Homer.

Don't be stupid kiddies

adams: 8
homer: 7

this is going to be a close one.

Synapse has just given you an excellent reason to vote Adams.

"I'm going to leave webdip and never come back!"

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/43624483.jpg

"don't you think that you can write many good books? i mean, fitzgerald's novels aren't better just because he wrote so few, no? i think the basic assumption of "lots of output = bad output" is a flawed one."

They're not better because he only wrote a few, but they also don't suffer for quality because, for the most part, he was able to take his time with them (this is true of some more than others) and didn't need to just crank them out one after another, or make The Great Gatsby 7 because he was contracted for a book series.

Lots of output doesn't necessitate bad output...to a point...

But at the same time, I'd argue there comes a point where the urge/mandate to churn out books and sequels one after another causes the works to suffer in quality, it becomes more a manufacturing plant than individual craftsmanship.

"take asimov for example, or simenon, or dumas, or christie. all of those have a huge bibliography, yet all of them are high-class writers (even if i don't like christie that much)."

I'll use Christie for my point here, as I think she fits well--

The thing with Christie is that there's something of a pre-set formula to the detective story. You can fiddle with that formula (and she does) but still, having that formula pre-set for you allows you to churn out works faster.

When you KNOW the book is going to open with Conan Doyle's Watson narrating to the audience or will star Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie's Poirot or whomever else...and when you know a crime will have been committed, the heroes have to unravel and find clues to said crime, there are obstacles to doing that, likely red herrings, likely iterations of different detective novel stock characters...

All of that, I'd argue, lets you churn out a novel and novel series faster than starting from scratch and, formula free, setting down a comparatively-original novel like "This Side of Paradise" or "The Great Gatsby," where the plot, story, characters and everything else have to be made from scratch...

There's a "mold" of sorts already in place for detective fiction and a lot (not all) sci-fi and fantasy fiction...for as fun a read as they can be, there's a definite mold and formula to the Harry Potter and Hitchhiker's Guide books...

There is no "Great Gatsby mold" or "Pride and Prejudice mold." They benefit from being unique creations that way.

Using some mold or formula to shape your book's structure is inevitable--ie, having chapters, first or third-person narration, a three, five, or two-act structure--but even for those like Christie who wrote good works with a formula, I'd rather have the works that are mold-free and almost always works that are one-offs or, if they must be a series, a PLANNED series (there's a big difference between Tolkien planning a sprawling trilogy and some author going "Ummmmmm...and then this happened, I guess...and then this..." to try and milk a 5th sequel from a book where he only planned to write one novel but is now trying to pump that cash cow for all it's worth. In fairness, hey, gotta make a living...but that doesn't mean that's good art.)

"Besides, there are a lot of bad versions of Homer's work."

That's like not voting for Shakespeare just because Ethan Hawke made one of the shittiest adaptations of "Hamlet" you'll ever see...that's hardly the fault of the author, yes?

RE: the translation point and homer

I would argue that the majority of Homer translations are more along the lines of co-authorship than merely a poor adaptation. And rather than just a poor adaptation, a poor performance--of the source material--is exactly the way you judge plays. But Homer's work isn't a play, so for one, I don't think the analogy really works. People aren't presenting Homer the way it would have been originally recited--but translated into English. In fact, I think a great deal of the appeal of Homer is lost in the transition of media. Just like a play can only really be appreciated onstage, I think Homer would only be able to be enjoyed to the fullest if it were recited amidst the fairs of ages past.

That sort of dramatic recitation with--as I understand it--improvised changes is a dead art form, and for better or worse, Homer's work doesn't carry very well--in my opinion--into the modern literary era. And, a lot of his rules, such as the dactylic hexameter (assuming I'm remembering the right one) simply don't work well in English. The Iliad and Odyssey were living stories, but they aren't living anymore. Similar arguments can be made against any ancient/translated author, but I think they're especially strong against Homer.

Anyways, that's mostly the reasons I voted against him. Why I voted for Adams is simply because I enjoyed his stories more. I would agree 100% with the statement that Homer is "greater" than Adams, but that's not how I'm viewing this contest, and not how I'm choosing my votes.

Can I get a full list of the people who voted against Homer, so that I can shit on them for the next 3 years?

Like honestly I love Thoreau, he's my favorite author, thinker, artist, poet, etc., by a mile, but objectively speaking, if you voted DOUGLAS ADAMS over fucking HOMER, you're thicker than the Hoover Dam. Jesus Christ. Get some culture you rubes.

I was joking about going to hell for voting against Thoreau. But you are DEFINITELY going to hell if you vote Adams over Homer.

I sincerely hope you are never in charge of some cultural heritage initiative like UNESCO or God forbid humanity's lifeboat or contact aliens or something. Jesus Christ.

I invite each of you undecideds to put in, say, two minutes of reading on each:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_adams

Do the right thing lol

This rarely happens, but I'm kind of with Thucy on this one.

Yo Thucy, get your head out of your ass, people have different opinions.

"Homer" is the culmination of hundreds of years of oral tradition. "He" is not literature in the way anything else is.

ghug, that's how literature started. To say Homer isn't literature the way other things are is like saying folk songs aren't songs like rock and roll is.

OK I'm submitting my first serious vote. I wish I could believe SYnapse would actually leave, but since I can't. . .

##VOTE Homer

Travesty must be averted.

Like, look, I get that everyone has different opinions, but if you vote Adams just because you enjoyed reading his books more than the Iliad in school, you're a bit of a short-sighted person.

Homer is part of our identify as a species. Adams is... just kind of funny. Kind of

You haven't quite grasped the concept of a Favorite Author Tournament, have you Thucy?

Oh no I have, I'm just kind of floored that so many people would actually prefer to have a copy of Adams with them as their only book on a desert island rather than something as rich, ancient, meaningful, and important as Homer.

Can you imagine? If you had lived on this island for 20 years with just the Odyssey in hand? You would really have something to contribute to the culture.

Adams, though... you may as well have watched Monty Python's Holy Grail 1000 times and keep saying those same tired jokes about the Knights Who Say Ni.

Look, Adams was a witty dude. But Christ. Against HOMER? There are probably only a few dozen writers ever who can stand against the richness and depth of those works which underpin nearly every other work.

The key word here is "author." I love the Iliad and the Odyssey, and I like all of the other stuff I've read attributed to Homer, but you can't take an entire civilization and call it an author.

It was already decided that Homer was an author in the nominating process, though. Or at least, I would imagine an argument like that is out-of-bounds with regard to the purpose of the contest... I follow you, ghug, but this objection seems a little late in the game.

like all of ghug's objections thus far in fact!

The thing about Adams is that he's inspired generations of scientists, who for now and countless years to come will be at the sharp end of human development and achievement. Homer, on the other hand, has inspired countless people like Thucy...

It's the FAVORITE Author Tourney, not necessarily the BEST Author...

I mean, Shakespeare possibly losing to J.K. Rowling in a BEST author tourney?
J.K. herself would probably say that's completely fucking absurd.
But in a popularity contest, where quality and influence are primary but not the only factors?
Different ballgame.

(That being said, you know, you guys can still totally vote for Shakespeare.) :p

And while I obviously am not persuaded by the "Homer wasn't an 'author'" camp, I can still see their point...the Greek myths that Homer's work stems from had been around in oral tradition for a long time before him, that's part of why "Homer" is so interesting in a historical sense, you're essentially seeing the transition from an oral to literary society with that figure and those texts.

At the same time, Adams was an author that came up with his own ideas...he had influences, sure, but while we don't know to what extent Homer the Human Being came up with any of his characters or plots, we can give Adams full credit for Arthur and Zaphod and Marvin and all the other factors of THHGTTG.

So I can see the argument that if we're going by "authors," Adams might trump Homer on the grounds the former was definitely an author whereas we don't know about the latter.

That being said, seeing the rationale behind an argument and agreeing with it are two different things, and I'd argue that if you took "Homer the Text" and placed it against "Adams the Text," Adams would last about as long against Homer as you yourself would, Thucy, when subjected to Vogon poetry (or, as it's otherwise known, krellin rants.)

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-22077-psych-thats-the-wrong-number-g-y7Ie.gif

if your favorite author isn't also an author you think is the best, i don't know what you do with your time that you find fruitful.

My favorite fruit is the raspberry. I consider, thus, that the raspberry is the best fruit. See?

Thucy, that may be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard you say.

How? I'm shocked, actually, that you seem to think favorite and best are different. Why would you consider something to be better than your favorite, without switching your favorite to the better thing?

Say I get a chance to try a mangosteen, and love it better than a raspberry. Would I not then say, "mangosteens are better than raspberries. I now believe mangosteens are the best fruit."

I don't follow you.

Unless you are talking about "best" in the other sense, the physical sense, which is like when your doctor says it would be "best" if you stopped drinking coffee to stem your heartburn?

However I don't see how that meaning can translate to a discussion of literature. Literature is all about personal relationship to the work and subjective affectation to it and for it.

The Bible is just a rag if no one reveres it, but as it happens, a billion people revere it. I don't fault any single one of them for saying it's their favorite book, nor the best book.

Consider the blueberry, Thucy. It is rich in antioxidants and nutrients, has a pleasing appearance, goes well with a variety of other foods, and is considered extremely tasty by many. It is, by any measure, a superior fruit. And yet it is not my favourite... Not even close. Can't stand the things in fact.

Ice Cream is my favourite food. Therefore ice cream is the best food. Oh wait, I've just got diabetes. Well that sucks.