Pynchon And Other Overrated Writers

The purpose of this thread is to discuss writers we think are overrated--not to engage in snide personal attacks. If Tartarin and D'Artagnan feel unable to make a worthwhile contribution in the spirit of this thread, perhaps they would do us all a favor and take their juvenile sniping elsewhere. It is tiresome and unenlightening.

larry richette



I would offer that were it not for the above mentioned "D'artagnan & Tartarin", there would be a noticeable reduction of fodder for the creator of these "querys", to throw......

Larry how in God's Name you could be so knowledgeable and informed on the one hand, while being such a complete ________ on the other, is in itself worth a complete gigabyte of hard drive space for discussion.

Why the total contempt for the thoughts of others?

You keep drawing an audience through sheer insight (yours) into worthwhile topics, and then proceed to trash the very people who come to your table.

Please, don't continue with that "thin skinned" (of your listeners) reasoning for your utter rudeness. That is not going to fly.

P.S.

This is all so needless, when even I have learned a hellava lot from larry richette's opinions.

KYN--I am glad you have learned something from my posts. However, if you have read this thread carefully, you will see that I have NOT attacked anyone personally. On the contrary I have been ganged up on. Read this thread with an open mind and you will see who is being rude here--it isn't me.

Furthermore, KYN, I started this thread to discuss overrated writers. D'Artagnan and Tartarin have only posted here to attack ME. So how am I in the wrong?

larry

I do not see this in the same light as yourself.

Without going into this in detail, I will say that you have always been one....to follow.

(forgive the repeated ellipsis......as I am addicted)

Your contributions to this and other websites, is without question.

With all the inane topics coming at us from every direction, you do leave one with a ray of hope that there are those who do care about things in life that do (or at least did).....matter.

Things that were given to us all, but missed by those who never read

But, for me at least, I can see no ability on your part, to be able to "enlighten" others in any way other than with maddening ridicule.

This may just be a gift that is not at your fingertips....so to speak.

I won't begin to admit the things that I lack.

However larry, this place would be much diminished without you.

Thank you, Kyn--I think.

Larry
I think you and I bumped noggins on a similar abuzz thread a while back....

I maintain that the notion of an 'unreadable' or 'overrated' writer reflects quite often (not always) on the reader, more than the writer.

I happen to find Beowulf unreadable. But when I apply myself, and work at it, there is reward.

It took me two tries to get through Ulysses, and I realised that one of it's many points is that it is a book to go back to, and a book which one could not understand on first reading.

Then take Finnegans Wake and multiply it by a factor of ten.

Joyce (or Pynchon, et al) have no desire to be 'readable'.

I personally find Faulkner unreadable. But that is my problem. The local color and spelling (for dialect's sake) which permeates his work and makes it real for many others, is to me a stumbling block. Doesn't make him a weak or 'overrated' writer, it rather reveals MY problems.

If someone can't understand a book, it is not always the writer's fault. And it doesn't mean he/she is unreadable. It just as often implies that the reader cannot read, or does not understand.

Reading (at depth) is work.

Popular writers do not generally operate at depth (Twain aside, most people reading Twain as a contemporary didn't see his message under the 'story').

Frankly, I always check out writers people swear off, because most people happen to like Hemingway AND they like to watch 'Friends' on NBC.

Thank you, stike, for making some cogent points in this discussion. The very idea that a writer can be"overrated" is foolish. The concept may make sense when talking about athletes ("He signed a contract for how much?! That guy's overrated!"), but has nothing to do with writers...

Applause!

This thread has accomplished one thing for certain: made me want to read Mason Dixon.

I think you'll enjoy it, Edgar! Just take your time getting into the mid-18th Century diction. Once you're off and running, it's a hoot...

Inspired by Edgarblythe, I just reread this entire thread, find it hysterically funny, and seek permission to print it out and send the whole thing to TP. Anyone object?

No objection from this quarter, Tartarin. I'm sure Tom will get a kick out of it...

stike:

Most happy to have you bump into us.

Your thoughts are not only insightful, but I especially liked this little gem:



I myself am a tad outside the sphere of the "bookworm", but I do like to rub shoulders with those you have ....."been there, and done that".

P.S.

The authors of whom you (and others, here) speak, would surely be deeply pleased to know that they have left their mark, and are forever worthy of lasting argument.

First of all, I would never dispute that reading can be work. But that does not always mean that a difficult book is a rewarding book. Nor does it mean that a writer who is easy to read like Scott Fitzgerald, Willa Cather, Philip K. Dick, or Charles Dickens is somehow less worthy than a writer who is difficult like Pynchon. Some books are both difficult and unrewarding. Pynchon writes such books.
Second, it happens all the time that writers get overrated. D'Artagnan disputes this, so I will give another example: Alice Walker, author of THE COLOR PURPLE. Because she is a black lesbian feminist, her woek is elevated far beyond its intrinsic worth. I defy any of you to read THE COLOR PURPLE and tell me she is a good, let alone great American novelist. And yet so she was hailed--for PC reasons. This happens all the time. If D'Artagnan would get his head out of his fundament and look around the literary scene, he would notice the phenomenon of writers being praised to the skies because of their gender, their color, their sexual orientation--and overrated accordingly.

well, larry. you seem to get your hackles raised pretty quickly. i'd love to talk about this at length, but i don't deal with people that are utterly dismissive and not open to talking.

you wish to convert me, and that's not possible.

all i'll add is that someone who enjoys pynchon and joyce (and anyone else 'unreadable') is often capable of enjoying fitzgerald, hemingway, twain and dickens, and usually does. this person enjoys and gets more out of reading (literally and figuratively), than someone who is only capable of understanding a more limited range.

enjoy steven king, too. i might read him one day again when i finish a real book.

don't be afraid of big words and hard concepts. i mean, i like pop-up books and the TV Guide too, just sometimes i want something more.

Larry:

I don't think any white American can read a work of fiction by a black American and really "get the message". Can a white person ever really know what it's like to be black in America?

Rudeness, Larry -- rudeness. Remember?

Ah, Larry, an ad hominem attack! I'm disappointed, but not surprised. Others have addressed the rudeness in your last post, so I will refrain from responding...

New Haven, the purpose of fiction is to communicate spiritual states. If a black novelist cannot tell me what it feels like to be black, that is his or her fault. Great black writers like Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, and James Baldwin have managed to communicate this vision to me. The fact that inferior black writers like Alice Walker cannot is a tesrtament to the limitations of their talent.

Stike, you are being insufferably patronizing. There is no reason to suppose that because I dislike Pynchon I prefer Steven King, pop-up books, or the TV guide. I am one who reads Proust in French, so I defer to nobody when it comes to "difficult" literature. I'll reiterate my point...being difficult doesn't make you a genius. Pynchon is not on a level with Joyce. He is difficult without being rewardingly so. Anyone who seriously claims that Pynchon is on the same artistic level as Joyce or Proust is a barbarian whose opinion should not be taken seriously.

Rudeness? My, you are all awfully thin-skinned! I thought the word "fundament" was an artful synonym for where D'Artagnan's head is normally to be found. Conisidering the bashing I have taken on this thread and others, it was a tender compliment.