SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 2:26 PM

Outing overrated writers is a favorite pastime of critics everywhere, and this summer particularly so.

First there was Gabriel Josipivici’s attack in The Guardian on Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan and Julian Barnes. They exhibit a “petty-bourgeois uptightness,” a “terror of not being in control,” and a “schoolboy desire to boast and to shock,” Josipivici is reported to have said. Reading them, he continues, “leaves me feeling that I and the world have been made smaller and meaner.” Clearly.

This was followed by Anis Shivani’s list of the fifteen most overrated American writers at The Huffington Post. Shivani didn’t go for broke like Josipivici or like B.R. Myers did way back in 2001 when he took down the likes of Annie Proulx, Cormac McCarthy, Don Delillo and Paul Auster, though he did have the courage to name Billy Collins, John Ashbery and Amy Tan.

And not to be outdone by their fellow anglophones, Alex Good and Steven W. Beattie gave us the ten most overrated Canadian writers in The National Post–you know, people like the Erin Moure and Joseph Boyden.

Anyway, I like these lists as much as the next person and agree that, overall, literature in the West is in a sad state of decline. But to give our poor contemporary writers some respite, here are a couple of the most outrageously blunt critical statements ever made, listed in no particular order, some more justified than others:

1. T.S. Eliot on Milton: “Milton is unsatisfactory” as a human being, “writes English like a dead language” and was a “bad influence” on later poets.

2. An anonymous reviewer (1807) of William Wordsworth’s Poetical Works: “Than the volumes now before us we never saw any thing better calculated to excite disgust and anger in a lover of poetry. The drivelling nonsense of some of Mr. Wordsworth’s poems is insufferable, and it is equally insufferable that such nonsense should have been written by a man capable, as he is, of writing well.”

3. The Earl of Rochester on John Dryden: “Five hundred Verses, ev’ry Morning writ, / Proves you no more a Poet, than a Wit.”

4. Raymond M. Weaver on T.S. Eliot’s Poems (1920): “The Poems—ironically so-called—of T.S. Eliot, if not heavy and pedantic parodies of the ‘new poetry’, are documents that would find sympathetic readers in the waiting-room of a private sanatorium. Clinically analyzed they suggest in conclusion one of Mr. Eliot’s lines: ‘Afer such knowledge, what forgiveness?’ As a parodist, Mr. Eliot is lacking in good taste, invention, and wit. Compared with Rudyard Kipling, Thackerary, and Phoebe Cary (among the most accomplished parodists in the language) Mr. Eliot is prodigiously labored and dull. General incomprehensibility and sordidness of detail (defects not difficult to imitate, but excessively difficult to parody) are Mr. Eliot’s distinguishing traits. He is usually intelligible only when he is nasty.”

5. Edgar Allan Poe on Nathaniel Hawthorne: “The fact is, that if Mr. Hawthorne were really original, he could not fail of making himself felt by the public. But the fact is, he is not original in any sense.”

6. Charles Eliot Norton on Walt Whitman’s 1855 Leaves of Grass: “The poems, twelve in number, are neither in rhyme nor blank verse, but in a sort of excited prose broken into lines without any attempt at measure or regularity, and, as many readers will perhaps think, without any idea of sense or reason. The writer’s scorn for the wonted usages of good writing extends to the vocabulary he adopts; words usually banished from polite society are here employed without reserve and with perfect indifference to their effect on the reader’s mind; and not only is the book one not to be read aloud to a mixed audience, but the introduction of terms, never before heard or seen, and of slang expressions, often renders an otherwise striking passage altogether laughable.”

7. George Meredith on Charles Dickens: “Not much of Dickens will live, because it has so little correspondence to life. He was the incarnation of cockneydom, a caricaturist who aped the moralist; he should have kept to short stories. If his novels are read at all in the future, people will wonder what we saw in them.”

8. Oscar Wilde on George Meredith: “Ah! Meredith! Who can define him? His style is chaos illumined by flashes of lightning. As a writer he has mastered everything except language: as a novelist he can do anything, except tell a story: as an artist he is everything, except articulate.”

Feel free to add your own favorite zingers in the comments below.

16 Comments

    publius
    August 31st, 2010 | 2:33 pm

    Any Christian with a literary bent should read the works of Cormac McCarthy. Anyone who takes him ‘down’ has no idea what McCarthy’s work is about…. or dislikes him for his Old Testament themes.

    Tracy S. Altman
    August 31st, 2010 | 3:24 pm

    Flannery O’Connor said in a letter to one of her friends that “Ayn Rand is about as low as you can get re fiction,” and went on to say, “I hope you found it [Atlas Shrugged] on the subway floor” and hoped her friend left it there. (Don’t have the exact quote in front of me, but it can be easily found by looking under “Rand, Ayn” in the index of *The Habit of Being*.)

    Steve
    August 31st, 2010 | 3:35 pm

    Agreed, publius. I’m in the middle of “The Orchard Keeper” right now. There is great darkness, but also profound regeneration, in many of his works. He is one of America’s best contemporary writers.

    And I find it funny that Jon Wilmot was critical of anyone’s work. The Earl’s poetry is, apart from being ridiculously profane (I never thought I’d read so many f-bombs in 17th c poetry), very ordinary, at best.

    Micah Mattix
    August 31st, 2010 | 4:24 pm

    Publius and Steve:

    I like McCarthy too, but if you haven’t read B.R. Myers’s critique of his style, you should. I think he gets some (not all) things absolutely right. Good intentions don’t always equal good writing, and style is an extricable part of good fiction.

    Micah Mattix
    August 31st, 2010 | 4:43 pm

    Sorry, I meant inextricable.

    Boze
    August 31st, 2010 | 5:16 pm

    Reportedly, Stephen King once anonymously entered a short story contest. One of his reviewers noted, “This is the kind of thing Stephen King would write, if Stephen King knew how to write.”

    Feeney
    August 31st, 2010 | 6:11 pm

    Always loved Truman Capote’s comment on Kerouac’s “On The Road”: “That’s not writing, that’s typing”. So right!

    Craig Payne
    August 31st, 2010 | 6:39 pm

    Except for “The Waste Land” and “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” (admittedly, those are mighty big exceptions), I always thought Eliot was a much better critic than poet.

    David Deavel
    August 31st, 2010 | 7:31 pm

    Craig: Malcolm Muggeridge thought the same of Eliot. He made mention of this in his published diaries.

    Joe Z
    August 31st, 2010 | 8:32 pm

    “It’s interesting that all the folks that are buying it don’t know they’re reading a child’s book. Somebody ought to say what it is.”

    Flannery O’Connor on ‘To Kill a Mockingbird.’

    Micah Mattix
    August 31st, 2010 | 9:16 pm

    Excellent, Boze, Feeney, and Joe Z.

    astorian
    August 31st, 2010 | 10:53 pm

    George Orwell on Kipling:

    “It is no use pretending that Kipling’s view of life, as a whole, can be accepted or even forgiven by any civilized person. It is no use claiming, for instance, that when Kipling describes a British soldier beating a ‘nigger’ with a cleaning rod in order to get money out of him, he is acting merely as a reporter
    and does not necessarily approve what he describes. There is not the slightest sign anywhere in Kipling’s work that he disapproves of that kind of conduct–on the contrary, there is a definite strain of sadism in him, over and above the brutality which a writer of that type has to have. Kipling is a jingo imperialist, he is morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting. It is better to start by admitting that, and then to try to find out why it is that he survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.”

    JB in CA
    September 1st, 2010 | 3:51 am

    “I am so coarse, the things the poets see. Are obstinately invisible to me. For twenty years I’ve stared my level best. To see if evening—any evening—would suggest. A patient etherised upon a table; In vain. I simply wasn’t able.”

    —C. S. Lewis on “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”

    Stephen Seidman
    September 1st, 2010 | 12:58 pm

    For a compendium of extreme critical responses to works now regarded as masterpieces of Western classical music, see Nicolas Slonimsky’s “Lexicon of Musical Invective”.

    alypius
    September 1st, 2010 | 3:42 pm

    Somerset Maugham, on William Butler Yeats:

    “Though he could at times be very good company, he was a pompous, vain man; to hear him read his own verses was as excruciating a torture as anyone could be exposed to; he adopted the poses of a great poet as blatantly as a ham actor adopts the poses of great tragedian; and the disconcerting thing was that he was a great poet.”

    Great Modern Reading, pp600-601.

    Baceseras
    September 1st, 2010 | 4:07 pm

    The Times:

    “As a contribution to natural history, the book is negligible.”

    (of “The Wind in the Willows”)

=