1: Your country
2: Rank the top 5 most important and respected writers in your country's canon (n.b. this doesn't mean 'rank your favourite authors')
>5: toss up between Austen, Wordsworth and T. S. Eliot
Im canadian but read exclusively American (and was born in USA)
1. Melville (obv)
2. Whitman (obv)
3. dickinson (obv)
4. Faulkner (obv)
5. Ashbery, DeLillo (ashbery IS pomo poetry, but DeLillo is probably the biggest influence on writers past the 90's)
Honorable Mentions: Pynch, OConnor, Pound, Eliot, Fitzgerald,
>Tim Winton :^)
idk it's all pretty bad
Stoker is literally the definition of one hit wonder
That said, vampires are one of the cornerstones of modern culture, and Stoker pretty much single-handedly invented the vampire as we know it
1. oğuz atay
2. orhan pamuk
3. ahmet hamdi tanpınar
4. yusuf atılgan
5. sabahattin ali
Though the order is very debatable below Joyce
Everyone except the Turkish Anon has been from English-speaking countries so far, so I'll do some others
2-5. Schiller, Nietzsche, Mann, Hesse
2-5. Montaigne, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Proust
2-5. Petrarca, Boccaccio, Pirandello, Montale
2-5. Lope, Calderon, Gongora, Quevedo
2-5. Eca de Queiros, Pessoa, Saramago, ???
I'm Canadian and actively avoid anything written here because I'd rather not read a million novels about injuns and mudslimes (or WWI) just to find something remotely worthwhile.
Maybe high school and university and their quotas for funding left a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm justified.
Further proof Gaddis is underrated.
runner up: Pierre Berton for godtier history
Hmmm good point, and I also think we should get rid of Melville for Upton Sinclair, Faulkner for Harriet Beecher Stowe and Hemingway for Toni Morrison, and then the list would be perfect
1. Jorge Luis Borges
2. Julio Cortazar
3. Jose Hernandez
4. Ernesto Sabato
5. Adolfo Bioy Casares
1. Katherine Mansfield
2. Janet Frame
3.Margaret Mahy & Joy Cowley (Childrens literature)
4. Wihi Ihimaera or Maurice Gee
5. Keri Hulme & Eleanor Catton (Both won the booker prize)
James K Baxter & Ngaio Marsh two other notable mentions.
1. Halldór Laxness
2. Jónas Hallgrímsson
3. Snorri Sturluson
4. Gunnar Gunnarsson
5. Arnaldur Indriðason (mostly because of influence)
>frans sillanpää(not that most people care about him but muh nobel prize)
runeberg doesn't count because he wrote in swedish
1. Henrik Ibsen
2. Knut Hamsun
3. Bjornstjerne Bjornson
4. Amalie Skram
5. Jon Fosse
Lope de Vega
Calderón de la Barca
And... Góngora? Machado, Lorca, in order to mention more recent writers?
May be Spanish literature is not so widely known nowadays because its most renowned authors were poets and playwrights who wrote in verse and lived 400 years ago, so translations must be garbage.
Sure, we have Don Quixote, but we don't have many more god-tier novels nonetheless, and in my opinion novels are the books that sell better, especially abroad.
It's a pity because people like Quevedo truly mastered prose and verse in Spanish.
>That said, vampires are one of the cornerstones of modern culture, and Stoker pretty much single-handedly invented the vampire as we know it
You don't invent something when you take it from folklore and put it into writing. Furthermore, Polidori predated him by nearly a century.
Kafka was a jewish german living in Prague who also spoke czech. I don't really think he considered himself as either of that very strongly, but he declared german is mother tongue.
I think an identification-ranking for Kafka would be
jewish > german > czech
So I don't really understand where you are getting austrian from. Generally in these kinds of threads I just count all german-speaking writers as german, I totally forgot that Musil and Rilke were austrian, as I do frequently with Max Frisch being swiss. I also keep listing, for example, Canetti as german, even though he was born in Hungary and lived in England - the wikipedia list of literature Nobel winners has a britain flag next to his name oddly enough.
Anyway, my list would be
Schiller is generally seen as Goethe's fuckboi from my experience. Tried to squeeze in Lessing, but he was sorta overshadowed by Goethe aswell (even though Goethe lived a generation later).
Really, I think I shoulda squeezed them in there, but german literature is more than just the later 18th century.
If we include Philosophers like >>7315133 did (Nietzsche is not really respected for his fiction) Kant would go above Nietzsche would go above Hegel would go above Wittgenstein would go above Schopenhauer, etc.
What about Astrid Lindgren?
I am terribly sorry. That is honestly the only swedish literature I've read.
Also Sven Nordqwist, I think? I am sorry.
And if I am just now confusing Sweden and Norway again, well, just kill me I guess.
>What about Astrid Lindgren?
Sure, if we're counting children's literature she's definitely both historically important and influential. She just got her face on the new 20 crown note as well.
>Also Sven Nordqwist, I think?
Another children's literature author. He's very contemporary though so I wouldn't call him influential yet. Good stuff though, I grew up reading his stories.
Well, isn't that 95% of Iceland, with the other 5% living in that other town?
I know that both of them are children's literature. They are considered children's classics in germany, though I did not intend to list Nordqwist as one of your greats.
I feel like suggesting so would be like saying Ringelnatz is one of Germany's greats. Certainly likable, especially for children, but not great literature.
Generally scandinavian lit is all the hype around here, we are basically flooded with those shitty generic thrillers with a rusty bloody scissor or a similar object on the black cover, titled "Murderous Greed" (or something like that) written by people called Per Adler or Nadja Johannson.
>we are basically flooded with those shitty generic thrillers with a rusty bloody scissor or a similar object on the black cover, titled "Murderous Greed" (or something like that) written by people called Per Adler or Nadja Johannson.
I'm so sorry.
>rusty bloody scissor
>Per Adler or Nadja Johannson.
god i hate being danish
Kierkegaard is GOAT prose God. Be thankful.
It's mostly norwegian or swedish I think.
Recently I saw probably the worst commercial poster I have ever seen. It was basically just a white space, the cover of the book, and the written words
Krimi. Schweden. Spannend. Best Seller.
(Thriller, Sweden, thrilling, best seller.)
It was somewhere between hillarious and irritating, but it also taught me that it doesn't really take much to sell scandinavian murder stories if the entire middle class basically treats it as the only thing there is to read already.
Also yeah you have Captain Kierk, cheer up.
Thankful to have one or two authors really worth reading? Come on.
You guys don't know what it's like—especially if you're German. The contemporary literature here is laughably bad, and especially the poetry. It's all political middle-class essays with line breaks, and you have to see them get rave reviews in the Danish cultural sections literally every day.
Sure, once in a while something decent turns up, but if our critics were right even half the time, we'd be an international sensation by now.
>The contemporary literature here is laughably bad, and especially the poetry. It's all political middle-class essays with line breaks, and you have to see them get rave reviews in the Danish cultural sections literally every day.
That's exactly how it is in Germany aswell. Writing is a medium without much of an entrance hurdle, so the bulk of it will always be shit.
Gaddis is great, but unless you're an academic with a stick up his ass he doesn't really portray or even critique regular America outside of JR (probably one of the great American novels).
Jeg ved hvordan det er kammerat.
Honestly, I've never given a fuck about the cultural sections. They're shit. Politiken is a shit newspaper for high school students and the petite bourgeois.
de har en sektion der hedder "forbrug og liv". Helt ærligt.
Carsten Jensen isn't entirely shit tbqh.
>Polidori's vampire had little resemblance to the vampires we're familiar with.
Are you familiar with the story? Suave nobleman who seduces people and kills them. There's more than a little resemblance.
Georges Simenon and Jean Ray deserve to be mentioned but I wouldn't include them since they mainly wrote genre fiction, respectively thrillers and—very good—fantasy and regarding Amélie Nothomb, despite being famous and probably one of the most bought and translated Belgian author she can't decently be admitted as a great writer. Belgian literature in Dutch is poor because of the country short history—independent in 1830—and the wide use of French in high education yet few decided to write in their mother tongue anyway and Félix Timmermans has some merit.
Didn't include poets because I'd be here all week, and then there's the question of whether we're talking about writers who most embody the "national spirit" (which is what I went for) or just sheer writing skill.
Molière isn't even in the five most important ones of the 17th century. Jean Racine, Pierre Corneille, Jean de la Fontaine, François de Malherbe and Marie-Madeleine de la Fayette are both better and more influencial to their era and overall the French culture.
No, go fuck yourself.
>Molière isn't even in the five most important ones of the 17th century. Jean Racine, Pierre Corneille, Jean de la Fontaine, François de Malherbe and Marie-Madeleine de la Fayette are both better and more influencial to their era and overall the French culture.
but probably other people would include the poets (Vicente Huidobro, Gabriela Mistral, Pablo de Rokha, Pablo Neruda, Nicanor Parra, Enrique Lihn) and writers such as Isabel Allende or Antonio Skármeta.
Bilderdijk, Willems, Potgieter, Beets, Ledeganck, Conscience, Multatuli, Gezelle, Loveling, Buysse, Kloos, van Eeden, van Langendonck, Couperus, Boutens, Streuvels, Vermeylen, van Schendel, van der Leeuw, Elsschot, van de Woestijne, Timmermans, Roelants, Coolen, Gijsen, Matthijs, du Perron, Vestdijk, Walschap, de Man, Marsman, Hermans, Claus.
Pick what you like, listed in chronological order since 1756.
I'm not even the guy you're replying to but wtf are you on about senpai
If we are strictly talking about influence on French's literature, then
And 5 maybe Zola
Quick explanation :
The best model of the comedy (without being too close to the pastoral, the classicism or the baroque). Very good psychological analyze in some of his plays. Corneille might deserve this place as much as Molière does because he literally prefigured and permitted Molière.
Obvious for anyone who did a bit of French Literary History. He was the first to truly reintroduce theater as a literary genre (and no, Rotrou isn't the first, he was too much influenced by the lesser-genre of the time (now Hardy is maybe a rival to Corneille, but he wasn't as talented as Pierre was so..) ). He literally permitted an alternative (retro-actively) to Racine. He literally made Molière (and to a lesser extent, Racine) possible. He is the master of the epigrammatic style.
Obvious choice. His influence is absolutely massive. His style was seen as the goal to attain by his successors. Nothing to add really.
Again, his influence is massive, and he revolutionized (thanks to a lot of very diverse influences), poetry, and especially theater (even if the "drame romantique" is a very short genre in French literary history).
One of them, the really influenced the making of novel. They are crucial because they are the "first"
>Authors that cannot possibly appear on this list
Proust - too early to judge
Camus - really ?
Flaubert - not that massive in term of influence really
American Literature is great, so I'm gonna expand the list a bit. There are quite a few writers who really set the tone for our country.
>2. Charles Brockden Brown
>3. William Cullen Bryant
>4. Edgar Allen Poe
>8. Washington Irving
These are all writers from our American Renaissance, and they are the writers who helped us achieve ideological independence.
Doesn't really matter if it's shit or not. These are important literary figures in our history. You wouldn't have an American Lit class without reading something from these writers.
So, basically start reading, stop shit posting.
>the best model of the comedy
Since nobody wrote in this shitty genre neither before or after him, I would clearly throw him away. Even Voltaire is more relevant.
>no de la Fontaine
Don't think poetry counts
I was considering that, and she's more enjoyable to read than most of them, but not really canonical in that it's not taught at schools and talked about as a major influence, etc.
>Since nobody wrote in this shitty genre neither before or after him
That's absolutely false. One of the most accomplished comedy of French theater was written before Molière (La Farce de Maître Pathelin). Plus some very important writers of comedy lived before Molière (Garnier, Marguerite de Navarre or Jodelle).
If you were able to read carefully, you'd see that I talked about influence. Seriously, how can Flaubert or Rimbaud even compete with Racine/Hugo/Corneille ?
I mentioned him in fifth along with Zola
>Baudelaire, Balzac, Flaubert, Rimbaud, de la Fontaine
Is this your list ?
If so, you have (quite unsurprisingly considering your previous remark) no basic knowledge of French Literary History. Not naming Racine, Hugo and your contempt for Molière is indicative of your state of mind : unable to understand that my point was about influence rather than quality.
Now if it isn't your list, then you have some problem with basic calculus because OP said 5 authors
Baudelaire is the only logical proposition you have mentioned here.
I hope you're trolling.
>“La Farce de Maître Pathelin”
>Garnier, Marguerite de Navarre, Jodelle
Is this seriously all you can find connected to Molière? You call that a notable influence on the history of literature? How can we even discuss the influence of Flaubert or Rimbaud with Molière? I'm talking about influence too, that's why I mentioned Voltaire which besides a terrible oeuvre still is more relevant that Molière.
>how can Flaubert or Rimbaud even compete with Racine/Hugo/Corneille?
>Is this your list?
Absolutely fucking not. I made the points >>7316649
and my list is
If I had to compile a list for France, this would include at least de la Fontaine and Baudelaire—I can hardly think of something more influencial that the very authors taught to every single pupil in the country—and Hugo. Comedy is one of the less productive, less read, less relevant to literature medium in our whole culture history so Molière is out of the damn question, I would chose either Racine, Malherbe, Zola, Céline or Rousseau.
Explain briefly what is meant by ‘weak and strong forms of articulation’. Then comment on the pronunciations of the words that and have in the following examples. Note that stress placement is not the most important factor determining the use of weak or strong forms in any of the cases.
| They’ve 'looked at that car there today, haven’t they? | /v/ /ðæt/ /hævnt/
| The car that I have in my garage is not for sale. | /ðət/ /hæv/
>Is this seriously all you can find connected to Molière?
Well you don't seem to understand the impact of these names.
Garnier and Jodelle are key writers really, not because of the global quality of their works or the common appreciation of the public (even though Garnier's theater is truly excellent), but because they truly triggered a process in the making of literature in France (the perfect example being Marot, his influence is absolutely crucial on French versification, but he hasn't produced an "aere perennius monumentum")
>You call that a notable influence on the history of literature?
On French Literature, of course.
>How can we even discuss the influence of Flaubert or Rimbaud with Molière?
A very good question indeed, Molière's influence being far more evident than Flaubert's one.
>that's why I mentioned Voltaire which besides a terrible oeuvre still is more relevant that Molière
That's absolutely false. Academics nowadays discard almost every single commentary he made on Corneille or Racine's plays. His own plays are very rarely performed, and his fame nowadays is (quite surprisingly) only due to his tales. So no, he isn't "more relevant than Molière".
>how can Flaubert or Rimbaud even compete with Racine/Hugo/Corneille?
Then why do you said
>no de la Fontaine
It's completely senseless, I could only name 5 writers.
>Absolutely fucking not. I made the points >>7316649
You have a serious problem with Molière
>If I had to compile a list for France, this would include at least de la Fontaine and Baudelaire
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about really. La Fontaine's influence has always been virtual. La Fontaine has never revolutionized a genre, he just brought it to perfection. That's really different
Sur ce, good night
You're showing a terrible will. You keep ranting over completely unknown to the people and irrelevant to the literature yet talk about influence? How many writers were influenced by Rimbaud or Balzac? How many were by Garnier or Marot? You keep trying to make us believe authors almost nobody know outside of academia, including writers themselves, had a bigger impact on our culture than Céline, Flaubert, Balzac, Zola, Rimbaud? Gautier, …? Either you don't know shit about French literature or you're so much obsessed with a tiny, barely relevant fraction of it you can't understand the clearer, more obvious evidence.
You can't pair popularity with influence. Michel Houellebecq is currently one of the most notorious French author and the only thing he ever influenced is the Goncourt's jury bank accounts. Anyway, there are better known names, still talking about fame; Rimbaud, endlessly discussed here, Baudelaire, whose “Les fleurs du mal” appears to be referenced in numerous subsequent work, Saint-Exupéry, also quite renowned in Japan, for example, or Dumas, Voltaire, Rousseau, the infamous inside and outside of France Céline, Sartre, Sand are all more or less equally popular internationally. Molière is a representant of a genre itself minor in French history.
1. Miroslav Krleža
Tbqh I really don't know. Krleža is awesome (should've won Nobel over Ivo Andrić), but I never bothered to explore anyone outside of him. The writers we covered in high school, or at least the selected works of them, were pretty shit desu.
If I would have to guess, I'd say that Marko Marulić, Marin Držić, August Šenoa, Antun Gustav Matoš and Ivan Gundulić are well regarded.
I know the OP is about your own country's canon, but outside of America (okay outisde of the Anglosphere) Hawthorne is pretty much unknown, while Steinbeck is pretty famous. Doesn't sound that outrageous tbdesu.
Dumas is second rate compared to the others. He's not even in top 30. Though Hugo is one of the giants of French literature.
Not bad, as other have said it's almost impossible to pick five. Alternative list:
More focused on poetry but there's also the godfather of most French novelists (Balzac), the first great French prose stylist (Pascal), and a guy who basically wrote a quarter of the French nineteenth century by himself (Hugo). Work almost as well imo.
1. Pablo Neruda (Poetry)
2. Gabriela Mistral (Poetry)
3. Nicanor Parra (Anti-Poetry - he decided to make that shit himself, the madman)
4. Roberto Bolaño
5. Baldomero Lillo/Vicente Huidobro
I'm taking a guess at this
>Hawthorne is pretty much unknown
To people who don't study American literature, otherwise he's literally the first name you'll come across.
>while Steinbeck is pretty famous
For political reasons.
Fuck me. Canada is the worst country. Atwood is a household name but the winner of the international Dublin prize, and author of the best short story to come out of this trillion square mile hell hole is unheard of.
Seriously though, "The Lost Salt Gift of Blood" is almost a "The Dead" - tier short story.
Garbage. French perfect equivalent of Philip Roth except the Jewish isn't lost in the New Jersey but Paris.
Thankfully notorious for being unknown. Low quality.
You deserve to be beaten up for insulting them.
We're talking about influence and Dumas has, whatever an inept writer he is. I approve your list but would switch Corneille with Racine, add Rousseau—father of the autobiography—and Zola. Also, the order doesn't really make sense. Let's just say they're among the more important and recognized.
India (not my country, but boasts some of the greatest literature of ALL TIME)
1. Veda Vyasa (legendary author, Mahabharata)
2. Valmiki (ditto, Ramayana)
3. Kalidasa ("India's Shakespeare," but the reverse is more appropriate)
5. Narayan/Singh (K)/Seth/Desai (A)/this is impossible
Eco, Calvino, Vittorini, Pasolini, Ariosto, Di Lampedusa, Pirandello, Levi or Svevo might have a shot depending on your taste. Not all of them, but a few certainly.
Gongorra must certainly be in top 5. Wouldn't Tirso de molina also count ?
Wouldn't Swedenborg deserve a shot ? Even though he's more of a philosopher, the guy had tremendous influence (Blake, Balzac and to some extent Hugo were Swedenborgian).
Zola and Camus can't really be top 5, replace them by any two of the three you honorable-mentioned (even as far as influence is concerned, Balzac alone dwarfs Camus and overshadows Zola).
Molière is nearly as influential as any of those, when he's not much more (Madame de La Fayette more influential than Molière ? tippity kek). You'd only have a point if talking about the influence on their era, which is not the topic at hand. As for better, I'd say he compares m8. Better playwright than Racine (though not better poet), on par with Corneille, has qualities than the others haven't.
Pretty good. Céline is borderline but makes a nice outsider, the others are rock-solid.
Agree with you except for Flaubert and Zola. Zola's too late to be considered "first" in the making of the novel, and Flaubert is one of the pivots of the transition from the romantic and realist novel to the modernist novel.
His commentary on Molière wa asinine, but you can't write off Balzac and La Fontaine in terms of inluence. Balzac in particular is the ancester of all the great French novelists of the past 200 years except Chateaubriand and Stendhal. And La Fontaine is less influent, but so widely read and studied he weights a lot.
Voltaire too can't be written off that easily. He made and unmade opinions over all Europe for half a century, made Shakespeare mainstream on the continent, and made the appreciation of classicism what it is. The academics who disagree with him are probably right, but they're much less influent than him.
>How many were by Garnier or Marot?
Marot popularized the sonnet in French literature, so pretty much evry writer of sonnet after him counts. And you can of course disagree about Jodelle and the others, but you're not making a better argument either.
Molière is one of the plawrights most studied and talked about in the history of French theater, alongside Corneille, Racine and Hugo. He's both popular and influential.
>de la Fayette more influential than Molière?
If we're talking about influence, “La princesse de Clèves” is indeed more important than Molière.
>better playwright than Racine
>on par with Corneille
You definitely know jack shit about literature.
>I approve your list but would switch Corneille with Racine, add Rousseau—father of the autobiography—and Zola
Sounds sensible, though imo Zola doesn't belong here given how many big player there have been in the French realist novel (Zola founded naturalism, but it's not so many of our greatest novelists have been naturalists, so I'd say Balzac does the job better here, and is enough). Stendhal would do, though perhaps the bulk of his influence is outside France (on Nietzsche and Tolstoy, mainly, but very importantly in both cases).
Also I put Corneille last because I wanted to balance with the other lists and avoid putting too much emphasis on the 17th century (with Pascal and Racine already at the top), even though it's very important.
Rousseau is an especially good choice.
>Also, the order doesn't really make sense.
Order is hard to make out, but Pascal is the father of post-1650 French prose, as well as one of the most characteristic French thinkers (his outlook, his ideas and his aesthetic are one of the strongest continuous thread from the Great Century to our days), one of the most widely-studied and well-studied French authors, and as far as I know a unique case of a major classical writers who was also unreservedly loved by the Romantics. So I think him behing first is not so outrageous, and it's also a bit different from the other lists which is a plus.
For Racine/Hugo/Balzac I put an order just because, but I really I could have switched them any other way.
>We're talking about influence
I was under the impression we were talking about a balance of influence/canonical weight (see Stoker being influence but not recognized as a big shot in the canon) and quality. Dumas is popular and widely read, but the others in the list itt are nearly as famous and much better.
>Let's just say they're among the more important and recognized.
So let's say:
3. Hugo (Racine)
5. Balzac (Zola)
I wish I could mistake opinion with knowledge as easily as you do.
I don't envy your impotent rudeness though.
That said I take back my comment about Molière and Racine, "better playwright" is too strong for what I had in mind. The former is still easily comparable to the latter as far as character writing, plotting and exposition are concerned imo.
Corneille is hard to compare to Molière because they do different things, but I don't see Molière as any weaker (again, as far as character writing, etc. are concerned).
>inb4 you will misunderstand this post
>though imo Zola doesn't belong here given how many big player there have been in the French realist novel
Sure but he was quite influential through the literary dinners at Zola's place in Médan. We can link him to Maupassant, Huysmans and a couple of great foreign writers directly looking for him along its political stand during the Dreyfus case. I clearly remember him evoked in Nagai Kafū's 花火 short story.
>so I'd say Balzac does the job better here, and is enough
Well, I can agree. Standhal is also worthwhile but limited. Let's stick with Balzac.
>I put Corneille last because I wanted to balance with the other lists and avoid putting too much emphasis on the 17th century
I agree, I don't even think the 17th century is that much important regarding what matters here. Hugo's “Hernani” and Rousseau seem to be of a far greater importance in the literature evolution. After all, Corneille and Racine mastered the classical tragedy but never created a whole new thing like the former did.
>I was under the impression we were talking about a balance of influence/canonical weight
I can also agree. Mea culpa. I suggest the following list:
Baudelaire because of the symbolism/surrealism. In my opinion mediocre but still important.
I still consider it as intellectual dishonesty. Maybe “Tartuffe” apart, how could Athalie or Phaedra be compared to the grotesque comedia del'arte-like characters Molière made up? I could concede Corneille didn't put as much depth as its younger rival but “Le Cid” still is a mastery of language I can't even see Molière challenge in any way.
I can agree with this, and it's pretty unconventional (for /lit) to boot.
>Baudelaire because of the symbolism/surrealism
Also Verlaine, Rimbaud, Mallarmé are descended from him (though not only him, but with Hugo that's most of their direct ancestry). I don't think he's mediocre, only if you compare him to the best of his contemporaries, and even then, he has more range than some of them and his unwholesome verse is part of his appeal (I tend to think it's at least in part deliberate, and is one of the reason he's more remembered nowadays). But I digress. Mallarmé is probably a tighter poet for instance but as you say for influence together with quality and exposure (for lack of a better word) Baudelaire is the best choice out of the 1850-1900 poets.
As a side note I feel the list is particularly harder to decide for France. Britain for instance has roughly as many great writers but the "canonical wieght" seem more concentrated on big figures (mostly Shakespeare, also Milton and Chaucer a bit). Meanwhile even giants like Hugo don't occupy that much space all by themselves in the French canon.
Talking of mediocrity, I was referring to symbolism/surrealism as a whole and compared to precedent movements, not Baudelaire himself. Indeed, five names aren't enough to build a comprehensive French list, we should add a lot of authors. Chateaubriand, Musset (for its theater), Sainte-Beuve, Gautier, Huysmans, Maupassant, Gide, Proust, Duhamel, Saint-Exupéry, Green, … They somehow all brought something worthwhile enough to be included.
Hawthorne a shit. His prose is unredeemablg turgid. He only lives through because the scarlet letter represents a time in history and he was one of the first to reach a wide literary audience in America. Dickinson deserves it more for her acclaim is substantial and literary, not largely historical.
>and he was one of the first to reach a wide literary audience in America
> Dickinson deserves it more for her acclaim is substantial and literary, not largely historical.
His is not at all historical. He is highly influential as a stylist even today.
>4. Wihi Ihimaera or Maurice Gee
Since that whole plagiarism thing with Ihimaera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witi_Ihimaera#Plagiarism ) it makes me wonder about his other books, and whether there's undetected stealing in them.
My list would go like this:
1. Katherine Mansfield
2. Maurice Gee
3. C.K. Stead
4. James K. Baxter
5. Janet Frame
>Wouldn't Swedenborg deserve a shot ?
Literally no one has actually read him though. Also, he didn't even write in Swedish which tends to disqualify him from any Swedish literature top list.
I don't mean it as he having any pride in being jewish, but he thought himself as being jewish (and disliking that in the same sense that he basically disliked himself). He was surrounded by jewish culture in a jewish family, in the jewish district of Prague. Have you read his shortstories and parables? They are full of jewish humour. The environment he grew up in was jewish through and through. He even thought about migrating to Palestine in the later years of his life.
What makes you think he didn't see himself as jewish? I am actually interested, since the nationality and self-identification of Kafka is quite a conflicted question.
That's true, but he's not as well renowned as, for instance, García Márquez or perhaps Vargas Llosa.
He's very well considered, but his name is not so huge yet. But for what I've heard he'll probably win the Cervantes prize at least.
Also, now that you mentioned him, which of his books do you consider the best? I'm reading more Spanish literature recently, and I don't know where to begin with Marias since he has written a lot of books.
Yeah. I mentioned Góngora too. The problem with Spanish Golden Age is that is hard to exclude some writers when you make this kind of lists. I suggested more writers so we could consider some authors that are not from that century, just for the sake of making the list a bit more diverse.
rest is hard and this list is kinda baseless but
3. Thomas Mann
these are probably interchangeable and you could definitely add/remove Hesse etc. although i like heine i don't think his work gets the same kind of recognition among the general public
inb4 i forgot someone important
Forgot about Lönnrot. Then again his authorship is disputable -- he is widely known to have compiled Kalevala from songs made by others, but modern scholarship has shown that the work has many parts that he came up with himself. Definitely important and respected writer, but I wouldn't consider him as an author.
Martin Andersen Nexo (wrote Pelle the Conqueror)
Inger Christensen (complimented by the Bloom himself)
That's honestly it. I don't mean that those are just the best writers. I mean they are pretty much the only ones we have worth mentioning.
Why wouldn't poetry count? I guess Lawson is probably more important that Patterson, maybe.
I've come across Garner at uni, and a lot of young people are reading 'Monkey Grip' these days. I don't think she's the greatest writer but I feel a lot of contemporary Aussies would cite her as an influence. idk, when I win the man booker in a few years I'm citing her as my main influence
>Australia has some of the best novelists and poets of the last 50 years.
We had a handful of truly great writers - if that. And half of that handful were British expats.
Stop trying to peddle this bullshit line no one is buying it.