Which famous writer do you think is absolute rubbish?

I think it's a bit like art. Certain people (artists and their followers) explain how good it is, whilst the public laugh at it. The latter are considered heathens because they just don't get it.

 

Strong actors can bring a film to life. I've seen a few films where the main characters made the mmore interesting.

 

It's not that the general public is composed of heathens, it is that is is composed of so many people who'd rather scoff at what they don't understand than seek new understanding. That applies to everything from art to social mores.

Many moons ago, I took a drawing class. In re: to art that defies instant understanding, the professor explained one often needs a particular education to appreciate it. At the time, I thought, "Likely story," but later decided to educate myself a little about apparently incomprehensible art. Just that little bit of exploration opened new worlds to me once I understood what the artist was doing.

 

I agree to a certain extent, but many people do understand it, and they understand when they are being forced-fed something's brilliance when even the professionals themselves criticise it. It's also a question of what your tastes are. There are some things, no matter how much I read up about it, I just don't get it. Rap music being one of them.

 

If we had the ability to understand and appreciate everything, we'd probably be able to go off and start our own little universe somewhere. That we can't appreciate the brilliance of something only a few people appreciate doesn't mean that thing is worthless, no matter what professionals say. Most science fiction bores the holy hell out of me, but because I find a book or movie contrived, repetitive, and grandiose doesn't mean it is without worth to someone who understands and/or appreciates it.

 

I'm with you on science fiction. And for some reason I was thinking of 'Forbidden Planet,' a truly brilliant film which spawned an awful series in the sixties.

 

Whoever said Neil Gaiman, I agree. A writer friend of mine raved and raved about American Gods, but when I read it I thought it was cliché-riddled and very thinly written. He gave you just enough to imagine what was happening but the writing was just not interesting at all.

I guess I liked Coraline, but frankly Stephen King is better. I'm a very critical fan of King, I guess you could say. He's more reliably fun, mind I've not read anything he's put out since Full Dark, No Stars which was alright.

Charles Dickens, I wouldn't say he's trash but he uses contrivance and coincidence as plot devices, and he's very twee. Christmas Carol is great, and I do like Great Expectations I guess, but other than that I can't say I'm a fan. Charlotte Brontë, Thomas Hardy or George Eliot are far more worth attention from his era.

 

I disagree highly with Dickens because of what he did for that particular period of English literature. His writing is essentially the introduction of the Sensation Novel movement out of the Gothic. So, in other words, he was deriving crime and thriller fiction, as well as political works, out of the Gothic. A lot of the works were fairly original in design.

You, of course, are welcome to not like him, but contrivance and coincidence is kind of a hallmark of the time. This is the same era of long running periodical fiction, like the Mysteries of London. The blueprints of modern crime fiction.

 

Good point, and I don't disagree with you. I wouldn't say he's trash at all, but I do think he's overrated.

Dickens certainly has his place in the history of literature, and I do like his books. But as books, I find his contemporaries just more to my personal taste. They seem more Modernist than he does to me, I guess you could say, Dickens was much more of a satirist. And he was always between classes in my mind, which I guess I don't personally respond to as much.

 

People who care about Dickens can become quite heated in his defense. During a casual discussion of literature that took place years ago, I remarked that I thoroughly disliked Dickins, though I had managed to read and mostly appreciate A Christmas Carol and Great Expectations. One woman in the group reacted as though I'd just plunged a knife into the heart of her favorite cat, and furiously accused me of everything short of barratry. Astonished me. I'm very fond of several authors, but don't take another reader's dislike of them as a personal affront.

Except Dr. Seuss, of course. Don't diss the doc.

 

I'm like that with Dante. Talk badly about him and we'll have issues.

 

No argument about Dante. We were so pleased when the Carolina Panthers drafted him in 2007. Such a fine tight end.

 

I'm far too British to understand that, I think.

 

Smack to the forehead. Sorry about that.

I was being deliberately obtuse. Dante Rosario plays a position called tight end in American football and was drafted by a team called the Carolina Panthers in 2007.

 

Trollope is a million times better than what I've read of Dickens (admittedly I should read more Dickens). Trollope's parliamentary novels are a true masterpiece that should be talked about way more. I still haven't read all the way through his Barsetshire novels, but I hope to do so this summer.

 

Art gets a lot of 'emperor's got no clothes' accusations. I know why it happens, but it's silly to think like that. There are different audiences, and one person can be in one camp or another at different times.

Like, I like Wagner, doesn't mean I then dislike Taylor Swift (her album Folklore is actually really good). I like Thomas Mann and John Milton, that doesn't mean I have to then dislike Stephen King.

It's an exposure and knowledge thing, I think. With art, most people who haven't taken the time to study art might like pastoralist landscape paintings or Greek statues, but if every painting was a vision of Arcadia or a statue a Ceasar, it would get boring for people who have taken the time to study it. But that doesn't mean the traditionally beautiful doesn't have it's place, and the so called 'snobs' have to hate it to prove they are better than others.

There's a theory needed to appreciate Modernist or even contemporary art. And I'm not a fan of contemporary art for the most part. The Tracy Emins of the world, I don't like them personally - but I get it. It's just a different style of self expression. Just one I happen to dislike.

Most people probably aren't too dumb to understand art, just like I'm sure that most people aren't actually too dumb to understand James Joyce or House of Leaves or something. It's just that for most people, culture is a commodity, not an experience. They know they should like esteemed things like Shakespeare or the Mona Lisa, but because it's not immediately accessable it's difficult to sympathize with it if you've just came home from an 8-9 hour shift. You just want to escape, I know I do after a hard day, I get that.

Escapism can cover for a lot of sins though, and most people do not care so long as they are having a good time. To a lot of people, Rowling is their favourite writer, even though (while she's a good sentence writer) her world building, plotting, and characterization after book 1 is completely inept - and when you look under the surface of Potter her politics and world view is one of a sociopathic, over-privilaged English bigot.

 

Jack Kerouac.

I tried to read on the road but it felt disjointed and sort of pointless. I guess he wrote the whole thing on speed and it shows. Wasn't a fan.

 

Completely agree. I've never actually liked anything Kerouac.

 

Also not a fan. A bunch of guys stay stoned, travel around, sleep with a bunch of different women, and take themselves very seriously.

 

Oh, I'm so glad I'm not the only one who didn't like On the Road! Though I will admit that one scene has stuck with me: the one where the gang goes to a jazz club and the crazy guy that everyone loves gets up in the trumpeter's face, urging him one, elevating the audience/performer dynamic into something more like worship of life itself. That scene was pure poetry, and one of the best things I've ever read. The rest of the novel that contained it, though - meh.

 

Allen Ginsberg, it was not enjoyable nor enlightening to read his works. Looking further into his beliefs especially regarding his - uh, stuff with NAMBLA just further made me despise him.

 

Not so much writers as the whole genre typified by James Patterson and Janet Evanovich. Tried reading both of those and couldn't make it past the blatant product placement.