World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[Abrantes]

Anybody ever heard of Spanish, Italian, French or German literature?

Nope. Never heard of it. Don't even know why we're talking about it.

 

[Ozymandias]

Anybody ever heard of Spanish, Italian, French or German literature?

At least two of my alltime favorite novels were written in French, and if both authors are not selected, I will be sorely displeased.

Well, I would certainly quit eating madeleines. But on the other hand, it might not be an idea whose time has come.

 

[larry_boy_44]

:gulp:

I think everyone on my list wrote in English...

I'm in trouble, aren't I?

(note: its not 20 people long yet....)

 

[timschochet]

Also, when it comes to plays and poetry, you might want to consider Asian, as well as the Middle East and Persia.

 

[krista4]

I love the Joyce discussion. And having been up for nearly 32 hours straight now, it seems a good time to make a few comments about how I see the poet/playwright and novel/short story categories. I don't think this in any way disadvantages the people who have already chosen, as you'll see that my list of factors I don't take into account doesn't apply to the guys taken (other than Shakespeare's popularity), and my impression of what I'm looking for has been close to the reasoning of the drafters who have chosen authors already.

Three things that will provide little (or no) influence on my rankings:

1. Popularity, in the sense of sales of copies of the work or general public familiarity.

2. Accessibility - probably the most controversial factor. I did question Thorn's taking this into account in the GAO, though I understand that there is reason to do so. For me, I don't care. Incredible fiction is worth the effort, and this is where I completely agree with Thorn that an effort with a difficult book/story can be more than worth the reward.

3. Personal enjoyment - My three "favorite" writers--the ones whose books I soak up at every opportunity--will undoubtedly not be drafted. And I will admit sometimes to not enjoying some of the works of my top writers. I see this similarly to film...I certainly believe Citizen Kane is a top-tier movie, but I admire that film much more than I enjoyed it. I hope to make the same distinction with writers and leave personal preference aside as much as possible (note wording).

So the question is, if not all that, what will be the judging criteria? In my judging, what I am looking for are influence and innovation, and also, for lack of a better word, "craft".

Again, it seems that each pick so far seemed to be concentrating on the pertinent factors, so I think everyone is still on equal footing, but I wanted to help avoid pitfalls for all drafters.

 

[Ozymandias]

Also, when it comes to plays and poetry, you might want to consider Asian, as well as the Middle East and Persia.

Indeed; the moving finger writes...But he's only considered second rate.

 

[krista4]

Anybody ever heard of Spanish, Italian, French or German literature?

I think all, save perhaps Italian, will be well represented before all is said and done.

O RLY?

 

[flysack]

Three things that will provide little (or no) influence on my rankings:1. Popularity, in the sense of sales of copies of the work or general public familiarity.2. Accessibility - probably the most controversial factor. I did question Thorn's taking this into account in the GAO, though I understand that there is reason to do so. For me, I don't care. Incredible fiction is worth the effort, and this is where I completely agree with Thorn that an effort with a difficult book/story can be more than worth the reward. 3. Personal enjoyment - My three "favorite" writers--the ones whose books I soak up at every opportunity--will undoubtedly not be drafted. And I will admit sometimes to not enjoying some of the works of my top writers. I see this similarly to film...I certainly believe Citizen Kane is a top-tier movie, but I admire that film much more than I enjoyed it. I hope to make the same distinction with writers and leave personal preference aside as much as possible (note wording).

 

[krista4]

Also, I was talking to the boyfriend tonight about how difficult it is to have poets/playwrights lumped together. Yeah, I know, I know, too many categories, blahblahblah. But there are what I call "pure poets" that I think are going to get short shrift as a result--by drafters, judges, and commentators.

 

[timschochet]

Also, I was talking to the boyfriend tonight about how difficult it is to have poets/playwrights lumped together. Yeah, I know, I know, too many categories, blahblahblah. But there are what I call "pure poets" that I think are going to get short shrift as a result--by drafters, judges, and commentators.

Sorry Krista. I agree, it's imperfect. I did the best I could

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Anybody ever heard of Spanish, Italian, French or German literature?

I think all, save perhaps Italian, will be well represented before all is said and done.

O RLY?

I don't have an Italian writer on my novelest and short story list. Poetry is another story, but the comment was made in the context of just the other category.

 

[timschochet]

Three things that will provide little (or no) influence on my rankings:

1. Popularity, in the sense of sales of copies of the work or general public familiarity.

2. Accessibility - probably the most controversial factor. I did question Thorn's taking this into account in the GAO, though I understand that there is reason to do so. For me, I don't care. Incredible fiction is worth the effort, and this is where I completely agree with Thorn that an effort with a difficult book/story can be more than worth the reward.

3. Personal enjoyment - My three "favorite" writers--the ones whose books I soak up at every opportunity--will undoubtedly not be drafted. And I will admit sometimes to not enjoying some of the works of my top writers. I see this similarly to film...I certainly believe Citizen Kane is a top-tier movie, but I admire that film much more than I enjoyed it. I hope to make the same distinction with writers and leave personal preference aside as much as possible (note wording).

The two of you snobs are just like every literary professor I ever had and hated. Here's a quote from a well known popular novelist of the late 20th century from one of his best novels:

Speaking carefully, not stuttering (he has not stuttered in better than five years), he says: "I don't understand this at all. I don't understand any of this. Why does a story have to be socio-anything? Politics...culture...history...aren't those natural ingredients in any story, if it's told well? I mean..." he looks around, sees hostile eyes, and realizes dimly that they see this as some sort of attack. Maybe it even is. They are thinking, he realizes, that maybe there is a sexist death merchant in their midst. "I mean...can't you guys just let a story be a story?"

No one replies. Silence spins out. He stands there looking from one cool set of eyes to the next. The sallow girl chuffs out smoke and snubs her cigarette in an ashtray she has brought along in her backpack.

Finally the instructor says softly, as if to a child having an inexplicable tantrum, "Do you believe XXXXXXXXXX was just telling stories? Do you believe Shakespeare was just interested in making a buck? Come now, Bill. Tell us what you think."

"I think that's pretty close to the truth," Bill says after a long moment in which he honestly considers the question, and in their eyes he sees a kind of damnation.

 

[Mario Kart]

Just wondering, but did DC let us know when he would be available?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Three things that will provide little (or no) influence on my rankings:

1. Popularity, in the sense of sales of copies of the work or general public familiarity.

2. Accessibility - probably the most controversial factor. I did question Thorn's taking this into account in the GAO, though I understand that there is reason to do so. For me, I don't care. Incredible fiction is worth the effort, and this is where I completely agree with Thorn that an effort with a difficult book/story can be more than worth the reward.

3. Personal enjoyment - My three "favorite" writers--the ones whose books I soak up at every opportunity--will undoubtedly not be drafted. And I will admit sometimes to not enjoying some of the works of my top writers. I see this similarly to film...I certainly believe Citizen Kane is a top-tier movie, but I admire that film much more than I enjoyed it. I hope to make the same distinction with writers and leave personal preference aside as much as possible (note wording).

The two of you snobs are just like every literary professor I ever had and hated. Here's a quote from a well known popular novelist of the late 20th century from one of his best novels:

Speaking carefully, not stuttering (he has not stuttered in better than five years), he says: "I don't understand this at all. I don't understand any of this. Why does a story have to be socio-anything? Politics...culture...history...aren't those natural ingredients in any story, if it's told well? I mean..." he looks around, sees hostile eyes, and realizes dimly that they see this as some sort of attack. Maybe it even is. They are thinking, he realizes, that maybe there is a sexist death merchant in their midst. "I mean...can't you guys just let a story be a story?"

No one replies. Silence spins out. He stands there looking from one cool set of eyes to the next. The sallow girl chuffs out smoke and snubs her cigarette in an ashtray she has brought along in her backpack.

Finally the instructor says softly, as if to a child having an inexplicable tantrum, "Do you believe XXXXXXXXXX was just telling stories? Do you believe Shakespeare was just interested in making a buck? Come now, Bill. Tell us what you think."

"I think that's pretty close to the truth," Bill says after a long moment in which he honestly considers the question, and in their eyes he sees a kind of damnation.

I agree with most of Krista's list, but I will say this - there are a few writers, notably one Frenchman and one Englishman, whose influence stems largely from the fact that are widely popular and have been since their own time. I think that should be given due consideration.

 

[mad sweeney]

Hey guys, just woke up and caught up. I'm going to sit down and find out what happened to the ragtag crew of the Battlestar Galactica last night while I was working. I would PM a writeup so the draft could proceed smoothly while I indulge myself but Thorn threw a wrench in that plan. I'll make a pick today if it gets to me but it won't be for a few hours. I am in mortal fear of seing/hearing any tidbit from the finale so I am staying away from all media until I watch it.

Did I mention that I am not a fan of Thorn right now?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Hey guys, just woke up and caught up. I'm going to sit down and find out what happened to the ragtag crew of the Battlestar Galactica last night while I was working. I would PM a writeup so the draft could proceed smoothly while I indulge myself but Thorn threw a wrench in that plan. I'll make a pick today if it gets to me but it won't be for a few hours. I am in mortal fear of seing/hearing any tidbit from the finale so I am staying away from all media until I watch it.Did I mention that I am not a fan of Thorn right now?

its good! enjoy it...and its saturday, and the clock hasn't even started on weekdays yet... take your time lol...

 

[Abrantes]

Three things that will provide little (or no) influence on my rankings:

1. Popularity, in the sense of sales of copies of the work or general public familiarity.

2. Accessibility - probably the most controversial factor. I did question Thorn's taking this into account in the GAO, though I understand that there is reason to do so. For me, I don't care. Incredible fiction is worth the effort, and this is where I completely agree with Thorn that an effort with a difficult book/story can be more than worth the reward.

3. Personal enjoyment - My three "favorite" writers--the ones whose books I soak up at every opportunity--will undoubtedly not be drafted. And I will admit sometimes to not enjoying some of the works of my top writers. I see this similarly to film...I certainly believe Citizen Kane is a top-tier movie, but I admire that film much more than I enjoyed it. I hope to make the same distinction with writers and leave personal preference aside as much as possible (note wording).

The two of you snobs are just like every literary professor I ever had and hated. Here's a quote from a well known popular novelist of the late 20th century from one of his best novels:

Speaking carefully, not stuttering (he has not stuttered in better than five years), he says: "I don't understand this at all. I don't understand any of this. Why does a story have to be socio-anything? Politics...culture...history...aren't those natural ingredients in any story, if it's told well? I mean..." he looks around, sees hostile eyes, and realizes dimly that they see this as some sort of attack. Maybe it even is. They are thinking, he realizes, that maybe there is a sexist death merchant in their midst. "I mean...can't you guys just let a story be a story?"

No one replies. Silence spins out. He stands there looking from one cool set of eyes to the next. The sallow girl chuffs out smoke and snubs her cigarette in an ashtray she has brought along in her backpack.

Finally the instructor says softly, as if to a child having an inexplicable tantrum, "Do you believe XXXXXXXXXX was just telling stories? Do you believe Shakespeare was just interested in making a buck? Come now, Bill. Tell us what you think."

"I think that's pretty close to the truth," Bill says after a long moment in which he honestly considers the question, and in their eyes he sees a kind of damnation.

What part of the above criteria do you disagree with, in the context of this draft?Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

 

[timschochet]

Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

I agree with you. And I do like craft. I just like to see a combination of everything. There's certainly a place for Joyce in literature. But the fact that he's always placed at the very top, with this sort of attitude like "we can't help it if you don't understand him; we do, and that makes us superior; sorry if you're not smart enough or educated enough to 'get it'" THAT'S what grates at me. But hey, I'm not judging the category, so my opinion is just for fun. Don't take it seriously.Anyway, if Thorn decided to transfer Joyce to wildcard, I'd be forced to rank him a 9 or 10. Given the amount of regard the man gets, what choice would I have?

 

[Abrantes]

Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

I agree with you. And I do like craft. I just like to see a combination of everything. There's certainly a place for Joyce in literature. But the fact that he's always placed at the very top, with this sort of attitude like "we can't help it if you don't understand him; we do, and that makes us superior; sorry if you're not smart enough or educated enough to 'get it'" THAT'S what grates at me. But hey, I'm not judging the category, so my opinion is just for fun. Don't take it seriously.Anyway, if Thorn decided to transfer Joyce to wildcard, I'd be forced to rank him a 9 or 10. Given the amount of regard the man gets, what choice would I have?

Hey, no worries. Just a pet peeve, really.

 

[Orange Crush]

Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

I agree with you. And I do like craft. I just like to see a combination of everything. There's certainly a place for Joyce in literature. But the fact that he's always placed at the very top, with this sort of attitude like "we can't help it if you don't understand him; we do, and that makes us superior; sorry if you're not smart enough or educated enough to 'get it'" THAT'S what grates at me. But hey, I'm not judging the category, so my opinion is just for fun. Don't take it seriously.Anyway, if Thorn decided to transfer Joyce to wildcard, I'd be forced to rank him a 9 or 10. Given the amount of regard the man gets, what choice would I have?

Tim, you really appear to be all over the place here. I'm beginning to think Larry had a point.

 

[timschochet]

Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

I agree with you. And I do like craft. I just like to see a combination of everything. There's certainly a place for Joyce in literature. But the fact that he's always placed at the very top, with this sort of attitude like "we can't help it if you don't understand him; we do, and that makes us superior; sorry if you're not smart enough or educated enough to 'get it'" THAT'S what grates at me. But hey, I'm not judging the category, so my opinion is just for fun. Don't take it seriously.Anyway, if Thorn decided to transfer Joyce to wildcard, I'd be forced to rank him a 9 or 10. Given the amount of regard the man gets, what choice would I have?

Tim, you really appear to be all over the place here. I'm beginning to think Larry had a point.

Hardly. I'm making the same qualification that Krista makes, to a certain extent. There is stuff that that we can admire because we know it's good, and there's stuff that I like. The judge really should make decisions based on what is good. But since I'm not judging James Joyce, I can discuss whether I like him or not. I don't.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Guess I'll just have to live with whoever gets taken in the next 38 picks.

2.1 Confucius (Philosopher/Intellectual)

Almost didn't take him due to the blurred line separating philosophers and intellectuals, but decided to worry about that later. I'll toss in a writeup later to stop holding the draft up any longer.

Confucius (Chinese: 孔夫子; pinyin: Kǒng Fūzǐ; Wade-Giles: K'ung-fu-tzu), lit. "Master Kong,"[1] (September 28, 551 BC – 479 BC) was a Chinese thinker and social philosopher, whose teachings and philosophy have deeply influenced Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and Vietnamese thought and life.

His philosophy emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. These values gained prominence in China over other doctrines, such as Legalism (法家) or Taoism (道家) during the Han Dynasty[2][3][4] (206 BC – 220 AD). Confucius' thoughts have been developed into a system of philosophy known as Confucianism (儒家). It was introduced to Europe by the Jesuit Matteo Ricci, who was the first to Latinise the name as "Confucius."

In the Analects 論語, Confucius presents himself as a "transmitter who invented nothing".[7] He put the greatest emphasis on the importance of study,[21][22] and it is the Chinese character for study (or learning) that opens the text. In this respect, he is seen by Chinese people as the Greatest Master.[23] Far from trying to build a systematic theory of life and society or establish a formalism of rites, he wanted his disciples to think deeply for themselves and relentlessly study the outside world,[24] mostly through the old scriptures and by relating the moral problems of the present to past political events (like the Annals) or past expressions of feelings by common people and reflective members of the elite (preserved in the poems of the Book of Odes[25]).[26]

In times of division, chaos, and endless wars between feudal states, he wanted to restore the Mandate of Heaven “天命” that could unify the "world" (i.e. China) and bestow peace and prosperity on the people.[27] Because his vision of personal and social perfections was framed as a revival of the ordered society of earlier times, Confucius is often considered a great proponent of conservatism, but a closer look at what he proposes often shows that he used (and perhaps twisted) past institutions and rites to push a new political agenda of his own: a revival of a unified royal state, whose rulers would succeed to power on the basis of their moral merit, not their parentage;[28][29] these would be rulers devoted to their people, reaching for personal and social perfection.[30] Such a ruler would spread his own virtues to the people instead of imposing proper behavior with laws and rules.[31]

One of the deepest teachings of Confucius may have been the superiority of personal exemplification over explicit rules of behavior. Because his moral teachings emphasise self-cultivation, emulation of moral exemplars, and the attainment of skilled judgment rather than knowledge of rules, Confucius's ethics may be considered a type of virtue ethics. His teachings rarely rely on reasoned argument, and ethical ideals and methods are conveyed more indirectly, through allusions, innuendo, and even tautology. This is why his teachings need to be examined and put into proper context in order to be understood.[32][33] A good example is found in this famous anecdote:

廄焚。子退朝，曰：“傷人乎？”不問馬。

When the stables were burnt down, on returning from court, Confucius said, "Was anyone hurt?" He did not ask about the horses.

Analects X.11, tr. A. Waley

The passage conveys the lesson that by not asking about the horses, Confucius demonstrated that a sage values human beings over property; readers of this lesson are led to reflect on whether their response would follow Confucius's, and to pursue ethical self-improvement if it would not. Confucius, an exemplar of human excellence, serves as the ultimate model, rather than a deity or a universally true set of abstract principles. For these reasons, according to many Eastern and Western commentators, Confucius's teaching may be considered a Chinese example of humanism.[34]

Perhaps his most famous teaching was the Golden Rule stated in the negative form, often called the silver rule:

子貢問曰、有一言、而可以終身行之者乎。子曰、其恕乎、己所 不欲、勿施於人。

Adept Kung asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"

The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton

I have been giving a lot a thought to this pick. I have a pretty good background in Eastern thought, even studied Sanskrit for a bit and thought about focusing in Eastern philosophy. I chose not to because it became more and more apparent to me that the abyss between eastern and western philosophical method is huge. On these grounds many argue we should not use the term philosophy to describe eastern thought because they do not follow the methods we assume when thinking about philosophical issues. That being said, what it really means is that the ground from which they argue in the east is often difficult to smoke out and often overlooked by western scholars of philosophy. With all that in mind here is my view on this pick.Personally I love it. Arguable Confucianism has influenced more people than just about any theory in the world. In fact, it is the western lack of understanding about Confucian ideals that makes the claims of China being "communist" problematic; but that is another argument. Confucian philosophy remains grounded in ancient Chinese views of humanity and their place in the universe. There are no gods in ancient Chinese thought, at least not creator gods as we understand them. Rather humanity brought forth the Golden Age of Kings who created everything from language to art. This means that humanity remains responsible for everything in the world, plus, if people follow the ancient golden rules if you will, they will continue to thrive and the King can simply sit and face east; literally needing to do nothing. The Confucian Analects are really a workbook of how these rules should be followed in the "Warring Period" when these philosophies really began to become influential in China. However, there is not a lot of critical questioning in the philosophical sense as we understand it. Rather, questions are posed that play into the hand of Confucian ideals. Does this mean Confucius was a poor philosopher, not necessarily, does it mean he should be the #3 off the board, not so sure?

I think this is a solid pick, but he is not in my top 5 though he did make the top 10; barely.

 

[FUBAR]

Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

I agree with you. And I do like craft. I just like to see a combination of everything. There's certainly a place for Joyce in literature. But the fact that he's always placed at the very top, with this sort of attitude like "we can't help it if you don't understand him; we do, and that makes us superior; sorry if you're not smart enough or educated enough to 'get it'" THAT'S what grates at me. But hey, I'm not judging the category, so my opinion is just for fun. Don't take it seriously.Anyway, if Thorn decided to transfer Joyce to wildcard, I'd be forced to rank him a 9 or 10. Given the amount of regard the man gets, what choice would I have?

My dislike for snobs isn't directed at Joyce, it goes beyond that. In law school, the professors I didn't like would almost demand you use the biggest words and complicate things in your finals or in your mock trials. In real life, the best attorneys don't make things more complicated than they have to be. The ability to take a complicated subject and make it simple is IMO, the highest intelligence. To a degree, even Einstein's E=MC2 simplifies a very complicated subject. It isn't easy for everyone to understand, but it's much simpler than it could be. IMO, this is where Joyce fails but other authors succeed. Not to mention, a truly great book can be understood on multiple levels. One of my favorite books (I'll mention later, you know that whole spotlighting thing) is great IMO because the first time you read it you're thinking it's a great story. The next time or if you bother to think things deeper, you realize there's a lot of stuff in there that will blow you away.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

I agree with you. And I do like craft. I just like to see a combination of everything. There's certainly a place for Joyce in literature. But the fact that he's always placed at the very top, with this sort of attitude like "we can't help it if you don't understand him; we do, and that makes us superior; sorry if you're not smart enough or educated enough to 'get it'" THAT'S what grates at me. But hey, I'm not judging the category, so my opinion is just for fun. Don't take it seriously.Anyway, if Thorn decided to transfer Joyce to wildcard, I'd be forced to rank him a 9 or 10. Given the amount of regard the man gets, what choice would I have?

My dislike for snobs isn't directed at Joyce, it goes beyond that. In law school, the professors I didn't like would almost demand you use the biggest words and complicate things in your finals or in your mock trials. In real life, the best attorneys don't make things more complicated than they have to be. The ability to take a complicated subject and make it simple is IMO, the highest intelligence. To a degree, even Einstein's E=MC2 simplifies a very complicated subject. It isn't easy for everyone to understand, but it's much simpler than it could be. IMO, this is where Joyce fails but other authors succeed. Not to mention, a truly great book can be understood on multiple levels. One of my favorite books (I'll mention later, you know that whole spotlighting thing) is great IMO because the first time you read it you're thinking it's a great story. The next time or if you bother to think things deeper, you realize there's a lot of stuff in there that will blow you away.

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

 

[Gigantomachia]

Pretty long winded just to let him know you think his pick sucked and to let the rest know there's lots of value left in the category.

The whole reason I was "long winded" was to say I don't think the pick sucked. I won't know where it falls overall until all the picks are in, though I agree there is some great value still left.

 

[timschochet]

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

Once again, while both sides are going to accuse me of being all over the map, it really is in the middle. It's not just a question of one person preferring escargot and someone else enjoying potato chips. I like both. If you're going to choose novelists for this draft, meaning you're supposed to be selecting the greatest of all time, they really should be literary. If you're choosing the greatest restaurants in the world, you're not going to choose McDonald's, no matter how popular it is.On the other hand the restaurants you do choose, besides having great decor and being awfully expensive better have delicious food. How the food tastes is really at the heart of the matter, not how it's prepared or served or how nice it looks. Certain authors never "tasted" good to me, Joyce being one of them.

 

[timschochet]

Pretty long winded just to let him know you think his pick sucked and to let the rest know there's lots of value left in the category.

The whole reason I was "long winded" was to say I don't think the pick sucked. I won't know where it falls overall until all the picks are in, though I agree there is some great value still left.

You've already lost credibility with me by not having Aristotle as your clear #1. A is A!!!!

 

[larry_boy_44]

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

Once again, while both sides are going to accuse me of being all over the map, it really is in the middle. It's not just a question of one person preferring escargot and someone else enjoying potato chips. I like both. If you're going to choose novelists for this draft, meaning you're supposed to be selecting the greatest of all time, they really should be literary. If you're choosing the greatest restaurants in the world, you're not going to choose McDonald's, no matter how popular it is.On the other hand the restaurants you do choose, besides having great decor and being awfully expensive better have delicious food. How the food tastes is really at the heart of the matter, not how it's prepared or served or how nice it looks. Certain authors never "tasted" good to me, Joyce being one of them.

but its incredibly stupid to eat at the $100/plate restaurant if McDonald's actually tastes better...Isn't the whole point of eating finding food that you enjoy and partaking in that food?Well, shouldn't the whole point of reading be finding books that you enjoy and then enjoying those books?Thus... what sense does it make to claim that books that no one likes are great? No one likes them...

 

[timschochet]

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

Once again, while both sides are going to accuse me of being all over the map, it really is in the middle. It's not just a question of one person preferring escargot and someone else enjoying potato chips. I like both. If you're going to choose novelists for this draft, meaning you're supposed to be selecting the greatest of all time, they really should be literary. If you're choosing the greatest restaurants in the world, you're not going to choose McDonald's, no matter how popular it is.On the other hand the restaurants you do choose, besides having great decor and being awfully expensive better have delicious food. How the food tastes is really at the heart of the matter, not how it's prepared or served or how nice it looks. Certain authors never "tasted" good to me, Joyce being one of them.

but its incredibly stupid to eat at the $100/plate restaurant if McDonald's actually tastes better...Isn't the whole point of eating finding food that you enjoy and partaking in that food?Well, shouldn't the whole point of reading be finding books that you enjoy and then enjoying those books?Thus... what sense does it make to claim that books that no one likes are great? No one likes them...

Sure, if it's just you, and you're looking for your own enjoyment. But if you're making a list of the best ever, other factors need to be examined.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

Once again, while both sides are going to accuse me of being all over the map, it really is in the middle. It's not just a question of one person preferring escargot and someone else enjoying potato chips. I like both. If you're going to choose novelists for this draft, meaning you're supposed to be selecting the greatest of all time, they really should be literary. If you're choosing the greatest restaurants in the world, you're not going to choose McDonald's, no matter how popular it is.On the other hand the restaurants you do choose, besides having great decor and being awfully expensive better have delicious food. How the food tastes is really at the heart of the matter, not how it's prepared or served or how nice it looks. Certain authors never "tasted" good to me, Joyce being one of them.

but its incredibly stupid to eat at the $100/plate restaurant if McDonald's actually tastes better...Isn't the whole point of eating finding food that you enjoy and partaking in that food?Well, shouldn't the whole point of reading be finding books that you enjoy and then enjoying those books?Thus... what sense does it make to claim that books that no one likes are great? No one likes them...

Sure, if it's just you, and you're looking for your own enjoyment. But if you're making a list of the best ever, other factors need to be examined.

the thing is with restaurants, you'd give a happy medium... if someone asked you for a good place to eat you aren't gonna give them the pretentious place that most don't like, and you aren't gonna give them the fast food place... You are gonna go in the middle, the place that is well liked and of at least marginal "quality" (in a snobby sense)...for some reason, though, it seems in art that that is not what ever is done... instead we give the snobbiest answers every time... which makes absolutely no sense to me...

 

[Gigantomachia]

Pretty long winded just to let him know you think his pick sucked and to let the rest know there's lots of value left in the category.

The whole reason I was "long winded" was to say I don't think the pick sucked. I won't know where it falls overall until all the picks are in, though I agree there is some great value still left.

You've already lost credibility with me by not having Aristotle as your clear #1. A is A!!!!

His philosophy is solid, but he is deeply indebted to Plato who gets the clear #1 in my book. Besides, I think Plato was the deeper thinker as well.

 

[timschochet]

Pretty long winded just to let him know you think his pick sucked and to let the rest know there's lots of value left in the category.

The whole reason I was "long winded" was to say I don't think the pick sucked. I won't know where it falls overall until all the picks are in, though I agree there is some great value still left.

You've already lost credibility with me by not having Aristotle as your clear #1. A is A!!!!

His philosophy is solid, but he is deeply indebted to Plato who gets the clear #1 in my book. Besides, I think Plato was the deeper thinker as well.

Hart, in The 100 has Aristotle as the #14 most influential person in history, while Plato is #40. Why the difference? Hart argues that Aristotle's ideas have had much a much greater impact upon civilization, especially Islam and Catholicism.

 

[flysack]

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

(quoted because it sums up a number of people's sentiments)A couple retorts -

1. So far I've been labeled a snob because I explained Joyce's place in the history of the novel and the short story, and argued for his preeminence in a "novelist/short story" category based on .........wait for it.......................

....his exercise of the novel and short story.

2. Not one person has addressed my discussion of the novel, its limits, its slow death, nothing, not a word, just - "I like books that make me flip the page. Joyce makes my head hurt."

3. I know enormous amounts of people who love Joyce. Some like quoting him after 12 beers. You know, because he's so hard to understand.

4. Bloomsday. Ever hear of it? The entire city of Dublin stops and parties its collective a!@ off on June 16th because that's the day Ulysses takes place. Because none of them understand it. They just know some countryman of theirs wrote this book that a bunch of snobs said was good. Nor do they do this in various cities around the world, including places where English isn't even the primary language. They don't dress up like Joyce, what they think his characters look like, cite lines of the book in the streets after 12 pints of Guinness and several shots of Jameson, nor do they have contests over Joycean lore. Because he's just so damn tough to understand. This all sounds suspiciously like a literary Star Trek convention, and we all know Star Trek is easy to understand. Not one person at Bloomsday even knows what Joyce's fiction is like. It just isn't simple enough to devote a worldwide party to. That damn confounding Joyce. Why couldn't he make things easier for us to understand so we could have an annual party to celebrate his work? What a snob.

If I'm snide in these comments, it's because I'm a tad ticked off that I've been repeatedly labeled a "snob" (directly or indirectly) for knowing and appreciating my craft. It's left a bitter taste in my mouth. Especially when everyone else can have extensive arguments about historical and philosophical figures without resorting to such ad hominem arguments. I've been the subject of some poor gamesmanship, IMO.

That's all. Continue the draft.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

(quoted because it sums up a number of people's sentiments)A couple retorts -

1. So far I've been labeled a snob because I explained Joyce's place in the history of the novel and the short story, and argued for his preeminence in a "novelist/short story" category based on .........wait for it.......................

....his exercise of the novel and short story.

2. Not one person has addressed my discussion of the novel, its limits, its slow death, nothing, not a word, just - "I like books that make me flip the page. Joyce makes my head hurt."

3. I know enormous amounts of people who love Joyce. Some like quoting him after 12 beers. You know, because he's so hard to understand.

4. Bloomsday. Ever hear of it? The entire city of Dublin stops and parties its collective a!@ off on June 16th because that's the day Ulysses takes place. Because none of them understand it. They just know some countryman of theirs wrote this book that a bunch of snobs said was good. Nor do they do this in various cities around the world, including places where English isn't even the primary language. They don't dress up like Joyce, what they think his characters look like, cite lines of the book in the streets after 12 pints of Guinness and several shots of Jameson, nor do they have contests over Joycean lore. Because he's just so damn tough to understand. This all sounds suspiciously like a literary Star Trek convention, and we all know Star Trek is easy to understand. Not one person at Bloomsday even knows what Joyce's fiction is like. It just isn't simple enough to devote a worldwide party to. That damn confounding Joyce. Why couldn't he make things easier for us to understand so we could have an annual party to celebrate his work? What a snob.

If I'm snide in these comments, it's because I'm a tad ticked off that I've been repeatedly labeled a "snob" (directly or indirectly) for knowing and appreciating my craft. It's left a bitter taste in my mouth. Especially when everyone else can have extensive arguments about historical and philosophical figures without resorting to such ad hominem arguments. I've been the subject of some poor gamesmanship, IMO.

That's all. Continue the draft.

actually my statements have nothing to do with Joyce since I don't know him at all, rather with the idea that books that are difficult to read and aren't enjoyable to the vast majority of people are somehow better than books that people actually enjoy reading...Its possible to personally like Joyce and not be a snob, and even to recognize his effect on things... It just seems like in these drafts (and the American draft) and in any "top authors" list, we are expected to list a bunch of authors no one really wants to read...

 

[Abrantes]

2.1 Confucius (Philosopher/Intellectual)

I have been giving a lot a thought to this pick. I have a pretty good background in Eastern thought, even studied Sanskrit for a bit and thought about focusing in Eastern philosophy. I chose not to because it became more and more apparent to me that the abyss between eastern and western philosophical method is huge. On these grounds many argue we should not use the term philosophy to describe eastern thought because they do not follow the methods we assume when thinking about philosophical issues. That being said, what it really means is that the ground from which they argue in the east is often difficult to smoke out and often overlooked by western scholars of philosophy. With all that in mind here is my view on this pick.Personally I love it. Arguable Confucianism has influenced more people than just about any theory in the world. In fact, it is the western lack of understanding about Confucian ideals that makes the claims of China being "communist" problematic; but that is another argument. Confucian philosophy remains grounded in ancient Chinese views of humanity and their place in the universe. There are no gods in ancient Chinese thought, at least not creator gods as we understand them. Rather humanity brought forth the Golden Age of Kings who created everything from language to art. This means that humanity remains responsible for everything in the world, plus, if people follow the ancient golden rules if you will, they will continue to thrive and the King can simply sit and face east; literally needing to do nothing. The Confucian Analects are really a workbook of how these rules should be followed in the "Warring Period" when these philosophies really began to become influential in China. However, there is not a lot of critical questioning in the philosophical sense as we understand it. Rather, questions are posed that play into the hand of Confucian ideals. Does this mean Confucius was a poor philosopher, not necessarily, does it mean he should be the #3 off the board, not so sure?

I think this is a solid pick, but he is not in my top 5 though he did make the top 10; barely.

I was right there with you up to the last few sentences. Not sure I quite get your reservations about Confucian thinking. You clearly understand the differences between western and eastern thought, but seem to knock Confucius down a peg or two due to what is largely a cultural difference, rather than a trait strictly limited to one philosopher.Naturally, my selection has more to do with his overwhelming influence and application over the years, rather than the debatable, relative "deepness" of his thoughts. Still, I can't think of more than one or two philosophers to even merit consideration over him, to the point of Confucius barely making it into your top 10.

Or maybe I'm just bitter.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Hart, in The 100 has Aristotle as the #14 #13 most influential person in history, while Plato is #40. Why the difference? Hart argues that Aristotle's ideas have had much a much greater impact upon civilization, especially Islam and Catholicism.

Fixored

Which reminds me...I'm tracking this one in a Excel spreadsheet as well; will send to you when the draft is over and we're compiling the judges scores for seeding.

 

[Abrantes]

Its possible to personally like Joyce and not be a snob, and even to recognize his effect on things... It just seems like in these drafts (and the American draft) and in any "top authors" list, we are expected to list a bunch of authors no one really wants to read...

To be fair, how many authors would you personally say people want to read, Larry?

Just kidding, but Tolstoy is a massively enjoyable read, despite the length of his major works, and I suspect other authors who will end up on here are amazingly accessible as well. Anna Karenina was more of a "page-turner" for me than almost anything else I've read.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Pretty long winded just to let him know you think his pick sucked and to let the rest know there's lots of value left in the category.

The whole reason I was "long winded" was to say I don't think the pick sucked. I won't know where it falls overall until all the picks are in, though I agree there is some great value still left.

You've already lost credibility with me by not having Aristotle as your clear #1. A is A!!!!

His philosophy is solid, but he is deeply indebted to Plato who gets the clear #1 in my book. Besides, I think Plato was the deeper thinker as well.

Hart, in The 100 has Aristotle as the #14 most influential person in history, while Plato is #40. Why the difference? Hart argues that Aristotle's ideas have had much a much greater impact upon civilization, especially Islam and Catholicism.

Basically because Hart was a scientist who understood influence in accord with how it "advanced" a particular ideal. There is no denying Aristotle played a huge role in western thought, but you have to remember that before he was reintroduced most had no idea about Aristotle's philosophy but were well aware of Plato. Plato's philosophy had a huge influence on the development of Christianity and some have argued without the reflection of Christian ideals in the respected Greek philosophical tradition read through particular texts written by Plato Christianity might not have thrived as well as it did from 450-1000 CE. Moreover, as I mentioned in my original post on this issue you don't find a huge difference in philosophical positions between Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle happened to be more interested in practical questions than perhaps Platonism was, but when you push Aristotle ontologically he and Plato are saying pretty much the same thing.Furthermore, in the actual tradition of western philosophy most of the exceedingly influential authors have put Plato in a class of his own, and there are good reasons for this if one really reads these ancient Greek thinkers in detail.

 

[Gigantomachia]

2.1 Confucius (Philosopher/Intellectual)

I have been giving a lot a thought to this pick. I have a pretty good background in Eastern thought, even studied Sanskrit for a bit and thought about focusing in Eastern philosophy. I chose not to because it became more and more apparent to me that the abyss between eastern and western philosophical method is huge. On these grounds many argue we should not use the term philosophy to describe eastern thought because they do not follow the methods we assume when thinking about philosophical issues. That being said, what it really means is that the ground from which they argue in the east is often difficult to smoke out and often overlooked by western scholars of philosophy. With all that in mind here is my view on this pick.Personally I love it. Arguable Confucianism has influenced more people than just about any theory in the world. In fact, it is the western lack of understanding about Confucian ideals that makes the claims of China being "communist" problematic; but that is another argument. Confucian philosophy remains grounded in ancient Chinese views of humanity and their place in the universe. There are no gods in ancient Chinese thought, at least not creator gods as we understand them. Rather humanity brought forth the Golden Age of Kings who created everything from language to art. This means that humanity remains responsible for everything in the world, plus, if people follow the ancient golden rules if you will, they will continue to thrive and the King can simply sit and face east; literally needing to do nothing. The Confucian Analects are really a workbook of how these rules should be followed in the "Warring Period" when these philosophies really began to become influential in China. However, there is not a lot of critical questioning in the philosophical sense as we understand it. Rather, questions are posed that play into the hand of Confucian ideals. Does this mean Confucius was a poor philosopher, not necessarily, does it mean he should be the #3 off the board, not so sure?

I think this is a solid pick, but he is not in my top 5 though he did make the top 10; barely.

I was right there with you up to the last few sentences. Not sure I quite get your reservations about Confucian thinking. You clearly understand the differences between western and eastern thought, but seem to knock Confucius down a peg or two due to what is largely a cultural difference, rather than a trait strictly limited to one philosopher.Naturally, my selection has more to do with his overwhelming influence and application over the years, rather than the debatable, relative "deepness" of his thoughts. Still, I can't think of more than one or two philosophers to even merit consideration over him, to the point of Confucius barely making it into your top 10.

Or maybe I'm just bitter.

I feel ya. But when it comes to depth and range of thought with respect to questions of what it means to be, which has always been the driving force behind philosophy, Confucius is simply not in the same class as others. This does not mean he is wrong about his account of being, he simply does not really question some central issues insofar as he remains deeply committed to ancient Chinese ideals. In fact, some of the most interesting eastern thought comes in the wake of Confucius, but I will stop there.

 

[Abrantes]

Eight hours since the last pick.

 

[FUBAR]

4. Bloomsday. Ever hear of it? The entire city of Dublin stops and parties its collective a!@ off on June 16th because that's the day Ulysses takes place. Because none of them understand it. They just know some countryman of theirs wrote this book that a bunch of snobs said was good. Nor do they do this in various cities around the world, including places where English isn't even the primary language. They don't dress up like Joyce, what they think his characters look like, cite lines of the book in the streets after 12 pints of Guinness and several shots of Jameson, nor do they have contests over Joycean lore. Because he's just so damn tough to understand. This all sounds suspiciously like a literary Star Trek convention, and we all know Star Trek is easy to understand. Not one person at Bloomsday even knows what Joyce's fiction is like. It just isn't simple enough to devote a worldwide party to. That damn confounding Joyce. Why couldn't he make things easier for us to understand so we could have an annual party to celebrate his work? What a snob.

dude, it's Dublin and an excuse to drink.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I have never understood why we all tell eachother things that we don't really like are so great when you can't find people who actually enjoy them... they just all "know" its "classic" and that they should "like" it... so they do... but that makes no sense...

(quoted because it sums up a number of people's sentiments)A couple retorts -

1. So far I've been labeled a snob because I explained Joyce's place in the history of the novel and the short story, and argued for his preeminence in a "novelist/short story" category based on .........wait for it.......................

....his exercise of the novel and short story.

2. Not one person has addressed my discussion of the novel, its limits, its slow death, nothing, not a word, just - "I like books that make me flip the page. Joyce makes my head hurt."

3. I know enormous amounts of people who love Joyce. Some like quoting him after 12 beers. You know, because he's so hard to understand.

4. Bloomsday. Ever hear of it? The entire city of Dublin stops and parties its collective a!@ off on June 16th because that's the day Ulysses takes place. Because none of them understand it. They just know some countryman of theirs wrote this book that a bunch of snobs said was good. Nor do they do this in various cities around the world, including places where English isn't even the primary language. They don't dress up like Joyce, what they think his characters look like, cite lines of the book in the streets after 12 pints of Guinness and several shots of Jameson, nor do they have contests over Joycean lore. Because he's just so damn tough to understand. This all sounds suspiciously like a literary Star Trek convention, and we all know Star Trek is easy to understand. Not one person at Bloomsday even knows what Joyce's fiction is like. It just isn't simple enough to devote a worldwide party to. That damn confounding Joyce. Why couldn't he make things easier for us to understand so we could have an annual party to celebrate his work? What a snob.

If I'm snide in these comments, it's because I'm a tad ticked off that I've been repeatedly labeled a "snob" (directly or indirectly) for knowing and appreciating my craft. It's left a bitter taste in my mouth. Especially when everyone else can have extensive arguments about historical and philosophical figures without resorting to such ad hominem arguments. I've been the subject of some poor gamesmanship, IMO.

That's all. Continue the draft.

If it makes you feel any better, I think Gigantomachia is kind of an effete snob too.J/K - but I'd take it in stride. No one is really singling you out, and I think this is actually a really good discussion about the value of literature and different levels and types of enjoyment. I analogize it to drinking beer (I actually had a whole wine analogy typed up, but don't want to be painted into the snob corner ). If we all only drank what tastes good on the first try, no one would ever drink beer. You drink enough of it though because of the enjoyable side effects and eventually you find that you enjoy the taste of it. Then, if you started out on light beer, you probably had to choke down the first Guinness or Newcastle you try to take down. Over time you develop a taste for that too and can appreciate the differences and complexity between beers.

Of course with literature you may not have an obvious pleasurable side effect to get you through the rough patches, and everyone's reasons for doing it are probably different. Then some people are going to be perfectly happy drinking grape juice their whole lives, which is fine too. It doesn't diminish the enjoyment of the people who like to drink beer or vice versa.

 

[Doug B]

Eight hours since the last pick.

I've been checking in as much as I can in case DCThunder shows up.I will be offline almost all day Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. I'm hoping to get this third rounder in before I have to go on voluntary autoskip.

 

[krista4]

Three things that will provide little (or no) influence on my rankings:

1. Popularity, in the sense of sales of copies of the work or general public familiarity.

2. Accessibility - probably the most controversial factor. I did question Thorn's taking this into account in the GAO, though I understand that there is reason to do so. For me, I don't care. Incredible fiction is worth the effort, and this is where I completely agree with Thorn that an effort with a difficult book/story can be more than worth the reward.

3. Personal enjoyment - My three "favorite" writers--the ones whose books I soak up at every opportunity--will undoubtedly not be drafted. And I will admit sometimes to not enjoying some of the works of my top writers. I see this similarly to film...I certainly believe Citizen Kane is a top-tier movie, but I admire that film much more than I enjoyed it. I hope to make the same distinction with writers and leave personal preference aside as much as possible (note wording).

The two of you snobs are just like every literary professor I ever had and hated. Here's a quote from a well known popular novelist of the late 20th century from one of his best novels:

Speaking carefully, not stuttering (he has not stuttered in better than five years), he says: "I don't understand this at all. I don't understand any of this. Why does a story have to be socio-anything? Politics...culture...history...aren't those natural ingredients in any story, if it's told well? I mean..." he looks around, sees hostile eyes, and realizes dimly that they see this as some sort of attack. Maybe it even is. They are thinking, he realizes, that maybe there is a sexist death merchant in their midst. "I mean...can't you guys just let a story be a story?"

No one replies. Silence spins out. He stands there looking from one cool set of eyes to the next. The sallow girl chuffs out smoke and snubs her cigarette in an ashtray she has brought along in her backpack.

Finally the instructor says softly, as if to a child having an inexplicable tantrum, "Do you believe XXXXXXXXXX was just telling stories? Do you believe Shakespeare was just interested in making a buck? Come now, Bill. Tell us what you think."

"I think that's pretty close to the truth," Bill says after a long moment in which he honestly considers the question, and in their eyes he sees a kind of damnation.

I agree with most of Krista's list, but I will say this - there are a few writers, notably one Frenchman and one Englishman, whose influence stems largely from the fact that are widely popular and have been since their own time. I think that should be given due consideration.

(Yes, it is 3 am and I can't sleep so what do I do? Check the draft thread. )This is exactly right. You'll note that I chose my words carefully to indicate popularity only in the sense of sales or general public knowledge of the author. Definitely, though, popularity can affect influence, which I deem to be a huge factor in the ranking.

 

[Mjolnirs]

I'm many pages behind, but I wanted to chime in that I'm glad to see Galileo go this high. One of my favorite scientists of all time.

2.10 Galileo Galilei, scientist

Highlights:

--scientist who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution and is widely regarded as the 'father of modern science'

--improved the design of the telescope which led to many discoveries, including the phases of Venus, 4 moons of Jupiter, features of the moon, and sun spots

--his studies played a major role in understanding kinematics, a branch of classical mechanics

--contributed many ideas to the fields of astronomy, mathematics, and physics

--perhaps most famous for challenging the church's understanding of the universe, where Galileo supported the model of heliocentrism (sun at center of universe) instead of geocentrism (Earth at center of universe). He was forced to recant his beliefs and spent remaining years under house arrest

Quite simply, he's one of the world's greatest scientists and his beliefs and achievements helped change the world. His full bio is here.

 

[krista4]

Anti-snob snobs are equally obnoxious. I hate this modern construct which suggests that things that are harder to understand should be scoffed at and dismissed as sheer pretentiousness. While some of it does fit this description, the lack of love for pure craft saddens me. I'm firmly in Krista's and Flysack's camp, in terms of judging standards.

I agree with you. And I do like craft. I just like to see a combination of everything. There's certainly a place for Joyce in literature. But the fact that he's always placed at the very top, with this sort of attitude like "we can't help it if you don't understand him; we do, and that makes us superior; sorry if you're not smart enough or educated enough to 'get it'" THAT'S what grates at me. But hey, I'm not judging the category, so my opinion is just for fun. Don't take it seriously.Anyway, if Thorn decided to transfer Joyce to wildcard, I'd be forced to rank him a 9 or 10. Given the amount of regard the man gets, what choice would I have?

I missed where anyone here said that. Link?

 

[flysack]

4. Bloomsday. Ever hear of it? The entire city of Dublin stops and parties its collective a!@ off on June 16th because that's the day Ulysses takes place. Because none of them understand it. They just know some countryman of theirs wrote this book that a bunch of snobs said was good. Nor do they do this in various cities around the world, including places where English isn't even the primary language. They don't dress up like Joyce, what they think his characters look like, cite lines of the book in the streets after 12 pints of Guinness and several shots of Jameson, nor do they have contests over Joycean lore. Because he's just so damn tough to understand. This all sounds suspiciously like a literary Star Trek convention, and we all know Star Trek is easy to understand. Not one person at Bloomsday even knows what Joyce's fiction is like. It just isn't simple enough to devote a worldwide party to. That damn confounding Joyce. Why couldn't he make things easier for us to understand so we could have an annual party to celebrate his work? What a snob.

dude, it's Dublin and an excuse to drink.

 

[krista4]

Anybody ever heard of Spanish, Italian, French or German literature?

I think all, save perhaps Italian, will be well represented before all is said and done.

O RLY?

I don't have an Italian writer on my novelest and short story list. Poetry is another story, but the comment was made in the context of just the other category.

Gotcha. I misread and thought you were applying it to both. I like your beer analogy in a later post, but Larry is just going to tell you that the fact that millions of people drink Bud Light means that people who prefer other beers are just snobs.

And can't comment much on flysack's long Joyce post except to say

 

[krista4]

Also, I was talking to the boyfriend tonight about how difficult it is to have poets/playwrights lumped together. Yeah, I know, I know, too many categories, blahblahblah. But there are what I call "pure poets" that I think are going to get short shrift as a result--by drafters, judges, and commentators.

Sorry Krista. I agree, it's imperfect. I did the best I could

Yeah, it's all good. We can't get into these small category divisions or you'll end up with a never-ending draft. I hope some of these guys and gals will get their due when we discuss the undrafted.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Zeus wins.

And Odin would kick HIS ###.Norse gods are simply tougher than the Greek ones. If there was some major war between the two, the Norse Gods would win easy.

(Of course, the Greek gods would simply laugh it off, and go back to their drinking and cavorting...)