# Reading > General Literature >  who is the most overrated writer ever?

## mister_noel_y2k

this is a thread for all the writers that we've been told are great and are in the classics range and constantly appear on 100greatestnovels lists and such like but we hate. 

i say jack kerouac is the most overrated

die! on the road 

 :Banana:

----------


## Nightshade

okay not an autor but
Wilfred Owen
I hate that mans poetry I really really reallly do!
And I had a 3 and a half hour Literature exam yesterday on unseen texts from WWI and guess who was on it!!

----------


## ~K~

Kerouac and Steve Allen did a music to reading. 
Quite witty and humorous. 
Kerourac is meant to be read aloud. 
I like it. 
I am not familar with Owens.
I cannot think of anyone who is overrated, trends are trends and classics are classics.

----------


## Jack_Aubrey

J.K. Rowling anyone?

----------


## wanderlust_ox

> J.K. Rowling anyone?


I haven't read any Harry Potter books, because I try to avoid it. So I can't really say that she is the most overrated. Maybe the books are actually good and I'm missing out? But I just don't see why everyone is so obsessed over it!

----------


## amuse

ah, then read the first one! i felt the same - refused to read them/be part of the crowd. and then found out i liked them! though the 5th is rather dark. forget if there are 5 or 6 now, so if there's a 6th haven't read it, but the first few are just  :Smile:   :Smile: .

----------


## Jack_Aubrey

I read the first one when I was in 5th grade, and decided that I didn't have much interest in Harry's adventures. And also, my teacher at the time told me that I could do better.  :Smile:  Aren't complements great?

----------


## Mark F.

I tried reading one and just couldn't cope with her writing, it's so poor. Aparantly she gets better over the years. I still felt like I was reading a Mister Men book.

----------


## Mark F.

Oh, and too many people think that Dan Brown is a good writer.

----------


## Koa

> I haven't read any Harry Potter books, because I try to avoid it. So I can't really say that she is the most overrated. Maybe the books are actually good and I'm missing out? But I just don't see why everyone is so obsessed over it!



exactly my though! i cant persuade myself to do something that is fashionable to do...like that da vinci thing...the more it gets famous, the less it attracts me...

i agree on kerouac... and i really cant understand shakespeare but apparently that's my problem...

----------


## amuse

"and mine!" az added.

----------


## PeterL

Thomas Hardy is over rated. On the other hand, J. K. Rowling is a very good writer. I had been hearing about Harry Potter for a few years, so I picked a copy of the first one; it was excellent. The writing was very good; characterization and plot were nicely done, and the theme is clear and worthwhille.

Kerouac's writing was variable. I don't like On the Road, but the Dharma Bums was very good. Some of his other writing was decent.

Steinbeck is also overated. He was a good writer, but not great. I would almost say the same of Hemingway, but he wrote a few great books.

----------


## mono

What a painful thread to read! I realize, however, different people certainly have different tastes . . . sometimes very different tastes.
I certainly agree with J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown, but also I would like to add James Redfield, Dr. Phil, Gore Vidal, and Billy Collins.  :Tongue:

----------


## Scheherazade

I have read only _On The Road_ by Kerouac; I did not enjoy the book (to say the least) and I still don't understand why it is considered a great read even though some of my more learned friends here tried to explain it to me very patiently on more than one occasion. However, I think Kerouac has a good style, which is what kept me reading.

I can say that the same thing for J.K. Rowling... I have read all the Potter books and even though I don't think that she is very creative with her ideas etc, I believe she is a good story teller and produces good page-turners... And I am glad that her books made many youngsters start reading.

As some of you might be expecting (*grins at Mono and Jay*) my suggestion is Virginia Woolf... I have read two of her books and left with the same feeling of 'and...?' and I didn't care much for her style either... I can also say the same things for Jeanette Winterson maybe but I have read only one book of hers.

----------


## Nightshade

ha I'd Forgotten about shakespear then theres Margret Attwood- Shudders at mmomry of HAndmaid's Tale. J K Rowling Well I have read all them so far and will read the next 2 though I think 5 was awful and 6 will probably be worse number 1 was Ok But I m just waiting to see her kill Harry  :Brow:

----------


## Rachy

I think J. K. Rowling is a good author, but all her stories are the same, and as Harry Potter has become more popular, she's had to change the style to fit both adult and child, but she should remember ultimately that these books started out for children, and so they would be disturbed by the 5th book. This might just be me, but I personally saw MAJOR similarities between her books and the Lord of the Rings trilogys, and I was not happy! But yes, the Harry Potter books are good, just very predictible!!

----------


## Lonely Soul

Around the time the first Harry Potter book was published I can remeber telling my teacher that I didn't care for it, and to this day I remeber as if it was yesterday the way she looked back at me in utter disbelief. Whilst I admit that at the time I must have been in the minority I am unable to acertain for what reason she looked so horrifeid at my expression of literary preferance.

----------


## amuse

Annie Dillard. hated her short stories. *retches.

----------


## Koa

> As some of you might be expecting (*grins at Mono and Jay*) my suggestion is Virginia Woolf... I have read two of her books and left with the same feeling of 'and...?' and I didn't care much for her style either...


Good point. I really disliked her books I read... but then I can say the same of all post-modernist stuff, it just doesn't suit me.
(which kinda reminds me that I have big problems with Joyce too...I prefer writers who use grammar  :Wink: ... and I didnt even got much out of Dubliners...)

----------


## Fango

> exactly my though! i cant persuade myself to do something that is fashionable to do...like that da vinci thing...the more it gets famous, the less it attracts me...


I feel the same way. I never go for the renowned books. There's something magical about enjoying an unheard-of book... it's like you discover it... it becomes your other world that no one else knows about but you, and that you can jump into any time you want. Anyone else feels that way? maybe it's just me...

----------


## Koa

Eheh for me it's just a question of things that are cool at the moment... I read a lot of classics, so they are really famous and renowned... But if something it's popular at the moment it loses all its charm to me...

----------


## Pip

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.

----------


## Jack_Aubrey

It's not cliche if you're the first to do it.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

first to do what? and give an example.


 :Banana:

----------


## Fango

Being very demanding nowadays aren't we? I'm not posting to stand up for the innovation of _The Catcher in the Rye_, but I enjoyed it. And 0I don't think anyone written before a story about the way a problematic cynical teenager sees the world in such an interesting way.

----------


## sKorpia

I think a big part of Rowling's appeal is the fact that she's given us a new fantasy world to play in with the vocabulary to boot. It's been a long time in children/adolescent literature since there's been one of those created. I also am glad that the issues she brings up follow the same trajectory that she has for Harry's development from an innocent through adolescence to maturity. I'd have been very disappointed if the 16-year-old Harry stayed within the confines of the 11-year-old Harry's mentalities. It becomes problematic and you can see a lot of this with many of the current run superhero comics.

I enjoyed Salinger's _Catcher_ but I completely didn't get _Nine Stories_. I'd have to re-read both of them to find out how I feel because whatever I thought about the books I read while in high school is now worthless. How can anybody know anything during those years that would help you get the literature that they teach?

Dan Brown's fun to read, but not particularly deep.

----------


## Jack_Aubrey

> first to do what? and give an example.


She said his writing was cliche, and I said "not if you do it first." In my opinion Salinger's matter-of-fact writing style and nonchalant narration were revolutionary in the literary world. Salinger is up front with what he's saying through out most of the novel. I don't think I need to give an example if you've read the book. But knowing you, you probably didn't understand it and have sworn a vendetta against it.

----------


## Capnplank

I wasn't overly impressed with Catcher in the Rye when I first read it, though I still enjoyed it and find a great many things to think about in there. But what really bowled me over were Nine Stories and Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenter and Seymour: An Introduction.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

She said his writing was cliche, and I said "not if you do it first." In my opinion Salinger's matter-of-fact writing style and nonchalant narration were revolutionary in the literary world. Salinger is up front with what he's saying through out most of the novel. I don't think I need to give an example if you've read the book. But knowing you, you probably didn't understand it and have sworn a vendetta against it.

ah jack, so eager to take anything anyone says as a personal insult.  :FRlol:  
i dont think salinger's "matter of fact writing style" is particularly original but then thats not a very good answer. hemingway wrote in a similar matter of fact way as did theodore dreiser (though dreiser is a dreadful writer in my opinion). as for nonchalant narration...well, by that do you mean holden caulfield is a apathetic narrator? or that the narration isn't particularly detailed and quite breezy? i think if you mean the former then perhaps you could read "the great gatsby" as nonchalant narration as nick carraway ignores many of the realities of his story in favour of a more romantic view of his experiences. or perhaps the character of mr stevens in "the remains of the day" could be seen as another such nonchalant narrator. but then ishiguro wrote that in the late 80s and so couldn't be said to be original, but fitzgerald on the other hand was writing in the 20s so perhaps he could be seen as an earlier influence to salinger, after all salinger did admire fitzgerald and hemingway's style as well as their short story techniques hence his desire to be the next great american short story writer before he wrote "catcher". as personal vendettas go, i don't really go after books unless they really tick me off like the ridiculous naked lunch but that arguments still raging in another thread. personally, holden is a brilliant character and salinger's first and only novel is one of my all time favourites. calm down jacky boy.  :Biggrin:

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

and as for you saying that "i didn't understand the book" well jack m'lad let me tell you that you didn't understand naked lunch either. you just repeated what i had said in an earlier thread and then said something banal about how "uh it makes you understand the mind of a heroin addict". well la de dah. i don't think your 16 year old mind understands the book or "the catcher in the rye" either, but then if i stand by my position that naked lunch as unreadable pap then theres really nothing to understand about it. check mate! 

 :Banana:

----------


## Jack_Aubrey

Yeah, I'm 16 which according to you means I don't know ****. Well I'd rather stay 16 and not know anything and be sure about that, than be an anal old fart like you and pretend I know everything.

----------


## Scheherazade

Please avoid turning literary disagreements into personal conflicts and attacks. Such incidents cause unpleasant atmosphere not only for you but for all the other users visiting the Forum.

----------


## glitterandtwang

I'd have to agree that Virginia Woolf is especially overrated. I do think that, more recently, Chuck Palahniuk is given much more credit than he's due.

----------


## mono

> As some of you might be expecting (*grins at Mono and Jay*) my suggestion is Virginia Woolf... I have read two of her books and left with the same feeling of 'and...?' and I didn't care much for her style either... I can also say the same things for Jeanette Winterson maybe but I have read only one book of hers.


Eh, no offense taken, Scher. Virginia Woolf seems someone either greatly admired or greatly not-so-admired, which I can see both sides of the debate, but cannot deny her. Jeannette Winterson, yes, I know, can seem a little dry and . . . in a way, cliché. I love both of the writers, their brilliant minds, but see others' complaints.
That writers like J.D. Salinger and Ernest Hemingway made the list does not surprise me in the least; they, too, seem absolutely a blessing to the bookshelf to me, but I clearly perceive what others can dislike about them. I know, especially Salinger's _Nine Stories_, reads with much difficulty, but I cannot insult its pure uniquity.
Chuck Palahniuk also appeared with no surprise. Coming from the city that, I believe, he still teaches in, hearing always of his book reviews and raves, and even spotting him on the street now and then, I get a little tired of it. I adore his novels, their undeniably dark factor, but cannot quite connect to his short stories.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

i like some of palahniuk's stuff like fight club, survivor and choke which were very imaginative and interesting but lately hes been writing pretty awful stuff though i hear his latest novel "haunted" is set to be a good one so i hope its a return to form for one of todays most original and interesting writers around. 

(ps jack im not old, just older, ill be 21 on the 27 of june)

 :Banana:

----------


## EAP

Rowling is great, certainly not over-rated in my opinion. 

Of the names listed so far I agree with Virginia Wolfe. 

*Yawn* 

My choices would be Shakespeare and Dostovesky.

----------


## Jack_Aubrey

Well. I guess I gotta respect someone with a controversial opinion.

----------


## glitterandtwang

> i like some of palahniuk's stuff like fight club, survivor and choke which were very imaginative and interesting but lately hes been writing pretty awful stuff though i hear his latest novel "haunted" is set to be a good one so i hope its a return to form for one of todays most original and interesting writers around.


I loved Fight Club and Survivor, but apart from those two I don't find much of his writing particularly innovative anymore. I tracked down "Guts" online out of curiosity  I believe it's in Haunted, but please correct me if I'm mistaken  and I wasn't even mildly impressed. It seemed written more for shock value than any other purpose. Though I think his writing style was innovative and original when he started out, it's quickly growing tired. I keep waiting for him to do something that snags my interest and seems to be something more than a repetition of all his other work. I can't help but wonder if the man is drowning in his success...

----------


## Jabberwocky

I found Earnest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald to be overrated. I had heard a lot of good things about _The Great Gatsby_ by Fitzgerald, but it failed to live up, and I wasn't overly fond of his writing style. _The Old Man and the Sea_ by Hemingway was just plain dull.

----------


## Beaumains

Though it looks like I'm in the minority, I actually enjoy Joyce, Woolfe, and Hemingway, but anyway...I would nominate Stephen King for this position. Now before any of his fans attack me (physically or verbally), allow me to explain: I've read several of his novels and I simply failed to find the characters interesting and the plots to be drawn out entirely too long. _The Dark Tower_ for instance. I will admit that several of his short stories are worthy of merit though.

----------


## helsinki angel

I am wondering if a lot of people that list Salinger, Fitzgerald, Hemmingway, Woolf (the list goes on... some of the most influential authors of modern writing) read these authors for school. I found I didn't appreciate these writers until I re-read them independantly a few years after school...

----------


## chmpman

I completely agree with the Stephen King nomination. I've read several of his books (admittedly not much of his early writings besides The Shining) and agree the characters and writing are quite dull. The movie version of the Shining is one of those few that beat out the books - this one by a long shot. (Now go ahead and attack this nom. Stephen King fans)

----------


## mono

With Stephen King, I can really perceive what his very devoted readers enjoy in his literature, but I could also never call myself a fan, with the exception of _The Shining_ and _The Green Mile_ (also decent movies).
In these two novels, I feel he put much more thought and pre-meditation, while many of the others I have read consist of mere gore.
Other contemporary writers I happened to forget to list, for unknown reasons, and who I oddly associate with Stephen King: Dean Koontz and John Grisham - any writer who has the mysterious ability to produce so many novels in such little time cannot contribute as much effort as Leo Tolstoy, for example, who wrote few, but qualitative, novels.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

i think with king it's kind of hit and miss- i've read and loved the shining, misery, the green mile, different seasons (with the shawshank redemption), black house, and on writing but i've also read It, pet sematery, carrie, and salem's lot and disliked those. i'm now reading the dark tower series and like that despite the first one being very shaky both in story and writing. so all in all, i think king is a good writer but his penchant for putting out so many books all the time sometimes makes for bad writing and sometimes for good. 
ditto elmore leonard.

 :Banana:

----------


## shortysweetp

i like king but i cant read king after reading a good classic novel.

----------


## bestseller

Michael Moore is over rated. He is "Chomsky for children". Chomsky, that's one hell of an underrated writer. "Dettering Democracy" will knock you on your ***. That's a good read with excellent research (from an MIT professor of linguistics) that not only paints a realistic, unbiased view of politics, economics, and society in general, but it reads fluently with a varied higher vocabulary. It's all too rare. Michael Moore is comparatively a hack.

----------


## scruffy_danny

I hate to be all predictable or wotnot but (I havn't read the whole thread) but I really do have to say that the Harry Potter books aren't very good. I think Rowling is the most over rated author ever. I really do. 
Ok, maybe her books are good, though each one incredibly similar to the other, but that is no excuse to the amount of sales she's had; it's simply ridiculous. It's a hyped up thing like many other things: pogs, marbles, football stickers, Sunny Delight, and now Harry Potter. 
Rowling is ok I guess, I'l give you that, but she deserves less. 

(the moody cow)...

----------


## bestseller

The authors of TV guide, of course. Fragmented sentences galore, and way too many numbers...is this a bad read, or what?

----------


## scruffy_danny

I think Homer Simpson would beg to differ... *chuckle*

----------


## Bix12

I didn't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if she was mention'd....but, Ayn Rand get's my vote, hands down. A major snooze-fest, and her "philosophy" sucks...imo.

 :As Sleep: 

One writer that I wasn't surprised to find mention'd a few times as being overrated was "Papa" Hemingway. I can understand why people might tend to think that of him. It's ironic, because the very thing about him that might cause folks to say he's overrated is actually, imo, the very thing wherein lies his genius. I'm refering to his compact sentence structure and sparse use of descriptors. Granted, he wasn't at all wordy, but he didn't need to be...he could say more, and with more precision, in a few short sentences than most other writers could only try, (and fail), to say in 2 full pages.

J.K. Rowling? At the insistance of others, I've tried _twice_ now to read her, and both times I felt as if I were reading a book written for 10 year olds. Hmmmm....I wonder why that was?

----------


## Sirius_Kai

I think that I would have to say...I know this will possibly get me slaughtered...Faulkner. His stories are great, but IMHO, you have to be a wonderful writer to get the most out of it. Of course, that was probably what he was going for, but for general purposes...no. (In other words, I think far more people _claim_ to enjoy his writing than actually do.)

----------


## ArcherSnake

I see some of you mentioned Kerouac. I think he and his contemporaries are just horrible, and extremely overrated. I had to read On The Road for my sophomore English class; the teacher chose this over Hemingway's A Moveable Feast because she thought we would identify with Kerouac's "rebellious, nonconformist nature" (which was, I must say, very overdue for a legally adult young man). Not only did I find it inappropriate (there was some sex and alot of drug use in there), but it didn't really seem to have a point to it. I didn't get anything out of it, and neither did the rest of the class.

----------


## amuse

i've never liked Faulkner (and probably never will).

----------


## RococoLocket

Charles Dickens is overrated, he bores the hell outta me. 

I just had to study Wordworths *twitch* Prelude for my Eng Lit A-Level, and it was torture! It came across to me as arrogant; No wonder Coleridge overdosed & died so soon after 'Wild Willy' [as my English teacher loves to call him] wrote a 12 book poem all about himself for his bestest friend. Wordsworth = Overrated.

Usually, the more I study a book/poetry etc, the more I begin to like it, so when it all goes the opposite way, that's when I know it's _awful_.

----------


## baddad

> One writer that I wasn't surprised to find mention'd a few times as being overrated was "Papa" Hemingway. I can understand why people might tend to think that of him. It's ironic, because the very thing about him that might cause folks to say he's overrated is actually, imo, the very thing wherein lies his genius. I'm refering to his compact sentence structure and sparse use of descriptors. Granted, he wasn't at all wordy, but he didn't need to be...he could say more, and with more precision, in a few short sentences than most other writers could only try, (and fail), to say in 2 full pages.
> 
> [/FONT]


 "Hear, Hear", from a Papa Hemingway fan.............Hemingway was all about 'simple'. Deep complexity revealed with simple words, simple sentences. Hemingway.

----------


## Basil

Over at Oprah's Book Club, they're celebrating "A Summer of Faulkner."

----------


## Sitaram

> I didn't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if she was mention'd....but, Ayn Rand get's my vote, hands down. A major snooze-fest, and her "philosophy" sucks...imo.


Aha, now I know the secret to your Font of Garamond and COLOR equals yellow! (Nice, that one poem of yours, Bix, I must look more closely)

I always felt like I should read Ayn Rand, but I could never bring myself to actually begin. Just now, I became curious about the origin of the title "Atlas Shrugged" and google lead me to a very informative link:

http://www.eckerd.edu/aspec/writers/atlas_shrugged.htm





> The overarching story is that the men of the mind, who like Atlas, 
> carry the world on their shoulders, gradually get fed up with being 
> exploited, and abused, and given no respect. They retire from the 
> world, shrugging the burden, in effect. Rands working title was On 
> Strike. Her husbands suggestion that the title be changed to Atlas 
> Shrugged was a valuable contribution. (It reminds me of another great 
> title change, when Viktor Frankls book From Death Camp to 
> Existentialism was re-named Mans Search for Meaning.)





> "My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
> Reality exists as an objective absolute  facts are facts, independent 
> of mans feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears.
> 
> Reason is mans only means of perceiving reality, his only source of 
> knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
> Man  every man  is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of 
> others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to 
> others, nor sacrificing others to himself. My need does not give me an 
> ...






> Rand makes much of the sign of the dollar, and another bit of hokum 
> occurs in the ending, when John Galt traces the sign of the dollar in 
> the air as he tells the strikers it is time to go back to the world. Even I 
> choke on that. She took the dollar-sign symbol, always drawn on 
> capitalist pigs in cartoons, and turned conventional wisdom upside 
> down, to make a point. She always wore a large gold dollar-sign pin on 
> her dress. At her funeral, a six-foot floral dollar-sign was placed by the 
> casket.



Such links, and tidbits help me to develop a deeper understanding of and appreciation for certain books and authors.

For now, I have my hands full with Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow". Ms. Rand will have to wait her turn.

Speaking of Faulkner, I am mesmerized by the opening pages of "As I Lay Dying", with Jewel and that horse poised for an instant in "furious hiatus".

I suppose if we like intricate, gothic, ornate convolutions of Byzantine complexity, then we are doomed to dislike barebones, powerful simplicity, elegantly hewn by Occam's razor and distilled to the most elemental form.
And, conversely, if we love the simple, we shall not love complex.


There is no accounting for personal tastes or for contemporary popularity or historical endurance. Thornton Wilder seems to have been quite fond of Gertrude Stein, but Hemingway appears to have disliked her intensely.

I am sure there are those who consider Gertrude Stein to be overrated.

It might prove very interesting to study works which were best-sellers but fell into obscurity, such as "Anthony Adverse" of the 1930's, and compare them with works which were unsuccessful in their time, but were then "rediscovered" long after the author's death.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I suppose if we like intricate, gothic, ornate convolutions of Byzantine complexity, then we are doomed to dislike barebones, powerful simplicity, elegantly hewn by Occam's razor and distilled to the most elemental form.
> And, conversely, if we love the simple, we shall not love complex.


OK, Sitaram, keep your hands where we can see them and slowly walk away from that Thesaurus!!! 



 :Wink:

----------


## Sitaram

But, look how cute I was in that paragraph,.... the FORM of the sentences imitated the meaning which I attempted to convey. The first sentence, which is elaborate and ornate, speaks of those who prefer complexity. The second sentence is much simpler by comparison.

Mallarme describes one of Pascal's Pensees as a "perfect poem" precisely because its very sentence structure emulates the idea which it conveys:

"Le silence eternelle et des espaces infinite, m'frai" (from my poor old memory, pardon any errors..... "The eternal silence and the infinity of space, frighten me" ... but the ME of the sentence is OUTSIDE of an alienated from the two infinities, which are perfectly balanced and juxtaposed by the "AND".

Though, it may be Paul Valery and not Mallarme. I read the essay 40 years ago. Hard to remember.

In all honesty, when I write, I never use a thesaurus. I just write what pops into my head. Of course, once it pops in my head, I place it in the fire of the forge until it glows, and then pound it on the anvil for a bit with a very large hammer and my sinewy "arms like iron bands", like any respectable village smithy under a spreading chestnut tree.

My big problem is spelling. I paste what I write into MS Word, and look for spelling errors. Then, I use this forum's wonderful edit feature to correct. When I was a teenager, and wanted to read the poetry of Wallace Stevens, I had to have a large dictionary to look up so many words. But now, as I read Gravity's Rainbow, I am amazed that I don't have to look up any words, and I am personally familiar with many of the things he mentions in culture and history (I actually had a Plasticman comic in the 1950s). I believe that whatever we write should well up naturally, from within, and be a genuine expression of what we are and who we are, and not some synthesis or caricacture of what we would like to be.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

i've a new literary writer i dislike- henry james. BOO!


 :Banana:

----------


## Scheherazade

> i've a new literary writer i dislike- henry james. BOO!


That's interesting!

I read James' _Daisy Miller_ at university and loved every bit of it; characters, description and since then, I have always wanted to read his books but never had the chance. Because of that one book I read, I actually consider James one of the writers I like! Maybe I should read his other books and see how I feel about his style now.

----------


## dejosc

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

----------


## Sitaram

> That's interesting!
> 
> I read James' _Daisy Miller_ at university and loved every bit of it; characters, description and since then, I have always wanted to read his books but never had the chance. Because of that one book I read, I actually consider James one of the writers I like! Maybe I should read his other books and see how I feel about his style now.



It is my understanding that he wrote some essays on theory of the novel, interpretation. I have looked around for those. I would like to read them. By the way, his brother, William James, was one of the last famous psychologists prior to Sigmund Freud; one of the last pre-Freudians.

It became fashionable for literature majors to say that Henry was the better psychologist and William was the better writer, but such observations are sometimes more clever than accurate.

http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopki...nry_james.html




> The critical act, for James, must first of all be a disinterested and dignified search for "truth," for "life." Like Matthew Arnold, one of his earliest critical models, James saw criticism as a means of making "truth generally accessible"; "it does not busy itself with consequences" but "takes high ground, which is the ground of theory" (717). Unlike the vulgar, "off-hand" productions of his English contemporaries, James's reviews self-consciously attempt to rise above practical matters of "rough-and-ready" evaluation (96-97) and achieve detached discrimination, analysis, and appreciation, the qualities that he felt characterized both Arnold and Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, another early critical model.
> 
> ...
> 
> Before the appearance of "The Art of Fiction," James wrote approximately 200 reviews almost entirely on individual works. During this same period he wrote about 20 essays (including his book on Hawthorne) on more expansive topics, literary figures, schools, or movements. After its appearance he wrote only six reviews but published almost 100 critical essays, including the 18 prefaces to the collected New York Edition of his novels (1907-9). It was in these essays and prefaces that James voiced his major aesthetic, critical, and theoretical concerns.
> 
> ...
> 
> Because of its crucially transitional place in James's development, it provides a synthesis of 20 years of inchoate and desultory*** thoughts about fiction and fiction writing and transforms them into a group of interrelated principles upon which most of his later criticism rests.
> ...


http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople....=true&UID=5083

Ezra Pound noted Jamess faithfulness to the vernacular.

http://www.cercles.com/review/r10/lodge.html




> In Lodges thumbnail sketch of the history of the novel Henry James is perhaps given too much creditand Lodges interest being English Literature, Flaubert none at allbut he notes succinctly and effectively how James married in his fiction the first person of subjective enquiry with the third person of objective enquiry, developing the mastery of free indirect speech that allows the novelist to locate the narrative in a characters consciousness and yet move away from it to suggest other realities.


http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/Erkan.htm




> James describes Aunt Maud in The Wings of the Dove as:  Mrs. Lowder was London, was lifethe roar of the siege and the thick of the fray. There were some things, after all, of which Britannia was afraid; but Aunt Maud was afraid of nothing  not even, it would appear, of arduous thought (24). Here is another example of a personal description about Kate: 
> 
> She would have been meanwhile a wonderful lioness for a show, an extraordinary figure in cage or anywhere; majestic, magnificent, high-coloured, all brilliant gloss, perpetual satin, twinkling bugles and flashing gems, with a lustre of agate eyes, a sheen of raven hair, a polish of complexion that was like that of well-kept china and that-as if the skin were too tight-told especially at curves and corners. (23)
> 
> On the other hand Milly is described as a dove :  Milly was indeed a dove; this was the figure, though it most applied to her spirit. . . . so far as one remembered that doves have wings and wondrous flights, have them as well as tender tints and soft sounds (337). James is very successful in describing people: Kate resembles to a lioness who acts according to her interests and get the best as she can whereas, Milly is soft and helpless resembling especially to a dove.



I have just found a link to the e-text of "The Art of Fiction"

http://dinamico.unibg.it/rls/essays/james.htm

which I reached through this useful looking page

http://dinamico.unibg.it/rls/e-texts.htm


By the way, this work by Robert Louis Stevenson looks interesting:

http://dinamico.unibg.it/rls/essays/writing/aw-1.htm

ON SOME TECHNICAL ELEMENTS OF STYLE IN LITERATURE 
by Robert Louis Stevenson

----------


## PeterL

> im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL


I can understand that. There are a few of his plays that I like, but moat of them are just OK, and some aren't very good at all.

----------


## mono

> I read James' _Daisy Miller_ at university and loved every bit of it; characters, description and since then, I have always wanted to read his books but never had the chance. Because of that one book I read, I actually consider James one of the writers I like! Maybe I should read his other books and see how I feel about his style now.


Unfortunately, I have only read Henry James' _The Turn of the Screw_ and _The Aspern Papers_. Needless to say, why I never posted either James' names in this thread, I loved them both, despite _The Turn of the Screw_ seeming very difficult to read; beneath its confusion, however, I found a genius work. Eventually, I intend on reading _Daisy Miller_, having heard good things, but so much to read in such a short life!
On a side note, for an easier read, I would definitely recommend _The Aspern Papers_.  :Biggrin:

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

sche, read the turn of the screw and then decide whether hes a good writer or not


 :Banana:

----------


## Pendragon

I think y'all hit about every author I think is over-rated (though I did take some guff on another thread for listing The Works of Shakespeare as one of the top 10 books I could do without. And I even added "Except, mayhap ye be a thesbian"!) Oh, well! I'll add votes for The Bard of Avon, Stephen King, "Dreary" Dickens, Hemingway, etc. But I'll probably make some enimies by adding, collectively, the sisters Bronte. I just can't read any of them!  :As Sleep:

----------


## hellodolly

jack kerouac ~pukes~ Has anyone here read a book called CONVERSATIONS WITH CAPOTE? It's funny---Capote rips into jack, gore, mailer, etc. --- a tough critic & an accurate one! I LOVE CAPOTE! Brilliant man!

----------


## hellodolly

oh... james's THE GOLDEN BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How dull is THAT! I cannot believe they made a film from it.... haven't seen it...you?

----------


## hellodolly

Has anyone read I CAPTURE THE CASTLE by Dodie Smith?? Very good! As for Harry Potter I do enjoy them--- overrated writers...hmmm....anything by that closet case Hemingway. Jack. K. eeewwww hmmm..... Stephen King bores me to tears!

----------


## baddad

Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....

----------


## subterranean

I too, share the same opinion. Rowling gets too much than she deserve (IMHO).




> I hate to be all predictable or wotnot but (I havn't read the whole thread) but I really do have to say that the Harry Potter books aren't very good. I think Rowling is the most over rated author ever. I really do....

----------


## mono

> Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....


Amen, baddad!
This thread often makes me feel like I have painstakingly poor taste in literature; some of my favorite writers have received mention here, but I try not to take it personally, instead taking a deep breathe and counting slowly to ten.  :Biggrin: 
Personally, I cannot but give the highest praise to writers like Ernest Hemingway, Virginia Woolf, the Brontë sisters, William Shakespeare Henry James, Wilfred Owen, and Jack Kerouac, yet I realize we all have our different palates for literature; to put it in another way, I know people who like J.K. Rowling and Billy Collins.  :Wink:

----------


## subterranean

Now now...some of us do acknowlege that Mr. Hemingway is indeed one of the greatest witers ever. So stop sniffing, your nose is beginning to red...




> Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a 
> beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....

----------


## Aurora Ariel

I agree that Virginia Woolf is an exceptional writer.This year I've managed to read quite a few of her works such as Mrs.Dalloway, The Waves and Orlando.
The Waves is an outstanding piece.It's deeply poetic and a breathtaking read.
As for Henry James: I've read Washington Square and last year read The Awkward Age.I've yet to read The Aspern Papers or The Turn of the Screw but both these works are on my read next list.I've got copies of both here and plan to come to these in time-I hope I get a chance to read these two really soon!And Bronte is fantastic-one of my favourite books from that era is Wuthering Heights.I've also read the poetry and gone over this book on innumerable occasions.

----------


## B-Mental

> Mr. "I think I'll eat my shotgun" Hemingway is sure taking a beating in this thread. I am saddened to the point of a weep.....*sniff*.....


I have a hard time seeing Hemingway placed on the same list as Rowlings, too!

For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.

Two thumbs down for the Potter series!

----------


## baddad

> I have a hard time seeing Hemingway placed on the same list as Rowlings, too!
> 
> For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.
> 
> Two thumbs down for the Potter series!



*wants to agree completely with the above quote...but* 

I suppose the 'Potter' series is a good read for younger folks, anything that encourages people to read has value I suppose.....

----------


## PistisSophia

I have tried to read books by Willa Cather and Catherine Anne Porter many years ago, but I couldn't get into them, then. Maybe I could try again sometime.

----------


## Padan Fain

Dan Brown and Hunter S. Thompson

----------


## mickeymack

I think that Tom Wolfe is the most overrated writer ever!I detested his new journalism and find his novels badly written and almost entirely lacking in any literary merit. Honestly just because he's from the south and wears a white suit literary editors of magazines seem to equate him to a Faulkner or Dickinson instead of just the grubby overvalued little (in every sense) hack that he is!

----------


## rachel

Virginia Wolf and Margaret Attwood-ARGHH!! 
Apologies to all the Anne of Green Gables kazillions of fans but I really didn't like that woman's writing and when I read her life and if I remember correctly she herself didn't enjoy writing some of them, she needed the money, well...
I have not read a single Harry Potter, I really don't know why. I love with a passion Tolkien although considering he was a world class philoligist and had a chair at Merton his writing seems childish. But to me that is what makes it work. I gave it a chance so maybe I'll shell out some drachmas for harry.

"courage Merry, for our friends." Aeowyn

----------


## F.Emerald

I'm thinking...Jane Austin?

Pardon me if this already has been discussed several times.

----------


## ShoutGrace

Right here, my dear.  :Biggrin: 

 :Eek:   :Eek:  You think Jane Austen is overrated??  :Tongue:

----------


## Bookworm89

I agree, F.Emerald. Jane Austen stinks!

----------


## Bysshe

I don't think Jane Austen is overrated. Well, maybe slightly. I really don't think that Pride and Prejudice is as good as everyone thinks it is, but I'm sure there are lots of authors who are infinitely more overrated than Jane Austen.

----------


## Turk

James Joyce.

----------


## Guzmán

Jorge Luis Borges. Although i've only read "Ficciones" I think so anyway.

----------


## stlukesguild

In quicky browsing through this post I find myself wondering about the reasoning behind all these choices for "overrated writers". It is quite easy to simply state that James Joyce (?!), or J.L. Borges (?!), or Jane Austen (!?) are overrated. One might just as easily proclaim that Shakespeare, Mozart, and Michelangelo are overrated, but all such proclamations do is lead one into questioning the opinions of the person making such blanket statements without offering any rationale. Perhaps one might want to offer some reasoning behind one's opinion. James Joyce, for example, is not one of my favorite writers, but before I would think to declare that he is far overrated, I would be sure that I could offer some facts of reasons behind my opinion. Just a thought. :Idea:

----------


## Turk

Stlukesguild, don't forget this thread says "overrated authors" not "bad authors". And as far as i see Joyce is the one of the most overrated author of English literature. You know some silly intellectuals even consider him most important English writer of 20. century. And if they call him "most important person of 20. century English literature" i say it's overrate. Because i've read many American and English writers and i definetely read better authors than him. Especially his "greatest" work "Ulysses" is extremely boring. According to me it's not a great novel but "intellectual brain masturbation". And as we know if there's something is sophisticated intellectuals suddenly appears (just like Gremlins) and says it's an important piece of art. If we remember this guys choosed a toilet (Marcel Duchamp's) as the most important art-work of 20. century it'll be easier to understadn my argument. If they can choose a toilet as the most influental art-work of 20. century of course we shouldn't surprised when they said "Joyce is the most important English writer of 20. century". 

To me, a novel or story doesn't have to be sophisticated and full of intellectualism to be great. Sometimes the most simple thing is the most beatiful thing.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Say what you will about Joyce, but there are very few authors who have their own national holiday.

----------


## Mark F.

Paulo Coelho, I've read "The Alchimist" and it was so poorly written and simplistic, I really felt like I'd just wasted my time. I could have reread "The Old Man and the Sea" instead and would have enjoyed it so much more.

----------


## stlukesguild

Turk;

The term "overrated" suggests an author whose reputation with the public (ie. Dan Brown) or with the literary establishment (critics, scholars, teachers, and other writers) seems far larger than is warranted by the actual achievements. By this standard I find it difficult to think of Joyce as overrated in spite of the fact that he is not among my favorite writers. I must acknowledge that he (along with T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, and a few others) essentially dismantled and reassembled literature into what we now define as Modernism. His impact is unquestionable upon any number of contemporary and subsequent writers of real talent, including W.B. Yeats, William Faulkner, Samuel Beckett, John Barth, Thomas Pynchon, etc... I personally found sections of _Ulysses_ to be brilliant, while others bogged down. I felt several of the characters to be quite wonderfully explored... but at other times I found myself put off by the overly self-conscious attempts to be formally innovative. Among the Modernists I far prefer Faulkner, Eliot, Kafka, and Yeats. But then I must admit that I cannot be completely certain in my opinion because I have yeat to have read Joyce's "masterpiece", _Finnegan's Wake_. 

As an artist, I agree totally with your thoughts upon Duchamp's "Fountain". My guess is that a good many of the art "experts" involved in this poll were responding solely to the impact of Duchamp's work upon the current developments in conceptual art. Unfortunately, I find most of this work to be juvenile at best, and doubt that much of it will will last any test of time. As such, neither will Duchamp's influence. As an artist, Duchamp's output was small, largely immature, and prone to intellectual mind-games and sophomoric puns. The "Fountain" (or urinal) itself was merely part of one of his more elaborate jokes (which can be read about in some detail in Roger Shattuck's _Candor and Perversion_. As opposed to Duchamp, Picasso's and Matisse's achievements are towering and unquestionable. Both produced a large _oeuevre_ of masterful work and both influenced a great number of the greatest artists of the 20th century (and continue to do so)... and Picasso certainly must be credited with far more innovations central to the develoment of Modernism than Duchamp might ever be credited with... including the innovation of the use of the "found object" which was as the heart of Duchamp's "ready-mades" (including the overrated "Fountain")

----------


## Guzmán

Stlukesguild, you're perfectly right in saying that some justification is needed for saying that some author is overrated so here's why I think Borges is:
First of all Spanish is my native toungue so i've had the opportunity to read what little i've read of his in it's original language, and, on a personal level although i find that he is a master of writing from an essayist's perspective i found that, on the most part his prose sacrificed beauty and 'soul' for the sake of 'complexity', yet this supposed 'complexity' refers more to his choice of words than to the real substance of his writings. 
This brings me to my main point: Borges' work is neither as complex nor as difficult as most people claim him to be, take a look at "Examen de la obra de Herbert Quain", for example. This one's what I would say fits in under his "essay about non-existing author", type of work which "Ficciones" abounds with. The whole point of the essay lies in examining one of this imaginary author's most famous novels, "April March" i think it was, which is supposed to be a play on logic and time and that sort of thing but in the end it comes out as not more than a trivial curiosity and the whole thing just feels like an excuse for Borges to let you know how much he knew about history, philosophy and art just by mentioning certain names, which in the end ammount to nothing and dont have anything to do with the whole point of the essay. 
other examples of this are "Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote", "Acercamiento a Almutasim" and others from "Ficciones", which to me, they feel like Borges being snobish and not much more, certainly not complex, ingenious at the most, and actually only a few of these did I really enjoy.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I'm going to get in big trouble from Robin for this, but I honestly think that Michael Crichton sells way more books than he deserves to. _Jurassic Park_ undoubtedly has a creative premise, but my favorite part was the introduction. The rest of the prose seemed to boil down to "ooh, look how smart Michael Crichton is!". I couldn't get past chapter five of _Rising Sun_, as it struck my as, how to put this?, japonophobic racist propagandic crap. In all fairness, I loved _The Great Train Robbery_, I just don't think he deserves to have everything with his name on it at the top of the best-seller list.

----------


## kjt1981

MY mate Damon. He says he's the best, but he aint.

Acually though i wasnt too knocked out by The Great Gatsby...

----------


## holograph

i dont think austn is overrated. her writing is fun and easy to read. and i didnt like the great gatsby much either. other than that, [i think im going to get a very negative response for this] ive read a lot of hemingway and it is extremely redundant. i wouldnt say he is overrated and i wouldnt say his works are crap, but i think his works are overpraised though they are all the same, essentially.

----------


## CourtnyG

I consider a writer over rated if I hear wonderful things about them from everyone and everywhere I look, then I read them and don't enjoy the story or the style (which usually means I'm disgusted due to my disappointment and upset that I wasted my money) . For me the two most over rated writers are Faulkner and Joyce. That is probably because I can't stand stream of consciousness writing (it drives me crazy). I really think that's why all the books I try to read by these two bore me to tears. I've never finished a book by Faulkner or Joyce. I like structure. The thoughts a person has in their mind lack structure. They ramble on, flitting from one thought or topic to the next. The thoughts or topics lack definition and appropriate punctuation. Writing in stream of consciousness seems too easy (that's how you take notes, it's not how you write a novel). To me being a good writer means adding structure and definition to those thoughts in order to relate the story or topic to the reader in the best way possible. Faulker and Joyce seem to stop at the thoughts without going to the extra trouble of actually writing and arranging the thoughts to their best advantage. Anyone can write down thoughts, and create a little story around them. This is just what I feel when I try reading Joyce and Faulker in comparison to novels that I enjoy. I'm sure there are many who love that style, and don't enjoy my favorite novels.

Courtny

----------


## Turk

Stlukesguild; i didn't say Joyce is a bad writer. But since i know he's considered to be the most important author of 20. century by many critics and intellectuals, i think he's overrated. I think there's much better English writers than him. That's why i say he's overrated. I was thinking his masterpiece is "Ulysses", i also didn't read "Finnigan's Wake" (i don't think it's translated to Turkish) but i don't think an author's style can be very different in his every book. So even if i didn't read "Finnigan's Wake" i don't think he wrote it much different than "Ulyyses". And about stream of conscious; i think Faulkner uses that style much better than Joyce did. 

Whatever... Here's a personal question; what do you produce as an artist?

----------


## Bastet

Turk, something you said brought another question to mind: up to what point can you trust a translation of an original work when it comes to criticism?

----------


## Turk

Every country has good and famous translators. If translator is good and if he proved himself in his job, we can trust the translation i think.

----------


## stlukesguild

Guzman;

As a sworn Borghesian I must jump to the defence of this Argentine master :Rolleyes: . I will admit that when I first read Borges (like Kafka) I found him to be rather dry, to say the least. I believe I was expecting something of a more romantic notion of Surrealism/fantasy, but both author have nothing of the atmosphere or mood or mystery which I had come to expect from Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Poe, Hawthorne, and other prior writers. I found that both Kafka and Borges only revealed themselves slowly to me. Perhaps, for this reason, I imagine them as taken best in small doses over a period of time. 

Speaking of Borges specifically I began with what may be the best starting point (for the English reader at least), the collection of short "fictions" and essays entitled, _Labyrinths_. Borges writing style (much like Kafka's) is most certainly not "beautiful" in a more romantic sense. Initially, it is rather dead-pan... which may suite a writer whose subjects are not so much characters, but rather ideas... or perhaps literature itself. I understand that one might interpret Borges work as being overly "literary"... or perhaps "pendactic" with his habit of referring continually to the literature of other writers. I personally don't see this as "pretentious"; it is merely that Borges has chosen to explore the subject he knows best: books. Borges admits as much himself when he declares in his book, _Dreamtigers_ (_El Hacedor_, in Spanish): "Few things have happened to me, and I have read a great many. Or rather, few things have happened to me more worth remembering than Schopenhauer's thought or the music of England's words."

As a librarian continually surrounded by books, and tragically losing his eye-sight from a young age, Borges' themes center upon his experiences with books. Just as Van Gogh or Cezanne may transform the most mundane subjects into a exploration of thoughts and feelings far more profound, so too Borges is able to transform his explorations of books into examinations of themes of mortality and immortality, infinity, imagination and creativity. The critic Harold Bloom has suggested that many of the great works of literature are born out of an artist's anxiety and eventually transcendence of the work of his or her strong predecessors. He imagines masterpieces from Dante and Shakespeare through Joyce and Borges as being the result of a strong "misreading" of one's artistic heros. As an artist myself, albeit in the visual arts, I do acknowledge the fact that most art is at least partially a dialog with other art. Borges, to me, makes this dialog quite clear. His "fictions", essays, poems, and aphorisms often read like essays by which begin as traditional critical examinations of a work of art... but soon bloom into works of brilliant artistic expression in and of themselves. It should come as no surprise that among Borges' favorite writers one finds Robert Burton, Sir Thomas Browne, Thomas De Quincy, Walter Pater, etc... Besides reading like meditations upon books... and reading itself, Borges' works often blur the very distinctions between literary forms: essays, poems, fragments, short stories, criticism, etc...

I don't know that I imagine Borges as being overly "complex". I see an irony and a humor in the manner in which he plays with concepts of time, space, mortality, infinity, and the labyrinth and takes them to a logical/illogical conclusion. Undoubtedly, he is a "reader's writer"... writing for an audience like himself (don't most artists create for themselves?) which is more than a little well-read. In this manner he strikes me a similar to Joyce and T.S. Eliot. 

Personally, I love Borges' work. I appreciate the manner in which he has blurred the distictions between literary forms. I like the simple, crystaline (berhaps even scientific?) prose style and the equally compact forms in which he explores his themes taking ideas to the absurd conclusion. I am endlessly fascinated with his interpretations of literary history and his favorite concepts of time, space, mortality, infinity, etc... I must admit to having rethought (and reread) several authors after coming across his fictive or essayed examinations of their works. For that alone, I would find him worth reading. Of course... my admiration of Borges should come as no surprise considering my equal love of such literary "relatives" as Lawrence Sterne, Kafka, Italo Calvino, Tomasso Landolfi, and Donald Barthleme.

----------


## another sara

sorry but dont like her one bit!

----------


## stlukesguild

Turk;

The translation question is a valid one. Joyce must certainly be one of the most difficult writers to translate considering his penchant for wordplay. I will note that what I have perused (if such is possible) of _Finnegan's Wake_ is far more difficult... far more rooted in word-play and an absolutely exhuberant mauling of the English language... to such an extent that it far-outstrips _Ulysses_, and I cannot imagine it ever being well-translated into any language. Nevertheless, we are not so far apart in our opinions of Joyce. I admire his achievements... I like given sections of what I have read... but he is not one of my personal favorites. I too find Faulkner's use of "stream-of-consciousness" to be more successful... as well as T.S. Eliot's _Wasteland_. If I were asked to select the greatest writer of the 20th century I would be far more likely to go with any number of others: Kafka, Proust, Italo Calvino, Rilke, Eugenio Montale, J.L. Borges, Yeats... before going with Joyce. 

As for my own work, after a good many years working as a realist painter of sorts, my current work is abstract and rooted in my passions for books, music, architecture, among other things. The works are all collage... constructed of materials taken from old books (EeeeK! :Eek: ) and other printed materials. I'll post a couple here, but many more can be found at my Webshots page at: 
http://community.webshots.com/user/stlukesguild

----------


## mtpspur

StLukesguild--I liked the first and third collages best mostly because I like the staright line approach and overlaps. I hope that makes sense to you. I will be the first to say I know nothing about the critiquing of art--just know if I like it or not.

----------


## SummerSolstice

Honestly, the only book/story by a famous or respected author I can ever remember thoroughly disliking is 'The Turn of the Screw' by Henry James. I can't say if he's altogether repulsive, since I threw my book in the garbage can from sheer disgust after finishing 'Turn'. It was just babble to me--psychotic, thoruougly uncreative babble. I despise ghost stories anyway, beliveing them to be the lowest form of writing, period. And that was even _before_ I encountered any of the analyses of the story, which only appalled me farther.

This is probably a bad way of making an entrance, since everything everywhere is somebody's favorite something... if it helps, that's my favorite thing about humankind.  :Biggrin:

----------


## CourtnyG

I think Henry James is over rated too. I didn't dislike Turn of the Screw, and I didn't dislike Washington Square. I wasn't impressed with either though. I always heard wonderful things about him, but I've never been impressed by any of his books. I think Edith Wharton is under rated. I hadn't even head of her. I just happened to stumble upon Ethan Frome, and loved it. Now I've read a great many of her books, and they're all wonderful. I don't think I could pick a favorite. 

Courtny

----------


## freespiritjill

Austen is okay. Although the movie did bring the book to life bettr than the book does. A seriously overrated author is Nathaniel Hawthorne. HE goes on and on about nothing. My friends and I did a rewrite of the Scarlet Letter and were able to put all into less than a hundred words. What a waste of paper!!!

----------


## subterranean

> Jorge Luis Borges. Although i've only read "Ficciones" I think so anyway.


Crisaor, say something!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Logos

> As for my own work, after a good many years working as a realist painter of sorts, my current work is abstract and rooted in my passions for books, music, architecture, among other things. The works are all collage... constructed of materials taken from old books (EeeeK!) and other printed materials. I'll post a couple here, but many more can be found at my Webshots page at: 
> http://community.webshots.com/user/stlukesguild


Hey I really like your work. Some of it reminds me of mail I get from my friends and family in far away/exotic countries, writing in calligraphy, and my love of old books and maps  :Smile:  it also evokes Henri Matisse's later period of cutouts when he worked with construction paper because he was too frail to stand at his easel to paint. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...a/a2883a29.gif

Maybe you will start a separate topic about your art and where people can share ideas/images of theirs.

----------


## Jolly McJollyso

Hmm. I find it impossible to call Joyce overrated... When critics call him the most influential writer of 20th century English Literature, I don't understand how that can really be found unwarranted. I mean, the man basically invented Modernism, sure Proust, Kafka, Woolf, and a few others joined in the fun, but James Joyce used stream-of-consciousness in a way no one had before, and in a way most authors STILL take from. There can be no doubt that Joyce changed the way we look at language, and Samuel Beckett only followed with more brilliance on that same subject.

I think it's incredibly hard to prove James Joyce overrated because really he's the first author to question what literature and language really are, and I find the ultimate level of expertise in any art form is reached when one has such a thorough knowledge of his art that he can question it.

So overrated... I'd like to say Hemingway because I despise his style, but I'll throw out one on whom we can all agree, J.K. Rowling.

----------


## higley

> I'm going to get in big trouble from Robin for this, but I honestly think that Michael Crichton sells way more books than he deserves to. _Jurassic Park_ undoubtedly has a creative premise, but my favorite part was the introduction. The rest of the prose seemed to boil down to "ooh, look how smart Michael Crichton is!". I couldn't get past chapter five of _Rising Sun_, as it struck my as, how to put this?, japonophobic racist propagandic crap. In all fairness, I loved _The Great Train Robbery_, I just don't think he deserves to have everything with his name on it at the top of the best-seller list.


Agreement. Jurassic Park and its sequel were great, but every other book I've read from him is confusing and tiring. Though I hear Timeline is good. (Is it?)

College kids around me make a great fuss about Chuck Palahniuk. I read and was marginally interested at the beginnings and partway into the middles of Invisible Monsters and Lullaby, but the great plots he comes up with are overshadowed by a annoying writing style that can only be stood for so long.

----------


## Pendragon

Very nice artwork, stlukesguild!  :Thumbs Up:  

Cuppajoe, selling books even if you can't stand the writer, is a hard argument to follow. It's very difficult to argue with success. That's one reason I sort of hesitate before agreeing on J.K. Rowling. Yes, I believe she's overated, but she's "crying all the way to the bank", to paraphrase Liberacre.  :Smile:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Vedrana

> A seriously overrated author is Nathaniel Hawthorne. HE goes on and on about nothing. My friends and I did a rewrite of the Scarlet Letter and were able to put all into less than a hundred words. What a waste of paper!!!


I agree. I mean, Hawthorne may be considered a 'Great' American writer, but I find it difficult to get at all absorbed by his work. I am currently attempting the read "The House of the Seven Gables" and I am really struggling to stay with it. I guess that's just the style of the times, because so many other authors of the nineteenth century wrote in the same way. Maybe the nineteenth century audience liked it, but for a modern reader who is used to having things much faster, such a long, ponderous style can become tedious. I will try and finish it, however. Fingers crossed!

----------


## aeroport

> A seriously overrated author is Nathaniel Hawthorne. HE goes on and on about nothing. My friends and I did a rewrite of the Scarlet Letter and were able to put all into less than a hundred words. What a waste of paper!!!





> I agree. I mean, Hawthorne may be considered a 'Great' American writer, but I find it difficult to get at all absorbed by his work. I am currently attempting the read "The House of the Seven Gables" and I am really struggling to stay with it. I guess that's just the style of the times, because so many other authors of the nineteenth century wrote in the same way. Maybe the nineteenth century audience liked it, but for a modern reader who is used to having things much faster, such a long, ponderous style can become tedious. I will try and finish it, however. Fingers crossed!


Well, I didn't hate _The Scarlet Letter_ when we read it the way the rest of the class seemed to (though about half of them did not actually read it, so their opinion need not matter much), but I understand _House of the Seven Gables_ is actually much worse with regard to "going on and on about nothing". You might try his children's stories; they're really quite enjoyable - from back when children's stories didn't insult the intelligence. I don't love Hawthorne, but he could be worse. I don't know that he's overrated. I really think, with regard to "difficulty" and the invitation to "stay with it", James is far more formidable (two of his late novels have both shaken off my efforts at conquering them) - yet I really consider him infinitely superior.

----------


## ladylazarus

Faulkner. I know a lot of people think he's great but I'm just not feeling that vibe at all.

----------


## Il Penseroso

Faulkner's actually becoming one of my favorites. His style is so poetic, and every little sensual perception related lends itself so well to each character's personality. He's truly a poet at heart, which I think is why his stream of consciousness works so well.

I agree about Palahniuk though. It's probably the style (ultra-modernism or whatever) but the 2nd Grade level sentence stucture and miniscule paragraphs(I know this seems trivial, but not to me; long paragraphs- or at least thoughts that are examined through writing - are important) really just didn't strike a chord with me. I've only read "Fight Club" though.

----------


## omegaxx

> Faulkner. I know a lot of people think he's great but I'm just not feeling that vibe at all.


I agree with regards to "Sanctuary" and "As I Lay Dying", especially the latter which I was stupid enough to have to chosen to do a seminar presentation on. To lie dying is definitely a superior state to my wretchedness as I lay on my bed reading that book.
Have you tried "The Sound and the Fury" and "Absalom, Absalom!" though? Try those two. You might like those more.

----------


## Nightwalk

With overrated authors the first that come to mind are Shakespeare's plays and the novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. Although I like the style of the two aforementioned novelists, I find that their works don't hold enough substance to be worthy of the fame they have.

----------


## julien

books tell you about the common experiences of life. "Classic" books tell you how to gain knowledge from the common experiences of life.

a) why the flip would you want to have someone tell you how to live when you do perfectly fine at it?
b) you're already living the common experiences of life, so why read about it?

----------


## Wild Apple

> a) why the flip would you want to have someone tell you how to live when you do perfectly fine at it?


Good books don't "tell" you how to live. They present, not command. The books you're describing are self-help books.




> b) you're already living the common experiences of life, so why read about it?


A reader should interact with his or her book. Not everyone's experiences are identical, and the ones that are very similar may be presented in a new light so as to allow the reader to understand it differently. Remember, books are experiences within themselves.

----------


## lit_lover

I happen to think Jane Austen is a very influential and compassionate author. I enjoy her books. In my opinion, F. Scott Fitzgerald seems a little overrated.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> Acually though i wasnt too knocked out by The Great Gatsby...


Oh my, I don't think I can forgive that comment. I love Fitzgerald. 


Please don't bite my head off, but might I mention Dickens? Yes, fabulous ideas, but rewriting the same ones into a thousand different novels gets triesome...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

Oh, and how could I forget...


*STEINBECK*

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

.
I do not really like Hemingway very much, ditto the verbose Victor Hugo, though I have only read "Les Mis&#233;rables", I found it boring. I do not really like Joyce very much, I think he is pretentious; this may be because I do not "get" his work, but I found Ulysses to be pretentious, though I can admit to its "artistic worth". "Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man" was also distinctly average, in my opinion. I guess a lot of authors have minor works which are fallaciously regarded as being "classics" simply because that specific author wrote them-Charles Dickens, for example wrote many book, not all of which are in my opinion "classics", or even "good. Balzac, on the other hand, wrote a lot of books, most of which could be considered classics. Beckett is a bit hit and miss for me-I love "Molloy", "Malone Dies" was hit and miss, but "The Unnamed" was (for me at least) gibberish. 

Dan Brown is also over-rated, though I did not expect him to be that great.

----------


## zigzig20s

Maybe not an author but definitely a book. Well it's a short story..."The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. It's supposed to be a powerful feminist piece but I thought it was totally over the top and ridiculous. It seemed like a spoof. I'd be interested in talking to someone else who's read it actually, and see if they liked it...
I've not read her other things though. I may be interested in reading her autobiography, cos she seems like an interesting person. But 'The Yellow Wallpaper' sounded like a joke all over. And it's supposedly her most famous piece.

----------


## Iago

I have to disagree;  :Biggrin:  I think 'The Yellow Wallpaper' is ingenious. I've written essays about it, and I think that although the plot has a relatively simple and linear structure, there is a multitude of symbolisms and layered meanings that can be discovered. If you just start from her description of the wallpaper as "a smouldering unclean yellow", you can reach interesting conclusions. Check for the definitions the MacMillan English Dictionary gives for _smoulder_ . One of them reads "to feel very strong emotions that you do not express in words, especially anger or sexual feelings". 

Moreover, she says that the paper is "strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight". Check De Vries' _Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery_ and the symbolisms for "sun". "male creator", "King, ruling by divine right", etc. 

In conclusion, the reason this story is considered a powerful feminist piece is not what's on the surface of the story (which personally I find intriguing as it is), but what's underneath

----------


## liesl

i certainly agree with Iago that 'The Yellow Wallpaper' is a wonderful text. I particularly like it for the slow burning descent into madness and the powerful effect it eventually had upon Charlotte Perkins Gilman's doctor Weir Mitchell to rethink his prescription of rest cure.

----------


## Matilda

I think Paulo Coelho is hugely overrated. Everybody told me that The Alchemist was wonderful and that it would change my life. Sure, it was good, but I don't hink it was that special.

----------


## Iago

I guess Coelho has to be seen within the social context (as, indeed, it is the case with all writers). Judging Coelho by his text alone, he surely is rather average. But part of the "myth" is the social impact his books have created.

----------


## seasong

I love 'The Yellow Wallpaper' as well. 
Maybe we're only discussing classic authors who are overrated, but the most overrated author I have ever attempted reading is Robert Jordan.

----------


## Alexei

Robert Jordan? Definitely. His The Wheel of Time series are a little disaster in my opinion. Ok, he has an imagination, but why everything is just like a soup opera? I know this sounds utterly rough and impolite, but I have never enjoyed his style. I mean his books are not beautiful at all!
As for Coelho I like his books and his a bit melancholic style of writing. But as almost every bestseller his works are a bit overrated. They are just too popular to be jugged with a clear mind.

----------


## seasong

YAY! I'm not alone in despising Robert Jordan or thinking his books are fantasy soap operas. This makes me very happy.

----------


## Alexei

Hehhe, it was the same with me too. By now everybody was saying to me: This is a great book you should read it. Well, I read it. It was just terrible. I couldnt stand it. And the way the story is finishing in such a hurry in the end if the first book; it isnt complete and full-blooded. It was a great disappointment. Of course now, I am almost scared to say my opinion in public, because everybody says You are mad! This book is Awesome!

----------


## blackbird_9

I

hate

Dan

Brown.

Such non-sense. I could only get through three chapters.

----------


## seasong

AMEN! Why on earth are his horribly written books so popular?

----------


## Alexei

Oh, thank God! It is not only me after all! Huh, they like them just because these books are scandalous. I dont think this is a good reason enough to read and like something. Are they all mad? Even if we stop thinking about the flat plots, based only on the unexpected turns, where is the esthetic pleasure of the beautiful prose? I didnt find it anywhere; am I supposed to look for it with a magnifying glass?!

----------


## EAP

William Shakespeare. James Joyce. Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

----------


## Maria L

Margaret Atwood = totally overated.

----------


## liesl

> Margaret Atwood = totally overated.


perhaps you could say some novels like 'Alias Grace' or 'Oryx and Crake' are overrated (not i myself because i love Atwood's writing style) but i cannot understand how anyone could read 'The Handmaid's Tale' is overrated. As dystopian literature it is up there with Orwell's '1984'.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I like the covers of Tom Robbins' books a great deal more than I like the actual literature.

P.S. Margaret Atwood = awesome.

----------


## Brendan Madley

How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!? Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated. And neither did Joyce produce such novels hailed as classics of 20th century litearture by being overated. I agree, however, entirely with blackbird 9. Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.

----------


## Brendan Madley

Jane Austen is not overated; she is a brilliant novelist, it's just she wrote in the old ways, meaning that today her merit is not as greatly revered. I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.


*jaw drops*

But Twain is hillarious, and Hemingway is...not.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.


I'm not sure it's possible for "overrated" authors to change the way books are written. Hemingway's style has been tremendously influencial - and his stories have the sly ability to appear very simple (when in reality they are not at all so): but that's part of the artistry.

As far as Mark Twain - huh? He too was involved in changing the face of American Literature - how can you be overrated if you're capable of doing that?

As far as Margaret Atwood goes, her poetry, short stories and novels (_Handmaid_ and _Oryx_ were excellent) reveal a considerable writer of vision.

----------


## Maria L

I admit, Handmaid's Tale is a moving novel
but otherwise I don't appreciate Atwood too much.

As for more authors who are overrated, I think I have changed my mind.
No author can be overrated. It is just the amount of publicizm their books get. 
I.E: Dan Brown went Hollywood and his books became known worldwide. 

The only reason authors are considered "overrated" is when some idiot who has never read in his life decides to pick one up and realizes hey - reading's not that bad! Then the book get's publicized and even more idiots read it. Then, these books become famous - even when they're not that great...
It has nothing to do with the author at all!

----------


## bluevictim

> How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!? Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated.


 Haha, I think that's an overestimation of Shakespeare, so I guess that means I think Shakespeare has just become overrated (by Brendan Madley).

----------


## EAP

> How could you say that people such as Shakespeare and Joyce are overated!?


With the help of ten fingers and a keyboard. 




> Shakespeare did not become the greatest producer of literature in the English language and in all probability the world by being overated.


Subjective claim, nonsensical sentence. 




> And neither did Joyce produce such novels hailed as classics of 20th century litearture by being overated.


Joyce did write some decent short stories, I am not familiar with all of his novels, but his magnum opus, _Ulysses_ is the definition of unreadable twaddle. 

That's neither here nor there though, so if you re-read the sentence you wrote again, you'll realize that claims like 'classics of 20th century' are precisely the reason people call his works over-rated. _Ulysses_ has definitely become a classic, there's no denying that certainly - doesn't make it a particularly good book though. 




> Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.


I am not aware of many people who rate Dan Brown's stuff to begin with. How can you be over-rated if no body even rates you?




> The only reason authors are considered "overrated" is when some idiot who has never read in his life decides to pick one up and realizes hey - reading's not that bad! Then the book get's publicized and even more idiots read it. Then, these books become famous - even when they're not that great...
> It has nothing to do with the author at all!


That's just semantics. Unless specifically stated otherwise, whenever people are talking about an author being 'over-rated', it is generally taken for the granted that they mean his literary canon, not his character as a person. 

There's a difference between fame and appreciation. Authors like Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, Nora Roberts, Sydney Sheldon and (to a certain extent) J. K. Rowling are famous but hardly anybody 'rates' them. [rightly or wrongly] On the flip side, Shakespeare, Joyce, Tolkien, Twain, Poe and Austen are considered and accepted as literary giants even by those who haven't read them.

----------


## Maria L

rebuttal mood I see.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> There's a difference between fame and appreciation. Authors like Dan Brown, Tom Clancy, Nora Roberts, Sydney Sheldon and (to a certain extent) J. K. Rowling are famous but hardly anybody 'rates' them. [rightly or wrongly] On the flip side, Shakespeare, Joyce, Tolkien, Twain, Poe and Austen are considered and accepted as literary giants even by those who haven't read them.


Well said. Overrated depends on how the novels are being judged. Tom Clancy's novels are judged on their entertainment value, whereas Shakespeare is judged for his literary merit and the effects his works have on society. One might say that while Clancy's novels are entertaining, they may not go down in history as being the most relevant to history and society. While some say that Shakespeare is the most influential writer of the english language, his work may be boring and difficult to understand (I disagree with this last point, but I have heard it said). When one judges an author of being overrated, one must mention on what level the author's work is judged.

----------


## Brendan Madley

Ask anybody qualified on world literature and they will tell you the merits of Shakespeare and Joyce. Something great does not neccessarily have to be readable by everybody. It is the prose and depiction of life that is of the true merit.

----------


## Brendan Madley

And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.

----------


## Brendan Madley

There is certainly no American who can match the ability of: Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Scott, Austen, Archer, Doyle, Kipling, Buchyan, Defoe, Woolf, Conrad, Marlowe, Thackeray, Swift, Fielding, Bronte Sisters, Shelley, Stoker, Joyce, Disraeli, Gaskel, Collins, Carroll, Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Potter, Trollpe, Eliot and Hardy to name some British legends.

----------


## Brendan Madley

Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is. Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.

----------


## EAP

> Ask anybody qualified on world literature and they will tell you the merits of Shakespeare and Joyce.


The only qualficiation needed to comment about a book or an author is a familiarity with their works. 




> Something great does not neccessarily have to be readable by everybody. It is the prose and depiction of life that is of the true merit.


For a book to be good, it has to be readable. If you can't even read the book, its impossible to judge the remaining attributes. 




> And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.


Sigh.

Tolkien
Martin
Poe
Dostoevsky 
Murakami
Mieville 
MacLeod
Banks 
Acroyd
Roy 
Rushdie 
King 
Kay 
Helprin 
Christie 
Orwell 
Ishiguro 
Bradbury 
Clement 
Simmons 
Dick 
Clarke 
Le Guin 
Matheson 
Hardy 
Bronte (E) 
Buglakov 
Manto 
Hoeg 
Voight 
Powers 
McCarthy 
Bakker 
Fowles 
Jackson 


Enough or do you want more names?

----------


## prophitus_86

I understand where you are coming from about the way that a book is being judged, but I'm still trying to get over you saying that giants such as Shakespeare and Twain were and are overrated. :Bawling:  
Shakespeare _was_ one of the most influential play writes of all time. You cannot deny this. Even today, his works are being adapted to movies and Hallmark cards, books and T.V. Sorry. I guess that I'm just having a hard time figuring out how you can call someone overrated when they have influenced world culture as a whole for about 400 years. How is that by the way? How do you defend your statement. The man perfected iambic pentameter for God's sake! And the sonnet! And the classic Petrarchan Sonnet!

So with that, I give you my overrated author: James Joyce. Unreadable drivel indeed. There is a line between s of c and bunches of letters put together. If you want stream of consciousness, read Jabberwockee.

----------


## EAP

> *Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is.* Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.


Le'sigh. Ever heard of copyright?

----------


## Brendan Madley

No EAP. None of them are superior in terms of prose or ideas contained in the work. Ask any person qualified on world literature and they will concur with me. I don't hate Mark Twain, don't say he's bad, but slightly overated in terms of the ideas in his novels. That's not to say he couldn't write.

EAP: Observe by everybody. You can't judge it because you can't read it but those of us who have can.

From Wikipedia: William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564  died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, and the world's preeminent dramatist.[

Those who have judged him as the greatest know what to look for: prose, ideas, imagery, ectera, other than pure enjoyment, which is what is implied by you saying any person familiar with the text may judge it properly. No, you couldn't be more wrong.

His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth. This is one of the many things I mean by ideas with the prose.

P.S. That first sentence from my last post was from Wikipedia.

----------


## EAP

prophitus, 

Please realize that _influencing cultures_ does not by itself does not make something deserving of accolodes. Hugo Gernsback's sci-fi efforts kick-started the modern sci-fi genre, yet no body in their right minds would call him a good writer. 

Shakespeare's influence and his mastery of English language is undeniable, however, he is not the be-all and end-all of fiction. There's beauty in his works, but they are also boring, verbose, annoying and are based around themes which are largely irrelevent these days. Feminism, racism, classism, global expansion and technological ascendency are some of the key issues faced by our world, and in this day and age, I find the emphasis placed on his works to be over-the-top misguidedness. 

I find his characterization to be worthless and very much a product of his era, values and morality included. The less said about the 'plots' the better. Of course, in drama, dialogue is the most important bit, but as I detailed earlier, his dialogue has little emotional value or empathizable characteristic for me.

----------


## kilted exile

Just a quick point I think Racism is dealt with quite aptly by Shakes in Merchant of Venice, I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could find examples of the other themes as well

----------


## Brendan Madley

Ah, you are saying this from a point of enjoyment of his work. The world he wrote for has gone. Just because we today cannot fully understand the Middle English does not decrease the ability of the work. And also, enjoyment is only one of the factors that makes a great writer. Ideas and prose also come into it; refer to: His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth.

Shakespeare is essentially literature in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best? Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.

----------


## EAP

> No EAP. None of them are superior in terms of prose or ideas contained in the work. *Ask any person qualified on world literature and they will concur with me*. I don't hate Mark Twain, don't say he's bad, but slightly overated in terms of the ideas in his novels. That's not to say he couldn't write.


Repeat that about twenty thousand times and maybe you'll believe it yourself.




> Just a quick point I think Racism is dealt with quite aptly by Shakes in Merchant of Venice, I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could find examples of the other themes as well


If by aptly you mean according to the mores and trends of his era, then you might be correct. Those values aren't really relevent in today's envoirnment though.

----------


## Brendan Madley

Masterpieces that are greater pieces of literature than any other literature produced by any others.

----------


## kilted exile

> If by aptly you mean according to the mores and trends of his era, then you might be correct. Those values aren't really relevent in today's envoirnment though.


Read the "hath not a jew arms" speech it is affirming that all people are equal, is this is not a relevant and desired principle in today's environment?

----------


## seasong

Since no one's convincing anyone else, let's all just agree to disagree. Please. When someone's mind is already made up they're not going to change it.

----------


## Brendan Madley

Ha ha so now you're trying to make me second guess myself. I stand by my claim, and by the way, I didn't write the second quote. Although, when you say that the racism portrayed there isn't really relevent in today's environment, any racism will always be relevant, even if it isn't Christain's and Jews, it still portrays racism in general and as a whole.Too, remember Shakespeare wrote for different times, but the messages in The Merchant of Venice on racism will always be relevant.

To seasong: With no disrespect I am merely pointing out why Shakespeare is regarded as the best ever and how just because it is not enjoyable because it is written in Middle English to him doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece.

----------


## seasong

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's no need to argue about it.

----------


## EAP

> Shakespeare is *essentially literature* in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best?


'Greatness' is relative.There are a variety of factors involved in the choice of books including cost, the instructor's personal whims, trends of the day, the socio-political stance/standing of the institute and a tendency to rely on lists generated by 'critics'. Your arguement, i.e: because shakespeare is taught in most schools, it is great' makes logical thought cry. 




> Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.


These are probably the most regurgitated phrases in the history of literature. 'But their (your favourite authors) works are masterpeices that combine blah blah blah with blah blah blah' is a meaningless sentence. You can find a deeper meaning in a pile of steaming dog **** if you put your mind to it. Please back your claims and adjectives with solid examples. 

The original intent, in any case, was not to discuss the merits of Shakespeare. Your over the top, fanboyish, head-in-the-mud obstinately repetitive defense of Shakespeare only serves to highlight my belief in the over-ratedness of Shakespeare's works.

----------


## Brendan Madley

Did you also know Shakespeare has sold over 2 billion copies worldwide? 4 times more than the nearest American - Danielle Steel. So he can't be too unenjoyable.

Ah, again getting personal. I am merely saying what the world thinks by the popularity of Shakespeare, the fact critics LOVE HIS WORK and that his work is essential literature at school. (Not essentially, sorry about that, my mistake.)

----------


## EAP

> Read the "hath not a jew arms" speech it is affirming that all people are equal, is this is not a relevant and desired principle in today's environment?


It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society. 

Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play. 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...7221/demon.htm

Did Shakespeare also tackle sexism? equalism? women's rights? gay rights? When Shakespeare talks about equality, is his willing to consider the buggerer, the sodomite or the rugmuncher as an equivalent?

----------


## Brendan Madley

Shakespeare is not merely taught at school due to cost and "the instructor's personal whims". Such a claim is laughable. Did you happen to know the GOVERNMENT dictates what should be taught? Probably not. The instructor doesn't choose. Shakespeare is chosen because his is masterpieces, popular, well written and with great underlying messages that is one of the reasons that make him so great.

And now that I think of it, the greatest novel ever would have to be either The Pilgrim's Progress or Don Quixote. Both masterpieces.

Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.

----------


## Scheherazade

*Brendan>* Please avoid flooding the thread by multiple posts one after another. If you would like to add any more comments, use the EDIT button which is on the right bottom corner of your posts.

*Further posts with personal comments/insults will be deleted with or without any futher notice.

It might be a good idea to start another thread under Shakespeare section to discuss his place in Literature History.*

----------


## kilted exile

> It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society. 
> 
> Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play. 
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...7221/demon.htm


Ok, without turning this thread into a discussion of Merchant of Venice. I would say the play is a satire, and shakes is questioning more the prevalent attitude of the time that Jews were somehow inferior. The recognition that it is actually classified as one of his comedies I think suggests that it is a satire. If you wish to continue this start a thread in the MOV section about it.

----------


## Maria L

Firstly, 
I love Kilted's picture

Secondly,
I enjoy Shakespeare's works immensely

but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing. 

That's my two cents.

----------


## Iago

Shakesperian Drama (Tragedy in particular) is virtually the basis of the modern dramatic theory. Up until the 1920s-1930s, academics considered Plato as the god of dramatic theory, finding Shakespeare flawed. 




> but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing.


I disagree. Take any given film (ok, NOT "Weekend at Bernie's"--although you can find some Shakesperean elements there too, e.g. the mistaken identity theme) and you'll see that virtually every single one follows a dramatic arch and structure built on the Shakesperean foundations

----------


## Pensive

> To seasong: With no disrespect I am merely pointing out why Shakespeare is regarded as the best ever and how just because it is not enjoyable because it is written in Middle English to him doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece.


I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.

But I consider Shakespeare an overrated author because I have always found his works to be extremely boring. Repetition of things again and again. Philosophic but on many places annoying dialogues. For example, all those things Romeo said to Juliet again and again. I have read Romeo and Juliet quite a time ago so I am afraid that I can't quote that passage though I would have loved to. 

As for philosophic references, I agree that this man is very crafty but those writers who say things simply, and so more *precisely*, I personally consider them better. I don't see what's the point of making things up when they can be expressed in a more simple and concise manner. Some people call it an art, or beauty. But I don't see the beauty in reckoning one's brain off just so one can get the meaning behind Shakespeare's oh-so-clever-dialogues.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.


I already responded to this idea elsewhere. I love Shakespeare too - but he's not the be-all, end-all of literature. His skill lay primarily in a very facile use of language and an astute understanding of human nature/behavior. But most writers have that. We've all figured out that you think he and Joyce (and Joyce - though original - does not deserve to be ranked next to Shakespeare - but again: isn't that just my _opinion_?) are pretty nifty. So what's next? I'm not really concerned about these so-called experts in world literature and their opinions - American literature is equally brilliant in its own way. Anybody with sufficient knowledge of literature would know that British and American literature are built on different foundations and are concerned with different ideas and intentions. I believe Shakespeare enjoyed a good story - and that he would've gotten a kick out of Mark Twain, enjoyed Steinbeck's descriptive mastery, admired Crane's irony, marvelled at Faulkner's structural innovations, nodded his head at Hemingway's masterful understatement and praised Melville's epic sweep. 

Stating that one country's literature is better than another is tantamount to "literary racism." Real lovers of literature don't draw national "color lines." Books are books - the nationality of the author is trivial and true literary scholars don't get caught up in pointless comparisons.

----------


## metal134

> Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.


Ditto on Dan Brown. I kept hearing and kept hearing and kept hearing how spectacular "The DaVinchi Code" was and it turned out to be one of the biggest let downs ever. 
I also think Ernest Hemingway is overrated. I enjoy his stories, but his style drives me up the wall. And I'm, so tired of hearing how he was a "master of dialogue". His dialouge, quite frankly, is among the worst I've ever read. I mean, here's a typical Hemingway conversation:

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: Truly?
Robert Jordan: Yes, I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: We will help you blow up the bridge.
Robert Jordan: Will you help me blow up the bridge?
Andselmo: We will help you.
Robert Jordan: Alright.

----------


## PeterL

> I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.


Shakespeare didn't write in Middle English. If you want to see Middle English, read Chaucer.

----------


## ennison

Ah and should dialogue be life like then

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: The ... what .... the who .....
Anselmo: Yes . si Hey turn off that engine .. hey I SAID?
Robert Jordan: Yes turn off that engine I cant hear ... cant hear .
Anselmo: Turn it off hey turn .
Robert Jordan: Anselmo?
Andselmo: Turn it off TURN IT OFF!!.
Robert Jordan: ***** what ***** Anselmo who are you on about.

Gee no wonder Franco won. The Republicans spoke too normally!!!

----------


## Zippy

> I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.


I'd be interested to know how you could possibly write an entertaining and thought-provoking play that deals with the subject of racism and *not* have one or more of the characters act in a racist manner.

You are making the cardinal mistake of confusing Shakespeare with his characters. By the same logic you'd have to call Vladimir Nabokov a paedophile or Bret Easton Ellis a psychopath. The character is not the author!

----------


## EAP

Zippy, 

I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, *and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.*

----------


## PeterL

> Zippy, 
> 
> I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, *and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.*


Creating characters that have particular opinions and attitudes does not indicate that the author shared those opinions, but it means that the author was aware of such opinions and put those into the character. If you see of the characters in The Merchant of Venice as prejudiced against Jews, then you can be sure that Shakespeare intended that the audience saw that in the characters, but it does not mean that he shared that prejudice. On the other hand, I would be surprised if Shakespeare did not have feelings against Jews, but I'm not personally acquainted with him,. so I don't know for sure.

----------


## ennison

Why would you be surprised if he 'did not have feelings against Jews'? That's a very double-edged sword you're wielding.

----------


## Mark F.

> I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.
> 
> But I consider Shakespeare an overrated author because I have always found his works to be extremely boring. Repetition of things again and again. Philosophic but on many places annoying dialogues. For example, all those things Romeo said to Juliet again and again. I have read Romeo and Juliet quite a time ago so I am afraid that I can't quote that passage though I would have loved to. 
> 
> As for philosophic references, I agree that this man is very crafty but those writers who say things simply, and so more *precisely*, I personally consider them better. I don't see what's the point of making things up when they can be expressed in a more simple and concise manner. Some people call it an art, or beauty. But I don't see the beauty in reckoning one's brain off just so one can get the meaning behind Shakespeare's oh-so-clever-dialogues.


Not a big fan of Romeo and Juliet either, but try reading Hamlet and King Lear. On the other hand you have to think about why the dialogue was written that way, Shakespeare didn't write his plays for people to read them but for people to see them, audiences don't always pay attention to what's going on on the stage, repetition was part of his game. I don't think there's a single character study that comes close to Hamlet and King Lear is one of the most epic tales ever.

----------


## PeterL

> Why would you be surprised if he 'did not have feelings against Jews'? That's a very double-edged sword you're wielding.


Yes, it is a two-edged sword; I realized that while was writing. Anti-Jewish semtiment was the general rule in England in Shakespeare's time. As an author, he certainly was aware of it, but I doubt that he completely evaded that part of his era.

----------


## Pensive

> Not a big fan of Romeo and Juliet either, but try reading Hamlet and King Lear. On the other hand you have to think about why the dialogue was written that way, Shakespeare didn't write his plays for people to read them but for people to see them, audiences don't always pay attention to what's going on on the stage, repetition was part of his game. I don't think there's a single character study that comes close to Hamlet and King Lear is one of the most epic tales ever.


I read the play, and all I know is that the repetition left a really bad impression on me. Anyway, a single sentence in the end of a play can be very important. The ending of the story depends on it, and if the audiences are not paying attention to it, they are responsible for it. Same is the case with the whole play. A good play-wright doesn't have to repeat his lines for the sake of it. And I don't think that he meant it as a game. Repetition might have been just his style. Of course, I can be wrong in that but it's my thought. 

Yes, I haven't read _Hamlet_ and _King Lear_ yet. I might someday try _King Lear_ though. Its story (I read it somewhere) appeals me.  :Smile:

----------


## Adudaewen

I'm going to have to say JD Salinger. I really don't understand why _Catcher in the Rye_ is such a beloved book. It just made me angry at the end because it just Friggin ends!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate that.

----------


## papercut

Dan Brown. His fame is based purely on the premise of his book rather than the execution of it. There's certainly nothing in the prose. JK Rowlings. The life and times of a prepubescent wizard. Need I say more? Hemmingway. I actually liked his style of prose, but his works fairly drip machismo. I couldn't take it. Ayn Rand. Bitter, bitter woman. The rant that is Atlas Shrugged did not deserve 1100 pages. Also, Robert Jordan -he's like the song that never ends- and Tolkien -there is such a thing as too much detail. We don't need to know the family tree, thanks.

Who said Victor Hugo? How could you? *weeps in a corner* And Hawthorne, his exploration of human nature-- overrated?  :Bawling:

----------


## Alexei

I agree J.K. Rowling is overrated. I don't like her books. The story is more like a common fairy tale and the characters are boring. Don't even mention reader could solves the problems in the book much before Harry and it becomes really uninteresting to sit there and reading his thoughts while you have already know the main idea. It get me furious. There were some periods while I have reading such things, on my mind was only: "how someone could be so dull?". But that actually is because of the retardation and this kind of retardation is shallow in my opinion. As for the descriptions and so on, there are not very good. I couldn't feel myself a part from this world, not after I became twelve years old. As for the style of writing I don't see something really special. It is true most of the people are attracted by the book, but it is only because the plot. And the mark for the good literature, in my opinion this is the writing style, is not really on good level.

----------


## liesl

i must agree with Adudaewen that J.D Salinger seems to me to be overrated, but this is based upon the fact that i myself did not enjoy 'Catcher in the Rye' and therefore was unable to see what all the fuss was about. (i am currently studying a module in which i will have to study the book again, perhaps my view will be altered).

i must also agree with papercut that Dan Brown is immensely overrated. 'The Da Vinci Code' sold well because of its own generated hype, if purely based upon his writing style and ability the book would have failed to be as big a success as it was. Having read 'The Da Vinci Code' i decided to read 'Angels and Demons' (recommended by my boyfriend's mother) to see if perhaps Dan Brown was able to write different genres. I was bitterly disappointed to find that the text followed the exact same premise as his previous text, down to kidnappings, murders and code-breaking.

----------


## Mark F.

Dan Brown isn't even rated as a good author...everyone is aware that his books are crap.

----------


## ennison

I tend to like books for what I can get from them. Sometimes its just a good yarn ......so I like Grisham. Sometimes its the thrill of discovering another mind, sometimes something else. There are authors whose works I detest and whose minds as revealed in their works I detest. The great Soviet writer Babel asks a question in one of his stories about whether it is possible to live without enemies and answers that it is not. I agree and detecting ones enemies in literature is a worthwhile exercise. Literature like all things is political and whether we say we like a book for this reason or for that reason it all boils down to the fact that we recognise some attitudes as directly opposed to the way we understand the World and Life. This may sound unusual to young readers but .........there you go ............

----------


## Adudaewen

> i must agree with Adudaewen that J.D Salinger seems to me to be overrated, but this is based upon the fact that i myself did not enjoy 'Catcher in the Rye' and therefore was unable to see what all the fuss was about. (i am currently studying a module in which i will have to study the book again, perhaps my view will be altered).


I'm so glad to see someone else agree with me, mostly because I was beginnign to think maybe it was just me!!! I am also beginning to think that its just a guy thing that maybe we women can't understand because all of my guy friends just LOVED _Catcher in the Rye_. Liesl, if your view does alter please explain it to me! :Biggrin:

----------


## ennison

No Salinger's novel is not as good as many say but then what book that gets 'cult' status can measure up to the fame thrust upon it. I wonder if it is true that Salinger has a vault full of unpublished manuscripts. 
I'm not a great fan but then I don't mind him either.

----------


## mS_?

> Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
> Robert Jordan: I will blow up the bridge.
> Anselmo: Truly?
> Robert Jordan: Yes, I will blow up the bridge.
> Anselmo: We will help you blow up the bridge.
> Robert Jordan: Will you help me blow up the bridge?
> Andselmo: We will help you.
> Robert Jordan: Alright.



Heh, I'll actually agree with that, I liked the premise of the book, and I alos liked the story of _The Old Man and the Sea_ but I really think that any of his books that go past 300 pages are too drawn out for his style. Most of _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ was just Robert Jordan walking from place to place. I'd have to say the only two exciting or interesting parts were Pilars description of the execution of the fascists in her town, and the final stand of El Sordo(which was also drawn out a bit).

I can actually deal with drawn out novels and I do enjoy most of them for their descriptiveness, The Tale of Genji, Moby Dick, Don Quixote. But for some reason Hemingways style just doesnt work at all for a book being long.

----------


## Domer121

Nora Roberts....She can give housewives a thrill..but there is a way to get that thrill without dumbing yourself down....though I suppose without Nora Roberts what else would they sell in the aisles at Target?...

----------


## ryguy

Hemingway by far IMO is the most overrated author of all time. I think he is a horrible writer.

----------


## bouquin

> Paulo Coelho, I've read "The Alchimist" and it was so poorly written and simplistic, I really felt like I'd just wasted my time.



I agree absolutely.

----------


## ennison

You are very hard on Mr H. No doubt his style can grate and he seems desperately easy to parody but look a bit closer at some of the short stories and at 'A Farewell to Arms'. That pared down style takes a bit of doing.

----------


## manolia

> Dan Brown isn't even rated as a good author...everyone is aware that his books are crap.


Unfortunately I've met people who actually believe that he is a good author!!
(can you imagine that?).

Overrated authors..let me think..one name comes in mind.Paulo Coehlio. And of course the lady with the Harry Potter series. By far the most unoriginal books ever created. If you are into fantasy literature you know what i mean.
Also I think that Orwell is a bit overrated. I don't know..just a thought! :Blush:

----------


## grace86

Harper Lee. Maybe I should read "To Kill a Mockingbird" again someday, but that book was torture to get through.

I don't agree with Hemingway being overrated. Perhaps he just takes a little more thought to get through, I think he is tough.

----------


## ennison

Lee 'torture to get through'? Surely you're thinking of someone totally different.

----------


## grace86

> Lee 'torture to get through'? Surely you're thinking of someone totally different.


Nope, I think reading her book was the only thing that ever made me fall asleep in class. But maybe reading it with a classroom is what did it for me.

----------


## bluevictim

That's interesting. I really liked _To Kill a Mockingbird_. I'm kind of surprised that you found it so soporific; I thought it was pretty interesting, and a lot easier to read than Hemingway (for example). Maybe it wasn't enough of a challenge for you. I wouldn't consider Harper Lee a "great" writer, though, because, as far as I know, TKAM is the only thing of note that she wrote.

----------


## Adudaewen

I loved Harper Lee. I think that it is really hard to read anything in a school setting, on a deadline. Literature is to be enjoyed not assigned. I hated almost all the books that I read in high school, but when I read them now I love them. (Some of that might have to do with personal growth and a mature(er) mind, but I can't read in a hard desk, under florescent lights, with a clueless student teacher telling me what the text is about. BLAH. 

I have to agree with Hemingway. He is not the easiest person to read. I find a lot of his books to be quite tedious and though I'm interested in the story he is telling, its hard to push myself to actually get through them.

----------


## grace86

> I loved Harper Lee. I think that it is really hard to read anything in a school setting, on a deadline. Literature is to be enjoyed not assigned. I hated almost all the books that I read in high school, but when I read them now I love them. (Some of that might have to do with personal growth and a mature(er) mind, but I can't read in a hard desk, under florescent lights, with a clueless student teacher telling me what the text is about. BLAH.


Hmm yes you have a point. Maybe I will reconsider putting her on that list until I can take her book at my liesure (sp?) one more time. Shouldn't be bitter I guess for the author surely didn't ask to be read in a classroom  :Biggrin:  Hah!! you have swayed me!

----------


## dorindapaige

I've never despised an author more than James Joyce, but I've only read a few of his books (and those many years ago). I know I've matured as a bibliophile, so I'm considering giving him one more chance. "Portrait" will definitely not be my choice, but I'm considering "Finegan's Wake."

My other humble choice is Tolkein (please don't all attack the newbie at once!) I appreciate fantasy, but he bored me to tears!

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

i find that among my peers i ahve the msot open mind as to what constitutes a good book. just becuase i disagree with the author does not mean that the book is bad. for the most part i read Sci-Fi and fantasy but i can enjoy almost any topic. I have many books from Valdemar, Darkover, and WoT as well as the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. LotR had like 400 pages of walking, walking, walking, but it was still an interesting story with a well-explored history. The other 3 authors arent considered great but they at least get credit for not having each succeeding conflict be agaisnt a more and more massively powerful enemy, a sad trend in modern SF/F.
Ive gotten many comments on the variety of my reading, although msot of it is SF/F: David Brin, Isaac Asimov, Lackey, Zimmer Bradley, Jordan, David Eddings etc.
Yet i still manage to have interest in Austen, Tolstoy, Twain, Kafka, and the rest of that massive list of "classical" authors. I find it vastly amusing that many people confine theselves to such a small number of topics in stories. 
Certainly as a male ive been teased quite a bit about Austen. I might actually be around this forum a lot as i am sadly at a loss as to any sort of lterature discussion in school or with peers. 
I noticed that not a few people did not see much value in Catcher in the Rye. 
I understood, certainly, why many people found value in it, but for myself, i really cant see how it is so popular. The same goes for Steinbeck. I was very happy, however, when we read quite a bit of Bradbury. 
As for Dan Brown and Rowling, the number of people i have met who think them quite talented as authors is highly disconcerting. Honestly, i read the books and took what value they had, but the character and story deveoplement left quite a bit wanting.

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

> I wouldn't consider Harper Lee a "great" writer, though, because, as far as I know, TKAM is the only thing of note that she wrote.


Aww, but you have to give her a break, considering she was only sixteen when she wrote it! A good number of people her age don't have that much insight.

----------


## grace86

> Aww, but you have to give her a break, considering she was only sixteen when she wrote it! A good number of people her age don't have that much insight.


Okay, credit where credit is deserved, I did not know she was only sixteen at the time she wrote TKAM...

----------


## Matrim Cuathon

heh, still, age only gains you so much credit. but for 16 thats a pretty good book.

----------


## Domer121

I have to say that Nabakov is over rated.... I did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing...Sorry if I offend anyone

----------


## Adudaewen

> Hmm yes you have a point. Maybe I will reconsider putting her on that list until I can take her book at my liesure (sp?) one more time. Shouldn't be bitter I guess for the author surely didn't ask to be read in a classroom  Hah!! you have swayed me!



Ah, I'm so glad.  :Smile:

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

> did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing


Guess it rests on what you consider to be a "love story"-some people may classify the relationship between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet as the perfect love story, some may prefer Heathcliff and Cathy as the perfect love story etc. Lolita can (at times) be slow, but literature is supposed to talk about and analyse the "disturbing" parts of the human mind and human nature-I do not really think that a book can be rightly criticised for being "disturbing", though even then Lolita is not particulalry disturbing in comparison to other "great" books.

----------


## Basil

> Aww, but you have to give her a break, considering she was only sixteen when she wrote it!


Although she began writing at a very early age, I'm pretty sure Harper Lee didn't write _To Kill A Mockingbird_ when she was sixteen. She was 34 years old when it was published in 1960, and she had worked on the novel full time in the years immediately prior to its publication. It's possible, though, that she carried the germ of the story with her for many years, especially considering its autobiographical bent.  :Nod:

----------


## ennison

'I've never despised an author more than James Joyce, but I've only read a few of his books (and those many years ago). I know I've matured as a bibliophile, so I'm considering giving him one more chance.'

I suggest you try the brilliant short stories and 'Stephen Hero'. The later stuff could be called novels for novelists rather than for readers. But it would be fair to admire his belief in his artistic calling.

----------


## omegaxx

> I have to say that Nabakov is over rated.... I did not find Lolita to be a ove story, I found it slow and disturbing...Sorry if I offend anyone


That was how I felt when I first read "Lolita" 2 years ago. I was on the verge of  :Crash:  the book after he set me up so painfully for the night of the Enchanted Hunters and, well, glossed over the fornication in one line while accusing me of being a beast for daring to wish for some nice erotica. The rest of the book just became a drawl that, annoyingly, refused to end.
I reread the book a year later, knowing fully what to expect, and it is now one of my all-time favourites.
So I would give Nabokov another chance :Tongue:

----------


## ennison

Nabokov is a brilliant writer. And like all brilliance can be hard to look at for long. Try 'Pnin'. The Viking portable Nabokov will give you a good selection too. If you can get a hold of his translation of Lermentov then you'll see another side to Nabokov's genius.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Nabokov has a masterful tough with the English language. _Lolita_ rings with wonderful linguistic turns. Can't say I agree that he's overrated.

----------


## masterlibrarian

Sartre...
I've read The Nausea and I found it like a palace build on nothing.
The best thing he did is to refuse the nobel, he knews that he didn't deserve it!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

Care to explain why you think he is over-rated? I didn't like "The Age of Reason" much, but "Nausea" was brilliant, in my opinion.

----------


## masterlibrarian

> Care to explain why you think he is over-rated? I didn't like "The Age of Reason" much, but "Nausea" was brilliant, in my opinion.


Ok, I'll explain my reasons with my bad, bad english... :Tongue:  
Sartre is considered a brilliant philosopher and writer, and one of the founders of existentialism. I've only read "Nausea", in which the protagonist show his disgust for the pathetic aspects of his existence and the existence of the other men. Trying to simplifing, he's disgusted by the existence itself, which he found totally meaningless. Sartre took trough his character in the entire book like a severe judge of all the feeling and behaviors of the humans, and i'd admit i agree with many of his thoughts, but what's the result of his cruel exam of the meaning of the life? The author have an answer to the question that had asked himself?
Yes, and the answer is in the banal end of the work: the only think that make the life worthy of being lived is the creation trough art, that set free the individuality of the man from the chaos of the mere mass.
It's without dubts a true statement, but is 3000 years old!!!!! :Biggrin:  
I have read many other works of the existentialists, like Camus's "The Plague", for example, and I found it most intersting that sartre, 'cause they took about the existence's vacuum and absurdity WITHOUT find a reason or a solution, that, as heidegger himself think, cannot exist 'cause the existence itself can't be totally knowable. But I haven't a deep knowledge of the philosophic aspect of existentialism and I'm not a philosopher, so maybe I'm totally wrong... :Blush:

----------


## ennison

Sartre is boring, dull, bunkum. He took his own nonsense too too seriously. Camus is better but neither are really novelists. They've got the art back to front: It's story first then ideas. They in their sophisticated French way go Ideas first then graft on some story or other - well Sartre does

----------


## Religious Opium

Truman Capote

----------


## Allan77K

Wasn't Duchamp's toilet a urinal?

----------


## Brendan Madley

If you are going to consider J.K. Rowling overrated, please then concur with me in calling Christopher Paloni overrated (although I believe Rowling is not.) I mean, it was basically a bit of Harry Potter, a bit of Lord of the Rings and a bit of the Chronicles of Narnia with other fantasy series tidbits thrown in.

----------


## andave_ya

People are going to absolutely hate me for saying this...

I don't like Dickens.

Well, that isn't entirely true. I love Pickwick, but that's it. Dickens' humor is nice and enjoyable; Dickens' tales of gloom not so much.

----------


## Matt the Man

Probably been said, but Christopher Paolini. Eragon/Eldest are just bad.

----------


## Stieg

Tolkien, Koontz, and King!

----------


## aydin

D. H. Lawrence, Booker Prize winners and nominees (the ones I have had the misfortune to read), Orhan Pamuk, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir. Not so much that I think they are overrated, but that I didn't like them.

----------


## Matt the Man

> Tolkien, Koontz, and King!




Tolkein, no. Koontz and King, yes.

----------


## THX-1138

F. Scott Fitzgerald

----------


## philipkd

shoutgrace, lemme guess, you are located in Indonesia.

because you're quoting in Malay

----------


## Robert Jordan

F. Scott Fitzgerald is very overrated. His writing seems sloppy, almost like a trainwreck. And it's always about rich people whom I can't relate to.

----------


## aydin

Why is everyone naming Fitzgerald?




> F. Scott Fitzgerald is very overrated. His writing seems sloppy, almost like a trainwreck. And it's always about rich people whom I can't relate to.


It's not about rich people, although they figure in it. I always thought it was more about how you might think that a materialistic life might be a fulfilling one, but how empty and pointless it really is. His characters usually end up with nothing and in a way have wasted their lives. Gatsby is poor but accumlates wealth in the hope of winning his girl, who, it eventually turns out, didn't really care that much for him and is a shallow coward. Dick Diver fights interal rage due to the responsibility of his wife's deteriorating mental health and feelings of guilt and frustration. In the Beautiful and Damned, they eveutally win all the money, but only to end up miserable creatures, and even after all they go through, they have their priorities wrong. Their best friends abandon them, and out of the three men at the start of the book, only one of them acheives critical success with their book - the one who was least likely to have, only to then succumb to writing rubbish for cash. The married couple gain wealth, but that is all, and they are miserable. sorry if i'm inaccurate, haven't read any of those for a while. But it is also supposed to be an portrayal of the jazz era and the whole new money versus old money thing (in Gatsby anyway, I think). He didn't finish the last tycoon, but apparently the main character is supposed to die. He is a good person who gets swallowed up by the greed of the industry. Or something like that.

I suppose some of his writing might seem sloppy, but he has some great passages, esp. when describing a loving relationship gone sour. I think he puts across feelings of hopelessness, dejection, suffering, angst, humiliation (which can be applied to most people, although perhaps in different circumstances), etc. quite well. I like the passages when the characters are falling in love less.

Anyway, my point is that it's not just about rich people, although perhaps I haven't explained very well. My memory is like a sieve.

----------


## Dorian Gray

> Probably been said, but Christopher Paolini. Eragon/Eldest are just bad.


But it's a truth universally acknowledged that he's bad. :P

----------


## THX-1138

> Sartre...
> I've read The Nausea and I found it like a palace build on nothing.
> The best thing he did is to refuse the nobel, he knews that he didn't deserve it!!!!!!!!!!



 :FRlol:

----------


## Woland

> Say what you will about Joyce, but there are very few authors who have their own national holiday.


That might be an indication that he is overrated. What writer deserves their own holiday?  :FRlol:  

well, except maybe Shakespeare...  :Biggrin:

----------


## ennison

John wrestle-with-the-bears Irving. That Scots twit whose name escapes me but supports the Hi Bees. Marilyn pain-in-butt French. Kurt stuck-in-a-time-warp Vonnegut, Harold Now-I'm-famous-I-can-have-an-opinion-on-everything Pinter, James gee-whizz-how-do-they-swallow-this-bunkum Ballard and many dozens of others who get their temporary fame in the literary rags

----------


## Stieg

> Why is everyone naming Fitzgerald?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about rich people, although they figure in it. I always thought it was more about how you might think that a materialistic life might be a fulfilling one, but how empty and pointless it really is. His characters usually end up with nothing and in a way have wasted their lives. Gatsby is poor but accumlates wealth in the hope of winning his girl, who, it eventually turns out, didn't really care that much for him and is a shallow coward. Dick Diver fights interal rage due to the responsibility of his wife's deteriorating mental health and feelings of guilt and frustration. In the Beautiful and Damned, they eveutally win all the money, but only to end up miserable creatures, and even after all they go through, they have their priorities wrong. Their best friends abandon them, and out of the three men at the start of the book, only one of them acheives critical success with their book - the one who was least likely to have, only to then succumb to writing rubbish for cash. The married couple gain wealth, but that is all, and they are miserable. sorry if i'm inaccurate, haven't read any of those for a while. But it is also supposed to be an portrayal of the jazz era and the whole new money versus old money thing (in Gatsby anyway, I think). He didn't finish the last tycoon, but apparently the main character is supposed to die. He is a good person who gets swallowed up by the greed of the industry. Or something like that.
> 
> I suppose some of his writing might seem sloppy, but he has some great passages, esp. when describing a loving relationship gone sour. I think he puts across feelings of hopelessness, dejection, suffering, angst, humiliation (which can be applied to most people, although perhaps in different circumstances), etc. quite well. I like the passages when the characters are falling in love less.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that it's not just about rich people, although perhaps I haven't explained very well. My memory is like a sieve.



Well, I haven't been able to read Fitzgerald since torturing myself through _This Side of Paradise_. Now that was one giant pile of rubbish. The main character had NO LIFE, NO LIFE AT ALL and he deserved every worst circumstance he suffered. What a pompous jerk and meanlingless meandering story. I am not sure I can read this author again.

----------


## Mark F.

The Great Gatsby is a great novel, plenty of irony about the rich and mundane. The Last Tycoon, although he never finished it would probably have been even better. I haven't read his other work but so many authors are unable to write even one decent novel.

----------


## Mrs. Dalloway

Jane Austen and James Joyce overrated???  :Sick:   :Sick:  

Jane Austen was one of the first women who wrote "in favour" of women! She criticized her society of being sexist. I think she was "brave" because in XIX Century was not easy, women writers were not well-seen.

----------


## Stieg

> The Great Gatsby is a great novel, plenty of irony about the rich and mundane. The Last Tycoon, although he never finished it would probably have been even better. I haven't read his other work but so many authors are unable to write even one decent novel.


If and once I ever recover from _This Side of Paradise_, I'll try to give _The Great Gatsby_ a swing. That novel put me in the literary ICU, barely made it out alive with my sanity intact.

----------


## Virgil

> Jane Austen was one of the first women who wrote "in favour" of women! She criticized her society of being sexist. I think she was "brave" because in XIX Century was not easy, women writers were not well-seen.


I'm not that sure about that. While Austen wrote from a women's perspective, and that would naturally lead to sympatheize with their problems, I have never read anything from Austen to catagorize her a passioante feminist. In _Emma_, the female character settles to be married to a strong man. Where in Austen do you see her be so femnist?

----------


## JBI

> I'm not that sure about that. While Austen wrote from a women's perspective, and that would naturally lead to sympatheize with their problems, I have never read anything from Austen to catagorize her a passioante feminist. In _Emma_, the female character settles to be married to a strong man. Where in Austen do you see her be so femnist?


Pride and Prejudice, where the woman ends up calling all the shots and not the man. Other than that I am not sure with Austen, though the female characters in the books tend to do what they want rather than what the men want, and the men are responsible for getting them to say "yes".

----------


## Robert Jordan

This Side Of Paradise. Exactly! Rich kid with rich mother traveling doing rich people things. Jumbled writing. Not engaging at all. Great Gatsby is about the rich, or at least people who are a lot more well off then my impoverished being. If you don't think it is then you must obviously have more money than I. I just don't think he's a good writer. Franz Kafka is also very overrated in my opinion. Maybe I'm not deep enough to follow his "plots" if you casn call them that. I tried reading the Metamorphosis because people told me it would be more cohesive, which it was, in a way, but it was incredibly dull too me. It just didn't interest me for some reason. I guess everyone has those authors. Kafka and Fitzgerald would have to be my picks for authors that I find overrated. I guess I'd throw in Bukowski as well. Also,aside from Junky, I'd say William Burroughs. Once you've read Naked Lunch you've pretty much read all his other works.

----------


## aydin

Must admit that I started This side of Paradise but never finished it. Am planning to though. I suppose the other thing about some of them seeming overrated is that you build them up before you've read them and sometimes it seems like a disappointment from what you were expecting...

STEIG - would also recommend The beautiful and Damned if you are going to read Fitzgerald. Although I guess I've kind of given away some of the plot...

ROBERT JORDAN - Yes, he does tend to write about rich people but that is because that is what he knew and probably felt could write accurately about. I'm far from rich as it happens but don't see why a character's financial position should deter me from enjoying a story. At the end of the day, it's about people, they sometimes just happen to have some money. If you don't like his writing, fair enough, but I don't see what his characters' affluence have to do with him being a bad writer. Sort of agree with you about Kafka and Bukowski.

VIRGIL - I think Austen's character's are considered feminist for her times. As in they had a mind of their own, and often spoke it too.

Also think Hunter S. Thompson and Jack Kerouac are overrated. Or perhaps I just don't like the beat generation style.

----------


## kenikki

Bret Easton Ellis. As much as I enjoy his work, I think it's a case of right place at the right time.

----------


## liesl

> I'm so glad to see someone else agree with me, mostly because I was beginnign to think maybe it was just me!!! I am also beginning to think that its just a guy thing that maybe we women can't understand because all of my guy friends just LOVED _Catcher in the Rye_. Liesl, if your view does alter please explain it to me!



well i just finished studying 'Catcher in the Rye' in one of my modules at university and despite approaching it from various different angles (freudian aspects, buddhism comparisons etc) i remain unswayed about disliking the book. i'm beginning to think it may be because i just cannot relate to or accept liking Holden himself.

needless to say i was the only one in my class of 30 who admitted to disliking the text  :Tongue:  strange.

----------


## Asa Adams

Nora Roberts......Bah!

----------


## Stieg

aydin, I will make it my priority to give Fitzgerald a second shot, the one I had read probably was one of the author's lesser works, very aimless and vacuous.

----------


## MarcMcGrath

> I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.
> 
> But I consider Shakespeare an overrated author because I have always found his works to be extremely boring. Repetition of things again and again. Philosophic but on many places annoying dialogues. For example, all those things Romeo said to Juliet again and again. I have read Romeo and Juliet quite a time ago so I am afraid that I can't quote that passage though I would have loved to. 
> 
> As for philosophic references, I agree that this man is very crafty but those writers who say things simply, and so more *precisely*, I personally consider them better. I don't see what's the point of making things up when they can be expressed in a more simple and concise manner. Some people call it an art, or beauty. But I don't see the beauty in reckoning one's brain off just so one can get the meaning behind Shakespeare's oh-so-clever-dialogues.


 I must disagree with many of your points regarding Shakespeare's works. The man was a craftsmen of the language (modern English by the by, Chaucer was middle). Shakespeare is and has be continuously relevant to the cultures and societies which have adopted his theory and produced his plays. If the culture as a whole decided that this was not the case, he would simply disappear into the literary cannon of the past. Although we cannot relate to the setting or the Idiosyncrasies, and nuances of the cultures projected in the plays, the themes of love, war, death, paranoia etc. are always relatable and indeleble to the human spirit that transcends the never ending march of time over culture.
Shakespeare's use of "repetition" allows him to fully express and explore the themes of the play in a variety of depths. If a concise expression of ideas is what you're looking for than an essay may be better suited for your tastes. Fictional writing is an artistic endeavor that marries entertainment with ideas and knowledge. The complexity of the style create an ocean rather than a pool in regards to depth and this is what allows Shakespeare to be continually relevant in the ever-changing cultures of the world. 

I dunno, it comes down to taste and opinion, if literary criticism has proven anything, it is that the aesthetic value of a given literary piece can never be completely decided upon. I hope I didn't come off as condescending or attacking, it was not my intention, I am just an antagonistic with a love of old Shakespeare.

----------


## kandaurov

A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y!

I'm quite mad at you! I have just now joined this forum and I wanted my very first post to be "Is it just me or Jane Austen is incredibly overrated?"

Heh, it's good that someone shares my opinion  :Smile:

----------


## NickAdams

> Jorge Luis Borges. Although i've only read "Ficciones" I think so anyway.


I think he is a bit underrated by the general public.

----------


## chaplin

I enjoy making lists of authors you don't like much as much as the next man, but isn't this "overrated", "underrated" thing kind of pointless and trite? First of all, who determines what authors have what rating? the ratings you are saying are too low or too high? isn't it entirely and impossibly and inanely relative and subjective? And it really takes no basis, no knowledge of the author to say he or she is too high or too low on some mysterious list.

----------


## Nossa

Charles Dickens is SO overrated in my opinion. I mean yes he wrote good stuff..but not THAT good...I don't remember ever really enjoying any of his works..they're so gloomy and always leave me with bitterness and a strange feeling of wanting to hang myself!

----------


## Captain Pike

Lots of us folks up here in Maine look up to Stephen King. I really liked "The Stand". But, lately, I've really grown tired of the rehashing an a lot of going on and on ... kind of a pulp science-fiction pump. Seeing characters resurface in other books, while legit I suppose, seems somewhat distracting for me, anyway.

Whenever I read something that seems hard to follow, I have this thought that maybe other people would see it more clearly, that it is just my weakened perception, rather than outright, intentional obliqueness. But then, I wonder still.

----------


## Fango

Well, now that you ask, I definitely think George RR Martin is overrated. People are all excited that he writes about sex. I don't know, maybe including sex in fantasy is new and people get excited about it. Maybe adding a lot of realism and family intrigue is new and people get excited about it. I just didn't like, and a lot of people seems to praise is a lot that I just had to write his name here.

To me, his "Game of Thrones" (the book that seem to have made him really popular) appear so close to realism that I frankly preferred reading an actual historical book than that.

Uh, also, Dan Brown. He just took a taboo subject and popularize it, so no matter what he wrote, people were interested having a bite ofi t.

----------


## ennison

Taboo subject? That there was a fictional grail?

----------


## Dorian Gray

That Jesus and Mary were a couple and that she had his child. 

I'd rather believe Jesus was involved in a sordid affair with Judas. Now that would make a great Hollywood blockbuster. Brokeback Mountain in Jerusalem.

----------


## Captain Pike

I think writing off Jane Austen is a mistake. I read all of "Sense and Sensibility", only because it was referred to in the Jimmy Stewart movie Harvey. Elwood P. Dodd goes into his study finds his hidden liquor bottle and gets out Jane Austen's book and begins to read. I went out and got the book just to see if that was how it started.

"The family of Dashwood had been long settled in Sussex.", see, I still remember -- I love that movie. And the book seemed a little dry. But 75 years ago this was a great unintended satire on the aristocracy, possibly?
See, this is a book that other people could see the great value of. My own lack of depth is the overrated part.

----------


## ennison

That's not taboo. It's bizarre.
Taboo means something other than that.

----------


## Jennyfrijole

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Stephen King, too. I only started reading his stuff in March - I wanted to see how "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" compared to the movie and then read the rest of the books in that short story compilation and then read a couple other of his books.

I think why he's so popular is because he's such an easy read - just about anyone can read his stuff, that's it's appeal. Sure, his books are a million pages long, but they're not difficult at all and they borderline on simplistic. Did anyone read "The Library Policeman"? I mean, King seems like a rad badass dude and all and I'd like to meet him, but I'd swear a twelve-year-old had written that. And I was not impressed with 'salem's Lot at all.

Strangely enough, "Apt Pupil" is my favorite piece of his work, I really liked it alot.

I finished Four Past Midnight not too long ago and I think that'll do me for King books for the next couple years.

----------


## Set of Keys

Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan. 

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

----------


## _JadeRain_

William Faulkner. I still shudder at the _Sound and the Fury_

----------


## NickAdams

> William Faulkner. I still shudder at the _Sound and the Fury_


I am going to be reading The Sound and the Fury this year. What was it that you didn't like? Without giving anything away. :Wink:  



Chuck Palahniuk. Good movie, bad book. :Sick:

----------


## Stieg

> Well, now that you ask, I definitely think George RR Martin is overrated. People are all excited that he writes about sex. I don't know, maybe including sex in fantasy is new and people get excited about it. Maybe adding a lot of realism and family intrigue is new and people get excited about it. I just didn't like, and a lot of people seems to praise is a lot that I just had to write his name here.
> 
> To me, his "Game of Thrones" (the book that seem to have made him really popular) appear so close to realism that I frankly preferred reading an actual historical book than that.


I read the first three books and I enjoyed them I guess but the GRRM gushers that make their rounds on various literary boards need to get a grip. GRRM needs to tone down that big fish swallowed by a bigger fish story structure. I flipped through _A Feast For Crows_ at the bookstore and think I found a bunch more psycho feudal freaks in chainmail. And yes, I just love reading dwarf smut every 20-50 pages. Pull-leeze!

----------


## kratsayra

> I read the first three books and I enjoyed them I guess but the GRRM gushers that make their rounds on various literary boards need to get a grip. GRRM needs to tone down that big fish swallowed by a bigger fish story structure. I flipped through _A Feast For Crows_ at the bookstore and think I found a bunch more psycho feudal freaks in chainmail. And yes, I just love reading dwarf smut every 20-50 pages. Pull-leeze!


I quite enjoy the Song of Ice and Fire books. And I appreciate them for what they are - good, fun, reads that are engrossing and an easy way to disappear into another world. There are plenty of books that can do that, and plenty of books that can do that a lot better than Martin. But it works for me.

----------


## jon1jt

> Sartre...
> I've read The Nausea and I found it like a palace build on nothing.
> The best thing he did is to refuse the nobel, he knews that he didn't deserve it!!!!!!!!!!


grrrrrrrr!

----------


## Stieg

> I quite enjoy the Song of Ice and Fire books. And I appreciate them for what they are - good, fun, reads that are engrossing and an easy way to disappear into another world. There are plenty of books that can do that, and plenty of books that can do that a lot better than Martin. But it works for me.


They're alright, nice flowery prose blended with gritty fantasy and medievel court soap opera nothing deep however. Personally, I liked _Fevre Dream_ more. Much more. Not sure I can get back into world of Westeros if the flawed trends I spoke about in my post above continue. How many characters are going to die before GRRM realizes he has thinned the quality of the saga overall.

----------


## kratsayra

> They're alright, nice flowery prose blended with gritty fantasy and medievel court soap opera nothing deep however. Personally, I liked _Fevre Dream_ more. Much more. Not sure I can get back into world of Westeros if the flawed trends I spoke about in my post above continue. How many characters are going to die before GRRM realizes he has thinned the quality of the saga overall.


yes, I suppose killing off characters can get old.  :Wink: 

I'll have to look into his other stuff like _Fevre Dream_.

----------


## Stieg

> yes, I suppose killing off characters can get old. 
> 
> I'll have to look into his other stuff like _Fevre Dream_.


Definitely, I mean how many new freaks did GRRM introduce in the last novel to dull me with. Greater character investment for readers would have given the novels a greater backbone. Probably should have let many of these characters live through two or three books at least not only would their deaths have more significance but also GRRM could invent less characters with greater originality but probably didn't because the plot is stretched pretty thin already. Easier to kill them than create more subplots.

_Fevre Dream_ is an excellent horror fantasy!

----------


## drunkenKOALA

> Paulo Coelho, I've read "The Alchimist" and it was so poorly written and simplistic, I really felt like I'd just wasted my time. I could have reread "The Old Man and the Sea" instead and would have enjoyed it so much more.


I read The Zahir...it was very very lame.

----------


## Adolescent09

Although I have tried on several occasions to adopt a slight liking, if not just a general respect for the numerous generic line of literary products by Stephen King my efforts have been in vain. I deplore short sentence structures incessantly cut with hyphens and involving dialogue which although parallel to a lesser educated audience's diction leaves much to be desired in realism. His writing style sickens me although I do find appeal in the labrynth of twists in his thriller series and novels. When all has been said and done, the literary merit of Stephen King's works leave much to be desired--even more when he is categorized with the "greats" such as J.D. Salinger and Harper Lee. His 'The Green Mile' has also been identified with Harriet Beacher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, which very few may object, conveys a profound message that Mr. King could never dream of displaying

----------


## linz

TO EACH HIS OWN

This day and age, if you like a good simple story without deep thoughts then read all these famous authors of today. But I like all the existentialist and absurdest. I wouldn't consider any of them over-rated, atleast not the famous ones, maybe Ionesco just a hair?

----------


## Stieg

I am not going to bother to make a new post because I don't feel there are many GRRM fans on this forum but it does have them.

Question, is George R R Martin the new Robert Jordan?

Aside from a smashing debut of his A Song of Ice And Fire saga, _A Game of Thrones_. A dark fantasy wonderland for adults. But since then, the series has grown progressively sophomoric and convoluted. 

With each succeeding series entry, each book introducing a absurb new cast of uber-killers vying for the title of most bizarre and Iron Throne usurpers and general freaks galore lacking plenty originality.

In the second book, readers had to bear too much GRRM's fixation on Tyrion. So much so we were introduced to his most naked personal anatomy and sex life and his temporary transformation into Ubermensch. 

The third book, brought the death of many main characters. And now with their absence brought in an encyclopedia full of new players and powers in the fourth volume. Ahem sound familiar? See question above. 

And also similarly to Jordan, GRRM can't make up his mind which characters will remain dead and which ones will return. For readers of the series I have heard Gregor Clegane "The Mountain who Rides" has returned under the alchemy and sorceries of maester Qyburn. He is now a Frankenstein monster rebuilt from various body parts??? 

O.O

Why bother killing off the likes of Rob Stark, Catylin, Joffrey, Tywin, etc when you are going to write more of the same into the series again.

Did the saga simply grow too overwhelming and complex for GRRM to handle and he lost grip of his original visions and designs?

----------


## jim1961

> I quite enjoy the Song of Ice and Fire books. And I appreciate them for what they are - good, fun, reads that are engrossing and an easy way to disappear into another world. There are plenty of books that can do that, and plenty of books that can do that a lot better than Martin. But it works for me.


My criticism is that the plot just crawls most of the time. It takes a character nearly a whole book to move from one city to the next. And ironically that character often turns around and ends up going right back where they started.

----------


## rgdmalaysia

Saul Bellow....When he passed away last year, I re-read Herzog and a few of his other books....I had read them in college and found them full of the fussy self-analysis and uninteresting somewhat elitist charcters that I associate with the worst New York intellectual literature (Yes I know Bellow was a Canadian who lived in Chicago).

Turns out I was right the first time....I should admit I don't like Woody Allen movies either

----------


## Corragiosso85

In two words... Dan Brown!!!

----------


## FacialFracture

Philip Roth.

I'm a twenty-something WASP female, so I'm sure I don't fit the profile of his intended readers, but I really resent the few days I devoted to Portnoy's Complaint. I appreciate that many people find something worthwhile in his writing, but if I want weirdly self-congratulatory tales of frenzied adolescent masturbation and indulgent neuroses I'll...well...I just never want those things.

Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

(I'll add another vote to the anti-Dan Brown cause as well.)

----------


## Janine

> Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan. 
> 
> Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.


Hi Set of Keys, interesting user name. 

I was truly appalled to see Oscar Wilde's name up there and also Henry James. I honestly don't know much about the other authors you listed....only a small amount about Plath and some about Updike - both considered fine authors.

Could you give some reason you found these authors sh!t, as you put it?

I am still pretty stunned. I usually only read this thread but I found I needed to speak out this time. 

It would be interesting for me to know what authors you do like.

----------


## Virgil

> Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.


Everyone here at lit net knows I agree with that. Yes, I do think there isn't much there for an adult.  :Wink:  I think Bulowski's an example of arrested development, frozen at the emotional age of sixteen.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Old Crow

> Philip Roth.
> 
> I'm a twenty-something WASP female, so I'm sure I don't fit the profile of his intended readers, but I really resent the few days I devoted to Portnoy's Complaint. I appreciate that many people find something worthwhile in his writing, but if I want weirdly self-congratulatory tales of frenzied adolescent masturbation and indulgent neuroses I'll...well...I just never want those things.


While I definately enjoy his writing, I do think the constant critical fawning over him is overblown.

----------


## Bakiryu

> Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan. 
> 
> Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.



while you may not like these authors, It isn't really nice or proper to refer to something as "Sh!t" could you maybe give a reason for disliking Plath and Wilde?

************************************************** ***

Most overrated author? Charles Dickens. His works are extremely boring and just drag on and on. Great Expectations has to be one of the worse books I've ever read yet people are always quoting him and proclaiming his amazing style.

Balooney!

----------


## stlukesguild

quote-Set of Keys-Oscar Wilde, Ian McEwan, Umberto Eco, Henry James, Raymond Queneau, Ian McEwan, John Updike, Sylvia Plath, Ian McEwan.

Each of them, irrefutably sh!t.

quote-Janine-I was truly appalled to see Oscar Wilde's name up there and also Henry James. I honestly don't know much about the other authors you listed....only a small amount about Plath and some about Updike - both considered fine authors.


Indeed! My thoughts as well. I can live without Plath and Updike... and while Eco appeals to my bibliophile nature... especially in _The Name of the Rose_... I can survive quite well enough without him... But Henry James and Oscar Wilde categorized as !!??!!
Surely sir (or Madame) you have some impediment of which you have not bothered to inform us. :FRlol:  

facial fracture- Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.

Everyone here at lit net knows I agree with that. Yes, I do think there isn't much there for an adult. I think Bulowski's an example of arrested development, frozen at the emotional age of sixteen. :Biggrin:  

Oh Virgil... you are so right. Now be prepared for a drubbing from the Beats Brigade.

----------


## quasimodo1

To Stlukesguild: Here, here on the Updike stuff. I'd have to remove Plath and James; thanks for not sugar-coating your opinion. quasi

----------


## FacialFracture

Okay, I'll jump in and support Set of Keys' bashing of Wilde; I've never liked his writing. I wouldn't say he's "irrefutably sh*t" though--especially since people have been refuting his alleged sh*tiness all over the place.

I find Wilde to have an annoying, preening quality in his writing, and I've always thought he seemed too eager to be clever; I hated The Importance of Being Earnest, I was underwhelmed by Portrait of Dorian Gray, and I've never bothered delving in any more than that. 

Because this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work. In my experience, his well-known witticisms are so often in the mouths of people who overheard them somewhere, or saw them outside of their original context, that I'd be happy never to hear any of them again.

So, basically, whether Wilde is "irrefutably sh*t" or not doesn't concern me...but I will agree with his being _overrated_ simply because I see a large part of his reputation being built on snippets from works that don't share the popularity/public familiarity of their author's name.

----------


## rgdmalaysia

Henry James? Not a fan of his writing

In the words of HG Welles "Like and elephant attempting to pick up a pea".

----------


## Metanoia

Dean Koontz. I honestly don't know how he has sold so many books. "it was cold outside so i put a coat on". I shouldn't really have to say any more... but I will. Koontz is like a disease, he is a plauge on the simple minded folk who could be using their spare time expanding their minds. p.s If you read Koontz I wasn't talking about you- your not simple minded. :-D

----------


## Virgil

> Oh Virgil... you are so right. Now be prepared for a drubbing from the Beats Brigade.


 :FRlol:  Yeah I know.

----------


## jon1jt

> facial fracture- Oh, and Charles Bukowski! I cannot understand why he is read and revered by anyone over the age of eighteen; reveling in one's own personal fetidness and vulgarity really ought to expire after a certain age.


Then you've never understood Bukowski, not one iota of him. Sad considering all the big books you read.

----------


## stlukesguild

this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work.

Actually I would think that Shakespeare or the King James Bible more likely fit the bill of the most oft quoted yet unread by the one doing the quoting. Certainly taken out of context the quotes may have a rather different meaning than intended...rather like Shakespeare's series of good moral point such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when one forgets just who mouths these. Personally, I far prefer the so-called "preening" aesthetes such as Wilde, Pater, Proust, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Nerval, Gautier, and Mallarme far more than many of the "realists" of the time. But then I suppose that's a personal preference... rather like Wagner as opposed to Brahms (although in reality I actually like both in that equation).

----------


## jon1jt

> this is a thread about writers who are "overrated", I do think Wilde fits the bill--not because of the merits of his works (which are, like any merits, subjectively perceived), but the way in which his name lives on: Wilde has to be the most-oft-quoted author, quoted by people who haven't actually read his work.
> 
> Actually I would think that Shakespeare or the King James Bible more likely fit the bill of the most oft quoted yet unread by the one doing the quoting. Certainly taken out of context the quotes may have a rather different meaning than intended...rather like Shakespeare's series of good moral point such as "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when one forgets just who mouths these. Personally, I far prefer the so-called "preening" aesthetes such as Wilde, Pater, Proust, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Nerval, Gautier, and Mallarme far more than many of the "realists" of the time. But then I suppose that's a personal preference... rather like Wagner as opposed to Brahms (although in reality I actually like both in that equation).


Affectation!

----------


## stlukesguild

Affectation!

Based upon experience. :Biggrin:

----------


## Etienne

> Then you've never understood Bukowski, not one iota of him. Sad considering all the big books you read.


Here they come!  :Biggrin:

----------


## FacialFracture

stlukesguild--You're right, Shakespeare's work and the King James version of the bible are quoted more often by people who haven't read them than anything by Wilde. I suppose my argument regarding Wilde could really be made about any author/work that has been absorbed into Western culture in such a way that it is seen or heard, fragmentarily, everywhere...and it's an argument that becomes progressively less supportable as the authors/artists/works in question get older and more ingrained into our culture (e.g., The Bible).

I stand by not liking Wilde (who is certainly better than...oh, let's say, Bukowski), and I gave my reasons for it; I didn't say my logic would be consistent. I like Rimbaud, Proust, and what little Baudelaire I've read. It is just a matter of preference, but what else are people going to base their idea of "overrated" anythings upon?

----------


## Aiculík

Most overrated are Joyce, and Shakespeare. (And maybe also Dickens). 

Not because they are bad authors, for they aren't bad.
But because everyone is _expected_ to like them. And if one dares to admit he did not like one of them, he's considered unintelligent, uneducated, without real taste in literature, etc. Everyone must like them because everyone knows that they're THE authors, the greatest writers in all time. Because people are not allowed to make their own opinion about them. 

Most people didn't really read anything by them, but they are almost always top on different lists "TOP 100". It's not that they're famous, they're _legends_, that are really worshipped, it's like a cult. Just look at Shakespeare - you can find in in hundreds of versions, for children of different age, retold in different ways etc. Or Joyce with national holidays and people "replaying" Bloom's travel across Dublin... 

And as for those who say Joyce deserves it because he invented modernism - well then, I'd say *Laurence Stern* desereves it even more. But unlike Joyce, poor Stern is _under_rated...

----------


## Lambert

> Most overrated are Joyce, and Shakespeare. (And maybe also Dickens). 
> 
> Not because they are bad authors, for they aren't bad.
> But because everyone is _expected_ to like them. And if one dares to admit he did not like one of them, he's considered unintelligent, uneducated, without real taste in literature, etc. Everyone must like them because everyone knows that they're THE authors, the greatest writers in all time. Because people are not allowed to make their own opinion about them. 
> 
> Most people didn't really read anything by them, but they are almost always top on different lists "TOP 100". It's not that they're famous, they're _legends_, that are really worshipped, it's like a cult. Just look at Shakespeare - you can find in in hundreds of versions, for children of different age, retold in different ways etc. Or Joyce with national holidays and people "replaying" Bloom's travel across Dublin... 
> 
> And as for those who say Joyce deserves it because he invented modernism - well then, I'd say *Laurence Stern* desereves it even more. But unlike Joyce, poor Stern is _under_rated...


1) Shakespeare is a far more read author than Joyce. Comparing bowdlerized versions of Shakespeares plays to Blooms day in order to prove the cultish nature of these authors admirers is ludicrous

Shakespeares works have been criticised negatively. Samuel Johnson did so, as did Tolstoy and T.S. Eliot to a certain extent. 

Joyces work is regularly denigrated in the Irish press at Blooms Day with little rebuttal. And the idea that nearly everyone who goes around saying theyve read Ulysses has not actually read the book is absurd. Anyone I know who has read that book can quote a least a couple of memorable lines or talk about scenes that they particularly liked, even after their first read.

2) Sterne is not underrated. If youre thinking of Johnsons dislike of the book (Nothing odd will do long) then you need to look at other critical opinions. I havent read a single modern critic who underrates Tristram Shandy. 

And Sterne did not have a hand in inventing modernism. People used to think Tristram was Stream-of-consciousness but most critics nowadays dismiss this notion. Sterne wrote Tristram in one distinct style. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in various different styles.

----------


## AuntShecky

I would never say a contemporary writer was over-rated, although there are many. It would smack of professional jealousy. I would love to say that yours truly was in fact a professional, but at the moment I would be lying. I am, however, jealous.

Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.

Joyce, Sterne, Dickens,Melville-- over-rated? No way, man! The quartet has produced true "classics" in the sense that you can the works over and over and still find something new. Every one should read Moby Dick at various stages of one's life, every couple of decades, for instance. Same with Ulysses.Re: Joyce: I want to have Anthony Burgess's guide in my lap (same title: "Re: Joyce")when I go to read Finnegan's Wake. Next garage sale/used book sale I'll be searching for copies of both of those books.

----------


## Virgil

> I would never say a contemporary writer was over-rated, although there are many. It would smack of professional jealousy. I would love to say that yours truly was in fact a professional, but at the moment I would be lying. I am, however, jealous.


 :FRlol:  I too am jealous, but I'm enough of a clod to come out and say that certain contemporary writers are over rated.  :Biggrin:  




> Among writers of the past, I was going to say Poe and Faulkner. Poe's short stories are fast reads, but in my opinion deep down there is no "'there' there." Faulkner is a God among the literati in the U.S., certainly among Academia. I can appreciate what a good novelist he is, but
> I find it difficult to plough through his works. That may be
> my own fault. I will attempt to try reading his stuff again.


I understand the difficuties of reading Faulkner, but let me just say that the difficulities he puts to the reader are critical to the aesthetics of the works. At least in his top rated fiction. The difficulties do integrate with the themes.

As to Poe, i completely agree. I won't quite say there's no there there; let me say there's not much there there.  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

*Hi Everyone!* I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and just laughing and laughing to myself. I keep wondering what the point of all this is actually. Last night I was at my library and I was talking to my librarian and told her about it. I guess one could call this thread - 'author bashing'. Anyway, I told her it seems several people said Shakespeare was over-rated and mentioned a few other great authors. I must say, I really gave her a good laugh.

Shakespeare - r e a l l y? I can't even fathom this being said! At first I was so outragged and wanted to strike back, but I am not really the fighting type, like some people we know ( :Wink:  . Actually, glad to see these people maintaining their composure and staying so so calm. I am proud of you and you know who you are.... :FRlol: ! 

Thanks everyone for keeping me entertained. I am really speechless for once. :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

> *Hi Everyone!* I have been reading this thread for awhile now, and just laughing and laughing to myself. I keep wondering what the point of all this is actually. Last night I was at my library and I was talking to my librarian and told her about it. I guess one could call this thread - 'author bashing'. Anyway, I told her it seems several people said Shakespeare was over-rated and mentioned a few other great authors. I must say, I really gave her a good laugh.
> 
> Shakespeare - r e a l l y? I can't even fathom this being said! At first I was so outragged and wanted to strike back, but I am not really the fighting type, like some people we know ( . Actually, glad to see these people maintaining their composure and staying so so calm. I am proud of you and you know who you are....! 
> 
> Thanks everyone for keeping me entertained. I am really speechless for once.


Actually yesterday i think was my first post here too, but I've read along. I've wanted to strike at times too, but I think whether one feels a writer is over rated is a personal opinion and every one is entitled. Once I got over that it became amusing for me too.  :FRlol: 

So let me now say something controversial: John Irving is over rated.  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

> Actually yesterday i think was my first post here too, but I've read along. I've wanted to strike at times too, but I think whether one feels a writer is over rated is a personal opinion and every one is entitled. Once I got over that it became amusing for me too. 
> 
> So let me now say something controversial: John Irving is over rated.


Totally!  :Wink:   :FRlol:  but somehow I like the movies they have made from his books. Over-rated, as a author? Absolutely! 

So, is this really icky writer my aunt recommended to me once - Nicholas Sparks - they also made some films from his icky books - films were also real icky!

----------


## Aiculík

> And the idea that nearly everyone who goes around saying theyve read Ulysses has not actually read the book is absurd. Anyone I know who has read that book can quote a least a couple of memorable lines or talk about scenes that they particularly liked, even after their first read.


I've never said that everyone who says they've read Ulysses actually has not.
I don't have - never did - anything against people who actually read Ulysses (or any other book by any other author) and liked it or disliked it.
But in my opinion, most of population has not read Ulysses. Yet, if you'd ask them to name some really great book, many would name Ulysses. At least that's my experience.




> 2) Sterne is not underrated. If youre thinking of Johnsons dislike of the book (Nothing odd will do long) then you need to look at other critical opinions. I havent read a single modern critic who underrates Tristram Shandy. 
> I never said he vas underrated by critics, I meant it generally. Ask common people if they heard of Laurence Sterne, they'd ask "Laurence who?" But ask them if they ever heard of Shakespeare, or Joyce, and they'd think you're mad for even asking. Or look at reactions here - most people were shocked by the idea that they are overrated - how can they be overrated, when they are great classics, when they are legends! Well, such reactions are exactly the reason why I think they are overrated...
> 
> And Sterne did not have a hand in inventing modernism. People used to think Tristram was Stream-of-consciousness but most critics nowadays dismiss this notion. Sterne wrote Tristram in one distinct style. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in various different styles.


I never heard of stream-of-consciousness in connection with Sterne, I usually heard his name in connection with modernism and postmodernism.

----------


## PabloQ

This has been one of the most entertaining threads to read. I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great. Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language. Did I get that right?
First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.
Secondly, I dismiss any comment that says "I read one work by so and so and I didn't like it." OK, but that doesn't make the author or his/her body of work overrated. It just means you didn't like the read for whatever reason.
Thirdly, declaring someone as overrated does not mean that the author is a bad writer. It means the expectations built by the author's reputation don't meet individual standards of what warrants that reputation.
Fourthly, where are the Russians? Are you telling me that no one, and I mean no one thinks Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Gogol aren't overrated on some level. I'm not saying they are; I was expecting one of those guys to pop on the thread and I was surprised nobody took a shot at them.
Finally, the correct answer is Henry James. I hadn't heard the HG Wells quote before, but just the other day I felt as though James was trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. I'm slugging my way through "The Wings of the Dove" and I think I'd rather try to wade through a swamp. I'd move faster.

----------


## Janine

> This has been one of the most entertaining threads to read. I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great. Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language. Did I get that right?
> Secondly, I dismiss any comment that says "I read one work by so and so and I didn't like it." OK, but that doesn't make the author or his/her body of work overrated. It just means you didn't like the read for whatever reason.
> Thirdly, declaring someone as overrated does not mean that the author is a bad writer. It means the expectations built by the author's reputation don't meet individual standards of what warrants that reputation.
> First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.


 :FRlol: * Hi PabloQ,* and welcome to Lit Net. I get all you wrote :Wink:  and I  :FRlol:  and  :FRlol:  'ed. You have really entertained me totally! I must tell others to read your profound and intuitive post. This thread has greatly entertained me as well. I, as you, have just read along often and I share this sentiment - "I laughed. I cried. I was outraged. But all in all this is great."  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

I agree that one reading of an author could hardly qualify a person to announce that that author is over-rated. 

Now, I do question your statement "Where else can you have William Shakespeare and Dan Brown as overrated? Bill's clearly a hack and Dan is clearly the greatest writer in the English language." oh I see you added "Did I get that right?" - you have a really good sense of humor Pablo!  :Wink:  I bet you won't find another site where this statement has been said online.  :FRlol:  




> First of all, you simply have to throw out anybody whose work is less than 50 years old. The individual work or the body of work needs to be measured over a period of time and some collection of informed opinion needs to have judged the author as clearly above many of his/her peers. Do we really think that 100 years from now Dan Brown's name is going to come up in the 2107 version of the most overrated authors of all time? I don't. But I bet Shakespeare and Joyce and Dickens and Hawthorne and Melville and Fitzgerald are all still part of the mix. It would be fun to see if Updike, Roth, and Irving still are.


Seriously.......????  :Rolleyes:  

Thanks for all the laughs today....good way to start my day out!!!






> Fourthly, where are the Russians?


Yeah, where are the Russians?! :Confused:  



> Are you telling me that no one, and I mean no one thinks Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Gogol aren't overrated on some level. I'm not saying they are; I was expecting one of those guys to pop on the thread and I was surprised nobody took a shot at them.


Even D.H.Lawrence took a shot at Dostoyevsky in his famous essay on 'The Inquisitor', and also I think he had a few things to comment on about Tolstoy. Oh, yikes, I realise now I have put Lawrence's name out there to be shot, at as well. :Bawling:  I saw a post way back taking a big punch at the author, but now I see no one much answered that guy and he has not resurfaced. I tried to find the post but lost it now - I was going to have a rebutal for him.





> Finally, the correct answer is Henry James. I hadn't heard the HG Wells quote before, but just the other day I felt as though James was trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. I'm slugging my way through "The Wings of the Dove" and I think I'd rather try to wade through a swamp. I'd move faster.


Is that why I tried to read the book several times now and abandoned it, or went on to other novels by other authors? I have only read some James short stories and I enjoyed those, but I felt like I was wading through a swamp too, with "Wings of the Dove"....I just though the boredom came from having known the story from the film. I loved the film version with Helena Bonham Carter, but the book is pretty weighty - still I cannot judge the man having read only the short stories and one small novel, so far - think it was "Washington Square". I like that book. Oddly enough I still plan on reading 'WOTD" eventually.

*My final question still is - and what is the point of this thread?*

----------


## Virgil

> *My final question still is - and what is the point of this thread?*


I've come to the conclusion that the point is to express some pent up frustration at seeing certain writers praised while one doesn't see why. 

Now I'm going to express something that will probably cause some controversy. You know me, I don't shy from controversy.  :Wink:  

One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer.  :Crash:

----------


## Janine

> I've come to the conclusion that the point is to express some pent up frustration at seeing certain writers praised while one doesn't see why.


Yes, good point, I think....just that often it seems more like 'author bashing' to me.




> Now I'm going to express something that will probably cause some controversy. You know me, I don't shy from controversy.


*Virgil,* you don't say.....  :FRlol:  





> One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer.


Are there a lot of threads and posts on Orwell? I really had not noticed. I read "Animal Farm" in high school - it was required. We had a strange list of books that were required in my HS. I usually just groaned and read them....no wonder I hated reading then. But "Animal Farm" was ok and clever at the time. Now I am not sure if it would interest me much. I kept hearing about 'Big Brother' and I never did get around to reading 1984 - but I saw the film - does that count? Actually, it was a pretty decent film...it had some fine actors - Burton, John Hurt. 

Don't smash  :Crash:  your computer - we would all miss you and your contraversal ways!  :FRlol:

----------


## bluevictim

> One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer.


It does seem like every time I turn around there is another post about _1984_. Maybe we should have a thread about authors and/or works that are over/under discussed on the LitNet.

----------


## Janine

Yes *bluevictim,* Your idea might be a real good one. Also, I was just saying this to someoene today - we should start another thread called 'under-rated authors'...what do you think of the idea? Seriously, there are many authors who never got their due recognition, expecially in the past. Some had to die first to be heard or noticed...sad, really.

----------


## Quark

Orwell does get an incredible amount of attention on Lit Net. I can't begin to explain why, though. I do think that _Animal Farm_ and _1984_ are good books. Even _Homage to Catalonia_ is an interesting read, but, once you divorce Orwell from the political and historical dimensions that make his writing unique, his writing doesn't impress that much. Animal Farm approaches topics like idealism, hypocrisy, and societal control. Yet, other novel do so as well--and they often do so with more success. I'll have to look into the Orwell threads more when they reappear on the "Recent Forum Posts" page. Maybe it will change my mind.

----------


## PeterL

> One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum. Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature. And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer.


I understand your point. _Animal Farm_ is a fair allegory, but it does not stand the test of time. In the 1950's is was relevant, but the relevance has diminished. I completely agree with you about _1984_; it is a pretty good novel, it has also lost much of its relevance.

----------


## manolia

> *One writer I cannot see why the fuss, and therefore overrated, is George Orwell*. Animal Farm is not even a high school level read, *and 1984, while a good novel, hardly deserves the devotion that one sees on the forum.* *Good God, no other novel gets as many threads here, not Shakespeare, not Faulkner, not Joyce, not Conrad, not Kafka, not Lawrence*. You would think Orwell was the father of english literature.


Amen to all that  :Thumbs Up:  




> And the devotees of 1984 seem to have these chimeras that all our democratic societies are turning into police states. They have completely ruined the novel for me. It is a good novel, but if I see another thread on it I'm going to smash my computer.


Well, about our societies and how democratic they are and were in the past, this needs discussion Virgil, but not in the forum  :Wink:  




> Orwell does get an incredible amount of attention on Lit Net. I can't begin to explain why, though. I do think that _Animal Farm_ and _1984_ are good books. Even _Homage to Catalonia_ is an interesting read, but, *once you divorce Orwell from the political and historical dimensions that make his writing unique, his writing doesn't impress that much.*


I agree.

----------


## bazarov

> Are there a lot of threads and posts on Orwell? I really had not noticed.


Orwell and Shakespeare are top two, ask Logos who is the first one!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

> Orwell and Shakespeare are top two, ask Logos who is the first one!


*Hi bazarov,* Wow, I will have to ask *Logos*, as you suggest. Well, popularity doesn't guarentee that an author is actually a good one. I pass no judgement here - only stating a fact.

----------


## bazarov

> *Hi bazarov,* Wow, I will have to ask *Logos*, as you suggest. Well, popularity does insure an author is actually a good one. I pass no judgement here - only stating a fact.



_Discussion on Specific Authors & Books
This forum is for specific discussion on any of the authors and books featured on this site. Most Popular: William Shakespeare, George Orwell._


Familiar? Above Authors List...

Yes, I agree with you. Orwell is really good in my opinion, but there are many writers much much better than him.

----------


## Alexei

> Yes, I agree with you. Orwell is really good in my opinion, but there are many writers much much better than him.


Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## bazarov

> Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell


Join the club! :FRlol:   :FRlol:  The Atheist is the president.  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Alexei

> Join the club!  The Atheist is the president.


Thanks, if I menage with all my reading I will take part too  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

> Join the club!  The Atheist is the president.


Good one, *Baz!*  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

This thread continues to entertain me....thanks!  :Wink:   :Thumbs Up: 

*Alexei,* I never said I did not like Orwell. Actually, I do (so you are not alone), but just have not read much by him. He certainly had his prominent place in literature.

----------


## bazarov

> *Alexei,* I never said I did not like Orwell. Actually, I do (so you are not alone), but just have not read much by him. He certainly had his prominent place in literature.


What is there except 1984 and Animal Farm?

----------


## Janine

> What is there except 1984 and Animal Farm?


I think he wrote another short book called "Keep the Aspidistra (sp?) Flying".
I saw a film based on the novel. I like the film very much and would like to read the novel, actually. I am guilty of not really reading Orwell, just seeing films based on his novel - oh, wait --- I did read "Animal Farm" in high school....that was many moons ago.

Yep, just looked it up on Amazon and there it was - http://www.amazon.com/Aspidistra-Fly...6542422&sr=1-1 - check it out. I think I did spell that right - amazing! Anyway, if you check the Orwell listings there are many more books he wrote.

----------


## PabloQ

Virgil, dude, look what you've done. You've started yet another string on Orwell. Take your thundrous hammer and smiteth mightily your bits and bytes.  :Crash:  Or at least ignore this thread until we find the next goat.
And the charm of Animal Farm is simply this. Pigs in pants...Dude!!...PIGS IN PANTS!!! :FRlol:  
And will someone please take the bait and try to defend Henry James. I'm wandering around his field of crap looking for the pony. I'm looking for the key that will allow me to be as impressed with his writing as Mr. James seems to be.

----------


## Janine

I would like to nominate for most over-rated poet, our own Lit Net superstar poet, *Virgil* - he wins too many picture poetry contests!  :FRlol: 


sorry *Virg* - just kidding with you......

----------


## rgdmalaysia

> I think he wrote another short book called "Keep the Aspidistra (sp?) Flying".
> I saw a film based on the novel. I like the film very much and would like to read the novel, actually. I am guilty of not really reading Orwell, just seeing films based on his novel - oh, wait --- I did read "Animal Farm" in high school....that was many moons ago.
> 
> Yep, just looked it up on Amazon and there it was - http://www.amazon.com/Aspidistra-Fly...6542422&sr=1-1 - check it out. I think I did spell that right - amazing! Anyway, if you check the Orwell listings there are many more books he wrote.


I would have to say "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" is my favorite Orwell novel....A perfect mix of idealism and reality....However, the ending isn't necessarily an unhappy one as capitalism temporarily triumphs over the goals of the protagonist....Also the relationship between the male and female leads is the best of any of Orwell's books.

"Coming Up for Air" is also excellent and a worthy addition to the British tradition of the little man fighting against his gray repetative 9 to 5 life.

"Homage to Catalonia" is well-written and interesting....The part where Orwell is severly injured is compelling.

"Down and Out in London and Paris" is a short book that makes an interesting comparison about two types of working poverty....A minor book but an entertaining one.

Actually "Animal Farm" is my least favorite book of his....It's ham fisted allegory and obvious message doesn't make for a very good read IMO. 

Orwell's personal reputation has taken a bit of beating recently with the revelation he may have been an informer on some of his communist/socialist colleague for the government....In some of the biogrpahies I have read he comes across as a total ******* but I say trust the art and not the artist!

----------


## Janine

> I would have to say "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" is my favorite Orwell novel....A perfect mix of idealism and reality....However, the ending isn't necessarily an unhappy one as capitalism temporarily triumphs over the goals of the protagonist....Also the relationship between the male and female leads is the best of any of Orwell's books.
> 
> "Coming Up for Air" is also excellent and a worthy addition to the British tradition of the little man fighting against his gray repetative 9 to 5 life.
> 
> "Homage to Catalonia" is well-written and interesting....The part where Orwell is severly injured is compelling.
> 
> "Down and Out in London and Paris" is a short book that makes an interesting comparison about two types of working poverty....A minor book but an entertaining one.
> 
> Actually "Animal Farm" is my least favorite book of his....It's ham fisted allegory and obvious message doesn't make for a very good read IMO. 
> ...


Wow, *rgdmalaysia* - thanks for all that information. It is good to know about the other books Orwell wrote and I bet they are actually better reads than "Animal Farm" - I think that book's popularity was based on the fact that no one had done a book quite like that before. I have been intending for a long time to read "KTAF" - I read that that this book is basically autobiographical and that interested me. Also, I saw the film based on the book and I found it witty and very amusing and 'touching', as well. In the film the male and female leads had great chemistry and were so witty together.

Given this new list (thanks again) I think these all sound interesting and a bit more true to life - maybe (?). 

At the time "1984" was written, it is true that it was quite 'unique', and now we have been over-exposed to this 'mind-control' concept in films and books, so that I think it has lost it's original impact. I am sure it was a brilliant novel in it's day, and still is considering it's place in time.

----------


## quasimodo1

Ars Gratia Artis. Hail Caesar. Long live Virgil.

----------


## Janine

> Ars Gratia Artis. Hail Caesar. Long live Virgil.


*quasi*, at least you got the joke! :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil, dude, look what you've done. You've started yet another string on Orwell. Take your thundrous hammer and smiteth mightily your bits and bytes.  Or at least ignore this thread until we find the next goat.
> And the charm of Animal Farm is simply this. Pigs in pants...Dude!!...PIGS IN PANTS!!!


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Pigs in pants! I guess that is something.  :Biggrin: 





> And will someone please take the bait and try to defend Henry James. I'm wandering around his field of crap looking for the pony. I'm looking for the key that will allow me to be as impressed with his writing as Mr. James seems to be.


It's hard to defend Henry James, especially with Wings of the Dove and The Golden Bowl. They are inpenetrable for no apparent reason. But then there is the great Henry James too, Portrait of a Lady, Daisy Miller, The Ambassadors, and The Beast In the Jungle, which in my opinion may the best short novel ever written. So I don't know. There is some truely great Henry James too.

----------


## quasimodo1

Pigs wearing pants could only be improved by pigs on the wing.

----------


## Virgil

> Pigs wearing pants could only be improved by pigs on the wing.


How about pigs on a barbecue?  :Wink:

----------


## manolia

> Finally!!! I have already started thinking I am the only one who likes Orwell


We definately didn't say that we don't like Orwell. Check out Virgil's post  :Wink:   :Smile:  




> How about pigs on a barbecue?


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I almost fell off my chair  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Phoenix Wright

Mark Twain.

It's a matter of preference. I can't stand his writing style.

----------


## Janine

> We definately didn't say that we don't like Orwell. Check out Virgil's post   
> 
> 
> 
>   I almost fell off my chair


*manolia*  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  absolutely - hysterical! Good one, *Virgil* :Thumbs Up:  

Hey, *V,* did you see that I nominated you as 'over-rated' poet, cause you win all those poetry contests.....I was just kidding of course! :Biggrin:  

This thread is certainly a fun one! :Wink: 

Yeah, let me expand the phrase - 'pigs on a barbie' - is that how Australia's spell that? Wait how can one put a pig on a barbeque? Is it like ribs?

----------


## metal134

> Pigs wearing pants could only be improved by pigs on the wing.


Pink Floyd are gods.

----------


## Janine

> Pink Floyd are gods.


Pink Floyd!!! alright! :Thumbs Up:  Love them..... :Biggrin:

----------


## EAP

Hmm, lessee. 

I thought I covered the russians? 

All of 'em are overrated.

Orwell's best work isn't his fiction but his essays/travelogues.

----------


## Etienne

> Hmm, lessee. 
> 
> I thought I covered the russians? 
> 
> All of 'em are overrated.
> 
> Orwell's best work isn't his fiction but his essays/travelogues.


What do you mean all of them? I mean I don't think that in general they are considered better than, let's say english or french in general, it all comes down to individuals. So do you mean to say that they are inferior to english or french writer as a whole? I'm not sure saying russians are overrated really means anything, no? What have you read and what did you find overrated among what you read? I'm just curious.

I also agree with Orwell, I've only read 1984, it was a very good book, but when I look at it's popularity, I'm puzzled.

----------


## FacialFracture

I'd go so far as to say that _Russia itself_ is totally overrated. I mean, what have they got going for them anyway? Vodka? Snow? The Hermitage? When it was still the U.S.S.R it was okay, but its later work has really disappointed me.

----------


## EAP

> What do you mean all of them?


All of 'em.




> So do you mean to say that they are inferior to english or french writer as a whole?


Yes.




> I'm not sure saying russians are overrated really means anything, no?


No.




> What have you read and what did you find overrated among what you read?


Everything.




> I'd go so far as to say that Russia itself is totally overrated. I mean, what have they got going for them anyway? Vodka? Snow? The Hermitage? When it was still the U.S.S.R it was okay, but its later work has really disappointed me.


QFT.

----------


## Etienne

Dude I checked your posts and you seem to post only useless crap. Why don't you tell us which one you read and found overrated exactly?

----------


## Janine

Be nice now ~

----------


## Etienne

> Be nice now ~


Will you stop that? You're one of those always jumping around and saying "be nice" while there's no reason for it this is really annoying, honestly. I've not been rude at all, look at the guy's posts he just seems to be trolling around. Why post at all if all if he's not going to discuss constructively?

----------


## papayahed

*General Mod note to all.* 
*Refrain from nit picking and personal insults and return to the topic at hand. If it continues, posts may be edited or the thread will be closed.*

----------


## Dori

Russian lit seems to me to be underrated. I have not a met a person in real life who has read anything that Russia has produced with the exception of my English teacher. Even on online forums, the amount of people I encounter which have read a substantial amount of Russian lit (enough to form a justifiable opinion on it) are minimal at best.

----------


## bluevictim

> Yes *bluevictim,* Your idea might be a real good one. Also, I was just saying this to someoene today - we should start another thread called 'under-rated authors'...what do you think of the idea? Seriously, there are many authors who never got their due recognition, expecially in the past. Some had to die first to be heard or noticed...sad, really.


It's a good idea. "Overrated Authors" and "Underrated Authors" (and variations on that theme) are pretty standard recurring threads at LitNet. I'm sure you'd be able to dig up an "Underrated Authors" thread just by flipping back a few pages in the "General Literature" forum. Naturally, the "Underrated Authors" threads often turn into "My Favorite Obscure Authors" threads in essence, and the current thread is pretty typical of the "Overrated Authors" threads -- consisting of complaints about "great" authors together with indignant defenses of the greatness of those authors (cf. the "Worst books you ever read" thread). I pretty much consider this activity the official sport of the LitNet.  :Smile:

----------


## AuntShecky

You know, I said that I wasn't going to comment on current or contemporary authors, but --
("Do I contradict myself?
Then, I contradict myself" --Walt Whitman) but--
why the popularity of Pat Conroy (not to be confused with Frank Conroy, under-rated author of Stop Time.)

Pat Conroy's novels have been filmed as movies -- one about a schoolteacher starring Jon Voight and one that
starred Barbra Streisand. But a few years ago I started reading the actual novel of _Prince of Tides_ and I couldn't account for the author's success. So I couldn't/wouldn't finish, but I had read enough to think that the emotional content was maudlin and his prose style seemed amateurish to me. I could almost picture him at his desk with the thesaurus open!
And what was most disappointing was the author's inability to take artistic risks.

----------


## nebish

I totally endorse your opinion of Prince of Tides, the scenes in New York were particularly embarrassing: cliche'd plot and behaviour, an insult to the critical reader. It may be the problem moderate writers encounter when they try to go beyond their native soil.

----------


## elfiedaelf

Most overrated Writer....

Hmm.... I would have to say shakespear!

----------


## loggats

I don't think any writer rises to sustained prominence without giving something meaningful. Even though I dislike their achievements (i'm thinking of d.h.lawrence right now) I'll acknowledge their contributions. Third rate writers are overrated, by ignorant readers.

----------


## stlukesguild

Most overrated Writer....

Hmm.... I would have to say shakespear!

Uhhh... yeah... and that Michelangelo... what an overrated artist. Couldn't paint a lick. :Rolleyes:

----------


## stlukesguild

For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.

Ah yes... an artist railing against the norms of bourgeois society. How original. That's never been done before. :Rolleyes:  I now see the error of my ways.

----------


## papayahed

> I think that Tom Wolfe is the most overrated writer ever!I detested his new journalism and find his novels badly written and almost entirely lacking in any literary merit. Honestly just because he's from the south and wears a white suit literary editors of magazines seem to equate him to a Faulkner or Dickinson instead of just the grubby overvalued little (in every sense) hack that he is!


Agreed.

----------


## jon1jt

> For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.
> 
> Two thumbs down for the Potter series!



Ahhh, when the hell is America going to add Kerouac to Mount Rushmore?!  :FRlol:  B-Mental, you and me need to team up on StLuke, he's at it bad mouthing Kerouac again!

----------


## jon1jt

> For those who don't like Kerouac and continue to follow a day in day out existence, he was railing against you, against society and norms. Try the Darma Bums, Kerouac deserves a second chance.
> 
> Ah yes... an artist railing against the norms of bourgeois society. How original. That's never been done before. I now see the error of my ways.


Why is it that I imagine you as a bathrobe, pipe-smoking type?  :Biggrin:

----------


## aabbcc

From my personal experiences... Coelho. Quasi-spiritual kitsch written by a quasi-spiritual wannabe. I cannot even understand why, oh _why_ was I torturing myself by giving him a second chance, and then a third, despite knowing somewhere in the bottom of everything that he would _not_ get any better (that is the fact you can realise in the first ten pages), and that his popularity at the time was not due to the quality of the written material, but to something else, maybe that typical mass effect, suddenly everybody was talking about him, so it turned out that everybody was reading him, if for nothing else than for the sake of curiosity. (On the side note, a similar phenomenon is happening now with Beigbeder, whom I have not read yet, only skimmed once in library, so I will not comment... But every year or two some popular author ends up in that position.)

I can think of several other authors who were literary disappointments for me (e.g. Salinger, or Pamuk), but I doubt anyone could compete Coelho in this.

----------


## stlukesguild

Why is it that I imagine you as a bathrobe, pipe-smoking type?

Nope... no bathrobes, I sleep in the nude. :Brow:  Drives the wife nuts, though. She always wants to know what I'd do if there was a fire. (I'd probably be saving the books :Eek2: ). No pipe either. I don't smoke smoke at all. But I do drink :Biggrin:  I'll take a good dark British beer (Samuel Smith Imperial Stout... Young's Double Chocolate Malt) or something Belgian. 

So what are the habits of a Kerouac lover? Hmmm... I somehow imagine those skinny French cigarette, wine coolers, and speedos. :Goof:

----------


## PeterL

> Ah yes... an artist railing against the norms of bourgeois society. How original. That's never been done before. I now see the error of my ways.


That is good. Everyone should be willing to recognize one's own errors.

----------


## AuntShecky

I don't dislike the works of Sylvia Plath, but I wonder if her reputation comes from our romantic sentiment about the details of her life.

Flannery O'Connor -- just ok, but some see her as God's gift to American literature.

(Okay, auntie, now you're getting catty.)

----------


## HotKarl

--"That's not writing. It's typing."

Truman Capote's response to a question about what he thinks of _On the Road_.

I'm inclined to agree Mr. Capote. I'm inclined to agree.

----------


## Aeltya

> I don't dislike the works of Sylvia Plath, but I wonder if her reputation comes from our romantic sentiment about the details of her life.


For me, reading Sylvia Plath was very disturbing because I identified with her darkest works. It was like looking into a mirror. Such pain and anger.

<shiver>

----------


## thechampion

Truman capote writes like an old woman on the crapper, stuffed, pretentious, self-reverent; his voice comes through the distance of a tinfoil tube then through the telephone. There is no emotion not fabricated, no real human emotions AT ALL. He is depraved in all ways as a writer. Truman capote is by far the most overrated writer ever. He's actually one of the worst. This is not in response to the kerouac thing. Kerouac is vastly overrated also, but he at least has written several sentences of any value in his time, whereas capote has not written one.

----------


## loggats

> Truman capote writes like an old woman on the crapper, stuffed, pretentious, self-reverent; his voice comes through the distance of a tinfoil tube then through the telephone. There is no emotion not fabricated, no real human emotions AT ALL. He is depraved in all ways as a writer. Truman capote is by far the most overrated writer ever. He's actually one of the worst. This is not in response to the kerouac thing. Kerouac is vastly overrated also, but he at least has written several sentences of any value in his time, whereas capote has not written one.


To me, the greatest pleasure of writing is not what it's about, but the inner music that words make. Capote.

----------


## Shea

Haven't looked through enough of this thread to know if anyone has said this, but I can't stand Dan Brown. Anyone who claims to have facts in their work and not do the adequate research to make sure is just a raving lunatic.

----------


## crazefest456

> Haven't looked through enough of this thread to know if anyone has said this, but I can't stand Dan Brown. Anyone who claims to have facts in their work and not do the adequate research to make sure is just a raving lunatic.


YES! finally someone who understands...

----------


## Shea

> YES! finally someone who understands...


 :FRlol:

----------


## jon1jt

The public asks for crap and so Dan Brown gave them crap. Danielle Steel, John Grisham, Anne Rice, etc. It's a noble accomplishment in this world, actually.

----------


## ThePianoMan

I really never saw anything in Grisham's works that I found so awful. He's no literary genius, but he knows how to right an interesting story that really grips your attention.

----------


## ClickForth

okokok

----------


## stlukesguild

I can see the cigarettes making sense, but the beats weren't exactly lightweights at drinking and probably wouldn't deign to wear a speedo.

Ah... but considering a "Beats Lover" one gets the image of a holdover from the good old days of teenage rebellion... sort of an aging hippie. I don't imagine such as still hitting the Jack Daniels on a regular basis.

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

> Thomas Hardy is over rated. On the other hand, J. K. Rowling is a very good writer.


ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!

----------


## PeterL

> ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!


I sometimes ask the same question, but what does that have to do with authors?

----------


## Irrylath

Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is overrated (referring to a few posts on the first page) seriously needs to think about his/her life. If you don't like him, you don't understand him.

----------


## PabloQ

This is the second "overrated author" thread I've read. The other one started with someone going after Jane Austen. It's far more entertaining that this one. However, there are some valid points made in that other thread, which I would appy to this one.
1. Ignore current bestseller writers. We have no indication we'll be talking about them a hundred years from now.
2. Back up your claim. If you are going to crawl out on a thin limb and declare Shakespeare overrated, you had better have some facts to back it up. Otherwise, it's a matter of your not enjoying the writing or underappreciating it or something more relative to you than the author or the writing.
3. Every author doesn't appeal to everyone. It's what makes all the forums on this network so interesting. Seek what you like or what intrigues you or what gives you joy or mystifies you.
4. Read more than one work from the author before you make a declaration on his or her work. Go to a forum and make a statement like "I just read xyz by whomever and found it unpleasant. What else should I read to have a better experience." Folks will help you out.
My recent candidate for overrated has been Henry James and I'm changing my tune. I read Portrait of a Lady (liked it) and The Wings of the Dove (hated it) and I'm currently reading The Ambassadors (really like it). I'm discovering the I don't have what it takes to fully appreciate his work, but I can see why it might be considered "literature". So, give some of these folks a break.

----------


## johann cruyff

I'm not even going to take contemporary "writers" such as Dan Brown,Rowling,*Houllebecq* or Paulo Coelho into account: 99% of today's authors are grossly overrated in my opinion,including the aforementioned.

As for older authors...in no particular order:
*Ernest Hemingway
Virginia Woolf
De Sade*(no matter how bad you may think he is,he's even worse!His poor excuse for philosophy in his works is ridiculous.)
*Harriet Beecher Stowe*
*Honore de Balzac* 
*Ayn Rand*
*Boris Pasternak*

All of these,especially Hemingway,are important,but I still think they're given too much credit.

----------


## stlukesguild

De Sade(no matter how bad you may think he is,he's even worse!His poor excuse for philosophy in his works is ridiculous.)

Agreed 100&#37; His "writing" is nothing more than the ramblings of a deranged mind... and even that makes him sound better than he is. As mind-numbingly repetitive as some angst-laden teenager's diary (without the angst) and as "deep" as the ramblings of some middle aged pervert posting comments on some porno blog.

Ernest Hemingway
Actually... I find the short stories quite good.
Virginia Woolf
Really? I quite like her.
Ayn Rand
Agreed again.
Boris Pasternak
Perhaps it is hard to understand why he won the Noble Prize solely on the basis of _Doctor Zhivago_... but his poetry is quite marvelous. Check out _My Sister-Life_ if you can find it.

----------


## HotKarl

I nearly forgot--Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Sure, he has the occasional good comment, but for the most part, this man has everybody fooled. I detest his style; there is no logical flow to his ideas. He quickly jumps from idea to idea without transition. His writing is a series of quotes that makes for a frustrating experience.

Second, he says many things that are just stupid. Occasionally he'll lay some doosie on you like No great man ever complains of want of opportunity (tell that to MLK) or There is a tendency for things to right themselves (I guess there's no need to treat AIDS patients or pay our bills). Yet everyone treats this guy with extreme reverence even though much of his advice is chock-full of ignorance.

But my biggest gripe with Emerson is his belief that he and the rest of the artistic elite are "part and participle of God." Talk about arrogant. This guy thinks he's filled with divinity. I remember quotes where he boasts that he has seen the universe, that he understands the universe, that he is the universe--all because his body is formed from molecules that have drifted the cosmos. To me, Ralph Waldo Emerson is synonymous with hubris.

----------


## johann cruyff

Ernest Hemingway
Actually... I find the short stories quite good.
Virginia Woolf
Really? I quite like her.

Okay,I have to admit,I don't think Hemingway,as a writer,is as overrated as some of his works(does that even make sense :Brickwall:  ?) are.Most notably,_The Old Man and the Sea_.There's just something about that book that makes me want to slap the nearest person.

As for Virginia Woolf,I've read very little of her,granted,but I find her no better than Rand.

----------


## Laughablefellow

> 1. Ignore current bestseller writers. We have no indication we'll be talking about them a hundred years from now.


I'd agree for the most part, however the probably only exception would be someone who's been sniped at quite a bit in the couple of pages of this discussion I bothered to read: Ms. J.K.Rowling - I think it pretty safe to make a bet that whatever anyone thinks of her writing she's created a phenomenom which is going to be talked about for many many years to come - the franchise is now the most profitable ever: the first five movies taking more in box office gross than 22 james bond films put together (and yes all six star wars films too). The last book sold record numbers in record time.

Of course this doesn't make her a good writer, the books arn't the best written in the world and the plots arn't even that original. However, you have to remember these are childrens books, they just happen to have attracted massive adult audiences as well. I'll concede though that even relative to other children's books of a similar style she's not the best, give me Tolkien's _The Hobbit_ anyday.

P.S. In agreement with other comments - I can't believe anyone can seriously say Shakespeare is over rated and be able to back that up with anything other than "plays are boring" or "the language just doesnt mean anything". I've spent all day going over Romeo and Juliet for revision for a Shakespeare exam I'm sitting on Tuesday and if anything it's only deepened my love for the Bard and all his works... well.... most of his works ;-)

----------


## Mark Anthony

Where's the objectivity? These are the over-rated writers - at present, anyway. :Flare:

----------


## Mark Anthony

I'm not sure who is the most overrated author. What I do know is that I recently received an 'Alice in Wonderland' DVD in the post. It was based on a novel by: 

J. K. Rowling 

at least, in Cyprus, it was, somewhere - apparently!!! :Bawling:

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

> I sometimes ask the same question, but what does that have to do with authors?


What does it have to do?

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

> I'm not sure who is the most overrated author. What I do know is that I recently received an 'Alice in Wonderland' DVD in the post. It was based on a novel by: 
> 
> J. K. Rowling 
> 
> at least, in Cyprus, it was, somewhere - apparently!!!


That's sick.  :FRlol:

----------


## ben.!

Dan Brown gets my vote for most overrated author currently. He combines all the current conspiracy theories of the Church, throws in a bit of fiction, writes it like a Bond film on fast forward (it's so fast you just can't understand it!), throws in long-winded speeches about bogus history, then writes all this in a form of prose that would be apt for a 7 year old.

That's why he's a bestseller, his books are so easy to read. He makes the chapters so short that you sound smart by finishing 12 in one night without breaking sweat, then just rants on about Catholicism and Opus Dei until the cows come home.

Here's the four reasons why he's a bestseller: 

1. His books are inexplicably easy to read.

2. The Vatican expressly said not to read them.

3. It pays out on the Church. Big time.

4. Gives an alternate interpretation of the Holy Grail, which has everyone prancing around in joy, even though it the theory was clearly explained as a clear coherent idea in books like _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_, the authors of that book actually sued Brown for stealing their ideas.

I myself quite like the idea of Mary Maguedelin being the Grail, however there is so much bogus in the book that it leaves me feeling like a 7 year old and confused.

----------


## JoanS

Garc&#237;a M&#225;rquez without any doubt.. Hemingway's works is like the start of comercial literature.. Balzac needs diferent points of view

----------


## JoanS

ah, i ve forgotten write the holy bible

----------


## bazarov

> ah, i ve forgotten write the holy bible


 You're kidding, right?

Hemingway, Coelho; Rowling and Brown are not considered to be writers.

----------


## Axle1017

James fennimore cooper is the most overrated writer of all time. Mark twain bashed him in an essay and i have never read the last of the mohicans the same way again.

----------


## Dori

> James fennimore cooper is the most overrated writer of all time. Mark twain bashed him in an essay and i have never read the last of the mohicans the same way again.


Well, Mark Twain also bashed Jane Austen. Twain wrote, "Just the omission of Jane Austens books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadnt a book in it." I'm not sure I buy into this though... :Wink:

----------


## Tersely

Nicholas Sparks. I thought the movies had more information then his books, and that time spent I'll never get back. Ever.

----------


## PeterL

> Well, Mark Twain also bashed Jane Austen. Twain wrote, "Just the omission of Jane Austens books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadnt a book in it." I'm not sure I buy into this though...


And I thought that I was missing something by not liking Jane Austen. Twain's critique of Fennimore Cooper is one of the most useful instructions in writing fiction that exists. I never could stand Fennimore Cooper, but I didn't know exactly why until I read Twain's piece. 
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt

----------


## Igetanotion

> What a painful thread to read! I realize, however, different people certainly have different tastes . . . sometimes very different tastes.
> I certainly agree with J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown, but also I would like to add James Redfield, Dr. Phil, Gore Vidal, and Billy Collins.


BILLY COLLINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!  :Eek:  

Ok, Ok, I'll give you he's not for everyone. He's dry!! His Poetry is not supposed to be "Deep" which is one of his greatest criticisms! I think he's fantastic. In fact, I'll be seeing him at the AWP Conference next week, perhaps If I see him around the hotel I'll let him know he made such a list, he'd probably find it funny!! (He's been to my college quite a few times actually. Nice guy)
He is only the former Poet Laurette to the USA after all  :Tongue:   :FRlol:

----------


## Igetanotion

> García Márquez without any doubt.. Hemingway's works is like the start of comercial literature.. Balzac needs diferent points of view


How could you possibly include Gabriel Garcia Marquez on a list like this? I'm dumbfounded. He is one of the great authors of our time. Shame for you  :Sick:  

Especially when there are people like Dan Brown and, Gee let me think, anyone else on the "Best Sellers" table at any bookstore around the country. 
Ernest Hemingway is also one of the greats. Everyone has a right to dislike an authors work, but it sure dosen't qualify them for the "Overrated authors" list.

----------


## Igetanotion

> Dan Brown and Hunter S. Thompson


Techincally.... Hunter S. Thompson was a "Journalist", he is found in the Journalism section at Boarders at least so that should qualify for something.  :FRlol:  and totally not overrated, maybe not for everyone. Certainly not for everyone actually, but not overrated.

and with that I am not going to read this thread anymore, its making me nuts!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Ozymandias

Stephen King is neither an exception story teller nor writer. He has a talent for finding images and settings that evoke fear and disquiet, but that's about as fa as it goes. Everything of his I've read has left me disappointed.

----------


## Ozymandias

I'm all for being an iconoclast, but Shakespeare is THE writer. You can rebel against it as did Virginia Woolfe in her essay, but you cannot deny it. 

I have not read Marquez in his original language but 100 Years of Solitude was a wonderfully crafted novel and one of the finest I have read. I found Autumn of the Patriarch lacking, however.

I'll agree with the James Fenimore Cooper posting. Steinbeck and Hemingway were products of their time and excelled at articulating the spirit of that period. They are perhaps set on too high a pedestal but they are excellent writers.

Freud has been overrated for a very long time.

----------


## HotKarl

> Techincally.... Hunter S. Thompson was a "Journalist", he is found in the Journalism section at Boarders at least so that should qualify for something.  and totally not overrated, maybe not for everyone. Certainly not for everyone actually, but not overrated.


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion of Mr. Thompson. To call him a "journalist" is practically blasphemy. Not only is he taking a writing style where objectivity is of the utmost importance and pissing all over it, but he's acting like he's had some sort of great realization, like he's made huge progress in the field of journalism. Talk about Hubris. He completely distorts events; what should be as objective as possible becomes a farce. I know that remaining completely objective is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean journalists should stop trying. "Gonzo" journalism turns a public service into a monument of narcissism. 

That and the guy was just a lunatic. It's one thing to get high and ruin your own life, but it's another get high and ruin someone else's. For God's sake, the man thought it would be a good idea to give acid to the Hell's Angels--some of the most murderous, marauding guys around, a group of insane criminals. Would you give an already dangerous group of men psychedelic drugs? I hope not. Talk about irresponsible.

I can say with confidence that within fifty years time that Hunter S. Thompson will no longer be relevant.

----------


## HotKarl

> Freud has been overrated for a very long time.


While I agree that Freudian ideas about women are completely ridiculous (penis envy? This guy was clueless when it came to ladies), I do think that some of his ideas about men are true. I can certainly identify with the Id, Ego, and Super Ego. I think his idea of the Oedipus Complex is insightful and interesting. And men certainly are phallocentric. I think he has a very good understanding of the male mind.

----------


## Igetanotion

> I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion of Mr. Thompson. To call him a "journalist" is practically blasphemy. Not only is he taking a writing style where objectivity is of the utmost importance and pissing all over it, but he's acting like he's had some sort of great realization, like he's made huge progress in the field of journalism. Talk about Hubris. He completely distorts events; what should be as objective as possible becomes a farce. I know that remaining completely objective is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean journalists should stop trying. "Gonzo" journalism turns a public service into a monument of narcissism. 
> 
> That and the guy was just a lunatic. It's one thing to get high and ruin your own life, but it's another get high and ruin someone else's. For God's sake, the man thought it would be a good idea to give acid to the Hell's Angels--some of the most murderous, marauding guys around, a group of insane criminals. Would you give an already dangerous group of men psychedelic drugs? I hope not. Talk about irresponsible.
> 
> I can say with confidence that within fifty years time that Hunter S. Thompson will no longer be relevant.


Well, no matter how much you hate him or his lifestyle, the fact is he _was_ a journalist. You can, of course, respectfully disagree, agree, jump up and down, do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around. But, it doesn't change the fact that he _was_ a journalist. And a Pioneer. Now, I understand that many people do not find drugs and alcohol, and terrible behavior as something to be admired. And it most certainly is not. But, brilliant people very often do terribly stupid things. And perhaps he was not brilliant at all, but if not then he was very lucky to make the impact that he has. I will be a professor of Literature some day quite soon, and I'll make sure that 50 years from now, when I am in the twilight of my career, to mention him to my students as someone worth looking at.  :Wink:  

Of course, don't take offense. I am simply respectfully disagreeing with your disagreement, and mean no harm at all.

Also, have you ever considered the fact that perhaps the beauty of his style of journalism was in his distorted perception? It isn't that he is delivering to the public a distorted view of events, he is delivering his view of events. Also, "Fear and Loathing" (I know terrible example but it is one that everyone should know) begins with him covering a sports event, but the book (which is considered a book of journalism, and not a fiction novel) becomes an account of narcotic induced lunacy in LV. This is the account of an addict, from the point of view of an addict. That in itself is a wonderful thing, who wants to read a report from someone who has never been there telling that kind of story? they wouldn't really know would they? But Thompson lets you in, shows you from the inside, which is the point of Gonzo Journalism.

----------


## Igetanotion

> I have not read Marquez in his original language but 100 Years of Solitude was a wonderfully crafted novel and one of the finest I have read. I found Autumn of the Patriarch lacking, however..


I'm glad you agree with me! 
Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.
(Also, Autumn of the Patriarch is a "Poem" according to Marquez at least, and is based on actual Tyrants. I think he was trying to show the horrors of all the Caribbean tyrants in one man. Marques is quite political.) Some of his short stories I have found a bit "Lacking" but Writers also progress. "The General in his Labyrinth" is a better political one if you wanted to give his political literature another wing, though I think I much prefer his love stories :Blush:  .

----------


## iloveoscar

I love Jack Keroauc and I'm very upset to see his name pop up so often!! =( try reading the Dharma Bums, its an amazing book, and i agree with Shakespeare, I'm sorry but I just can't handle him.

----------


## Idril

> I'm glad you agree with me! 
> Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.


Oh man! That book was a beast! I counted once and there was one sentence that was 10 pages long! I had to bring a pencil with me whenever I read the book so I could make a mark where I finished because there were no obvious leave off points, no periods, no paragraphs, no anything. There were so many things that made that book difficult, along with the lack of puncuation was the fact that the narrator would change in the middle of these mamoth sentences and that wouldn't always be clear until a little way into the thought. But I do agree that it has it's worth, if you could deal with the format and get through it, the end feeling was very powerful. It was a disturbing book and I don't know that he could've acheived that intensity with a more conventional format.

----------


## Igetanotion

Idril, 
 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I'm glad to see someone else on here read the whole thing  :FRlol: 
Did you also feel bad for the tyrant? A little even? I fealt bad. He did a good job, Marquez, got the point across well. Nothing like reading a book with desperate punctuation to make you feel the desired effect

----------


## Idril

> Idril, 
>   I'm glad to see someone else on here read the whole thing 
> Did you also feel bad for the tyrant? A little even? I fealt bad. He did a good job, Marquez, got the point across well. Nothing like reading a book with desperate punctuation to make you feel the desired effect


I was determined to finish the book, I was not going to let the beast defeat me, it became a matter of pride.  :Tongue:  

I did feel bad for the Tyrant...and then I felt bad for feeling bad for such a violent, cannibalistic despot.  :Rolleyes:   :FRlol:  The physical effect it had on me because of the punctuation, because of the stream of consciousness type thoughts and the constant switching of narrators, was significant. It produced a sense of fevered reading and racing thoughts, it created this almost physical atmosphere of the haze of heat and it even affected my dreams. I got through the book pretty quickly, mostly just because there was no place to stop but when I was done, there was such a relief, not just because of hard task of reading the novel but also because I needed to get out of that mind set.

----------


## liberal viewer

> I'm glad you agree with me! 
> Autumn of the Patriarch is a beast all of its own. I got through about 15 pages on my first read and realized, I had only seen a very few punctuation marks. It was difficult to read that way at first, fast paced unending sentences winding down each page in small print, it gives you a feeling of discomfort. Which was his point. And while it is certainly not the most enjoyable book to read, I've got to take my hat off to him on that one as well as Solitude.
> (Also, Autumn of the Patriarch is a "Poem" according to Marquez at least, and is based on actual Tyrants. I think he was trying to show the horrors of all the Caribbean tyrants in one man. Marques is quite political.) Some of his short stories I have found a bit "Lacking" but Writers also progress. "The General in his Labyrinth" is a better political one if you wanted to give his political literature another wing, though I think I much prefer his love stories .


:
: Obviously his master piece is One Hundred Years of Solitude, but Autum is an enriching experience as well, anyway, please don't call him "Marquez". He is García Márquez. And yes, one of the giants!
Cheers!

----------


## bakestewah

I think Charles Dickens is the most overrated writer. Great Epectations and a Christmas Carol are my basis for this because, even though they were classicas of their time, they were overrated!

----------


## kilted exile

> I think Charles Dickens is the most overrated writer. Great Epectations and a Christmas Carol are my basis for this because, even though they were classicas of their time, they were overrated!


Could you expand on that?

----------


## Igetanotion

> :
> : Obviously his master piece is One Hundred Years of Solitude, but Autum is an enriching experience as well, anyway, *please don't call him "Marquez". He is Garc&#237;a M&#225;rquez.* And yes, one of the giants!
> Cheers!


Calling him "Marquez" is a term of endearment. And do not think for one second that I hold any lack of respect for him. 
and just so you know, his name is _not_ "Garcia Marquez" it is "Gabriel Garcia Marquez" if you are going to make comments like that, you should make them correctly.

----------


## ballb

Maybe it is because I had to study him at school, but D.H. Lawrence for me is the most over rated writer in the English language. Dickens was turgid. But Lawrence gives banality a bad name.

----------


## liberal viewer

> Calling him "Marquez" is a term of endearment. And do not think for one second that I hold any lack of respect for him. 
> and just so you know, his name is _not_ "Garcia Marquez" it is "Gabriel Garcia Marquez" if you are going to make comments like that, you should make them correctly.


Actually, if you wish to use a term of endearment for the great Colombian, you should refer to him as "Gabo", as many do, or, more correctly: "El Gabo". The "Marquez" is actually a sore spot because when he was awarded the Nobel, Singer referred to him dismissively as "Marquez", saying that he was not in the same league as Tolstoy, which of course begged the question: "What about you, Mr. Singer? You arent even in the same sport!" 
I never liked Singer anyhow.
Cheers

----------


## Etienne

Hey look! Here's another hair to split!

----------


## iloveoscar

I love pointless arguments over last names. =)

----------


## liberal viewer

> I love pointless arguments over last names. =)


What is "pointless" about trying to be as accurate as possible? If we, in a forum of literature, for crying out loud!, let these things slide, we'd just show that we aren't intellectually demanding. :Sick:

----------


## Igetanotion

> Actually, if you wish to use a term of endearment for the great Colombian, you should refer to him as "Gabo", as many do, or, more correctly: "El Gabo". The "Marquez" is actually a sore spot because when he was awarded the Nobel, Singer referred to him dismissively as "Marquez", saying that he was not in the same league as Tolstoy, which of course begged the question: "What about you, Mr. Singer? You aren’t even in the same sport!" 
> I never liked Singer anyhow.
> Cheers


I would never be so bold as to refer to him as "Gabo" this is a name that his friends gave him, and no matter how much I adore him, I am not lucky enough to have his personal acquaintance. And, Yes, I know his nickname is Gabo.

----------


## Etienne

> What is "pointless" about trying to be as accurate as possible? If we, in a forum of literature, for crying out loud!, let these things slide, we'd just show that we aren't intellectually demanding.


Hey, your name "liberal viewer" should be written "Liberal Viewer".

----------


## 1n50mn14

J.K Rowling
Stephen King *shudder* I'm all for detail, but a 5 page description of somebody brushing their teeth is not imperative to plot (obviously an exageration, but fellow Stephen Kind haters get the point)

----------


## Etienne

> J.K Rowling
> Stephen King *shudder* I'm all for detail, but a 5 page description of somebody brushing their teeth is not imperative to plot (obviously an exageration, but fellow Stephen Kind haters get the point)


Nothing wrong with long descriptions if it's well done. My objection to Stephen King is his lack of style and frankly, his boring and flavorless writing.

----------


## aeroport

> I think Charles Dickens is the most overrated writer. Great Epectations and a Christmas Carol are my basis for this because, even though they were classicas of their time, they were overrated!


 :Confused:  
I am afraid this is not something one can conclude based on one novel (out of at least fourteen) and one short story.

----------


## pianonutty23

I find it interesting to find numerous typographical errors in these postings. After all, this is a literature forum. To criticize writers while using poor grammar and spelling is rather hypocritical. I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and think that any books which encourage children to read are worth their weight in gold.

----------


## Igetanotion

> Hey, your name "liberal viewer" should be written "Liberal Viewer".


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
Awesome  :FRlol:  

Awesome

----------


## liberal viewer

> Awesome  
> 
> Awesome


Actually it is my little homage to the great e e cummings.

----------


## Igetanotion

> Actually it is my little homage to the great e e cummings.


Perhaps your animosity on the topic of your "Little Homage" would be better directed towards the person who originally posted the comment on it. If you care to go on with this little tussle you seem to insist on continuing, by all means send me personal messages (which I will of course ignore) and stop filling the forum with this nonsense that should not be here in the first place. I've grown quite bored of it. 
Cheers! :Thumbs Up:

----------


## papayahed

> I find it interesting to find numerous typographical errors in these postings. After all, this is a literature forum. To criticize writers while using poor grammar and spelling is rather hypocritical. I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and think that any books which encourage children to read are worth their weight in gold.



Please remember that not all memebers speak/write english as their first language, all are welcome.

----------


## liberal viewer

> Perhaps your animosity on the topic of your "Little Homage" would be better directed towards the person who originally posted the comment on it. If you care to go on with this little tussle you seem to insist on continuing, by all means send me personal messages (which I will of course ignore) and stop filling the forum with this nonsense that should not be here in the first place. I've grown quite bored of it. 
> Cheers!


You were the one who was jumping up and down like a goddamn cheerleader, weren't you? I mean with that "awesome" remark and all.  :FRlol:

----------


## tractatus

As writing for mainstream is not an offense, "Gabriel Jose de la Conciliacion Garcia Marquez" is okey. But After writing masterpieces, one should be more consistent. For my opinion "Memories of My Melancholy Whores" just mediocre. Also Love and Demon etc. 
They are not overrated, they deserve it, but fame of Borges and Marquez shadowing other great Latin American's.

----------


## Oomoo

I hate Charles Dickens. I've only read like 100 pages of David Copperfield, the prose is decent but it's sentimental and moronic, the characters are exaggerated, etc. It's a good children's book, nothing more

----------


## ClickForth

okokok

----------


## Ryduce

lol

After reading this thread I am thoroughly convinced that Dickens is the most polarizing figure among readers.I personally can't get into him,but I really am not qualified to make such an assessment,being that I've only really read one of his novels.However,I am optimistic about A Tale of Two Cities.

Another writer praised by the masses that I do not particularly favor is Orwell.He is a fine writer whom I've read much of his material,but I always believed Huxley's dystopian future was much more stunning in it's accuracy.All other dysopian novels pale in comparison to me.

This all,however,is a matter of personal preference.I don't normally like calling writers overrated.They all offer something I can enjoy.

----------


## jon1jt

I wish people like Oprah would stop kissing Dan Brown's ***. His writing sucks.

----------


## Kent Edwins

I second the above statement. Not all his ideas are bad, but what horrible prose! 

"The internationally renowned professor stroked his beard".

----------


## bazarov

> Another writer praised by the masses that I do not particularly favor is Orwell.He is a fine writer whom I've read much of his material,but I always believed Huxley's dystopian future was much more stunning in it's accuracy.All other dysopian novels pale in comparison to me.



How can alpha and delta males and females be more accurate then Big Brother and telescreens?

----------


## Ryduce

An industrialized pleasure driven society,the collective will favored over the individual,hypnopaedia,test tube babies,eugenics,and biological engineering?

Pretty accurate if you ask me.

It also predates Orwell's works by a good 16 years.

----------


## bazarov

I didn't said it's unaccurate, I just think that Orwell's way of thinking and not just technology is more like now days.

----------


## AuntShecky

I'm going back to one of my orig. replies way back when this thread first comes up. I am speaking just for myself, please understand, but it occurs to me as a rank amateur
(even after literally decades of writing) I am really not in the position of judging others without sounding bitter or
envious. However, we are human and therefore the thought of the mediocre receiving laurels does not sit well with our sense of justice. It's like the Cain and Abel story!

----------


## superunknown

It's not accurate you say?

Let's see.

An omnipresent secret police.

A cult of personality based around one leader who is raised to the status of a God (and the subsequent elimination of religion from all culture).

The establishment of labour camps, and execution of dissidents.

Show trials and confessions forced out through torture.

A collectivised state.

Brainwashing and propaganda.

Falsifying media i.e. photographs to change the appearance of past events.

A permanent state of potential war with foreign superpowers and the use of the fear it creates to further the state's control over the people.

Ring a bell? Do you happen to know any Russian history? Don't forget Orwell's political affiliations.

Both are excellent but they make different points and are very much of their respective times. Aldous Huxley observed on the depersonalization of man that he was witnessing with the recent inventions of mass production, the assembly line and other machinery which were making skilled workers jobless. Orwell was making a direct political commentary on what he was seeing in countries like Russia and applying the situation to England. I love both books (I think I might prefer Brave New World actually, but only just) but what you have to realize is that they're actually making different points. The two books don't serve the same purpose.

----------


## superunknown

Also even if you prefer Brave New World to 1984 that doesn't make Orwell overrated. He did write lots of other stuff apart from 1984 and Animal Farm. Burmese Days, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Road to Wigan Pier, and Homage to Catalonia are superb.

----------


## bazarov

> *I didn't said it's unaccurate,* I just think that Orwell's way of thinking and not just technology is more like now days.





> *It's not accurate you say*?
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> An omnipresent secret police.
> 
> A cult of personality based around one leader who is raised to the status of a God (and the subsequent elimination of religion from all culture).
> 
> The establishment of labour camps, and execution of dissidents.
> ...


What's your point? I think you got me wrong!




> Also even if you prefer Brave New World to 1984 that doesn't make Orwell overrated.


But when or where did I said that???

Oh, just forget it...

----------


## Ryduce

It appears I struck a nerve with Orwell.

*Runs out of thread*

----------


## Etienne

> I didn't said it's unaccurate, I just think that Orwell's way of thinking and not just technology is more like now days.


I think it really depends on one's point of view. I also believe that Huxley's is more... accurate? Soma is more accurate than telescreen, however both have their merits. I do think that Huxley's writing is somewhat bland though and that Orwell is quite overrated.

----------


## superunknown

You got me wrong bazarov. I was speaking to Ryduce, not you. I thought my defending Orwell would've made that clear.

----------


## Ryduce

I put a disclaimer in my comment stating that it's all a matter of opinion and personal preference.

Orwell is a fine writer,and I love his essays _Such,Such Were the Joys_ and _Shooting an Elephant_ I just don't put 1984 on this pedestal that most others do.

----------


## Dr. Flim-Flam

Mein Krampht is over rated. The only truth in the book is trust no one.

----------


## HotKarl

> Mein Krampht is over rated. The only truth in the book is trust no one.


lol. Don't think you'll be getting any arguments there.

----------


## kandaurov

Jane Austen.

----------


## thelastmelon

I've not been very impressed with Paulo Coelho so far, actually.
I had heard so many good things about his books and people that loved his stories and writings. So when I came around to actually read some of them, I was simply dissapointed. The stories didn't apply to me, the language didn't and the spirituality was a bit too much sometimes as well.

Maybe I need to read even more to get a hang of him, but so far.. not impressed.

----------


## JBI

> Jane Austen.


Don't just name them. Support this with proof.

----------


## JBI

On the Orwell bit, Stalin had already run his marathon before 1984 was penned. I think it a little silly to credit Orwell as a prophet since he clearly was just an observer. He is good, but Orwell certainly has taken a toll from his fans who make him out to be some sort of guru. The fact that he is so well known has contributed to his overrated nature, since now big-brother is in every high school text book, and every kid knows a few Animal Farm quotes, that they misuse and don't understand quite regularly.

----------


## kandaurov

Jane Austen. Shallowness. She lived in a world of her own, she made believe as if the world were _that_ simple. She brought innovation neither in terms of writing style nor in terms of plot. She followed the same formulae over and over again. She did have wit, her sole redeeming feature.

----------


## kandaurov

Antiquarian, fair enough! I happen to think that she did indeed criticize what she actually also reinforced with her novels, the social conventions, but all this is only my opinion though, which I was asked to laborate upon.

----------


## teejay17

Of all the authors I've read, Dan Brown was the most overrated. When I finished _Angels and Demons_, I thought it was complete drivel. I could barely get 1/3 of the way through _The Da Vinci Code_.

----------


## superunknown

> On the Orwell bit, Stalin had already run his marathon before 1984 was penned. I think it a little silly to credit Orwell as a prophet since he clearly was just an observer. He is good, but Orwell certainly has taken a toll from his fans who make him out to be some sort of guru. The fact that he is so well known has contributed to his overrated nature, since now big-brother is in every high school text book, and every kid knows a few Animal Farm quotes, that they misuse and don't understand quite regularly.


I agree with that. That's really what separates Huxley and Orwell. Orwell was always a journalist at heart, and even his novels are in some form journalism. He was extremely observant, and 1984 is showing the world what's already happened in Russia, but applying it to the rest of the world.

----------


## superunknown

I found Dan Brown's books entertaining in an intellectually devoid sort of way, a bit like watching the latest explosion-happy Hollywood movie.

----------


## Lambert

> She brought innovation neither in terms of writing style nor in terms of plot.


Eh... she innovated Free indirect speech about 90 years before the modernists, and quite effectively, as many critics and readers would agree.

That's pretty significant.




> She lived in a world of her own, she made believe as if the world were that simple.


One of the reasons she is so highly admired is because she showed how _complex_  her world was, mostly through irony and her sharp observation for social satire and commentary.

----------


## kandaurov

You're very right about the indirect free speech, I stand corrected. As for the satire component, I don't know how effective it is. What she did was to criticize social conventions, while at the same time acknowledging that they were necessary. I, at least, never saw a character actively rebelling against what she "criticizes". As I read her I remember sensing hypocrisy, but that may be just me. I mean, of course you can like her and think her wit was something else other than just adornment of her prose, I fully respect that, but now that I've explained my opinion I like to think I'm entitled to it.

----------


## kandaurov

Well said, Antiquarian! And it's not that I don't think Jane Austen was a bad writer, not at all!, I just wouldn't rank her among the best 5 novels of all time, like some polls did. By the way, this is interesting: you love Jane Austen and you think that the publishers should keep their standards high. Do you remember / have you heard of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/ju...ooks.booksnews ? Terrible, I know!

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> Well said, Antiquarian! And it's not that I don't think Jane Austen was a bad writer, not at all!, I just wouldn't rank her among the best 5 novels of all time, like some polls did. By the way, this is interesting: you love Jane Austen and you think that the publishers should keep their standards high. *Do you remember / have you heard of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/ju...ooks.booksnews ? Terrible, I know!*


Hilarious stuff  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Literally left me in stitches. I strongly believe that both music 'industry' and publishing 'industry' need dismantling by all means possible. The _Guardian_ article above strongly confirms my notions.

----------


## Morten

> As much as I love Jane Austen, I don't think her novels would sell today. The sad part is that these "experts," with the exception of one, didn't even recognize her writing, even if a bit paraphrased. :O


But she sells enormously, no? Every bookstore I go to there's an abundance of Austen novels, and everytime I turn on the TV there's a movie or a tv series with her name in the title. I find it insufferable. Such an overrated writer...

----------


## moose gurl

Hey everyone! I'm new, but I'm really excited about meeting you guys and jumping in on literature debates.
That being said, I agree with kandaurov. Jane Austen is overrated, and I always felt that what she claimed to disdain in society she sort of taught in her literature. I do think that she brought a lot to the "literature table," especially for women, but I don't think she was as much of a "feminist" as she claimed to be, and in that light many of her books seem to be, at least to me, self-contradictory to what she believed in.
I also agree that Dan Brown is largely overrated. I read Angels and Demons and almost got through it, and it was remotely entertaining in a "leave your brain at home" way, but it was cheesy. I started The DaVinci Code and couldn't get past the first few chapters.
The most overrated author in my opinion? I'd have to go with Hawthorne. I've probably made a ton of enemies right then and there, but honestly, I just don't like his work. It's stale and repetitive. But that's just my personal opinion.

----------


## Morten

> She sells enormously as an 18th century writer. I don't think any agent or publisher would take her on if she were writing that kind of thing today.


Well, that's self explanatory. Every work of art, however universal, could not have emerged at any other time than it originally did. 




> I don't personally find her at all overrated. I love all her books, but they are definitely late 18th century, which is part of the charm for me and part of the insufferability for others.


It's not so much that she's late 18th century as it is the fact that all her novels are tedious comedies of manners with only the characters and order of events altered. For future Austen readers: read _Pride & Prejudice_ and call it a day. Everything else is...well, it's flat out the same.

----------


## teejay17

> I agree that Dan Brown is the most overrated writer ever to set pen to paper, but his writing isn't the worst writing I've ever read, though it is certainly in the top five. The prize for the worst writing I've ever read would have to go to Diane Johnson for _Le Mariage_. Most of what she wrote didn't even make sense. It sounded like a person who'd taken leave of her senses and was drunk and on speed all at the same time. I don't know if others works written by her share the same "scattered" quality. I have not read them and don't intend to do so.
> 
> I did finish _The Da Vinci Code_, but I found it terribly, well, terrible. LOL


I've never read Diane Johnson, but I'll take this as a warning to stay away! 
I wonder what future drivel Dan Brown is going to have published.

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

Hardy overrated? Jane Austen overrated? Would you please KINDLY leave the dead alone?

----------


## Lady Glynde

Well everyone, all I can say is that _I_ love Jane Austen and the only reason she would not get published today is because all the publishers accept is romance crap. I don't mean to pick a fight, but they are, for the most part, just movies on paper. Jane Austen, Shakespeare, and all the rest are the real writers.

----------


## Lady Glynde

w00t!!! I just made post #200!!!

----------


## Oniw17

JK Rowlings. She's richer than the queen because she told the same story 7 times.

----------


## aeroport

> Hardy overrated? Jane Austen overrated? Would you please KINDLY leave the dead alone?


Here is the OP:




> this is a thread for all the writers that we've been told are great and *are in the classics range and constantly appear on 100greatestnovels lists* and such like but we hate. 
> 
> i say jack kerouac is the most overrated
> 
> die! on the road


This thread was _made_ for the dead.

----------


## aeroport

> The most overrated author in my opinion? I'd have to go with Hawthorne. I've probably made a ton of enemies right then and there, but honestly, I just don't like his work. It's stale and repetitive. But that's just my personal opinion.


Hmm, I don't know that I'd say he's "overrated", in the sense that not everyone's talking about him and making film adaptations, etc... 
If you mean in an academic sense, there is a _very_ good reason that Hawthorne is An Author To Be Dealt With - namely, he is the first good American writer who, to paraphrase Henry James's argument, did not have to leave his country to find a subject. He's a foundation, of sorts. 
Of course, there was Washington Irving - an author with whom Hawthorne shared a mutual admiration - but Irving didn't write very much fiction, and, from what I understand, he doesn't figure as strongly in American Studies because he wrote "like an Englishman".
Okay, I'll end my little history lecture now. Sorry...
Anyway, I sure hope he's good - I'm about to read all of his works.  :Frown:

----------


## Jane's Nemesis

> Well, that's self explanatory. Every work of art, however universal, could not have emerged at any other time than it originally did. 
> 
> 
> It's not so much that she's late 18th century as it is the fact that all her novels are tedious comedies of manners with only the characters and order of events altered. For future Austen readers: read _Pride & Prejudice_ and call it a day. Everything else is...well, it's flat out the same.


I don't think it's fair to say that all of Jane Austen's heroines are the same, or the stories the same either. The themes often recur, but that's something you see with other writers (Look at Charlotte Bronte...unrequited love appears in all her books). You can't say for example that _Northanger Abbey_, which is a sparkling parody of Gothic novels, is the same as the rather subdued _Mansfield Park_, which deals with heavier themes like the subjection of poor middle class women. The comedy of _Emma_ doesn't have the same tone as the more poignant _Persuasion_.

----------


## ben.!

> The prize for the worst writing I've ever read would have to go to Diane Johnson for _Le Mariage_. Most of what she wrote didn't even make sense. It sounded like a person who'd taken leave of her senses and was drunk and on speed all at the same time. I don't know if others works written by her share the same "scattered" quality. I have not read them and don't intend to do so.


I have not read any works of Diane Johnson, but as a side-note it's interesting to know that she and Stanley Kubrick collaborated together to write the screenplay of the famous horror film _The Shining_.

I'm guessing Stanley Kubrick wrote most of it, if she is as bad a writer as you say!  :Tongue:

----------


## SirRaustusBear

Most overated in my opinion is Jules Verne. I'm all for fantastic adventures and whatnot but if the characters going on those adventures are unrealistic stereotypes who don't change at all throughout the book, then I don't care about them or their various trials that inevitably lead to a cheesy happy ending.

Seriously I just don't understand his popularity. I mean he was the first science fiction writer (along with Wells) but rather than make him popular I would think his writing would lead people to dismiss the genre as a failed experiment.

----------


## islandclimber

Jack Kerouac and the whole beatnik movement.. the worst thing that happened to poetry ever!

and hmm... I think Melville is overrated... and Poe... and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

----------


## Quinn_

-----

----------


## Dori

J.K. Rowlings, without a doubt. I don't really understand why people like her books.

----------


## stlukesguild

I think Melville is overrated... 

You think wrong. :Biggrin:  

and Poe... 

As a poet, certainly.

and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

Mediocre in comparison to whom? Perhaps Dante and Shakespeare and a few others. Who are all these far superior poets? Looking at much of the vast array of 20th century poetry... not merely American and British but internationally... I would note that many of the greatest poets would seem to  disagree with your dismissal of Whitman. Even T.S. Eliot, as much as he attempts to deny Whitman, is profoundly influenced by him. As much as I love and read poetry I would be hard pressed to name one poet since Whitman (American or otherwise) who surpasses him in influence or aesthetically.

----------


## lauren!

Agreed, Dori. I can never get into her books.

----------


## JBI

> I think Melville is overrated... 
> 
> You think wrong. 
> 
> and Poe... 
> 
> As a poet, certainly.
> 
> and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..
> ...


As Harold Bloom has put it, The Wasteland is just a rewrite of "When Last in Door-yard Lilacs Bloom'd".

Whitman is critically regarded as perhaps the greatest American poet by many scholars. All subsequent modern poetry bears at least some resemblance to him.

As for egotistical, he for the most part, rarely means what he says, or says what he means. He is a huge ironist, and also famously praises all of humanity. "Song of Myself" which I assume you are talking about is, as he put it, a song of himself, and therefore shows his true identity as he sees himself.

----------


## HotKarl

> As for egotistical, he for the most part, rarely means what he says, or says what he means. He is a huge ironist, and also famously praises all of humanity. "Song of Myself" which I assume you are talking about is, as he put it, a song of himself, and therefore shows his true identity as he sees himself.


I agree with IslandClimber in the sense that Whitman _is_ egotistical. Like all the other Transcendentalists, he loves to project his own identity on other people and vice-versa. He thinks he understands everybody's soul. But regardless of what Big Wally thinks, he can't take on another's identity; he can only empathize with him/her. Sorry Walt, you aren't the slave escaping the hounds, you aren't the soldier dying on the battlefield, you aren't the wife enthusiastically making babies (his image of woman, which I think proves my point.) 

But don't get me wrong. What he did with verse is extraordinary. He's an excellent poet, and most poets (and writers in general) are egotistical.

----------


## aeroport

I found this kind of humorous, and thought I would contribute it to the WW discussion:
"You came to woo my sister, the human soul....But for a lover you talk entirely too much about yourself. In one place you threaten to absorb Canada. In another you call upon the city of New York to incarnate you, as you have incarnated it. In another you inform us that neither youth pertains to you nor "delicatesse," that you are awkward in the parlor, that you do not dance, and that you have neither bearing, beauty, knowledge, nor fortune. In another place, by an allusion to your "little songs," you seem to identify yourself with the third person of the Trinity....We find art, measure, grace sneered at on every page."
--Henry James's review of _Leaves of Grass_

----------


## Sir Bartholomew

> Here is the OP:
> This thread was _made_ for the dead.


I see. Oh well.

----------


## Prometheus

J.K. Rowling, _easily_. I've read up to the fifth, albeit being a ten-year-old, I thought they were crap.

----------


## stlukesguild

I found this kind of humorous, and thought I would contribute it to the WW discussion:
"You came to woo my sister, the human soul....But for a lover you talk entirely too much about yourself. In one place you threaten to absorb Canada. In another you call upon the city of New York to incarnate you, as you have incarnated it. In another you inform us that neither youth pertains to you nor "delicatesse," that you are awkward in the parlor, that you do not dance, and that you have neither bearing, beauty, knowledge, nor fortune. In another place, by an allusion to your "little songs," you seem to identify yourself with the third person of the Trinity....We find art, measure, grace sneered at on every page."
--Henry James's review of Leaves of Grass

Of course it is always possible to discover critical opinions by great authors that suggest the failings of another master. I almost would have expected as much of James. In almost every way Whitman's poetry goes counter to the highly ornate (some might say overwrought) perfectionism of form, the Baroque, excessively Latinate and even obscurantist language, as well as the sense of reserve... with regard to an open display of feelings... especially sexual... as favored by James (How's that for a Jamesian sentence? :Biggrin: ) One can imagine James turning up his nose at this crass and unsophisticated country bumpkin who would be poetic visionary. Of course H.G. Wells is no less favorable in his opinion of James... and his critical opinion is direct and to the point... unlike James own criticism of Whitman, referring to his prose as something akin to a "hippopotamus laboriously attempting to pick up a pea that has got into a corner of its cage."

Personally I am able to admire both writers greatly.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

That chick who rights the Harry Potter books. Even for mindless entertainment, which I enjoy, I could not handle those.

----------


## islandclimber

> [COLOR="DarkRed"]
> and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..
> 
> Mediocre in comparison to whom? Perhaps Dante and Shakespeare and a few others. Who are all these far superior poets? Looking at much of the vast array of 20th century poetry... not merely American and British but internationally... I would note that many of the greatest poets would seem to disagree with your dismissal of Whitman. Even T.S. Eliot, as much as he attempts to deny Whitman, is profoundly influenced by him. As much as I love and read poetry I would be hard pressed to name one poet since Whitman (American or otherwise) who surpasses him in influence or aesthetically.


I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom... 

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

----------


## Brucelles

I would nominate Jeffrey Archer, except that no-one with a multiplicity of brain cells would ever rate him in the first place.

----------


## stlukesguild

I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...

Obviously I am limited by having had to read Neruda in translation... but I will state that to my mind he doesn't come near to equaling let alone surpassing Whitman. You suggest that judging poetry (as opposed to prose? Where exactly can I find those objective standards that make it clear once and for all where Proust, Joyce, Mann, Tolstoy and Borges fall in the canon of literature?) is purely subjective... about personal "feelings"... and that Whitman inspires nothing in you. For you that is fine, but you should recognize that the measure of an artist's worth and achievement is not measured solely by you, the single reader. An artist's standing or reputation is measured by the so-called "experts" in the field: critics, historians, literary professors, by the opinions and the influence upon subsequent artists of importance, and by the audience deeply passionate about that art form... or perhaps what Virginia Woolf called the "common reader". To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me. To state that Neruda is a superior poet to Whitman or that Whitman's "own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..." appears to be making a critical judgment that goes quite against the general consensus and would seemingly call for some proof... or illumination of such statement... just as if I were to declare that Monet was a ham-fisted, mediocre painter or Franz Schubert was an amateurish composer with no ear for melody.

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

Whitman "invented" a new manner of poetry and had a huge and inescapable impact upon almost every major poet who followed in his wake: Pessoa, Neruda, Eliot, Ashberry, etc... yet he can not stand along side the giants of 20th century poetry? His own poetry is crude and boring? Why, exactly has he had such an influence? Why do you think Pessoa and Neruda and Eliot etc... have turned to him again and again? Again, for you to state that you personally dislike Whitman is fine. For you to suggest that he "is far from being a great poet" calls for some clarification as to why he falls short.

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

Eliot would have answered your question for you:

"Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot 
be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great 
labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense...
the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with 
his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the 
whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the 
whole of the literature of his own country has simultaneous 
existence and composes a simultaneous order...
No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning 
alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation 
of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value 
him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among 
the dead... what happens when a new work of art is created is 
something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art 
which preceeded it. The existing monuments form an ideal monument
among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the 
new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order 
is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist 
after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order 
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, 
proportions,values of each work of art toward the whole are 
readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and th new. 
Whoever has approved this idea of order...will not find it 
preposterous that the past should be altered by the present 
as much as the present is directed by the past."
-T.S. Eliot


Art is a dialog: a dialog with an audience... but also a dialog with other artists. The fact that two different authors wrote in different languages and lived in different cultures in no way negates our ability to compare their achievements or their work. Homer is continually compared with Virgil in spite of a 1000 year gap and language barrier between them. Virgil continues to impact writers... even James Joyce was not immune to him... or Dante... or Shakespeare. Dante and Shakespeare did great things for poetry (talk about an understatement!) yet that does not make them great poets? Again... where do they fall short? Or is this all just personal opinion?

----------


## islandclimber

> I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...
> 
> Obviously I am limited by having had to read Neruda in translation... but I will state that to my mind he doesn't come near to equaling let alone surpassing Whitman. You suggest that judging poetry (as opposed to prose? Where exactly can I find those objective standards that make it clear once and for all where Proust, Joyce, Mann, Tolstoy and Borges fall in the canon of literature?) is purely subjective... about personal "feelings"... and that Whitman inspires nothing in you. For you that is fine, but you should recognize that the measure of an artist's worth and achievement is not measured solely by you, the single reader. An artist's standing or reputation is measured by the so-called "experts" in the field: critics, historians, literary professors, by the opinions and the influence upon subsequent artists of importance, and by the audience deeply passionate about that art form... or perhaps what Virginia Woolf called the "common reader". To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me. To state that Neruda is a superior poet to Whitman or that Whitman's "own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..." appears to be making a critical judgment that goes quite against the general consensus and would seemingly call for some proof... or illumination of such statement... just as if I were to declare that Monet was a ham-fisted, mediocre painter or Franz Schubert was an amateurish composer with no ear for melody.
> 
> I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...
> 
> Whitman "invented" a new manner of poetry and had a huge and inescapable impact upon almost every major poet who followed in his wake: Pessoa, Neruda, Eliot, Ashberry, etc... yet he can not stand along side the giants of 20th century poetry? His own poetry is crude and boring? Why, exactly has he had such an influence? Why do you think Pessoa and Neruda and Eliot etc... have turned to him again and again? Again, for you to state that you personally dislike Whitman is fine. For you to suggest that he "is far from being a great poet" calls for some clarification as to why he falls short.
> 
> by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...
> ...



I did not say Dante and Shakespeare fall short anywhere... I don't think you read correctly... all I said was influence alone doesn't make a poet great... and I will stick to that belief... I think Dante and Shakespeare two of the greatest poets... and I respect that you think Whitman was great, and that so many others do as well... but in my opinion he is overrated... I also respect the so called "experts" in the field with their opinions, but I still believe Whitman is overrated, and just because people who for some reason are judged to have superior taste in poetry, say he is an amazing poet, doesn't mean I have to agree... or are you saying we should all just follow the crowd, and completely destroy all differences of opinion and thought... for if others say Whitman is great that means I have to as well???? 

why not just outlaw independent thinking and feeling... we can have a tyranny that controls every aspect of human existence, just so people don't ever disagree with commonly accepted opinions and ideas... for the idea that whitman is great is just a commonly accepted opinion, well, no, a commonly shared opinion, and you seem to think it should be forced on everyone... as i said what he did for poetry was wonderful, but he is far from wonderful as a poet in my opinion and therefore vastly overrated...

and i did not say his worth is measured by solely me, i just stated an opinion which is what this thread asked for, but again you seem against people having opinions that run against accepted ideas... also I think his worth is immense for what he did for poetry, so again that point you make is pointless...

as well i don't think prose has objective standards, I was just stating, again in my own opinion, it seems easier to judge for literary merit, than poetry is to judge outside of influence and solely on poetic quality...

Neruda takes what Whitman started and goes far beyond it... his lines are so much more liquid, his metaphors are so much more beautiful... I've read the spanish and the translation, and I even find the translation much more beautiful, Neruda's metaphors bring one to tears to smiles, to many immense and beautiful emotions, whereas Whitman's make one bored and inspire just the thought, that wow, this guy loves himself and america, and that's about it... Neruda is the poet of the world, of the people of the world, and Whitman is the poet of only america... to in love with his own country to see that maybe there is beauty everywhere...

not to say that Marquez is necessarily right, but I agree with him when he said Neruda is "the greatest poet of the 20th century, in any language"...

and because Eliot wrote something saying that a poet has to be judged by not just poetic quality alone, but influence on others, again you're saying I have to agree with everyone else's opinion... for that is just an opinion too... I never stated Whitman isn't great, I said "in my opinion" Whitman isn't great, is overrated, I thought that was clear, that everything here is opinion, I'm not trying to state a fact, but just an opinion... Do I have your permission to have an opinion?????

but you can keep trying to tell me that I can't have an opinion here, that is your right I guess...

----------


## stlukesguild

Islandclimber;

No where in my post did I state that I question your and anyone's right to a personal opinion. Indeed I suggested that there were certainly authors of great reputation who did nothing for me: 

"To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me."

On the other hand I question statements that seem to pass as fact... especially when they seemingly go against my own experience and the general consensus:

"Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others.."

"...his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..." 

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me or with the opinions of critics, historians, other authors, etc... Certainly that is what most of the dialog here is about. To merely state an opinion... especially one that will certainly provoke disagreement... without saying anything more... well that seems rather pointless:

"I don't like Shakespeare"

And? Why? Give me some examples?

I don't question your assertion that Neruda was a great poet. I have 5 or 6 volumes of his works myself. Personally I prefer Borges among the Latin-American writers and find Borges "The Aleph" to be the most scathing criticism of Neruda's shortcomings... but I still love Neruda. You suggest that one of Whitman's shortcomings is his egocentrism... yet certainly Neruda has no less of this "flaw". Both attempt to speak in a voice that contains multitudes. 

You argue that Neruda speaks for the whole world while Whitman only for America. Couldn't one then question who was the more egocentric? Personally, I think that any artist speaks only for him or herself. Neruda may indeed speak more of the world as a whole having had the experience (as few 19th century authors would have) of traveling internationally. This makes him different... but I question whether it makes him "superior". Dante, Homer, William Blake, Shakespeare (all of whom I would place well above Neruda) had little experience of the larger world. Blake made it clear that such was unnecessary... as one might find an entire "world in a wildflower". 

You state that Neruda's lines are more liquid (example?) and his metaphors bring one to tears or smiles, while Whitman leaves one (you) bored... I don't question that Neruda can be more fluid... Spanish lyric poetry is almost inherently more fluid than English... but "fluidity" is no guarantee of superiority. The violin in more fluid than the piano, and yet the wealth of piano music is unrivaled. Whitman's poetry draws upon the grand, eloquent diction and cadence of Biblical Hebrew poetry as well as upon such visionary poets as William Blake. Personally I find Neruda to be a magnificent lyric poet. When he comes into direct competition with Whitman, however, he falls short and even fails miserably at times. Whitman virtually "invented"... and marvelously realized the notion of the poem as a chant or song of a sort of catalog or list (albeit limited) or the world around him. Neruda is at perhaps his worst when he mimics Whitman's catalogs in attempting to sing all of Latin America: birds, trees, plants, animals, geography, natives, peasants, the Communist Party and the Great Punisher Stalin, whose murders Neruda seemingly approves ("Punishment is needed"). Of course he still never slips to the level of self-indulgence one might find in many lesser Whitman imitators (Ginsberg and beyond). Unfortunately, the result can approach Whitman far less than it does Michael Drayton's _Polyolbion_, the English Renaissance poem that attempted to catalog the whole of England. This is the bulky, bombastic sprawl that Borges was so critical of. 

But again... we can agree to disagree.

----------


## LadyW

I think perhaps Jane Austen...
*don't hurt me!*

----------


## islandclimber

> Islandclimber;
> 
> No where in my post did I state that I question your and anyone's right to a personal opinion. Indeed I suggested that there were certainly authors of great reputation who did nothing for me: 
> 
> "To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me."
> 
> On the other hand I question statements that seem to pass as fact... especially when they seemingly go against my own experience and the general consensus:
> 
> "Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others.."
> ...


I think I did give reasons for why I dislike Whitman... secondly I don't recall saying that I don't like Shakespeare... I love Shakespeare... I agree Neruda was quite egocentric at times, and I didn't mean he spoke for the world, more or less of the world is what I should have said... whereas Whitman confined himself to America, but maybe that is because Whitman spent his life in one place, whereas Neruda crossed the world... and no the world does not have to be travelled to make good poetry, but the fact Neruda could turn everything in the world into that all-encompassing wildflower that you speak of, is what distinguishes him from Whitman, Whitman's descriptions of things in my opinion are so lacking any vividity, or beauty in any sense at times.. they are so dry and unappealing to me...

And Neruda's support of Stalin has nothing to do with the quality of his poetry... I agree that "Canto General" is an imitation of "leaves of Grass" and is not one of Neruda's better works, not even close... but "Residence On Earth" is the most beautiful collection of poetry ever compiled in my opinion... it encompasses everything, leaving "Leaves of Grass" far behind in that sense, and the way Neruda describes things is so much more wonderful than what Whitman tries to do... as I said, Whitman may have invented the style, but in my opinion Neruda perfected it... and you go into talking of hebrew biblical poetry but that is under the assumption that it is so magnificent as well... and same with Blake, I like Blake, I don't think him particularly great... 

as well I don't just mean Neruda's poetry is more fluid, it is beautiful the metaphors he produces, the comparisons that he creates, the dream he implies, and draws forth from each one of us... whereas Whitman goes on in endlessly boring, monotonous and dry catalogues and lists in my opinion... and yes I will agree when Neruda tried to do this he failed to a degree, for Canto General is not that amazing... but Residence on Earth is the most beautiful collection of poetry written in my opinion, just the magnitude, the scope, the melancholy, the beauty, the dream, the voice, the vision... it is everything and nothing all at once, and inspires the same... it is beautiful...

Broges is an amazing writer as well but his poetry, again in my opinion is a far cry from Neruda, and the literary critics you hold in such esteem for their opinions on Whitman for the most part agree with me here... His stories are unbelievable but his poetry is a dalliance that doesn't do him justice as a writer... Much like Joyce's failed attempts at poetry...

But, as you said we can agree to disagree... the world would be quite the boring place without differences of opinion... :Smile:  

cheers

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.

----------


## stlukesguild

I certainly agree that Neruda is the superior poet to Borges... in some ways. Surely as a lyricist... as a visionary. I wouldn't underestimate Borges' poetry, however. It constitutes a far greater part of his oeuvre than does Joyce's. It was surely far more than a dalliance, especially when one considers that Borges often thought of himself as a poet first. One of my favorite books of the 20th century must be Borge's _Dream Tigers_ in which the writer blurs the distinctions between short fictions, essay and non-fiction, aphorism and poetry. Nevertheless, Borges' poetry is one of narrative fictions... a poetry of ideas... not far removed from his aphorisms... and not overly sensual, lyrical... poetic. 

I agree that _Residence on Earth_ is a magnificent book... although if I were to need to go with a single poetic volume (excluding epic poetry) I might go with Shakespeare's or Spencer's sonnets, Wordsworth and Coleridge's _Lyrical Ballads_, Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_, or Baudelaire's _Fleuers du Mal_. I don't know that I would clearly place any 20th century poet above Neruda... but I do find that there are several others I prefer more, Montale and Rilke being first among these.

----------


## stlukesguild

It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.

Please read my posts a bit more closely before making statements that are in no way supported by what was written... or stick with your Stephen King :Biggrin: . :Nod:

----------


## islandclimber

> I love Walt Whitman. I love Pablo Neruda. But I do think Walt Whitman speaks for the whole world more than does Neruda as Neruda's poetry is, to a great degree, very personal love poetry, written to his wife. I love different things about both poets and find both of them great.
> 
> And Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors. LOL I don't think anyone has done so much with such a narrow life that was all but forced on her. I love her wit and her discerning eye. I love her characters. But I do know many people who simply can't stand her.


have you actually read much Neruda for the only real love poetry he wrote for his wife was "the captains verses"... Residence on Earth has nothing to do with a wife, nor almost every other collection of poetry he put out... 




> I certainly agree that Neruda is the superior poet to Borges... in some ways. Surely as a lyricist... as a visionary. I wouldn't underestimate Borges' poetry, however. It constitutes a far greater part of his oeuvre than does Joyce's. It was surely far more than a dalliance, especially when one considers that Borges often thought of himself as a poet first. One of my favorite books of the 20th century must be Borge's Dream Tigers in which the writer blurs the distinctions between short fictions, essay and non-fiction, aphorism and poetry. Nevertheless, Borges' poetry is one of narrative fictions... a poetry of ideas... not far removed from his aphorisms... and not overly sensual, lyrical... poetic. 
> 
> I agree that Residence on Earth is a magnificent book... although if I were to need to go with a single poetic volume (excluding epic poetry) I might go with Shakespeare's or Spencer's sonnets, Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, or Baudelaire's Fleuers du Mal. I don't know that I would clearly place any 20th century poet above Neruda... but I do find that there are several others I prefer more, Montale and Rilke being first among these


you are right here... I kind of exaggerated his mediocrity as a poet... I still think his stories, especially labyrinths are superior to his poetry, for Labyrinths is one of my favourite collections of short stories ever written... I actually own his collected works of poetry... and though I don't think of him as a fantastic or great poet, it was a little much of me (i can admit) to compare him to Joyce in this regard, and say it was just a dalliance... I don't think they have the power of Neruda, but I agree, it is interesting the distinctions between prose, poetry, aphorism, etc... and they are full of interesting thought and idea... I just again don't get the inspiration for feelings and emotions... but you are right I don't think that is what he intended, it is a poetry of ideas...

I myself don't like coleridge or spenser, and as is obvious Whitman, I admire them all for what they wrote and did for poetry, but I don't particularly enjoy them... but Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Baudelaire I love... For 20th century, I love Rilke, the poet of the mind and the soul I would say... and then Eliot, and Yeats... maybe Yeats because of my time in Ireland, it made it so much easier to relate to his poetry, and maybe is why I love it... Montale I don't really enjoy, though I couldn't really say why, sometimes a poets work can just leave a bad taste in your mouth if you know what i mean...and i think that is Montale for me.. and to be honest that is probably Whitman as well :Biggrin:  

interesting discussion though... I do own two copies of Leaves of Grass, one the original, and the other a more complete later revision... and I appreciate them, even admire Whitman for them, I just can't enjoy them... all opinion though... lol oh well... disagreement is fun though...  :Biggrin:  

cheers

----------


## stlukesguild

Interesting that you should love Shakespeare... but not Spencer. I am particularly drawn to Spencer's cycle of sonnets (and the concluding _Epithalimion_) because the have degree of "honesty"... "realism" that goes beyond many other Renaissance sonnet cycles. Where many other poets write in the tradition of a series of sonnets to an unattainable love who continually ignores and rebuffs the poet, Spencer never writes as if she... this woman were some "ideal"...an invention or artifice. I am struck with the manner in which the poems (and the narrative) evolve as the poet woos his wife-to-be. She rejects him at first... as is usual... but slowly the relationship changes... she comes around... and eventually a real sense of love grows between them until the culminating celebratory wedding poem, the _Epithalimion_. For pure playful baroque wit and artifice, however, I can't go without the _Muiopotmos_.

----------


## Etienne

I sincerely hope people judging foreign language poetry have read it in the original language, or else, your judgments are not worth that toilet paper I just used.

----------


## islandclimber

> I sincerely hope people judging foreign language poetry have read it in the original language, or else, your judgments are not worth that toilet paper I just used.


 :FRlol:  I have learned spanish well enough to read Neruda and others in the original though I am by no means even slightly fluent with it.... And it so immensely beautiful in the original...

but you are a little harsh here, I do believe, even though I do like how you worded your attack  :FRlol:  ... I think translations do hold some value.. and judgements of translations are worth something.. a translation can be amazing... whether a language into english, or english into another language... it is irrelevant... what matters is there is still much of the original poet there, enough to decide to like it or not... to love it or not... to draw one into looking at it in the original language... or so I believe...




> Interesting that you should love Shakespeare... but not Spencer. I am particularly drawn to Spencer's cycle of sonnets (and the concluding Epithalimion) because the have degree of "honesty"... "realism" that goes beyond many other Renaissance sonnet cycles. Where many other poets write in the tradition of a series of sonnets to an unattainable love who continually ignores and rebuffs the poet, Spencer never writes as if she... this woman were some "ideal"...an invention or artifice. I am struck with the manner in which the poems (and the narrative) evolve as the poet woos his wife-to-be. She rejects him at first... as is usual... but slowly the relationship changes... she comes around... and eventually a real sense of love grows between them until the culminating celebratory wedding poem, the Epithalimion. For pure playful baroque wit and artifice, however, I can't go without the Muiopotmos


i know... it is a little strange... just another poetic pecularity of me I guess :Biggrin:  
i find so many great poets, or poets others love to be not my cup of tea, but I'm sure it is the same with everyone... or so I hope...

----------


## aeroport

> Of course it is always possible to discover critical opinions by great authors that suggest the failings of another master. I almost would have expected as much of James. In almost every way Whitman's poetry goes counter to the highly ornate (some might say overwrought) perfectionism of form, the Baroque, excessively Latinate and even obscurantist language, as well as the sense of reserve... with regard to an open display of feelings... especially sexual... as favored by James (How's that for a Jamesian sentence?) One can imagine James turning up his nose at this crass and unsophisticated country bumpkin who would be poetic visionary. Of course H.G. Wells is no less favorable in his opinion of James... and his critical opinion is direct and to the point... unlike James own criticism of Whitman, referring to his prose as something akin to a "hippopotamus laboriously attempting to pick up a pea that has got into a corner of its cage."
> 
> Personally I am able to admire both writers greatly.


How full of Truth your posts always are, stlukesguild!  :Thumbs Up:  
It's kind of interesting, though, that, in this case, James seems to have been a bit ahead of himself. That was written when he was relatively young, certainly before any of his own "important" works were written (well before _Portrait_, even). Yet, later in life, he seemed to take up something of an admiration for Whitman. Here's a passage from Sheldon Novick's recently completed bio, discussing reading and literary discussion at Edith Wharton's house: 



> Someone spoke of Walt Whitman, _Leaves of Grass_ was fetched, and James read while the others sat rapt.
> When he read Whitman, James seemed to be speaking directly from his innermost self. His stammer vanished, and he read with unaffected emotion, chanting to emphasize the rhythms of the songs. When he came to the elegy for Lincoln, his voice deepened with emotion, and at the passage that begins "Come lovely and soothing death," his voice "filled the hushed room like an organ adagio."


I'm not sure, but I'm assuming the details (and closing quote) of this passage come from Wharton's _A Backward Glance_.

----------


## Etienne

> I have learned spanish well enough to read Neruda and others in the original though I am by no means even slightly fluent with it.... And it so immensely beautiful in the original...


Alright, was only making sure  :Tongue: 

I am curious though, as I refuse to read poetry in translations (besides a few exceptions), are Neruda and Borges hard to read? I'm also not fluent in Spanish although I can read a bit, mostly Borges fictions, in bilingual editions though.




> but you are a little harsh here, I do believe, even though I do like how you worded your attack  ... I think translations do hold some value.. and judgements of translations are worth something.. a translation can be amazing... whether a language into english, or english into another language... it is irrelevant... what matters is there is still much of the original poet there, enough to decide to like it or not... to love it or not... to draw one into looking at it in the original language... or so I believe...


Yes, there are good translations, and if one likes the translation, probably the original would be at least as good, but a translation can also be bad (for different reasons, the first often being untranslatability) and how does one know whether the translation is good and the original bad or a bad translation to a good original if he hasn't read the original? And even over this, in any translation, especially in poetry, there is something lost.

A better translation than the original is not excluded (it is often said that Dostoevsky is better in translations, for example) but they are the exception, and undoubtedly a subject of harsh debate.

----------


## aeroport

> I think perhaps Jane Austen...
> *don't hurt me!*


Whoa, you mean there are women who think this as well...?

----------


## JBI

You are all a bunch of mis-readers. The question isn't who do you not like, it is who is overrated. Logically there is no such thing as overrated, but that's a different discussion. In relation to the conversation, the real meaning of the thread must be discerned as "Who do you think has too big a reputation for the amount of skill as a man of letters that they posses/possessed. Saying you don't like Whitman isn't a logical argument. That does not relate to the topic, only shares your babbling stupidity.

Whitman, as it has been proven, has earned a significant reputation which can be supported by his influence on almost all Western poetry after him. Comparing him to Neruda doesn't even come close to an accurate argument, because a) Neruda came later, and b) they wrote in different languages.

If you compare, however, Whitman to his contemporaries, The Pre-Raphaelites, Emerson, Longfellow, Thereau, Wilde, Tennyson, the Brownings, Arnold, and Emily Dickinson, you will note that he stands above almost all of those poets easily.

Dickinson is probably his closest contender, but she resides in a separate place because of the rare circumstance of her life and work. Relative to the other American contemporaries named, Whitman easily is the best, hands down. The big 3 Victorians are good, but their influence was far less, and their significance far less.

Whitman as an American poet outshines everyone who came before him, without question. Whitman as a poet of the world, outshines almost everyone who came before him writing in English, with the exception of perhaps 10 names. Unless you can give me names of contemporaries of his who have had better success as poets, I consider this conversation over.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.
> 
> Please read my posts a bit more closely before making statements that are in no way supported by what was written... or stick with your Stephen King.


Haha, I'm sure that is the first of many SK jabs, lol. I misread your posts, and as many will come to learn, I sometimes jump to judgment, post a smart-*** reply, and later regret it. My apologies.

And now, back to SK. I think a character is going to be raped by a gun barrel soon, I can't wait!

----------


## rintrah

Has anyone mentioned Paul Coelho?

----------


## Mockingbird_z

why?
i dont think he is overrated, just famous now. no one claims him to be the greatest or something. or am i mistaken?

----------


## rintrah

You are right. He's certainly isn't rated highly as a literary author - sorry for venting a little frustration!

----------


## Etienne

> why?
> i dont think he is overrated, just famous now. no one claims him to be the greatest or something. or am i mistaken?


Actually many people do claim he is the greatest or something.

Extract from a conversation with an otherwise very nice guy:
Him: "I like Coelho very much."
Me: "I've read The Alchemist, and I really didn't like much."
Him: "Well it's because it's philosophy, many people don't understand."
Me: "Ehmm... no, it's not really philosophy... but hey look at that bird (I didn't really say this, can't remember what it was, but an abrupt change of subject.)"

----------


## aeroport

> Has anyone mentioned Paul Coelho?


For several pages a while back, if I'm not mistaken...

----------


## superunknown

I don't think JK Rowling and Dan Brown really belong in this topic. Their writing is not serious literature, it's entertainment, and they don't claim to be writers in a literary sense. The prose exists solely for the sake of the plot.

----------


## NotWoodhouse

I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.

----------


## moose gurl

True, but the topic wasn't "What important writer is overrated?" It was "Who is the most overrated writer?" and whether their writing is entertainment or not, it still qualifies as writing and it's largely overrated. Dan Brown's stories aren't even good. JK Rowling has some story-telling merit, but her first novels were just bad as far as writing is concerned. She definitely evolved as a writer and a storyteller.

----------


## unleashed

hi, new around here and trying to fit in.

has anybody mentioned Dan Brown?

----------


## moose gurl

Hahaha, only about a billion times.
Welcome to the club.

----------


## unleashed

well it's a right judgment for that dude, he just copied wikipedia and tried to put some action in between to make ridiculous boring books read by too many people. [oh no i'm ranting again]
and thanks  :Smile:

----------


## johann cruyff

> Actually many people do claim he is the greatest or something.
> 
> Extract from a conversation with an otherwise very nice guy:
> Him: "I like Coelho very much."
> Me: "I've read The Alchemist, and I really didn't like much."
> Him: *"Well it's because it's philosophy, many people don't understand."*
> Me: "Ehmm... no, it's not really philosophy... but hey look at that bird (I didn't really say this, can't remember what it was, but an abrupt change of subject.)"


That very nearly made me barf. :Sick:

----------


## asilef73

> this is a thread for all the writers that we've been told are great and are in the classics range and constantly appear on 100greatestnovels lists and such like but we hate. 
> 
> i say jack kerouac is the most overrated
> 
> die! on the road


i heartily agree. i managed to read "On The Road" through once and now i will never get those hours back.

----------


## aeroport

> True, but the topic wasn't "What important writer is overrated?" It was "Who is the most overrated writer?"


Once again, the OP:



> *this is a thread for all the writers that we've been told are great and are in the classics range and constantly appear on 100greatestnovels lists and such like but we hate.*

----------


## cipherdecoy

I can't say for sure which is _the_ most overrated book, but as far as what I've read is concerned, I would say The Catcher In The Rye, although it's a book I've enjoyed. I would consider myself too much of a rookie in the field of literature to pick one such author though. However, if we're talking about 21st century literature (if you can call it that), I would also be interested to know if you think Harry Potter and Twilight by Stephanie Meyer are vastly overrated (haven't read that one yet).  :Wink:

----------


## waryan

I think aside from the academics who want to teach its literary elements in college courses over other particular classic works Harry Potter fans that I know don't hold it up as any sort of Joyce or anything rather than just a fun and well done book, and personally I've not read any Potter so I couldn't say myself. Same for Twilight. 

somehow i don't ever seem to get around to the really hyped books like THE KITE RUNNER or TWILIGHT or whatever else is on the front stand at B&N.

----------


## Pecksie

Well, I think that would be Paulo Coelho... Unlike Dan Brown and other best-seller-churners, he insists on being called a literary man...

But there are many more. Two seriously overrated authors in Latin America, in my opinion, are Isabel Allende and Ángeles Mastretta. In Spain, Rosa Regàs and Rosa Montero - they're highly popular but simply unintelligible. I think Rosa Regàs's prize-winning novel "Dorotea's Song" is probably the most awful book I've read in the last few years, unless you count Swedish Marianne Fredriksson's "Mother and daughter". However, these people sit on contest juries, write for magazines, in at least one case (Regàs) have held public office, and are generally considered "intellectuals"...

----------


## _Shannon_

For me it'd be Walker Percy and more modern Anne Tyler I had to read a book of hers when I was in college--and I was infuriated that the professor--having the ability to choose any book to which to expose her student chose that piece of crapola!

I am also not a Jane Austen fan --technically brilliant-- but I always want to go into the book with an uzi and just shot it off for a little excitement and to get the characters to actually _do_ something.

----------


## _Shannon_

Oh- and taking into account it's intended audience--Harry Potter is totally fun!

----------


## kelby_lake

To Kill A Mockingbird

----------


## JBI

> I think aside from the academics who want to teach its literary elements in college courses over other particular classic works Harry Potter fans that I know don't hold it up as any sort of Joyce or anything rather than just a fun and well done book, and personally I've not read any Potter so I couldn't say myself. Same for Twilight. 
> 
> somehow i don't ever seem to get around to the really hyped books like THE KITE RUNNER or TWILIGHT or whatever else is on the front stand at B&N.


Strange, the Poterites where I live on release days were in full costume, lining up down the block. It was pathetic, sad, and even depressing to see grown men and women amongst the costumed. They clearly are a very active group (or were before the last book was released). She is clearly overrated, that is for sure, since we can clearly see she is slowly deteriorating as the realization that the series is over strikes home.

As for most overrated though, I would have to say Grisham, since he still enjoys mass sales, even though everyone realizes he has one skeleton of a book, and just keeps semi-fleshing it over and over. King is up there, but I hesitate to put Brown up there because I think his career is at an ebb. Nora Roberts for sure is up there too, as are the modern fantasy authors Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan (though the latter is dead now, so I guess he doesn't count).

Tolkien is highly overrated too, if you really think about it, but the Emperors New Clothes situation will hold for a while longer, until the CGI on the movies is no longer seen as brilliant, and is seen as old-fashioned (it will happen eventually, with the rate technology is advancing).

Every popular author eventually declines, it is inevitable. However some (the perfect example being Dickens) out-last the decline, and still enjoy some popularity. 


I would also like to throw this out there: most versions of the bible are overrated, especially these new "accurate" translations that keep floating around. The KJV is the best-written version I have yet come across (I have read the text thoroughly in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament, though cannot read the original Greek), but the accurate translations used in most churches seem to a) still be completely inaccurate (it seems Christian translators neglect to realize that even Rabbinic scholars still dispute the definition of some terms completely) and b) just ugly. There are some great poetic passages in the books, but none seem to have made it into those translations, which aren't accurate anyway.

----------


## Nossa

Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist. And after some thinking, I think that The Da Vinci Code was highly overrated, given to the fact that its prequel, Angels and Demons, was way better.

----------


## JBI

I heard the opposite, either way, judging from The Da Vinci Code, neither are very good.

----------


## Statistic

I recently grabbed _The Count of Monte Cristo_ from the library, and damn it was awful. I dunno, maybe I got a bad translation, but it seems like every version of the book begins with choppy sentences. And the dialogue, ugh...

This especially confuses me because I think _Musketeers_ is fairly decent, maybe even good. 

I'd also say _Moby Dick_ = garbage, but I'm empathetic as to why some people might enjoy it. It just takes a certain type of person to like that story, and that person's not me. 

Also, why does anyone like _To Kill A Mockingbird_? Do I need a special chip in my brain to decipher the good novel behind the cheesy Twainesque exposition?

----------


## Cayenne

It's maybe true that Dan Brown's books are not that good literature but I don't think that means they can't be good books (I hope you get what I mean, I don't really know how to say it in English...). And that's just a matter of opinion what's a good book and what's not. I think they were all good but as I said not the best literature.

----------


## Statistic

Well that's weird, my last post showed up twice (the copy was here before I erased it).

Guess I should defame another book:

I almost contracted mental retardation from reading the first page of _War and Peace_. It turns out I'm allergic to infodumps.

----------


## kasie

Are we talking about best-sellers here, or proper books, 'Literature' with a capital L. I don't think Grisham would regard himself as a literary author and to castigate him for repetitious plots is to accuse him of failing to be something he isn't trying to be - he has a winning formula and makes a healthy living from producing stories people enjoy reading. (And you must admit there are some enjoyable variations on the theme and the stories are well written which is more than can be said of some 'best selling' authors.) I can't help feeling that the reason so many people make such a huge fuss over the likes of Dan Brown (and Rowling and Tolkein, for that matter) is that they rarely read books and are delighted to be able to say they have actually found a book they like and finished it - have you noticed that many of these run-away success books are often quite chunky tomes? That can only increase the sense of achievement for an infrequent reader. But - Great! They've finished a book! Don't let's pour (too much) scorn on them, let's quietly put other books in their way and hope they enjoy those too, and the next one, and the next one. 

I suppose one needs to ask oneself who is rating this book so highly? If it is vox populi, I suspect the book can be safely treated with a certain amount of caution. If the opinion is that of a respected, well-read critic, perhaps the book should be treated with a degree more respect and effort. Ultimately your opinion of any book is down to you, your tastes and your critical abilities. If you find however that you cannot agree with serious critics, perhaps something is lacking in you as a reader, maybe critical acumen, maybe knowledge of the genre or period, or maybe just experience of life.

----------


## Nossa

> I heard the opposite, either way, judging from The Da Vinci Code, neither are very good.


I enjoyed Angels and Demons more, it was a good thriller. But I'm still not sure if any of Brown's books, and likes of them, can be called literature. I normally read these works, without the least intention of getting a certain literary value out of them.

I didn't say that his books are bad, but The Da Vinci Code just wasn't good, at least not to me.

----------


## johann cruyff

I'd definitely agree with Tolkien being overrated.Also,in my opinion: Jean Racine,Balzac,Hemingway(I'm sure most of you don't agree about the last two,but please,spare me,it's just my opinion),Kerouac,Ayn Rand,and pretty much everyone who's popular these days - Coelho,Brown,Rowling,Houellebecq...

----------


## tscherff

ayn rand's "atlas shrugged" is the winner by 5 lengths. it is accepted as classis literature unlike potter, brown and others books of that ilk which are "light reading"

----------


## bounty

> I can't say for sure which is _the_ most overrated book, but as far as what I've read is concerned, I would say The Catcher In The Rye, although it's a book I've enjoyed. I would consider myself too much of a rookie in the field of literature to pick one such author though. However, if we're talking about 21st century literature (if you can call it that), I would also be interested to know if you think Harry Potter and Twilight by Stephanie Meyer are vastly overrated (haven't read that one yet).



cipher, almost everywhere its appropriate ive been taking the opportunity to condemn catcher in the rye as being vastly overrated (and i didnt like it either! smiles....)

and moby dick too.

----------


## Ahera

As for Harry Potter books , It seems every good reader's first reaction towards those books would be that its a childish book ,Same was the case with me until I finally began to read them some years back , And reading them was definitely worth it, They are good for sure.

I've read books of all types and Harry potter is the best of Its type.

----------


## cipherdecoy

> To Kill A Mockingbird


I disagree, but oh wells.

----------


## Vincent Black

Neil Gaiman and Nora Roberts. bad thing is my girlfriend LOVES Nora Roberts, which she felt compelled to tell me at the top of her voice in a book store, the shame...

----------


## Nossa

I forgot to mention Wuthering Heights (I know some people will just hate me now lol)

----------


## JBI

> ayn rand's "atlas shrugged" is the winner by 5 lengths. it is accepted as classis literature unlike potter, brown and others books of that ilk which are "light reading"


Is it? Funny, maybe if you get a degree in sci-fi, but most literary courses stick to more important works than Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand isn't light reading of course, merely mediocre reading, and it is rare to see an academic disagree with that, especially now adays when they all seem so left-leaning.

Rand was following her own philosophy, as I see it, and wrote a book that appealed to the communist scare in her era. Since the fall of the iron curtain, I think we can now go beyond looking at that book as legitimate philosophical literature. It is, to me at least, pseudo-philosophy for dummies.

----------


## JBI

Bravissimo to the writer who hit To Kill a Mockingbird, another Emperor's New Clothes book, because of its racist themes it is seen as impossible to criticize without seeming racist.

----------


## Hank Stamper

jane austen. mansfield park is the most pointless book ever written

----------


## Joreads

I love the Harry Potter books to, and as far as I am concerned they are not over rated. I guess this is really a matter taste and thankfully we all have different tastes.

----------


## mayneverhave

I never thought that the Harry Potter series was critically esteemed as to deserve the overrated title. Sure they're best sellers, but there are plenty of terrible books, movies, and musicians that are top sellers.

As for critically acclaimed writers, I never understood what was so great about The Grapes of Wrath. It's a fine period piece, depicting the Dust Bowl, great depression and what not, but outside of its culture and era it lacks anything of substance to me and isn't particuarlly moving. Steinbeck comes off far too melodramatic and aware of the "epic importance" of his novel.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Bravissimo to the writer who hit To Kill a Mockingbird, another Emperor's New Clothes book, because of its racist themes it is seen as impossible to criticize without seeming racist.


Exactly! It's just BORING! It's not like it's even radical, it's just middling dull dross in which nothing happens and we're supposed to think that something really sad has happened. that bit near the end where (A) attacks (B)- good on (A)!

----------


## Inderjit Sanghe

In terms of over-rated 'high-brow' authors, Fyodor Dostoevskii problably tops the list. His garrulous, sentimental proto-fascist, as well as tedentious garbage is vastly over-rated. Sartre is another one. Dostoevskii also really nees to omit those long-winded, totally irrelevant passages about characters with serial neuroses that inhabit the opening passages of all his books.

In terms of popularity-Dan Brown is another abysmal writer. And that A.S Byatt book, 'Possession' was terrible.

----------


## Emil Miller

> J.K. Rowling anyone?


I was in a bookstore when a man came in with a girl, and as they passed a pile of Harry Potter books, the girl said "I like Harry Potter."
The girl was about 7 years old.
I think that just about sums it up.

----------


## JBI

> I was in a bookstore when a man came in with a girl, and as they passed a pile of Harry Potter books, the girl said "I like Harry Potter."
> The girl was about 7 years old.
> I think that just about sums it up.


If she is 7, and reading at that level, congratulations to her. Somehow though, I doubt she has read the full series. After all, keep in mind 7 years old is a grade two reading level, whereas those books place around a 5-6.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I haven't read any Harry Potter books, because I try to avoid it. So I can't really say that she is the most overrated. Maybe the books are actually good and I'm missing out? But I just don't see why everyone is so obsessed over it!


Why do say that you "try to avoid it"? Surely any person who understands 
hype when they see it just ignores it.
The reason why "everyone is so obsessed over it" is because they are too gullible to see that they are being used. 
In a world where the lowest common denominator has become the touchstone for excellence it is hardly surprising that so much juvenilia fills the bookstores.
Obviously, there are some childrens books that might be considered as literature but they were written before the advent of mass marketing and the band-wagon syndrome that has reduced publishing to an outlet for whatever people can be gulled into buying.

----------


## kelby_lake

I like Harry Potter

----------


## Emil Miller

It is heartening to see such a negative response to George Orwell.
Many years ago when I was idealistic (ah! the joys of youth) I read everything by Orwell and thought he was great. However, as I began to realise that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, my admiration for Orwell decreased accordingly.
Orwell was a strangely tortured man whose influnce on readers can be dangerously misleading and whose idealism, carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to anarchy.
When I realised this, I was compelled to write a novel as an antidote to Orwell, and on meeting someone who told me he could arrange an introduction to the late author's wife, I was able to decline, secure in the knowledge that, despite his readability, I no longer had anything in common with him.

----------


## hhc

Totally the woman who wrote Mary Poppins.
The movie was great, and the book is considered to be an all-times classic, but it really was the most boring thing I've read in my life and one of the two books that I never finished (the other one was The Sound of Music, again a successful film with Julie Andrews-coincidence?).

----------


## misterlit

J.K. Rowling

----------


## Equality72521

Most overrated writer = J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer and Meg Cabot (it's a three way tie)

----------


## wilbur lim

Who conceives Shakespeare is the dominant writer?

----------


## johann cruyff

> In terms of over-rated 'high-brow' authors, Fyodor Dostoevskii problably tops the list. His garrulous, sentimental proto-fascist, as well as tedentious garbage is vastly over-rated. Sartre is another one. Dostoevskii also really nees to omit those long-winded, totally irrelevant passages about characters with serial neuroses that inhabit the opening passages of all his books.


You really have a thing against Dostoevsky, don't you? I mean, seriously, at some point, a line must be drawn even with personal tastes... To say Tolstoy is better than Dostoevsky is one thing, but to call D. the most overrated writer is just...wow. 

I don't like your inclusion of Sartre either  :Biggrin:

----------


## WICKES

I really hate Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad writer exactly, but that world weary pose, the boasting, lying and exaggerating in his personal life (especially the way he convinced everyone he was a war hero...I mean ffs, the guy drove an ambulance on the Italian front, it's not like he was an infantry officer at the Somme or Verdun), the macho posteuring etc- there is something obnoxiously adolescent and insincere about Hemingway that I find repellent. You only have to look at his most devoted fans!

Paolo Coehlo is awful. He belongs on a shelf with Californian, New Age garbage. I think all those Latin American 'magic realism' writers are overrated. Read Hermann Hesse instead!

As for Orwell, I think the criticism a bit harsh. He was absolutely spot on in his attacks on Stalin's Russia at a time when many British intellectuals were defending and forgiving Stalin anything just because he wasn't Hitler. 

p.s J K Rowling is for kids, so give her a break. At least kids read her and learn positive lessons: about loyalty, love, comradeship etc. If it wasn't for her those same kids would prob. be playing soulless, violent video games. It's not like they'd be reading Keats and Dickens instead (though I must admit, as a kids writer she's not in the same league as Roald Dahl)




> Charles Dickens is SO overrated in my opinion. I mean yes he wrote good stuff..but not THAT good...I don't remember ever really enjoying any of his works..they're so gloomy and always leave me with bitterness and a strange feeling of wanting to hang myself!


But he was one of the all time great creators of characters. In that respect he deserves to be compared with Chaucer, Shakespeare, Cervantes and Tosltoy. Secondly, he captured a period/ place like few writers I know. When you think of Victorian London/ England/ Britain you think of Dickens. Thirdly, he shook the conscience of a nation that was becoming ever richer yet ignoring the misery and suffering of so many of its inhabitants. Very few writers have ever had so much influence for good.

However, I do know what you mean. He can be long winded (though perhaps that's because people back then had more time- no TV, no radio, no CDs, no cars etc etc) and sentimental.

----------


## kelby_lake

Oh, Dickens could do the characters. You have to give him that.

Whilst I enjoyed Twilight, the writing was that of a 13 year old with a thesaurus.

----------


## WICKES

> Oh, Dickens could do the characters. You have to give him that..


He really is one of the all time greatest creators of characters. Only Shakespeare, Chaucer, Cervantes and a handful of others can compare. Among novelists he is almost supreme in that respect. People like Micawber, Scrooge, Bill Sykes etc seem almost archetypal. 

Sartre was a surprise appearance. Nausea is an incredible novel. Read a bit of Mysticism then read it - astonishing. It really reads like a wide eyed innocent undergoing the full mystic/ Zen experience only NOT enjoying it- finding it hellish rather than uplifting. Scary stuff.

----------


## Etienne

I just love Dickens, many people deplore the "simplicity" and "naivety" of his writing, but I think that it is precisely that which makes the charm of his books, as it is not simple simplicity and naivety, Dickens was an extremely smart man, and a man who really knew how to write.

As for Dostoevsky, I really like his books, however I do have to agree with the fact that he is somewhat overrated. It often seems that many people consider him the alpha and the omega of literature... but it just seems to me like the guy is not such a good novelist. There is something very sketchy and unrefined in his books (he wrote very fast, yeah, yeah I know, but it's the result that I read). No doubt he created a lot for literary theory and gave food for thought for philosophers and psychologists, but as a novelist, he was no Tolstoy. However, just like Tolstoy didn't have the depth of a Dostoevsky...

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> I just love Dickens, many people deplore the "simplicity" and "naivety" of his writing, but I think that it is precisely that which makes the charm of his books, as it is not simple simplicity and naivety, Dickens was an extremely smart man, and a man who really knew how to write.
> 
> As for Dostoevsky, I really like his books, however I do have to agree with the fact that he is somewhat overrated. It often seems that many people consider him the alpha and the omega of literature... but it just seems to me like the guy is not such a good novelist. There is something very sketchy and unrefined in his books (he wrote very fast, yeah, yeah I know, but it's the result that I read). No doubt he created a lot for literary theory and gave food for thought for philosophers and psychologists, but as a novelist, he was no Tolstoy. However, just like Tolstoy didn't have the depth of a Dostoevsky...


Dostoevsky was consistently good. There are no bad books written by this one writer. There are no so-called 'minor works'. Tolstoy's career was a slippery slope apart from the two famous books. Too much religion. I think Tolstoy was a 'one-hit wonder' but that 'one-hit' (_War and Peace_) happens to be the greatest of the great novels. As far as the depth of characterisation is concerned, Dostoevsky leads the way by a huge margin.

----------


## Etienne

> Dostoevsky was consistently good. There are no bad books written by this one writer. There are no so-called 'minor works'. Tolstoy's career was a slippery slope apart from the two famous books. Too much religion. I think Tolstoy was a 'one-hit wonder' but that 'one-hit' (_War and Peace_) happens to be the greatest of the great novels. As far as the depth of characterisation is concerned, Dostoevsky leads the way by a huge margin.


Let me disagree with this view of Tolstoy. His short-novels are masterpieces, those short stories I've read of him were very good, and I find Resurrection better than Anna Karenina. Many people seem annoyed by some "religious ranting" from Tolstoy, but the fact is that in most of his works, more obviously in his major works, there is always some ranting. Agriculture for Anna Karenina, Philosophy of history for War and Peace, and then religion for Resurrection. Tolstoy was considered one of the greatest Russian writers before War and Peace and Anna Karenina. One could argue that his religious turn made him write worse, I'd argue that it only made him write less (fiction) but the quality was still there. His non-fiction writings were always kind of boring, he just repeats himself way too much, be it his Confessions or his rantings in War and Peace...

Which work exactly by Tolstoy have you found very much inferior to the status of a great writer like Tolstoy?

As for Dostoevsky, I haven't read all of him (Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, The Gambler, Notes From the Underground and some short Stories) and I've found all of them very good, but most of them gave me an impression of being sketchy, so what I am saying is that on a stylistic level, he is far from being perfect. I am not saying he is bad by any stretch of imagination, I really like Dostoevsky, I just don't find him to be what some people try to make of him. He is certainly not the "most" overrated however.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

I re-read _Anna Karenina_ thinking I had missed something but still find it among the most forgettable of the 'great books.' I found the religious ranting in _Resurrection_ appalling. Dostoevsky is not irreligious but later Tolstoy is just simply blatant. I did not mind the 'forces of history' and their indifferent march in _War and Peace_ but religion at that scale in _Resurrection_ is just not very palatable.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I really hate Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad writer exactly, but that world weary pose, the boasting, lying and exaggerating in his personal life (especially the way he convinced everyone he was a war hero...I mean ffs, the guy drove an ambulance on the Italian front, it's not like he was an infantry officer at the Somme or Verdun), the macho posteuring etc- there is something obnoxiously adolescent and insincere about Hemingway that I find repellent. You only have to look at his most devoted fans!
> 
> Paolo Coehlo is awful. He belongs on a shelf with Californian, New Age garbage. I think all those Latin American 'magic realism' writers are overrated. Read Hermann Hesse instead!
> 
> As for Orwell, I think the criticism a bit harsh. He was absolutely spot on in his attacks on Stalin's Russia at a time when many British intellectuals were defending and forgiving Stalin anything just because he wasn't Hitler. 
> 
> p.s J K Rowling is for kids, so give her a break. At least kids read her and learn positive lessons: about loyalty, love, comradeship etc. If it wasn't for her those same kids would prob. be playing soulless, violent video games. It's not like they'd be reading Keats and Dickens instead (though I must admit, as a kids writer she's not in the same league as Roald Dahl)
> 
> 
> ...


You raise some interesting points but I think your judgement on Hemingway is
rather hard because he really was a larger than life individual. As for his writing, I'm afraid I have only read A Moveable Feast and thought it was well written.
I know nothing of Paulo Coehlo but your recommendation to read Hermann Hesse is sound.
I have already mentioned Orwell elsewhere on this thread but I think you are being disingenuous in saying that many British intellectuals forgave Stalin because he wasn't Hitler. The fact is they actually believed in Marxism and should have been old enough to know better. 
It's obvious that J k Rowling is for kids, but try telling that to the adults who read her.
Whatever his faults, Dickens was a great writer but I would suggest that most people are more likely to equate Victorian London with Conan Doyle; not in the same league of course.

----------


## mortalterror

> I really hate Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad writer exactly, but that world weary pose, the boasting, lying and exaggerating in his personal life (especially the way he convinced everyone he was a war hero...I mean ffs, the guy drove an ambulance on the Italian front, it's not like he was an infantry officer at the Somme or Verdun), the macho posteuring etc- there is something obnoxiously adolescent and insincere about Hemingway that I find repellent. You only have to look at his most devoted fans!


He did drive an ambulance on the Italian front, where he was wounded by shell fire in the leg, and as he was crippled, bleeding, and tending to his own wounds, he managed to drag another wounded soldier nearly a mile to safety. The soldier still died, but I give Hemingway an A for effort on that one. 

After WWI he covered the Spanish Civil War as a journalist, where he made some documentaries, his hotel was bombed, and he dodged more shellfire in the street. If it were me, and I'd been wounded in a war, I would do everything I could to stay out of the way of any further such actions; but he actually embraced this lifestyle, faced his fears, and went back.

During WWII he outfits his fishing boat with bazooka's, arms a posse, and gets a special permit to hunt German U-boats off the coast of Key West. When he realizes how ridiculous this is, he signs on for an embedded journalist position on the German front lines, where he is subsequently brought up on charges for engaging the enemy with rifle fire, and killing two German SS officers with a grenade. As a journalist, he was considered a non-combatant and was technically in violation of the Geneva convention.

The man hunted lions. Lions! What more do you need? When his plane went down in Africa, for the second time, despite having multiple fractured limbs he pushes his wife and friend through the window he's too big for and then, amidst flames and smoke batters the escape hatch open with his head. Say what you want about his writing, he was one tough dude. Then you have the boxing, the bullfighting... If you don't think that's macho, I'm afraid to see the guy who does impress you.

Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Celine, James Jones, Orwell: all might have seen more action than Ernest Hemingway, but he lived, and he wrote better than any of them. In the modern age, writers are not men of action as they were in the time of Aeschylus, Horace, Dante, Cervantes, Sidney, Sir. Walter Raleigh, and Lope De Vega.

----------


## stlukesguild

Macho macho man! I wanna be a macho man... :Banana:

----------


## mortalterror

> Macho macho man! I wanna be a macho man...


Wounded veteran is not a punchline, and in my family we respect the men and women who put their lives in harms way for the sake of their loved ones.

----------


## Etienne

> Wounded veteran is not a punchline, and in my family we respect the men and women who put their lives in harms way for the sake of their loved ones.


This is a punchline. Many veterans did not fight at all for their loved ones.

----------


## WICKES

> He did drive an ambulance on the Italian front, where he was wounded by shell fire in the leg, and as he was crippled, bleeding, and tending to his own wounds, he managed to drag another wounded soldier nearly a mile to safety. The soldier still died, but I give Hemingway an A for effort on that one. 
> 
> After WWI he covered the Spanish Civil War as a journalist, where he made some documentaries, his hotel was bombed, and he dodged more shellfire in the street. If it were me, and I'd been wounded in a war, I would do everything I could to stay out of the way of any further such actions; but he actually embraced this lifestyle, faced his fears, and went back.
> 
> During WWII he outfits his fishing boat with bazooka's, arms a posse, and gets a special permit to hunt German U-boats off the coast of Key West. When he realizes how ridiculous this is, he signs on for an embedded journalist position on the German front lines, where he is subsequently brought up on charges for engaging the enemy with rifle fire, and killing two German SS officers with a grenade. As a journalist, he was considered a non-combatant and was technically in violation of the Geneva convention.
> 
> The man hunted lions. Lions! What more do you need? When his plane went down in Africa, for the second time, despite having multiple fractured limbs he pushes his wife and friend through the window he's too big for and then, amidst flames and smoke batters the escape hatch open with his head. Say what you want about his writing, he was one tough dude. Then you have the boxing, the bullfighting... If you don't think that's macho, I'm afraid to see the guy who does impress you.
> 
> Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Celine, James Jones, Orwell: all might have seen more action than Ernest Hemingway, but he lived, and he wrote better than any of them. In the modern age, writers are not men of action as they were in the time of Aeschylus, Horace, Dante, Cervantes, Sidney, Sir. Walter Raleigh, and Lope De Vega.



Well, like I said I don't dislike his books (though personally I think he is very overrated), but there is something nauseatingly adolescent about him. Many people who met him found him an overbearing braggart and liar. I read once that the story about rescuing the wounded man is now thought to have been grossly exaggerated. He covered the Spanish civil war, but he was a non combatant (as in WW1 and WW2). I'm sorry, but why didn't he go to Britain and sign up to fight the Nazis when Britain was all alone in 1940? People like Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon would have pissed themselves laughing if they'd been swapping war stories and all Hemingway could come up with was "well, my Hotel got bombed in Spain". Probably no hot water either! He always reminds me of John Wayne- both macho posturers who never really experienced the full horror of war (which was why they never grew out of the macho nonsense- the men who really had to do the fighting just wanted to forget it). 

As for the hunting/ bullfighting, it doesn't take guts to _shoot_ a lion. D H Lawrence (a much better writer) shows up the bullfight for what it is in 'The Plumed Serpent': an ugly, barbaric little piece of human cowardice and cruelty. 

I do think he wrote well about the spiritual emptiness/ loss of meaning of the 20th century and he was right to try and find a solution in a more primitive, natural, authentic way of living. I also thought 'Fiesta'/ The Sun Also Rises was excellent but I can't take the posing and exaggerating. Had he been a piolet in the Battle of Britain or an infantry officer at Verdun then I'd maybe see it differently.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> Wounded veteran is not a punchline, and in my family we respect the men and women who put their lives in harms way for the sake of their loved ones.


Hey, you forgot to mention the latest fad, F.R.E.E.D.O.M  :Flare:

----------


## mortalterror

> He covered the Spanish civil war, but he was a non combatant (as in WW1 and WW2). I'm sorry, but why didn't he go to Britain and sign up to fight the Nazis when Britain was all alone in 1940?


Probably because he was in his forties, walked with a limp, and had a history of other ailments which made him 4F. As far as his contribution not being dangerous or meaningful, I remember a little thing called 9/11. You might have heard about it. You see, a bunch of "ambulance drivers", fire fighters, and policemen ran into a burning building to pull survivors from collapsing wreckage. Well this "ambulance driver" went to a place every bit as scary as that. He took out the maimed, the bleeding, the dying, the groaning remains of humanity; let it seep into his clothing and fester in his mind. He dropped them off at the hospital week after week, and then he went back over and over to do it again. That's a patriot. That's a hero who's service does not deserve to be slighted or mocked by men who weren't there and didn't do or see half of the things he did.

I think he joined the ambulance core for three reasons. 1)The United States hadn't declared war by the time he went overseas. 2)His father was a doctor, and he wanted his father to be proud of him as a preserver of life, not a destroyer. 3) Dos Passos and E.E. Cummings had already done the same thing. I think he wanted to be where the action was, unlike Faulkner who joins the Royal Canadian Airforce, never sees combat, crashes a plane after hostilities are over and then tells wild stories for years about his dogfights over Germany.

----------


## integrity

I read a number of Hemingway's books in my early twenties, and thought his writing was highly overrated. Being that I am older now, and hopefully possess a bit more experience and wisdom, I thought I might actually give the guy's books a second chance.

But after reading about his "exploits" just now, I think I'll pass. I'm even less impressed with him than before. I tend to agree with Wickes. Hunting (any animal) is hardly heroic. The fact that he hunted innocent animals and pointlessly taunted bulls indicates to me a severe disconnect with nature, a sheer lack of compassion for fellow creatures, and a desire for unnecessary bloodshed or pain. Boxing?...dear lord...if two dumb mugs want to beat the **** out of each other for "fun" and silly looking belts, let the morons have at it.

Arming a fishing boat with a bazooka?! It sounds to me like he wasn't just a war hawk of sorts, but a dramatic pea head to boot. Good thing he realized how goofy he appeared to be, and pulled himself together enough to go shoot some real people. Apparently, non-human animals were not enough of a challenge for him. 

Seems to me he canceled out whatever merits he gained as an ambulance driver by performing other various bloodthirsty "feats" of ignorance and apathy.

----------


## Etienne

> I read a number of Hemingway's books in my early twenties, and thought his writing was highly overrated. Being that I am older now, and hopefully possess a bit more experience and wisdom, I thought I might actually give the guy's books a second chance.
> 
> But after reading about his "exploits" just now, I think I'll pass. I'm even less impressed with him than before. I tend to agree with Wickes. Hunting (any animal) is hardly heroic. The fact that he hunted innocent animals and pointlessly taunted bulls indicates to me a severe disconnect with nature, a sheer lack of compassion for fellow creatures, and a desire for unnecessary bloodshed or pain. Boxing?...dear lord...if two dumb mugs want to beat the **** out of each other for "fun" and silly looking belts, let the morons have at it.
> 
> Arming a fishing boat with a bazooka?! It sounds to me like he wasn't just a war hawk of sorts, but a dramatic pea head to boot. Good thing he realized how goofy he appeared to be, and pulled himself together enough to go shoot some real people. Apparently, non-human animals were not enough of a challenge for him. 
> 
> Seems to me he canceled out whatever merits he gained as an ambulance driver by performing other various bloodthirsty "feats" of ignorance and apathy.


Mate, if such thing makes you dislike an author (and not his writing) then you've just dismissed a ton and a half of good literature. I'm not sure I see the connection in the fact that you will not read the books of a dead author because he happened to hunt and did some crazy things.

Might as well say: "I'm not going to read Borges, he never did anything in his life, so his writings are going to be boring!"

----------


## JBI

If we are taking Hemmingway's life into account, as we probably shouldn't, since it is his work which is important, then we must not forget his misogyny, alcoholism, and the fact that he seems overall to be a bit of an [email protected]#hole. But that isn't the point. His prose has its importance, but many of his works are rather rubbishy. For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises, and his Short Stories seem to be the most enduring, with the rest being sustained by the fact that a) he didn't die too long ago, and b) the popularity of the other works keeps him in print.

No doubt he was a great author, but compared to many of his contemporaries, he is quite minor in the grand scheme of American novels, though perhaps central in the development of the American Short Story.

----------


## JacobF

I'm not the most seasoned reader, but of all the books I have read William Golding goes to the top of my list of the most overrated of writers. Nothing he has written is substantially deep or evocative, and Lord of the Flies isn't a very good allegory of human nature.

----------


## Jozanny

> I'm not the most seasoned reader, but of all the books I have read William Golding goes to the top of my list of the most overrated of writers. Nothing he has written is substantially deep or evocative, and Lord of the Flies isn't a very good allegory of human nature.


I tend to agree with this. Tribalism is not necessarily barbaric, nor is savagery so quaintly schematic in terms of being able to plot one's points toward regression.

Today's gangs in the US, for example, don't need to be spearing pigs to be seen as devolving off of civic respect. Guns make human life very cheap these days, and murders don't even need motives--like it has been said about Cormac McCarthy's villains "killing seems to become just part of the conversation."

Reminds me of the fall of the Roman Empire.

----------


## mortalterror

> If we are taking Hemmingway's life into account, as we probably shouldn't, since it is his work which is important, then we must not forget his misogyny, alcoholism, and the fact that he seems overall to be a bit of an [email protected]#hole. But that isn't the point. His prose has its importance, but many of his works are rather rubbishy. For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises, and his Short Stories seem to be the most enduring, with the rest being sustained by the fact that a) he didn't die too long ago, and b) the popularity of the other works keeps him in print.
> 
> No doubt he was a great author, but compared to many of his contemporaries, he is quite minor in the grand scheme of American novels, though perhaps central in the development of the American Short Story.


Honestly JBI, only a person who hasn't read much Hemingway could refer to him as a minor writer. I've seen you misread him as a minimalist several times, and I've told you that's mostly just characteristic of his early work. You'll read Finnegans Wake but you won't put the slightest effort into reading For Whom the Bell Tolls, A Farewell To Arms, A Moveable Feast, or the Old Man and the Sea because you already have your opinion of Hemingway, somebody elses.

As far as subject matter goes, when I want to know about the mating habits of Irish prostitutes, or I want to read the only book about a struggling young writer, or a book about Dublin, or Dublin, or Dublin again, I'll read Joyce. When I want to know what it's like to hunt a lion I'll read Hemingway.

And by the way, to whomever above was talking **** about boxing, I happen to like the sport.

----------


## Michigan J Frog

Proust.

A couple of others like Golding, Hawthorne, Heller, Balzac, Austen, And pretty much any modern writer that is published.

Oh wait, and Twain. And most American writers. Most people who wrote in English.

And Steinback is insufferable.

----------


## JBI

> Honestly JBI, only a person who hasn't read much Hemingway could refer to him as a minor writer. I've seen you misread him as a minimalist several times, and I've told you that's mostly just characteristic of his early work. You'll read Finnegans Wake but you won't put the slightest effort into reading For Whom the Bell Tolls, A Farewell To Arms, A Moveable Feast, or the Old Man and the Sea because you already have your opinion of Hemingway, somebody elses.
> 
> As far as subject matter goes, when I want to know about the mating habits of Irish prostitutes, or I want to read the only book about a struggling young writer, or a book about Dublin, or Dublin, or Dublin again, I'll read Joyce. When I want to know what it's like to hunt a lion I'll read Hemingway.
> 
> And by the way, to whomever above was talking **** about boxing, I happen to like the sport.


His Iceberg theory was revealed to the world in 1932 with the publication of Death in the Afternoon, outlining his style, which though perhaps not as simplistic as his early work, was still minimalist. But either way, the point is whether or not he is a minor writer, or whether or not he is a major writer.

The first thing we need to assess is his contemporaries, off the top of my head, the ones that hit me first are O'Neal, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Porter, Carter, Cather and on a stretch, Wharton.

Of those, he is obviously better than Steinbeck and Porter, but Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby, and any of the major works of Faulkner seem far more enduring than even the best Hemingway. O'Neal is unique, as we are dealing with drama here, which seems outside of Hemingway, and most mainstream reading. The question then remains where is the spot for Hemingway.

In terms of short stories, as I mentioned earlier, he seems, with Faulkner and Porter, the most defining of the genre, far surpassing everyone, except for Faulkner. As for novels however, he is just one amongst many great writers, as named above. This is only American modernism however, as you mentioned above, there were a lot more writers working at the time, and I am sure there were a lot more as talented, or more talented writers we don't know about because of lack of scholarship/translation. 

His place in the tradition of American literature is undisputed, but it is not a stretch to say exaggerated, as many of his works are dated (despite what you say) and the whole Lost-Generation bit which seems cemented in his early work has grown a little stale. Do I deny that he was a great writer? of course not, though I wouldn't place him above Willa Cather in my esteem.

----------


## WICKES

[QUOTE=mortalterror;614301]. 


> As far as his contribution not being dangerous or meaningful, I remember a little thing called 9/11. You might have heard about it. You see, a bunch of "ambulance drivers", fire fighters, and policemen ran into a burning building to pull survivors from collapsing wreckage. Well this "ambulance driver" went to a place every bit as scary as that. He took out the maimed, the bleeding, the dying, the groaning remains of humanity; let it seep into his clothing and fester in his mind. He dropped them off at the hospital week after week, and then he went back over and over to do it again. That's a patriot. That's a hero who's service does not deserve to be slighted or mocked by men who weren't there and didn't do or see half of the things he did


.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course a man who risks his life as an ambulance driver/ fireman etc is brave and praiseworthy. I hugely admire the conscientious objectors in WW1 who served as stretcher bearers and won medals for rescuing men under shell fire. What I can't bear about Hemingway is his macho posturing, boasting and lying when _he was never actually a combatant_. It now seems to be generally accepted among biographers and scholars that he exaggerated and sometimes simply lied about his experiences in WW1 and Spain. Still, he needed to dramatise and exaggerate, wheras a man like Robert Graves in 'Goodbye To All That' simply tells of his time as an infantry officer in WW1 in a cool, precise, undramatic way because he had nothing to prove. 

If you want to read about war, read something like 'The Last Enemy' by Richard Hillary: a British fighter pilot in the Battle Of Britain who was shot down over the channel and severly burnt/ disfigured. He wrote about the battle while recovering, rejoined the RAF shortly after publishing and was killed a few months later. He writes without a shred of self pity, sentimentality or drama. His little, almost forgotten, book is far more moving than anything that overrated bully Hemingway wrote.

----------


## WICKES

> the whole Lost-Generation bit which seems cemented in his early work has grown a little stale.


He does write well about that I must say. Still, lots of writers write well about that period : Aldous Huxley, Evelyn Waugh, Hermann Hesse etc all capture the emptiness/ loss of meaning very well.

----------


## miyagisan

I must be quite a Philistine - Steinbeck is my favorite writer and I find Hemingway dreadful. For Whom the Bell Tolls is his only work that I've read cover to cover, so I'm certainly no expert and am definitely planning on reading more. But I just didn't see anything that justified all the praise heaped on him. If I was a Spanish civil war aficionado I may have enjoyed it immensely, but to me it was just a simple theme wrapped in an overly dramatized* book that was 200 pages too long.

* Particularly the ending

----------


## Jozanny

I am rather surprised at all this Hemingway fuss. I recently reread For Whom The Bell Tolls, and there are things to like in it, but Hemingway seems incapable of humanizing characters beyond Hollywood cliches. I was certainly not moved by what I should have been moved by in Rabbit's experiences, or the other peasant soldiers of the doomed Republic. I got much more, in fact, from a Granta contributor recently recounting an earlier travel writer's experiences in 1930's Spain.

But I am not here to trash the man either--there is something to be said for the reporting style he brought to fiction. Fitzgerald transcends Hemingway, Faulkner transcends both, but they were men of their era, and I disagree with JBI putting Wharton in their camp.

Edith Wharton, like Henry James, represented the last gasp of America in the Victorian age, and that she outlived James by a significant margin doesn't change that.

Let's all take a deep breath? (In and out... )

----------


## jaywalker

Both Hemingway and D.H. Lawrence are better as Travel writers.' Sea and Sardinia'' and ''A Moveable Feast'' are good. Can't read Henry James and don't think much of Grahame Greene.

----------


## integrity

> Mate, if such thing makes you dislike an author (and not his writing) then you've just dismissed a ton and a half of good literature. I'm not sure I see the connection in the fact that you will not read the books of a dead author because he happened to hunt and did some crazy things.
> 
> Might as well say: "I'm not going to read Borges, he never did anything in his life, so his writings are going to be boring!"


In this particular case, I cannot separate the writer from his writing. Just as if Karl Rove or Dick Cheney wrote the most well-written fiction book loosely based on all the great things they've done for middle east, or if Michael Vick was the most eloquent writer on the planet, I would read none of their books because they are major jerks/idiots who lack the slightest amount of empathy or compassion and possess an acute disrespect for their fellow living creatures. These type of folks have nothing of value to impart to me at this time of my life. It's not about whether an author's life (in this case Hemingway's) was exciting or boring, it's about the moral character of the individual himself/herself. It permeates and shines through in a writer's works. 

His alcoholism I couldn't give a crap about. Many authors are alcoholic. Or have some sort of addiction or self-destructive foible or idiosyncrasy (sometimes these shortcomings actually enhance the author's writing, making it more interesting or rich with understanding). But if the person appears to have a bloodthirsty streak for needlessly hurting fellow creatures, then that person more than likely has nothing meaningful to impart to me. It indicates a severe lack of depth in their perception of life. 

Perhaps if I hadn't read Hemingway's works before and disliked them, I would give him another chance. But I have already read a few of his novels, and did not receive enjoyment or fulfillment from them. So why would I torture myself by reading his books again? Especially when the man's character is so repugnant to me? 

For the person who enjoys boxing....good for you. Nothing like watching the spectacle of pointless bloodshed carried out by two willing individuals. I just wish and pray they would bring back the old gladiatorial "games" of Rome. I don't think there is enough gore or innocent animals involved in modern day fighting.

(By the way, Etienne, is that Borat as your avatar? ;-)

----------


## Etienne

> Perhaps if I hadn't read Hemingway's works before and disliked them, I would give him another chance. But I have already read a few of his novels, and did not receive enjoyment or fulfillment from them. So why would I torture myself by read?


Well of course, but then the reason would be that you disliked his writing, not that the man was a hunter...




> (By the way, Etienne, is that Borat as your avatar? ;-)


No, Andrei Bely  :FRlol:  I think I'll have to change it it's confusing people  :FRlol:

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

For what it is worth I would just like to throw my coins into the Hemingway well and say that personally I find his novel _A Moveable Feast_ to be easily his best work. Hemingway seems to be at his best in this novel because it is closely biographical and therefore it seems to step away from the Hollywood aspect of some of his other novels. _Fiesta_ is also one of his best works. Both these works while not outstanding by any means present a flavour of continental life that I find very attractive.

----------


## stlukesguild

In this particular case, I cannot separate the writer from his writing. Just as if Karl Rove or Dick Cheney wrote the most well-written fiction book loosely based on all the great things they've done for middle east, or if Michael Vick was the most eloquent writer on the planet, I would read none of their books because they are major jerks/idiots who lack the slightest amount of empathy or compassion and possess an acute disrespect for their fellow living creatures. These type of folks have nothing of value to impart to me at this time of my life. It's not about whether an author's life (in this case Hemingway's) was exciting or boring, it's about the moral character of the individual himself/herself. It permeates and shines through in a writer's works... if the person appears to have a bloodthirsty streak for needlessly hurting fellow creatures, then that person more than likely has nothing meaningful to impart to me. It indicates a severe lack of depth in their perception of life.

Integrity brings into play an intriguing question. Can we separate the artist from the art? Can a real [email protected]#hole produce great art? Do we find it impossible to divorce who the artist was from what the artist did? I think such questions are in need of another thread altogether... and so:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...810#post614810

----------


## kelby_lake

I want to read more Hemingway but what on earth happens in The Old Man and The Sea?! It is apparantly 'one of the most profound stories ever told' but all they're currently doing is eating fish and reading about baseball!

----------


## Behemoth

It's purely a personal opinion, but... 
Jane Austen
...
*runs*

----------


## kelby_lake

Anyone would be overrated with her amount of rating

----------


## Emil Miller

> I've never read Diane Johnson, but I'll take this as a warning to stay away! 
> I wonder what future drivel Dan Brown is going to have published.


This story may be apocryphal but I read somewhere that Dan Brown decided to become a writer when he was lying on a beach reading a best seller and he said to himself 'I could write a better book than that.'
Whoever the author was is the person we are looking for.

----------


## kelby_lake

Oh, Stephenie Meyer has imagination but her writing is terrible. She doesn't exactly have a way with words.

----------


## Leiphos

> this is a thread for all the writers that we've been told are great and are in the classics range and constantly appear on 100greatestnovels lists and such like but we hate. 
> 
> i say jack kerouac is the most overrated
> 
> die! on the road


from a very prose-centric perspective i agree, jack kerouac is so often terribly careless in terms of style and technique in general

----------


## Dark Muse

Stephenie Meyer is definitely the most overrated author ever in my book. I am sick to death of hearing about her and seeing her books, and people gushing over her, when she is a mediocre writer at best.

Even when I was in highschool I could not have stood to read her and was reading works of higher quality.

----------


## Judas130

J.K Rowling.

though, as a children's author, she's quite good at it.

----------


## kelby_lake

I don't mind Rowling

----------


## John Goodman

> J.K Rowling.
> 
> though, as a children's author, she's quite good at it.



Any author who can get millions of children (and adults alike) excited about reading certainly cannot be overrated.

----------


## eyemaker

> Stephenie Meyer is definitely the most overrated author ever in my book. I am sick to death of hearing about her and seeing her books, and people gushing over her, when she is a mediocre writer at best.
> 
> Even when I was in highschool I could not have stood to read her and was reading works of higher quality.


I certainly agree with you DM! Meyer is my pick for the most overrated author ever..Sorry for all those _Twilighters_.. :Tongue:

----------


## cipherdecoy

> I certainly agree with you DM! Meyer is my pick for the most overrated author ever..Sorry for all those _Twilighters_..


"this is a thread for all the writers that we've been told are great and are in the classics range and constantly appear on 100greatestnovels lists and such like but we hate."

Hmm but that was the original objective of the thread. I don't think Meyer's books have ever been classified as "great", neither have they achieved the status of classics.

----------


## kelby_lake

They have by some tiddlywinks who think they are the epitome of literature

----------


## DeadAsDreams

Im going with the cliched choice, Stephen King.

----------


## Hank Stamper

> It's purely a personal opinion, but... 
> Jane Austen
> ...
> *runs*


I said the same but have since realised such an opinion is unfair based on the fact I have only read Mansfield Park... I am reserving my opinion now until I have read a bit more of her work (have to read Northanger Abbey for Uni this term)

----------


## Scheherazade

> Im going with the cliched choice, Stephen King.


I am sure he will be thinking about this while laughing his way to the bank! 

 :Tongue:

----------


## PeterL

> Stephenie Meyer is definitely the most overrated author ever in my book. I am sick to death of hearing about her and seeing her books, and people gushing over her, when she is a mediocre writer at best.
> 
> Even when I was in highschool I could not have stood to read her and was reading works of higher quality.


What has she written? I have never before heard of Stephenie Meyer. Obviously, I don't rate her highly.

----------


## kelby_lake

She has written this rubbish series called Twilight, which millions of girls have fawned over.

----------


## litpsycho

I always liked Rowling. Her attempt at grasping the readers' thoughts and imagination is successful. The stories are interesting. Her writing is excellent. 
As for Woolf, I beg to disagree that she is a good writer. She seems more of confused and confusing to the readers. Her fans call her works challenging but, isn't a chalenging piece of reading something that could eventually be understood?

----------


## Josef K

Christopher Paolini, by a long shot

----------


## illuminatus

Rowling is most certainly overrated--I'll agree with that.

----------


## Tallon

I've been bored stiff several times when attempting V.S. Naipaul.

----------


## pgwodehousefan

That Twilight female-soppy,pathetic,painful , Meg Cabot (aarrrrgghh) and Arundhati Roy (how could the supremely painful God Of Small Things win the Booker.

----------


## waryan

Eh, who is to say really, beside some academic establishment. Is Rowling supposed to hold some literary merit beside the hook that keeps her readers coming back? She is fine in her own right, but I've heard they're teaching her alongside Dickens and Shakespeare and if she is what will be recalled hundreds of years from now as great then, sigh...

----------


## vnnegt-ology

dickens...
i like Rowling and the Harry Potter series... held off for a while, but had to read it for a college class, and got hooked.

----------


## imperiex

i'd go with Lovecraft.

----------


## waryan

> dickens...
> i like Rowling and the Harry Potter series... held off for a while, but had to read it for a college class, and got hooked.


you read it for college? how interesting- do you mind if I ask what the course was?




> i'd go with Lovecraft.


Haven't heard that one before but that's very intriguing- I've always enjoyed Lovecraft's works but I've never been able to get into them the way I feel other people do.

----------


## DaveB

> jack kerouac ~pukes~ Has anyone here read a book called CONVERSATIONS WITH CAPOTE? It's funny---Capote rips into jack, gore, mailer, etc. --- a tough critic & an accurate one! I LOVE CAPOTE! Brilliant man!


He was a very insightful guy. It's too bad he didn't write more. His stuff was always well done.

I read (where?) that Capote, when discussing Jack Kerouac once commented, "That's not writing. It's typing." - Or words to that effect.

I agree with his appraisal.

----------


## Kloster

Kerouac dissapointed me so much that I stopped reading _On The Road_ by chapter XIII. He's not big deal after all.

And even though *I don't like Capote as a short story writter*, I agree 100% with him in that commentary on Jack Kerouac quoted by HelloDolly.

----------


## mona amon

The author of Da Vinci Code. But I'm judging him based on this one book...

----------


## March Hare

I didn't read this 41 page thread but, in case no one's brought it up, James Joyce is THE MOST overrated writer since cuneiform. Seems everyone's afraid to say it's crap.

----------


## Etienne

> I didn't read this 41 page thread but, in case no one's brought it up, James Joyce is THE MOST overrated writer since cuneiform. Seems everyone's afraid to say it's crap.


What, because you couldn't understand it?

----------


## Cassandra15

> I didn't read this 41 page thread but, in case no one's brought it up, James Joyce is THE MOST overrated writer since cuneiform. Seems everyone's afraid to say it's crap.


_Portrait of the Artist_ is a good book, maybe an important one, but I guess that Joyce wrote that before he decided that he was Joyce. In any case, noone can compete with Proust; as an early editor said, _Temps Perdu_ begins with a thirty page description of someone turning over in bed. And it only gets worse from there.

Thanks.
C.

----------


## March Hare

> What, because you couldn't understand it?


That's right. Neither can you.

----------


## bazarov

I don't like Joyce but to say to Etienne that he can't understand is rude.

----------


## PabloQ

One sentence does not satisfy on this topic. If you are going to make a claim that a specific writer is overrated, back it up. Modern popular writers, like J. K. Rowling and Dan Brown are low hanging fruit, but when you take shots at the names on the first page of this site, you really need to back it up. In these discussion threads, nobody polarizes the conversation as much as Joyce. But you just can't throw him out the window. He is acknowledged as one of the greatest writers of all time by people who are for the most part smarter than us. Ulysses is commanly at the top of those 100 best Novel lists (not just on it, but at the top). There must be something there.

I've never read Joyce with the exception of a short story or two long, long ago. I have no opinion of his work one way or the other, but I imagine he has earned his reputation.

These threads are silly and get sillier when someone inevitably brings up Joyce or Shakespeare or Twain or Dickens or Austen. What you are saying is that you set a level of expectations when you sat down to read an author's work, but were dissatisfied with the experience. That in no way means that the writer did not earn his or her reputation as a great writer 100s of years after their death. The weakness is not the ability of the writer, it's on the reader. 

Thus, I believe the ability of the typical reader to fully understand what he is reading is overrated. I know this to be true of myself. I assume it to be true of the majority of posts in that past 41 pages. :Frown:

----------


## Scheherazade

*Please do not personalise your comments. 

Inflammatory posts will be edited/deleted without further notice.

Feel free to ignore any posts that you don't find agreeable or "worthy" of your response.*

----------


## islandclimber

I love James Joyce.. Ulysses, Portrait of the Artis as a Young Man are both amazing works.. and The Dubliners is in my opinion one of the best collections of short stories written in the english language.. even Finnegan's Wake is quite an amazing and enjoyable work to read through especially if you don't worry about understanding every single word, but I've read it twice, once without notes, and the other time with notes to the book that were longer than the book itself...  :Tongue:  and I still enjoyed it both times.. 

but as this is opinion, I don't really see the problem with anyone saying they think Joyce is overrated, or any writer for that matter.. if someone wants to say Dostoevsky is overrated in their opinion that is okay.. but if you are going to say you think a universally respected and for the most part considered "great" writer is overrated, give reasons why you think so..  :Biggrin: 

from what I have read on some sites regarding great books and great writers, I would have to say overrated writers are those like Stephen King, and John Grisham.. and JRR Tolkien.. but it all depends on who's opinion we are looking at, for I doubt most people who are seriously into literature, or who are lit critics, think King or Grisham are great writers.. maybe Tolkien in my opinion gets undue praise for his literary talent.. as his books are basically fantasy books written a little better than most others, but in my opinion that does not make them great literature.. they don't transcend genre writing which in my opinion is the only way a genre work can jump into great literature..

----------


## crystalmoonshin

I'm still fuming over the fact that I was fooled into thinking that the "Twilight" saga was so good. It wasn't. It's just that the book was so hot in forums and in my school that I actually thought it was good but I was so wrong! Imagine my disgust when they compared Meyer to Anne Rice! So far, I consider Meyer the most overrated writer.

----------


## Bitterfly

> In any case, noone can compete with Proust; as an early editor said, _Temps Perdu_ begins with a thirty page description of someone turning over in bed. And it only gets worse from there.


I beg to differ - the only thing wrong with Proust is that he has an unfair reputation for difficulty, which is a pity, because it means people are discouraged before even having started to read him. My boredom threshold is rather low, but I didn't once find the Recherche tedious. He tells a good story, honestly! 

I envy you islandclimber for finding Joyce enjoyable though. I loved the Portrait, liked Dubliners, but trudged through Ulysses twice, finding him interesting to study, but on the whole rather yawn-provoking, except for a few chapters. I haven't tried Finnegans Wake yet but I suspect I will have the same type of reaction.

I can't think of any author whom I find overrated, because I generally go by the rates of academic circles, but I can think of some I find extremely boring (The Man without Qualities by Musil tops eveything else, for me) - that said, I wouldn't say they were overrated, just that my capacity for understanding has limits.

----------


## islandclimber

> I beg to differ - the only thing wrong with Proust is that he has an unfair reputation for difficulty, which is a pity, because it means people are discouraged before even having started to read him. My boredom threshold is rather low, but I didn't once find the Recherche tedious. He tells a good story, honestly! 
> 
> I envy you islandclimber for finding Joyce enjoyable though. I loved the Portrait, liked Dubliners, but trudged through Ulysses twice, finding him interesting to study, but on the whole rather yawn-provoking, except for a few chapters. I haven't tried Finnegans Wake yet but I suspect I will have the same type of reaction.
> 
> I can't think of any author whom I find overrated, because I generally go by the rates of academic circles, but I can think of some I find extremely boring (The Man without Qualities by Musil tops eveything else, for me) - that said, I wouldn't say they were overrated, just that my capacity for understanding has limits.



Yeah, I don't really see Proust as being difficult or tedious.. Mind you I have only read in translation but still.. I thought _In Search of Lost Time_ was amazing.. One of my favourite books..

I agree with you though.. If you go by academic circles you really can't say an author is overrated, maybe you just can say you didn't enjoy that work, or understand it.. I know there are famous authors I don't like in the slightest.. but I still don't view them as overrated really, just not my cup of tea...  :Wink:

----------


## kelby_lake

> I'm still fuming over the fact that I was fooled into thinking that the "Twilight" saga was so good. It wasn't. It's just that the book was so hot in forums and in my school that I actually thought it was good but I was so wrong! Imagine my disgust when they compared Meyer to Anne Rice! So far, I consider Meyer the most overrated writer.


She is without a doubt.

----------


## Vintage34

I'm most likely the oldest person who posts on this site, so I probably have a different slant on all books mentioned so far. 

*The Catcher in the Rye*: When it was published in the 1950's, it was groundbreaking, and opened the door to a brand new style of writing. It was so innovative and amazing at the time, that I can remember actually feeling thrilled! I can't even guess at how many times I've read it Those of us in college at the time were totally blown away by the book. However, since then, many hundreds of books have been written, using "Catcher" as a template. I believe they call them "Coming of age" stories or movies? Consequently, it's just become one of hundreds of teenage angst stories. "Catcher" was the first and the best . . . you had to be there! 

*Hemingway*, is overrated, and has not stood the test of time. His books seem tedious and boring now. Anyone ever see a really good movie made from a Hemingway book? The only one that is watchable today is *The Killers*, with Burt Lancaster. 

*Steinbeck* has endured because of his two masterpieces, "East of Eden", and "The Grapes of Wrath". Both still readable, and both made into classic movies, that still hold me spellbound.

----------


## johann cruyff

> *Hemingway*, is overrated, and has not stood the test of time. His books seem tedious and boring now. *Anyone ever see a really good movie made from a Hemingway book?* The only one that is watchable today is *The Killers*, with Burt Lancaster.


I didn't know that was a condition for a book to be considered good? Going by that logic, The Brothers Karamazov is a horrible book, since it doesn't even have a movie based on it? (at least as far as I know, but you know what I mean)

I agree Hemingway is overrated, but the reason you gave is just...wrong. Especially bearing in mind the fact that no really good book can ever be matched by a movie.

----------


## bazarov

> I didn't know that was a condition for a book to be considered good? Going by that logic, The Brothers Karamazov is a horrible book, since it doesn't even have a movie based on it? (at least as far as I know, but you know what I mean)
> 
> I agree Hemingway is overrated, but the reason you gave is just...wrong. Especially bearing in mind the fact that no really good book can ever be matched by a movie.


BK has more then 5 movie versions, so it's a great book!  :FRlol: 
Really, reason is...yes, wrong.

Tko bi glumio Ahmeda Nehrudina? Rade erbedija?

----------


## johann cruyff

> Tko bi glumio Ahmeda Nehrudina? Rade erbedija?


Haha, who else? Maybe Josip Pejaković, but from a much younger age... And I really didn't know about the movie versions of TBK, never seen a single one... Huh, now you got me interested!

----------


## Jeremiah Jazzz

> I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.


I'll second!

As far as other 'classic' literature goes, I'd say Orwell is overrated in my eyes.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.

I'll second!

I must agree with PabloQ that such one-line comments are completely useless... if not inane. "That Mozart guy was over-rated" "Yeah, and Raphael couldn't hold a candle to Bob Ross". :Rolleyes:  Personal opinions are fine... but when they seemingly contradict the opinions of generations of literary figures: writers, critics, scholars, literature lovers... then it would seem that one might feel somewhat obliged to offer up something along the line of reasoning behind such blanket statements. You feel Nathaniel Hawthorne is over-rated? Why? What books have you read by him? Who would you compare him with by way of comparison and contrast. I find it interesting that JBI got taken to task for having taken the time to offer up a reasoned analysis of why he didn't like the harry Potter novels... but we still get these continual comments dismissing Hawthorne, Hemingway, Joyce, Proust, and the like.

----------


## islandclimber

> I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.
> 
> I'll second!
> 
> I must agree with PabloQ that such one-line comments are completely useless... if not inane. "That Mozart guy was over-rated" "Yeah, and Raphael couldn't hold a candle to Bob Ross". Personal opinions are fine... but when they seemingly contradict the opinions of generations of literary figures: writers, critics, scholars, literature lovers... then it would seem that one might feel somewhat obliged to offer up something along the line of reasoning behind such blanket statements. You feel Nathaniel Hawthorne is over-rated? Why? What books have you read by him? Who would you compare him with by way of comparison and contrast. I find it interesting that JBI got taken to task for having taken the time to offer up a reasoned analysis of why he didn't like the harry Potter novels... but we still get these continual comments dismissing Hawthorne, Hemingway, Joyce, Proust, and the like.



couldn't have said it better myself!  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## JBI

Meh, I'll say that outside of perhaps The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne isn't that great. Just try reading The Great Stone Face without being bored to tears by the long predictable drone of the tale. 

Still, not the most overrated ever - tastes differ of course.

I would say, perhaps Poe or someone would be more overrated. Hawthorne is only remembered pretty much for a handful of stories and one novel anyway.

----------


## bazarov

Neither did I, but I've checked it once on IMDB.

----------


## Cayenne

Do I have to dislike some author's books to say she's overrated? Because I love Harry Potter -books but I do think J.K. Rowling might be a little overrated. I mean obviously she has a great imagination but still I don't really get how it has got so popular.

----------


## prendrelemick

J D Salinger

Why? His reputation is built on ONE book for heaven's sake. A book I hated with a deep passion. His protagonist has nothing to say to me, there's no common ground between us. He moves through a landscape I don't recognise, meeting people I cannot believe in. Thats the plot, as for his writing, its adequate nothing more. Where's the body of work so that we can judge him and compare him with others? What is there to go on? a few forgettable short stories and a couple of mediocre novellas.
There, rant over.

----------


## Mag Master 21

> J D Salinger
> 
> Why? His reputation is built on ONE book for heaven's sake. A book I hated with a deep passion. His protagonist has nothing to say to me, there's no common ground between us. He moves through a landscape I don't recognise, meeting people I cannot believe in. Thats the plot, as for his writing, its adequate nothing more. Where's the body of work so that we can judge him and compare him with others? What is there to go on? a few forgettable short stories and a couple of mediocre novellas.
> There, rant over.


I originally had a response drawn out about wanting to punch you in the face, etc., but I thought it would be better to just leave it out. I don't believe a small body of work should be taken into consideration when discussing who's overrated and who isn't.

Would you say the same about Harper Lee, who has even LESS out..? Or John Kennedy Toole who has only written one novel, that just so happened to have won the Pulitzer Prize, that is one of the most original, genius bodies of literature I've ever had the pleasure of reading?

It is one thing to dislike a writing style or the premise of a novel, but to discredit someone's like-ability because of the amount they've written is absolutely absurd.

How do you think I feel? Salinger is my favorite author and he teases us with one novel and a bunch of shorter stuff. All the while, everyone knows he has 50 years of writing locked away in filing cabinets, waiting for him to die before they're published.

But to answer the OP's question, my vote goes to Kerouac... I don't mind stream of conscious writing; in fact, I really enjoy it. My problem is he does a terrible job of it. The story could be extremely interesting, but I get the feeling I'm reading the cliff-notes version of his journey. I had to struggle to keep myself interested.

And I hate to say it, but Nabokov. The opening lines of Lolita are genius... in fact, I'd say one of my all-time favorites. However, the quality of writing falls off a cliff, with some exceptions of brilliance. The ability is there, but it doesn't shine through on every page.

EDIT: Just to clarify re: Toole - He has another novel called _The Neon Bible_; however, it was written when he was 16 and only published years after his death, due to the immense pressure from other family members who wanted to cash in on their ownership rights.

----------


## promtbr

> Yeah, I don't really see Proust as being difficult or tedious.. Mind you I have only read in translation but still.. I thought _In Search of Lost Time_ was amazing.. One of my favourite books..
> I agree with you though.. If you go by academic circles you really can't say an author is overrated, maybe you just can say you didn't enjoy that work, or understand it.. I know there are famous authors I don't like in the slightest.. but I still don't view them as overrated really, just not my cup of tea...


This being the first day of a period of time I have set aside for reading _In Search of Lost Time_, is reassuring. Tho I have read the first two volumes a LONG time ago and am not detered by Prousts style at all since it IS a work of art we are talking about here. That is what distinguishes literature from commercial entertainment. Proust's unprecedented exploration of how we experience the self as it moves through time requires his style. One of the definitions of art is the concept of form and substance as being unified.

I find readership of literature who's expectations are foremost to be entertained, boring and tedious. ( As per the martyred rock god who railed against the overweening need to be entertained...)

In My HO, as I attempt to appreciate a work that is generally accepted as literary art, it is for sure is excusable to be put off by subject content or ideas expressed that does not rest well with my personal mores or taste...but if I do not otherwise "connect" (in Forster's sense of the word), it is a failure on my part, not the authors...

How's that for venting  :Rage:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

If any author has been claimed to be "the best", then maybe in a sense he's overrated.

Writers that I didn't enjoy as much as the hype made me expect to include Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Franz Kafka (although _Metamorphosis_ redeemed him somewhat) John Steinbeck and Vladimir Nabokov.




> Dostovesky.


 :Bawling:

----------


## BloomingRose

I guess Twilight is not a classic XD (Thank God!) but so many people are reading these books nowadays.. and I don't like the way it's written... there's nothing special in it :S For me, she writes similar to other american writers, like R.L.Stine...

----------


## Jeremiah Jazzz

> I'd have to nominate Nathaniel Hawthorne.
> 
> I'll second!
> 
> I must agree with PabloQ that such one-line comments are completely useless... if not inane. "That Mozart guy was over-rated" "Yeah, and Raphael couldn't hold a candle to Bob Ross". Personal opinions are fine... but when they seemingly contradict the opinions of generations of literary figures: writers, critics, scholars, literature lovers... then it would seem that one might feel somewhat obliged to offer up something along the line of reasoning behind such blanket statements. You feel Nathaniel Hawthorne is over-rated? Why? What books have you read by him? Who would you compare him with by way of comparison and contrast. I find it interesting that JBI got taken to task for having taken the time to offer up a reasoned analysis of why he didn't like the harry Potter novels... but we still get these continual comments dismissing Hawthorne, Hemingway, Joyce, Proust, and the like.


Looking back, I'll say this on my choice selection which others have unpleasantly (on my part) acknowledged I have left out. I consider Hawthorne an overrated writer due to the fact that his motifs that have been integrated throughout the work _The Scarlet Letter_. Children, nature, the struggle between good and evil, and what should be considered social appropriate was better phrased by Shakespeare before Hawthorne and virtually blown out of league with both of your aforementioned authors, Joyce and Proust. Two individuals who I happen to appreciate the depth of their prose. Both are known either way, whether you enjoy their prose or not. Both have attempted a new form to show correlation between reality and thought and even have expressed the motifs Hawthorne had, which I've already expressed, only these other two authors were able to show flexibility. So when comparing Hawthorne to Joyce, what has Hawthorne done? Essentially nothing in my personal opinion and the same can be said or Orwell whose allegorical expression could have been soaked with literary hostilities and have that be the charge of new world orders in discussions. Ah well, it's mere food for thought.

----------


## prendrelemick

[QUOTE=Mag Master 21;667523]I originally had a response drawn out about wanting to punch you in the face, etc., but I thought it would be better to just leave it out. I don't believe a small body of work should be taken into consideration when discussing who's overrated and who isn't.

Would you say the same about Harper Lee, who has even LESS out..? Or John Kennedy Toole who has only written one novel, that just so happened to have won the Pulitzer Prize, that is one of the most original, genius bodies of literature I've ever had the pleasure of reading?

It is one thing to dislike a writing style or the premise of a novel, but to discredit someone's like-ability because of the amount they've written is absolutely absurd.

How do you think I feel? Salinger is my favorite author and he teases us with one novel and a bunch of shorter stuff. All the while, everyone knows he has 50 years of writing locked away in filing cabinets, waiting for him to die before they're published.

================================================== ========
Its OK Mag Master, my post was entirely a personal rant. Your points are well made and probably pertinent. Well done for defending your favourite author. 

I wasn't trying to discredit his like-ability, just his "rating". If his fifty years of unpublished stuff is brilliant, fair enough, he'll confirm the exalted place he holds. If its disappointing then he's overrated, a one hit wonder.

----------


## kelby_lake

Harper Lee is overrated. Everyone drones on and on about how brilliant Mockingbird is when it is fairly bland and preachy.

I think that Lolita is one of the best examples of writing I have ever read. And he totally thrashes some English authors and it's not his first language!

----------


## PeterL

> I think that Lolita is one of the best examples of writing I have ever read. And he totally thrashes some English authors and it's not his first language!


English was Nabokov's first language. He spoke both English and French before he started learning Russian at age eight. Nabokov also trashed many Russian writers.

----------


## DisPater

stephen king

----------


## jon1jt

Dante Alighieri

John Updike and Saul Bellows

 
Tim O'Brien too.

----------


## mayneverhave

> Dante Alighieri
> 
> John Updike and Saul Bellows
> 
> 
> Tim O'Brien too.


Strange combination there.

----------


## Wilde woman

> Dante Alighieri


Just curious. Why?

----------


## kelby_lake

> English was Nabokov's first language. He spoke both English and French before he started learning Russian at age eight. Nabokov also trashed many Russian writers.


That makes him even cooler!  :Smile:

----------


## Equality72521

Stephanie Meyer; William Golding

----------


## kelby_lake

Meyer's writing is awful: 'The pizza held no interest for me.'

Who writes things like that?!

----------


## shud-shee

Conrad (Nabokov called his style "souvenir shop")
Hemingway
Golding

----------


## Allannah

Stephenie Meyer and JD Salinger. The latter is good but definately overrated.

----------


## Allannah

> Meyer's writing is awful: 'The pizza held no interest for me.'
> 
> Who writes things like that?!


Yeah, she's trying to be all writing technique-y, but it's just really cliche-y and wasted on that. It just sounds overdramatic, unless if she was saying it in a jokey way. It would be good if it was something other than a pizza!

----------


## JBI

Personifying the pizza as a work of art - that's priceless. That's just plain old stupid - food "doesn't hold interest." It makes one crave.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Yeah, she's trying to be all writing technique-y, but it's just really cliche-y and wasted on that. It just sounds overdramatic, unless if she was saying it in a jokey way. It would be good if it was something other than a pizza!


And this wonderful phrase is used again, maybe even in the same book: The book held no interest for me.

Because that phrase sounds SO fabulous that it clearly MUST be used again.

----------


## shud-shee

Gorky Maxim

----------


## thomas212

Paolo Cuelho.

----------


## PoeticPassions

Hemingway... I just find him so dry and vapid. Even his short stories do not intrigue. Hemingway is of no interest to me. haha  :Wink: 

oh and I might just agree with Conrad. Though I see the value in his literary endeavors, or why Heart of Darkness was groundbreaking/popular.

----------


## rozreads

> Jane Austen is not overated; she is a brilliant novelist, it's just she wrote in the old ways, meaning that today her merit is not as greatly revered. I would like to contribute Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway.


Mark Twain? Now that's sacrilege...

----------


## OhReally?

Charlotte Bronte. Jane Eyer was reall dry, and too consticted; I felt that there was no flow. I like the actual story, but if the prose was a bit more interesting, I would have _really_ liked it.
Oh, yes, Meyer definetly. 'Stifled a gasp' is in a book that is considered literature! Flat characters, and everything, I mean... come on.

----------


## Lokasenna

I can mention D H Lawrence? In my frank opinion, he was nothing more than a glorified smut peddler, with all the artisitc skill and integrity of road-kill. He is noticed merely because he is shocking, and for no other reason!

----------


## WICKES

Three names keep recurring- Hemingway, Jane Austen and Kerouac.

My vote goes to Hemingway. I don't think he was a bad novelist, just overrated. Kerouac is not really _overrated_ because he's generally considered good pop lit rather than University reading list material.

----------


## amb

Twain, Hemingway

And also, with all the King mentions, I think it's only fair to list Lovecraft (who may have already been mentioned---I didn't read all 45 pages....)

----------


## PoeticPassions

Hemingway (for his dry and lackluster prose) and quite possibly Chekhov... I just don't see the appeal in his stories. Not that they are bad or have no merit (in fact I can even sometimes enjoy reading one), but he is always termed as the master of the short story, and I can name a hundred short story writers that are better and have much more substance to their stories. Chekhov's stories do not speak to me, and in fact they rarely say anything... at times they seem so pointless (or so obvious). But maybe I am missing the point?

----------


## kelby_lake

Sorry, Hemingway, but I can't get into your books  :Smile:  Whilst I admire that you get to the point, it's kind of hard to read something like that. x

----------


## WICKES

It is amazing how many times Hemingway has been chosen! As far as I know, his reputation among scholars and academics is quite low.

----------


## sunshine_enl

Faulkner!!i just don't get him!i struggle to read his novels just to find myself puzzled at the end,not being quite sure what it was about!

----------


## Schokokeks

My nomination would be Henry Miller. Seriously. Maybe I'm missing the point of his work, but surely producing a scandal shouldn't be all there is to it...

----------


## JoeLopp

Hawthorne - at least House of the Seven Gables really vexed me. I think there was something there, but could never quite place it. Maybe I was too young, it was some years ago, but if I try it again and it has a similar effect, I don't know what I may be driven to do...

----------


## subterranean

> Faulkner!!i just don't get him!i struggle to read his novels just to find myself puzzled at the end,not being quite sure what it was about!


I have him on my mind. But no, I decided to try again  :Smile: . I'd hate if I missed something great out of Faulkner just because my experience with _Absalom Absalom_.

----------


## Tallgren

As a Hemingway fan, I'd be interested in hearing why people find him overrated? As far as I'm concerned, he has written four classic novels and a number of classic short stories. 

His style did vary. He became famous for his detachment as a narrator and working with implied feelings, but give For Whom the Bell Tolls a try if you want Hemingway in another mood, a novel filled with descriptions and inner thinking of its main characters. It also deals explicitly with a number of moral themes. 

Old Man and the Sea is Hem at his most sentimental, but it's a beautiful story. And the best of the lot would probably be A Farewell to Arms. 

I'm just trying to say that he did not always write in the same manner. If you've never given him a try, look up Indian Camp online and get a feel for his traditionally terse yet highly rich prose.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Hemingway _rocks_.

Gertrude Stein is COMPLETELY OVERRATED. I do not care how many critics insist that she is some founding member of modernism - her writing is terrible!

----------


## Monamy

> Hemingway _rocks_.
> 
> Gertrude Stein is COMPLETELY OVERRATED. I do not care how many critics insist that she is some founding member of modernism - her writing is terrible!


I honestly, REALLY second every word in that quote...
couldn't really put it any better myself!

Heminway is the schiznet!

----------


## La Amistad

Shakespeare is the most overrated  :Biggrin: .

----------


## Morden

Let me inject Paulo Coelho, unless of course we are only supposed to be bashing classic authors. _The Alchemist_ is not even suitable for a boat anchor. It is definitely below any classical author mentioned here.

----------


## Dark Lady

Before I start I'll admit that what I say may have been said on this thread many times already but I only read a few pages back (partly because of time restrictions and partly because my laptop has decided that every time I go somewhere on the internet it's going to open a new window...I don't know if I've accidently changed the settings or my laptop's just having an off day...anyway).

Firstly, it really isn't fair to put authors like J.K.Rowling and Stephenie Meyer in this thread since they are not highly rated in the first place so can't really be _over_rated. It's like saying junk-food is overrated! Nobody says it's nutritious but sometimes it's nice to indulge. But you can't compare it with a really good meal from a nice restaurant.

Secondly, as for the question, I'm not sure who to pick. There are novels I've read that I didn't feel lived up to the hype but whether they are overrated or I just didn't enjoy them personally is hard to say. I think I'll add my vote to Joyce (partly because I'm currently studying for my Modern Lit exam and I can see _Ulysses_ sitting on my bed...)

I'll admit that all I have read of Joyce is _Ulysses_ so I may be judging him unfairly. I can also admit that there is some merit to the novel but it reads like an experiment. A really really really long experiment. I'm glad I read it but mainly because I feel like it's something you can hold up as an achievement. I feel like it would be the same if I ran a marathon; I wouldn't enjoy it but I'd be proud I did it.  :Wink: 

I think when Virginia Woolf wrote _Mrs Dalloway_ she said something about taking Joyce's idea but making it actually work or doing it better or something. I completely agree. _Ulysses_ is pretty interesting as an experiment but, for me, as a novel it doesn't really work.

----------


## Dark Lady

Wait! Scrap my last post because I know who I think the most overrated writer EVER is. I can't believe I didn't think of him before. Wordsworth. I absolutely fail to see how he got his position in the literary canon! Unlike writers such as Joyce or Fitzgerald or Emily Bronte, who's works I don't like as much as their hype but can see some merit in, I don't see anything in any way special about Wordsworth.

It's not because I think he was a pompous, arrogant arse - which I do - but I don't see one thing that makes his writing more worthy than thousands of other mediocre poets. I thought for a long time that I just didn't like the romantic poets but then I read some others and I do. I LOVE Blake and I really enjoy some of Coleridge and I'll have a read through some Shelley now and then but I just can't stand Wordsworth.

I know people have been criticised on this thread for throwing out a writer of well repute and then leaving at that with no explanation so I'm trying to think how I can best justify my opinion. The problem, mainly, is that that is just it with Wordsworth...there's nothing. He leaves me cold. I feel like there's no feeling in his poetry whatsoever and I can't even say I think he's technically good. I feel like he was a poet who tried to make up for a lack of quality with quantity. His poetry seems longer than it needs to be (I know I said something similar about Joyce and thought I'd clarify; I have no problem with a text being long if it needs to be but I think needless length is one of the biggest sins writers commit) and padded out with...nothing. It's all so nothingy.

I know that hasn't been very explanatory, more like a rant, but after my last exam tomorrow I'll maybe dig up some Wordsworth and give examples of what I mean.

----------


## kelby_lake

he appears to have weird feelings for nature in Nutting

----------


## PeterL

If he isn't the worst, then Wordsworth is certainly near the top of the list.

----------


## no one special

Disregarding J K Rowling and other obvious writers of non-literary fiction - although I wouldn't like to give that term a definition - the king of the overrated writers is Ian McEwan, who has not written anything worth reading for a very long time. Followed very closely be the prancing prince of dross -Martin Amis.

----------


## Don Quixote Jr

The most overrated writer ever was *AYN RAND!*

I don't think it's possible to accurately answer this question with only one writer, but since the question was posed in the singular, I'd have to say *Ayn Rand*, not because her writing style was necessarily bad but because her love of plutocracy and unfettered capitalism strike me as amazingly stupid and loathsome. BTW, she thought that smoking was really cool and that cigarette health warnings were some sort of socialist plot, and guess what she died of? Well, at least she proved the existence of poetic justice...

----------


## stlukesguild

The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!

Yes... a mediocre writer and less-than-mediocre thinker turned into a cultural icon: a brilliant artist and profound philosopher.  :Sick:

----------


## PeterL

No, Rand was a better writer than Wordsworth.

----------


## Emil Miller

> The most overrated writer ever was *AYN RAND!*
> 
> I don't think it's possible to accurately answer this question with only one writer, but since the question was posed in the singular, I'd have to say *Ayn Rand*, not because her writing style was necessarily bad but because her love of plutocracy and unfettered capitalism strike me as amazingly stupid and loathsome.


Maybe you don't like Ayn Rand's philosophical viewpoint but shouldn't you be judging her as a writer? I happen to find the anarchy implicit in George Orwell's philosophical viewpoint equally stupid and loathsome but have to admit he is a very good writer.

----------


## cynara

> 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.


About Salinger, i completely agree. I read his book after getting a great recommendation for it and found it lacking. It was just teenage angst

----------


## Madame X

> The most overrated writer ever was AYN RAND!
> 
> Yes... a mediocre writer and less-than-mediocre thinker turned into a cultural icon: a brilliant artist and profound philosopher.


Whose dystopian musings served as inspiration for what was destined to become, according to several infallible critical sources, 2007s Videogame of the Year: BioShock! Indeed, case in point.  :Cool:  

And, a bit lonely on this side of the seesaw perhaps, but my votes for Tolstoy/his battalion of translators...just never could get into that campy Karenin business.

----------


## kelby_lake

Some of Coleridge's work is pretty dull, as can be Wordsworth.

----------


## lichtrausch

Max Frisch. Montauk was practically unreadable. It jumped from scene to scene in the most confusing manner possible.

----------


## Dr. Hill

> No, Rand was a better writer than Wordsworth.


First off, apples to oranges. And secondly, Wordsworth is a beautiful poet.

----------


## PeterL

> First off, apples to oranges. And secondly, Wordsworth is a beautiful poet.


They both wrote in the English language. As for your other assertion: Tastes vary.

----------


## Dr. Hill

But to call him overrated...

----------


## PeterL

> But to call him overrated...


He has been put in the Canon, but he had no great influence in his day, except among the people that he associated with, and he has had little influence since. If the people who created the canon were looking for a Romantic who influenced later writing, then Byron would have been the one. Rating Wordsworth as worthy of being read is excessive, unless one trying to point out how not to write well.

----------


## stlukesguild

Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.

Wordsworth has no influence excepting upon those around him. Well certainly he did have an influence on Coleridge, Shelley, and Browning... positive and negative. One would also certainly Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, both of whom ranked Wordsworth along side Milton and Shakespeare. American literature and the centrality of nature and the writer's subjective response to nature certainly influenced Emerson, Thoreau, Tuckerman... even Whitman. Just a little research will reveal Wordsworth's importance and influence on writers as different as Pushkin, John Stuart Mill, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Poe, Keats, etc... It is not a far stretch to suggest that a great majority of the English poets after Wordsworth wrestled with his influence. Admittedly there was a rebellion against his work (and more often against what he became later) as there is in emulation or adulation. In either case, he most certainly was not some unknown figure who only impacted those immediately in his own sphere of contact.

As to Wordsworth's merit... certainly suggesting that he is one of the worst writers of all time is an absurdity. I personally prefer Blake... and Keats... but Wordsworth produced a body of poetry of unquestionable beauty, to my mind... and poetry that has been more than slightly influential upon the work that followed.

----------


## JBI

> He has been put in the Canon, but he had no great influence in his day, except among the people that he associated with, and he has had little influence since. If the people who created the canon were looking for a Romantic who influenced later writing, then Byron would have been the one. Rating Wordsworth as worthy of being read is excessive, unless one trying to point out how not to write well.


You'd actually be surprised how much influence Wordsworth had in his own day - there were quite a few editions of Lyrical Ballads alone brought out in his life time. He was even made a household name - though by then he wasn't much of a poet anymore.


As one of my professors put it (she is a modernist scholar, with a specialty in Eliot and Richard Wilbur), "Wordsworth's Ode is the greatest 19th century poem." Certainly, that may be a stretch, but it certainly would be top five, in terms of the way it changed poetic understanding. Perhaps you may be interested in reading Abrams' Mirror and the Lamp, where he discusses the transition in poetic thought brought about by, primarily, Wordsworth.

----------


## PeterL

> You'd actually be surprised how much influence Wordsworth had in his own day - there were quite a few editions of Lyrical Ballads alone brought out in his life time. He was even made a household name - though by then he wasn't much of a poet anymore.


No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community. 




> As one of my professors put it (she is a modernist scholar, with a specialty in Eliot and Richard Wilbur), "Wordsworth's Ode is the greatest 19th century poem." Certainly, that may be a stretch, but it certainly would be top five, in terms of the way it changed poetic understanding. Perhaps you may be interested in reading Abrams' Mirror and the Lamp, where he discusses the transition in poetic thought brought about by, primarily, Wordsworth.


While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the art. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world; but the sonnets communicated something of value. Perhaps if Wordsworth had been a little more extreme, then his writing would have been as humorous as Coleridge's; but Wordsworth wrote as if he expected to be taken seriously.

----------


## wessexgirl

Wordsworth was an innovator, and as such was hugely influential on his peers and future generations. You may not like his work personally, but there is absolutely no denying that he's worthy to be in the literary canon. I can't help thinking you must be teasing us Peterl.

----------


## PeterL

> Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.


That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way. 




> Wordsworth has no influence excepting upon those around him. Well certainly he did have an influence on Coleridge, Shelley, and Browning... positive and negative. One would also certainly Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, both of whom ranked Wordsworth along side Milton and Shakespeare. American literature and the centrality of nature and the writer's subjective response to nature certainly influenced Emerson, Thoreau, Tuckerman... even Whitman. Just a little research will reveal Wordsworth's importance and influence on writers as different as Pushkin, John Stuart Mill, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Poe, Keats, etc... It is not a far stretch to suggest that a great majority of the English poets after Wordsworth wrestled with his influence. Admittedly there was a rebellion against his work (and more often against what he became later) as there is in emulation or adulation. In either case, he most certainly was not some unknown figure who only impacted those immediately in his own sphere of contact.


Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era. Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected. 




> As to Wordsworth's merit... certainly suggesting that he is one of the worst writers of all time is an absurdity. I personally prefer Blake... and Keats... but Wordsworth produced a body of poetry of unquestionable beauty, to my mind... and poetry that has been more than slightly influential upon the work that followed.


Opinions vary. There may be value in a few of his poems, but the overwhelming bulk of Wordsworth writing was not very good. I won't claim that he was the worst English poet ever or even the worst of the 19th century, but i wonder what he would have written after the Tay Bridge collapsed in a storm.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Peter... it might be time to review your literary history of the period. It is fine to dislike Wordsworth; he certainly wrote a lot of schlock later in his career. It might even be fine to pass a negative judgment upon his writing abilities... as subjective as they are and as much as they conflict with the view held by many others. To suggest he had little or no influence, however, is to make a statement that is blatantly false. Harold Bloom places Wordsworth alongside of Petrarch as one of the two central innovators of Western poetry: Petrarch having "invented" Renaissance lyrical poetry and Wordsworth having "invented" Romantic/Modern poetry... the poetry "about nothing"... or "rather" about the subjective feelings and thoughts of the poet which continues to the present. Perhaps this is an exaggeration... but certainly it is an influence in which Byron, as much as I like him, cannot compare. Byron is still "about" exterior things... and Byron is still clearly within the aristocratic/Renaissance tradition.


Byron's so much better than Wordsworth, as is Shelley and Blake.

Wordsworth IS overrated- when you learn poetry in school, the only 'old' poets you really know are Shakespeare and Wordsworth, mainly because of the latter's amusingly apt (or maybe not) name.

----------


## PeterL

> Wordsworth IS overrated- when you learn poetry in school, the only 'old' poets you really know are Shakespeare and Wordsworth, mainly because of the latter's amusingly apt (or maybe not) name.


That just came to my mind too. There were many better poets than Wordsworth during that era, but more attention is poured onto him than he deserves. Even Leigh Hunt was as good a poet, but he is largely forgotten today.

----------


## kelby_lake

Wordworth and nature..hmm...nature poems are the worst type. The Prologue- yawn.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

----------


## stlukesguild

No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.

And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.

While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world... 

That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.

This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.

Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.

Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry. 

Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.

Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.

----------


## stlukesguild

Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.

Actually... I thought Blake understood that:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

----------


## Desolation

William Shakespeare...the most over-rated anything of all time.

----------


## stlukesguild

Oh yeah... and that Mozart dude... he kinda sucks too. And that Leonardo guy... a complete nothing. :Rolleyes:

----------


## Desolation

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way. 

Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.

----------


## googlesque

I used to think shakespeare was overrated and snobby... but I think alot of my prejudices against shakespeare (and alot of classic literature) was out of contempt for what other people say about him and making such grand statements (best writer ever!). alot of it was also due to my maturity... not saying ppl who think hes overrated are immature... but a vast majority of ppl who don't like shakespeare do not give him a chance.

shakespeare IS difficult reading (alot of elizabethan lit is)... but i think appreciation for shakespeare and actually alot of classic literature needs a personal desire (and an open mind)... that 'enjoiying' older literature DOES require some effort... kind of like listening to 'rock' music... you might not like so and so's album right away, but somehow it just sticks on you after a few repeated listenings.

and before ppl write off shakespeare as elite or snobbish... the guy married young, didn't go to college, was considered 'crude' by the critics of his time. even a couple hundred years after his death, some critics still didn't think much of him just because there attitude was that a man who came from 'peasant stock' couldn't be that great of a writer.

oh well, i just think its a loss if you dont give him a chance.

my vote for 'overrated' would probably be... hmm... maybe the beat generation. i think they were the first victim of a growing mass media... where the lifestyle took over the art. they definitely were good, and in some authors, great... but there meaning has been overrated in the sense that ppl take more out of what they did rather than what they wrote.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Wordsworth rightly understood that there is more to be found in one common daisy than the whole world.
> 
> Actually... I thought Blake understood that:
> 
> To see a world in a grain of sand,
> And a heaven in a wild flower,
> Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
> And eternity in an hour.


Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.

----------


## PeterL

> No, I wouldn't be surprised how much influence he had in his day, but the influence was overwhelmingly in the poetical community.
> 
> And Mozart's influence was largely in the musical community. What exactly is the argument? Indeed, thinking about it further his influence certainly carried over into prose as well if we consider Thoreau, Emerson, and any number of other writers who picked up on Wordsworth's subjective response to nature.


Would poetry or music be any different today, if Wordsworth or Mozart had not done what they did? That is an idea that is worthy of some thought. I can't say for sure, but i expect that poetry might be a little better now. 




> While Wordsworth was one of the several influences that took poetry into the Romantic and Post-Romantic periods, that transition took poetry from being a an artistic form that communicated with people to being a personal expression that may communicate something. Wordsworth influence did not improve the are. (People are going really slam me for that, but in honesty I can't back down.) As one example, the sonnets of the English Renaissance were a very different art-form from the Romantic schlock that Wordsworth inflicted on the world... 
> 
> That "invention" was the worst part of Wordsworth's work. Until Wordsworth poetry was a mode of communication, but after Wordsworth it has frequently been non-communicative.That is, that it is often too personal in nature to relate well to the world at large. Language, in any form, is for communicating among people. I question whether writing that fails to communicate is literature at all, and Wordsworth is not the only noted writer who has written in that way.
> 
> This criticism is itself as subjective as anything written by Wordsworth. You have suggested that Wordsworth is a horrible poet with little influence and then offer up by way of proof the suggestion that he is responsible for a Romantic/Modern approach to poetry that you dislike. The fact that his poetry had such an impact seems to undermine your argument that his influence was limited. As for the idea that his subjective approach to poetry is some sort of travesty... that would seem to be a personal opinion. Such would not be unlike my suggesting that Picasso is a poor artist because I personally don't like his work and the influence it has had on subsequent art.


All knowledge is subjective. The only value in knowledge is that it is shared by others and is effective in some way. I suppose that Leeches enjoyed that poem about the gatherer of leeches, but leeching isn't used in medicine any more. 




> Yes, he had influence in his circle, and he was read by others; but his influence was small in his era.
> 
> Hmmm... he was a major figure and a source of inspiration to Shelley, Keats, Arnold, Tennyson, Emerson, Thoreau, Pushkin, Poe, Tuckerman, even Whitman... and yet his influence is minor? Then who exactly would be a major influence? Yes, Byron was a major influence on Pushkin, certainly, but his aristocratic, narrative style is far less innovative and far less influential than Wordsworth. If anything, it was the myth of Byron that was far more influential than his actual poetry.
> 
> Tennyson wrote poetry that was about as un-Romantic as is possible. Keats was more influenced by much earlier works. Coleridge may have been influenced, but it is hard to tell. Poe mocked his sort of poetry. Robert Browning was not noticeably affected by his work; although his wife may have been heavily affected.
> 
> Tennyson, Poe, Browning, etc... all admit to the importance of Wordsworth. What you must recognize is that influence or the importance of an artist is not limited to imitation. Yes Poe intentionally wrote works in opposition of rejection of Wordsworth... but to create in opposition to an artist is still to create in response to that artist. Wordsworth was a huge figure in the realm of Romantic poetry... not unlike T.S. Eliot for Modernism. One could follow in his footsteps or rebel against him... but not ignore him.



I would imagine that all of those people and many others were influenced by Shakespeare and many other writers, but most of them chose to write other than like Wordsworth.

----------


## stlukesguild

Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.

The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined.

----------


## Jozanny

> Besides, it is impossible for him not to be over-rated, considering how highly regarded he is, and the level of elitism that comes along with him.


But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman. I never asked my instructors what actually elevated Shakespeare to the place we have him in, but I read a paper online that claims we can blame that on the Romantic Movement, and the argument seems persuasive to me. Part of what makes Shakespeare the Shakespeare of the modern canon is that directors can do so much with his material. Othello can be a radical subversion on purity; Macbeth can be a parable about Vietnam; Hamlet is an exploration of the police state and the difficulty of breaking it, and the comedies well neigh anticipate male pregnancy, if you ask me :Tongue: , which you did not. But his genius is pretty much what he is always subverting, or threatening to subvert, about the established order, and his intuitive understanding about the corrupting nature of power, or greed, or sex. If Bloom says Shakespeare created the human, that claim isn't much of a stretch. He took the conventions of Elizabethan theater and virtually single-handedly superattenuated them. Jonson, his contemporary, was a great playwright, so was Marlowe, but William Shakespeare, was, and to my mind pretty much remains, the transformative voice in literature. There is a saying: Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them. It is a cliche, but still a basic truism.

----------


## Desolation

> Saying "Shakespeare is over-rated" is not the same as saying "Shakespeare sucks." The man clearly had talent, assuming he actually was the writer behind the works. But, there's nothing in anything that I've ever read by him that's moved(or interested) me in any way.
> 
> The fact that Shakespeare has never moved you personally is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether he is overrated. You may dislike him... or you may have no opinion at all but what has that to do with whether his reputation is deserved? An artist is overrated when his or her popularity or status is not backed up by the actual work. Andy Warhol is overrated. A minor artist at best, and yet one of the most recognizable. Tolkein is overrated. Again a minor writer and yet there are more volumes of his books in most book stores than Donne, Goethe, Cervantes, and Dante combined.


 It's all subjective, and if you're unmoved by something, then naturally you're not going to think it's good, and if it's highly praised, you'll think it's over-rated. While if you really like something, you can't think that it's over-rated. You can't separate personal feelings from this sort of argument. I'll admit that Shakespeare had talent, but by no means is his talent on the same level of his praise.

----------


## Desolation

> But this *elitism* is a product of 20th century scholarship and Shakespearean acting. Shakespeare in his day was actually criticized quite roundly by his contemporaries for not writing drama and comedy according to the rules, nor was he as highly educated as, say, an Oxford gentleman.


That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone. And that he's over-rated here-and-now is really all that matters. 

I like the rest of your argument, though.

----------


## stlukesguild

It's all subjective...

Yes, all opinions are subjective... but some opinions are better than others. The merit of a work of art (as in any discipline) is best judged by the opinions of the experts in that field. Is that elitist? So be it. Art is elitist. Something every artist knows. Of course in speaking of "experts" I do not limit this to academics and literary critics (although they would certainly be included). The "experts" would include as well what Virginia Woolf calls the not-so-common "common reader"... that lover of literature who is willing to invest the time and effort into the study of and appreciation of literature. It would also, necessarily, include subsequent writers. There's not all that many writers of real merit who would think to dismiss Shakespeare as grossly overrated. Certainly, Tolstoy had issues (primarily on moral grounds) with Shakespeare, but one suspects that rather like Plato's issues (on the same grounds) with Homer the real issue was the latter writer;'s recognition that he could not surpass his predecessor. However, Kafka, Joyce, Milton, Blake, Borges, Goethe, T.S. Eliot (and on and on we may go) all considered Shakespeare a central figure. There is a clear difference between stating that you don't like a particular work of art or artist (personal opinion) and making a sweeping judgment that goes against the common thread without offering any proof in your favor.

----------


## stlukesguild

That's the way it generally works. Most artists, be they painters, writers, or musicians, become praised and put on pedestals after they're dead and gone.

And that, by the way. is also a stereotype. Certainly the reputation of the most important artists may grow as his or her influence continued to weave its way through the work of subsequent artists. Certainly there are those who were largely ignored during their own lifetime who are suddenly "discovered" in a later age: Van Gogh, Vermeer, William Blake, Thomas Traherne, Franz Schubert, etc... A great many (if not the majority) of artists of real merit are certainly recognized during their own life time... if not afforded the same level of recognition as will come later. Michelangelo and Raphael were commonly known as "El Divino" (the Divine One). Rubens was knighted in three countries and was the highest paid artist in Europe. Picasso was the first artist whose work broke the million dollar mark... in his lifetime. T.S. Eliot was clearly recognized as one of the most important and influential poets of his time. Nearly all of the Impressionists died quite wealthy. Goethe was so recognized that even the emperor, Napoleon could speak of him as "there was a man". Beethoven's funeral drew vast crowds in Vienna. Time doesn't necessarily canonize all artists... and it is far more likely to be objective in its judgments. There is often much at stake in the reputation of today's art stars be it the investment of collectors, dealers, publishers, etc... Time is far more commonly a leveler of opinions.

----------


## Desolation

> Yes, all opinions are subjective.


Yes, and the answer to a question such as "who is the most over-rated writer ever" is PURELY opinion. There is no answer based on absolute fact. And as a lover of literature, I say that Shakespeare is over-rated.

I don't lean my views on the common thread, and think that it is foolish to do so. It's a very convenient way to claim that you have a better opinion than someone else, though, isn't it? 

Anyways, after Shakespeare, my second choice for most over-rated writer would be T.S. Elliot.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Yes him too, though people don't seem to detest Blake as they seem to do with Wordsworth.


That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.

Which would you rather read?:

http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/

Or:

http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/

Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Personally I would rather read the Wordsworth, easily.




> Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.


Damn, not be long, there goes Dante, Milton, Shakespeare and every other epic ever written, bummer! Though again you limit and reduce Wordsworth's poetry as only about "nature" (like there is something wrong with that anyway) but it is clearly much more than that:




> There is a Yew-tree, pride of Lorton Vale,
> Which to this day stands single, in the midst
> Of its own darkness, as it stood of yore:
> Not loathe to furnish weapons for the Bands
> Of Umfraville or Percy ere they marched
> To Scotland's heaths; or those that crossed the sea
> And drew their sounding bows at Azincour,


What is he really talking about? What's the real point of the poem? War? Man's abuse of nature? Mankind's eternal lust for power? The selfish nature of the human? The folly of human endeavour? Darkness at the heart of mankind? A poem about a tree?

Yew trees were used in the past to fashion bows with due to their suppleness and strength and the fact that there is only one lone tree standing in "its own darkness" to me suggests much about the true nature of mankind. His ever present lust for power and social status at the expense of others. The ugly human.

At the end of the poem there is hope though and a path forward. It is not all bleak as the narrator rises above and rejects the folly of mankind:




> And Time the Shadow; there to celebrate,
> As in a natural temple scattered o'er
> With altars undisturbed of mossy stone,
> United worship; or in mute repose
> To lie, and listen to the mountain flood
> Murmuring from Glaramara's inmost caves.


He realises that time is precious, although short, when he says "Time the shadow" notice of course the personification of time, but we do not dwell on the negative. Instead we appreciate life for its richness, we worship the small things, quietly "in mute repose" we "lie, and listen" to the richness of life around us. 

Even though there is only one lone tree left, as all the others have been used to kill long ago, there is still a grain of hope, a love of life and a deep understanding of the beauty of the world. Yes there is more in that one lone tree than in all the folly mankind, in all of its dashing and conquering, and murdering and fighting. If only we could learn to see the world as the voice in that poem. 

A beautiful and wise little piece.

----------


## wessexgirl

> That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.
> 
> Which would you rather read?:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/
> 
> Or:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/
> ...


I'm not even going to bother to respond to the suggestion of Shakespeare as overrated, it's such a ridiculous notion. There's a vast difference between not liking someone's work personally, and stating that they are overrated, and I think some posters are confusing the two things. 

I would like to know what makes you think Kelby that poetry shouldn't be about nature? It can be about whatever the poet wants it to be about. Just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it lesser poetry. And just to lay my cards firmly on the table, both Shakespeare and Wordsworth rightly deserve their places in the canon, whether they appeal to some readers or not, their work is *not* overrated, and their reputations are richly deserved, as attested by their contemporaries, scholars, critics, academics, and yes *readers*, over the centuries.

----------


## stlukesguild

_Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature._

Damn, not be long, there goes Dante, Milton, Shakespeare and every other epic ever written, bummer! 

Indeed. That also pretty much eliminates a majority of the Japanese and Chinese poetry that I've read. Hmmm... is there some rule book somewhere that I don't know about that spells out just what subject matter is allowable for poetry? It sounds like the old 19th century "heirarchy of art" in which subject matter was ranked for the convenience of painters: at the top of the heap we had the historical, mythological, and religious narratives followed closely behind by portraiture (and the "importance" of the sitter was part of the measure of the "importance" of the portrait)... then came genre scenes, followed by landscapes and still life. Poor ol' Turner and Cezanne... they never had a chance. :FRlol:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.


That's the silliest thing I've read so far on these forums.

----------


## JBI

> That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.
> 
> Which would you rather read?:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/
> 
> Or:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/
> ...


No, it is because Blake a) is hardly read, except for some early lyrics, and b), is incredibly misunderstood, even within those early lyrics. There are far easier poems to read than Blake's prophetic works. Blake is one of the most difficult poets I've encountered, and is very, very difficult to get into, because everything is kind of cryptic. 

People think, when they read The Tyger, for instance, that they are reading a simple kids poem - in truth, most people get it the first time as Children, but I am yet to find a person that age who really knows what, "When the heavens threw down their spears / and watered heaven with their tears" means. In truth, most adult readers wouldn't be able to pick up the reference easily (Isaiah mixed with Milton).


Poetry without nature is almost impossible. Perhaps one can achieve the sense of nature almost joked upon by Stevens:




> And have been cold a long time
> To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
> The spruces rough in the distant glitter
> 
> Of the January sun; and not to think
> Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
> In the sound of a few leaves,
> 
> Which is the sound of the land
> ...


But one realizes, quite early, that to not hear the subjectivity of the natural world is to be like the snow man - dead and frozen, part of Stevens' irony.

----------


## stlukesguild

I didn't want to get into the Blake discussion myself... being an admitted fanatic... but yes, outside of his shorter lyric poetry Blake is an extremely difficult poet and I would agree a seldom read poet. And certainly his short lyrics can be as knotty as anything.

----------


## Madame X

> Poetry should not be long and pretentious and about nature.


That would be Poes entire Poetic Principle  in 10 words or less!

----------


## stlukesguild

Unfortunately, Poe was a rather mediocre poets. No Wordsworth... and certainly no Blake.

----------


## JBI

> Unfortunately, Poe was a rather mediocre poets. No Wordsworth... and certainly no Blake.


Yeah, but Poe had something both of these Geniuses did not - something, to many readers worth far more than innovation or eccentricity - an American stamp on his forehead. I highly doubt, had he been born in England, that Poe would have amounted to much beyond a shrug.

So yeah, to throw another one in the pot, I'd put him as one of the most overrated writers.

I think that's one of the problems that Harold Bloom has struggled with in his life. His knowledge of Poe's inferiority, yet his loyalty to the American Imagination. He then came up with a bogus excuse to justify Poe as "thinking up people's nightmares" which is total idiocy, when one thinks of it, rather than coming up with a real answer; America, at that point, had very few good poets, (I like to think of Longfellow as a good poet, though he wrote his fair share of shlack) and was trying to establish itself. Along comes Poe, with a haunted, sort of Gothic tinge, that seems cool, and bam! sensationalism, that lasts to this day. He's like Twilight and The Da Vinci Code wrapped into one bag. Certainly, he was about as creative as they at any rate, but I guess the competition at the time wasn't much, and his weird sense of perverse adolescent madness (perpetuated by his incestuous marriage to his Lolita of a first cousin) only made him seem more authentic. He's like Baudelaire, but without the Baudelaire, Byron without the wit - but what can compete with an American stamp? Well, the power of the American brand has been proven time and time again - I guess that is just an early example of it, in its infant stages.


Yes, I know, I may seem biased, but Poe seems the poet people who don't like good poets love (in the sense that Britney Spears is the singer people who don't like good singers like). Perhaps he deserves a little more credit, and would be best compared to Puccini... yeah, I like that... in terms of style, I see a lot between Poe and Puccini's operas... accept for one thing really... Puccini had music, which was somewhat pleasant, whereas Poe was only able to capture the mediocrity of the unnatural words and ridiculous plots.

----------


## Jozanny

I don't think he is that bad as a fiction writer JBI. What he lacks in depth he makes up for in atmosphere, and Poe was the father of film noir, in a sense. He provided the roots for the hard-boiled American detective character and plots. I am no advocate for his poetry, but he did manage to make his mark as an American author.

----------


## JBI

> I don't think he is that bad as a fiction writer JBI. What he lacks in depth he makes up for in atmosphere, and Poe was the father of film noir, in a sense. He provided the roots for the *hard-boiled American detective character and plots*. I am no advocate for his poetry, but he did manage to make his *mark as an American author*.


Exactly my point. Look how you've constructed Poe, as this original American innovator, and pioneer of the American short story. It becomes problematic though, when you try to separate the artificially constructed tradition from the author - the dancer from the dance. Relevance to a tradition perhaps isn't everything, and if it is, what if we start to unravel the notion of a tradition - what happens then? It would seem, that these figures who are only relevant, I would argue, because of their associations with the tradition begin to become re-evaluated.

----------


## Dark Lady

I would like to try to back up the notion that Wordsworth is overrated but I do think it's a difficult thing to do since any of his poetry I may quote may be enjoyed by other people. How do you stop this sort of thread spiralling into 'this is good', 'no it's not'?

Since Blake has been brought up I thought maybe I'd compare the two. It is difficult as they are so different. I also have the problem that whilst I have Blake's Complete Poems I am limited with Wordsworth to what I have in an anthology. Perhaps the sections I'll choose will be a bit arbitrary but then I do sort of think I could choose almost any section from any of their poems and feel the same.

This is from Wordsworth's 'Surprised by Joy':

"Surprised by joy--impatient as the Wind
I turned to share the transport--Oh! with whom
But Thee, deep buried in the silent tomb,
That spot which no vicissitude can find?"

Now I fail to see much in this (and I suppose perhaps it is a failing on my part). I feel like if I had handed this in during my Creative Writing classes at uni nobody would have batted an eyelid. However, if I had handed in something like this (from Blake's 'America: A Prophecy'), I think it would have had a lot of attention:

"Silent and despairing love, and strong as jealousy,
The hairy shoulders rend the links, free are the wrists of fire;
Round the terrific loins he seized the panting struggling womb.
It joyed. She put aside her clouds and smiled her first-born smile,
As when a black cloud shows its lightnings to the silent deep."

I know that these are very different poems in form and subject and everything but like I said I just feel like I could take almost any poem of Wordsworth's and almost any poem of Blake's and I would not see the merit in Wordsworth's whereas I would in Blake's.

Wordsworth leaves me cold. There are other poets who do this to me too but I can still recognise certain aspects of their poetry that make me understand why other people hold them so highly. I don't have this with Wordsworth. As has been said before in this thread; Blake is an extremely difficult poet. But even when I can't understand what he's saying or I don't get the allusion (one of the reasons I am going to read the bible is so I will get the biblical allusions in writers like Blake) I can appreciate the skill and beauty of his writing.

----------


## Jozanny

> Exactly my point. Look how you've constructed Poe, as this original American innovator, and pioneer of the American short story. It becomes problematic though, when you try to separate the artificially constructed tradition from the author - the dancer from the dance. Relevance to a tradition perhaps isn't everything, and if it is, what if we start to unravel the notion of a tradition - what happens then? It would seem, that these figures who are only relevant, I would argue, because of their associations with the tradition begin to become re-evaluated.


You lose me here a little, although you seem hostile to what I'd call quality hack writers, of whom I'd include Dumas, Wilkie Collins, Gissing, and possibly Poe, though I am not sure Poe *pioneers* short fiction so much as American genre, whether or not we include those genres to be American Gothic, Mystery, Horror, pick your tag.

I am more forgiving of certain genre formulas than others, certainly, as Stephen King makes me puke, but I am easier on detail-oriented 19th century paint by numbers fiction writers, and even 20th century historical novelists like Mitchner, John Jakes, or James Clavell. To me, _Shogun_ was decent entertainment when I was a teenager. I learned something about the classical Japanese caste system, and a samurai was rather the Asian version of an Arthurian knight. In the same vein, Poe is something of a morbid sensualist. When I am in the mood, I enjoy him as a kind of lighter Maupassant, an American Maupassant without the French Maupassant cynicism. If you don't like the tropes inherent in these types of tales, without them, would someone like Borges have evolved?

I have yet to penetrate Borges, but I know enough about his oeuvre to know he took the cheap tricks from said genres and pushed their boundary lines in such a way that appreciative readers become fascinated. Lessing does the same with science fiction. There is bad trash and better trash, and I am fine with the latter when I don't want to work too hard. American noir, at its best, is as equally worthy of the esteem granted to fictional realism, besides. _The Maltese Falcon_ has something to teach its readers, JBI. The hero is a brutalist, but he honors a peculiar kind of code: you get justice for your partner, even at the cost of a great sex life, or chasing fantasical totems, and if part of this legacy owes a debt to Poe, far be it for me to ridicule good material simply for being encased in its own norms.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> I would like to try to back up the notion that Wordsworth is overrated but I do think it's a difficult thing to do since any of his poetry I may quote may be enjoyed by other people. How do you stop this sort of thread spiralling into 'this is good', 'no it's not'?
> 
> Since Blake has been brought up I thought maybe I'd compare the two. It is difficult as they are so different. I also have the problem that whilst I have Blake's Complete Poems I am limited with Wordsworth to what I have in an anthology. Perhaps the sections I'll choose will be a bit arbitrary but then I do sort of think I could choose almost any section from any of their poems and feel the same.
> 
> This is from Wordsworth's 'Surprised by Joy':
> 
> "Surprised by joy--impatient as the Wind
> I turned to share the transport--Oh! with whom
> But Thee, deep buried in the silent tomb,
> ...



Hmm, it reads as quite a touching piece to me, a fathers grief at the loss of a daughter. Full poem here:
http://www.portablepoetry.com/poems/...d_by_joy_.html

Sonnets need to be read as a whole really to get their full impact. I like the concluding lines of the poem especially:




> Knowing my hearts best treasure was no more;
> That neither present time, nor years unborn
> Could to my sight that heavenly face restore.


Its very touching, especially having two daughters myself. 

One interesting angle which one of my tutors brought up was that Wordsworth tends to divides the sexes. Of course it is an acknowledged sweeping statement but there may be a case to be made out of it, though its not my cup of tea to really do so. While we are making sweeping statements of the sexes a lot of women seem to be attracted to the work of Blake too. I dont know, I just think a lot of the time people tend to reduce Wordsworth as a nature poet or someone who only writes about trees and bridges etc (as we have seen) and that sort of approach doesnt do him justice as I hope I illustrated in one of my last posts.

Of course people have different tastes and that is fine but to say Wordsworth is overrated doesn't ring true to me at all.

----------


## kelby_lake

> That's because Blake didn't ramble on about nature.
> 
> Which would you rather read?:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/550/
> 
> Or:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/blake/614/
> ...


Obviously the 'and' escaped you.

Of course some good poetry is long- narrative poetry thrives on it- but it shouldn't be a divide of intellects.

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.

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?

I have not said anywhere that Wordsworth is terrible, or that the fact I don't think much of his poetry equates as the definitive judgement on its merit.

Overrate means: to rate or appraise too highly; overestimate.

In secondary school everyone thought that Wordsworth was untouchably great, one of those poets that you just assume are good. It appears to be the belief of a lot of people. And I didn't wake up one morning to find that his poetry was terrible; I read other poets and as I became more experienced, I realised that he was not as good as Shakespeare (which is what he was essentially equated to) and that there were many poets we had never really learnt that were far better. Blake's poetry is passionate and lyrical- instantly attractive. Wordsworth's doesn't have the same impact.

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

----------


## PeterL

> Unfortunately, Poe was a rather mediocre poets. No Wordsworth... and certainly no Blake.


It is true that Poe was not a Wordsworth, and he certainly was not a Blake. Although Poe was into writing poetry when he was young, his later and better known poetry was mostly in a humorous vein that accorded well with the best of his prose. But Poe was not much of a poet, and, if he were here to be questioned, then he would admit that his satirical, ironic, and horrific prose were his best work. To the best of my knowledge, neither Wordsworth nor Blake Wrote a story that could compare with even "The Cask of Amontillado".

----------


## 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? :Biggrin: ). 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.

----------


## 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. :Wink:

----------


## 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  :Wink:

----------


## 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 :Smash:

----------


## joao_oliveira

There are no overrated writers. There are just some people who like them and some others who don't. Even if you think a particular one is overrated, you're not better alone than the 213453268'23148 other people together.

----------


## thomas212

> Oh i got an answer for this one:MİLAN KUNDERA


But have you read more than The undearable lightness of being ? Is this bold statement only based on one novel?

----------


## My name is red

> But have you read more than The undearable lightness of being ? Is this bold statement only based on one novel?


No,I've also read Immortality.I actually enjoyed it to some extend way more than The Unbearable lightness of being,that's for sure.But still i think he is overrated.Especially,when some consider him as the last existentialist,I'm like that's enough.Existentialist?Not even near.You see,existentialism kind of a sour point with me  :Idea:

----------


## rabid reader

read through the first bit of the thread and have to say that I really enjoyed Hemmingway, Salingher and Fittsgerald, as a matter of fact those three athours have to be sopme of my favourites. I own and reread all there books, have collected all their short stories, and have consumed much of my time just discussing their works and sifting through there genius.

As of right now of all the authors I have ever read the best short story writer I have ever come across has been J.D. Salingher, his _How to Write a Love Story_ wittingly belittles the traditional romance novel that has made ever real man's life hell when they begin a relationship. His writing I actually find quite underrated.

As for those who name Rowlings or Brown, it is no doubt they are overrated, they have to be if they are as popular as they are now, but in 50 years time they will take their place in literature like everyone else and will no longer be overrated. They have some talent and they both can tell a good story, so I would not really list them yet.

For me overrate, I wouldn't say overrated persay becasue his writtening is obviously influencial, it's just not my cup of tea and that is Charles Dickens.

----------


## Helga

I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...

----------


## amuse

I still remember choking on Faulkner in high school...only one book, but it was excrutiating.

Omg, i just saw that he won a Nobel Prize. Whoa is me!

And just read an excerpt from _The Sound and the Fury_. Can't say I appreciate the choppy little sentences. Though if memory serves, he also wrote many sentences that ran on and on like the Amazon or Mississippi.

----------


## mayneverhave

> I still remember choking on Faulkner in high school...only one book, but it was excrutiating.
> 
> Omg, i just saw that he won a Nobel Prize. Whoa is me!
> 
> And just read an excerpt from _The Sound and the Fury_. Can't say I appreciate the choppy little sentences. Though if memory serves, he also wrote many sentences that ran on and on like the Amazon or Mississippi.


Faulkner's technical style shifts throughout that novel, ranging from simplistic and completely extroverted (Benjy) to lyrical and drawn out (Quentin).

Authors like these deserve the benefit of the doubt. Before you simply dismiss an author because he appears, on first notice, to be difficult, ask yourself "why would an author employ very long sentences?" You wouldn't pick up a Shakespearean play and say "Oh, Shakespeare uses 'thou' and 'ye', I give up!"

----------


## Mathor

> I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...


what world are you living in. You *really* don't like TKAM?

----------


## Pryderi Agni

> what world are you living in. You *really* don't like TKAM?


Guess there are philistines in every cultural epoch :Nod: .

----------


## kelby_lake

> I didn't like 'to kill a mockingbird', and as I recall it was the only book Harper Lee wrote so in my opinion she is very overrated...


Finally! Someone who understands! What on earth are the people saying below me about 'philistines'? It's a so-so book not a grand classic.
There is probably a reason why she didn't write another book...

----------


## lattywatty

Definitely agree on J. K. Rowling. Read the first six books because I was young and everyone was reading them then got seven chapters through the latest one, put it down and haven't picked it up since.

----------


## Lynne50

Hi, Red,
I'm intrigued by your quote. Is that a quote of your own? If not, could you tell me where you read it? I liked the analogy of the apple/tree, but as soon as we form a thought or opinion of our own, we're doomed to the ground. Of course, we are in great company.

----------


## JBI

> what world are you living in. You *really* don't like TKAM?


This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).

----------


## Drkshadow03

> This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).


That's it! No Quidditch for you!

----------


## JBI

> That's it! No Quidditch for you!


Heh! who would want to be transported to a world where if you shake a stick up and down a few times, white sparks come out!

----------


## bluosean

Steinbeck, Hemingway (sp?), Whitman, O. Henry, and Kather would be my choices.

Jewett is under-rated though. She is fun reading.

----------


## kelby_lake

> Heh! who would want to be transported to a world where if you shake a stick up and down a few times, white sparks come out!


 :Sick:  That sounds like a creepy euphemism....

----------


## Oread

I don't understand all the votes for Steinbeck! His style is simplistic but his stories are deeply insightful. _Of Mice and Men_ is an amazing story, I can get goose bumps just thinking about it. Plus, I can't help but love all the plugs for Monterey and Salinas =). Two books that stand out in my mind as particular objects of hatred are _Grendel_ and _Siddhartha_.

----------


## islandclimber

> This world - hell, I'd go so far as to say I really, really don't like that book. When it comes to that text, or Harry Potter, I'm almost of the mind to say I like Harry Potter more (almost, though I think I like to Kill a Mockingbird more, as it is only one volume, and only 300 pages as apposed to several thousand).


my thoughts exactly! haha

----------


## islandclimber

> I don't understand all the votes for Steinbeck! His style is simplistic but his stories are deeply insightful. _Of Mice and Men_ is an amazing story, I can get goose bumps just thinking about it. Plus, I can't help but love all the plugs for Monterey and Salinas =). Two books that stand out in my mind as particular objects of hatred are _Grendel_ and _Siddhartha_.


I quite liked _Of Mice and Men_ too... most likely my favourite work by Steinbeck, although I wouldn't call it his best... I don't see him as overrated... although I don't like _East of Eden_ that much... thinking of overrated writers although I don't know so much anymore as I am not sure what current opinion is of him.. but Theodore Dreiser is definitely one of them in my mind.. Saroyan to an extent as well.. and Charles Bukowski is the most overrated poet ever... I despise his poetry almost to an irrational extent!  :Flare:

----------


## Nabokov_love

I truly enjoyed your input in this discussion and must agree that although some authors may be overrated currently, they will take their place among the entertainers of our day. Granted, they are not brilliant pieces of philisophical inquiry, but not all great literature is!  :Smile:

----------


## Nabokov_love

Ok my last post was actually just a reply to rabid_reader, but I forgot to quote  :Smile: 

But to add my say into this muddle of writers who did more than I ever have, I would say that Cormac McCarthy is just one author I cannot quite grasp where his praise comes from. Maybe I need only to read other pieces of fiction, but after reading the reviews and comments on 'The Road' I picked it up and after a day put it down sadly discouraged. I was eager to finish it, hence the short time of reading it took, because I was looking for the proof of his praises. I think mainly I just didn't "get it"

As for some of the other authors on here, I am slightly saddened at the choices, not liking a book and not being able to appreciate its impact are very different things. I say this mainly pertaining to Kerouac. He was not the most talented writer, and certainly not the most creative... but he influenced an entire generation of beat writers, poets and citizens. I suppose it spoke to them at the time and so he deserves his praise, much like Britney Spears deserves recognition for single handlely starting a young female pop/stripper phase  :Smile: 

But seriously, Kundera... Salinger... these men are amazing  :Wink:  That is all a matter of personal preference though.

----------


## Babak Movahed

The absolute worst writer I could think of is Alodous Huxley! Brave New World is so bad that i threw up a little in my mouth after finishing it. The entire time I was reading it I was thinking "when is this going to get good?"... it didn't get good at all.

----------


## kelby_lake

I quite liked Brave New World

----------


## breeze

In my modest opinion it`s Leo Tolstoy. His style is awkward, his morals are hopelessly out of date, his books aren`t teaching, they`re preaching.

----------


## Drkshadow03

Socrates. Socrates is the most overrated writer ever.

----------


## PeterL

> Socrates. Socrates is the most overrated writer ever.


Socrates is not known to have written anything that survived. Did you mean Plato? If so, then why? Or was it because of a particular translator?

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Socrates is not known to have written anything that survived. Did you mean Plato? If so, then why? Or was it because of a particular translator?


I am well aware Socrates never wrote anything. Heh. I guess I flubbed that attempt at a nonsensical/ironic joke.  :Blush:

----------


## Red-Headed

> im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL


We must be talking about a different Shakespeare. I always thought that the 'History Plays' were marvellous. Regardless of various historical inaccuracies. Some of the later plays are anything but dull. Mind you, I've never really rated his comedies, with the possible exception of _The Merry Wives of Windsor_. Although it's probably best to overlook the 'cheese-eating' jokes as they could be considered a tad racist now. Although _Sir Hugh Evans_ probably deserved the cheese jibes. Many people don't even know why the Welsh are associated with eating cheese.

----------


## Barbarous

I find Orwell's work to be a bit overrated, along with Vonnegut. Now both these writers represent to me this flow of stiff excitement (a contradictory metaphor, eh? hehe) once lost when a reader discovers something of a different vision. The vision can be in multiples (and of different things) but with that said, I enjoyed _Animal Farm_, but not _1984_, etc...

----------


## Mathor

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.

----------


## Manchegan

> Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.


To each his own, but I can't bring myself to criticize authors when they've been translated, especially renowned ones like Tolstoy. 

For me the most overrated would have to be Steinbeck - Mice and men had like four pages of back and forth with George and another ranch hand saying 

"lenny's dumb."

"But he's got a good heart though."

"yeah if he wasn't so dumb." over and over. we get it, John. He's both good and dumb. 

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce and of course, Steven King and JK Rowlings

----------


## Manchegan

I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations, and I had such great expectations for it.... Also Ayn Rand! I don't mind her ideas, but for an author who worships talent and ability, she doesn't have much.

----------


## Gretchen

> In my modest opinion it`s Leo Tolstoy. His style is awkward, his morals are hopelessly out of date, his books aren`t teaching, they`re preaching.


Agree! I'm still reading Anna Karenina(I started it one year ago and still didn't finish it!) and I just think while reading it - Why people love it so much? Why it ever became a classic? I don't say there aren't any interesting parts, but Levine's "speeches"(that appear in every five pages, at least and last like 20 pages) have nothing to do with the plot - it doesn't add depth to the characters nor anything at all.

----------


## stlukesguild

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write. 

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

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

 :Brickwall:

----------


## Jozanny

luke, during my computer crash episodes and the infantile despair in between, I caught a series on Y Arts, _Black Writers in America_. One episode featured Ishmael Reed, and his critique of Harvard ran thus: "We all know the problem with these institutions; their curriculum is restrictive. I taught courses there, but I've also taught kids who know nothing of King Lear-- but they know Star Trek."

Maybe in contrast to this it would be interesting to examine Ross Douthat's sentiments.

----------


## kelby_lake

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

Julius Caeser isn't dull. Othello isn't dull...

----------


## stlukesguild

Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.

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

Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...

im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL

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. :Biggrin:

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Leo Tolstoy is the worst author I have ever come across. He cannot write.
> 
> I forgot Dickens! He's a decent story teller, but personally, I got nothing out of Great Expectations...
> 
> Other overrated writers - Pynchon, Joyce...
> 
> im 100% sure that the most over rated writer is William Shakespeare, i mean come on its so dull. i dont care that its the basic for all literature ITS DULL
> 
> 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.


Funny, I read Batman and still like Mozart. And what reading a visual medium like comic books has to do with one's tastes in an auditory medium like music is beyond me. Considering the topic you seem surprised that people find Joyce and Shakespeare overrated. G-d forbid people should develop their own tastes.

----------


## breeze

> Why people love it so much?


Well, his popularity on Russia is partly due to the Soviet Union times, as he was considered as an opposition to bourgeois literature by Ministry of Culture.
Don`t get me wrong, I can`t say that Tolstoy is a bad writer and only those who lack real taste and understanding can admire him. It`s just that he`s not my kind.

----------


## grotto

Its one thing to say that you do not appreciate a writers style or how the convey themselves, its another thing entirely to vehemently lash out due to a lack of your own understanding for the works they produce. 

I personally dont care for Tolstoy but love Dostoevsky, others feel the opposite but that doesnt make Tolstoy useless or over rated. Tolstoy can certainly write! He doesnt write in a style that I care for though, that is far different than saying he sucks though.

For those of you who bash for the sake of bashing, has it ever occurred to you that what you may be reading is over your head? Probably not, I know, but hmmm, possibilities do exist now dont they? That maybe your anger comes from your own lack of experience in the world or understanding the writers work and the era in which they were written? Age is the great equalizer and like me, someday you may come to appreciate what you currently dont get, and then you may look in the mirror one morning and say, boy, I didnt have a clue, did I?

Happy reading in what ever it is that you read and never apologize for liking what it is that you like. With that, never bash anyone for liking something different than you. We all started somewhere and elitists have done as much damage to literature as the bashing from those who feel like they ought to read something classic.

----------


## stlukesguild

Considering the topic you seem surprised that people find Joyce and Shakespeare overrated. G-d forbid people should develop their own tastes.

Obviously you still have difficulty in discerning personal preference with statement of fact. But yes... yes... you've fully accepted the notions of cultural relativism so that there is no good nor bad, but thinking makes it so. I don't buy that crap. I have no problem with personal opinions. There are works of art and literature and music that undoubtedly have real merit and yet just don't speak to me. That is different than making objective statements of fact ("Tolstoy can't write." "Shakespeare is dull.") that are completely indefensible. Indeed, it would seem that common sense dictates that when one makes a value judgment that seemingly goes against the common thread it might do well do offer up some sort of proof in defense of one's position... or perhaps... rather than stating "Tolstoy can't write" the intelligent thing to do would be to state "I don't like Tolstoy. His work does nothing for me." The latter approach cannot be argued with as it is personal opinion and admits to such. The former suggests a statement of fact which succeeds only in calling the the person's abilities of judgment into question. The title of the thread, by the way, is "Who is the most over-rated writer ever?" This would seemingly demand an author whose reputation far exceeds his or her abilities. I would think that if one were to respond with the name of an author that has been somewhat admired for his or her abilities within the realm of serious literature (as opposed to shall we say an over-hyped contemporary novelist) that one might just wish to offer up some rationale... but that's just me.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Considering the topic you seem surprised that people find Joyce and Shakespeare overrated. G-d forbid people should develop their own tastes.
> 
> Obviously you still have difficulty in discerning personal preference with statement of fact. But yes... yes... you've fully accepted the notions of cultural relativism so that there is no good nor bad, but thinking makes it so. I don't buy that crap. I have no problem with personal opinions. There are works of art and literature and music that undoubtedly have real merit and yet just don't speak to me. That is different than making objective statements of fact ("Tolstoy can't write." "Shakespeare is dull.") that are completely indefensible. Indeed, it would seem that common sense dictates that when one makes a value judgment that seemingly goes against the common thread it might do well do offer up some sort of proof in defense of one's position... or perhaps... rather than stating "Tolstoy can't write" the intelligent thing to do would be to state "I don't like Tolstoy. His work does nothing for me." The latter approach cannot be argued with as it is personal opinion and admits to such. The former suggests a statement of fact which succeeds only in calling the the person's abilities of judgment into question. The title of the thread, by the way, is "Who is the most over-rated writer ever?" This would seemingly demand an author whose reputation far exceeds his or her abilities. I would think that if one were to respond with the name of an author that has been somewhat admired for his or her abilities within the realm of serious literature (as opposed to shall we say an over-hyped contemporary novelist) that one might just wish to offer up some rationale... but that's just me.


No, I simply inserted "in my opinion" before the so-called statements of fact since the nature of the statements are clearly those of opinions without proof to back them up. If they had written "Tolstoy can't write because he constantly uses wrong punctuation here in paragraph 1, 2, 3, etc." I would've treated them as facts (you can't argue with a fact: the punctuation is either wrong or not). You can endlessly argue the quality and merit of an individual writer's prose or verse. Sure, the way they stated might make it sound like a statement of fact, but the actual content of the statements actually makes them opinion. Value-judgements are always subjective opinions. To put it another way, it's precisely that I can recognize the difference between an opinion and a fact that I understand when seemingly statements of facts are really just someone's opinion. 

I am not a cultural relativist because I believe there are things in this world that are clearly bad and good. I am a practicing Jew, after all. Racism and discrimination is always bad for example. Nevertheless, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Art by its very nature is subjective. 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. In other words, even educated opinions are subjective, 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. 

The one thing I agree with in your rebuttal is that, yes, people could do a better job in offering rationales to support their "statements of fact" that are really just opinions.

Overrated implies that you are dealing with authors that are rated highly and already in good esteem with one group or another (it might be with the masses, it might be with the critics). So it should surprise no one that people are taking swings at Shakespeare, Joyce, and company; all authors everyone praises, but for these individuals didn't do much for them. It would seem to me that's the point of the thread, but, yes, they could back up those opinions with some reasons they think those writers are overrated. No disagreement there.

----------


## breeze

Well, I guess I should have started with the point that I personally do not think that any fiction has some kind of "impersonal" value. You either like a book or you don`t like a book. A writer can`t be useless in general, he`s always useless for somebody. If I don`t like Tolstoy it makes him an overrated writer *in my opinion*. That`s what I meant. 



> That maybe your anger comes from your own lack of experience in the world or understanding the writers work and the era in which they were written?


It`s pretty simple to accuse somebody who doesn`t share your opinion of misunderstanding, isn`t it? I can say as well that you don`t admire Charles Manson because of misunderstanding.

----------


## grotto

> It`s pretty simple to accuse somebody who doesn`t share your opinion of misunderstanding, isn`t it? I can say as well that you don`t admire Charles Manson because of misunderstanding.


I did say "maybe" and people are welcome to their own opinions, I accused no one. I do not think misunderstanding is a bad thing, we all do it and if you dont, then we have found the new prophet amongst us!  :Tongue:  My opinion is mine and I don't care who agrees with it, I don't need anothers validation to make it an edict and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. Im open to the fact that I dont know what I yet dont know.

I have nothing against Charles Manson, I don't know him, never met him, and personally, I could care less. No wait! I do admire that he had the capability and charisma to pull off the psychological fiasco that he did. To think that people are so easily swayed by another, hmmm, who would have thought that people could be that gullible? Nah, couldnt happen to the rest of us now could it? Not that I agree with him mind you, but then again, that is only my opinion.  :Wink:

----------


## 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  :Smile:

----------


## 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. :Biggrin: 

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? :Biggrin:

----------


## 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. :Biggrin: [/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.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## stlukesguild

"Disbelief?"  :FRlol:  "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. :Biggrin:  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). :Rolleyes:

----------


## 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?  :Wink:

----------


## 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.

----------


## wat??

> exactly my though! i cant persuade myself to do something that is fashionable to do...like that da vinci thing...the more it gets famous, the less it attracts me...
> 
> i agree on kerouac... and i really cant understand shakespeare but apparently that's my problem...


It's alright, neither can Turgenev. George Orwell might have something to say to you about that though. 

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf

----------


## janus1us

Besides Melville? Ok, that Twilight writer. Those books are terrible. Maybe I should finish that novel. . .apparently is doesn't have to be good to sell. . . :Angel:

----------


## janus1us

Oh wow. I can agree that Grapes of Wrath was not as "GREAT" as I had been led to believe, but East of Eden was phenomonal in it's focus on man's ability to choose what rules him.

----------


## kelby_lake

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.


I was making the allusion, in my geeky way  :Wink: 

The point of that quote, as I see it, is that in theory everybody's opinion is valid, but of course some are less valid than others. We claim democracy but really, we're not going to let a 9 year old's judgment on War and Peace be of the same worth as an English professor of 30 years- so let's just be openly elitest  :Smile:

----------


## My name is red

Every name could be uttered as overrated and thats okay to some extend.But there is only one single name that I'm pretty sure that it's not overrated,and that's Shakespeare

----------


## Reread

> 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.


Don't get me wrong. I love Harry Potter and I do agree there is a lot of depth. J.K. Rowling created a fascinating world with wonderful characters. I'm simply pointing out that if you look at Harry Potter and expect it to be comparable to something like War and Peace or Paradise Lost then, yes, you won't think it measures up. I think the entire question of what author is overrated depends entirely on your individual standards.

----------


## Sanjar of Akkad

Stephenie Meyer with the twilight series, and Christopher Paolini with his terrible generic fantasy.

----------


## Twhalley

> I too, share the same opinion. Rowling gets too much than she deserve (IMHO).


Me also, She just doesn't compare to other authors from the past. But she is probably easier to access than a lot of authors.

----------


## Adderhead

I would nominate J.D. Salinger. The only reason he is well known is because he is a social recluse and won't do any interviews, thus increasing the hype of his novels. Also Stephenie Meyer by far.

----------


## Twhalley

Certainly Salinger! A lot of people would say he's a great author, but could only mention The Catcher In The Rye.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Certainly Salinger! A lot of people would say he's a great author, but could only mention The Catcher In The Rye.


Well, regardless of the merits and demerits of Catcher, it only takes one to put you on the literary map so to speak.

----------


## WICKES

Most overrated: Hemingway, Kerouac and To Kill A Mocking Bird

Most underrated: Anthony Burgess

----------


## tbarnes

> Certainly Salinger! A lot of people would say he's a great author, but could only mention The Catcher In The Rye.


it's such a shame Catcher gets all the attention when Franny and Zooey is much better.

I cringe a little every time I see Hemingway or Kerouac in this thread.

True, Kerouac isn't the greatest writer in the world, and not all of his works are great, but when he is on he is one of the most enjoyable authors I have ever read. Stay away from On the Road and try Dharma Bums, or Big Sur.

Then again, it's all opinion.

----------


## FanofdeBeauvoir

Stephenie Meyer is the most overrated "writer" ever. To have insights on why, visit twilightsucks.com.

----------


## Lullaby

I concur. Stephenie Meyer's novels couldn't be less original, and further overrated, if she tried.

----------


## PeterL

Who is Stephenie Meyer? I have never heard of her, and I have never heard of her writing being rated highly by anyone.

----------


## warm

> I concur. Stephenie Meyer's novels couldn't be less original, and further overrated, if she tried.


Well, vampires that glitter in sunlight are original enough, though not entirely well-received.  :FRlol:

----------


## kelby_lake

> Who is Stephenie Meyer? I have never heard of her, and I have never heard of her writing being rated highly by anyone.


She wrote a series called the Twilight Saga: Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. They are 'highly rated' by hormonal teenagers/housewives.

----------


## Three Sparrows

Hm, I agree that she's not the best writer in the world, but at least its entertaining. I mean, how could a vampire/werewolf/human love triangle _not_ be amusing? :FRlol:

----------


## PeterL

> She wrote a series called the Twilight Saga: Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. They are 'highly rated' by hormonal teenagers/housewives.


I never heaard of her, so her rating can't be significant.

----------


## Dr. Hill

I agree.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I never heaard of her, so her rating can't be significant.


If you've never heard of her, then you havn't been inside of a North American bookstore or movie theater in a year (or you're deaf). Every time I go to the counter at a Chapters, the person that checks me out almost always says something along the lines of "Oh thank god, someone who ISN'T buying something by Stephenie Meyer." Also, the "Twilight" posters are everywhere, and people on THIS forum have been harping about it for months. Where have you been?

----------


## triplesick

> If you've never heard of her, then you havn't been inside of a North American bookstore or movie theater in a year (or you're deaf).


LOL, f'real. Her mention is as common as a cold virus.

I think it's invalid to call her "overrated" though. No one credible would ever call her a Great Writer; even her fans (except those under 15 years, who probably constitute a majority) would acknowledge that she is more of an entertainer than an artist. On the whole, she is rated correctly; that is, she is a delightful indulgence for a limited audience, and nothing more.

It is fair to call authors like Kerouac or Salinger overrated, as they are taught in schools as examples of Great Writers. Or even someone contemporary like Palahniuk--I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Palahniuk class taught at some university somewhere, because people really take that douche seriously. One of my friends told me that "Fight Club" changed her life. What a tool. I guess she's not really my friend. Well, she was before she said that.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Or even someone contemporary like Palahniuk--I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Palahniuk class taught at some university somewhere, because people really take that douche seriously. One of my friends told me that "Fight Club" changed her life. What a tool. I guess she's not really my friend. Well, she was before she said that.


So you're talking behind your friend's back because she doesn't like the same literature as you . . .  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Desolation

I posted earlier in this thread that Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer...I'm changing my vote to Ayn Rand. As much as Shakespeare's praise annoys me, hardcore Rand fans("Objectivists") are almost as crazy as hardcore Twilight fans that beat people that dislike Twilight with baseball bats.

----------


## promtbr

> Stephenie Meyer with the twilight series, and Christopher Paolini with his terrible generic fantasy.





> Every name could be uttered as overrated and thats okay to some extend.But there is only one single name that I'm pretty sure that it's not overrated,and that's Shakespeare


how can one not love a forum that has a thread that gives these three writers equal consideration...


---

----------


## Paulclem

Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer

Why do you think he's overrated?

----------


## Desolation

> Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer
> 
> Why do you think he's overrated?


Because anyone placed universally on such a high pedestal is inherently over-rated.

----------


## Paulclem

Because anyone placed universally on such a high pedestal is inherently over-rated.

Don't you think it might be because of how good the work is?

----------


## Desolation

> Because anyone placed universally on such a high pedestal is inherently over-rated.
> 
> Don't you think it might be because of how good the work is?


"Good" is 100% subjective.

----------


## March Hare

> I posted earlier in this thread that Shakespeare was the most over-rated writer...I'm changing my vote to Ayn Rand. As much as Shakespeare's praise annoys me, hardcore Rand fans("Objectivists") are almost as crazy as hardcore Twilight fans that beat people that dislike Twilight with baseball bats.


Desolation, thanks for the chuckle. A good friend went through an Objectivist phase and, man, he _was_ hardcore. I can dig the philosophy of rational self interest in theory and am still compelled by the logical base of Objectivism. But Atlas Shrugged is just a sheer plot draped over speeches proseletysing Objectivism. Rand is no novelist.

----------


## Manchegan

I posted atlas shrugged as a novel that changed my life in another thread, but I have to agree that her writing is pretty bad. More like ayn rant...am i right? 

The worst part was at the end of that book where all the good guys are suddenly a highly trained SWAT team.

----------


## March Hare

> I posted atlas shrugged as a novel that changed my life in another thread, but I have to agree that her writing is pretty bad. More like ayn rant...am i right?


Yeah.. I laugh now but when I was a young dips*** Atlas Shrugged did help get me off my butt and working hard.

----------


## joebob

> Atlas Shrugged did help get me off my butt and working hard.


Same.

As for overrated, I'd have to go with Vonnegut or Hemingway.

----------


## Paulclem

As for overrated, I'd have to go with Vonnegut

I read The Sirens of Titan in a completely different way to my English teacher some 3 million years ago. He read it the more sophisticated ironic way - which I might be mature enough to get now. I think he's a sophisticated writier.

----------


## joebob

> As for overrated, I'd have to go with Vonnegut. I think he's a sophisticated writier.


hardly.

----------


## DanielBenoit

Ayn Rand maybe. How the hell is it that _Atlas Shrugged_ is number one on the Modern Library's best novels of the century auidence poll, a privlige shared alongside _Ulysses_ in the critics poll. Total absurdity.

Wilfred Owen is a bit overrated as well. And so is Charles Burkoski, but that's just my opinion. His works always appeared a bit superficial to me.

----------


## JBI

By Burkoski do you mean Charles Bukowski? Either way, everybody knows that JBI is the most overrated writer anyway - no point looking for a competitor.

----------


## neilgee

For me it's got to be D.H. Lawrence. He was pompous, judgemental, full of self-pitying egotism and his stories describe a black and white world where he is right and everybody who opposes the narrator's pov is wrong. I rated him as an adolescent but it was when I had to study Sons and Lovers for A level that I really went off him big time.

----------


## Lokasenna

> For me it's got to be D.H. Lawrence. He was pompous, judgemental, full of self-pitying egotism and his stories describe a black and white world where he is right and everybody who opposes the narrator's pov is wrong.


Yes!

The man was an abysmal writer... god alone knows why he stays so popular. I can only assume it has something to with noteriety...

----------


## glover7

Joyce.

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

I think James Joyce is vastly overrated; so is Hemingway the novelist although he wrote some fine short stories.

----------


## inbetween

Friedrich Schiller... don't know if you know him but my country is awfully proud of him and I can't see why ... there might be some nice ideas in his plays but ... really they agonize me with him every german lesson... that wannabe-shakespear (I realy like shakespear and reading Schiller I realy must say that he can't hold a candle to the beaty of his stile...)

----------


## escapologist

> I think James Joyce is vastly overrated; so is Hemingway the novelist although he wrote some fine short stories.


Joyce is overrated, but that's cos critics are always waiting for a writer who's hard to understand, so that they can spend the next 987694375 years writing about them. Pathetic. Having said that, I've only read _Dubliners_ and _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_. _Ulysses_ may yet surprise me, but I'm not counting on it.

I loved _The Sun Also Rises_ so I wouldn't say Hemingway is overrated. _The Old Man and the Sea_ definitely is, though.

Dan Brown is overrated. But then again, he's not a writer.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Joyce is overrated, but that's cos critics are always waiting for a writer who's hard to understand, so that they can spend the next 987694375 years writing about them. Pathetic.


Oh come on. Since when was ambiguity such a bad thing? Mystery is what keeps things beautiful. If Joyce had not written in such a radically different way, literature would not be what it is today. New percpectives always create new horizens for creativity. I suppose Shakespeare and Dante too are overrated since they've been written about for well over three hundred years.


Okay, I know I'm the bad guy, but Dickens hasn't really appealed to me in recent years. When I was younger I loved _Oliver Twist_ and _Great Expectations_, but now, despite the forever known fact that Dickens is probably second or third to Shakespeare in charactarization, he just writes on and on to a rather dull extent, and his class commentary isn't as powerful as Dostoyevsky's.

----------


## escapologist

> Oh come on. Since when was ambiguity such a bad thing? Mystery is what keeps things beautiful. If Joyce had not written in such a radically different way, literature would not be what it is today. New percpectives always create new horizens for creativity. I suppose Shakespeare and Dante too are overrated since they've been written about for well over three hundred years.


I'm not saying he's a bad writer, I'm saying he's made to sound more complicated than he really is. I don't see the point in analysing every little word in Ulysses. It ruins the beauty of the book. The point of literary criticism isn't to dissect works of art.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Yes!
> 
> The man was an abysmal writer... god alone knows why he stays so popular. I can only assume it has something to with noteriety...





> I think James Joyce is vastly overrated; so is Hemingway the novelist although he wrote some fine short stories.





> Joyce.


What is UP with all this hate towards the modernists? Is it because they're difficult?

----------


## escapologist

I think you'll find Lawrence and Joyce aren't the only modernists  :Smile: . Plus, 'overrated' doesn't mean that they aren't good, just that there's a lot of inexplicable hype around them.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Is it because they're difficult?


Yep, you have figured us out: Since we cannot understand the literary works of great depths, we just go nasty on the authors... Kind of a defence mechanism.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Yep, you have figured us out: Since we cannot understand the literary works of great depths, we just go nasty on the authors... Kind of a defence mechanism.





> I think you'll find Lawrence and Joyce aren't the only modernists . Plus, 'overrated' doesn't mean that they aren't good, just that there's a lot of inexplicable hype around them.


Well maybe I'm just projecting from experience. I have a friend who despises anything made in the 20th century, so I'm just too used to hearing people complain about _Ulysses_ because it's a difficult book.

----------


## Lokasenna

> What is UP with all this hate towards the modernists? Is it because they're difficult?


Trust me, 1000 year old skaldic poetry is a thousand times more difficult than Lawrence or Joyce. It is also far more enjoyable! :Wink:

----------


## neilgee

> Well maybe I'm just projecting from experience. I have a friend who despises anything made in the 20th century, so I'm just too used to hearing people complain about _Ulysses_ because it's a difficult book.


Sorry Daniel but I don't think _Ulysses_ is all that "difficult". Virginia Woolf said that the book was "immature" and I tend to agree with that. I really rate Woolf, I think she was a genius and her novels are far more complex and enjoyable than anything written by James Joyce.

Maybe it's _Finnegan's Wake_ that gives Joyce the aura of complexity more than _Ulysses_, because he makes up words that only he truly understands in that one. 

The measure of success in inventing new words is whether they are accepted into general usage and in that sense I would have to say Wake was a failure.

----------


## mal4mac

> Joyce is overrated, but that's cos critics are always waiting for a writer who's hard to understand, so that they can spend the next 987694375 years writing about them.


If you read Ellman's biography of Joyce you will see that it is not critics who, initially, heaped praise on Joyce, but fellow writers, including 'popular' writers like Arnold Bennett and H.G. Wells, as well as modernists like Eliot and Pound. (When Bennett praised Joyce in a review, Pound cheekily sent him a note saying "You have heard your master's voice"!) In "Top ten", the best books as chosen by a herds of modern authors, Joyce also does well.




> Sorry Daniel but I don't think _Ulysses_ is all that "difficult". Virginia Woolf said that the book was "immature"...


Woolf was the only great writer to criticise Joyce (read Ellman's biography...) Every top writer has at least one other great writer who somehow manages to miss their genius -- Shakespeare had Shaw & Tolstoy (and even Shaw praised Ulysses!) Just because you are a great novelist doesn't mean you are a great critic, in fact Joyce admitted to not being a great critic...

Because Woolf was an English snob, or at least hung around with a bunch of English snobs, she was exactly the right person to get Joyce wrong... Not a critic to be trusted here...

----------


## escapologist

> Well maybe I'm just projecting from experience. I have a friend who despises anything made in the 20th century, so I'm just too used to hearing people complain about _Ulysses_ because it's a difficult book.


I don't blame you... There's nothing I hate more than people stuck in 19th century literature, afraid to try reading something outside their comfort zone, cos that would require the use of a brain.

----------


## stlukesguild

Do you honestly believe that the best 19th century literature doesn't require the use of the brain... or that it is inherently easier to read? How easy is Mallarme? Rimbaud? Dickinson? And what of 18th, 17th, 16th (etc...) century literature? Are Donne, Dante, Spenser, Milton, Sterne, etc... easy reading?

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Do you honestly believe that the best 19th century literature doesn't require the use of the brain... or that it is inherently easier to read? How easy is Mallarme? Rimbaud? Dickinson? And what of 18th, 17th, 16th (etc...) century literature? Are Donne, Dante, Spenser, Milton, Sterne, etc... easy reading?


I'm definitley not saying that. I find all of those names to be just as complex as any of the literature made in the 20th century, and in some cases even more so.




> Sorry Daniel but I don't think _Ulysses_ is all that "difficult". Virginia Woolf said that the book was "immature" and I tend to agree with that. I really rate Woolf, I think she was a genius and her novels are far more complex and enjoyable than anything written by James Joyce.
> 
> Maybe it's _Finnegan's Wake_ that gives Joyce the aura of complexity more than _Ulysses_, because he makes up words that only he truly understands in that one. 
> 
> The measure of success in inventing new words is whether they are accepted into general usage and in that sense I would have to say Wake was a failure.


I think I remember Woolf saying about _Ulysses_ "how I wish I could write like that", though maybe I'm thinking of what she said about Proust, I'm not sure. 

Either way, to each his own.

Also, _Finnegan's Wake_ is not complex just because Joyce "makes up words that only he can understand", it's because both it and _Ulysses_ brought about an understanding of language recently explored in philosophy by Wittgenstein and later by Derrida. Having read _Finnegan's Wake_ I do not think Joyce wrote it with a big evil grin on his face thinking "oh how I'm going to confuse everyone". Rather, he was pushing the limits of the medium.

----------


## escapologist

> Do you honestly believe that the best 19th century literature doesn't require the use of the brain... or that it is inherently easier to read? How easy is Mallarme? Rimbaud? Dickinson? And what of 18th, 17th, 16th (etc...) century literature? Are Donne, Dante, Spenser, Milton, Sterne, etc... easy reading?


I was talking about prose, I think poetry is a medium of its own, so I wasn't talking about the Symbolists or the Metaphysical poets. I would, however, argue that Vonnegut is a lot more difficult to read than Dickens or Hardy. That was what I was aiming at.

----------


## kiki1982

I would agree about Dickens, although others would disagree. ut I can totally not agree with you on Hardy. Hardy is not as easy as he comes across.

----------


## escapologist

That's ok, all I'm saying is that some 20th century writers are more difficult to read. Of course, 'easy' and 'difficult' are completely subjective adjectives when it comes to literature.

----------


## neilgee

> Also, _Finnegan's Wake_ is not complex just because Joyce "makes up words that only he can understand", it's because both it and _Ulysses_ brought about an understanding of language recently explored in philosophy by Wittgenstein and later by Derrida. Having read _Finnegan's Wake_ I do not think Joyce wrote it with a big evil grin on his face thinking "oh how I'm going to confuse everyone". Rather, he was pushing the limits of the medium.


I can't remember who said that _Finnegan's Wake_ was Joyce's revenge on the English Language for what they did to the Irish language so I suppose the comment doesn't count if I can't identify it, but I picked up on the awe that surrounded Joyce's work as I was growing up as well as the sense of incomprehension that clung to Wake [in Sylvia Plath's _The Bell Jar_ for example]. 

I respect you more as I read more of your comments, Daniel [that's not to say that I don't respect everybody else - he hastens to add!] though like you say it's each to their own and we'll agree to disagree on Joyce.

I think you're right about Joyce pushing the limits but he wasn't the only one and I don't think he did it the most effectively, but he was certainly rated the most highly when I was growing up, though you don't hear it as much nowadays.

----------


## neilgee

> If you read Ellman's biography of Joyce you will see that it is not critics who, initially, heaped praise on Joyce, but fellow writers, including 'popular' writers like Arnold Bennett and H.G. Wells, as well as modernists like Eliot and Pound. (When Bennett praised Joyce in a review, Pound cheekily sent him a note saying "You have heard your master's voice"!) In "Top ten", the best books as chosen by a herds of modern authors, Joyce also does well.
> 
> 
> 
> Woolf was the only great writer to criticise Joyce (read Ellman's biography...) Every top writer has at least one other great writer who somehow manages to miss their genius -- Shakespeare had Shaw & Tolstoy (and even Shaw praised Ulysses!) Just because you are a great novelist doesn't mean you are a great critic, in fact Joyce admitted to not being a great critic...
> 
> Because Woolf was an English snob, or at least hung around with a bunch of English snobs, she was exactly the right person to get Joyce wrong... Not a critic to be trusted here...


So I'm not to be trusted either because I agree with her  :Smile: 

Seriously is this biography you recommend as educational about the literary establishment as it seems to be because I might add it to my reading list if it is as obviously I don't know as much about that fecund period of history as I would like to, but as I've already said I'm not the biggest Joyce fan in the world.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> I respect you more as I read more of your comments, Daniel [that's not to say that I don't respect everybody else - he hastens to add!] though like you say it's each to their own and we'll agree to disagree on Joyce.


Why thanks  :Blush: 




> I think you're right about Joyce pushing the limits but he wasn't the only one and I don't think he did it the most effectively, but he was certainly rated the most highly when I was growing up, though you don't hear it as much nowadays.


Yes, there were plenty of other writers during Joyce's time who were revolutionizing the medium; Faulkner, Proust, Hemingway, etc.

----------


## kiki1982

@Neilgee and Mal4mac:

The question, too, is if critics are to be trusted... There have been several critics who had their own agenda and criticised literature for its melodrama and other features because it didn't fit their theory... I have serious doubts about that. Who criticises a writer for his writing style or his style of telling a plot? Clearly then you have missed the point because a writer does not write if it isnot necessary. But then agan, their theory was probably threatened or something. 

At any rate. Joyce has his supporters and his enemies. I am of the opinion that a writer should convey his message. How does he do that? By language. If he cannot write language (as in some passages of _Ulysses_ where he relinquishes punctuation or where he just adopts the most horrendous annoying writing style with short sentences that not even a baby would dare to use) he fails in his profession of writer. A carpenter will also not make good things if he has no skills, or chooses not to use them. That said, he could write properly when he started. 

Woolf, a snob.. She belonged to a higher class than Joyce, that is true. Whether she was a snob is another matter. Woolf specialists might have more to say on that, but it is not because one moves in the highest intelectual and cultural circles that one is a snob. The word has a very clear meaning and I don't necssarily agree wth it.

----------


## neilgee

Daniel I love William Faulkner, he was an inspired novelist. I'd forgotten that he was writing about the same time as Joyce.

Kiki I recently heard a recording of an old radio broadcast by Virginia Woolf and I was shocked to hear how posh she sounded. Why she makes the Queen of England sound common! 

Of course as you point out that doesn't necessarily make her a snob [although it is known from her diaries that her attitude towards "servants" was not particularly liberal] and she did write what's regarded as one of the earlier works to champion women's rights in _A Room of one's own_.

Yet I think above all Woolf had an extraordinary talent for self-effacement in her novels. You rarely get a judgemental tone in Woolf. She lets you make up your own mind.

----------


## mal4mac

> Seriously is this biography you recommend as educational about the literary establishment as it seems to be because I might add it to my reading list if it is as obviously I don't know as much about that fecund period of history as I would like to, but as I've already said I'm not the biggest Joyce fan in the world.


Many critics rate "James Joyce" by Richard Ellmann as the greatest literary biography of the 20th century, and it's certainly one of the most entertaining and interesting biographies I've ever read. It's definitely an education about the most admired writers from the early period of the twentieth century, and of the literary establishment - not altogether the same thing! It's also (perhaps surprisingly!) a very easy read. Also, Joyce had very interesting experiences, friends and family. 

I wasn't the biggest Joyce fan until reading this, reading "Dubliners" and re-reading "Portrait" (the Wordsworth classics version is recommended it has "just enough" notes. The publishing event of next year might be the Wordsworth Classics version of Ulysses in early January. No money left after Christmas? It's only £1.99!)




> @Neilgee and Mal4mac:
> At any rate. Joyce has his supporters and his enemies. I am of the opinion that a writer should convey his message. How does he do that? By language. If he cannot write language (as in some passages of _Ulysses_ where he relinquishes punctuation or where he just adopts the most horrendous annoying writing style with short sentences that not even a baby would dare to use) he fails in his profession of writer.


Of course Joyce can write language! If anyone can. He can write "normally" when he wants - read Dubliners or some of his letters. I just read a passage in Ellmann of his without punctuation writing that is extremely beautiful and reflects the kind of stream of consciousness thinking that we all do without punctuation and sometimes we do baby sentences as he's just reflecting the way we think and not showing himself up as a bad writer as if but this kind of writing is very difficult just compare what I'm doing here with Joyce!




> Whether she was a snob is another matter. Woolf specialists might have more to say on that, but it is not because one moves in the highest intelectual and cultural circles that one is a snob. The word has a very clear meaning and I don't necssarily agree wth it.


She was being a snob when she called Joyce 'underbred' and Ulysses 'the book of a self taught working man'. She also called Joyce's editor Miss Weaver a 'woollen-gloved missionary for a book that reeled with indecency'. The (wonderful) Miss Weaver asked when a friend read this critique responded 'What is wrong with woollen gloves?" Exactly. Nothing is wrong with woollen gloves. It's just Woolf being a snob again...

Note I'm not saying Woolf isn't a great writer! My opinion hasn't been formed about that, and she may only be a snob now and again... I like several of her essays and must get round to reading her best novels someday...

----------


## kiki1982

> Of course Joyce can write language! If anyone can. He can write "normally" when he wants - read Dubliners or some of his letters. I just read a passage in Ellmann of his without punctuation writing that is extremely beautiful and reflects the kind of stream of consciousness thinking that we all do without punctuation and sometimes we do baby sentences as he's just reflecting the way we think and not showing himself up as a bad writer as if but this kind of writing is very difficult just compare what I'm doing here with Joyce!


Exactly, you illustrated what I mean: writing without punctuation is unnecessary and obscures the meaning of that writing just to obscure it. It has nothing to do with message, but, maybe, rather with snobbery (to me). Art for art's sake which i very difficult to understand, and maybe even ununderstandable. 




> She was being a snob when she called Joyce 'underbred' and Ulysses 'the book of a self taught working man'. She also called Joyce's editor Miss Weaver a 'woollen-gloved missionary for a book that reeled with indecency'. The (wonderful) Miss Weaver asked when a friend read this critique responded 'What is wrong with woollen gloves?" Exactly. Nothing is wrong with woollen gloves. It's just Woolf being a snob again...


Correction: that is not being a snob, that is reflecting the ideas of society then. She came from a high-class family that occupied itself with art and intellectual knowledge. He came from a working-class family. There is a difference in perception of what is proper and what is deemed interesting. The woollen gloves might have had more to do with Weaver being a suffragette. I haven't been able to do enough research, but several accounts of suffregettes mention 'desguise' and woollen gloves as a part of that desguise. As women's hands were supposed to be small and delicate, they cannot have worn big bulky woolen gloves as that would have made their hands bigger instead of smaller. Not to mention the fact that by the 1920s gloves were hopelessly out of fashion. This was more or less the time when Woolf was speaking. If she was alluding to this then it is the question if she was a snob. People do not become snobs because they criticise someone's work. 

Note that I am not saying that Joyce is in all his works a bad writer. He just got carried away at some point in my mind.

----------


## Patrick_Bateman

Dickens

----------


## neilgee

I read two of Dickens's novels and that was enough for me!





> Many critics rate "James Joyce" by Richard Ellmann as the greatest literary biography of the 20th century, and it's certainly one of the most entertaining and interesting biographies I've ever read. It's definitely an education about the most admired writers from the early period of the twentieth century, and of the literary establishment - not altogether the same thing! It's also (perhaps surprisingly!) a very easy read. Also, Joyce had very interesting experiences, friends and family.


Okay I will order this next time I get paid. You've convinced me!

----------


## DanielBenoit

> At any rate. Joyce has his supporters and his enemies. I am of the opinion that a writer should convey his message. How does he do that? By language. If he cannot write language (as in some passages of _Ulysses_ where he relinquishes punctuation or where he just adopts the most horrendous annoying writing style with short sentences that not even a baby would dare to use) he fails in his profession of writer. A carpenter will also not make good things if he has no skills, or chooses not to use them. That said, he could write properly when he started.


You're taking a far too conventional approach to this. What Joyce did was convey his message _through_ his use of language. Not only that, but it serves as an expressive tone for whatever he is describing. The use of newspaper headlines in the Aeolus episode are meant to be a satirical take on the sensationalistic journalism of the day. The extremely long unpunctuated sentences in Penelope are meant to perfectly decipt a stream-of-consciousness, flowing and unpaced by periods. The Oxen of the Sun episode takes on a beautiful medium by going through the history of English dialect as he describes the birth of a child. One must truly have a love of language when reading these passages, or any part of _Ulysses_.




> Exactly, you illustrated what I mean: writing without punctuation is unnecessary and obscures the meaning of that writing just to obscure it. It has nothing to do with message, but, maybe, rather with snobbery (to me). Art for art's sake which i very difficult to understand, and maybe even ununderstandable.


Leaving what I already said about long sentences aside; what about e.e. cummings? That's another example of a writer's idiosyncrratic use of language as a means to depicting what he wants to say. The unusual line breaks and spaces in his poems perfectly leads the eye down the page. Besides, writers have in fact since Joyce found ways to convey things through their use of language and puncuation. To take a simple and common example, when some writers use an uncapitalized 'i' in a first-person narrative. The letter on the page physically appears more irrelevant and inferior when compared to the all-powerful stand-out 'I'.




> This was more or less the time when Woolf was speaking. If she was alluding to this then it is the question if she was a snob. People do not become snobs because they criticise someone's work.


From mal4mac's quotes I conclude that she's both a snob and reflective of her time  :Smile:  No she's not a snob for criticizing Joyce, but for going about it in the way she did. It doesn't make her a bad writer though. Eliot and Pound obviously had unpleasant ideas concerning Jews and support for Mussolini by the latter, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they're both masterful writers.

----------


## glover7

> What is UP with all this hate towards the modernists? Is it because they're difficult?


Hell, no. It's because Joyce does nothing for me. If I want to read about temporal disjunction, then there are plenty of other places to find it than _Ulysses_. If I want to explore stream of consciousness, I find there are better writers using that particular device.

My problem with Joyce, which has been so aptly demonstrated by the discussion following my comment, is that people praise him based purely on reputation. 

As for "difficulty," I absolutely despise that people immediately single that out as the reason for disliking Joyce. I, for example, find that cultural translation of Kawabata's texts is more difficult to decipher than Joyce's dull prose, but I still think that Kawabata is an excellent writer. If difficulty dictated the measure of a text's worth, then the greatest work of literature is a string theory dissertation. 

Joyce has become the hero of the intellectual elitist, especially in my field of study. Anyone who has not read Joyce may as well be illiterate because without having read and understood everything he says, you have no place in the world of literary academia. It's stupid. No study should hinge on such a piece of tripe as _Ulysses_.

----------


## mal4mac

> She came from a high-class family that occupied itself with art and intellectual knowledge. He came from a working-class family...


He did not. His father was an upper-middle-class failure. He had a Jesuit school education & went on to study Modern Languages at University in Ireland's main city. He was as fully occupied in art and intellectual knowledge as any one in Ireland could be, and even approached Yeats and other leading lights to get comments on his work in embryo when he was barely into his twenties. In fact his education was probably more thorough than that of Woolf, who had the usual disadvantages of women in those days. Heck, it was probably more thorough than any English men of letters, given the reputation of the Jesuits & his own driven nature...

----------


## kiki1982

Well, it is not as straightforward as you put it. Born in 1882, he went into Clongowe's Wood College in 1888 (at the age of 6) and left, because his father could no longer pay the fees, in 1892, at the grand age of 10. A lot of art or intellectual education he cannot have had at that age. If he already knew arithmetic properly, could read and write, and had some basic knowledge of abstract mathematics (goniometry and Euclid f.e.) and could read some Latin and Greek it would have been a lot. 

At any rate, his father ad grandfather married into a rich family but were bad managers. Although that might mean they had money, they certainly did not belong to the intellectual elite, like f.i. Oscar Wilde who was also an Irishman although in a little earlier period. Woolf already moved in intellectual circles when she was a child. Joyce started to move in them when he was going to university. That certainly shaped both their worlds and ideas. Woolf was definitely of a class that was not even concerned with money, Joyce was definitely so.

----------


## FrankMarcopolos

David Eggers

----------


## DanielBenoit

> David Eggers


Why is it that everybody thinks my favorite writers are overrated  :Bawling: 

Just kidding. Eggers is not one of my favorite, but he's certainly one of the better contemporary writers. _Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius_ was a hilariously depressing work of ironic bipolarism.

----------


## FrankMarcopolos

Eggers is all style and no substance. He has nothing to SAY. (Except maybe, Worship me, Hipsters!) Which is why I can't stand him.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Eggers is all style and no substance. He has nothing to SAY. (Except maybe, Worship me, Hipsters!) Which is why I can't stand him.


Okay. . .. .obviously you've never read _What is What_. Besides, it's a bit unjust to use the style/substance dichotomy with postmodern writers, since style is used to express substance (an inheritance from Joyce).

Just because his work is done in a stylistic way doesn't mean he has nothing to say except "look at me I'm so cool because I write in a self-refferential postmodern way". Besides, what's wrong with excersizes in style? Sections of _Heatbreaking Work_ may be excersizes in style, but they're still meaningful. Any unique percpective is meaningful, even if there is no message or meta-narrative.

----------


## FrankMarcopolos

> Okay. . .. .obviously you've never read _What is What_. Besides, it's a bit unjust to use the style/substance dichotomy with postmodern writers, since style is used to express substance (an inheritance from Joyce).


I have not read _What is What_. After _AHWOSG_, why would I be fooled again? I disagree with your statement above in that story is story, for postmodern, modern, postpostmodern, or any other kind of writers, regardless of what they are inheriting from anyone. Style is fine so long as it is used in conjunction with substance, for my taste.

There's nothing wrong with style exercises, per se. They just don't appeal to me. Some people love eating cotton candy, for example. I do not. David Eggers, to me, is literary cotton candy.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> I disagree with your statement above in that story is story, for postmodern, modern, postpostmodern, or any other kind of writers, regardless of what they are inheriting from anyone.


I don't think you understand. The merits of modernist literature brought about a technique in which content is expressed through style. The simplest example being Joyce's _Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man_ in which the youth of the narrator is expressed through the style of the writing. Story is story, but if all stories were told the same way then the history of literature would be kind of boring now would it?

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I'm enjoying my cotton candy thank you very much  :Smile:

----------


## FrankMarcopolos

> The merits of modernist literature brought about a technique in which content is expressed through style. The simplest example being Joyce's _Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man_ in which the youth of the narrator is expressed through the style of the writing.


Yeah, I know. That's not my point. To me, style for style's sake alone wastes my time. Your mileage may vary.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'll not argue the merits of Eggers, not having read him... but I will question the dichotomy of style vs substance. What exactly do you imagine makes a worthy substance or subject vs one that is unworthy? A vast portion of the arts are dedicated to the expression of something as seemingly frivolous as sexual infatuation, attraction, lust, and love. Is a work of art automatically relegated to the "frivolous" pile because the theme the artist has chosen isn't something truly "heavy" like the Holocaust, race, gender issues, etc... ?

----------


## FrankMarcopolos

For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. _AHWOSG_, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)

The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. _AHWOSG_, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)
> 
> The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.


For me, sometimes "points" seem to distract books from the rhythms of life. That's what I love about _Ulysses_; it is first and foremost concerned with the sensations of perception, not any kind of moral or universal truth.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."

In the world of cinema Hungarian director Bela Tarr has revolutionized the language of film by doing away with narrative and focusing on the passing of time and emotion through slow and contemplative camera shots. "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."

----------


## stlukesguild

Still it leaves the question of whether this or that "point" being made is more important than another... and whether having something serious to communicate inherently makes the work better... or the lack thereof makes it worse. Looking at other artistic forms by way of analogy I again ask what is the "point" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet or Monet's Waterlilies?

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Looking at other artistic forms by way of analogy I again ask what is the "point" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet or Monet's Waterlilies?


Exactly, that's why Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytic, etc. forms of criticism can only go so far. Come to think of it, music hardly has any "point". With the exception of opera (whose music exists to express the stroy) really what other types of music really offer a "point"? That's why I side with aestheticism, "art for arts sake". Can one not find Rembrant's _Night Watch_ or DaVinci's _The Last Supper_ beautiful even if we may not know what is going on?

----------


## escapologist

> For me, there has to be SOME point to a story, some reason why the writer is demanding my time to listen to his tale. What that is is less important than that it be there. _AHWOSG_, for example, is pointless sophistry, written in a whimsical and amusing style. (Again, in my opinion. Another reader could say the point of it IS the whimsical amusement of it, which makes them feel happy...to each their own.)
> 
> The style should help to get the reader emotionally invested in a story, thereby allowing for some kind of impact at the end of it.


I think you might be defining 'point' too narrowly. A point of a work of art is whatever the artist wants it to be. If they want it to be just an exercise in style, then that is the point and the validity of that point is not up for discussion. And if anyone were to limit the scope of its meaning, they would be limiting the freedom of art.

----------


## FrankMarcopolos

> For me, sometimes "points" seem to distract books from the rhythms of life. That's what I love about _Ulysses_; it is first and foremost concerned with the sensations of perception, not any kind of moral or universal truth.
> 
> In the immortal words of Mark Twain: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."
> 
> In the world of cinema Hungarian director Bela Tarr has revolutionized the language of film by doing away with narrative and focusing on the passing of time and emotion through slow and contemplative camera shots. "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds."


I believe the Twain quote was made in jest. As for the rest of your point, I can see what you're talking about, however, that kind of art, whether it be in print or on film, does not appeal to me. I don't want an art form to mirror life precisely, I want it to entertain and then educate or enlighten me, or at least try to.

As far as Ulysses, I'm not an expert on him, so I'll refrain from comment.




> I think you might be defining 'point' too narrowly. A point of a work of art is whatever the artist wants it to be. If they want it to be just an exercise in style, then that is the point and the validity of that point is not up for discussion. And if anyone were to limit the scope of its meaning, they would be limiting the freedom of art.


Indeed. However, it does not mean I must enjoy it. I'm talking about my own perspective as an audience member, not as an artist. Obviously, an artist is free to choose to express him/herself any way they want. But don't expect me to pay attention to it if it's only a style exercise... my time is valuable.

As to the points about music above, I would say any song with lyrics has a story, and perhaps someone with more musical acumen than myself might argue that any musical composition tells a story in its own way. And to my ear, my favorite musical artists are the best storytellers -- with the flavoring of the musical style added to make it more (ear)-appealing.

As to visual art, I'm not an expert on that, so I haven't thought much about it. To my mind, though, it seems that even in that art form, the artist can capture a story on the canvas, albeit perhaps more open to interpretation by the viewer since it is static and visual.

----------


## arrytus

ayn rand, chuck palahniuk, martin amis, hemingway, dickens

----------


## MystyrMystyry

All of them and none of them

Might sound wishy washy, but it's such a subjective subject that it boils down to how well trained one is in observing and appreciating various aspects and qualities of a work of fiction (not to mention the author's intention)

There was a true tale I heard of a tribe living rough somewhere in Africa whom some anthropologists came across. They were amazed how no element of their lifestyle owed anything to the last two thousand years of civilisation.

Fearing that this tribe would one day be gobbled up by the march of progress if left to their own devices they returned with a television and satellite dish, thinking that some education of the outside world would be of benefit.

Everyday and every night every member of the tribe sat transfixed to the passing parade of images from the magic lantern, not bothered by disrupting questions from the intruders

The anthos began to wonder and worry if they'd done the right thing. Would this machine consume their culture instead of enhancing it?

Then suddenly one day about a month later, they noticed something about the tribesmen - they were no longer watching, but had returned to the way they were before the interlopers' arrival

Though a relief, it was also confusing

'Why have you all stopped watching?' one was asked

'That is a very clever machine,' he replied, 'and it tells many stories - but unfortunately it does not tell 'our' stories'

----------


## Patrick_Bateman

> chuck palahniuk, dickens


Indeed, good man  :Smile: 





> hemingway


You imbecile.


 :Mad5:

----------


## TheChilly

Dan Brown = TERRIBLY overrated.

Same with John Steinbeck. Couldn't even get through "The Pearl" or even some of his short stories. Didn't capture my interest.

----------


## Anymodal

The most overrated writer is Lord Byron

----------


## PeterL

> The most overrated writer is Lord Byron



Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.

----------


## Anymodal

> Come on, Wordsworth is more overrated than Byron.


Never heard about him, but he seems to have a similar profile than Bryon  :Sleep:

----------


## Lykren

I'll put my vote in for Dickens, and judging from this site alone, Orwell.

----------


## stlukesguild

:Banghead:

----------


## Anymodal

Someone should make a poll with the most popular overrated writers :P

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

The term overrated is just so, well, dumb. All it means when someone says an author is overrated, and especially when it comes to tried and true greats like Wordsworth and Byron, is that that person doesn't like that writer, and rather than accept that their opinion isn't necessarily the sole determiner of artistic worth in the universe, that author is therefore "overrated." It's quite childish, really.

----------


## Shevek

> The term overrated is just so, well, dumb. All it means when someone says an author is overrated, and especially when it comes to tried and true greats like Wordsworth and Byron, is that that person doesn't like that writer, and rather than accept that their opinion isn't necessarily the sole determiner of artistic worth in the universe, that author is therefore "overrated." It's quite childish, really.


Not to mention that the variable of "overrated" makes no empirical sense. How could this be determined, outside of "my favourite author can beat up your favourite."

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

:Iagree:

----------


## Anymodal

I disagree. I'd like to point out that you are assuming that Bryon is a true great, and thats precisely what the debate is about. 
Now, of course that in the bottom line there are nothing but opinions, there are no real absolute values. There is no absolute way to put The Illiad above some crapy best seller from last year.
But we live in a society and we set our artificial values so that we can compare our views in a reference frame. That's why we _state_ that Homer is better than Paulo Cohelo (that would we childish too, extending your argument). Hence we can also argue that a writer is worse than another, but of course we should keep in mind that that is valid for a given system of values.

There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed _The coirsair_. But he is, I repeat, _very much_ overrated.





> Not to mention that the variable of "overrated" makes no empirical sense. How could this be determined, outside of "my favourite author can beat up your favourite."


I do agree that is ultimately true, though. You are right, it can't really be determined outside of our favoritisms. But it doesn't prevent us to establish variables for the sake of a discussion.

----------


## WICKES

> There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed _The coirsair_. But he is, I repeat, _very much_ overrated.
> 
> .



I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.

----------


## Kyriakos

Hm, i am not particularly fond of english literature (although some of my favorite writers wrote in English...) so i would say that many english writers appear to me to be overrated. Jane Austen i find to be an abysmal writer for example. The tone, the plots, everything bore me to death and i am glad i won't ever have to read anything by her again.
Hobbes is another english writer (non-fiction) that is BORING (and wrong). 

Of French writers maybe Camus, not that i think he is a bad writer, but he seems to be hailed as one of the best, and i don't agree there. I recall how tiresome The Plague seemed to me, although i read it many many years ago. I tried to re-read the Stranger recently, but gave up since it seemed trivial.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I disagree. I'd like to point out that you are assuming that Bryon is a true great, and thats precisely what the debate is about. 
> Now, of course that in the bottom line there are nothing but opinions, there are no real absolute values. There is no absolute way to put The Illiad above some crapy best seller from last year.
> But we live in a society and we set our artificial values so that we can compare our views in a reference frame. That's why we _state_ that Homer is better than Paulo Cohelo (that would we childish too, extending your argument). Hence we can also argue that a writer is worse than another, but of course we should keep in mind that that is valid for a given system of values.


I don't assume he is a true great. I recognize that he's seen as a true great by such a large community, be it academic or otherwise, that my sole opinion counts for little to nothing, just as your claim of him being overrated does. Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet." Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion. 

And there are plenty of ways to put The Iliad above contemporary, bad fiction. That's what the whole of literary analysis does. Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?




> There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets".


This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc. So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.

----------


## kiki1982

Byron's influence goes much further than the stories he wrote. So, he is probably a true great. Many anongst those deemed 'great' have not had such influence. Whether you like his weird way of feeling above the rest (literally in some cases) or not, you just can't say he's overrated. And I am sure, characterisation is not the only thing he was great at.
Even when he was alive, he was the first case of celebrity mania. Diana-esque.

I would say Virginia Woolf is overrated because it's very hard to read her novel, but then I probably don't like Modernism.

Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.

Indeed, there are only opinions in this world, but some opinions are more founded than others.

Wordsworth and Byron are not  :Sleep: , to fall asleep with Byron you'd have to do your very best, maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.

----------


## Alexander III

Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base. What is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind. Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding. If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.


That is not to say one does not have preferences, as St.Lukes always says, he does not enjoy Joyce, but nonetheless he can see the beauty and genius behind his work, it just so happens that stylistically it does not mingle as well with him as others such as Proust or Mann. But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.

----------


## Alexander III

I

But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
But there is that within me which shall tire
Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
Something unearthly, which they deem not of, 
Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
Shall on their soften'd spirits sink, and move
In hearts all rocky now the late remorse of love. 


II

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar;
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal.


Both By Lord Byron from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage.

----------


## WICKES

> Never heard of Wordsworth... I suppose there's always a first.
> 
> maybe Wordsworth is a bit boring in his themes. That's Okay, it's not his fault that he lived during the Romantic era. Then just leave it to someone else to read.


My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

----------


## Motherof8

J.H. Rawling perhaps? I'm not sure if that's how to spell his name.

----------


## stlukesguild

If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.

Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y. 

The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.

Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.

The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.

In the end we have only opinions... our own first and foremost... and those whose opinions we trust... All judgments in art are ultimately subjective; all judgments of art come down to opinion... 




...but *some opinions are better than others*. :Ciappa: 

Never heard of Wordsworth... 

My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.

A great many critics and readers would agree. I'm not a huge Wordsworth fan. I far prefer Blake and Keats. But I recognize the reason for Wordsworth's reputation. He was essentially the linchpin of Romanticism... at least in poetry. For better or worse, he shifted the focus of the poet's eye away from the exterior themes and subjects (God, the landscape, the lover's eyes and hair) toward his or her interior feelings and emotions.

----------


## tonywalt

I would say that Jonathan Franzen is a bit overrated. I admire that he writes in traditional storytelling tradition, but he grates a bit.

----------


## Alexander III

> If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. Which is why when a high-school student says Shakespeare sucks, Eminem is real poetry, no one takes him seriously, because contrary to new-age belief, subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.
> 
> Ultimately, all value judgments in art are opinion and thus subjective. What we can say objectively is that Author/Artist/Composer X created far more works than Author/Artist/Composer Y that have entered into the "core repertoire" or "canon" or that Author/Artist/Composer X was responsible for this or that innovation or that Author/Artist/Composer X has had more influence upon subsequent Authors/Artists/Composers of merit than Author/Artist/Composer Y. 
> 
> The closest we can get to an "Objective Opinion" or objective judgment of the merits of a given Author/Artist/Composer is that of a "collective opinion". If Author/Artist/Composer X continues to be admired/studied/revered/loved by a large portion of the well-informed audience of his or her given art form over an extended period of time, then we can probably assume that Author/Artist/Composer X is in all likelihood an important figure... and that if we personally dislike his or her work it probably says more about us than the work of art. We might also recognize that if we take it upon ourselves, in light of this information, to dismiss Author/Artist/Composer X as "lightweight" or "pretentious" or "boring" or "cliché" we have set up our own opinion against a majority consensus (essentially declared that we know better than all those other jerks who do like Author/Artist/Composer X) and we are quite likely going to be challenged (and deservedly so) and will need to make some strong logical arguments as to why we have taken this stance if our opinion is not to be dismissed as of little worth.
> 
> Even this "collective opinion" is subjective to a degree. It is limited by the audience's access to an artist's work. 50 years ago Monteverdi would barely have been known, while today few would argue that he was one of the true "giants" of classical music. The collective opinion of Vivaldi is currently undergoing a major re-evaluation due to the fact that many long-ignored works are just now being afforded quality recordings, while a sizable body of previously unknown work is just now coming to light. Fernando Pessoa's works rival the finest of T.S. Eliot, Pablo Neruda, and even J.L. Borges... but he unfortunately wrote in Portuguese... and has only recently been "discovered" by the larger literary community.
> 
> The "collective" opinion also tends to be more accurate... or at least more likely to be universally agreed upon after the passage of time. The mass-media and advertising, the biases of the educational institutions, various dogma and competing theories, and even the desire (especially among younger audience members and artists) to explore and embrace the latest trends and fashions all impact our opinions of art to a greater extent the closer that art is to us in time. History has repeatedly presented us with examples of artists who were championed as the "major artists"... even the "geniuses" of their time... only to be largely forgotten with the passage of time, as the concerns and values that seemed so innovative and pressing and even "essential" at the time, fade and slip into the overall scope of history.
> ...


I have a decent and just reply to this which involves aesthetic speculative theory using Longinus and Romanticism but I unfortunately got drunk and I don't trust myself to respond now; but dammit I am not behaving cowardly and ignoring your point I am merely waiting for the time when I can express my sentiments coherently. Tomorrow morning, because I really do wish to have this discussion.

----------


## Anymodal

> I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.


It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized.
(Not that is important to the debate but I disagree with the part of self-hating white Europeans that... etc)







> Your statement of him being overrated goes beyond a simple "I'm not a huge fan of his" (which is all you're really saying) to "I have a better understanding of his poetry than the academic community and the centuries long analysis that has been done of his poetry and have come to the irrefutable conclusion that everyone else is wrong and he was a bad poet."
> Without offering any evidence, no less. Now, maybe you do have a book in the works that will shake up the whole Byron community and turn it on its head. Until then, though, your claim of Byron being overrated is nothing more than another person who overvalues his/her own opinion.


Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.




> Not to mention it's historical value--you think that a thousands year old tale that is still read and relevant adds nothing to its objective worth?


I do judge of course works by it's historical relevance. But then again, history is not a certain thing. It is something to argue about. When we speak of Homer its really easy to agree, it's an easy subject. But with Byron is a different story, because it is much more debatable, the historic relevance of Byron is something you can question.




> This is just hypothetical conjecture. The same could be said for Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, etc.


Yes it is. And no I don't think you could say that with Shakespeare with lightness.




> So if an author was born in a different place and therefore under different circumstances his work may be received in different ways? Well, duh. I don't see what the point is.


The point being what I prevoisly said here (*)

----------


## JCamilo

> There is a lot of marketing around Lord Byron (old marketing). It has to do with the fact that he was a peculiar character himself, and that he was english, etc. If Lord Byron was from Bolivia and was named Cacho and european academics had the chance to read his literature they would have never put it in the canon of the "important poets". Don't get me wrong, I like him. He is good and I enjoyed _The coirsair_. But he is, I repeat, _very much_ overrated.


If? Ruben Dario is considered a true great and came from Nicaragua.

----------


## Anymodal

> Many people begin with the assumption that art is utterly subjective. It is not, aesthetics are universal, and whilst they contain subjectivity, there is an objective base.


I would like to hear more about this please. Especially the part where you teach us how to absolutely judge universal beauty.




> what is truly beautiful is truly beautiful in every culture. There are many things which regardless of culture or race, are universally deemed to be beautiful by mankind.





> Art, Literature, Music is not that subjective - what is subjective is ones own level of understanding.


Disagree with both




> If a Man has never read a poem in his life and one were to give him the Iliad, would anyone be surprised that he might not enjoy it and think it dull? On the other hand a man versed in European literature, would have a hard time not recognizing the beauty in the Iliad. If a man does not know how to multiply and divide, is it any surprise that he thinks algebra useless? aesthetics and their universality are most often limited by the subjectiveness ,in terms of narrow education and context, of the individual. (...) subjectivism when it comes to the art is not a virtue but a fault which prevents us from appreciating the universal aesthetic. Being an individual apart from the crowd tends to be more indicatory about narrowness than of ones rebellious spirit in such cases.


To say that objectivity corresponds to what the majority thinks is a falacy.




> But there is a huge difference between appreciating the aesthetics of a piece and realizing that you have objections to the particulars, and not being able to see the aesthetics because of the mask of ignorance upon ones face which is vainly worn with much pride as a symbol of some rebellious nature which only the wearer see's.


I don't know if you are trying to say I can't apreciate Byron because i am ignorant. If that's your point its not my problem. That's a text book argumentum ad hominem, trying to attack the other to invalidate the others arguments instead of arguing against them. And by the way I am more or less as prepared as anyone here to read Byron.







> I
> 
> But I have lived, and have not lived in vain:
> My mind may lose its force, my blood its fire,
> And my frame perish even in conquering pain;
> But there is that within me which shall tire
> Torture and Time, and breathe when I expire;
> Something unearthly, which they deem not of, 
> Like the remember'd tone of a mute lyre,
> ...


If you read what I said you will see that I like him. Only saying that he is overrated not that he is bad.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> It may happen now but not in the times when Byron was cannonized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think this what this thread is about, isn't it? To point out our disagreements with the academia. And there is no posible evidence, just arguments. (*) I argue that he is a product of marketing more than of his literature. I say that because I don't think he has anything more than any other good romantic poet does, and he doesn't have what the greatest romantic poets like Blake or Coleridge do have... And I wonder if the posters in the previous 60 pages wrote books to account for the authors they think are overrated? Like any of us I presume, I can only offer you forum level -better or worse- arguments not a book full of arguments.
> 
> 
> ...


All good points. Sometimes, if I'm in a churlish mood especially, I forget these are just casual forums in which to throw around ideas. That diatribe could've been aimed at any of the previous posters--I just happened to read yours.

I still think the idea of overratedness is silly, though.

----------


## kiki1982

> My literature professor (who was American) thought he was the greatest poet of the 19th century- a visionary ahead of his time.


Oh, of course he is! I can imagine he comes across as a bit boring and efeminate to others. That's all I wanted to say. Far from myself, if Byron is boring, I suppose Wordsworth is even more sleep-inducing.

I can think of a few overrated Flemish writers. No-one knows them, duh. Most of them can't write for toffee. It's peculiar, but the tanslators of good writers seem to do a good job...
Including the one deemed greatest in our language area. A few of his works have been translated into English where he apparently achieved moderate success, but inthe original language... Let's just say it was a stark contrast to go from a Nobel Prize winner to that... Ironically Hugo Claus was always 'on the shortlist'  :Rolleyes: .

----------


## Drkshadow03

Literature is NOT subjective or objective. It's intersubjective. You can think of this as objectivity through multiple subjectivities if you'd like. Although, a better way of conceiving it is shared agreement through multiple subjectivities. A masterpiece is a masterpiece because many people recognize it as such and can offer reasons to support their opinion and often notice the same good qualities independent of each other.

It is perfectly fine to think any given writer overrated (your subjective viewpoint), which doesn't automatically equate to "I think this writer is bad." Rather it means, "You think this writer is the 3rd best poet in English. I would agree he is decent, but vastly overrated. I would place him as the 100th best poet in English at best." Although it could mean, "I think he is bad." This is not something that only happens in Lit Net Forums or other internet vent zones; plenty of critics throughout time have considered various celebrated works overrated. The Canon is not static and critics don't always agree with each other.

Not all opinions are equal. Some people are good readers, some people are inferior ones. Nevertheless, as I mentioned already even good readers don't always agree, hence the subjectivity part of intersubjectivity.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.


Thank you WICKES for this astute summation of the situation in relation to Byron et al. It is obviously the case and you have been both succinct and non PC in making it. I wouldn't change anything about it except possibly the word 'infected' to one of infested.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I'd say the complete opposite is true. European academia is infected with a politically correct loathing of the dead white European male. Universities and college champion non-white, non-European writers and often exaggerate the quality of their work. If a Bolivian Byron appeared today he'd get far more interest and praise from the self-hating white Europeans than a white, aristocratic writer from England. If you are an African immigrant and you write a mediocre novel about all the racism you've suffered you are FAR more likely to be published and praised in London or Paris than if you are white and middle class and write a superb novel about being a white European.



And yet amazingly here in America there are plenty of mediocre novels written by white middle class still being published every day. All you have to do to discover this fact is step into basically any bookstore and you'll be bombarded with countless examples. And you can even study Byron in almost any major university with little trouble!

 :Nopity:

----------


## OrphanPip

How has someone not heard of Wordsworth? I'm honestly a little bit shocked. The _Lyrical Ballads_ are probably one of the most widely read poetry collections in the English language. I can get not wanting to read through the entire _Prelude_ though.

----------


## Alexander III

> And yet amazingly here in America there are plenty of mediocre novels written by white middle class still being published every day. All you have to do to discover this fact is step into basically any bookstore and you'll be bombarded with countless examples. And you can even study Byron in almost any major university with little trouble!


I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. How is that not total bull****? Oh an Marry Shelley we barley did, because she was a woman who was already appreciated so we had to study other women poets who were not as appreciated...

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

----------


## OrphanPip

I think you overstate it though, Alex. Even if courses are given with, what may be, the misguided attempt to rediscover unappreciated authors, the DWM are still well represented in academia and are under no real threat of being removed from the curricula of major universities. 

Also, there are many benefits to studying less known poets of the Romantic period, in that it gives the student a broader perspective on Romanticism and helps them to better understand the context the big 6 found themselves in. 

I'm taking just the grad courses in my department as a simple sample of what is being taught in English departments:

http://www.mcgill.ca/english/graduate/2012-13-courses

Shakespeare makes it into 3 courses, Milton and Spenser into 2, and Whitman shares an entire course solely with Emily Dickinson. Apart from a class on Victorian popular literature, most of the courses listed on that site (ignoring the film studies courses) are teaching the usual DWM.

----------


## Pierre Menard

> How has someone not heard of Wordsworth? I'm honestly a little bit shocked. The _Lyrical Ballads_ are probably one of the most widely read poetry collections in the English language. I can get not wanting to read through the entire _Prelude_ though.



Yeah, gotta say, that one made the eyebrows go up.

----------


## Motherof8

I made a mistake the other day. I meant to say J.D.Salinger. Also there is a novel I had to read when I was in school I've heard some say is over rated- A Separate Peace.

----------


## crusoe

> I'll put my vote in for Dickens, and judging from this site alone, Orwell.


Dickens ? Are we talking about Charles, or some unknown Want-Ad smearer from your neighborhood ? Ähh...the "Down and Out in Paris and London"-Orwell ?

If so,...
Please name your weapons, Sir...or take your medication.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. How is that not total bull****? Oh an Marry Shelley we barley did, because she was a woman who was already appreciated so we had to study other women poets who were not as appreciated...
> 
> Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.
> 
> 
> But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.


Well, the problem with Wickes' statement and Emil's characteristic cheerleading about the evil PC boogeyman is that it deals with two different ideas: What gets published and what gets praised. 

As I already noted in the post in which you responded, plenty of white dudes (mediocre or otherwise) get published these days and the suggestion otherwise is the phantasm of someone who can't handle a few people of color getting published alongside them. 

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.

----------


## Lykren

> Dickens ? Are we talking about Charles, or some unknown Want-Ad smearer from your neighborhood ? Ähh...the "Down and Out in Paris and London"-Orwell ?
> 
> If so,...
> Please name your weapons, Sir...or take your medication.


Yes, Charles. No, 1984-Orwell.

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships. He could put together a good adventure, though, I'll give you that. I just don't think he's as great as everyone makes him out to be.

Orwell? Gosh, I don't know where to start. I always figured 1984 was cheap, out-dated science fiction, meant to entertain by its shock value and novelty at the time. I never found any intriguing insights in it.

Okay, your turn. Shoot.

----------


## stlukesguild

I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. 

Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.


But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.

I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.

As far as how the PC-brigade has affected universities, Orphanpip nails it. Yes, there are less traditional figures being studied alongside the standard names, but you can still study all the DWMs you want at any decent university. From my experience, most courses are transparent about what you'll be studying and most teachers gain a reputation. During my undergrad and graduate classes, I knew ahead of time what to expect of most teachers, what their theoretical perspective was, which teachers had more traditional tastes, etc.

The problem with this, is that the majority of students are not necessarily aware that a course on English Romanticism should probably include Blake, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, and Coleridge or that the majority of the under-appreciated figures were probably "under-appreciated" for the simple reason that they weren't on the level of the Big 6. 

I am all for expanding the "canon"... but not by falsely inflating the reputation of mediocre artists/writers/composers or downplaying of eliminating major figures. This is not because I bristle at the notion of multiculturalism ala Emile, but rather because I believe the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists and not push their personal political agendas... and because... as Alex suggests... I suspect that such biases are in part responsible for many students embracing an opposing Neo-Con attitude. 

During my second year of art school we were required to take a year-long course on post Milton Western Literature. The teacher was a sworn American Modernist. As a result, we barely even touched upon any of the English Romantics... let alone Goethe, Hugo, Tolstoy, Dickens, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Kafka, Proust, etc... The majority of our reading focused upon American Modernism... a little Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, and Dickinson... and a lot of Eliot, Stevens, Frost, William Carlos Williams, e.e. cummings, Faulkner, Dos Passos, Hemingway, Bellow, Barthes, etc... as well as lots of American Modernist literary and art theory: again Eliot, Proust, Barthes, Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, etc... 

Now there is nothing wrong with studying American Modernism... but the course (in theory) was supposed to be a survey of the important Western literature after Milton. I had the advantage of having read many of the major figures that we had glossed over (Goethe, Hugo, Kafka, Baudelaire, etc...) on my own... but the majority of the students didn't. As a result of this experience, I will admit that I took a rather poor view of much of American Modernism for quite some time in response to my feeling cheated... feeling that the teacher had used her position to promote her own agenda... and feeling that the reputations of certain writers were inflated at the expense of others.

----------


## stlukesguild

Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships.

That's an odd criticism... for the simple reason that after Shakespeare, I can hardly think of another writer who has produced quite as many memorable characters.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. 
> 
> Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.
> 
> 
> But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.
> 
> I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.


The problem here is that the tutors concerned are blinded by their own self-righteousness. They imagine that they are above everyone else because they have the keys to the kingdom and, as such, need to spread the gospel of inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness which, by it's nature, means the nurturing of individual abilities. I say blinded, because they cannot see that by their actions they are paving the way for the forces that will eventually render them redundant.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I took a romanticism course last year and it was horrible, we spent a minimal amount of time on Byron and Keats and Shelley and Wordsworth and Coleridge, because the main theme of the course was appreciating the unappreciated romantics, we spent the majority of time studying woman and working class romantic era poets who were tolerable but nothing compared to the big 6, but we spent time studying them because women and working-class poets and writers were not well represented in the romantic era. 
> 
> Is positive discrimination any more beneficial than negative discrimination? Before they could not study Kafka because he was a jew, and now We can't spend time studying Byron because he was male, white and rich. Either way tis the student who suffer because they are deprived of the best because of stupid political agendas pedaled by establishments of higher learning.
> 
> 
> But the worst thing is that through this mentality we are actually severely damaging minority poets, because when the rubber is pushed to far to one side it shall eventually snap and fling to the other extreme side (to paraphrase aristotle), and this stupid PC extremism is creating a younger generation who is responding with a disquieting amount of right-wing views.
> 
> I wholly agree... and have suspected that the extremism of Leftist politics shoved down the throats of students by academics is at least partially responsible for the current embrace of extremist Neo-Conservatism. The role of higher education is teaching students to think for themselves, not indoctrinating them into a given world view.
> 
> ...


Oh, don't get me wrong I think extremist leftist politics in academia can be really irritating too.

But it really comes back to expectations. Suppose you have a student who is focusing on Romanticism. If they take four or five different courses that deal specifically with Romantic literature, I imagine they're going to want to go beyond merely studying the Big 6 and even the major Romantics of other countries and perhaps want to learn more about some of the second-tier/third-tier figures, say a George Crabbe, or some of the Romantic women writers. I think your idea that "the role of educators in the arts is to introduce and examine the works of the major artists" is correct if we're speaking about an introductory course or a survey. 

Once we step beyond that point, I'm a little more skeptical; I would hope that once you're taking an upper level undergrad course on Romanticism or a grad level class that you're doing a little more than just being introduced to Romanticism and its major players. After all, there are many worthy writers beyond the obvious names. 

I would hope most people don't walk into a major art museum, find the two or three extremely famous paintings by the big players (Leonardo and Raphael, let's say), then think the zillion paintings that make up the rest of the collection by talented artists that most people haven't heard of because those artists don't quite have the same stature as the top masters are merely just filler.

----------


## crusoe

> Yes, Charles. No, 1984-Orwell.
> 
> Dickens could occasionally create interesting description, but, at least for me, his novels fail on the basis that the characters are not credible enough for the reader to engage in their actions and relationships. He could put together a good adventure, though, I'll give you that. I just don't think he's as great as everyone makes him out to be.
> 
> Orwell? Gosh, I don't know where to start. I always figured 1984 was cheap, out-dated science fiction, meant to entertain by its shock value and novelty at the time. I never found any intriguing insights in it.
> 
> Okay, your turn. Shoot.


I play "Jaggers" from Great Expectations, followed by "Wemmick" from the same Book. I follow up with the whole gang from "Our mutual friend".
Before I strike you down with the Bleak House - Bunch, I'd like to ask:
What have you read by Mr.D ? Did you actually read a whole book or some of those Excuse-volumes for the more let's say "zipped approach" ? (...only asking)
Didn't you scream "YESSSS", when Nickelby gave Squeers the trashing of his Life ?

1984 was actually Orwell's vision of "Days to come" in England after WWII.
We all know that his idea for a name was 1948.

----------


## Lykren

> I play "Jaggers" from Great Expectations, followed by "Wemmick" from the same Book. I follow up with the whole gang from "Our mutual friend".
> Before I strike you down with the Bleak House - Bunch, I'd like to ask:
> What have you read by Mr.D ? Did you actually read a whole book or some of those Excuse-volumes for the more let's say "zipped approach" ? (...only asking)
> Didn't you scream "YESSSS", when Nickelby gave Squeers the trashing of his Life ?
> 
> 1984 was actually Orwell's vision of "Days to come" in England after WWII.
> We all know that his idea for a name was 1948.


I've read Great Expectations and recently finished A Tale of Two Cities and am about to read Hard Times for an english class. stluke mentioned that his characters are memorable, and that seems to be what you are getting at also. Since this is all subjective anyway, I'll mention that I didn't dislike them enough to regret reading them - they were entertaining. That said, the only two characters I remember from Great Expectations are Pip and Havisham, and the only details I remember about their personalities is that they were fairly one-dimensional. There's also something in his general style I don't like, a sort of condescending feeling I get from it. Don't get me wrong, I like simple and clear writing as much as anyone, but it's more than that - it's not that he's refraining from being snobbish, but that he cheapens his stories with a manipulating of one's affections I find unpalatable. The suspense and romance in his novels are never feelings that resonate with my own, or are something I can identify with. They seem like thin and weak emotions watered down for the sake of a quick thrill.

I don't mean to be harsh and rain on your Dickens parade - I'm interested in learning. What about (and this is addressed to stluke as well) his characters do you find fascinating? Can you elaborate on why you think I'm missing something? Thanks.

----------


## crusoe

> I've read Great Expectations and recently finished A Tale of Two Cities and am about to read Hard Times for an english class. stluke mentioned that his characters are memorable, and that seems to be what you are getting at also. Since this is all subjective anyway, I'll mention that I didn't dislike them enough to regret reading them - they were entertaining. That said, the only two characters I remember from Great Expectations are Pip and Havisham, and the only details I remember about their personalities is that they were fairly one-dimensional. There's also something in his general style I don't like, a sort of condescending feeling I get from it. Don't get me wrong, I like simple and clear writing as much as anyone, but it's more than that - it's not that he's refraining from being snobbish, but that he cheapens his stories with a manipulating of one's affections I find unpalatable. The suspense and romance in his novels are never feelings that resonate with my own, or are something I can identify with. They seem like thin and weak emotions watered down for the sake of a quick thrill.
> 
> I don't mean to be harsh and rain on your Dickens parade - I'm interested in learning. What about (and this is addressed to stluke as well) his characters do you find fascinating? Can you elaborate on why you think I'm missing something? Thanks.



Hi Lykren... It should be fun and games. You're not harsh and I was only joking. Let's say, I'm an "open Fire - Sherlock Holmesy - 19th century kind of "reader", so Dickens is right up my alley. Your's is another avenue and that's cool. You know, Victor Hugo turns my stomach and why ? Beats me, I have not the faintest idea. That's how it is sometimes. Read you...

----------


## maxphisher

I'll preface this response by apologizing because you will all quickly find that I am going to constantly rise up in defense of Joyce. I study his works for a living, but I promise that I do attempt to be objective in my defenses. That being said...

I think that the biggest problem that people run into with Joyce is that they allow him to intimidate them. The result is that it becomes easy to write the works off as gibberish because, inititally, they have essentially defeated you. I only say this because I've often found myself in a similar position with Joyce. I gave up on _Portrait_ and _Ulysses_ several times before I committed to finishing them. I did so with a dictionary and pelnty of research materials always close by. Do I consider that to be a negative selling point for a novel? No, of course not. In reading the books, I learned more than I can possibly ever list. A novel that serves as an effective tool for learning and for critical thinking is never a bad thing. Having an author demand that you consider both the world and human existence in their entireties is a very frightening realization; attempting to accept that challenge, though possibly foolish, is empowering. Joyce's books are empowering. They challenge and they assault you, but when you feel that you've beaten them back, there's a sense of accomplishment and peace - not for the sake of impressing other's, but rather, for the sake of defeating your own fears and shortcomings. 

However, yes, the language and the style are difficult, and yes, at face value, some of it appears to be what some call "gibberish." However, once you really dig into his works, especially _Ulysses,_ and you get a sense of what exactly he accomplished in the text, it's almost impossible to not be stunned or even frightened by his ability. 

Moving on, if nothing else, _Ulysses_ changed the face of literature in the early 20th century. It was daring and dangerous, as Joyce had no qualms with both calling out the deficiencies of his predecessors in the very same sentences in which he celebrates them. He was also never afraid to borrow those author's characters, plunk them down in the middle of his own work, and allow them to see the modernized world, in hopes that they might shed light on the development of humanity. 

It takes a lot of time and dedication, but once you've really gotten to the core, or what at first appears to be the core, of the novel, there's no denying that the man set out to record the history of existence in a single novel, over the course of a single, fictionalized day. And, the truth of the matter is that he succeeded. Yes, he's probably to be considered pretentious for it, but his goal was to analyze and discuss art, literature, philosophical thought, and the average pondering that is developed with newspaper in hand, taking a crap in an outhouse, all at once, with the result being the culmination of those experiences, encapsulated in his book. The only thing that could have made this effort truly pretentious would have been if he had failed at doing it. Ambition paired with success is not pretension, it is simply success.

----------


## Dany Blue

I can understand why people would say Kerouac is over-rated due to On the Road, but i don't think you can really class that as a novel in the same way as other authors, its more of a 3 year diary entry than a novel and so i would disagree with those of you attacking it for lack of plot, etc etc. His other novels (also semi-autobiographical) like dharma bums and subterraneans are brilliant. Personally I agree with anyone who answered with Dan Brown.

----------


## Mason Pringle

People like Rowling and Dan Brown and Meyer are not "overrated" - they are only loved by non-literary types (and by literary readers who read them for distraction/entertainment) and not "rated" as high literature by anybody.

For someone to be "overrated" they need to be highly rated to begin with (but they don't deserve such high rate). The one I would say is the most overrated is Mo Yan, this year's Nobel winner who basically is a stooge for the Chinese government who imitates "magical realism" badly. He's not even as good as Alice Hoffman. Nobel Committee did a disservice to humanity by giving the award to Mo Yan.

Domestically I think Arthur Miller is kind of overrated, but I won't say he's the most

----------


## MarkBastable

> People like Rowling and Dan Brown and Meyer are not "overrated"


Indeed - we mustn't confuse overrated with overpaid.


For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.

----------


## soundofmusic

> Indeed - we mustn't confuse overrated with overpaid.
> 
> 
> For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.


Oh God Yes, Mark, I am still not over Women in Love.

----------


## Delta40

Define non-literary types for me. I only ask because of the thread 'Define Literature' There was such a discussion on it and I see now that there may be a level of snobbery on what people read which categorizes them as literary or non-literary so I'm curious.

----------


## kelby_lake

> For overrated, I'd nominate DHLawrence. Several times.


The problem with DH Lawrence is his philosophical passages are less interesting than the, um, action of the novel. Nevertheless, there's still some very good stuff in there- who doesn't love the wrestling scene from Women in Love? Ironically it's more erotic than anything in Lady Chatterley's Lover.

----------

