Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DrCurtains t1_j9y8d8y wrote

Reply to comment by Kryptin in Asimov's Foundation Is Bad Literature by Kryptin

Pride and Prejudice wouldn't be published today, does that make Jane Austen a bad writer?

65

Kryptin OP t1_j9y91qf wrote

I'm in the middle of reading Pride & Prejudice. The only other Austen's book I've completed is Sense & Sensibility. And judging with these, I'll say Austen isn't a very good writer. There are flashes of brilliance here and there. But overall, her stories aren't compelling. And her prose is cumbersome and bloated.

−137

DrCurtains t1_j9ya067 wrote

OP... are you the only good writer?

134

North_Yam_6423 t1_j9yl234 wrote

Apparently! Neither Asimov nor Austen can measure up to OP. OP needs to put their $ where their mouth is and identify the books they wrote. I highly doubt they compare to Austen or Asimov. Smdh

42

altcastle t1_ja1r9xa wrote

They’ve got what looks like a real bummer of a post about 2 years of self publishing so yeah, they’re clearly going through… something.

4

NoPerformance5952 t1_j9yjrch wrote

And yet Jane Austen is well known, and I doubt we've ever heard of any of your work. To say nothing about being a woman back then and having opinions about the economics of marriage

24

yeetedhaws t1_j9ypfzc wrote

Jane Austen's works were actually pretty fast paced for the time period, the writing norms of that time are just completely different then what we see today. You've probably already seen a few changes in writing style in your life time (I know a lot of new books during the 2000s-early 2010s had text lingo written in, now that's considered out dated). The fact that you can see flashes of brilliance even though her books are centuries old show that she was a great writer.

It seems you're confusing good literature with personal preference. I personally don't enjoy Faulkner or Steinbeck (hated east of Eden and grapes of wrath, as I lay dying was super morbid and a waste of time for me) but they are inherently outstanding authors because of how their books impacted people when they were published and how they continue to be relevant to people today (very few people know what the great depression was like but people can still get lost in a pilgrimage of a family trying to survive a hard time).

Aismov's foundation might have some antiquated writing techniques or prose but try to listen to how other people are reading and understanding it. They might point out something that proves why it's an enduring piece of literature. If people didn't gleam something from it, it would have been forgotten and would not be considered the classic people deem it to be.

22

EdTheWright t1_j9zul3j wrote

You are quite clearly a poor judge of writing quality.

10

sum1won t1_j9zzhbp wrote

Lmao

Even modern literature greats acknowledge that Austen was a good writer, especially her prose.

The only big author I can think of who hated Austen is Twain, and he appears to have done so tongue in cheek.

Maybe you're just bad at separating your personal taste from whether literature is actually good.

10

Daffneigh t1_ja2r3ja wrote

Wow the arrogance in this comment is astonishing. Austen’s stories aren’t compelling… to you. Millions of readers over 200 years would disagree.

3