Name a worse, more annoying writer/individual of the 20th century

Idk, he's definitely not on my list of favorites, but there is definitely something to his style. He's a totally shriveled up and corrupted Hemingway. And idk, there is something to that imo.

damn

I actually enjoy his stories. They're simple and sentimental.

His short stories are great, but I can see why some people don't like him. To be honest, I'm not really a fan of pulp, but his style makes it up for it.

FUCKING RIP

Pulp was really out there for Bukowski. I read it in middle school and was like wtf is this shit. Plus that shitty ending he didn't even write.

how will he recover?

...

I like you.

He's overrated but has some good poems and short stories. I like what this user said about it. Shriveled up and corrupted for sure.

You cannot get him if you havent lived and worked with wankers...

jk rowling/george rr martin

at least I'm not a loser :^)
I don't care about status because I'm the Nietzchean ubermensch

he's a spineless Hemingway, or a non-brutish Hemingway depending on who you favour.

>when you don't need karma for internet satisfaction

palanhiuk is the worst, no argument

Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow, Ezra Pound.

The first two being foisted off on the public for decades and now almost completely forgotten really shows how nepotistic and jewish the NY publishing industry is.

Pound is just a joke.

Fucken savage

...

JK Rowling.
Michael Chabon.
Margaret "Men Scare Me" Atwood.
Patterson/Coben/Baldacci... the ones who utilize a factory approach

Thomas Pynchon
William Gaddis
That fat fuck who wrote the Tunnel

his writing has the brevity of hemingway's, but it totally lacks the nuance and insight

B T F O
T
F
O

...

...

>Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow

Non-Anglo person here.

You can't say they're "almost completely forgotten" since even I know these names at least... but I couldn't name a single work of them. From such a distance, they look like the typical mediocre Jewish American intellectuals: lots of agitation, lots of marketing, but no lasting substance and no importance whatsoever out of the little Anglo world. (Could someone name one game-changing idea of Norman Mailer?)

And yes, people like Harold Bloom belong in this "definitely mediocre" category.

>Bellow
Great prose artist
Also, none of those writers have fallen into oblivion

You guys are totally wrong. Who the fuck has forgotten about Mailer and Bellow? Bellow is overrated in my opinion, but still has a worthy body of work. Mailer, however, is still one of the best American novelists of the 20th Century. The Naked and the Dead is magnificent.

And what do you mean by "little Anglo world"? English literature is the single most copious body of literature of the last thousand years of world history, and there isn't a single one--a single one--that is more universally influential and celebrated today.

Just out of curiosity (not going to talk trash here, so don't worry), what is your native language?

>And what do you mean by "little Anglo world"?
I mean that many things that are a big deal ("genre-defining! seminal... a New York Times best-seller! enormously influential!") in the Anglo sphere actually stay confined in the Anglo sphere, and exert little or no influence out of it.

For example, no one knows who Harold Bloom is, in the non-Anglo literary circles. No one cares.

>English literature is the single most copious body of literature
Yet there's almost nothing worthwhile in it. According to the Nobel committee, your best writer is Bob Dylan.

>there isn't a single one--a single one--that is more universally influential and celebrated today
This "celebration" has little importance compared to the various national traditions. To an Italian, Leopardi and Pasolini will always be more relevant than Emily Dickinson and Norman Mailer, no matter how hard you meme them around.

this, tbqhwy senpaitachi

...

>20th
Dumbass.
Go to bed Tao.

>>English literature is the single most copious body of literature
>Yet there's almost nothing worthwhile in it.
Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Austen, Dickens, Melville, Conrad, Joyce, Hemingway, Faulkner . . .

>According to the Nobel committee, your best writer is Bob Dylan.
Are the Nobel committee's selections the final word on the merit of an entire literary tradition?

>To an Italian, Leopardi and Pasolini will always be more relevant than Emily Dickinson and Norman Mailer, no matter how hard you meme them around.
Of course they will be, but something tells me you think the Italian's perspective is, in an objective sense, right, whereas the Anglo's is wrong. And that's nonsense.

I won't deny that we Anglos sometimes forget that there is a whole world of literature outside our own tradition, but for you to say there is "almost nothing worthwhile in" that tradition is just as absurd as saying there is almost nothing worthwhile outside of it.

By the way, how are you enjoying being a part of our "little Anglo world"?

buk was great you're just a fucking faggot

...

>Shakespeare
Legitimately great.

>Milton,
Imaginative, I guess? Mostly he's just importing Italianate classicism in bulk.

>Blake,
Verging on nursery rhymes.

>Austen,
Ah yes, the great progenitrix of all bodice-rippers.

>Dickens,
Dickens is basically rehashing the comical and earthy bits of Shakespeare in a watered down, scrubbed up, and more 19th century eccentric way. More sentimentalism and bloat added.

>Melville
Parochial and shapeless.

>Conrad,
Yes, the guy with the jungle and the thing with the movie about the badness in the place.

>Joyce, Faulkner . . .
Florid stylists. Deliberately choosing weeds for their bouquets doesn't make them any less self-indulgent.

>Hemingway
Hemingway doesn't do anything that late 19th century realists weren't already doing better, albeit in a more cruel, intelligent and urbane way. Hemingway, meanwhile, is someone Midwesterners can understand and relate to.

>By the way, how are you enjoying being a part of our "little Anglo world"?
Kind of a bitch move, user.

In any case, I doubt he's on Veeky Forums for the cultural refinement.

You could do these witty one- or two-sentence take-downs for almost all great artists in history, belittling oversimplified descriptions of their work. But it's not very persuasive.

Quads confirm your burn.

>The first two being foisted off on the public for decades and now almost completely forgotten really shows how nepotistic and jewish the NY publishing industry is.

What oft was thought [by me], but ne'er so well expressed.

>Deliberately choosing weeds for their bouquets doesn't make them any less self-indulgent.

Who do you think you are, some Victorian smut-hound?

What would be persuasive is hearing which English language authors proved to be globally influential, which was the main point of the argument.

Edgar Allen Poe is legitimately literary and influential Anglo writer, for example. Maybe his specific set props and favourite words are out of date, but he definitely created a type of short story and a type of aesthetic. Poe is not a literary heavyweight, but he is an example of broad cultural relevance.

Then there are the Franzenesque types who discover unfathomable depths in their navels and great vistas at the end of their nose. They serve a purpose, I suppose, but filler is filler. They're running on other people's steam.

...Yeees?

Richard Dawkins