Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
I would if they were both alive. Dickens was a hack and the only work I've ever enjoyed of his was A Christmas Carol, and then only because of its cultural resonance (I thank him alone for allowing Scrooged with Bill Murray to happen). Everything else by Dickens bores me to absolute tears.
Heinlein I despise even more. A libertarian bordering on fascist, mysogonist with little to no skill who somehow hit a chord with the post 60's pseudo-intellectuals who raised him up as a master. Dull, dull, dull.
If you're going to give examples use someone like Max Brand who was actually talented, wrote for money and only money and despised the audience who bought his work. He would make your argument more compelling to me, but not much more.
|
Oh puh-lease! Max Brand??? Perhaps you might be better served sticking to Cat in the Hat. I'll grant that later works of Heinlein showed his failing mental capacity, but the early works, well, you might as well claim Roth and the rest are trash writers. And as for Dickens, there's not a book of his that doesn't show master-level story-telling.
When you're done jumping the shark, please rejoin the conversation.
Derek