|
Sorry for being so grumpy but I do fail to see much of a point in Ebert's rambling piece beyond "some authors stand the test of time better than others". He claims that he doesn't want to compile a "list", yet in that case what is the point of telling us about all the authors he has read, unless he only wants to show us that he is such a prolific reader?
The "list" he does not want to provide has some astounding holes. What about European literary giants as Homer, Virgil, Dante, Cervantes, Goethe?
I do not want to rant against lists of "Dead White Males" as I am a white male myself (fortunately not quite dead yet), but do we really still need lists that almost completely ignore all other great civilizations? What about Chinese classics like "The Dream of the Red Chamber"? Japanese literature? Persian? African authors? The only non-Western author seems to be Mahfouz. As a Nobel laureate hardly a very daring choice.
The unbelievable wealth of Spanish and Portuguese literature and all he comes up with are Marquez and Borges? Seriously?
I guess that his list wouldn't have been considered adventurous even 40 years ago. Today it seems exceedingly conservative.
(BTW, Georges Simenon was Belgian, just like Hergé, not French. Thanks.)
|