Top five writers

[snafupants]

This list is intended to be totally personal. That's my caveat, anyway, against any infighting or bitter debates. Rather than an objective list I want to know your go-to writer; go-to in the sense of intellectual guidance or emotional upliftment. An optimal literary candidate might be a writer or philosopher whose work partly constructed and continues to mold your thoughts and purse ideologies. The subtext to this explanation is really a warning against senseless punches and bandied pretensions and opinions which are otherwise unrelated to the main subject. That said...and with an ignorance to order...

Spoiler

Saul Bellow
Arthur Schopenhauer
Stephen King
William Faulkner
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Spoiler

Nietzsche or Nabokov easily could have made my list but one is too nasty and the other too snobbish; moreover, the impact of each was decidedly diminished compared to a random top fiver, which is attributable to immanent drawbacks of each or my own peculiarities. Also, Nabokov disliked Dostoevsky, which is forbidden!

Nietzsche also happens to be a Schopenhauer/Dostoevsky clone, save the religious conservatism. I mean, will to power, yeah, really original Friedrich. Anyway, the article below is decent but, in parts, the article's author erroneously assumes that Dostoevsky shared his character's ontological viewpoints.

http://voices.yahoo.com/nietzsche-dostoevsky-hypotheses-human-nature-1470335.html

Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra were brilliant. Leave me alone.

Spoiler

I suppose I would reluctantly accept the writers of the Bible or some compendium of pens that has a reasonable cultural following and remains a cohesive unit, although a true believer might contend that God actually wrote the Bible. I would not.

 

[Puffy]

I'm listening to an audiobook of 'The Shining' as we speak.

(I don't like audiobooks normally, but I sometimes use them when I'm walking my dogs.)

*ahem*

I've never actually read anything by Dostoevsky, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, though these are grave errors I expect to correct shortly.

Spoiler

I'm often like chaff in the wind, so I expect many of these to change. In terms of guides/ influences, the ones I'm most confident about are:
Carl Gustav Jung
Alan Moore
Franz Kafka.

Followed by:
William S. Burroughs
James Joyce

Both of the latter are writers I've only been reading for a short while (the last few months) so I don't feel I've had the time to measure how deeply they've influenced me. Burroughs taught me a new way of reading my surroundings, Joyce a new way of writing.

 

[snafupants]

I'm listening to an audiobook of 'The Shining' as we speak.

(I don't like audiobooks normally, but I sometimes use them when I'm walking my dogs.)

*ahem*

I've never actually read anything by Dostoevsky, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, though these are grave errors I expect to correct shortly.

Spoiler

I'm often like chaff in the wind, so I expect many of these to change. In terms of guides/ influences, the ones I'm most confident about are:
Carl Gustav Jung
Alan Moore
Franz Kafka.

Followed by:
William S. Burroughs
James Joyce

Both of the latter are writers I've only been reading for a short while (the last few months) so I don't feel I've had the time to measure how deeply they've influenced me. Burroughs taught me a new way of reading my surroundings, Joyce a new way of writing.

@Puffy

First off, thanks for bailing out my thread. Second, that's no way to treat a King: audiobook, audiobook, audiobook! Unacceptable. Please smash that electronic contraption immediately and fetch a mellifluously white, gently fragranced hardcopy of that beautiful novel. I know you have already watched the Kubrick film so I shouldn't excoriate you any more. But audiobook: come on brother, you're better than that. Regarding the big three (Nietzsche et al.), general accessibility in ascending order is thus: Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Dostoevsky. That said, this adjudication is general and therefore subtly flawed. Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra is far more nuanced, scathing, and allegorical than most readers realize, and it shares much of its cultural, even ontological, critiques with Dostoevsky's Notes From the Underground. Both should be read, but through truly appreciating Beyond Good and Evil, The Idiot, or the lion's share of Schopenhauer's essays, largely the same lessons will be gleaned. Another way of undermining my ranking of accessibility is to juxtapose a complex work by a relatively accessible author (World as Will and Representation and Schopenhauer) with an accessible work by an author typically showcasing a roundabout, idiosyncratic, referential, almost regale and luxurious style (Birth of Tragedy and Nietzsche). Overall, though, I feel that my order is the correct one to proceed by, presuming accessibility is an issue. Another wrinkle to this decision is one's underlying and prior philosophical ethos. Dostoevsky isn't a revolutionary, in contrast to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and therefore Dostoevsky's prose is more demotic: it speaks to the heart, doesn't make fanciful footnotes, and fundamentally desires to be understood. Yes, read Dostoevsky first. Although there's a distinctly Russian and partly New Testament ethos to Dostoevsky's later novels, namely redemption through suffering, Dostoevsky's didactic in his own right and a serviceable segue to Schopenhauer, whose Will idea was filched and plagiarized by Nietzsche, via Nietzsche's Will to Power notion. Oh, it's all stolen from someplace. Schopenhauer stole Plato's Theory of Forms while taking some liberties with any copyrights surrounding the Vedas and Upanishads. Overall, though, I feel Schopenhauer is a more brilliant and original mind than Nietzsche; it would be impossible to compare Dostoevsky and Schopenhauer.

 

[Puffy]

Yeah, I'm actually a little surprised. I thought INTPs would love ranking stuff, especially writers of all things.

I've read 'The Shining' before, so I have a paperback already (and I agree - one of my favorite novels by him, with perhaps 'It' as the exception) . I like reading (listening) that's thematic to my own circumstances in some way, as they tend to offer interesting juxtapositions. I'm trapped with my parents for the summer, any time after a few weeks and I start to feel the cabin fever.

And I'll bear that in mind. Of the three I'm most interested in Dostoevsky followed by Schopenhauer; New Testament references aren't a problem for me (been there done that), so I'll start with Dostoevsky first. Jung comments on a lot of alchemy allegories and references in Nietzsche, so I'd expect it to be a lot deeper than a surface reading. He seems to be a guy a lot of people like to misquote to; unfortunately I even knew a few philosophy students, who focused on him, who were prone to it (then again one of them was a Christian fundamentalist so that was just waiting to happen.)

How does King compare with them for you, out of curiosity - what is it about King that really clicks for you? I love King, I just find it interesting that you're so fond of him as most of the other writers you like and reference are classics/ considered the more heavy-weight of the medium.

 

[snafupants]

Yeah, I'm actually a little surprised. I thought INTPs would love ranking stuff, especially writers of all things.

I've read 'The Shining' before, so I have a paperback already (and I agree - one of my favorite novels by him, with perhaps 'It' as the exception) . I like reading (listening) that's thematic to my own circumstances in some way, as they tend to offer interesting juxtapositions. I'm trapped with my parents for the summer, any time after a few weeks and I start to feel the cabin fever.

And I'll bear that in mind. Of the three I'm most interested in Dostoevsky followed by Schopenhauer; New Testament references aren't a problem for me (been there done that), so I'll start with Dostoevsky first. Jung comments on a lot of alchemy allegories and references in Nietzsche, so I'd expect it to be a lot deeper than a surface reading. He seems to be a guy a lot of people like to misquote to; unfortunately I even knew a few philosophy students, who focused on him, who were prone to it (then again one of them was a Christian fundamentalist so that was just waiting to happen.)

How does King compare with them for you, out of curiosity - what is it about King that really clicks for you? I love King, I just find it interesting that you're so fond of him as most of the other writers you like and reference are classics/ considered the more heavy-weight of the medium.

@Puffy

Personal favorite King novels are perhaps The Stand, Pet Sematary, It, Hearts in Atlantis, Insomnia, Long Walk (written as Richard Bachman), Dark Tower series, and (indeed) The Shining. That said, and this is probably obvious from Stephen King's inclusion above, I broadly enjoy King's casual voice and existential ethos and dark, quirky sense of humor (especially as Bachman), so even unincorporated titles still excite me; I've probably read every King novel and short story published over the last four decades; somehow I even liked Cujo and The Tommyknockers. I basically grew up with King; The Stand ignited my future love of reading back in high school. The man is almost completely pretentiousness, which I greatly enjoy. There's an objectivity to King's perception of his own work and life. This idea of doggedly avoiding plot is refreshing, likewise the melange of sincerity, anger, love, violence, visceral adventure, and humor in the prose. I just enjoy how nothing is off limits in Stephen King land. I suppose I mentally equate Stephen King with David Bowie - both individuals are comfortable in their own skin and unabashed about exploring taboo subjects or stylistically pushing the envelope. That's cool. An overarching, redemptive quality to essentially all of King's writing is the fun factor. Someone like David Foster Wallace feels like work; Vladimir Nabokov feels stuffy; Martin Amis writes for critics; I have no issues with writers like Gore Vidal and Montaigne but I haven't read enough of some folks to justify their inclusion above. In closing, though, even when the plot falls flat, hanging with the King is still a hoot.

 

[snafupants]

Yeah, I'm actually a little surprised. I thought INTPs would love ranking stuff, especially writers of all things.

I've read 'The Shining' before, so I have a paperback already (and I agree - one of my favorite novels by him, with perhaps 'It' as the exception) . I like reading (listening) that's thematic to my own circumstances in some way, as they tend to offer interesting juxtapositions. I'm trapped with my parents for the summer, any time after a few weeks and I start to feel the cabin fever.

And I'll bear that in mind. Of the three I'm most interested in Dostoevsky followed by Schopenhauer; New Testament references aren't a problem for me (been there done that), so I'll start with Dostoevsky first. Jung comments on a lot of alchemy allegories and references in Nietzsche, so I'd expect it to be a lot deeper than a surface reading. He seems to be a guy a lot of people like to misquote to; unfortunately I even knew a few philosophy students, who focused on him, who were prone to it (then again one of them was a Christian fundamentalist so that was just waiting to happen.)

How does King compare with them for you, out of curiosity - what is it about King that really clicks for you? I love King, I just find it interesting that you're so fond of him as most of the other writers you like and reference are classics/ considered the more heavy-weight of the medium.

As an aside, only the Bible is more misunderstood and subsequently misquoted than Nietzsche or Wittgenstein. Second thing, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation isn't exactly bogged down by New Testament references, but the theme of redemption through suffering and abnegation of self, therefore Will, is partly credited (by Schopenhauer himself) to the Christ ordeal in the New Testament. There's a juncture at which Schopenhauer equates the cross to this temporal existence and implies that one must deny conventional life, motivated by Will, to live, to return to Eden so to speak. In the second, supplementary portion of World as Will and Representation Schopenhauer praises the early Shakers, Quakers, and Christian' fortitude in avoiding the sexual urges, materialism, and easy delights and the Will that silently animates these phenomena. Third thing, as far as I can tell, I am an INFJ.

 

[MissQuote]

I have a hard time picking a "top five authors" as 1) I cannot think of any author who I have read the complete works of, and 2) some of my favorite books I have only read that one book by that author and none of their other work, and 3) some of my favorite books and bodies of work are more of a sentimental childhood love situation, and 4) I am very uneducated (or should I say highly self educated?) and have not read most of the things that I "should" have read by now because I just did not know what they were and have read many things that nobody ever heard of because that is where my self teaching led me, and 5) I've had a few drinks just now.

I love Steinbeck's and Bradbury's writing styles, the depth of emotion and the seemingly endless ability to create awe inspiring metaphors and analogies while weaving a unique story.

C.S. Lewis is very close to my heart. As is J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling (though not as close).

Walt Whitman is probably my favorite poet, but my favorite poems are not by him. (Favorite poems: Invictus by William Ernest Henley, The Song of the Wandering Angus by W.B. Yeats, To Earthward by Robert Frost, Feast by Edna St. Vincent Millay, If by Emily Dickinson, On Children and On Marriage by Kahlil Gibran)

Solomon is my favorite biblical author and Ecclesiastes gives me chills.

Chuck Palahniuk is pretty awesome. And so far I am very impressed with Saligers work but only if you take the whole body of it as a connected piece of art and not one lone piece at a time- and I still have a few to go.

A list of favorite books would include Anne of Green Gables (I've probably read it a hundred times since I was a little girl) Jude the Obscure, Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Color Purple, Wuthering Heights, A Thousand Splendid Suns, The Shinning, A Little Princess, A Wrinkle in Time, 1984, Be Here Now... there are so many.

Right now I am reading The Wall by Marlen Houshofer (nearly finished, just a couple of pages) and enjoying it quite nicely. This past month I also read High Fidelity by Nick Hornby and it was quite amusing.

I keep trying to finish House of Leaves but not making it.

The list of books I want to read is so long, sometimes I get sad that I won't have enough time.

 

[snafupants]

I have a hard time picking a "top five authors" as 1) I cannot think of any author who I have read the complete works of, and 2) some of my favorite books I have only read that one book by that author and none of their other work, and 3) some of my favorite books and bodies of work are more of a sentimental childhood love situation, and 4) I am very uneducated (or should I say highly self educated?) and have not read most of the things that I "should" have read by now because I just did not know what they were and have read many things that nobody ever heard of because that is where my self teaching led me, and 5) I've had a few drinks just now.

I love Steinbeck's and Bradbury's writing styles, the depth of emotion and the seemingly endless ability to create awe inspiring metaphors and analogies while weaving a unique story.

C.S. Lewis is very close to my heart. As is J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling (though not as close).

Walt Whitman is probably my favorite poet, but my favorite poems are not by him. (Favorite poems: Invictus by William Ernest Henley, The Song of the Wandering Angus by W.B. Yeats, To Earthward by Robert Frost, Feast by Edna St. Vincent Millay, If by Emily Dickinson, On Children and On Marriage by Kahlil Gibran)

Solomon is my favorite biblical author and Ecclesiastes gives me chills.

Chuck Palahniuk is pretty awesome. And so far I am very impressed with Saligers work but only if you take the whole body of it as a connected piece of art and not one lone piece at a time- and I still have a few to go.

A list of favorite books would include Anne of Green Gables (I've probably read it a hundred times since I was a little girl) Jude the Obscure, Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Color Purple, Wuthering Heights, A Thousand Splendid Suns, The Shinning, A Little Princess, A Wrinkle in Time, 1984, Be Here Now... there are so many.

Right now I am reading The Wall by Marlen Houshofer (nearly finished, just a couple of pages) and enjoying it quite nicely. This past month I also read High Fidelity by Nick Hornby and it was quite amusing.

I keep trying to finish House of Leaves but not making it.

The list of books I want to read is so long, sometimes I get sad that I won't have enough time.

@MissQuote

Well, somehow it seems doubtful that every self-proclaimed Shakespeare lover has trudged though all three dozen plays and seven dozen sonnets, or even two dozen of either. In the rare instance in which wonk number thirty nine has done so, perhaps comprehension or appreciation lags behind ambition or pretension. Shakespeare is good because he serves another point. Playwrights, poets, philosophers, essayists, and short story writers also qualify for inclusion within the personal top five. This isn't meant to be a platform on which to extol or excoriate the stipulated authors or forum members at all. I'm just curious to see what tickles folks' literary fancy.

 

[MissQuote]

I left Shakespeare off on purpose because I didn't want to sound all pretentious. I went through a phase when I was thirteen when I read as much as I could get my hands on (my grandpa provided me with most of it as soon as he saw I had and interest) and I cannot say I have gone back and really read thoroughly or completely through any Shakespeare since, though I do pull the plays and sonnets I have off my shelf and skim them often enough and would call myself a fan.

Just being noncommittal and rambly and hesitant to talk too much about even one of the things I love most for fear I don't know what I am on about well enough at the end of the day (and a little drunk too)

In regards to the Top Five List, you should read High Fidelity (if you haven't) for a laugh.

I'll work on a list.

This is a good topic.

 

[snafupants]

I left Shakespeare off on purpose because I didn't want to sound all pretentious. I went through a phase when I was thirteen when I read as much as I could get my hands on (my grandpa provided me with most of it as soon as he saw I had and interest) and I cannot say I have gone back and really read thoroughly or completely through any Shakespeare since, though I do pull the plays and sonnets I have off my shelf and skim them often enough and would call myself a fan.

Just being noncommittal and rambly and hesitant to talk too much about even one of the things I love most for fear I don't know what I am on about well enough at the end of the day (and a little drunk too)

In regards to the Top Five List, you should read High Fidelity (if you haven't) for a laugh.

I'll work on a list.

This is a good topic.

@MissQuote

Well, going in reverse order, I realized the self-parody of the top five list before I commenced with this thread. That's all right. There's a decent standup routine with Henry Rollins about the top five lists. Basically, Rollins frames it as that moment when a bad date turns completely rancid.

You shouldn't be afraid or hesitant to express yourself, regarding Shakespeare or anybody else. To avoid dispute, fall back on characterizing these things as opinions, which are almost innately moot. So much of reality stems from someone's interpretation or word coinage.

Apparently Shakespeare would compose plays, especially beyond the first act, collaboratively and with the input of actors. At any rate, I happen to feel Faulkner is a more subtle, versatile, and ultimately more talented writer than Shakespeare.

 

[MissQuote]

The problem with opinions is they tend to piss people off! And then there is that to deal with.

Shamefully, I have not read any Faulkner completely. I read partway through The Sound and the Fury and was distracted by some other books and I began As I Lay Dying and put it down because I made the mistake of beginning it the week of the first anniversary of witnessing a family member lose their cancer battle, I have my place marked and think I might finish it now that I finished The Wall.

 

[snafupants]

The problem with opinions is they tend to piss people off! And then there is that to deal with.

Shamefully, I have not read any Faulkner completely. I read partway through The Sound and the Fury and was distracted by some other books and I began As I Lay Dying and put it down because I made the mistake of beginning it the week of the first anniversary of witnessing a family member lose their cancer battle, I have my place marked and think I might finish it now that I finished The Wall.

@MissQuote

That's the typical progression through Faulkner. That said, I would delve into Sanctuary, which I feel is rather brilliant in spite of Faulkner's dismissal of that early novel as a potboiler in desperate financial times; Sartre and Camus enjoyed Sanctuary too; Camus actually later adapted Requiem for a Nun to play form, around the mid fifties. Short stories like Rose for Emily are also fairly accessible. Anyway, after Sanctuary, drift over to Light in August, and then close things out with Absalom, Absalom! There aren't words in the english lexicon to describe the poetic and narrative genius of Absalom, Absalom! The story, however, can feel like a slog in parts, especially to recent Faulkner converts. For some readers, As I Lay Dying remains an acquired taste, and it's certainly unusual even among Faulkner's gothic canon, but Sound and the Fury is basically unanimously hailed as earth shattering, and I would corroborate that clamor, or sound and the fury, if you like. That title actually derives from the Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow Macbeth bit. That particular Shakespearian soliloquy also worked its way into Joyce's Portrait of the Artist. Yeah, Faulkner and Shakespeare alike knew their way around a sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_and_tomorrow_and_tomorrow

 

[MissQuote]

@MissQuote

Yeah, Faulkner and Shakespeare alike knew their way around a sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_and_tomorrow_and_tomorrow

No kidding. I can't come up with anything to say to all your advice after reading that little soliloquy.

 

[snafupants]

No kidding. I can't come up with anything to say to all your advice after reading that little soliloquy.

@MissQuote

That particular excerpt is pretty stirring. I would contend that Shakespeare and Faulkner stand essentially side-by-side as the two most talented fiction/prose writers of all time. Joseph Conrad had an impeccable eye for cadence, Philip K. Dick generated consistently ethereal/prophetic ideas, and Charles Dickens is perhaps the most magical storyteller ever, but Faulkner and Shakespeare wield the full, seemingly effortless genius package almost every time out. Page for page, though, Faulkner stands on top. Faulkner basically incorporated poetry into fiction with this Conrad-inspired verse prose style which focuses on adjective strings and cadence, and narrative tricks like italicized stream of consciousness. Faulkner outfits the reader with just enough text intimidation such that the reader can create her own poetry. A bare bones comparison, however, of Shakespeare's sonnets and Faulkner's early poetry collections (i.e., Marble Faun and Green Bough) would deem Shakespeare the overwhelming rhyme victor; Shakespeare's plots were also somewhat consistently more complex than Faulkner's stories; Faulkner perhaps went deeper whereas Shakespeare and Tolstoy expanded in breadth. To make matters more turbid, Shakespeare certainly isn't the top bard of all time; poetry requires a greater subjective appraisal anyway, so perhaps that's your call. This objective criteria stuff is inducing insanity; why didn't I include Henry Miller or Joseph Conrad somewhere? I've constructed this narrow box which makes me uncomfortable and a little edgy.

 

[Manic]

I'll throw my hat in the ring because you two have an interesting discussion going on and need some company. I have trouble coming up with a top 5 list of authors because in fiction my reading is quite broad but not particularly deep in many areas. I've read a lot more non-fiction than fiction, but I went back to college in the past couple of years after a 30 plus year haitus, this time in English. One reason I chose English is to fill in some holes in my reading of the classics. The other reason is that I'm planning to go on to a Masters program in creative writing after this. At any rate, here are some thoughts on writers and books I like:

- Shakespeare - I can't say I agree with you about Faulkner's superiority over Shakespeare but my reading of Faulkner is sketchy (he's one of the ones on my short list to get to). That said, I agree that Faulkner is one of the great prose stylists, and A Rose for Emily is one of my all-time favorite short stories. Well, back to Shakespeare: favorite plays include The Tempest, Othello, and Macbeth. I could have listed five more. Love the sonnets; I prefer the "Dark Lady" sonnets to the "Young Man" ones.

- Camus, The Stranger - I just re-read this book after 35 years. I liked it back then but probably didn't get as much out of it. The main thing I remember about it from back then is the eerie, surreal tone. I like a lot of philosophical novels and have a particular interest in absurdist/existentialist philosophy. I wrote a paper on this story for my Studies in the Novel class.

- Voltaire, Candide - Another French philosophical novel. This is one of the books I've re-read many times. Voltaire was the quintessential Enlightenment philosopher and this book is a gem. He lampoons the Leibniz's philosophy of "pre-established harmony," that "everything is the best in this best of all possible worlds." I have a penchant for satirical comedy and this is one of the best satires every written.

- Poe's stories - I like the horror stories but I'm particularly partial to his three "tales of ratiocination"--The Murders in the Rue Morgue, The Purloined Letter, and The Murder of Marie Roget--as he called them. These were the first detective stories ever written, and created virtually all of the detective story conventions still copied today. These are right up an INTP's alley.

- Matthew Lewis, The Monk - This is a random choice. You may not have heard of it. It is considered one of the landmark gothic novels, published around 1796. It is so full of monastery sex and the supernatural that it was notorious in its day and almost banned. It is something of a difficult read but if you stick with it the ending blows your mind. Incidentally, Stephen King write the forward to the copy I have.

A motley list; I could've picked 25 others but thought I'd throw this out there.

 

[Absurdity]

Cormac McCarthy - Blood Meridian
Jorge Luis Borges - Collected Fictions
Ernest Hemingway - The Sun Also Rises
Leo Tolstoy - Anna Karenina
Italo Calivon - Invisible Cities

 

[Manic]

Cormac McCarthy - Blood Meridian
Jorge Luis Borges - Collected Fictions
Ernest Hemingway - The Sun Also Rises
Leo Tolstoy - Anna Karenina
Italo Calivon - Invisible Cities

A couple of these are on my extended list. Calvino's The Baron in the Trees is also a favorite.