Why does one author have to be better ....

[stlukesguild]

Neely... what you are describing is certainly the difference between saying "Dickens sucks," or "Dickens is grossly overrated," and and saying simply "Dickens does nothing for me." Its the recognition that there is a difference between accepting that a work of art or music or literature may be "great"... may be incredibly influential... innovative... important within the development of that art... and liking the same work. I fully accept that Picasso is indisputably the greatest artist of the 20th century... but I actually prefer several other artists. I do not need to undermine Picasso by suggesting that he is overrated or sucks simply because I prefer the work of another artist.

[JBI]

You know JBI as much as I agree with this statement, it's sort of funny that I find it easier to read Tolstoy and Dickens then to say which is better.

Rereading this thread I want to draw a slight distinction. I stand by my statement that it bothers me when people try to negate one author or another because someone else did "it" better, but I also agree with The Comedian. There is a lot of entertainment value in deciding a criteria of greatness and making arguments as to which author most fully fulfills them. In many ways this is the root of literary criticism in the West. One could enter a lively discussion, without insults and immaturity, in which assessments of Dickens's and Tolstoy's success was looked at in accordance with a novelistic rubric. In essence I think what bothers me is not ranking so much as trying to dismiss authors from discussion, in reality the discussion itself can be great.

That's not what I meant by read them. I meant interpret and discuss in depth. The ranking is irrelevant, as both writers are already so firmly canonized that the question of which one is better or not is without any real significance; simply put, it's like asking which is better, crushed ice or cubed ice, and then instead of drinking anything, just spending the time watching it melt.

I am not for dismissing mediocre works, but really, there comes a point when rank doesn't matter.

In that sense, 95% of the forum posts deal with ranking, or recommending, or "what do you think of x" or some other such pointless stuff, but is there really any constructive discussion that arises out of that? Does one enjoy Dostoevsky or Dickens any more knowing that their work is somehow better than the others? And does that tell you anything about their work?

So I see the point in dismissing Aragon, and Twilight and whatnot, but at the same time, one must distinguish from that, and from pointless bickering.

[Modest Proposal]

That's not what I meant by read them. I meant interpret and discuss in depth. The ranking is irrelevant, as both writers are already so firmly canonized that the question of which one is better or not is without any real significance; simply put, it's like asking which is better, crushed ice or cubed ice, and then instead of drinking anything, just spending the time watching it melt.

I am not for dismissing mediocre works, but really, there comes a point when rank doesn't matter.

In that sense, 95% of the forum posts deal with ranking, or recommending, or "what do you think of x" or some other such pointless stuff, but is there really any constructive discussion that arises out of that? Does one enjoy Dostoevsky or Dickens any more knowing that their work is somehow better than the others? And does that tell you anything about their work?

So I see the point in dismissing Aragon, and Twilight and whatnot, but at the same time, one must distinguish from that, and from pointless bickering.

I apologize for not making my first statement clear--I knew what you meant and was merely toying with the different notions of "reading" and "difficulty". I agree with your statement, and was just kidding.

As to the second half of your post, I think you have a strong point and it is indicative of the problems with certain discussions. I don't know what, constructive, arises from rankings but I do think there is a value that arise systemically.

That is, that in ranking novelists we must examine what we find valuable and what meets that criteria. Now, I don't want to ignite a whole bunch of claims that I am throwing out any other author, but surely deciding for ourselves why we read and what most challenges and furthers those practices is valuable.

[The Comedian]

The ranking is irrelevant, as both writers are already so firmly canonized that the question of which one is better or not is without any real significance; simply put, it's like asking which is better, crushed ice or cubed ice, and then instead of drinking anything, just spending the time watching it melt.

I give this metaphor an 8.5/10. I've read a few better ones by St. Luke's and mono (where art thou?). But this one is solid, JBI.

I still think ranking authors is fun, but to a degree, you're right, such rankings are only a bickering of taste. But they could be the start of a more in depth criticism and discovery too. Some posters here have only read a few literary books and are excited to read some more. I'm okay with a Tolstoy vs Dickens conversation. Sometimes the banter that starts it leads, eventually, to literary criticism. And sometimes not.

But I do agree that often the conversations don't go into enough detail so that fruitful comparisons can lead to a discussion of craft, technique, and form. If such detail were made, then we might be able to change the metaphor to something like this: deciding between Dickens and Tolstoy, if gone into true detail, is like finding the best contractor to build your house: you can't just look at the pictures on the website; you need to see if they use screws or nails, 3/4" or 1/2" drywall, poured or block foundations. . . . these things are important, lest your house crumble.

[JCamilo]

lets not be silly, ranking is neither just a bickering of taste or just for fun. It is a natural (albeit something unreliable) human form of organization. I find funny people claiming they dod not rank, yet, they do have favorite authors who they read for "free". And ask them why they read this author, they will justify it and give you a crtieria for ranking. This author touched me more. This author is actually good, etc.
Academics, the most cold critics, they all are prone to ranking. Except it is an easy one, usually canonical. The problem with ranking is that, at deathbed, you can produce the most close to a cold ranking, but during lifetime... it is a pointless exercise to enclose in one single momment something absolutely changeable.

[mal4mac]

... it is entirely possible for me, for example, to appreciate Dickens in the first category but not in the second. I can argue why he was a talented writer in the way he could pull a sentence or paragraph together, the way he could set a scene, the way he could create caricature, the way his stories uncover social injustice as a critique of Victorian or early capitalist society or whatever. However within the second category he does little for me outside of descriptive passages. I find his characters tedious and at the moment at least, I am not interested in them at all.

I find his characters fascinating. In what way is Nicholas Nickleby tedious? Or Scrooge? Or... well let's leave it there... there a hundred others. I'm a "common reader" and never read for 'professional reasons'. So I don't delve into the way he pulls a sentence together, although sometimes recognising that he has just written another marvellous sentence.

Given the almost universal acclaim that Dickens gets, and has had, from the beginning, from serious critics & readers (and especially given that you are going to teach literature!) I think you should raise heaven and Earth to try and fix this blind spot of yours.

Try reading critics, like Bloom, who concentrate on 'appreciating' Dickens, rather than tedious sentence chopping. Maybe you are too influenced buy Oscar Wilde? Although Oscar talked a lot of sense on a lot of subjects his comments on Dickens could be another example of a great writer getting something thing very wrong (like Tolstoy's attack on Shakespeare.) Dickens was too close to him, and was so much more successful than him, in all circles and on all measures, that it's not surprising his views appear jaundiced.

Try and read his novels with a fresh eye. I gave up on Joyce and Cervantes a decade ago, but tried them again recently, and really enjoyed them. Maybe you could do the same with Dickens? Why not try (at least) a novel a year and see if you can learn to appreciate him?

What will you do if a school child comes into school after Christmas and tried to impress her English teacher by saying she really enjoyed an adaptation of Christmas Carol. "I don't like Dickens"? You are at risk of becoming a Dickensian "character"

[kiki1982]

To clear up my comments that actually prompted this thread:

What I said about Tolstoy and Dickens was in response to Bloom who alledgedly said that Dickens was better. Bloom has/had a lot of influence and, even making his own personal list, he should not have referred to Dickens as 'better', because then he is not a critic. As his list is in a book of criticism, widely read, he should not act as the man, but as the critic. Hence he has no right to put any writer above another.

I personally, though, do have the right to state that I find Dickens not good, mediocre for me personally. Not all people in the whole world can find a certain writer good. It is impossible. If absolutely everyone finds him great, without exception, then we should doubt the quality of the writing itself or we should suppose that half of the people actually do not like him, but do not dare to state otherwise. It is not having a blind spot, it is having a clear opinion of what one likes. And that is better than being indecisive.

Dickens's characters do not speak to me. They do on film a little, but not to me when I read them, much like to Neely. I might be relatively inexperienced in really professional criticism on all fronts, but I don't think Neely is.

It is possible that Neely is influenced by Oscar Wilde, although I doubt it. But the comparison you draw between Tolstoy/Shakespeare and Wilde/Dickens does not hold up. Why? Because Tolstoy had the ludicrous idea that good should be rewarded and bad punished by God; that he would become happy if he gave away all his riches. 'If I do A, I will become B; if I do good, I will be happy'. Not even in Orthodox Christianity, that idea holds up. More to the point, he struggled with what he wanted: an ascetic's life. That is why he became relatively unhappy, despite giving away his riches. It is not because Jesus said so, that it will happen without exception. Tolstoy desperatly wanted to become an ascetic, but his own nature worked against that. When he finally got the courage to leave his home and family at the age of 82, he fell ill an died. Lear probably appealed to him, because that man does just the same as Tolstoy: gives away his riches, yet, wants to hold on to them. Does he become happy? No. Why not? Because that was not his nature. Maybe Tolstoy felt frustrated and recognised too much how Shakespeare was right?

Why would Wilde possibly consider to criticise Dickens for his over-sentimental work for antoher reason but the one he gave? He was not a person to be jealous, he did not even write the same style of works as he was a playwright (there was n competition), he even made allusions to Dickens's works. Yet, he did not find them great. Wilde was too much a properly educated person and too intelligent to lose himself in motives for critcism as Tolstoy did.

I could see a political motive in Bloom's preference of Dickens over Tolstoy as Tolstoy is a Russian and Bloom an American. Surely, anything is better than admitting that a Russian is a very good writer?

Still, rating writers according to preference is what we all do, because we all have our favorites. Hence, topics as 'the most over-rated' do make sense on a personal level.

[JCamilo]

Non sense, If saying Dickens is better than Tolstoy is not a work of criticism, then having a list is not either. And since when a critic does not rank or does not have preferences? As I recall, Bloom tries to justify his claim, so he is doing a critical work.
And frankly, the difference between Dickens and Tolstoy is a tiny line, so one can only have a personal preference, no matter if political or simple by the fact Tolstoy is anti-shakespearean or Dickens wrote in englsih (important factors on Bloom background, more than politics) and he is more than free to do so.
The notion that critics should not make vallue judgment when they can justify it is a considerable mistake.

[kiki1982]

The point it that Bloom had too much influence to make a statement of that nature.

Not all critics pronounce judgments based on whatever. Usually, what a critic should do is analyse and otherwise try to explain to others what is under the surface, not what people should read and what is great writing and what not. As rating is a personal business, a critic should not rate in the public domain. Otherwise a particular writer risks to be demonised or adored because of one critic like Bloom who has a lot of influence.

What if Bloom were to write that Dan Brown was a good writer? Or that Shakespeare was crap? About Shakespeare, we would think that the man had lost his mind and we would laugh the same way as we laugh at Tolstoy for his comments. About Dan Brown, some would take no notice, others would shout 'you see, even Bloom finds him great, so there must be something about him'.

Point is personal preference has no place in professional criticism, as Neely said.

[JCamilo]

First, The fact Bloom have a lot of influence is nowhere relevant of what kind of statement he can do or not.
Second, his judgment was not based on watever. As irrelevant as it was, he tried to justify it.
A critic who only waste time with the theories of what is in surface and not giving judgmental vallues are relativists who do nothing good for literature. Great critics will always have jugment of vallue, tell people what is good to read or not. And a critic which basis is the attack on political correctness, will do something very stupidy not doing so.
Second, the influence of critics to make an author be read or not is just temporary. Voltaire, who not only as critic, the most influential man in europe disliked Shakespeare a little and Dante. And this affected them somehow? Keats was demolished by critics when he first published, and? Virginia Woolf and her group reduced the importance of Robert Louis Stevenson and? Poe had strong attacks against Longfellow and Wordsworth, and? Coleridge Ryme of Ancient Marineer was attacked, and? Melville? No critic is more influential or able to write much better than a great writer and they have more power to deal with time than criticism. So, Bloom may say watever he wants.
And you are joking, isnt? What if Bloom... etc,etc. Lets deal with reality: Bloom Canon is a commercial attempt but even if all his mistakes he is far from just shooting stars, he is able to pull out information about all authors and justify watever his claims may be (usually those absolute vallue judgments are just a textual device to introduce the topic about the strengths of a given author). If you think that critics are not falible and not critic ever had a "dan brown is great day", then you are seriously mistaken. And they are not the holy scripture. Authors do talk better than criticis, and there is other critics.
As much as we must praise objectivism, it is impossible. Try the best, but you wont even write about a subject that give us no pleasure. The power of influence of an author is such that he is generating the critical essays too.

[JBI]

Bloom's Western Canon has no real influence on literary criticism. Everything after it too has minimal influence. His anthologies of essays have a little influence, but that isn't his work mostly.

Perhaps his early work on romanticism had a little bit of influence, but nothing particularly substantial. I haven't studied Stevens at length, so don't know about that book, but I assume it is one of many.

Simply put, Bloom wrote the book to make as much money as possible - that was the general consensus even after it was published. Everything since there has been written with the same intention.

Bloom is only a significant critic on the popular front, with people who don't read criticism.

Somebody like Frye almost never ranked works. And though much of his work has since been superseded, he still remains incredibly useful as a critic, and some works still hold fantastic value.

The vast majority of critics earn fame without valuing - in fact, Bloom is rather an exception, though he has switched from literary critic to self-help book writer.

Literary discussion is not about valuing, since value, in a "this book is bad" sense does nothing. The goal is to discuss the text, or the world around the text - Dickens being better than Dostoevsky says nothing of Dickens, or of Dostoevsky, only the person who gave him the rating.

But perhaps this degradation is the way of the future. Soon we will rate books out of 4 stars or whatever like they do cinema. The forum already has a board dedicated to it - though I guess the moderators are of the mind that this forum as well as the subforum should be dominated with such discussion.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I find his characters fascinating. In what way is Nicholas Nickleby tedious? Or Scrooge? Or... well let's leave it there... there a hundred others. I'm a "common reader" and never read for 'professional reasons'. So I don't delve into the way he pulls a sentence together, although sometimes recognising that he has just written another marvellous sentence.

Given the almost universal acclaim that Dickens gets, and has had, from the beginning, from serious critics & readers (and especially given that you are going to teach literature!) I think you should raise heaven and Earth to try and fix this blind spot of yours.

Try reading critics, like Bloom, who concentrate on 'appreciating' Dickens, rather than tedious sentence chopping. Maybe you are too influenced buy Oscar Wilde? Although Oscar talked a lot of sense on a lot of subjects his comments on Dickens could be another example of a great writer getting something thing very wrong (like Tolstoy's attack on Shakespeare.) Dickens was too close to him, and was so much more successful than him, in all circles and on all measures, that it's not surprising his views appear jaundiced.

Try and read his novels with a fresh eye. I gave up on Joyce and Cervantes a decade ago, but tried them again recently, and really enjoyed them. Maybe you could do the same with Dickens? Why not try (at least) a novel a year and see if you can learn to appreciate him?

What will you do if a school child comes into school after Christmas and tried to impress her English teacher by saying she really enjoyed an adaptation of Christmas Carol. "I don't like Dickens"? You are at risk of becoming a Dickensian "character"

I quite enjoyed that post.

It is not that there are particular “blind spots” as far as Dickens is concerned with me; it is not as if I am saying that “Dickens sucks” as Stlukesguild rightly observed, or the fact that I necessarily need to read critically in order to discover Dickens because I am not critically blind as to why Dickens is considered a “good” or even “great” author – all I am saying is that he does little for me personally. I am disciplined enough to be able to read Dickens, or those I have little emotional connection to, and work with that “professionally” if you like, as I would expect that of myself as someone who teaches and is likely to teach further literature in the future. However, it is simply not possible to be able to connect emotively to every single author or body of work out there; it is a somewhat unrealistic expectation to hold over literature or life.

As far as Wilde is concerned, I happen to trust his critical eye over almost any other author/critic on earth. This does not mean though that I am blinded by his genius to the point where I yield my own critical acumen. As proof of this I can certainly accept the weaknesses in Wilde’s early work, particularly his poems and have mentioned this several time probably, so likewise I am not led by Wilde so that I cannot see for myself, even so, I am rarely if ever in dispute with Wilde, we sometimes disagree on very small points, but in the end he is always right.

Your remark that Wilde could have been jealous of Dickens or that he could have been too close to recognise Dickens’s talent is definitely incorrect. Dickens was already a well established literary figure by the time Wilde was in full-flow and there is no chance that Wilde was jaundiced, as you say, in regards to Dickens. Wilde was incredibly well read in all spheres of literature (as well as in history, philosophy, politics and modern science), from antiquity and beyond, as well as being fully immersed on what was going on in contemporary circles. He was very much at the forefront of his society in spotting and promoting contemporary talents from many spheres of literature, even writing early promoting the likes of Balzac and Dostoevsky, the bottom line is that Wilde’s views on Dickens were not coloured by anything other than his outstanding appreciation for art. It is not as if Wilde hated Dickens anyway, I even think that he requested Dickens to some degree in prison, I’ll double check that later...*

Anyway, there is no need to try to encourage me to read Dickens, I already do, and will continue to do so, though aside from enjoying certain descriptive passages or one or two other small pointers, I am unlikely to be a full convert to his work because he only very rarely speaks to me as an author. I’m just not that interested. Maybe in the future his works will speak to me in some way to a greater degree on a personal level, who knows? And as for being a Dickensian character I probably already am?

* Edit: Yes Wilde requested a cheap edition of Dickens's work with the comment "the Library here contains no example of any of Thackeray's or Dickens's novels. I feel sure that a complete set of their works would be as great a boon to many amongst the other prisoners as it would certainly be to myself." Don't take it from this comment that Wilde was particularly that fond of Dickens though as there are plenty of examples showing Wilde's lack of connection to Dickens's work both in style and subject matter - you could take it that Wilde like me (or me him) enjoyed Dickens "at arm's length" as it were...

[JCamilo]

It is not true that the vast majority of critics do their work with valuing, JBI. You may get some theoricists who are too worried with the structure of a work that they will not set any vallues, but the vast majority of critics? (And they are not always so blunt or clumsy, but when Ortega Y Gasset is talking about Dom Quixote, he is praizing the good points of the work, but since he is a very good writer, he does not say out loud: Dom Quixote is the best prose of spain, so that is why i dedicate to this book. You should read it if you ever want to know well spanish literature. But that is what he thinks is right and one of the main effects of his work).
It is pointless maybe, probally just a set point to start a essay or something, but they do. Bloom is not the first (maybe he was not the first about anything anyways) or a rarity.

[janesmith]

You could also ask "What is classic writing?" Author preference is entirely dependent upon personal taste. I consider myself to be fairly well read having studied English Literature to MA level, however I remain open minded regarding suitable reading material. Take my advice and just read whatever you feel like at the time.

[dfloyd]

she doesn't ramble on. She is succinct and to the point. Brevity is next to Godliness. Maybe all posts should be limited to 250 words or less.