There is an axiom in economics which D'Art may be unaware of called Gresham's Law whereby worthless currency eventually devalues good currency. The same thing happens in the arts. That is why I think it is worthwhile to talk about writers who we think are overrated--I started a similar thread about Virginia Woolf several weeks ago. Saying that those who love literature should only talk about writers they like is like saying that book critics should only write favorable reviews...it doesn't make much sense when you think about it.
Also, since I started this thread, I think I should know why I started it, and D'Art's explanation is quite wrong. I had already started the Virginia Woolf thread and thought Pynchon was a candidate for what Woody Allen nicely calls the Academy of the Overrated, too. Hence this discussion. And if D'Art finds this discussion so disgusting, I have to wonder why he keeps showing up here. Doesn't he have anything better to do as a REAL lover of literature?
Larry, suppose you think someone is overrated and others do not, is it up to you to set them straight? And, if so, would it be possible for you to, uh, educate others without casting aspersions on their tastes and opinions? Just to set the record straight, whose or what standard are you using when you measure others' ideas and tastes? Your own? Do you believe you are offering your opinion as an opinion, or is it something more than that... Perhaps you know yourself to be a little better educated or more knowledgeable... Can you pass on to us your bona fides? How educated, how knowledgeable? Are you the lord of the manor, or the guy from next door pretending to be the lord of the manor?
Does your knowledge cover British and American lit of the 19th and 20th centuries, or does it extend out over most languages and traditions? Would it be possible for several of us sneak into some thread a cozy little discussion of our enjoyment of, say, Mahfouz or Saramago, or have you made up your mind about them, too, and will jump in to let us know pretty quick whether we get an A or a C minus minus?
I don't think you began this thread primarily to "talk about writers we think are overrated." You did so, I believe, because having encountered some hostility after your put-down of fellow A2K'ers who were discussing their enjoyment of Pynchon in another thread, you wanted to hammer away until you felt vindicated. All you're finding is the same hostility. Why not just let it go? If you do want to carry on, why not simply clear the air with an apology for your rudeness and be done with it?
larry richette wrote:what Woody Allen nicely calls the Academy of the Overrated
Woody is a suitable champion for the concept as far as I'm concerned.
timber
Timber -- Do you mean what I THINK you mean?!
Reading that again it looks like a dismissal of Woody ... it wasn't meant as such ... just that it is a cause uniquely suited to his twisted wit.
timber
Wrong, Tartarin. I started this thread to discuss how overrated I think Pynchon is. And since I began it five or six other people have posted that they agree with me on this point, so it has served its purpose. Read this thread from the beginning and you will see how many people agree with me that Pynchon is unreadable.
I don't claim any special credentials and you wouldn't accept them if I did claim any. And I have no apologies to make. You (and others) have headbanged me ever since I joined A2K, so if any apologies are in order, they should come from YOU.
Tartarin, the authority (if you want to call it that) I claim is solely derived from being well read in literature from classical antiquity to contemporary writers, with special emphasis on French, Russian, and Italian literature in addition to British and American. Also, as a writer myself, I have a working understanding of how storytelling and genres function which non-writers may not have. I have a particular interest in language and style. I wouldn't claim to be the best-read person on A2K, but I would say that I have read a lot more than the average "well-educated" American. So as you see, I make no grandiose claims for myself.
Just an observation, Larry ... you've displayed a certain enthusiasm for rough play yourself ... which is cool, pretty much, as far as I'm concerned. A bit of heated tussle is entertaining from time to time, as long as it doesn't degenerate into dreary interpersonal squabbles of no relevance to the discussion at hand. You've shown me, at least, that you can avoid that pitfall once in while. I for one appreciate such effort, and thank you for it.
I also recognize that while you have a knack for getting under some folks skins, some folks' skins are thinner than others. A little consideration of that goes a long way.
timber
larry richette wrote:There is an axiom in economics which D'Art may be unaware of called Gresham's Law whereby worthless currency eventually devalues good currency.
Actually, I'm well aware of Gresham's Law, having learned it in an economics class some time ago. As is often the case, condescension is a double-edged sword.
Thank you, Tartarin, for your perspective on the genesis of this discussion, and for those others who argue for a degree of civility in the A2K universe...
And regarding Virginia Woolf: I admire her work, too, and I'm neither a lesbian nor a feminist.
Timberlandko: I appreciate everything you said and will try to live up to its spirit.
D'Art: I said you "may be unaware" of Gresham's Law. How in the hell is that inoffensive statement condescension on my part? I really think there is something pathological about the way you try to impugn my motives no matter how inoffensively I speak. Take a look at your OWN motives before impugning mine.
"Gravity's Rainbow" is one of the few novels I've not been able to read. This was true many years ago when I worked on oil rigs 100 miles from shore in the Gulf of Mexico and there was nothing else to do after work. Of my reading friends, I only know two who have read it and they both swear it's great. I've tried many times but just can't get going with it.
c.i.
