Number one, being the spirit of your age is not a measure of greatness... especially not if the age in question is 1855. Number two, Thoreau is the indispensable transcendentalist almost to the point of not even being one. He completely eclipsed Emerson, and Whitman, while great, was a parenthetical to the real Concord movement.

You're wrong if you think Walden isn't in the world literature canon.

And also, Huck Finn isn't poetry.

And lastly, as to the "true American" comment, I will quote Emerson on Thoreau again:

"No truer American existed than Thoreau. HIs preference of his country and condition was genuine, and his aversion from English and European manners and tastes almost reached contempt. He listened impatiently to news or bon mots gleaned from London circles; and though he tried to be civil, these anecdotes fatigued him. The men were all imitating each other, and on a small mould. Why can they not live as far apart as possible, and each be a man by himself? What he sought was the most energetic nature; and he wished to go to Oregon, not to London."

I think there are and have indeed long been two essential "American" archetypes. One is Twain, the grandstanding, greedy, fast-talking populist, the other is Thoreau, the insistent, simple, self-reliant individualist with a distaste for elegance. We see this archetype all over. Lincoln is the Thoreau type. William Jennings Bryant is the Twain type. Huck Finn indeed is the Thoreau type. Kennedy is the Twain type. MLK is the Thoreau type. The pioneers are the Thoreau type. The 49ers are the Twain type. The Quakers are the Thoreau type. The Charismatics are the Twain type.

I could go on but you get the idea. Who's to say which is more American? I certainly know which kind of American I'm more proud of.

First, today's match-up:

We have yet ANOTHER Classical Lit vs. Pop/Fantasy/Sci-Fi Lit showdown...

Jane Austen, the most widely-read female author in the English language, the Queen of Brit Lit for millions, and, love her or hate her, despite only having six full novels published is one of the unquestioned top guns in the English canon...

(Unless you're Mark Twain) :p

VS.

Trudi Canavan, author of (according to Wikipedia) The Black Magician Trilogy, The Age of Five Trilogy, and various other works of fantasy, an award-winning fantasy writer who's only 44...3 years older than Ms. Austen when she died.

So.

We have the rare opportunity of actually getting to view two artists at roughly the same point in their career, at least age-wise...

6 novels and a some other works for Austen at 41, a couple trilogies and some other works for Canavan at 44.

Aaaaaaand even if I had heard of Canavan before today...forgive me, Mark Twain:

Austen: 1
Canavan: 0

Without a doubt, Austen's the author I've most changed my mind about this last year. I used to not be able to stand her...and to be fair, I STILL have those moments where I want her characters to just stop with the gossip or the million uses of "marriageability," "sensibility" and, her favorite word, "odious" (really, she LOVES that word...the whole world was stinking it up Jane Austen! lol...despite all that...

I have three things to say in her favor:

1. Even when I can't stand her characters, she almost always can turn a sentence--she has a wonderfully-distinct style, and her writing just FLOWS

2. Elizabeth Bennet's a genuinely-awesome character...so...

3. "Pride and Prejudice" completely deserves its place as one of the Top 10 English language novels of all-time, period...it's a MASTERPIECE from a stylistic standpoind, Lizzie's a fantastic character...not a Darcy fan, but that's just me...as laughable and, in some points, even poignant as Twain's scathing criticisms of Austen are, his hatred of "Pride and Prejudice" is the biggest misstep I've yet read in his criticism of other writers and written works.

"Mansfield Park?" Sopping over with all the most cliche Austen-esque tropes you'd expect, and Fanny Price is just an awful leading lady.

"Pride and Prejudice?" Absolute masterpiece, and while I can't quite credit Austen herself for it, I WILL say that the famous 1995 miniseries is, along with the Kenneth Branagh "Hamlet," the best adaptation of a literary work for TV or film I've seen, bar none.

Jane Austen, you have been at least partially redeemed...and you kick Charlotte Bronte's dour, boring butt...Lizzie Bennet forever, Jane Eyre NEVER (yeesh.)

So. That's my argument. :p

Austen.

Thucy, Emerson was Thoreau's patron. He owned the land Thoreau lived on during the Walden epoch. (Incidentally, it's much easier to "get back to nature" when you have a rich landowner letting you live on his land because he thinks you're a genius). Emerson had every motivation to consider Thoreau the greatest, so I'm not so sure that his opinion holds a lot of sway.

Canavan.

Even if I didn't really enjoy Canavan I'd still vote for her, as I fundamentally cannot stand Austen.

One of the most interesting things about Canavan's books is that she uses fantasy worlds as a way to explore real-world topics - in the Black Magician universe the topics of sexuality and drug addiction are both fairly prominent, where as almost the entire point of her other major trilogy is a examination of what it means to have imperfect gods.

Thoreau eclipsed his mentor, as I said. You can even detect a hint of jealousy in his writings about him.

Austen.

Though Canavan is definitely close.

Austen: 3
Canavan: 1

Well, I (surprisingly) gave the pro-Austen argument, mendax...what's your anti-argument?

"One of the most interesting things about Canavan's books is that she uses fantasy worlds as a way to explore real-world topics"

Isn't that true of pretty much all decent fantasy writers?

One of the most interesting things about Canavan's books is that they are all pretty much identical. To be fair they are quite fun, in a lighthearted read on an aeroplane kind of way, but there is nothing about them that makes them special.

Austen all the way.

I just find Austen's books to be turgid affairs about characters I really don't care about.

@Fishstudios - perhaps, but if you are using that as a criterion then there's a whole load of incredibly popular fantasy that is apparently not decent. In my experience, most fantasy (especially of the high-fantasy variety) is written in a way that there is no real-world parallels at all. There's pretty much no message in the Wheel of Time series, for example.

Just as a general note, this was billed as a favourite author contest, but most of the arguments seem to be written as if it were a greatest author contest. Certainly, had we been voting on greatest author rather than favourite author I'd have voted against Hamilton rather than for him, for example, and this is another case. Austen was more influential, for sure, and here books remain classics in a way that Canavan's won't. However, I find Canavan more enjoyable to read, and thus I support her as a favourite author.

"Just as a general note, this was billed as a favourite author contest, but most of the arguments seem to be written as if it were a greatest author contest."

Amen, brother. Also, Canavan.

Austen: 4
Canavan: 2

And it a truth universally acknowledged that a poster in possession of a good comment MUST be in want of a +1.

(A genuine Austen quote, of course.) :p

*it IS a truth...alas! lol

I don't really mind it being a greatest author contest, but had it been so Wells, Asimov and Tolkein would have been 3 of my 4 (the final one wouldn't change).

Asimov and Tolkein are coming up soon, I think, followed by Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams. Mostly pitted against decent opponents, too. The next few rounds should be exciting.

Virgil not vergil Lol

#Thoreau2016

Today's match is another good one...and another Literary vs. Fantasy showdown...

But not just any Fantasy writer.

If Shakespeare's the Bard and Austen's the Queen of Brit Lit...

TJ.R.R. Tolkien's unquestionably the One Fantasy Writer to Rule Them All! ;)

And up against him, one of America's true literary stars, already celebrated, likely to make it into the canon...

Author of "Blood Meridian," "All the Pretty Horses," "The Road," and much more--

Cormac McCarthy.

That's a tough call for me...
I like reading McCarthy more, but I like the characters and settings of Tolkien more...
I like what McCarthy's done for American Lit, but Tolkien IS Fantasy Lit...
I could go either way here...
But since I think we'll see a lot of support for Tolkien and McCarthy deserves the love--

McCarthy: 1
Tolkien: 0

tolkien definitely.

Tolkien, by a country mile

That's pretty hard, but Tolkien.

Tolkien: 2
McCarthy: 1

And it's April 23rd...meaning it's the (likely) 450th birthday of Mr. William Shakespeare.

Vergil may not be impressed...but still--Happy 450th to the Bard. ;)

Obi, I nominated McCarthy, and I'm going with Tolkien. We all know McCarthy is an excellent author but Tolkien is Tolkien.

Tolkien for me.

This is a very difficult choice, perhaps unfair to make such a decision so early in the tournament, especially when either of these authors would have won any previous matchup. Put Tolkien or McCarthy up against Jane Austen and it would be the literary equivalent of the Yankees against the Toledo Mud Hens in a seven game series. Its a no contest.

I vote for McCarthy. I think Tolkien is the better storyteller, but McCarthy is the better writer. The hard part for me is that "No Country for Old Men" and "The Hobbit" are two of my favorite books of all time, so its a win/win and a lose/lose for me.

Tolkien for me, too. McCarthy may be a better writer, but Tolkien is more of my favourite.