who is the most overrated writer ever?

[sixsmith]

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.

You've captured my thoughts on this stlukes. I happen to hate Wordsworth as well, having taken a Romantic course in my undergraduate 'studies'.
But the validity of my opinion is incredibly limited given that my knowledge of poetry and the canon of scholarship that evaluates its development and how and why it works is negligible. I suspect my feelings on Wordsworth would remain the same (the idea that nature has a 'presence' or whatever is just crap IMO) but i bring the same level of ignorance to Shakespeare's poetry which i happen to love. My opinion is of similarly little worth.

I think kelby is right in a sense. Art is about the gut in that, to an extent, it evokes a rather fundamental response of pleasure. But not all guts are created equal. I think it was Robert Hughes who said "Democracy exists to allow elitism - elitism based on excellence". That's the way i prefer to think of it. The idea that art is somehow fatally flawed if it can't speak to Joe Blow on the street is beyond absurd. Art is never untouchable; it can be elusive and difficult but the individual has to come to the party also.

[Jozanny]

Again... your argument brings us to another issue: is art for everyone?

The short answer to this is yes. If you're human, no matter how poorly educated, you make aesthetic choices on a daily basis. Both you and JBI are more exposed than I am in your multi-cultural data, but that may be due to things I cannot change: health, economics, even linguistic ability.

But as a published author, I have different strategies than either of you in my approach to aesthetic choice. I look for ideas in what I appreciate, and not necessarily the satisfaction, or solely that satisfaction, of aesthetic transcendence, with obvious exceptions. I don't steal from Shakespeare, and attend to a quality production for its own sake. Nearly every other writer, however, is a rival, in one form or another. "Stay away from doing this, or can I do this better, or I know I can't write at that level and need a reason not to suicide as quickly as possible, or hey, this I can steal and I had better steal it well..." That is how my mind works.

Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem?

No, but everyone can subvert expectations, some of the time. Despite my deliberate push back, which is in other ways a form of respect, JBI is very good at this game.

[kelby_lake]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;723457]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? . 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?

Ouch.

People are naturally susceptible to poetry, as they are to music- topics about human experience and rhythm affects everyone, regardless of their intellectual capacity. Of course, the more intellectual people will be able to articulate why they feel a certain way more articulately, but does that make their opinion more important? As you have pointed out in mine, it may be written vaguely articulately, but does that instantly make it better than someone who disagrees but doesn't write how I write?

There are people, like in music and painting, who are more intuitive about art, and who might be able to pick up on layers that someone without that may not find.

Who cares if they've spent however many years poring over it? They still have the same biases and are unlikely to change them- they will see what they want to see. If they spend 20 years seeing it, great- they'll probably give more scholarly reasons for their thoughts- but Hitler spent a lot of time on Naziism. Does that make his opinions any more valid?

[Jozanny]

But kelby, if I may, you might want to stick your hasty responses in a word processor, sit on them a few, then revise? Posting with any degree of frequency sometimes leads to more confusion than necessary. I myself am having trouble getting your argument (define argument as closer to thesis here, as opposed to disagreement).

As I explained above, I am an extensively published poet who is at times hostile to poetry, and I'm basically indifferent to Wordsworth and Blake, which implodes your point, since you assume, in my anti-intellectual moments, that I would choose the religious wing nut over the grand old man of letters in his waning Victorian twilight. I'd prefer the pedestrian to the overwrought visionary, so maybe what you assume about those who don't get this in university is off. I had a fan from New England who was a farmer. Never did English Literature, but like me, loved the small press, and his analysis of my work would have knocked my buns right back in my wheelchair if my buns weren't in the wheelchair already, and if he was astute about what I published, he wasn't simple.

[stlukesguild]

Is art for everybody?

The short answer to this is yes. If you're human, no matter how poorly educated, you make aesthetic choices on a daily basis. Both you and JBI are more exposed than I am in your multi-cultural data, but that may be due to things I cannot change: health, economics, even linguistic ability.

Jozie... again I'm not disagreeing with you. We all make aesthetic choices to one extent or another. Perhaps the question should have been made more specific: Is all art for all people? Again the answer remains Yes and No. As I suggested we each make the choice whether something is worth the effort of not. It is an elective affinity. For example Japanese Noh theater and Chinese opera did nothing for me in the little I have experienced. I was in no way intrigued enough to desire to explore more. As a result I wouldn't think to offer an opinion of the work... yet do we not continually find ourselves confronted with those who having little or no real experience of Modernist or Abstract painting, or contemporary poetry or opera feel free to throw out their opinions and imagine that they should have any merit whatsoever?

But as a published author, I have different strategies than either of you in my approach to aesthetic choice. I look for ideas in what I appreciate, and not necessarily the satisfaction, or solely that satisfaction, of aesthetic transcendence, with obvious exceptions.

Personally I don't separate the form from the content. I imagine that they are so intertwined as to be virtually one and the same.

I don't steal from Shakespeare, and attend to a quality production for its own sake. Nearly every other writer, however, is a rival, in one form or another. "Stay away from doing this, or can I do this better, or I know I can't write at that level and need a reason not to suicide as quickly as possible, or hey, this I can steal and I had better steal it well..." That is how my mind works.

And certainly I would imagine most artists' minds work in a similar manner.

Is everyone's opinion of art to be held in equal esteem?

No, but everyone can subvert expectations, some of the time. Despite my deliberate push back, which is in other ways a form of respect, JBI is very good at this game.

I had a fan from New England who was a farmer. Never did English Literature, but like me, loved the small press, and his analysis of my work would have knocked my buns right back in my wheelchair if my buns weren't in the wheelchair already, and if he was astute about what I published, he wasn't simple.

Again, Jozie, you seem to be assuming that what I am suggesting is that it is the opinions of the academic scholars alone... those with a great degree of formal study under their belt. I made it clear that those whose opinions are of merit are those who have invested the time and effort into the study... the exploration of a given discipline. This need not mean formal "study". Your farmer, you have suggested, is certainly not knowledgeable about contemporary poetry without having invested some effort in the exploration of the small presses, etc... Hell my own knowledge of literature has been largely gained outside of any formal courses.

[Jozanny]

Actually luke, that last was for kelby. Only in the sense that there are lovers of literature who aren't the modern incarnation of an English Major. Her point seems to be the man on the street would enjoy Blake because Blake wrote shorter stanzas. I am as confused as you and wessexgirl are, I'm afraid, because making assumptions about what the average Joe's tastes are is still committing the fallacy of assumption. My ex-fiance is a dumb cop from the Bronx. In his attempt to placate me during our engagement he'd say, "I've read Nietzsche!"

Stereotypes abound

[Eryk]

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

[kelby_lake]

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

!!

Yes, I know his plays can verge into the melodramatic, but that's only because they study the extremes of human nature.

They're passionate, raw, consciously poetic, violent, lonely...perfect for the theatre.

[Beyle]

Most overrated writer eh? I would nominate Salinger. I just don't understand what the big deal with The Catcher in the Rye is. I find his writing cliche, redundant, and really boring. Woolf is a close second though.

I actually enjoy Woolf's writing.

Like you, I do not understand the hype surrounding Salinger or The Catcher in the Rye. I thought the book was boring.

[Mr Endon]

Tennessee Williams and his stilted melodramas.

I second that. To be fair, I've only read Not About Nightingales, but it was sappy, tepid, frankly quite the let down.

[kelby_lake]

I second that. To be fair, I've only read Not About Nightingales, but it was sappy, tepid, frankly quite the let down.

His earlier and later work is weak, but the era from The Glass Menagerie (1948) to Night of The Iguana (1962) is a brilliant example of good theatre. If you watch The Glass Menagerie and don't cry, you must be evil...

[TurquoiseSunset]

Oh, definitely J.D. Salinger! I absolutely hated everything about The Catcher in the Rye...

And Faulkner, although I don't feel as strongly about him as I do J.D. Salinger.

[Mr Endon]

His earlier and later work is weak, but the era from The Glass Menagerie (1948) to Night of The Iguana (1962) is a brilliant example of good theatre. If you watch The Glass Menagerie and don't cry, you must be evil...

Well I suppose I ought to give the man a fair chance. Not About Nightingales is just a big sloppy mess of clichés and bathos (no one will ever convince me otherwise!) yet I'm hoping A Streetcar Named Desire will reconcile me with him. And I guess I could give the Glass a go as well.

EDIT: I've just noticed that the Streetcar is from 1947, so before the era you've mentioned. What did you make of it?

[kelby_lake]

Whoops- just worked out that Glass Menagerie- first commercial success- was actually in 1944.

I liked the play, and thought the film was a brilliant adaptation, although it skimmed over some of the parts, like Blanche and the schoolboy...

My personal favourites are Cat on A Hot Tin Roof (steamy and claustrophobic), The Glass Menagerie (terribly sad), Night of The Iguana (sort of tragicomic, less melodramatic than some), and Orpheus Descending (not a commercial success- Southern Gothic style- very moving however).

[My name is red]

Oh i got an answer for this one:MİLAN KUNDERA