote too much, in my estimation; probably foundered at times more than he should have, but beyond that I cannot judge or opine on whether his brand outsizes its actual merit. Keats deserves sainthood, so maybe that is a judgment in and of itself. The rest of them that I were taught, they are pretty. Not quite sure they move me as authentically as Donne manages, but I remain cautious of overly sweeping statements, and that is where I'll leave it.

[PeterL]

By the way... to return to Wordsworth... it is somewhat amazing that Wordsworth is dismissed as such an overrated poet with people continually pointing out that he had so many mediocre and poor poems... and yet what of Coleridge? His entire reputation virtually rests upon three (unquestionably great) poems.

I think that Coleridge gets credit for what he didn't do, but people ignore what he actually wrote. I think that he wrote humorous verse, but his humor was personal, and he tried to hide it from readers. "Kubla Khan" can easily be interpreted as a description of a sexual encounter, but he hid that in such lofty language that it is lost. "The Rime..." can be interpreted as the raving of a halfmad bum who was trying to cadge some money.

Ah yes... I forgot Dejection. Four it is... and two fragmentary at that... albeit who knows if we'd actually have wanted him to have finished Christabel or Kubla Khan.

"Kubla Khan" is complete. The story of the postman was a lie to hide the truth.

[stlukesguild]

what I meant was more 'non poetry-intellectuals'- my made-up word for people who aren't well-versed in poetry or particularly intellectual, but are naturally susceptible to it as a living breathing feeling human. Most likely I am too sweeping in my judgement of Wordsworth, but everyone exaggerates things to make a point. You're no doubt speaking as someone who's very knowledgable about poetry, correct? I'm speaking as someone who follows a gut instinct, who judges on what they first see from poetic ignorance. Naturally my appreciation of different poetry will grow as I become more analytical and well-versed, but poetry should connect with people, regardless of whether they've studied it or not, otherwise it becomes the untouchable 'intellectual'

Again... your argument brings us to another issue: is art for everyone? Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem? I have long argued that art is an elitist endeavor... but that it is not an elitism of birth or social or economic status but rather that it is an elective affinity. We all make the choice whether to invest the time and effort into the study of this or that art form. The fact that someone is not well-versed in poetry does not make them ignorant... however it would seem logical that someone having put forth a great deal of effort to the genre of poetry would be someone whose opinion I am more likely to consider. Thus my question as to why I should be impressed if Wordsworth were less popular than Blake among those to whom poetry is not a great passion and a subject they have put forth effort in studying? I might presume that among those not deeply versed in art Renoir, Andy Warhol, Van Gogh, and Gustav Klimt's Kiss might be far preferred to Titian, Velasquez, Bonnard, and Ingres. Should I care the least what the uninformed and largely disinterested masses think? How valuable is my opinion on the string quartets (Beethoven vs Mozart vs Schubert vs Haydn vs Shostakovich vs Dvorak) a genre of which I am not overly fond? I have little doubt that my opinion on opera and choral music is far stronger... albeit that is far less solid than my opinions on painting.

Kubla Khan" is complete. The story of the postman was a lie to hide the truth.

Perhaps... perhaps not. In either instance the prose introduction is certainly an essential part of the work as a whole. Of course even if the tale of the lost remains of the poem were true and all that remains is but a fragment... it is still as "complete" as Schubert's "Unfinished Symphony". The suggestion of something lost or unfinished lends a certain pathos... and yet we are uncertain as to whether the work could be made better had it been whole.