Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Forget literary critics; see how famous authors eviscerate each others creative talent and output.

Dickens-writing 
  Examples:

Ernest Hemingway, according to Vladimir Nabokov (1972)

As to Hemingway, I read him for the first time in the early 'forties, something about bells, balls and bulls, and loathed it.

John Keats, according to Lord Byron (1820)

Here are Johnny Keats's p@# a-bed poetry…There is such a trash of Keats and the like upon my tables, that I am ashamed to look at them.

John Updike, according to Gore Vidal (2008)

I can't stand him. Nobody will think to ask because I'm supposedly jealous; but I out-sell him. I'm more popular than he is, and I don't take him very seriously…oh, he comes on like the worker's son, like a modern-day D.H. Lawrence, but he's just another boring little middle-class boy hustling his way to the top if he can do it.

Oscar Wilde, according to Noel Coward (1946)

Am reading more of Oscar Wilde. What a tiresome, affected sod.

John Milton's Paradise Lost, according to Samuel Johnson

'Paradise Lost' is one of the books which the reader admires and lays down, and forgets to take up again. None ever wished it longer than it is.

Jane Austen, according to Charlotte Bronte (1848)

Why do you like Miss Austen so very much? I am puzzled on that point. What induced you to say that you would rather have written 'Pride and Prejudice'…than any of the Waverly novels? I should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined houses.

Gertrude Stein, according to Wyndham Lewis (1927)

Gertrude Stein's prose-song is a cold black suet-pudding. We can represent it as a cold suet-roll of fabulously reptilian length. Cut it at any point, it is the same thing; the same heavy, sticky, opaque mass all through and all along.

J.D.Salinger, according to Mary McCarthy (1962)

I don't like Salinger, not at all. That last thing isn't a novel anyway, whatever it is. I don't like it. Not at all. It suffers from this terrible sort of metropolitan sentimentality and it's so narcissistic. And to me, also, it seemed so false, so calculated. Combining the plain man with an absolutely megalomaniac egotism. I simply can't stand it.

Mark Twain, according to William Faulkner (1922)

A hack writer who would not have been considered fourth rate in Europe, who tricked out a few of the old proven sure fire literary skeletons with sufficient local color to intrigue the superficial and the lazy.

Emile Zola, according to Anatole France (1911)

His work is evil, and he is one of those unhappy beings of whom one can say that it would be better had he never been born. 

William Faulkner, according to Ernest Hemingway

Have you ever heard of anyone who drank while he worked? You're thinking of Faulkner. He does sometimes — and I can tell right in the middle of a page when he's had his first one.

Marcel Proust, according to Evelyn Waugh (1948)

I am reading Proust for the first time. Very poor stuff. I think he was mentally defective.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, according to Gore Vidal (1980)

He is a bad novelist and a fool. The combination usually makes for great popularity in the US.

Jane Austen, according to Mark Twain (1898)

I haven't any right to criticize books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read 'Pride and Prejudice,' I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shin-bone.

Goethe, according to Samuel Butler (1874)

I have been reading a translation of Goethe's 'Wilhelm Meister.' Is it good? To me it seems perhaps the very worst book I ever read. No Englishman could have written such a book. I cannot remember a single good page or idea….Is it all a practical joke? If it really is Goethe's 'Wilhelm Meister' that I have been reading, I am glad I have never taken the trouble to learn German.

Gore Vidal, according to Martin Amis (1995)

Vidal gives the impression of believing that the entire heterosexual edifice — registry offices, 'Romeo and Juliet,' the disposable diaper — is just a sorry story of self-hypnosis and mass hysteria: a hoax, a racket, or sheer propaganda. 

These are fifteen of the best shots. Check out the rest. (thanks to Angel Rivera)

Posted in ,

11 responses to “Literary Snark”

  1. Dean C. Rowan

    Does Ruchira not like Solzhenitsyn, either? She’s pasted Vidal’s stab twice. Anyway, it’s always fun rereading Vidal’s cocky sarcasm. I’m not sure that either Lewis on Stein or Hemingway on Faulkner are per se put-downs. The best example of a pot denigrating the kettle? John Irving on Tom Wolfe.

    Like

  2. Oops! Just an accounting mistake while writing a hasty post. Am replacing the duplicate with Samuel Butler on Goethe. Butler’s poke is not just at one author but at a whole nation.

    Like

  3. narayan

    Mark Twain’s essays skewering James Fenimore Cooper are the first pieces of acid humor I recall from my teens. They are worth reading in full. I did a similar piece on Lawrence’s much anthologized story, ‘The Rocking Horse Winner’, whose execution violates every rule of writing.

    Like

  4. Care to share it with us, Narayan?

    Like

  5. My daughter is currently re-reading Rowling, and has started on Tolkien’s The Hobbit for a school reading club. Her verdict is probably the reverse of this opinion of Harold Bloom:”
    How to read ‘Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone’? Why, very quickly, to begin with, and perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do.”
    She is stuck at chapter 3 in The Hobbit, puzzled by the mysteries of the Shire, but navigates the simpler world of Hogwarts without much difficulty.

    Like

  6. Dean C. Rowan

    Harold Bloom came to mind as I was writing my comment, too. He ordinarily has a fairly passive-aggressive approach to disposing of authors: he simply doesn’t give them the time of day as he constructs and justifies his canon. Less than great writers need not apply for his attention. Yet with Rowling he takes a purely cost-benefit approach to the matter.
    I’ve never cracked a spine of the Harry Potter books, but long ago I did read The Hobbit and started the trilogy. I couldn’t make it past Fellowship of the Ring, despite massively intimidating peer pressure. I did read Tolkien’s translation/edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I don’t think I even survived the Harvard Lampoon Lord of the Rings parody. Not that I’d recommend even that to your daughter, Sujatha.

    Like

  7. I recall having dismissed the HP books as an airy remix of Narnia, Tolkien and Enid Blyton’s boarding school tales. I still stand by those words, but Rowling and her publishers brought a new level of marketing savvy to the book business.
    The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings had nothing similar going for it until the fight-ridden Peter Jackson versions showed up on screen. It was largely word-of-mouth and geek peer pressure driving that market.
    I thought literary snark was reserved for the elite published critics rather than the hoi-polloi, but am reminded that with the newer technologies that allow anyone to blog and pontificate at will, we can all enjoy being part of the ‘literary snark’ that reaches more than a few readers.

    Like

  8. prasad

    I enjoyed the first couple of Harry Potter books immensely, before they got all serious and big. Lord of The Rings? I first tried the books in preparation for the Fellowship of the Rings movie, and kept falling asleep. The reading plan then downshifted to reading a Cliffs Notes style summary, which too I had to give up on because it was so boring. Tolkien, like Bach, is something every good nerd should enjoy that I always find myself scratching my head over. The thing can be done, and is done excellently, but why bother?

    Like

  9. Dean C. Rowan

    Bach is so NOT nerdy. With Bach it’s about neither the thing being done nor the doing of it. It’s neither the technical intricacy nor the cleverly pleasant solution to the puzzle. Bother with Bach because there are moments in his work that have the effect of a climate, a transcendent world-making. These moments can be durable or ephemeral, and they’re often sui generis.

    Like

  10. prasad

    Ah, I meant nerds like Bach (I think nerds who enjoy classical music typically love Bach), not that liking Bach is nerdy. Have never found myself compulsively playing something of his over and over, or even caring particularly to hear it often. Do you not have that with any great composers?

    Like

  11. narayan

    The latest New Yorker has a brief article on marginalia – comments by famous writers written in books they were reading.

    Like

Leave a reply to Dean C. Rowan Cancel reply