World's Greatest Draft (3 Viewers)

[flysack]

Hi everybody.Just got in, and now the OPs are fully updated. Lots of interesting picks. I have a pet peeve...Some of you are not giving a category for your picks. This makes me upset. This makes me have to guess, and that is exactly what I'm doing. And then you will correct me later, and it is a pain in the ### to go back and retype some long Italian name in a different category. Do NOT write, "I don't know what category he goes in yet." #### that. If you're drafting the ####er, you better know what ####### category he's in. You can change it later if you must. And don't list three categories trying to impress everybody with how versatile your pick is. I'm not impressed; I'm confused and pissed off. Choose ONE category. If I sound a little pissed off, it's because just now I had to guess where to put Edmund Burke, Cardinal Richelieu, Martin Luther King, and Atilla the Hun.I probably got all of them wrong. Oh well.

Agree with this, and said as much yesterday. It makes things easier for judges as well. I know you can change the category later, but giving picks a provisional category helps the judges make provisional rankings. Then it'll just be a matter of editing and adjusting if someone pulls them out of our category later.

 

[flysack]

My top 5 for the category are Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Sophocles. The last three are in no particular order, though I do think Virgil is a worthy third.

I'm not laughing at whether he is or isn't; I'm just laughing at the last second bias pleading.

I agree, though I'd say Shakespeare and Homer are clear #1 and #2 (respectively), then the rest follow. I'm more inclined to say Sophocles is #3, but like I've said many times, this combo category annoys me. I'm glad I'm not judging it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

OK, don't want to hold anyone up so I will post now.

7.18 (138th pick) - Anton Chekhov - Playwright

Anton Chekhov bio

ETA: full bio

ANTON CHEKHOV (1860-1904)

His audience demanded laughter above all things, and, with his deep sense of the ridiculous, Chekhov asked nothing better. His stories, though often based on themes profoundly tragic, are penetrated by the light and subtle satire that has won him his reputation as a great humourist. But though there was always a smile on his lips, it was a tender one, and his sympathy with suffering often brought his laughter near to tears.

This delicate and original genius was at first subjected to harsh criticism, which Chekhov felt keenly, and THE description in "The Sea-Gull" of the trials of a young author is a cry from Chekhov's own soul. A passionate enemy of all lies and oppression, he already foreshadows in these early writings the protest against conventions and rules, which he afterward put into Treplieff's reply to Sorin in "The Sea-Gull": "Let us have new forms, or else nothing at all."

In 1884 he took his degree as doctor of medicine, and decided to practice, although his writing had by now taken on a professional character. He always gave his calling a high place, and the doctors in his works are drawn with affection and understanding. If any one spoke slightly of doctors in his presence, he would exclaim: "Stop! You don't know what country doctors do for the people!"

Chekhov fully realized later the influence which his profession had exercised on his literary work, and sometimes regretted the too vivid insight it gave him, but, on the other hand, he was able to write: "Only a doctor can know what value my knowledge of science has been to me," and "It seems to me that as a doctor I have described the sicknesses of the soul correctly." For instance, analysis in "The Sea-Gull" of the state of mind of an author has well been called "artistic diagnosis."

The young doctor-writer is described at this time as modest and grave, with flashes of brilliant gaiety. A son of the people, there was in his face an expression that recalled the simple-hearted village lad; his eyes were blue, his glance full of intelligence and kindness, and his manners unaffected and simple. He was an untiring worker, and between his patients and his desk he led a life of ceaseless activity. His restless mind was dominated by a passion of energy and he thought continually and vividly. Often, while jesting and talking, he would seem suddenly to plunge into himself, and his look would grow fixed and deep, as if he were contemplating something important and strange. Then he would ask some unexpected question, which showed how far his mind had roamed.

Success was now rapidly overtaking the young author; his first collection of stories appeared in 1887, another one in the same year had immediate success, and both went through many editions; but, at the same time, the shadows that darkened his later works began to creep over his light-hearted humour.

His impressionable mind began to take on the grey tinge of his time, but much of his sadness may also be attributed to his ever-increasing ill health.

Weary and with an obstinate cough, he went south in 1888, took a little cottage on the banks of a little river "abounding in fish and crabs," and surrendered himself to his touching love for nature, happy in his passion for fishing, in the quiet of the country, and in the music and gaiety of the peasants. "One would gladly sell one's soul," he writes, "for the pleasure of seeing the warm evening sky, and the streams and pools reflecting the darkly mournful sunset." He described visits to his country neighbors and long drives in gay company, during which, he says, "we ate every half hour, and laughed to the verge of colic."

His health, however, did not improve. In 1889 he began to have attacks of heart trouble, and the sensitive artist's nature appears in a remark which he made after one of them. "I walked quickly across the terrace on which the guests were assembled," he said, "with one idea in my mind, how awkward it would be to fall down and die in the presence of strangers."

It was during this transition period of his life, when his youthful spirits were failing him, that the stage, for which he had always felt a fascination, tempted him to write "Ivanoff," and also a dramatic sketch in one act entitled "The Swan Song," though he often declared that he had no ambition to become a dramatist. "The Novel," he wrote, "is a lawful wife, but the Stage is a noisy, flashy, and insolent mistress." He has put his opinion of the stage of his day in the mouth of Treplieff, in "The Sea-Gull," and he often refers to it in his letters as "an evil disease of the towns" and "the gallows on which dramatists are hanged."

He wrote "Ivanoff" at white-heat in two and a half weeks, as a protest against a play he had seen at one of the Moscow theatres. Ivanoff (from Ivan, the commonest of Russian names) was by no means meant to be a hero, but a most ordinary, weak man oppressed by the "immortal commonplaces of life," with his heart and soul aching in the grip of circumstances, one of the many "useless people" of Russia for whose sorrow Chekhov felt such overwhelming pity. He saw nothing in their lives that could not be explained and pardoned, and he returns to his ill-fated, "useless people" again and again, not to preach any doctrine of pessimism, but simply because he thought that the world was the better for a certain fragile beauty of their natures and their touching faith in the ultimate salvation of humanity.

Both the writing and staging of "Ivanoff" gave Chekhov great difficulty. The characters all being of almost equal importance, he found it hard to get enough good actors to take the parts, but it finally appeared in Moscow in 1889, a decided failure! The author had touched sharply several sensitive spots of Russian life, and the play was also marred by faults of inexperience, which, however, he later corrected. The critics were divided in condemning a certain novelty in it and in praising its freshness and originality. The character of Ivanoff was not understood, and the weakness of the man blinded many to the lifelike portrait. Chekhov himself was far from pleased with what he called his "literary abortion," and rewrote it before it was produced again in St. Petersburg. Here it was received with the wildest applause, and the morning after its performance the papers burst into unanimous praise. The author was enthusiastically fêted, but the burden of his growing fame was beginning to be very irksome to him, and he wrote wearily at this time that he longed to be in the country, fishing in the lake, or lying in the hay.

His next play to appear was a farce entitled "The Boor," which he wrote in a single evening and which had a great success. This was followed by "The Demon," a failure, rewritten ten years later as "Uncle Vanya."

All Russia now combined in urging Chekhov to write some important work, and this, too, was the writer's dream; but his only long story is "The Steppe," which is, after all, but a series of sketches, exquisitely drawn, and strung together on the slenderest connecting thread. Chekhov's delicate and elusive descriptive power did not lend itself to painting on a large canvas, and his strange little tragi-comedies of Russian life, his "Tedious Tales," as he called them, were always to remain his masterpieces.

In 1890 Chekhov made a journey to the island of Saghalien, after which his health definitely failed, and the consumption, with which he had long been threatened, finally declared itself. His illness exiled him to the Crimea, and he spent his last ten years there, making frequent trips to Moscow to superintend the production of his four important plays, written during this period of his life.

"The Sea-Gull" appeared in 1896, and, after a failure in St. Petersburg, won instant success as soon as it was given on the stage of the Artists' Theatre in Moscow. In Trigorin the author gives us one of the rare glimpses of his own mind, for Chekhov seldom put his own personality into the pictures of the life in which he took such immense interest.

In "The Sea-Gull" we see clearly the increase of Chekhov's power of analysis, which is remarkable in his next play, "The Three Sisters," gloomiest of all his dramas.

"The Three Sisters," produced in 1901, depends, even more than most of Chekhov's plays, on its interpretation, and it is almost essential to its appreciation that it should be seen rather than read. The atmosphere of gloom with which it is pervaded is a thousand times more intense when it comes to us across the foot-lights. In it Chekhov probes the depths of human life with so sure a touch, and lights them with an insight so piercing, that the play made a deep impression when it appeared. This was also partly owing to the masterly way in which it was acted at the Artists' Theatre in Moscow. The theme is, as usual, the greyness of provincial life, and the night is lit for his little group of characters by a flash of passion so intense that the darkness which succeeds it seems wellnigh intolerable.

"Unvle Vanya" followed "The Three Sisters," and the poignant truth of the picture, together with the tender beauty of the last scene, touched his audience profoundly, both on the stage and when the play was afterward published.

"The Cherry Orchard" appeared in 1904 and was Chekhov's last play. At its production, just before his death, the author was fêted as one of Russia's greatest dramatists. Here it is not only country life that Chekhov shows us, but Russian life and character in general, in which the old order is giving place to the new, and we see the practical, modern spirit invading the vague, aimless existence so dear to the owners of the cherry orchard. A new epoch is beginning, and at its dawn the singer of old, dim Russia was silenced.

In the year that saw the production of "The Cherry Orchard," Chekhov, the favourite of the Russian people, whom Tolstoi declared to be comparable as a writer of stories only to Maupassant, died suddenly in a little village of the Black Forest, whither he had gone a few weeks before in the hope of recovering his lost health.

Chekhov, with an art peculiar to himself, in scattered scenes, in haphazard glimpses into the lives of his characters, in seemingly trivial conversations, has succeeded in so concentrating the atmosphere of the Russia of his day that we feel it in every line we read, oppressive as the mists that hang over a lake at dawn, and, like those mists, made visible to us by the light of an approaching day.

 

[Abrantes]

OK, don't want to hold anyone up so I will post now.

7.18 (138th pick) - Anton Chekhov - Playwright

Anton Chekhov bio

Will post a writeup later.

Also, my first and second choice for the 8.03 pick was PMed to several people.

If it rolls back to me tonight, either Fennis, Krista4 or thatguy can post it.

TIA

Hell yeah. Awesome pick.

 

[flysack]

Hey you have MK's picks right?

J. R. R. Tolkien = Author - might be a little early but I have to follow Yankee's advice after losing Joan of Arc.

So...that's an interesting pick.

its a great pick if you look at influence... a bit early since he isn't as 'literary' as others, but still a great pick...almost anything that is labelled "fantasy" is based upon his work... D&D, Final Fantasy, Warcraft... everything...

My first thought was this was a rather silly line of argument.But I think it has an interesting correlation to the judging of painters. I guess one could argue that fantasy is a 'movement" within fiction, and Tolkein is certainly the 'father' of that movement. Just as other 'movements' might include science fiction, etc.

Father of a genre isn't a buff accomplishment, IMO (and this is a somewhat sketchy title anyway - look at any of the romantic poetry of the medieval era and you'll see all the groundwork for Tolkien). I love and respect The Lord of the Rings, but I wouldn't call Tolkien "great" when compared to any other novelist/short story writer taken. Fairies and Little People and Demons were all around for centuries before him. He just used the novel to give them an epic story. I dig him, but I bet he's 15th or less in the category, depending on who's drafted.

 

[timschochet]

Now that Wilbur Wright has been selected by Andy, Orville Wright is off limits and cannot be drafted. This was part of an unavoidable compromise I agreed to in order to make this draft one person only with the exception of the music category. And no, at the moment there is no one else that this applies to (at least, that I can think of.) If there is, I will let everyone know.

 

[Mario Kart]

I picked Tolkien because he did what many authors have not even attempted. He created another world, another genre, many languages, used prose, poetry, mythology and others. He did not just create a world but a whole universe with back stories, family trees, races, reason for them, and others. His books go more into depth than many others by a large margin. Lastly, I will say, in my opinion, compared to every text ever scribed, the Lord of the Rings (six books) is the best book/story ever scribed. With that, I gladly selected:

6.20 - J. R. R. Tolkien - Author

The whole world practically follows his theory of economics... be it good or bad, as was pointed out, but you take the good and you take the bad and there you have it. And, with the following pick, I selected:

7.01 - John Maynard Keynes - Intellectual

I would be interested to know the reasons for Tolkien's exclusion from a draft like this rather than the reasons for his inclusion. Could you explain... without additional spot lighting of course?

I think MK was having a very good draft. I know the Sun Tzu was controversial, but I liked it as a first rounder. All in all, a very solid draft. Until now. Sorry MK, this one is a stinker.

Mario KartLeaders -

Military - Sun Tzu (post #45) (1.01)

Scientist -

Inventor -

Discoverer/Explorer - Giovanni da Pian del Carpine (post #1281) (2.20)

Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr -

Novelist/Short stories - J. R. R. Tolkien (post #3003)(6.20)

Playwrights/Poets - Geoffrey Chaucer (post #1295) (3.01)

Villain -

Athlete -

Composer -

Musicians/Performers -

Painter - Claude Monet (post #2236) (4.20)

Artist/Non-Painter - Auguste Rodin (post #2248) (5.01)

Philosopher -

Religious Figure -

Celebrity -

Intellectual - John Maynard Keynes (post #3003) (7.01)

Rebel -

Wildcards -

 

[larry_boy_44]

Now that Wilbur Wright has been selected by Andy, Orville Wright is off limits and cannot be drafted. This was part of an unavoidable compromise I agreed to in order to make this draft one person only with the exception of the music category. And no, at the moment there is no one else that this applies to (at least, that I can think of.) If there is, I will let everyone know.

what about Penecillin? 3 people won the Nobel Prize for their work in discovering it/making it usable...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I picked Tolkien because he did what many authors have not even attempted. He created another world, another genre, many languages, used prose, poetry, mythology and others. He did not just create a world but a whole universe with back stories, family trees, races, reason for them, and others. His books go more into depth than many others by a large margin. Lastly, I will say, in my opinion, compared to every text ever scribed, the Lord of the Rings (six books) is the best book/story ever scribed. With that, I gladly selected:

6.20 - J. R. R. Tolkien - Author

this is what I was getting at...Tolkien created the ENTIRE HISTORY of Middle Earth... He had family trees for the kingdoms and nations that lived there... He had thousands of years of wars... He wrote what is essentially the encyclopedia of Middle Earth to go along with it...

He created a language, art, poetry, everything...

What Tolkien did is not only great, honestly, it borders on insanity... That's how much he did with it...

(note: think about it... if you knew someone who had, in their head, created a whole world with a complete history of it, different languages spoken in it, and all the other stuff involved in Middle Earth, wouldn't you think they were slightly crazy?)

 

[Fennis]

OK, don't want to hold anyone up so I will post now.

7.18 (138th pick) - Anton Chekhov - Playwright

Anton Chekhov bio

Will post a writeup later.

Also, my first and second choice for the 8.03 pick was PMed to several people.

If it rolls back to me tonight, either Fennis, Krista4 or thatguy can post it.

TIA

Hell yeah. Awesome pick.

 

[Mister CIA]

Abrantes, I'm mulling my choices at the moment. Feel free to skip me for now and I will get my pick(s) in shortly.

 

[flysack]

thatguy's team through 6 rounds:

Novelist - Leo Tolstoy Author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina, two of the greatest novels ever written; His ideas on non-violent resistance had profound effect on Gandhi

Again, I find this highly misleading. If you can cite something that connects Gandhi to Tolstoy, fine. Until then, I'll stick with the commonly held perception (claimed by Gandhi himself) that his ideas of passive resistance came from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, i.e. Indian culture.

III. Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)When Gandhi was studying law in London 1894, he wrote a "Guide to London," which mentioned of Tolstoy that "few men have been more given to wine and cigarettes... a man stupefies himself with these stimulants..."14 This, Gandhi's first reference to Tolstoy, suggests that his knowledge came through vegetarian and health literature. Gandhi was not deeply moved until the publication of The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book which, he wrote, "overwhelmed me."15

The circumstances of this event are interesting. Gandhi was 24, living alone in Pretoria, South Africa. He compared Tolstoy's teaching to that of the fundamentalists who had been pressing him to accept Christ. "Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me ... paled into insignificance," he wrote.16 This suggests that he did not find these qualities in his missionary friends. It also suggests that this was what he was searching for.

Gandhi later wrote of Tolstoy's book, "Its reading cured me of my skepticism and made me a firm believer in ahimsa [nonviolence]."17 It also helped him resolve the question of religious identity, for Tolstoy's Christianity was not based on special revelation, but was simply one instance of a universal law. The law of love was the mark of true religion in every tradition. Gandhi thereafter understood Christianity in Tolstoy's way. It liberated him from orthodoxy, as it had liberated Tolstoy, and provided a foundation for his identification with Hinduism.

Ten years pass before we find another reference to Tolstoy in Gandhi's writings, though he had read many of Tolstoy's pamphlets and books, and kept a picture of Tolstoy in his law office.

When Gandhi was in London in 1909, he sent a letter to Tolstoy about the condition British Indians in South Africa. Tolstoy responded, "I have just received your most interesting letter which has give me great pleasure. God helps our dear brothers and co-workers in the Transvaal. That same struggle of the tender against the harsh, of meekness and love against pride and violence, is every year making itself more and more felt here among us also, especially in one of the very sharpest of the conflicts of the religious law with the worldly laws - in refusals of military service. Such refusals are becoming ever more and more frequent... I greet you fraternally, and am glad to have intercourse with you."18

Gandhi continued the correspondence. Gandhi wrote 5 times to Tolstoy, and Tolstoy wrote 3 times to Gandhi. Tolstoy's last letter to Gandhi stated, "Your activity is the most essential work, the most important of all the work now being done in the world."19 Tolstoy died on November 7, 1910.

Despite Gandhi's admiration for Tolstoy, and his consistent citation of Tolstoy as the greatest proponent of nonviolence, there were significant differences between them. "Gandhi differed from Tolstoy both in his much more positive attitude toward the state and the nation, and in his belief in the need for active resistance to evil."20

Tolstoy taught absolute non-resistance. He believed that all coercive action was forbidden by Jesus, and this included almost all actions of government, not only war. He believed that as religion was based on the Law of Love, and the state was based on violence, they were incompatible. He also believed that the power which would undermine the state and permit a return to true religion was consistent individual refusal to cooperate. Such individual action could also lead to the formation of small voluntary communities of non-resistants living the new life and spreading the doctrine.

Gandhi taught nonviolent resistance. While asserting, with Tolstoy, the ethical primacy of nonviolence, he believed in taking purposive action to remove evils and to establish a better society. Unlike Tolstoy, Gandhi did not see nonviolent action as simply the refusal to participate in state violence, but as a means of inducing the state to change its policies. He took a more political route, seeking not to supplant the state with a perfectionist society, but to transform it by the efficacy of nonviolent means of social reform. Thus Gandhian nonviolence is not non-resistance, it is nonviolent resistance or nonviolent transformation.

Thanks thatguy.

I had no idea Tolstoy and Gandhi corresponded.

 

[Abrantes]

Bit surprised at the lack of musician picks thus far. Early or not, I was getting a little paranoid sitting on this pick. Shouldn't come as much of a surprise to those who followed my comments on the Greatest American Draft, but here we go.

7.20 Miles Dewey Davis III Musician/Performer

My personal take on Miles

A mercurial, creative force of nature. The epitome of a performer, composer, conductor and bandleader. Although I have immeasurable respect for the contributions of those such as Louis Armstrong, who laid the foundation for what we know as jazz music so many years ago, no other musician has been as instrumental to the metamorphosis of jazz music as Miles, in my view. During his lifetime, he led the charge on nearly every single development in jazz, and sitting still was never an option. He was a catalyst in the experimentation with cool jazz, modal jazz, jazz-fusion and jazz-funk, often to the dismay of his fans, who lamented his broadening horizons as he eschewed his more traditional origins.

I'd say Miles didn't get his due in the GAD (not by a long shot). The depth of his discography is unparalleled, and even a cursory glance reveals some of the most cherished artistic achievements in jazz (and all of music, in several cases). Kind of Blue is the most celebrated jazz album of all time, and for good reason. Listening to it, it feels as if every note has always belonged in that precise order and pitch. The overwhelming certainty and ease is stunning.

Still, that is just the tip of Miles' musical iceberg. His three collaborations with the Gil Evans Orchestra (Miles Ahead, Porgy & Bess and my personal favorite Miles album Sketches of Spain) are true jazz milestones (pun intended). His two great quintets are held as two of the finest ensembles in jazz history. The evolution of his sound from Filles de Kilimanjaro through In A Silent Way to #####es Brew makes for fascinating listening. Live-Evil and On The Corner is some of the funkiest stuff you'll ever hear. His live recordings at the Cellar Door, the Plugged Nickel and the Fillmore East, as well as his February 12, 1964 Lincoln Center concert are pure dynamite. He also recorded two stellar film soundtracks, but one of them is a bit spotlighty. I could go on and on.

Few musicians can claim to have displayed the same ceaseless exploratory spirit that Miles possessed, and fewer still have the musical catalogue to back it up. Apart from being a phenomenal musician, he also made those around him better through sheer synergy, presence and force of will, as evidenced by the tightness and success of each of his groups. Even in the oft-maligned later period of his career, he constantly sought new points of view, and his 1993 album Doo-Bop is credited as one of the first ventures into a rap/jazz fusion. His influence is immense, and casts a shadow over the music world to this day.

In the end, it's all about the music, and it speaks louder than anything I could ever say:

Jeru Birth Of The Cool

Walkin' Walkin'

'Round Midnight 'Round Midnight

My Funny Valentine Cookin' With The Miles Davis Quintet

"Music is the greatest of the arts for me because it cuts through everything, needs no aids. It is. It simply is, and in contemporary music Miles defines the terms. That's all. It's his turf." - Ralph J. Gleason"...There was that time in Madison Square Garden when the ring announcer was going through his paces for the Ali/Frazier fight, and there was this commotion in the rear - almost like a riot, with women screaming, men shouting and security people getting nervous. Even Ali and Frazier in the ring began looking about to see what was going on. But the shouts and screams were sounds of approval and admiration for Miles Davis as he made his grand entrance. Miles so sharp and so clean, dressed like no one else, with all those colors and all that flair. Miles, the Prince of Darkness, with those laser-like eyes and that way he had of looking at you or looking through you.

XXXXXXX said it best, and he spoke for so many Miles Davis admirers all over the world, when he was asked what the world would be like without Miles. [He] replied, 'I cannot imagine.'" - [Another unfortunate spotlighting subject]

 

[Abrantes]

Now that I got that one off my chest, I'll go ahead and wait for CIA.

 

[thatguy]

thatguy's team through 6 rounds:

Novelist - Leo Tolstoy Author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina, two of the greatest novels ever written; His ideas on non-violent resistance had profound effect on Gandhi

Again, I find this highly misleading. If you can cite something that connects Gandhi to Tolstoy, fine. Until then, I'll stick with the commonly held perception (claimed by Gandhi himself) that his ideas of passive resistance came from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, i.e. Indian culture.

III. Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)When Gandhi was studying law in London 1894, he wrote a "Guide to London," which mentioned of Tolstoy that "few men have been more given to wine and cigarettes... a man stupefies himself with these stimulants..."14 This, Gandhi's first reference to Tolstoy, suggests that his knowledge came through vegetarian and health literature. Gandhi was not deeply moved until the publication of The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book which, he wrote, "overwhelmed me."15

The circumstances of this event are interesting. Gandhi was 24, living alone in Pretoria, South Africa. He compared Tolstoy's teaching to that of the fundamentalists who had been pressing him to accept Christ. "Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me ... paled into insignificance," he wrote.16 This suggests that he did not find these qualities in his missionary friends. It also suggests that this was what he was searching for.

Gandhi later wrote of Tolstoy's book, "Its reading cured me of my skepticism and made me a firm believer in ahimsa [nonviolence]."17 It also helped him resolve the question of religious identity, for Tolstoy's Christianity was not based on special revelation, but was simply one instance of a universal law. The law of love was the mark of true religion in every tradition. Gandhi thereafter understood Christianity in Tolstoy's way. It liberated him from orthodoxy, as it had liberated Tolstoy, and provided a foundation for his identification with Hinduism.

Ten years pass before we find another reference to Tolstoy in Gandhi's writings, though he had read many of Tolstoy's pamphlets and books, and kept a picture of Tolstoy in his law office.

When Gandhi was in London in 1909, he sent a letter to Tolstoy about the condition British Indians in South Africa. Tolstoy responded, "I have just received your most interesting letter which has give me great pleasure. God helps our dear brothers and co-workers in the Transvaal. That same struggle of the tender against the harsh, of meekness and love against pride and violence, is every year making itself more and more felt here among us also, especially in one of the very sharpest of the conflicts of the religious law with the worldly laws - in refusals of military service. Such refusals are becoming ever more and more frequent... I greet you fraternally, and am glad to have intercourse with you."18

Gandhi continued the correspondence. Gandhi wrote 5 times to Tolstoy, and Tolstoy wrote 3 times to Gandhi. Tolstoy's last letter to Gandhi stated, "Your activity is the most essential work, the most important of all the work now being done in the world."19 Tolstoy died on November 7, 1910.

Despite Gandhi's admiration for Tolstoy, and his consistent citation of Tolstoy as the greatest proponent of nonviolence, there were significant differences between them. "Gandhi differed from Tolstoy both in his much more positive attitude toward the state and the nation, and in his belief in the need for active resistance to evil."20

Tolstoy taught absolute non-resistance. He believed that all coercive action was forbidden by Jesus, and this included almost all actions of government, not only war. He believed that as religion was based on the Law of Love, and the state was based on violence, they were incompatible. He also believed that the power which would undermine the state and permit a return to true religion was consistent individual refusal to cooperate. Such individual action could also lead to the formation of small voluntary communities of non-resistants living the new life and spreading the doctrine.

Gandhi taught nonviolent resistance. While asserting, with Tolstoy, the ethical primacy of nonviolence, he believed in taking purposive action to remove evils and to establish a better society. Unlike Tolstoy, Gandhi did not see nonviolent action as simply the refusal to participate in state violence, but as a means of inducing the state to change its policies. He took a more political route, seeking not to supplant the state with a perfectionist society, but to transform it by the efficacy of nonviolent means of social reform. Thus Gandhian nonviolence is not non-resistance, it is nonviolent resistance or nonviolent transformation.

Thanks thatguy.

I had no idea Tolstoy and Gandhi corresponded.

I love the fact that Gandhi kept a picture of Tolstoy in his office. It makes me laugh. I just picture Gandhi sitting there, admiring this picture of Tolstoy.Anyway, this is why I took Tolstoy instead of Dostoevsky. I love their work equally, but Tolstoy's impact outside of the literary realm gave him the edge.

I don't know whether or not the judge will take this into account, but for the purposes of drafting, I certainly did.

 

[thatguy]

I also love this quote from one of Tolstoy's letters:

"...I greet you fraternally, and am glad to have intercourse with you."

 

[larry_boy_44]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...

but two American jazz musicians next?

Really?

taking into consideration the whole world?

sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

 

[Mario Kart]

I picked Tolkien because he did what many authors have not even attempted. He created another world, another genre, many languages, used prose, poetry, mythology and others. He did not just create a world but a whole universe with back stories, family trees, races, reason for them, and others. His books go more into depth than many others by a large margin. Lastly, I will say, in my opinion, compared to every text ever scribed, the Lord of the Rings (six books) is the best book/story ever scribed. With that, I gladly selected:

6.20 - J. R. R. Tolkien - Author

this is what I was getting at...Tolkien created the ENTIRE HISTORY of Middle Earth... He had family trees for the kingdoms and nations that lived there... He had thousands of years of wars... He wrote what is essentially the encyclopedia of Middle Earth to go along with it...

He created a language, art, poetry, everything...

What Tolkien did is not only great, honestly, it borders on insanity... That's how much he did with it...

(note: think about it... if you knew someone who had, in their head, created a whole world with a complete history of it, different languages spoken in it, and all the other stuff involved in Middle Earth, wouldn't you think they were slightly crazy?)

Another point I forgot to write down is the following. I believe I heard it rather than reading this but I heard Tolkien wanted to make a modern day mythology that put England on the map, in that sense, with the likes of Ancient Rome/Greece and the mythologies they had. He did plenty of reading of those two and wanted England to have one of its own. This is one reason why there is a King at the end of the Third Age and moving to the Fourth Age (or whatever age it was at the end of Return of the King) I would love to be able to or read a mythology, of sorts, that put America on that same level.

 

[thatguy]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I don't think so. I think most of the Musicians/Performers will come from American or Britain.

 

[Abrantes]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I look at their respective catalogues and have little doubt who I'd put in first place, and it's not the charming boys from Liverpool.(Admittedly, I'm liking the minority here.)

 

[flysack]

I picked Tolkien because he did what many authors have not even attempted. He created another world, another genre, many languages, used prose, poetry, mythology and others. He did not just create a world but a whole universe with back stories, family trees, races, reason for them, and others. His books go more into depth than many others by a large margin. Lastly, I will say, in my opinion, compared to every text ever scribed, the Lord of the Rings (six books) is the best book/story ever scribed. With that, I gladly selected:

6.20 - J. R. R. Tolkien - Author

this is what I was getting at...Tolkien created the ENTIRE HISTORY of Middle Earth... He had family trees for the kingdoms and nations that lived there... He had thousands of years of wars... He wrote what is essentially the encyclopedia of Middle Earth to go along with it...

He created a language, art, poetry, everything...

What Tolkien did is not only great, honestly, it borders on insanity... That's how much he did with it...

(note: think about it... if you knew someone who had, in their head, created a whole world with a complete history of it, different languages spoken in it, and all the other stuff involved in Middle Earth, wouldn't you think they were slightly crazy?)

Again, I want to restate that I like and admire Tolkien, but all he did was bring together a lot of old ideas into one large prose form. It wasn't that revolutionary. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few things that predate him -- The early 19th century English poet XXXXXXX created an entire mythos long before Tolkien did.

- The medieval French romantic poet XXXXXX wrote several long epic poems (books) full of fictional kingdoms, vassals, sacred objects (some say he invented the Holy Grael, others say he borrowed it from cathedral art), and a wide variety of characters, both good and evil and morally gray.

- Irish folklore spoke of elves and spirits and changlings and the such. Even Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream was nothing but a refiguring of them.

I love Tolkien. I think he did something fantastic and the scope of his efforts deserves mention. But his inventions weren't spontaneous sparks of original genius. The names were different, the languages inventive forms based on real languages (Tolkien was a scholar of old Nordic tongues), and the whole idea of his epic war was ripped straight from WWII (even though he denied it). All of it had been done in other places before him.

He brought it all to the novel in one creative medley. For that, I think he's bottom 20 of the best of fiction. I think that's more than most "snobs" would ever grant him.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I don't think so. I think most of the Musicians/Performers will come from American or Britain.

I agree, but we're talking on a world scale, not on an American scale...I seriously doubt Louis Armstrong or Miles Davis could go to Eastern Europe or Asia and play in front of stadiums...

 

[flysack]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

Jazz is ENORMOUSLY popular around the world, especially in Europe.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I look at their respective catalogues and have little doubt who I'd put in first place, and it's not the charming boys from Liverpool.(Admittedly, I'm liking the minority here.)

then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

 

[timschochet]

In terms of influence on music and musicians, Louis Armstrong is much more influential than the Beatles, IMO. I have no idea about the popularity of Miles Davis' form of bebop world wide.

Once again, this will be a fascinating category which is just now getting started.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

Jazz is ENORMOUSLY popular around the world, especially in Europe.

still doesn't put either of those people close to the Beatles or half a dozen or more others who haven't been chosen yet...

 

[Abrantes]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I look at their respective catalogues and have little doubt who I'd put in first place, and it's not the charming boys from Liverpool.(Admittedly, I'm liking the minority here.)

then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

Not at all. I just put more stock in influencing artists and contributing to the artform than filling stadiums (which seems to be your criteria for greatness). Ranking Miles on par with the Beatles in terms of musical contributions has nothing at all to do with personal bias.

 

[Mario Kart]

I picked Tolkien because he did what many authors have not even attempted. He created another world, another genre, many languages, used prose, poetry, mythology and others. He did not just create a world but a whole universe with back stories, family trees, races, reason for them, and others. His books go more into depth than many others by a large margin. Lastly, I will say, in my opinion, compared to every text ever scribed, the Lord of the Rings (six books) is the best book/story ever scribed. With that, I gladly selected:

6.20 - J. R. R. Tolkien - Author

this is what I was getting at...Tolkien created the ENTIRE HISTORY of Middle Earth... He had family trees for the kingdoms and nations that lived there... He had thousands of years of wars... He wrote what is essentially the encyclopedia of Middle Earth to go along with it...

He created a language, art, poetry, everything...

What Tolkien did is not only great, honestly, it borders on insanity... That's how much he did with it...

(note: think about it... if you knew someone who had, in their head, created a whole world with a complete history of it, different languages spoken in it, and all the other stuff involved in Middle Earth, wouldn't you think they were slightly crazy?)

Again, I want to restate that I like and admire Tolkien, but all he did was bring together a lot of old ideas into one large prose form. It wasn't that revolutionary. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few things that predate him -- The early 19th century English poet XXXXXXX created an entire mythos long before Tolkien did.

- The medieval French romantic poet XXXXXX wrote several long epic poems (books) full of fictional kingdoms, vassals, sacred objects (some say he invented the Holy Grael, others say he borrowed it from cathedral art), and a wide variety of characters, both good and evil and morally gray.

- Irish folklore spoke of elves and spirits and changlings and the such. Even Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream was nothing but a refiguring of them.

I love Tolkien. I think he did something fantastic and the scope of his efforts deserves mention. But his inventions weren't spontaneous sparks of original genius. The names were different, the languages inventive forms based on real languages (Tolkien was a scholar of old Nordic tongues), and the whole idea of his epic war was ripped straight from WWII (even though he denied it). All of it had been done in other places before him.

He brought it all to the novel in one creative medley. For that, I think he's bottom 20 of the best of fiction. I think that's more than most "snobs" would ever grant him.

That is kind of unfair to say about "what he did." Many of the books/literature that has been written has been "done before" or has had parts of others incorporated into one larger story. To claim Tolkien did not invent or even reinvent anything is obtuse. The guy wrote new languages, new histories, a new world not in vague terms but in grand terms that are vivid and outstanding. Plus, how his books have spawned many "copy-cats" along the same lines is huge. Copying is the largest form of flattery. Many people have flattered him.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm going to go a different, new direction with my music selection. My classical music knowledge is pedestrian at best, so I'm banking on the reputation of my next pick more than anything, although even I recognize some of this guy's work. I'm very please to select ....

7.19 - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky - Composer

The Nutcracker Suite, Part I

The Nutcracker Suite, Part 2

1812 Overture, Part 1

1812 Overture, Part 2

Tchaikovsky Concerto No. 1 (1st Mvmt.)

Wiki

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky† (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский) 7 May 1840 [O.S. 25 April] – 6 November 1893 [O.S. 25 October])†† was a Russian composer of the Romantic era. He wrote some of the most popular concert and theatrical music in the current classical repertoire, including the ballets Swan Lake and The Nutcracker, the 1812 Overture, his First Piano Concerto, several symphonies, and the opera Eugene Onegin.

Born into a middle-class family, Tchaikovsky's education prepared him for a career as a civil servant, despite the musical precocity he had demonstrated from an early age. Against the wishes of his family he chose to pursue a musical career, and in 1862 entered the St Petersburg Conservatory, graduating in 1865. This formal, Western-oriented training set him apart, musically, from the contemporary nationalistic movement embodied by the group of young Russian composers known as "The Five", with whom Tchaikovsky sustained a mixed professional relationship throughout his career.

As his style developed, Tchaikovsky wrote music across a range of genres, including symphony, opera, ballet, instrumental, chamber and song. Although he enjoyed many popular successes, he was never emotionally secure, and his life was punctuated by personal crises and periods of depression. Contributory factors were his suppressed homosexuality and fear of exposure, his disastrous marriage, and the sudden collapse of the one enduring relationship of his adult life, his 13-year association with the wealthy widow Nadezhda von Meck. Amid private turmoil Tchaikovsky's public reputation grew; he was honoured by the Tsar, awarded a lifetime pension and lauded in the concert halls of the world. His sudden death at the age of 53 is generally ascribed to cholera, but some attribute it to suicide.

Although enduringly popular with concert audiences across the world, Tchaikovsky has at times been judged harshly by critics, musicians and composers. However, his reputation as a significant composer is now generally regarded as secure, the disdain with which Western critics in the early and mid-20th century dismissed his music as vulgar and lacking in elevated thought having largely dissipated.

- Now that's what I call music snobbery!

 

[Abrantes]

I'm going to go a different, new direction with my music selection. My classical music knowledge is pedestrian at best, so I'm banking on the reputation of my next pick more than anything, although even I recognize some of this guy's work. I'm very please to select ....

7.19 - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky - Composer

The Nutcracker Suite, Part I

The Nutcracker Suite, Part 2

1812 Overture, Part 1

1812 Overture, Part 2

Tchaikovsky Concerto No. 1 (1st Mvmt.)

Wiki

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky† (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский) 7 May 1840 [O.S. 25 April] – 6 November 1893 [O.S. 25 October])†† was a Russian composer of the Romantic era. He wrote some of the most popular concert and theatrical music in the current classical repertoire, including the ballets Swan Lake and The Nutcracker, the 1812 Overture, his First Piano Concerto, several symphonies, and the opera Eugene Onegin.

Born into a middle-class family, Tchaikovsky's education prepared him for a career as a civil servant, despite the musical precocity he had demonstrated from an early age. Against the wishes of his family he chose to pursue a musical career, and in 1862 entered the St Petersburg Conservatory, graduating in 1865. This formal, Western-oriented training set him apart, musically, from the contemporary nationalistic movement embodied by the group of young Russian composers known as "The Five", with whom Tchaikovsky sustained a mixed professional relationship throughout his career.

As his style developed, Tchaikovsky wrote music across a range of genres, including symphony, opera, ballet, instrumental, chamber and song. Although he enjoyed many popular successes, he was never emotionally secure, and his life was punctuated by personal crises and periods of depression. Contributory factors were his suppressed homosexuality and fear of exposure, his disastrous marriage, and the sudden collapse of the one enduring relationship of his adult life, his 13-year association with the wealthy widow Nadezhda von Meck. Amid private turmoil Tchaikovsky's public reputation grew; he was honoured by the Tsar, awarded a lifetime pension and lauded in the concert halls of the world. His sudden death at the age of 53 is generally ascribed to cholera, but some attribute it to suicide.

Although enduringly popular with concert audiences across the world, Tchaikovsky has at times been judged harshly by critics, musicians and composers. However, his reputation as a significant composer is now generally regarded as secure, the disdain with which Western critics in the early and mid-20th century dismissed his music as vulgar and lacking in elevated thought having largely dissipated.

- Now that's what I call music snobbery!

Debated between him and someone else for my next one. Awesome pick, man.

 

[larry_boy_44]

In terms of influence on music and musicians, Louis Armstrong is much more influential than the Beatles, IMO. I have no idea about the popularity of Miles Davis' form of bebop world wide. Once again, this will be a fascinating category which is just now getting started.

maybe on a purely musical sense Armstrong is (but I'd even argue that the Beatles did more there as well with their advances in recording and their experimenting in the studio and such)... but in terms of culture and icon status and everything else, its not even close...i mean, the Beatles were so popular that it was literally impossible for them to tour after their first (and only) American tour because they couldn't hear themselves play the crowds were so large and loud (and the equipment wasn't good enough to make it audible)...

 

[timschochet]

It should come as no surprise to the literary snobs among us that Tchaikovsky is my favorite classical composer.

 

[AcerFC]

Tim> Hey. Sorry for any confusion. I thought that was allowed. First time drafter. Wont happen again

BTW, you have my picks where I would put them for now

 

[larry_boy_44]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I look at their respective catalogues and have little doubt who I'd put in first place, and it's not the charming boys from Liverpool.(Admittedly, I'm liking the minority here.)

then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

Not at all. I just put more stock in influencing artists and contributing to the artform than filling stadiums (which seems to be your criteria for greatness). Ranking Miles on par with the Beatles in terms of musical contributions has nothing at all to do with personal bias.

you think that all the Beatles did was fill stadiums? Really?

 

[flysack]

Another point I forgot to write down is the following. I believe I heard it rather than reading this but I heard Tolkien wanted to make a modern day mythology that put England on the map, in that sense, with the likes of Ancient Rome/Greece and the mythologies they had. He did plenty of reading of those two and wanted England to have one of its own. This is one reason why there is a King at the end of the Third Age and moving to the Fourth Age (or whatever age it was at the end of Return of the King) I would love to be able to or read a mythology, of sorts, that put America on that same level.

Righhhht. Because they didn't have Arthur for that already. What you're talking about is a national epic. The Brits had one for a long time before Tolkien, and I seriously doubt that's what he wanted to do. He was much smarter than that.

France has Roland (linked to Charlemagne, btw).

Roman had Aeneas.

The English have Arthur.

America.....interestingly enough, I was just talking about this with someone. We don't have a national epic. If someone would like to make a case for one, I'd love to hear it. But I think our lack of a national epic speaks volumes of how different America is from other nations. Instead of a national epic, we have national lyrics (I mean this in the literary sense of the term, not a "song," but more like a "personal narrative"). We have Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn, etc. America doesn't have a central heroic figure. We have several ordinary people rising during extraordinary events.

 

[Mister CIA]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I look at their respective catalogues and have little doubt who I'd put in first place, and it's not the charming boys from Liverpool.(Admittedly, I'm liking the minority here.)

then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

I love the Beatles, but I think a lot of the Beatles magic can be credited to outstanding audio engineering in the studio. Miles Davis is a giant and is not a reach by any reasonable standard.

 

[timschochet]

Tim> Hey. Sorry for any confusion. I thought that was allowed. First time drafter. Wont happen againBTW, you have my picks where I would put them for now

No worries, Acer. Just griping before; never take me too seriously.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm going to go a different, new direction with my music selection. My classical music knowledge is pedestrian at best, so I'm banking on the reputation of my next pick more than anything, although even I recognize some of this guy's work. I'm very please to select ....

7.19 - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky - Composer

The Nutcracker Suite, Part I

The Nutcracker Suite, Part 2

1812 Overture, Part 1

1812 Overture, Part 2

Tchaikovsky Concerto No. 1 (1st Mvmt.)

Wiki

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky† (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский) 7 May 1840 [O.S. 25 April] – 6 November 1893 [O.S. 25 October])†† was a Russian composer of the Romantic era. He wrote some of the most popular concert and theatrical music in the current classical repertoire, including the ballets Swan Lake and The Nutcracker, the 1812 Overture, his First Piano Concerto, several symphonies, and the opera Eugene Onegin.

Born into a middle-class family, Tchaikovsky's education prepared him for a career as a civil servant, despite the musical precocity he had demonstrated from an early age. Against the wishes of his family he chose to pursue a musical career, and in 1862 entered the St Petersburg Conservatory, graduating in 1865. This formal, Western-oriented training set him apart, musically, from the contemporary nationalistic movement embodied by the group of young Russian composers known as "The Five", with whom Tchaikovsky sustained a mixed professional relationship throughout his career.

As his style developed, Tchaikovsky wrote music across a range of genres, including symphony, opera, ballet, instrumental, chamber and song. Although he enjoyed many popular successes, he was never emotionally secure, and his life was punctuated by personal crises and periods of depression. Contributory factors were his suppressed homosexuality and fear of exposure, his disastrous marriage, and the sudden collapse of the one enduring relationship of his adult life, his 13-year association with the wealthy widow Nadezhda von Meck. Amid private turmoil Tchaikovsky's public reputation grew; he was honoured by the Tsar, awarded a lifetime pension and lauded in the concert halls of the world. His sudden death at the age of 53 is generally ascribed to cholera, but some attribute it to suicide.

Although enduringly popular with concert audiences across the world, Tchaikovsky has at times been judged harshly by critics, musicians and composers. However, his reputation as a significant composer is now generally regarded as secure, the disdain with which Western critics in the early and mid-20th century dismissed his music as vulgar and lacking in elevated thought having largely dissipated.

- Now that's what I call music snobbery!

Damn.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I look at their respective catalogues and have little doubt who I'd put in first place, and it's not the charming boys from Liverpool.(Admittedly, I'm liking the minority here.)

then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

I love the Beatles, but I think a lot of the Beatles magic can be credited to outstanding audio engineering in the studio. Miles Davis is a giant and is not a reach by any reasonable standard.

um...all of that audio engineering in the studio was actually done by the Beatles themselves... (well... sorta)

 

[Abrantes]

the Beatles are #1 in the performer category absolutely...but two American jazz musicians next?Really?taking into consideration the whole world?sorry, I think both those picks are reaches...

I look at their respective catalogues and have little doubt who I'd put in first place, and it's not the charming boys from Liverpool.(Admittedly, I'm liking the minority here.)

then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

Not at all. I just put more stock in influencing artists and contributing to the artform than filling stadiums (which seems to be your criteria for greatness). Ranking Miles on par with the Beatles in terms of musical contributions has nothing at all to do with personal bias.

you think that all the Beatles did was fill stadiums? Really?

Did I say that? I'm simply countering the arguments you're providing, and so far all you've said on the subject is that Miles and Satchmo couldn't go to Asia and play in front of stadiums. If you offer up more reasonable arguments, I'll reply accordingly.

 

[timschochet]

Despite my continual disagreements with Flysack about what makes great literature, I have to agree with him on Tolkein. I like Tolkein, didn't love him (loved the movies much more) and I acknowledge his creating a genre in the bookstore called "Fantasy", just as Poe created a genre in the bookstore called "Mystery."

But neither Tolkein nor Poe nor the giants of science fiction, or westerns, etc., really belong on a list of the 20 greatest novelists of all time. I mean when we are talking about GIANTS like Tolstoy, Hugo, Dickens, et. al. and so many more yet to be drafted- no matter how influential a guy like Tolkein is, he's got to be bottom of the list, sorry.

 

[larry_boy_44]

\then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

Not at all. I just put more stock in influencing artists and contributing to the artform than filling stadiums (which seems to be your criteria for greatness). Ranking Miles on par with the Beatles in terms of musical contributions has nothing at all to do with personal bias.

you think that all the Beatles did was fill stadiums? Really?

Did I say that? I'm simply countering the arguments you're providing, and so far all you've said on the subject is that Miles and Satchmo couldn't go to Asia and play in front of stadiums. If you offer up more reasonable arguments, I'll reply accordingly.

I just don't see any evidence that ON A WORLD SCALE they are #2 and #3 musicians of all time...they were justified with their high drafts in the Greatest Americans draft because Jazz is "purely American", so how in the world do you justify drafting them in the Greatest World Person draft due to their effect on music that is "purely American"...in fact, i would be there were a number of artists rated ahead of them in the American draft who haven't been drafted yet, and that's only including American artists (and giving them bonus points for jazz being "purely American")oh and my point about Asia is that the Beatles have reached Asia... knowing the little bit that I do about popular Asian music, its definitely not jazz...

 

[timschochet]

Larry, in the 20's and 30's, when Jazz first appeared, and Armstrong and his Hot Five represented it's pioneers, it was arguably more popular worldwide than it was in the United States.

 

[Abrantes]

8.01 Thomas Hobbes Intellectual

I'll try to add in a better write-up later on. A monumental figure in political philosophy, whose influence is still palpable today.

"The universe is corporeal; all that is real is material, and what is not material is not real." --The Leviathan

The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes is perhaps the most complete materialist philosophy of the 17th century. Hobbes rejects xxxxxxx dualism and believes in the mortality of the soul. He rejects free will in favor of determinism, a determinism which treats freedom as being able to do what one desires. He rejects Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy in favor of the "new" philosophy of Galileo and xxxxxx, which largely treats the world as matter in motion. Hobbes is perhaps most famous for his political philosophy. Men in a state of nature, that is a state without civil government, are in a war of all against all in which life is hardly worth living. The way out of this desperate state is to make a social contract and establish the state to keep peace and order. Because of his view of how nasty life is without the state, Hobbes subscribes to a very authoritarian version of the social contract.

 

[timschochet]

Also, A & E named Louis Armstrong one of the 100 most influential people of the millenium. He was the only popular musician named.

 

[mad sweeney]

Just popped in to say DAMN. First time I've been legitimately bummed about a pick. May your nuts be cracked every Xmas.

As for Tolkien, I love the genre and IRS a well thought out and executed grand plan but doesn't match up to the literary greatness of the top 20. But this will go back to our fundamental difference in what is great. I don't consider selling the copies or filling the most seats to be great. That's mass appeal and the masses, by and large, are less than brilliant.

Personally I liked the hobbit but found the trilogy to awful and only finished them after 25 years because of the movie coming out. Why they're so popular is a mystery to me.

 

[Mario Kart]

Despite my continual disagreements with Flysack about what makes great literature, I have to agree with him on Tolkein. I like Tolkein, didn't love him (loved the movies much more) and I acknowledge his creating a genre in the bookstore called "Fantasy", just as Poe created a genre in the bookstore called "Mystery."But neither Tolkein nor Poe nor the giants of science fiction, or westerns, etc., really belong on a list of the 20 greatest novelists of all time. I mean when we are talking about GIANTS like Tolstoy, Hugo, Dickens, et. al. and so many more yet to be drafted- no matter how influential a guy like Tolkein is, he's got to be bottom of the list, sorry.

No way, simply no way. The guy wrote a masterpiece of epic proportions. Not only did he write a masterpiece but he expanded on it over and over and kept adding to it. The Lord of the Rings can stand toe-to-toe to any of the works from the people that have been drafted before in this. Pick your poison more or less. Do you prefer an epic and appreciate what it takes to create such a thing or do you prefer a much shorter novel and be done with it? I appreciate the novels and their relevance to the time and place, but an epic such as LotR does stand toe-to-toe and could possibly knock most of them off of their pedestal.

 

[Fennis]

8.01 Thomas Hobbes Intellectual

I'll try to add in a better write-up later on. A monumental figure in political philosophy, whose influence is still palpable today.

"The universe is corporeal; all that is real is material, and what is not material is not real." --The Leviathan

The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes is perhaps the most complete materialist philosophy of the 17th century. Hobbes rejects xxxxxxx dualism and believes in the mortality of the soul. He rejects free will in favor of determinism, a determinism which treats freedom as being able to do what one desires. He rejects Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy in favor of the "new" philosophy of Galileo and xxxxxx, which largely treats the world as matter in motion. Hobbes is perhaps most famous for his political philosophy. Men in a state of nature, that is a state without civil government, are in a war of all against all in which life is hardly worth living. The way out of this desperate state is to make a social contract and establish the state to keep peace and order. Because of his view of how nasty life is without the state, Hobbes subscribes to a very authoritarian version of the social contract.

Good value, good pick!

 

[Abrantes]

\then you are by far judging by your personal view of what music you like instead of what music is most known/beloved on a world scale...

Not at all. I just put more stock in influencing artists and contributing to the artform than filling stadiums (which seems to be your criteria for greatness). Ranking Miles on par with the Beatles in terms of musical contributions has nothing at all to do with personal bias.

you think that all the Beatles did was fill stadiums? Really?

Did I say that? I'm simply countering the arguments you're providing, and so far all you've said on the subject is that Miles and Satchmo couldn't go to Asia and play in front of stadiums. If you offer up more reasonable arguments, I'll reply accordingly.

I just don't see any evidence that ON A WORLD SCALE they are #2 and #3 musicians of all time...they were justified with their high drafts in the Greatest Americans draft because Jazz is "purely American", so how in the world do you justify drafting them in the Greatest World Person draft due to their effect on music that is "purely American"...in fact, i would be there were a number of artists rated ahead of them in the American draft who haven't been drafted yet, and that's only including American artists (and giving them bonus points for jazz being "purely American")oh and my point about Asia is that the Beatles have reached Asia... knowing the little bit that I do about popular Asian music, its definitely not jazz...

They weren't picked in the GAD for being quintessentially American - they were picked because they're musical giants, regardless of nationality. They didn't need any "bonus points" to begin with. Regardless, I disagreed with the GAD's ranking system to begin with, and several other artists (who, as you've mentioned, were placed above them in the ranking) benefitted far more than them from the dubious criteria. I have no idea what you're trying to say with the popular Asian music comment, Larry. Sorry. I won't spotlight, but jazz has influenced plenty of Asian and European musicians, particularly in Japan. Their influence is massive in Latin American music as well.

 

[timschochet]

Despite my continual disagreements with Flysack about what makes great literature, I have to agree with him on Tolkein. I like Tolkein, didn't love him (loved the movies much more) and I acknowledge his creating a genre in the bookstore called "Fantasy", just as Poe created a genre in the bookstore called "Mystery."

But neither Tolkein nor Poe nor the giants of science fiction, or westerns, etc., really belong on a list of the 20 greatest novelists of all time. I mean when we are talking about GIANTS like Tolstoy, Hugo, Dickens, et. al. and so many more yet to be drafted- no matter how influential a guy like Tolkein is, he's got to be bottom of the list, sorry.

No way, simply no way. The guy wrote a masterpiece of epic proportions. Not only did he write a masterpiece but he expanded on it over and over and kept adding to it. The Lord of the Rings can stand toe-to-toe to any of the works from the people that have been drafted before in this. Pick your poison more or less. Do you prefer an epic and appreciate what it takes to create such a thing or do you prefer a much shorter novel and be done with it? I appreciate the novels and their relevance to the time and place, but an epic such as LotR does stand toe-to-toe and could possibly knock most of them off of their pedestal.

Mario, I'm going to list some books that I find to be absolute classics by a few of the authors taken- this list is limited to the ones I've read:War and Peace

Crime and Punishment

Les Miserables

A Tale of Two Cities

David Copperfield

Oliver Twist

Great Expectations

Huckleberry Finn

Now which of these gets "knocked off it's pedestal" by LOTR? Really?

I don't think this argument is going to go very far, Mario. You'll do much better trying to convince Krista about the uniqueness of the fantasy genre, rather than really trying to claim that Lord of The Rings is better than these classics. Forgive me for saying it, but your argument here is beginning to sound like Larry's defense of Hulk Hogan.