This is topic Who is the best author? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=044299

---

Posted by Avery Good Schreibner (Member # 8772) on :
 
With the exception of OSC, of course, who is the best author ... ever, and of all time? Is it possible to rank authors in such a way? By that I mean their material, not the author him or herself. I have been interested in this concept for a long time. If J. K. Rowling is the best author (excepting OSC), how does one validate that claim?

Someone once said, if you don't like the answer - ask a different question. Should I not be considering who is the best author but rather what is the best work ... and how do I decide that? Ann Rand wrote in The Romantic Manifesto in The Psych[ological] Epistemology of Art (on page 10): One of the distinguishing characteristics of a work of art (including literature) is that it serves no practical, material end, but is an end in itself; it serves no purpose other than contemplation - and the pleasure of that contemplation is so intense, so deeply personal that a man experiences it as a self-sufficient, self-justifying primary and, often, resists or resents any suggestion to analyze it: the suggestion, to him, has the quality of an attack on his own identity, on his identity, on his deepest, essential self."

Humm, I say. So, take literature at face value and love it or leave it. Would that be true for reading in general? If you like to read, read; if you don't, don't?

Humm. Could I compare that to eating one's vegetables? If you like them, eat them; if you don't, don't? There in, I see, lies the rub. A body, without exception as far as I know, needs the nutritive value vegetables provide.

Is literature like that at all? If so, I think we can value some pieces of literature as better than others. If Ann Rand is right in her estimation, I see literature selection as a cyclical exercise in self-perpetuation, i.e. I read what I like because I like it and don't read the rest because I don't like it.

Then, is the question and idea of one piece of work being best or of one author's style or abilities being best a moot point for people like me with too much time on their hands to contemplate?

Hmm ... I ask myself, why is Henry James' work not worthy to be considered for publication today (as some publishers use his as an example of what not to submit to their magazines)?

I had fun messing with this concept. Once, I posted on a writing site posting board a short piece from four authors I thought were similar in topic and nature, meaning they were dialogue or description on a similar subject such as upon seeing the moon or a light in the distance, and a similar piece I wrote. I did this because it was a site at which wannabe authors such as myself post stories and get critiqued by other wannabes. I had gotten a huge variety of opinions on my writing like I don't like it, change it - oops! I liked it the way it was before. Invariably, the majority chose a section from F. Scott Fitzgerald or J.R.R. Tolkien or (tee hee) Henry James or Charles Dickens or Toni Morrison as the amateur piece. Therefore, I assume a. these people didn't know good literature when faced with it of b. Ann Rand is right - it is a matter of personal opinion as to what is good and what is not.

I remember reading that a popular modern science fiction author (I think it was Ursula K. LeGuin) submitted a piece for publication under a pseudoname and got the piece returned, flatly rejected. She resubmitted the piece under her name and had it accepted with praise. She said something like her reputation got her published and her reputation was built on good works...

as defined by ...?

I just want to throw up my hands - and throw away all the "how to get published" books. If I submit a story and it is rejected, is it crap? If a famous author tells me to change something, should I because they know how to judge good literature? If I come in third or fourth or twelfth on American Idol, can I not sing? If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to her it, does it make a sound?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
We should measure the greatness of an author with a weight scale. Just take all of the books they've published and weigh them. I think Asimov would do well.
 

---

Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
 
But then you would have to look at someone like Dostoyevski or Tolsoy, who wrote fewer books, but they were ENORMOUS books. I mean, War and Peace? That adds up to the entire Foundation series easily!

Edit: Russian names are hard to spell.
 

---

Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
there are a lot of books in the foundation series!
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
hmm, mph the problem with that is there are many relatively terrible authors who were nonetheless very prolific (or at least terrible in some people's eyes *cough*Terry Goodkind*cough*) and yet there are others who are terrific but haven't written much at all, such as Lois Lowry
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Those are just the exceptions that prove the rule!

[Colbert Mode/]
 

---

Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 
Stephen King could be in contention.
A) He's got the talent
B) He writes a lot of books and
C) His books are freaking huge.

I would say Tolkein.
 

---

Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:

I would say Tolkein.

---

quote:

---

If you are allowed to count the history of middle earth books in it, he'd probably do quite well in the weight category.

---

quote:

---

I think the word "best" should be elimated from the English language.

---

You know that it would just be invented again.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Of course I do. I'm allowed to make completely impractical suggestions now and again.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
Is William Shakespeare considered an author, or is he just a playwright? I know, I know, it sounds like the standard answer, but both as an actor, a director and a reader I have to say that his works feature hands down the greatest stories and characters I've ever read (or performed, for that matter).
 

---

Posted by Avery Good Schreibner (Member # 8772) on :
 
Yea, but, what if you consider authors who have written a whole bunch of crap and gotten it published and have had thousands upon thousands of copies printed but they end up having their front covers ripped off or the books remain stacked up in some warehouse in Dallas because they never sold any copies because it's crap. Consider, there are some people who are obsesive due to some type of brain disorder like hypergraphia and write and write till their brains begin to glow out of their skulls (like Fyodor Dostoevsky - I just looked up the spelling on the internet since I have it up and running - though I never saw his brain glow) and may write huge volumes which may also be crap. Or, yea, Bill Shakespear (whom they say didn't sign his own name with an 'e' at the end for which I am constantly getting criticized - but what the heck, I can't spell for beans anyway) who must have done a poem a month and a play a year every year of his life (and who might have been gay or might not have written any of the stuff he attached his name to or he just stole the plots and characters due to there being a lack of copywrite laws in which case he didn't write volumes). Or ... or ... wait a minute ... I'm getting lightheaded. ... must ... breathe.

OK. Whatever. I don't think the person who writes the most can be considered the best writer - but maybe the best at writing. I mean we could set a monkey down at a typewriter and call her Gertrude Stein but that doesn't mean she's the best writer. I mean, what are the criteria by which we judge a writer to be good. Is there some inherent goodness that is good through the ages.

Is it plot which drives the engines of popular critical judgements? But that is just as ambiguous. How does that dude with all they dynamite decide who gets the award each year? Does he read all the books? I don't believe it! I think Tolkien's objective was to write the best - not the most - he could. I typed in list greatest authors in my search engine and came up with these: Robert Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, Stephen King, Frank Herbert, Orson Scott Card, Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, J.R.R. Tolkien. The top ten SF books on this site are
1 Lord of the Rings
2 The Ender Saga
3 The Lions of Al-Rassan
4 The Vorkosigan Series
5 Tigana
6 Dune
7 The Annals of the Black Company
8 Flowers for Algernon
9 The Discworld Series
10 A Clockwork Orange
Then, they have a whole bunch of other lists. The site address is www.adherents.com/lit/sf_lists.html
And, that's just for Science fiction and fantasy authors.

Again ... whatever. Fame is fleeting.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
*adjusts sarcasto-meter*
 

---

Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
"Flowers for Algernon" is SF? It hasn't been that long since I read it, has it?
 

---

Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
 
Arthur C. Clarke was good.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I say it's a toss up between Dr. Seuss and Beatrix Potter.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
It seems to me that what matters most in storytelling to OSC is honesty.

Using honesty as a gauge, I'd have to rank Gary Paulsen up there with OSC.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nighthawk:
"Flowers for Algernon" is SF? It hasn't been that long since I read it, has it?

---

It deals with a scientific concept that doesn't actually exist, which is sort of the definition of science fiction.

Unless you're one of those people who defines science fiction as "Any books that don't have literary value." In which case, it's not.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Flowers for Algernon actually won a Hugo in 1960.
 

---

Posted by Avery Good Schreibner (Member # 8772) on :
 
See! See there! That's my point ... um, if I actually have one. Deciding which genre is right for Flowers for Algernon is as up in the air as is the answer to the question what is good writing.
 

---

Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
 

quote:

---

I remember reading that a popular modern science fiction author (I think it was Ursula K. LeGuin) submitted a piece for publication under a pseudoname and got the piece returned, flatly rejected. She resubmitted the piece under her name and had it accepted with praise. She said something like her reputation got her published and her reputation was built on good works...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
We should measure the greatness of an author with a weight scale. Just take all of the books they've published and weigh them. I think Asimov would do well.

---

But if you count different additions, then its shakespeare hands down, or the bible, but that is a collaborative work, so you're talking about editing credits.
 

---

Posted by Avery Good Schreibner (Member # 8772) on :
 
In the final analysis then, I am as good a writer as anyone else but just haven't had the good luck to become popular. It makes me think of that Asian man who was on that American amateur singing contest tv show and was bad enough that America loved him and he got a contract to cut a cd distributed by a major label.

Say now, there's a thought. If any of you come from small town, you know what I mean. In my town, there are some names like Gerber or Almdale or Detric or Skiles that make people want to bow down in reverance (except for me - I'm too much the rebel). But how did that happen? They got a boost from mom and dad who worked their way to the top and over the backs of others without a second thought about having crapped on the person on the next rung down. Then, just by association, like the kings and queens of Europe, the second generation assumes it is worthy of special privileges and acts like it. That works until the association becomes tainted - like Kennedy.

I think that must be true for every author. I think every author had some connection or some significant support. For example, Fitzgerald had money that allowed him to hobnob with the rich and famous and afforded him the leisure to write as he wanted, and the influence by association to get his first book published first time. Or Christopher Paolini whose parents work in publishing (or something like that).

Me? I come from the family of a minor-influential great grandfather and great great grandmother whose children and grand children failed to capitolize.

Am I just ranitng? Oh well, I got that off my chest. Congratulations all you guys who are making the bucks in the fiction world. It is a small world after all.
 

---

Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
 
I'm not kissing up here, but I say the best writer is Mr. Card.

Sorry, but that's the truth.

If we couldn't count him I'd have to then say either Asimov or George RR Martin.
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
LOL, to go along with the weighing of books. You would also have authors that wrote a lot of big books like Robert Jordan, who indeed is not the best.

My favorites (so hard to pick one, and OSC excluded) are Jack McDevitt, Ben Bova, and Kelley Armstrong.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
You know, everyone really has different things they look for in books. For me, the most important thing about a book is that it makes me feel. For my brother, it's that it makes him think. For others it's that it has lots of subtext for them to hunt out.

And so the author that I think is best is probably going to be an author that my brother doesn't particularly like. Or that the third person mentioned thinks is ok, but too fluffy. While either of their favorite books I'll find pointless and dull because they don't make me feel anything.

But problems arise because it's natural to feel that what you value is most important, and it's natural to try to convince other people that your values are more important than yours. So we fight about books, just like everything else.
 

---

Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
 
to look at it from the most popular book point of view youd have to accept the bible. But since there is no one author you can simply move to the second best selling book worldwide. Lord of the rings.

Tolkien would get my vote whether he sold 1 or 1 billion books though. Favorite writing style is a matter of taste and personal opinion.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
The author I most enjoy to read is probably Alexander Dumas. The slight problem with that is that he wrote in French, and I don't know French, so I'm not entirely sure I'm qualified to vote for him. Other than him, I'm going to go with Tolkein or Dickens. I don't like all of Dickens, but my all time favorite book is "A Tale of Two Cities". IMO that is one of, if not the, best book I have ever read.

And btw, nice to see you postin Ecth
 

---

Posted by Avery Good Schreibner (Member # 8772) on :
 
I like A Tale of Two Cities, too. I like so many books. Right now, I am reading In Cold Blood by Capote and Honor Thy Father by Talese. I don't think above I'd even considered non-fiction (with the exception of the Bible). I like Capote (and Oscar Wilde, but I hate to say both names in the same sentence because, you know, I get labled doing that. Please don't falsley lable me.). I guess that's because fiction novels have fallen under even greater scrutiny. Anyway, I guess it's just best to let the world have a billion opinions and let some publish their opinions. Still, the question nags - like an old hag - with a bag - in a Jag - with refried beans . What makes a story good? Sigh....
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

We should measure the greatness of an author with a weight scale. Just take all of the books they've published and weigh them. I think Asimov would do well.

---

quote:

---

with the exception of OSC, of course

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

If you are allowed to count the history of middle earth books in it, he'd probably do quite well in the weight category.

---

Not even close. Asimov has over 500 published books.

---