What is the best written work ever and what constitutes "good" writing?

[Death May Die]

No, I knew you all knew that is from Critizan Kane of course. But, you've misunderstood me. Do you know where the idea to incorporate "rosebud" came from.

Orson Welles had played a practical joke on his co-leading lady, whom at the time was getting around, if you know what I mean. Orson realized this early on. So him and another actor whom I couldn't recall, decided to name the leading ladies popular "genitalia"....rosebud. They put it into the script, to play a inside joke. I don't know if she ever discovered the meaning to it herself ( Marion Davies) but thats where the name originated and came from. You guys probably won't believe me. But I swear, that it the true origin of rosebud.

 

[Rhombaad]

whom at the time was getting around, if you know what I mean.

Wait, wait, wait...are you implying this woman was having sexual intercourse with multiple partners?

 

[Death May Die]

Man, you guys are Jerks! LOL

 

[Aazealh]

No, I knew you all knew that is from Critizan Kane of course.

Do you know how to spell it, though?

Orson Welles had played a practical joke on his co-leading lady, whom at the time was getting around, if you know what I mean. Orson realized this early on. So him and another actor whom I couldn't recall, decided to name the leading ladies popular "genitalia"....rosebud. They put it into the script, to play a inside joke. I don't know if she ever discovered the meaning to it herself ( Marion Davies) but thats where the name originated and came from. You guys probably won't believe me. But I swear, that it the true origin of rosebud.

Alright, so here's the actual story for you (as opposed to your half invented version), courtesy of IMDb.com:

"William Randolph Hearst was infuriated by this movie, obviously based on his life. According to an essay written for the New York Review of Books by Gore Vidal "Rosebud" was Hearst's name for long-time mistress Marion Davies' clitoris. But screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz insisted that he took the name from a bicycle he owned as a child."

Just for your information, Marion Davies didn't play in Citizen Kane.

 

[A.C]

I'm a little split on this whole great writing deal. I mean when would it be proper to use a heavily metaphorical type of writing like Shakespeare did?

For example, would LOST be more enjoyable if, when Eko's brother Yemi appears on the Island, Eko would utter: "Angels and ministers of grace defend me: Be thou a spirit of health, or goblin damn'd, bring with thee airs from Heaven, or blasts from Hell, be thy intents wicked or charitable, thou com'st in such a questionable shape that I will speak to thee. Oh, answer me, let me not burst in ignorance; but tell why thy canoniz'd bones hearsed in death, have burst their cerements, why the sepulchre wherein we saw thee quitly inurn'd, hath op'd his ponderous and marble jaws, to cast thee up again? What may this mean? With thoughts beyond the reaches of my soul; Say, why is this? wherefore? what should I do?"

Obviously, it would be considered better written by critics, but if we're trying to be realistic with a work then Eko wouldn't speak like that. Not that LOST is entirely realistic anyway, but that's besides the point.

Also, isn't it true that Shakespeare had it a little easier writing for plays since he's writing for a visual media (like a TV show/movie writer) rather than other authors who has to write pages of details describing actions and the visual world they're building up? How would Shakespeare write if he was born in the 20th century?

 

[Aazealh]

I mean when would it be proper to use a heavily metaphorical type of writing like Shakespeare did?

For example, would LOST be more enjoyable if, when Eko's brother Yemi appears on the Island, Eko would utter: "Angels and ministers of grace defend me: Be thou a spirit of health, or goblin damn'd, bring with thee airs from Heaven, or blasts from Hell, be thy intents wicked or charitable, thou com'st in such a questionable shape that I will speak to thee. Oh, answer me, let me not burst in ignorance; but tell why thy canoniz'd bones hearsed in death, have burst their cerements, why the sepulchre wherein we saw thee quitly inurn'd, hath op'd his ponderous and marble jaws, to cast thee up again? What may this mean? With thoughts beyond the reaches of my soul; Say, why is this? wherefore? what should I do?"

That example isn't metaphorical at all. It's just Old English and flowery dialogue.

How would Shakespeare write if he was born in the 20th century?

Well for one thing he would write in contemporary English. Other than that I personally don't care much to speculate about impossible scenarios.

 

[Death May Die]

Alright, so here's the actual story for you (as opposed to your half invented version), courtesy of IMDb.com:

"William Randolph Hearst was infuriated by this movie, obviously based on his life. According to an essay written for the New York Review of Books by Gore Vidal "Rosebud" was Hearst's name for long-time mistress Marion Davies' clitoris. But screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz insisted that he took the name from a bicycle he owned as a child."

No, I wasn't implying Marion Davies was Kane, "She" was the lead lady. I think. For your info, I didn't make any of it up.

In oppistion to your IMDB I found a source myself

From Wikipidia

In 1989, essayist Gore Vidal cited contemporary rumors that "Rosebud" was a nickname Hearst used for his mistress Marion Davies; a reference to her clitoris,[11][12] a claim repeated as fact in the 1996 documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane. A resultant joke noted, with heavy innuendo, that Hearst and/or Kane died "with 'Rosebud' on his lips."[1]

Of course, this isn't what they were meaning in the film when they made it.

 

[Griffith]

I'm a little split on this whole great writing deal. I mean when would it be proper to use a heavily metaphorical type of writing like Shakespeare did?

For example, would LOST be more enjoyable if, when Eko's brother Yemi appears on the Island, Eko would utter: "Angels and ministers of grace defend me: Be thou a spirit of health, or goblin damn'd, bring with thee airs from Heaven, or blasts from Hell, be thy intents wicked or charitable, thou com'st in such a questionable shape that I will speak to thee. Oh, answer me, let me not burst in ignorance; but tell why thy canoniz'd bones hearsed in death, have burst their cerements, why the sepulchre wherein we saw thee quitly inurn'd, hath op'd his ponderous and marble jaws, to cast thee up again? What may this mean? With thoughts beyond the reaches of my soul; Say, why is this? wherefore? what should I do?"

Obviously, it would be considered better written by critics, but if we're trying to be realistic with a work then Eko wouldn't speak like that. Not that LOST is entirely realistic anyway, but that's besides the point.

Also, isn't it true that Shakespeare had it a little easier writing for plays since he's writing for a visual media (like a TV show/movie writer) rather than other authors who has to write pages of details describing actions and the visual world they're building up? How would Shakespeare write if he was born in the 20th century?

Name: A.C
Posts: 59 (0.058 per day)
Position: Of the Interstice
Date Registered: June 23, 2005, 08:37:22 PM
Last Active: Today at 09:05:30 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICQ:
AIM:
MSN:
YIM:
Email: hidden
Website:
Current Status: Offline

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gender:
Age: N/A


Damn, and I was seriously curious after that. =)

 

[Aazealh]

No, I wasn't implying Marion Davies was Kane, "She" was the lead lady. I think.

What do you even mean? Do you mean the lead female character was based on her? Because she, as an actress, wasn't in the movie. Do you understand? Your posts really aren't clear man.

In oppistion to your IMDB I found a source myself

From Wikipidia

Oh wow, and what source! Must have taken hours of research! What does it tell us that we didn't know already? Nothing, that's right. An essayist cited rumors, and it was repeated in a documentary. A joke was also made from those rumors. It doesn't oppose what I said in the least.

Of course, this isn't what they were meaning in the film when they made it.

You mean it was his sled all along? Worst movie ever.

 

[A.C]

That example isn't metaphorical at all. It's just Old English and flowery dialogue.

I realize it isn't metaphorical, but it is an actual quote from my version of Hamlet (which is "complete and unabridged") that I transcribed.

Well for one thing he would write in contemporary English.

Maybe the reason only ~5% of the world understand his writing today is because he wrote it in Old English (with often old metaphors) and because his writing wasn't meant to be read as much as it was meant to be "heard" in stage by actors?

 

[Aazealh]

I realize it isn't metaphorical, but it is an actual quote from my version of Hamlet (which is "complete and unabridged") that I transcribed.

Well you gave it as an exemple of a heavily metaphorical type of writing.

Maybe the reason only ~5% of the world understand his writing today is because he wrote it in Old English (with often old metaphors) and because his writing wasn't meant to be read as much as it was meant to be "heard" in stage by actors?

Plays can be read easily. I don't think Old English is that hard to read either personally, but that is sure to deter some people with limited vocabulary. I can't answer for Walter about what he meant though.

 

[Oburi]

So who is the Best writer ever? Is it the historically well-regarded Shakespeare or Dostojevskij? And if so, which of their work is the best one?

Yea Dostoevsky IS the best writer for Crime and Punishment and Notes from the Underground.

Also what constitutes "good" writing? Is something good because it has metaphors? Is it because it is realistic and natural? What about non-fictional or self-biographical works? How do you write good about your own life

You should Just read more and find out for yourself. Everyone has different tastes and styles so I don't know if one can be told what makes good writing.

 

[KazigluBey]

I don't care much for putting the "best" label on anything since I've yet to find a piece of writing that covers the entire spectrum of human emotion and imagination. However The Lord of The Rings would get a vote for being in the top tier simply given how much detail is put into the series. H.P. Lovecraft would get my vote when it comes to supernatural terror and weird tales (Poe being right up there as well), while Julius Evola would get my vote when it comes to writing on esoteric subjects and philosophy. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is up there for the mystery/detective genre (even if Poe beat him to the creation of the genre). I'd throw Jack London up there amongst the greats as well.

 

[Oburi]

I just finished reading Women and Ham on Rye by Charles Buckowski. He really is a great American author. His writing is simple and very (maybe too) straightforward. I'm not used to reading such graphic material in such a casual way. I wasn't offended or anything, just surprised how brutally honest he was, and yet the few profound passages that spread throughout the end of each book make it worthwhile. I should really highlight and tag the parts where he stepped back from his autobiographical story and made some very deep and interesting comments about life and people in general. So yea I'm going through a little buckowski phase and grabbing some more of his books to read. This is great!

"If God takes life He's and Indian giver".

 

[Walter]

I just finished reading Women and Ham on Rye by Charles Buckowski. He really is a great American author. ...

"If God takes life He's and Indian giver".

Looks like that great American writer needs a great American editor.

 

[smoke]

Bukowski is actually pretty cool.

Read "Poem for No One" and "Born Into This". Sometime. Probably his two best.

 

[shadar logoth]

I think a lot of people have such varying degrees of taste that a definite best couldn't really be agreed upon. Some people defiantly have different opinions on what is the best for me it's kind of hard I'm a big wheel of time fan so that would probaly be my personal choice of course Schismmatrix and Neuromancer would follow behind the wheel of time.

 

[A.C]

The Lord of The Rings would get a vote for being in the top tier simply given how much detail is put into the series.

Does great detail constitute great writing though? I've not read LOTR but one of the criticism I've heard is that it spends alot of pages describing the visual aspects of it's world. That's not why I haven't read it though, just not a big fan of this type of fantasy.

I'm going to check out Bukowski, I'm interested in autobiographical stories at the moment.

 

[KazigluBey]

Does great detail constitute great writing though? I've not read LOTR but one of the criticism I've heard is that it spends alot of pages describing the visual aspects of it's world. That's not why I haven't read it though, just not a big fan of this type of fantasy.

I'm going to check out Bukowski, I'm interested in autobiographical stories at the moment.

The fact that he took it beyond a mere fantasy world and created languages, detailed races of people and a history that begins from the start of creation. Not to mention the story he weaves is spellbinding. I think the detail involved is what truly sets LOTR apart from most fantasy.

 

[Griffith]

I like Robert E. Howard's brand of fantasy. My favorite contemporary author at the moment is Victor Villaseñor, most of his books are non-fiction, but I just finished a fiction novel of his, Macho!.

 

[ELEKTRO]

Well I think my favorite works vary with time and moods just as with music, which is why it seems a bit unfair to claim an absolute best written work. Right now I am mostly reading books about existentialism and phenomenology, I am "trying" to read Being and Time (Martin Heidegger) and so far it has proven to be a really hard read but I have to say I get allot of moments where I end up screaming "Aha!" and this moments usually end up having a long term effect where I end up having arguments in my head between many of Heidegger's claims against my previous perception of things, due to this I definitely have to vote for Martin Heidegger's Being and Time as my current favorite work of art.

 

[_Noone_]

You should Just read more and find out for yourself. Everyone has different tastes and styles so I don't know if one can be told what makes good writing.

Exactly. That being said, I have a great love for Pilgrim's Progress and Vonnegut myself.

Man, you know I was quite a reader by 16, but the sheer size and verbosity of The Brothers Karamazov deterred me from finishing it.

 

[Oburi]

Exactly. That being said, I have a great love for Pilgrim's Progress and Vonnegut myself.

Man, you know I was quite a reader by 16, but the sheer size and verbosity of The Brothers Karamazov deterred me from finishing it.

Thank you! The Brothers Karamazov is like the only Fyoder book I havn't read yet, because of it's size.

 

[ranemaka13]

Pussies....


(i haven't read it either.....)

 

[toolkid2112]

I like Robert E. Howard's brand of fantasy. My favorite contemporary author at the moment is Victor Villaseñor, most of his books are non-fiction, but I just finished a fiction novel of his, Macho!.

i like robert E. howard as well. berserk sometimes has a robert E howard feel for me. ive been reading alot of conan stuff and it realy makes waiting for a new berserk easier.