I too am wary of literary prizes and lists partly because of the extraneous factors such as marketing and media. Having said that, I don’t think the opinion of Literature professors or authors is any worse than the opinion of other people, especially people with rather strong opinions. Actually, I tend to give more weight to the opinion of professors and authors than other people who might express their personal opinions as facts. And lists can be useful as starting points (especially when you know how they were made).Xmmm wrote:This signifies absolutely nothing to me. Experts make odd choices when they hand out the Nobel prize, too. Sometimes for political reasons, sometimes for cluelessness. It's almost comical to go through the list of great novels that didn't win, and compare them to what actually did win in a given year.
As reineke implied what is good literature is largely a matter of personal preference. But if one wants to go by the number of readers (excluding people who are forced to read a certain work for exams etc) which I personally think is a better (again far from perfect) criterion, one must “count” the total number of readers from its “date of publication” to the present day. Of course one needs to read contemporary literature but if one wants “lists”, I don’t know a more “reliable” way. If not it's just my word against yours. For example, I too like Le Comte de Monte Cristo but I wouldn’t say it’s better than Flaubert’s L’Éducation sentimentale.
Some more examples. Look at your order of Russian writers. Even if I assume you excluded poets, (hence the absence of Pushkin which may very well appear unforgivable to Russians) I think it’s preposterous. No offence.
Regarding James Joyce, only a few people may be reading Ulysses but my personal impression is many more people do read Dubliners and his earlier work.
The list is actually Anglo- or Western-centric rather than Eurocentric. Shakespeare belongs to other Anglo countries too. It doesn’t matter whether that country existed or not during his time. Anyway, lists are always like that.
Obviousely, you asked reineke not me. All the same,Xmmm wrote:Let's play the game a different way. The experts have declared Tolstoy is the best.
1. Have you read Anna Karenina or War and Peace? All the way to the end?
2. If you have read one or both, would you agree with this mighty consensus of experts that Tolstoy is the greatest author of all time?
3. If you haven't read one or both, why not? Seeing as how he is the best, why procrastinate?
If you choose not to answer, I will have to assume that either:
a) You were afraid to read either of them because you were worried with good cause that they might be terminally boring
b) You did try to read one of them but gave up a third of the way through.
1. I have read both couples of times completely (* see below).
2. I don’t have a "greatest author of all time". But if I decide to choose one, Tolstoy might very well make it (along with Pushkin! ).
3. I started reading War and Peace for the first time, as soon as I bought a Penguin Classics edition. At that time I was a medical student and I read it during the short break of 2-3 weeks between my third-year written exams and practical exams. It roughly took me 1-2 weeks, I did hardly anything else during that time. The only part that was boring in the whole book was the epilogue where Tolstoy describes his outlook on history etc. Otherwise, it was absolutely unputdownable! People who speak highly of Tolstoy are not necessarily snobbish, they can be genuine too.
By the way, was it Paul de Man (but I thought he was Belgian)?Xmmm wrote:We were reading something by some deconstructionist. It was not Foucault or Derrida, it was some German guy ... I forget his name
Sorry to hijack your Log, reineke.