New Author V.S Author SHowdown: Proust VS Joyce VS Faulkner

[mortalterror]

Truth be told, he doesn't work to well in English, as Ci form doesn't translate as well as Shi form in my opinion, and there are various translations from what I can gather, of various worth (I hear the new one put out by Berkley isn't bad, but I read him in Chinese), but even so, my argument is not to put Mao forward, but to question the ridiculousness of the assertion that Joyce is the world's best artist of the 20th century, it is an absurd argument, so I use another absurd argument to display its absurdity.

Here are the poems I was basing my opinion on. http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...oems/index.htm To be fair, it rankles my sense of justice that Winston Churchill won the Nobel prize in literature too. Political leaders have all the money, all the power, and all the fame in the world but they still feel the need to poach an artist's laurels?

Now, as for Mao, he isn't Du Fu, but then again, Du Fu is one of the best lyric poets of all time, Joyce isn't Shakespeare, or Spenser (who he is perhaps the most closely similar too I would argue), nor is Proust a German philosopher, or Faulkner the Bible - such a comparison only works to an extent.

How do you see Joyce comparing to Spenser?

Wouldn't matter anyway though, Western historiography and political practice has a lot to answer for in their projection of Mao, as his greatest Chinese predecessors, Han Wu Di, Qin Shihuang, Genghis Kahn, and others have been traditionally looked favorably upon by western historians, as have been Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, and even Xerxes after the classical era (from a reading of the book of Esther).

From what I understand of history, both Mao and Genghis Kahn were actually worse than Hitler. You can probably lay 60-80 Million bodies at Mao's door. Half that from The Great Leap Forward and the rest from The Cultural Revolution, wars, famines, and purges. As for Kahn, his invasion of China cut the population in half and his invasion of Iran cut it's population to a quarter of what it was. Considering his tactics, I would be surprised if he didn't have a bodycount comparable with Hitler's.

[Jeremydav]

Whether Mao was really responsible for those deaths is arguable anyway, though I don't want to get into politics in a thread like this. Either way, he was probably speaking of Hitler's terrible prose rather than his terrible deeds.

[JBI]

I do not know, the Faerie Queene to me feels a lot like Ulysses, the way it absorbs the culture before and around it and dishes it out in episodes seems to me quite similar. Likewise, structurally they seem to have some congruency, with their various books or episodes swinging around structural themes. They aren't directly related, but I see them as sort of holding a similar place in their respective time periods.

[JBI]

Here are the poems I was basing my opinion on. http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...oems/index.htm To be fair, it rankles my sense of justice that Winston Churchill won the Nobel prize in literature too. Political leaders have all the money, all the power, and all the fame in the world but they still feel the need to poach an artist's laurels?




How do you see Joyce comparing to Spenser?




From what I understand of history, both Mao and Genghis Kahn were actually worse than Hitler. You can probably lay 60-80 Million bodies at Mao's door. Half that from The Great Leap Forward and the rest from The Cultural Revolution, wars, famines, and purges. As for Kahn, his invasion of China cut the population in half and his invasion of Iran cut it's population to a quarter of what it was. Considering his tactics, I would be surprised if he didn't have a bodycount comparable with Hitler's.

That is an oversimplification of Mao - truth is, he himself didn't intend for people to die - his regime tried to cause a shift, as for the numbers, conservative estimates seem a little bit lower, but even so, it was akin to a rapid transition gone wrong, not because of a brutalizing regime, but because of perhaps incompetence. Of course, most of these people died during the time of a natural disaster anyway, so we must also factor that into the picture, as we do not blame western leaders for the Spanish flu, for instance. The actual deaths in relation to pogroms or political targeting are rather insignificant in the scheme of the fact that under his reign the population of China more than doubled, and the life expectancy doubled - we aren't, for instance, blaming Indian heads of state for the millions and millions have people who have died from lack of proper nutrition or health care, despite the fact that we blame Mao. Compare that to someone like the Western Backed Chang Kai Shek who starved to death more than two million child soldiers, and drowned a couple million more, and we see it is highly a fair treatment - simply put, the population of China is big, the numbers are big.

Even so though, the bulk of his poetic output was done before he even became a head of State, and is completely divorced from his politics. His major philosophical works were also written before he assumed power. (I see no reason why we cannot look favorably upon them, even if we take your opinion as Mao as devil.


As for Genghis Kahn, there is no doubt he slaughtered millions. In China itself there is a mixed historical opinion, with his dynasty regarded as solidifying a faltering Song dynasty, but contrasted with his massacres (something which the Han Chinese Ming dynasty, and the Jurchen Qing dynasty also would do).

Even so though, his role in creating basically the spread of culture from Europe to the Korea has historically been viewed favorably by Western historiographers. It has been a common practice to dismiss his death toll as "a part of the clash of civilizations" and a common practice of the times, rather than as an act of barbarism. Simply put, Ghenghis Kahn is the the past 750 or so years - he is the catalyst of what we call culture distinctions today, for better or for worse. Nationhood, culture, progress, technology, communications, all fall from his influence. That is how he has traditionally been viewed in Western thought, as a great spreader and connector of civilizations, whereas in contrast, he is quite easily seen, and is generally seen by middle-Eastern and Persian people as a great murderous Barbarian.


That isn't relevant though, the question is about the hypocrisy of historiography, and either way, my argument was just to illustrate the stupidity of claims of "Joyce is the best artist of the 20th century." or "he had the most lasting impact."

[Lord Macbeth]

First--happy to see someone took my original Author Showdown idea and kept it going!

Although this poll I must admit I'm not as well equipped as I usually am, as I not only am not too familiarn with Proust or Joyce, I'm also no great fan of Faulkner's.

I voted for him because he DOES have some beautiful imagery in his works and...I'm not too familiar with the other two.



By the way, did we abandon the idea of having a West/Midwest/Northeast/South showdown for US authors? I thought that'd be a fun idea, take three or four from each region and stack them up against each other as a "team" and see which "team" comes out on top?

[B. Laumness]

Those who have not a good knowledge of these three authors shouldn’t vote… I have read only two Faulkner’s novels, so I won’t vote. But my vote wouldn’t go to Joyce and his mastery of shallow techniques.

[Alexander III]

"By the way, did we abandon the idea of having a West/Midwest/Northeast/South showdown for US authors? I thought that'd be a fun idea, take three or four from each region and stack them up against each other as a "team" and see which "team" comes out on top?"

Honestly I dont see this working for everyone outside the U.S.A, It would be akin to me creating a pole of North Vs Center VS south of italy literature. AMongst Italians we would have a great debate. AMongst europeans some sort of debate could be roused. Amongst americans there would be little to no debate.

[mortalterror]

That is an oversimplification of Mao - truth is, he himself didn't intend for people to die - his regime tried to cause a shift, as for the numbers, conservative estimates seem a little bit lower, but even so, it was akin to a rapid transition gone wrong, not because of a brutalizing regime, but because of perhaps incompetence.

You're arguing the difference between manslaughter and homicide there. At the end of the day, 43 million people died during the Great Famine. It was a manufactured, ie man-made preventable event directly caused by Mao's policies. And there was a lot of brutalization going on. At least 2.5 million people were violently killed under government orders during just the three years of the famine.

Of course, most of these people died during the time of a natural disaster anyway, so we must also factor that into the picture, as we do not blame western leaders for the Spanish flu, for instance.

There was a drought, and a flood, which contributed to the devastation but the famine was man made. I don't think anyone disputes that anymore.

The actual deaths in relation to pogroms or political targeting are rather insignificant in the scheme of the fact that under his reign the population of China more than doubled, and the life expectancy doubled - we aren't, for instance, blaming Indian heads of state for the millions and millions have people who have died from lack of proper nutrition or health care, despite the fact that we blame Mao.

Are you seriously making the argument that more people survived his brutal reign of terror than didn't so how bad could he have been? What exactly are you saying here "There's so many Chinese that a couple dozen million either way... I mean it's not like he killed all of them!"? More people died than in World War I or the Holocaust. Meanwhile, Mao kept exporting grain. And that's just three years of his rule.

When the farmers could not meet their production quotas in 1959, the local government declared that the farmers were hiding their harvests and denounced the citizenry as enemies of the people. Military patrols were sent to locate these hidden caches of grain. The soldiers beat families who failed to cough up the food they were assumed to have hidden.

When winter arrived, the peasants had nothing to eat but tree bark and grass. The officials saw to it that the families' cooking pots were smashed, to prevent them from cooking grass soup. As an incentive to finally release their hidden stores of food, thousands of peasants were tortured and murdered by the local government. Military forces patrolled train stations and roads to block escape.

The people had nothing to eat. They filled their stomachs with whatever they could find: leaves, weeds, leather, straw, feathers, dirt. When they had run out of everything, absolutely everything, they finally resorted to cannibalism.

For more information on Mao check out the rest of this article here: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/mao/

As for Genghis Kahn, there is no doubt he slaughtered millions.

It has been a common practice to dismiss his death toll as "a part of the clash of civilizations" and a common practice of the times, rather than as an act of barbarism. Simply put, Ghenghis Kahn is the the past 750 or so years - he is the catalyst of what we call culture distinctions today, for better or for worse. Nationhood, culture, progress, technology, communications, all fall from his influence. That is how he has traditionally been viewed in Western thought, as a great spreader and connector of civilizations, whereas in contrast, he is quite easily seen, and is generally seen by middle-Eastern and Persian people as a great murderous Barbarian.

We must not be reading the same histories. What I've heard about him involves wholesale massacring of entire cities, rape, slavery, pillaging, skull pyramids, sacks full of ears, unslakable bloodlust. He'd take the people he captured in one city, march them to the next, kill them and throw their bodies into the moats to create a bridge of the dead for his warriors to storm the city walls.

Ninety cities were stormed, or starved, by the Moguls; ten only escaped; and Zingis, from a knowledge of the filial piety of the Chinese, covered his vanguard with their captive parents; an unworthy, and by degrees a fruitless, abuse of the virtue of his enemies.- Edward Gibbon

That isn't relevant though, the question is about the hypocrisy of historiography, and either way, my argument was just to illustrate the stupidity of claims of "Joyce is the best artist of the 20th century." or "he had the most lasting impact."

Fair enough. You carry that point.

[Drkshadow03]

I find your statement rather absurd, everything can be compared and I see no reason why various authors should not be compared. Should we not compare Keats and Pound because they are from two diverse movements ? Should we not compare Homer and Tasso because they lived in different epochs? Should we not compare Shakespeare and Dante because one wrote play's and one wrote epic's and lyrical poetry? The notion that certain authors should not be compared is ridiculous.

I wrote "which is better" because this is a light hearted discussion which looks upon the authors as a whole instead of dissecting them down, and besides everyone here knows what was and what was not implied by "better"

No one was yelling out "he is better, he is better!" everyone merely presents their case and when it is questioned they try to answer the questioner, I hardly believe the members of he forum need to be held by the hand.

Surely JBI, even you all-knowing and all-wise must have a favorite or certain partiality amongst the three ?

Yes, I have to agree with JBI. The better than game is a waste of time. Who cares if Shakespeare is better than Faulkner? Joyce better than Proust? Whatever. They all have value.

[JCamilo]

Well, lets give some help to the thread originator and use this just as an excuse to talk about those 3 or however come up. Nobody needs to assert absolutes as Ulysses undoubted center of the western cannon in the XX century (which is easy to refute, so absolute as it is).

[Alexander III]

Yes, I have to agree with JBI. The better than game is a waste of time. Who cares if Shakespeare is better than Faulkner? Joyce better than Proust? Whatever. They all have value.

I probably should have worded the OP better, I was naive to assume that the people on this forum would realize that this thread was merely a thread to compare and discuss the three aforementioned authors. I didn't expect anyone would actually come on and go XXX is the absolute best, end of discussion. Ohh optimism how cruel you are !

[Jeremydav]

@MortalTerror Yes the famine was manmade, but it was because of poor management by officials below Mao. The extent to which Mao knew of the famine is disputed, and sources for both sides of the coin are unreliable at best. Either way, Mao's cultural revolution after the Great Leap Forward (which was a failure) made China the economic giant that surpassed the US and still surpasses it.

[JCamilo]

Well, most people in all internet forums have no idea that comparing may include saying what is alike and also what is different. They go to lengths telling even that someone is better, but end saying they cannt compare such two different things. And it is not here, but a mere reflex of this "democratic" philosophy that there cannot be status or something that is inherent better. This is false. The problem about those 3 is that they are too similar in their intents, techniques and even arrogance (to satisfy Mortal). Faulkner gothic may have nothing to do with the giblenglish of Joyce, but that is like saying a black dog is not similar to a white dog. And their quality and influence (considering all had a strong impact, which still strong, since time wasnt enough o erase them and really see which one has power to return) is much similar. So, saying which one is better ends even more futile. There is no how to assert this.
Would be quite different if it was something like Joyce or Anatole France.

[JBI]

@MortalTerror Yes the famine was manmade, but it was because of poor management by officials below Mao. The extent to which Mao knew of the famine is disputed, and sources for both sides of the coin are unreliable at best. Either way, Mao's cultural revolution after the Great Leap Forward (which was a failure) made China the economic giant that surpassed the US and still surpasses it.

Not quite surpassed the US, and I take a rather different cut at history - the failure of the revolution was that the need for it was there - the communist party was corrupt to the core, and Mao knew that. In the end, he didn't do a good enough job, because the internal frustration of the country solidified and destroyed his idea of a revolution of culture and politics - Deng Xiaoping et al put forward their reform, and now I see university graduates here with an average income of 2000renminbi a month walking the streets, and party member's kids driving sports cars and paying half a dozen women a few thousand renminbi each to come to night clubs with them as their entourage (then to I guess go home and sleep with them).

The whole idea of some must get rich first makes sense, except when you realize the poor seem poor and the rich are so rich it is stupid. The corruption is so apparent here that people do not even point it out anymore.

[Jeremydav]

Considering that China basically owns the US in debt we owe, I'd say China has surpassed us.