I think this is going to be a controversial one. Who do you think are the most over-rated authors of so-called 'classic' novels?

For me Henry James, Kafka and Camus are all in there, and 'Lorna Doone' by R. D. Blackmore is also insufferably dull. How about you?

Charles Dickens and DH Lawrence.

I do enjoy Henry James, though I find his books are a slow read, and Lorna Doone is one of my favourite classics.

Maybe Austen - her novs are fun, but very shallow. I agree about DHL. He was a genius, but it didn't necessarily come out in his books!

Thanks guys,

It's interesting that you both dislike DH Lawrence as I really enjoy his books, even if I think some of them are better than others. It fascinates me how people can hold different opinions about the same works.

Keep the comments coming in.

Simon

Hi again.
I don't dislike DHL, but I prefer his short stories & poetry to his novs (though I like Sons & Lovers). I tried reading The Plumed Serpent recently; there are some incredible ideas in there but, as a piece of fiction, I didn't think it worked.

Yes, on the surface her books are fun, light reads, but they also touch on important issues of that time. For example, Pride & Prejudice deals with the lack of options for a gentlewoman with no fortune in Regency England and their dependency on men to support them. Mrs Bennett's efforts to find husbands for her daughters results in a lot of humour but that does not mean she is wrong (something Mr Bennett knows because, despite teasing his wife and daughters about not visiting Mr Bingley, he is actually very prompt to do so). Mansfield Park touches on the slave trade and the dilemma of the wealth it generated for those who were involved.

Previous to Austen's novels you did not get stories of ordinal people and domestic situations. Instead it was the Gothic novel where beautiful orphans were kidnapped for her fortune or beauty by nefarious men who owned haunted castles (e.g. Mrs Radcliffe or Horace Walpole).

Hi piratedog.
Mansfield Park deals with slavery? Must've missed that bit.
I'm afraid I disagree with everything you say. The people in Austen are not 'ordinary' - they're all members of the dividend-drawing class. Fiction before her was not all Gothic, eg Richardson, Fielding. As for the issues of the day - as George Orwell points out, she manages to avoid even mentioning the Napoleonic Wars!
I still like 'em, but I don't regard her as among the great authors - hence, overrated.

i'm thinking that we have a lot of shallow readers out there who shouldn't really be looking at classic literature

classics are rated for many reasons - don't start Henry James if you''re looking for sexual excitement, Austen's greatest work is brilliantly written but was not intended to be topical

Charles Dickens overrated ? Come on !

I have a feeling of irritation whenever I read Dickens and 'Return of the Native' put me off Hardy for life. Let's face it, our differing tastes in fashion are a mirror for our tastes in literature. Just because it's fashionable/ a classic does not mean that we have to wear it/ like it. My no 1 over-rated author would have to be Anthony Trollope- up there with 1970s collars!!

Shakespeare. Absolute drivel!

'Shallow readers'! A strong statement to make of people you don't know anything about, except they don't like the same books as you! But serious opinions may differ. It is possible to criticise an author like Austen from below, yes (by comparing her with the latest bestseller list); but also from above (by comparing her with works which really have something to say).

Sir Thomas had 'West Indian property' so he was certainly involved with the slave trade and I'm sure at Portsmouth there is mention of slaves boarding a ship (though I'm not sure about the last as it's been a while since I've read the book).

She does not mention the Napoleonic Wars directly but there are many references that show she was not unaware of them (the militia in P&P, Captain Wentworth and other naval officers, many characters have military backgrounds). For most people at the time, unless they had a relative directly involved it wasn't an everyday concern (how many books set during the first Gulf War mention that unless a character has a relative over there?).

She may have focused on the middle and upper classes but that's who were reading her books and even more any titled characters are generally not pleasant or clever (Lady Catherine, Sir Walter, Sir Thomas).

I know she wasn't the very first but she was one of them. Frances Burney's work, who deals with similar recognisable (to the initial readers) situations and characters predates Jane Austen's. I don't think Henry Fielding or Samuel Richardson are good examples of novelists how had a similar material to Austen. Fielding's works are generally more "romps" and I don't think you can call Richardson's work not gothic (e.g. Pamela - a tale of a resolute servant girl, armed only with her `virtue', battling against her master's attempts at seduction)

Edited to add: I've just seen M. I. R. Clarke's post and completely agree with gille liath's response and have to add did I say I didn't enjoy Henry James? No I said I did but just found it slow going due to his writting style and not because I'm "looking for sexual excitement"

how did you know i was talking about you ;-)
i expect people to differ with my opinions but some of the statements seemed unfounded to me although i accept they are honestly held
it is possible to criticise any book but if the discussion is to be meaningful we should qualify some of these "critical" statements. Austen - shallow - prove that it is the book and not just your reading of it (see piratedog's comments)!
we aren't expected to wear historical fashion but we should at least appreciate that it served its purpose well and realise that our own fashions will seem strange to future generations
classics were once popular with good reason - eg Trollope's works served as the soap operas of their day and IMO are still very sharply observed social commentaries and still endure although some of their relevance has been lost
Dickens work was serialised - it had readers on the edge of their seats in suspense
in what way was DHL a genius if it doesn't come across in his books ??

points well put piratedog
apologies if i appear to have been implying that you were looking for sexual excitement by reading Henry James ;-)
the previous poster called James "insufferably dull" - that's a personal view and they're entitled to it. James has been criticised (by no less than E M Forster) for avoiding any sexual motivation which is fair but doesn't detract massively, for me, from some of his best works
i agree his books aren't holiday reads (on short holidays anyway)
we must agree to differ on Dickens !

Apology accepted but you can't be suprised that people were annoyed at being called shallow.

the originator expected a controversial thread and i didn't want to disappoint
seems to have spiced things up a bit anyway
sticks and stones and all that .....

Well you've certainly done that.

twas a simple choice
"Tread gently, for you tread on my dreams" or "fools rush in where angels fear to tread"
Liquidator is half right - sadly much of Shakespeare is now practically impenetrable to the layman and therefore irrelevant.
however, some of his speeches and poetry are truly timeless and universal and it would be a shame if they were lost to mankind - i don't think over-rated is the correct term

Beautifully put.

I have to say I ignored Liquidator's post as I didn't think they were serious and like you had decided against treading gently as I honestly don't see how Shakespeare could be called drivel. I can understand that people don't enjoy his works but they surely must acknowledge his impact on modern English - the number of phases and words that were first used in one of his plays or poems always amazes me.

Sorry, but Austen and Dickens were the ones who occurred to me. I admire the simplicity of Austen's writing, but wonder would she be considered a classic writer if she'd not been a woman (suspect that underlying some of the praise she gets is condescending amazement that a 19th century woman could write so well): aren't her books, boiled down, just chick lit? And for me, Dickens doesn't offer anything beyond what a soap opera would. Compare him to Dostoevksy, who also wrote in instalments for the popular press.

Personally I get nothing from reading Dickens, I find his writing dull, tiresome and irrelevant. I wouldn't say he is an overrated writer though and even if he wasn't extremely accomplished does it matter? A classic is not simply something that is exceptionally well written it is something that still calls to people throughout time, is still relevant and still has meaning. Dickens obviously offers many people this, therefore my opinions on the tone, style, plot etc. of his works doesn't mean he isn't a great writer.

Daniel Defoe - his prose style could bore flies out of the air if you read his work aloud.

Sherlock Holmes and the Underpants of Death

How did I know? I was the one who nominated Austen!
You shouldn't assume, just because you disagree with someone, that they are a less competent judge than you. 'Prove it'? This isn't a hermeneutics conference! But my reservations about Austen are nothing to do with any of the points raised by piratedog or yourself (though I have to say I don't think piratedog's second post answers my criticisms of the first one). Her books are well written, I never disputed that, but a great work needs more than that: some kind of insight into the human condition. There is no awareness anywhere in Austen that there is more to life than getting married.
My statement about DHL was meant to be a bit paradoxical. But, having read biographies of him, I think he was more interesting in his life than in his work; though I did say I prefer his poetry to his novels.

How about Jules Verne? I have been trying to re-read 20,000 Leagues in the original French as an adult and just could not stay awake. Looks like he had swalloed several technical encycopaedias and was suffering from information indigestion. I sure was after a few pages. As a kid, I enjoyed it in Classics Illustrated and I am sure he was padding it out beyond a reader's endurence.

>There is no awareness anywhere in Austen that there is more to life than getting married<

But for a woman in those times there is nothing more important. It's not as if they could choose between getting married or having a career.

Besides she does cover other issues, you just have to look a bit deeper for them.