who is the most overrated writer ever?

[kelby_lake]

But Shakespeare's just one of those ones where you have to try harder than other books. If they were making the point that it failed as theatre/poetry, fair enough, but it just sounds like the person making the comment is unable to understand Shakey

[stlukesguild]

Art by its very nature is subjective.

Yes... certainly it all comes down to opinions... but I'll say it again, some opinions are better than others.

In fact, for someone who goes on and on about your respect for elitists and critics, you fail to recognize why we have elitists and critics in the first place.They're not there simply to transmit the culture or sing the praises of art in perfect harmonius agreement, but rather to deliver educated judgements that challenge and criticize each other's educated opinions.

Do you honestly believe that? I mean did you seriously invest the time and effort in studying and learning about literature simply so that you could challenge the opinions of other academics? That sounds rather pathetic, does it not? Personally, I spent and continue to spend the time and effort in reading, listening, and looking... studying about literature, music, and art because they give me pleasure... and in the case of art... because I imagine I just might succeed at creating something of interest myself. Challenging others' opinions is just a byproduct of the pleasure I have gained from great works of art which leads me to offer up my opinions in support of what I believe is worthy of recognition.

In other words, even educated opinions are subjective...


Unquestionably... and I have admitted as much repeatedly in acknowledging that I do not always see eye to eye with JBI, Mortalterror, yourself, or others just as the big-name academic critics do not always see eye to eye... but they/we usually have the common sense to frame any opinion which challenges the accepted norms as an opinion... or to offer some solid reasoning for why we believe as we do. "Tolstoy is the worst author... he cannot write" just doesn't seem to cut it.

...and the elite, despite your simplistic portrait that you consistently paint of such a group rarely agree on anything. After all, who is leading this charge of multiculturalism and so-called relativism anyway? It certainly isn't the unwashed masses.

Arguably, they would be academics that are more concerned with social engineering and questions of race, gender, politics, and economics than they are with art would they not?

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

In fact, for someone who goes on and on about your respect for elitists and critics, you fail to recognize why we have elitists and critics in the first place.They're not there simply to transmit the culture or sing the praises of art in perfect harmonius agreement, but rather to deliver educated judgements that challenge and criticize each other's educated opinions.

Do you honestly believe that? I mean did you seriously invest the time and effort in studying and learning about literature simply so that you could challenge the opinions of other academics? That sounds rather pathetic, does it not? Personally, I spent and continue to spend the time and effort in reading, listening, and looking... studying about literature, music, and art because they give me pleasure... and in the case of art... because I imagine I just might succeed at creating something of interest myself. Challenging others' opinions is just a byproduct of the pleasure I have gained from great works of art which leads me to offer up my opinions in support of what I believe is worthy of recognition.

Well, I certainly didn't go to grad school to mindlessly regurgitate the wisdom of my professors. I believe I answered why I read like a bagillion times already.

[Manchegan]

I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations...

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...



Kelby... JoZ...Comments like these I quoted are surely on par with declarations by teenage boys raised on heavy metal and Batman comics that "Mozart sucks!" and "Michelangelo blows!" For that reason they are largely so inane that one rarely bothers to comment... excepting that I was a bit bored yesterday.[/QUOTE]

I resent getting lumped in with those who said Tolstoy can't write and that shakespeare is dull. I said what you said i ought to say, that Dickens has talent but i dont care for him. AS for pynchon - I enjoy his style and absurdity, but I feel that even he can't control it. The way he ended vineland suggests to me, that he couldn't handle the fantastic world he created.

Joyce is obviously a great writer and a genious, but to have such great ideas burried under such impenetrable writing means that at least on some level he failed at his job as a writer. He wrote works that could be studied and cracked, rather than what could be enjoyed. That's an important aspect of fiction, so I say he's overrated. Great, but not as great as we want him to be.

[Barbarous]

Joyce is obviously a great writer and a genious, but to have such great ideas burried under such impenetrable writing means that at least on some level he failed at his job as a writer. He wrote works that could be studied and cracked, rather than what could be enjoyed. That's an important aspect of fiction, so I say he's overrated. Great, but not as great as we want him to be.

Well now, I assume I can count you out, but I enjoy, more than enjoy, this bit of 'meaning under mass' which is what Joyce is at face value. His work is fun and more of a celebration of literature if anything.

I don't mean to attack you personally, for I am definitely not, but I say this to users who post absurdities about the Joyce, in the same vein of previous posters about Shakespeare!

[Drkshadow03]

I resent getting lumped in with those who said Tolstoy can't write and that shakespeare is dull. I said what you said i ought to say, that Dickens has talent but i dont care for him. AS for pynchon - I enjoy his style and absurdity, but I feel that even he can't control it. The way he ended vineland suggests to me, that he couldn't handle the fantastic world he created.

Joyce is obviously a great writer and a genious, but to have such great ideas burried under such impenetrable writing means that at least on some level he failed at his job as a writer. He wrote works that could be studied and cracked, rather than what could be enjoyed. That's an important aspect of fiction, so I say he's overrated. Great, but not as great as we want him to be.

Yeah, I notice that too. I thought it odd that St Lukes defended himself by saying he had no problem with people's personal reactions and it was only when they displayed it as statements of fact that it got on his nerves, which is why he highlighted those statement, when your comments about Dickens that he quoted clearly were worded as a personal reaction. He also did the same exact thing a few posts back with some guy sharing his personal dislike of Shakespeare. I think this pretty much indicates that the problem wasn't how you or anyone else said it (as he claimed in the initial post responding to me), but that you had the audacity to suggest it in the first place.

This conversation has been hilarious to read, and not because people are taking swings at some of the greatest authors ever, but because of the defensive almost paranoid responses to the people reacting in sheer disbelief of the choices.

[stlukesguild]

"Disbelief?" "Disdain", perhaps... but never disbelief. I'll never underestimate the opinions of those who have yet to outgrow their superheroes in capes and Speedos and WWF. Paranoia? You'd have to be far more than "paranoid" to believe that any opinions voiced on an internet forum are likely to undermine the reputations of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens... or even Bukowski for that matter (unfortunately).

[Manchegan]

Thanks Drkshadow, I feel redeemed now. THis thread has been pretty funny...

[kelby_lake]

Art by its very nature is subjective.

Yes... certainly it all comes down to opinions... but I'll say it again, some opinions are better than others.

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, right?

[Drkshadow03]

"Disbelief?" "Disdain", perhaps... but never disbelief. I'll never underestimate the opinions of those who have yet to outgrow their superheroes in capes and Speedos and WWF. Paranoia? You'd have to be far more than "paranoid" to believe that any opinions voiced on an internet forum are likely to undermine the reputations of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens... or even Bukowski for that matter (unfortunately).

Shhh, you're ruining the punch line!

[Sarai]

Stephenie Meyer, Dan Brown, Nicholas Sparks honestly not woth the money. The entire Twilight collection costed 70€ that's a lot of money

[mayneverhave]

Stephenie Meyer, Dan Brown, Nicholas Sparks honestly not woth the money. The entire Twilight collection costed 70€ that's a lot of money

Yes, but no one rates these authors very highly to begin with, so its a rather moot point.

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, right?

I know you're probably joking - not that stlukes even said that all animals are equal - but I would argue that that is simply not the case. Equal in what? Strength, dexterity, vision? In the case of literary study: intelligence, ambition, an artistic leaning, a negative capability, so to speak, which are all qualities that are hardly given in equal portions to everyone. There's no reason to assume everyone is capable of the same things when approaching a text, and that's taking for granted that everyone involved is putting in the same amount of effort to get to the level to make perceptive critical assessments.

In the case of say, someone whose first literary series is Twilight, versus one who has read the entire Western canon; these opinions are certainly not equal.

[Reread]

I think Dickens is overrated. Sure, he wrote a lot of things and he wrote about the strife of the middle and lower classes of England, but his characters are so boring. There are good people who are simply good people without any serious character flaws, there are bad people who are bad, and there are people in the middle who have absolutely no personalities and are simply there for the good people to be nice to and the bad people to abuse.

For everyone who says J.K. Rowling is overrated, please bear in mind that the Harry Potter series is a series of children's books that were written simply to entertain children. If you go into them expecting incredible depth then, yes, you will be disappointed.

[Drkshadow03]

I know you're probably joking - not that stlukes even said that all animals are equal - but I would argue that that is simply not the case. Equal in what? Strength, dexterity, vision? In the case of literary study: intelligence, ambition, an artistic leaning, a negative capability, so to speak, which are all qualities that are hardly given in equal portions to everyone. There's no reason to assume everyone is capable of the same things when approaching a text, and that's taking for granted that everyone involved is putting in the same amount of effort to get to the level to make perceptive critical assessments.

Speaking of having knowledge about literature . . . you do know Kelby was making an allusion to Animal Farm right?

For everyone who says J.K. Rowling is overrated, please bear in mind that the Harry Potter series is a series of children's books that were written simply to entertain children. If you go into them expecting incredible depth then, yes, you will be disappointed.

Harry Potter has a lot of depth actually. It's fascinating to delve into all the literary criticism on Potter, which I've been doing to prepare for my Harry Potter post that I promised, and see all the different interpretations of the overall series (of individual books, of individual chapters, of individual characters), sub-textual readings, analysis of its motifs, discussions about its structure, its place in literary history, its place in fantasy literature, its place in children's literature, its place in pop culture. There is just so many angles to approach it from, so many little things to analyze, such fertile ground for scholarship.

[mayneverhave]

Speaking of having knowledge about literature . . . you do know Kelby was making an allusion to Animal Farm right?

Hah. Missed the layup on that one. My point stands regardless.