12-01-2004, 03:29 PM
Who is better: (regardless of Nationality)
1). Hemmingway
2). Steinbeck
3). MacLennan
Mick
1). Hemmingway
2). Steinbeck
3). MacLennan
Mick
Best 20th Century Author
12-01-2004, 04:02 PM
Hemingway was most significant among those three because of his influence on other writers. However, (as Steinbeck observed) he had only one theme and he never really developed his style. Some people believe he was in continual decline throughout his career.
Steinbeck's output was extremely varied and there is no question that Steinbeck was a much more versatile writer than Hemingway. He did so much commercial writing in late career, though, that his critical reputation was badly tarnished and the fact that he wrote chatty nonfiction columns for magazines such as "Travel Holiday" overshadows his acheivements. He, too, is accused of being in continual decline from the Grapes of Wrath on.
Hugh MacLennan was a good writer but simply isn't in that league. He had neither Hemingway's stylistic importance nor Steinbeck's virtuosity.
Of the three, I'd pick Steinbeck as the best writer. Hemingway was important in stylistic terms but he confined himself within the box he invented; Steinbeck on the other hand was amazingly versatile, an adept and flexible stylist. (Think about it: when has anyone talked about Steinbeck's style?)
Thematically, Hemingway was a product of his time and now seems dated. Steinbeck, on the other hand, suffered at the hands of critics in part because his themes ran counter to the modernist convention. I would argue that Steinbeck's themes were more visionary than Hemingway, and his embrace of the emerging science of ecology placed him ahead of his time. This led to lower critical regard as he was viewed as a naturalist throwback by critics who expected him to toe the modernist line.
Steinbeck.
Steinbeck's output was extremely varied and there is no question that Steinbeck was a much more versatile writer than Hemingway. He did so much commercial writing in late career, though, that his critical reputation was badly tarnished and the fact that he wrote chatty nonfiction columns for magazines such as "Travel Holiday" overshadows his acheivements. He, too, is accused of being in continual decline from the Grapes of Wrath on.
Hugh MacLennan was a good writer but simply isn't in that league. He had neither Hemingway's stylistic importance nor Steinbeck's virtuosity.
Of the three, I'd pick Steinbeck as the best writer. Hemingway was important in stylistic terms but he confined himself within the box he invented; Steinbeck on the other hand was amazingly versatile, an adept and flexible stylist. (Think about it: when has anyone talked about Steinbeck's style?)
Thematically, Hemingway was a product of his time and now seems dated. Steinbeck, on the other hand, suffered at the hands of critics in part because his themes ran counter to the modernist convention. I would argue that Steinbeck's themes were more visionary than Hemingway, and his embrace of the emerging science of ecology placed him ahead of his time. This led to lower critical regard as he was viewed as a naturalist throwback by critics who expected him to toe the modernist line.
Steinbeck.
12-01-2004, 05:11 PM
I liked your analysis, and agree with the tarnished image of Steinbeck, and agree that Steinbeck was the best of the 3, at least until WWII (Cannery Row is probably the best book I have ever read), but I think Hugh can hang. I thought the watch that ends the night was very well done. The language, the characters, the themes, were all excellent.
12-01-2004, 05:25 PM
No question about it in my book: Ayn Rand.
Atlas Shrugged has long been regarded in the literary field as the "second most influential book of the twentieth century."
As a point of reference, the first most influential book is The Bible.
~Scott
Atlas Shrugged has long been regarded in the literary field as the "second most influential book of the twentieth century."
As a point of reference, the first most influential book is The Bible.
~Scott
1995-04-07 Toledo | 1996-06-29 Toledo | 1996-11-23 Detroit | 1998-08-22 Toledo | 1999-02-12 Auburn Hills |
1999-05-05 Grand Rapids | 1999-07-31 Clarkston | 1999-12-31 Toronto | 2000-01-01 Toronto |
2000-06-14 Pontiac | 2000-07-15 Clarkston | 2000-12-02 Detroit | 2002-08-31 Clarkston |
2004-09-18 Detroit | 2007-04-12 Detroit | 2009-05-29 Detroit | 2012-11-28 Detroit | 2016-08-08 London | 2016-08-16 Hamilton
12-01-2004, 05:40 PM
I enjoy Rand as well. I've read fountain head and anthem. Both excellent. Don't exactly buy objectivism, but good writer. Def. need to read Atlas.
12-01-2004, 07:27 PM
Can't comment on those I haven't read, and God knows there's a ton of folks from different corners of the world, in all sorts of languages, who did GREAT stuff over the past 100 years... but of those three I'd go with Hugh by a massive landslide, not even close for me.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)