I was suggesting that, in certain cases, Henry James might
still be read for pleasure. That's an important distinction.
For a writer to be great his work has to be able to be read
for pleasure generations later. Being a bestseller in your
own time isn't enough.Neither is being historically relevant.
(i.e., just being the first writer to do X, doesn't make you
great) Cooper doesn't pass the test for me. And being
technically skilled, as James was, is not enough. Still, he
wrote some good stories, but he also had some terrible ones
(The Beast in the Jungle, springs to mind).
On 10/26/07, William Ahearn <
williamahearn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Nathan Cain <
IndieCrime@gmail.com <IndieCrime%40gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
> > Cooper is not a great American writer.He was
one of
> > the first American
> > writers, which is why he is famous. The quality
of
> > his work doesn't really
> > enter into it. Hawthorne and Melville Yes.
Poe,
> > Yes. I'll even make room
> > for Henry James, if someone wants to make a
case for
> > it, but Cooper, no.
>
> Huh? You'll make room for Henry James? I'm
not
> interested -- for the most part -- in the work
of
> James but as a stylist and as a technician he
kicks
> Poe's butt. I'd rather read Poe than James but for
all
> that dismissing James is a tad glib and
reactionary.
> His subject matter is not on topic, as it were,
yet
> it's silly to demean James in a post that
looks
> historically at American writing. The real question
is
> whether James will make room for you.
>
> William
>
> Essays and Ramblings
> <http://www.williamahearn.com>
>
>
__________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Oct 2007 EDT