"Um, would you say that of Ivan Tolstoi's Doc Z.?"

I assume you mean Boris Pasternak?

I'd take the writings of mediocre historians or economists over that of the greatest fiction writers. When gibberish like Ulysses & Satanic Verses are considered the 'greatest novels of the century' you know the genre is severely lacking.

The Trial has absolutely no plot. The LOTR was basically an extraordinarily overwrought Beowulf. These are insufferable books to read. I can't even make it through the first 100 pages of the Fellowship of the Ring without falling asleep.

So you're a philistine. Gotcha.

Reality is far more interesting than anything anyone could ever dream up. I'll take Jonathan Sumption's Hundred Years' War pentilogy over LOTR any day.

That said, Tom Clancy - RIP. I read Red October when I was a kid and thought it was totally awesome. I also liked most of the movies made from your books.

I also almost exclusively read nonfiction. But to say "those who can't write, write fiction" is just absurd.

Yes Pasternak. Sorry, brain fart. I actually read the first few chapters of it in Russian with a Moscovite friend of mine helping once.

But what about the Dickens and the Dumas and the Hugo and the rest? Do you really think the non-fix is that much better than Shakespeare or Chaucer?

I haven't read Les Mis. It's a massive book and didn't seem particularly interesting.

I've read a sufficient amount of Dickens though, and, while I get that he's hailed as a great writer, I cannot seriously believe that people find him anything but dull and repetitive. His characters are caricatures, his analysis of major political events is painfully facile, and his writing style is full of cheap sentimentality (common in 19th century novels I think).

As for Shakespeare, I enjoy some of his plays as performed (where the history isn't completely butchered), but reading through them is fairly taxing. If I have to pick a playwright, I'd pick George Bernard Shaw. His plays as written are actually fairly entertaining to read.

The fiction writers I do have considerable respect for are the ones who write children's fiction - like AA Milne & Rudyard Kipling. But you read these stories expecting them to be children's stories, and so your expectations are different.

This is what you said.

"Those who can't write, write fiction."


Now you're trying to spin it into criticisms of specific authors. Sorry, but that's not what you said. You said, effectively, only bad writers write fiction, which implies all fiction is bad. I happen to also have no interest at all in reading Les Mis and I can't stand to read Dickens. I've been halfway through Great Expectations for ten years. Not a huge Shakespeare guy either. But that's all a result of my personal tastes, not the talent of the authors.

It's just not the case that "those who can't write, write fiction." It's lunacy. It's dismissing all novels, all plays, all poems as worthless. Maybe it's easier to write a shitty novel than to write a shitty biography, but that's not your claim. You're damning the entirety of literature. For once, I look forward to the tome obiwanobiwan writes in high dudgeon.

I was asked about specific authors, so I answered the questions. I don't get what you're carrying on about here.

Most fiction writing is bad writing. I stand by that.

That isn't what you said. You said "those who can't write, write fiction." That's a very different claim than that most fiction writing is bad writing. Just the sheer volume of fan fiction that losers write online might make that so.

Your claim was far broader and much more ridiculous.

For someone who goes to the mat for fiction writing, you seem to have trouble with a figure of speech. I don't know what your problem is, other than you being you. The best fiction writing is worse than lower-than-average writing in other genres. I stand by this statement. People who think the French should stop growing their own food can either accept it or dismiss it as "lunacy", I couldn't care less.

Don't metathread. All my argument was for was free trade, anyway.

I see no reason to think your opinion has merit. Paradise Lost is worse than a lower-than-average biography of Winston Churchill? You can't really believe that.

Biographies are usually hagiography or the writer wants to prove the subject is the worst person who ever lived. They make their subjects, in either case, more influential than they really were. That's why serious historians don't do biography and leave it to pop history.

OK... add all biographies to the list of written words Putin33 dismisses out of hand. Address my point, maybe?

So Paradise Lost is worse than a lower-than-average book on the history of a county in rural Missouri? If you really mean what you say then you have to believe this.

Dumas Dartagnan and Hugo's Quasimodo and Cervante's Don Quixote. Three of the best characters from five of the best novels of all time. I'll put them above *many* non-fiction biographies and histories I've read. Boring writing is boring writing whether it be fiction or history or biography. One mist capture the readers interest. It just happens your love of history means you can tolerate a boring writer of non-fiction better than I cam and my love of 19th century Europe means I can deal with the dryer sections of Dickens better than you.

Paradise Lost is a poor example for your argument. If you're going to pick a 'classic' at least pick something where are the syntax isn't incomprehensible, as if poorly translated from a foreign language.

LOL, *where the syntax isn't incomprehensible.

Those who can't debate, debate on internet forums.

Paradise Lost is widely held to be one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language. I didn't have trouble understanding it when I read it in middle school. If you're going to disqualify uncontroversial classics just based on your personal preferences we'll get nowhere, but just to play along.

So Huck Finn is worse than a lower-than-average book on the history of a county in rural Missouri?

Isn't Huck Finn a history of a county in rural Missouri?

"Paradise Lost is widely held to be one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language. "

That's sad.

"I didn't have trouble understanding it when I read it in middle school."

You also studied Latin, if I remember correctly, and probably have no problem reading backwards sentences.

"Those who can't debate, debate on internet forums."

True.

"Isn't Huck Finn a history of a county in rural Missouri?"

If that's what you really think, that's what's sad.

I studied German.


So Huck Finn is worse than a lower-than-average book on the history of a county in rural Missouri? Answer. Is this what you believe?

Sentences backward read you can, yes? Strong with the force, indeed you are.

It's worse than a below-average history book, yes.

That's fucking moronic.

Defend everything that occurs after Tom Sawyer enters the picture.

Something inside you is broken.

That's Putin

I suppose the morality tale of A Christmas Carol is just offensive to you, even though it has little religion in it and focuses on "Peace on Earth and good will to men."