Writers throwing shit at other writers

>flavorwire.com/188138/the-30-harshest-author-on-author-insults-in-history
my guess

Those polemics about Lope de Vega and Góngora.

Lope even responded to his accusers in verse.

dosto

he's right though

huh

On the Road = Kerouac. The Road = McCarthy. Which one is it?

he read neither, he's just a contrarian faggot

>My dick is bigger.

GRR Martin on JK Rowling.

Such unsubstatiated boasting.

She's got pages tho. GRR Ain't got pages

HP works pretty well as a consistent children's series. By the time you finish them you're 14 and ready to move on to other better things. Gurm is too infantile and dull for any self respecting adult and too edgy and grimdark and overlong for children.

So it's for adolescents.

Is that really an insult? Sounds like a pretty cool description to me.

Gurm? I guess. Thing is, books for teenagers are garbage. There is a sense of wonder and magic in children's books, I found myself reading Wind in the Willows and feeling giddy and filled with joy. I would never touch the shit directed at my adolescent self again.

No, he is not

I don't get that jab at GGM by Bolaño. What is it supposed to mean?

>implying this was an insult
You can't take N's words out of context

He mentioned it was a classic, so obviously not the one promoted on Oprah

>dostoyevksy is shit, tolstoy is KANG
-norm macdonald

...

>"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the downfall of Sauron, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace and justice and prosperity would become discontented and restless - while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors - like Denethor or worse. I found that even so there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow - but it would be just that. Not worth doing."

Tolkien on GRR Martin

Nabokov on

>“It is a shame he [Franz Hellens] is read less than that awful Monsieur Camus.”
>“I cannot abide Conrad’s souvenir-shop style”
> “I dislike intensely The Karamazov Brothers and the ghastly Crime and Punishment“
>“I detest Resurrection, I detest The Kreutzer Sonata … War and Peace, though a little too long, is a rollicking historical novel”, though basically written for children

he's mad that Marquez wasn't a promiscuous mexican left wing edgelord who never showered

its why Bolano doesn't like Pynchon or Delillo either

he did like em though and he liked ggm early stuff

"Mmmm I prefer his early work."

token pseud

>Homer is a world; Virgil, a style.

- Mark Van Doren

>Homer's poems were writ from a free fury, an absolute and full soul; Virgil's out of a courtly, laborious, and altogether imitatory spirit: not a simile he hath but is Homer's; not an invention, person, or disposition but is wholly or originally built upon Homerical foundations, and in many places hath the very words Homer useth; ... all Homer's books are such as have been precedents ever since of all sorts of poems; imitating none, nor ever worthily imitated of any.

— George Chapman

Nabokov had a lot of funny opinions.

Brecht: A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.

Camus: Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me. Awful.

Chesterton: A favorite between the ages of 8 and 14. Essentially a writer for very young people.

Crime and Punishment: Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

Faulkner: Writer of corncobby chronicles. To consider them masterpieces is an absurd delusion.

Ezra Pound: Definitely second-rate. A total fake. A venerable fraud.

Source?
He said it was one of the greatest works of literature ever.
youtube.com/watch?v=kmlVaFru8Ss
You sure it wasn't Quevedo and Góngora?

Those read like Trump tweets. Maybe with richer vocabulary, but the same style of short shit throwing.

He didn't write them like that, clueless anons just keep reposting a summary

His critique of Faulkner is honestly so shit. Faulkner was a far better prose stylist than he.

Borge said that Federico García Lorca
had been lucky to have been assassinated. It did wonders for his career as a poet.

I mean, Virgil's dying wish was that The Aeneid be burned

Based.

You’re an idiot. Bolaño thought magical realism was retarded

>than he
jesu cristo, the absolute state of this board

English is not my first language, and as far as I'm concerned, that's gramatically correct.

It's archaic grammar, but frankly, who cares.

>literal who writters attacking people better then them
Wells,Virginia Woolf and Elizabeth Bishop are tards

Tbqh that's a good reason to be mad at someone, if you don't think so maybe this board isn't for you sweetie
I also find nearly impossible Bolaño didn't like the Pynissimvs, they have very similar preocupations and themes, Bolaño is just edgier because he was a latin-american and we're naturally angry at anything from the northern hemisphere.

Woolf eventually complimented Joyce in her diaries. Her initial response to Ulysses was probably due to intense butthurt because some irish decadent middle-class cunt beat her aristocratic ass at her own game before she even tried. She was also a great writer, unlike Vladimir "u just don get it breh" Nabokov, who considered himself the only person to ever get literature while writing the academicist equivalent of purple prose.

GGM liked to suck communists' dicks from Castro or religious ones like the Pope.

...

Well Borges was a hack and FGL was -- and will always be -- the better poet

I've never heard him say anything bad about Pynchon or DeLillo. Also, "left wing" does not carry the same connotation in the US than in the rest of the world.

Not him; but i think you were supposed to use, well, him

yah, he recommended his short stories, but thought he had a tendency to floriture.

Joyce and Woolf were from a pretty similar social milieu

Pynissimvs. what's that? newfag here

>No — no — don't quote that man! he's the fellow who thinks he must be a big man because he lives in a big country

Carlyle on Whitman

The latin spelling of Pynchmeister

>His critique of Faulkner is honestly so shit. Faulkner was a far better prose stylist than he. (was)

That's how I was taught. My English teacher got pretty butthurt about us using him instead of he in that type of situation, actually.

You can use either; it just depends what underlying structure you wish to imply.

"Better than he" is, as already pointed out, essentially short for "better than he was".

"Better than him" is comparing the two writers as objects, not as subjects.

"Faulkner was a better prose stylist than him" - treating Nabokov-the-prose-stylist as a passive lump, basically a complicated noun.

Many writers are poor judges of other writers.

Oscar Wilde said something quite perceptive about this, something like "artists are blinded by the dust thrown up by their own chariot wheels, and cannot be expected to see any other chariot".

"Camus is a hack"
-Me

>attempted
Key word

True. Also they're petty and art is competitive.

"The prettiest I ever saw Virginia Woolf was in 1941. She was in something long and flowing... the river Ouse."
- Me

>he's mad that Marquez wasn't a promiscuous mexican left wing edgelord who never showered
wasn't he buds with Fidel Castro, among other leftists/communists

Yes, he was Castro's buddie.

he's right about pound

“Ever since the days when such formidable mediocrities as Galsworthy, Dreiser, Tagore, Maxim Gorky, Romain Rolland and Thomas Mann were being accepted as geniuses, I have been perplexed and amused by fabricated notions about so-called "great books." That, for instance, Mann's asinine "Death in Venice," or Pasternak's melodramatic, vilely written "Dr. Zhivago," or Faulkner's corn-cobby chronicles can be considered "masterpieces" or at least what journalists term "great books," is to me the sort of absurd delusion as when a hypnotized person makes love to a chair. My greatest masterpieces of twentieth century prose are, in this order: Joyce's "Ulysses"; Kafka's "Transformation"; Bely's "St. Petersburg," and the first half of Proust's fairy tale, "In Search of Lost Time.”
― Vladimir Nabokov, Strong Opinions

They definitely weren't, Virgina Woolf's dad was from old nobility while Joyce's family was a decadent middle class family with a brief stint of comfort thanks to Joyce's dad heritage and some position in the Parnell administration, but he lost it all when Parnell got busted by the queen's priests.

He's saying marquez was a social climbing poser and not a guy of the people

I'm not a fan of either author but what the fuck was even wrong with Fitzgerald, nigga look like David Bowie went through a soft-satanist phase

Was an alcoholic full time

fuck, I thought that was his wife zelda

So your bride cheats on you with a pilot, take her back? When she goes insane years later, pay for her sanitarium care?

Gore Vidal was great at talking shit

youtube.com/watch?v=CQdApeYOv-A

I wouldn't accept back a cheating whore desu

what the fuck is this hairstyle, lmao

...

I meant the photo, i thought that was zelda, looks very feminine

WHY I DO I FIND GHASTLY RIGMAROLE SO FUNNY

>rigmarole
>dfw pic
the joke tells itself

seconded.

still baffled as to how the road is considered a classic? can some1 pls explain this to me i jus don't see any real literary value in this novel

it has cultural value. i think it's worth reading if you want to understand the beatniks.

oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291/lecture-8

It just occurred to me that Nabakov has the same elitist, contrarian mentality as Veeky Forums does: bashing great and influential works by the truckload and only praising a few "elite masterpieces" as even worth five seconds of your time at best.

No he was right. You're just butthurt about having shit taste

You're right. There are only three and a half books worth reading in the past century.

>Many writers are poor judges of other writers.
It's kind of implicit in the fact that they're artists.

His opinion on Conrad has always bothered me, in a way because I've always known he was right. Conrad is still my favorite author, though.
On a related note, I once picked up a novel by Conrad in a bookshop, and read a preface which was made up of opinions from his contemporaries on his writing, including Hemingway etc. I was quite shocked to read that the consensus on him while he was writing was essentially that he was a hack.

That's cool and everything but it doesn't tell me why the road has literary value.

Calvino liked him.

Hemingway ultimately decided he liked him as well, despite his friends trying to convince him he was bad.

He's completely right about Dreiser and Gorky, no one reads those save for /leftypol/ers and masochists. The notion that Pasternak is worthless as a novelist is also something only amerimutts would dipsute.

Who is right:

>Kerouac
>Garcia

>Garcia again

>Shaw

>Twain (and I love Faulkner)

>Dante

>GRRM

>both right and wrong

>Austen

>Nabokov is wrong on everything

>Both wrong

>still wrong, but a great writer

>Whitman

>Camus

>(you)

>Nabokov is still wrong, until the last sentence

>Hemingway

>Gore Vidal is wrong by default

>Tolstoy

he's right about everyone he mentions in that first sentence except Thomas Mann (obviously) and arguably Tagore, who he most likely condemns for the same reasons as Conrad/Tolstoy - for not appearing complex enough

Didn't the author of La Troya die/kill himself?