as awesome as barks is, definitely lewis +1.

@ Warden:
"I don't think there's any denying that Barks has earned his place among comic creators, but it's really a different medium than this tournament if you ask me anyways"

To quote Obivan in the original thread of this tournament:
"I guess screenwriters would be fair game...

I still say film writing isn't literature (which isn't to say it's bad, just that I think writing for film's so different and films are their own art form, it's like saying writing an opera isn't literature, it doesn't imply badness at all, but rather difference) but then again, I'd be lying if I didn't say someone like Tarantino didn't deserve to be taught in a film and lit class...

So, sure, why not, we already have 12 "regular" authors (given how fast we filled up, let's see if we can get to 64!) so sure, screenwriters allowed. :) "

I figured if screenwriters are allowed, there is also place for a cartoonist ... meant to say graphic novel AUTHOR

Ah I didn't vote. Lewis

Thing is, I really love comics and graphic novels. There are a ton of great comics with a hell of a lot of depth and emotion to them, but at the same time, it'd be like including helicopters and blimps in an airplane course. They all fly, but the contest is for planes. Each type of aircraft is useful for a set of things, and some of those things overlap, or cross boundaries. Just like some aircraft start to blur the boundaries between helicopter and plane. Maybe I'm taking the analogy too far. (I personally wouldn't have allowed screenwriters (or rather people whose only published medium is screenplays) into the list for this "contest" either.)

Anyways, I really love comics as an art form, and I would agree that comics can certainly be considered literature as well as art. And yet, even if I were doing that for the purpose of this, I think Lewis still beats Barks in terms of content--or at the very least in that people are more aware of his content.

Only one vote per day Thucy - yougave yours already to me ;-p

I do agree that Barks does not really fit in the list authors present in this tournament and your analogy fits exactly. But as the title said FAVOURITE author tournament, I put him on my list anyway

Actually, the title said "favorite." No silly Brittish spellings from our authors.

...actually "favorite" is an Americanism...most of the English-speaking world uses "favourite", I believe.

Blame Noah Webster for the difference.

I understand the source of the difference, I just like to be unnecessarily obnoxious about it because I think the American spellings generally make more sense in terms of both pronunciation and etymology. Also because I like to be unnecessarily obnoxious about it.

Also, Lewos.

Lewis*

Yeah, although I criticize the division he made in English and the reasons for it, the changes he made were generally sensible.

Most of them were.

The "our"-"or" one is atrocious, though.

Not really. They're all of Latin origin, where the words ended in -or, and the phonetics match better.

Lewis: 12 (new scoring record)
Barks: 1

So, um, yeah...I think Lewis is going to win.

Actually I retract my vote. Make that 11.

Well, still a record. :p

11-1 Lewis leads Scrooge McDuck.

So, with C.S. Lewish setting a new record for individual points and margin of victory, trouncing Carl Barks 11-1 (see, maybe it would've gone better if he WAS former Giants linebacker Carl Banks!) we move on to...

Another Old British White Guy vs. Another Sci Fi Writer--

G.K. Chesterton (apologies, British WepDippers, it doesn't get much more stereotypically Stuffy British White Guy than that as far as names go) vs. Alistair Reynolds.

Never read either, but Chesterton gets referenced quite a bit in works I have read, and what am I, after all, but a shill for Stuffy Old British, European and American Authors, lol...so, sure, why not, the snob in me casting the vote (maybe the only one he'll get, Sci Fi authors have been getting a strong vote turnout) for Chesterton--

Chesterton: 1
Reynolds: 0

I don't know Reynolds, but I actively dislike Chesterton, so:

Reynolds.

Chesterton. One of the most underrated writers (and thinkers) of the twentieth century. It's partly his fault, because of how he writes, but anyway, he's amazing.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected"

Based on that and that alone, Chesterton.

Also, why oh why must so many of our American friends mention race at every possible opportunity? I am quite happy not having a clue what the race or nationality or age at the time of writing an author is/was. I am delighted that having pseudonyms means you often don't even know what sex an author is.

I like Neil Gaimen, and until this thread had no idea that he was a British author, or indeed that he was a he. It did not matter. All that mattered is that the words "Neil Gaimen" stamped on the outside of a book meant that there was a damned good chance I would like what was printed on the inside.

But no, another young, stuffy, American Jew guy insists on adding unnecessary labels. Pah!

(Also, damned good thread, obi. Keep it up ;) )

To quote Orwell, "Chesterton was a master of considerable talent who chose to suppress both his sensibilities and his intellectual honesty in the cause of Roman Catholic propaganda. "

Reynolds for sure.

"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid." -- Chesterton

And here is the beginning of "The Everlasting Man":


Far away in some strange constellation in skies infinitely remote, there is a small star, which astronomers may some day discover. At least I could never observe in the faces or demeanour of most astronomers or men of science any evidence that they have discovered it; though as a matter of fact they were walking about on it all the time. It is a star that brings forth out of itself very strange plants and very strange animals; and none stranger than the men of science. That at least is the way in which I should begin a history of the world, if I had to follow the scientific custom of beginning with an account of the astronomical universe. I should try to see even this earth from the outside, not by the hackneyed insistence of its relative position to the sun, but by some imaginative effort to conceive its remote position for the dehumanised spectator. Only I do not believe in being dehumanised in order to study humanity. I do not believe in dwelling upon the distances that are supposed to dwarf the world; I think there is even something a trifle vulgar about this idea of trying to rebuke spirit by size. And as the first idea is not feasible, that of making the earth a strange
planet so as to make it significant, I will not stoop to the other trick of making it a small planet in order to make it insignificant. I would
rather insist that we do not even know that it is a planet at all, in the sense in which we know that it is a place; and a very extraordinary place too. That is the note which I wish to strike from the first, if not in the astronomical, then in some more familiar fashion.

"Also, why oh why must so many of our American friends mention race at every possible opportunity? I am quite happy not having a clue what the race or nationality or age at the time of writing an author is/was. I am delighted that having pseudonyms means you often don't even know what sex an author is."

Possibly because--those in denial about the matter be damned--race is and always has been an important thing, politically, culturally and otherwise in America?

That's not to say our attitudes on the subject have always been positive--you could definitely make the argument our most infamous discussions and handling of the matter have been negative, and horrifically so--but that nevertheless means it's a topic that, I'd argue, is just always in conversation...people will ask "What are you?" in terms of ethnic/racial/religious background pretty damn frequently, unless it's extremely overt...what I mean is, it's not taboo, and comes up a lot.

...That or I just immensely prefer British to American authors on the whole...

Because--Thoreau be damned, Thucy--with the exception of Poe and a couple others, pre-Mark Twain, AMERICAN LITERATURE *SUCKS.* PERIOD. And if you're one of the people who don't like "Huck Finn," chances are American Literature sucks even MORE, and for an even longer period of time...and if you don't like either "The Great Gatsby" or "The Catcher in the Rye," there's a very real chance you're STILL waiting for a "Great American Novel" to come along that doesn't suck. On the other side of the coin, or Pond, there are plenty of crap British authors too--and oh the tangent I could go on THERE...Samuel Johnson and Charlotte Bronte, separated by the century marker but united in the fact they both had the biggest stick up each of their overly-uptight asses--but existing for more than 230+ years means a bit more in terms of your overall options.

If you have to take American Lit, and you're studying anything pre-Twain...especially if it's a novel...well, buddy, you're shit out of luck--

You're getting "The Scarlet Letter" inflicted upon you whether you like it or not, because fuck all if we had anything GOOD written novel-wise yet aside from "Moby Dick" and a couple others...and let's be honest, even if you like "Moby Dick," Melville's an acquired taste.

Dislike a few major American authors, and you're left with huge gaps to fill.

Consequently, you could conceivably dislike Beowulf, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen and Dickens all at once, and you STILL have a ton of great authors to choose from, and with the exception of Beowulf, you have great options WITHIN all those other time periods, too.

Major European Lit just has a deeper stable of talent than American Lit.

Looks like both of those authors are worth taking a peek at.

"it's a topic that, I'd argue, is just always in conversation...people will ask "What are you?" in terms of ethnic/racial/religious background pretty damn frequently, unless it's extremely overt...what I mean is, it's not taboo, and comes up a lot."

Wow... You guys should really learn the art of talking about the weather :p. It's not a taboo over here, either, it's just that nobody cares. A bit like shoe sizes, every one has one, some are more obvious than others, but if someone were to mention them all the ruddy time they would be considered at best tedious and at worst bloody annoying.

Shoe size also has no impact at all on the quality of books unless the book happens to be about shoes... in which case it is best avoided anyway.

Chesterton

Too many sci fi nerds already

...Careful, Thucy, I think we're in danger of agreeing on one...