Wow, is Cather going to lose? lol...

Indeed she will.

3-2, Dan Simmons...whoever he is stages a comeback to beat Willa Cather.

And today's match-up...a battle between two men who put out behemoth books--

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, king of the epic contemplative novel, vs. Peter F. Hamilton, whom Wikipedia says churned out a trilogy with 1,000+ page books for each installment and 1.2 million words overall...for just one of his outings.

Dostoyevsky: 1
Hamilton: 0

No question--I would argue for Dostoyevsky's "The Brother's Karamazov" being the greatest novel of all-time (I put it atop my Top 50 list), he's the best novelist of the 19th century, and you'd have a STRONG case for arguing him as the best novelist of all-time. By contrast...I had never even heard of Hamilton, but even if I had...

Can any supporter really say he's impacted his field the way Dostoyevsky's has his?

Hamilton's not the top sci-fi/space opera writer, whereas Dostoyevsky's arguably the best novelist of his entire century.

"Crime and Punishment"
"The Idiot"

That's what I know off the top of my head of Dostoyevsky. None from Hamilton. Those two novels are nearly impossible to beat by any two novels written by the same author anyway. Absolutely no contest.

Dostoyevsky

".I had never even heard of Hamilton, but even if I had..."

Gee, I'm COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the subject matter WHICH I INITIATED, but I'll shamelessly blab on about it anyway because I'M A FUCKING JEW.

Dostoyevsky: 3
Hamilton: 0
mapleleaf: -1

I NEED to read Crime and Punishment.

I've read three Dostoyevsky novels--Notes From the Underground, The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov--but not that one.

Hamilton. But that's largely because I'm a sucker for epic Space-Opera.

Dostoevsky.

I would campaign, but obi already did a wonderful job. Anybody who's one of the three or so leading candidates for best novelist of all time belongs in the second round, right?

Hamilton seems really interesting, but I'm going to have to go with Dostoevsky as well. Sometimes the classics.
Dostoyevsky: 5
Hamilton: 1
mapleleaf: -69

I'm sure Dostoyevsky is a better writer, but I haven't read any of his works so I'm voting:
Hamilton

Because of the fact that (probably) no-one has read every author on the list's work, I propose a slight rule change: people who have read both authors should get 1.5 votes, people who have read one author (and checked out the Wikipedia page for the other) should get one vote, and people who have read neither (but have checked out both Wikipedia pages) should get 0.5 votes. That way, everyone can have their say, but the more informed voters have more influence.

Unless everyone wants to start adopting that for the Round (it'd be unfair to start that mid-round), I'm happy with a one-person-one-vote system.

But we can see what everyone else says.

Dostoyevsky: 5
Hamilton: 2

I love space opera, but it's a crowded field with lots of great (and really, really bad) authors.

Dostoyevsky +1

dostoyevsky +1. looking forward to working as an assistant director for a theater performance of "notes from underground" this summer!

No, just give everyone a vote and don't vote if you haven't read either of them. I should probably read some Dostoevsky.

Yeah I haven't been voting when I haven't read either one. Also, I don't vote every round anyway, because sometimes I have better things to do, even than voting for Thoreau.

Thoreau is still the winner of the overall competition, though. Moral victor.

Thucy, why do you like Thoreau so much?

Because he's badass.

Eh.

He's the greatest American thinker, that's for sure. Perhaps our greatest author too. A poet, a naturalist, and a spiritualist.

I encourage you to study him deeply to see what I am talking about. He speaks to the human condition in a way no one else has.

He opens your eyes to truths in earlier works and thinkers, and his new perspective on them makes you realize all the more what a treasure he is what a genius he was.

He defended the examined life by living one. He was a close a thing to a modern American prophet as we are going to get, Joseph Smith notwithstanding.

He, in my opinion, was the first to read the Eastern thinkers and fuse their perspective with the Western protestant views of his day into a modern, rational, scientific, yet spiritual philosophy. I differ with him somewhat on ethics, but only in the details. In broad strokes, he was right about everything he ever said, and his relevance has only increased over time.

I really do encourage you not just to read his works, but to read about his works.

And also yeah he was a fucking badass. An incredible role model.

Along with what you said before, Thucy, read him without preconceived biases. You should hold onto your opinion, because that's what'll keep you from going over the same edge he hung over his whole life, but keep an open mind at the same time, and then he's amazing.

I'm curious what you mean? Don't really understand what you're getting at.

If you're saying I'm too much his fanboy, I rather disagree. As I said, there are a number of ways in which I disagree with him, and disapprove too. But they are comparatively minor and only enrich my relationship to him.

I Am Thoreau

I just didn't like his writing that much, and the points he makes aren't so profound and important as to counteract that. To each his own, I guess.

I humbly submit, ghug, that you re-read him when you're a bit older, and also that you read him more deeply, and slowly, and also that you read *about* him, along with a few of his contemporaries. Not just an except of Walden, any one of which alone will completely fail to capture the whole of him, for he was so much, and so complex. His oeuvre was a truly comprehensive one.

Thucy, I'm not criticizing you. Not sure how you would consider yourself his fanboy anyway.

Ghug, what of his have you read?