You not having heard of them is not relevant in the slightest, they do not get any better or worse for you having heard of them or not.
As i said, the greats are known because they have had hundreds of years for people to read their books and talk about them.
That does not mean that tolkien is a better writer than erixson, he isn't.
Modern authors can easily hold their own among the greats.
Hell j k rowling outsold most of the greats in a decade when some of them had a 300 year head start, if we really want to go by your nonsensical idea that recognition means better writing.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on May 24 2019 10:00pm

Rowling is one of the few. She will go down in history as a good writer in our generation. I read a bunch of the Hary Potter books as a kid but tbh as an adult having read some of the classics from Dostoyevsky, Huxley, Hemingway... it's night and day. Those guys are in a league of their own, if you ask some of the contemporaries who the greatest writers are, safe bet they will say a writer that's dead.

He's right and you're wrong. Those authors lived in simpler times and wrote simpler books. It's like comparing Aristotle to some random philosophy professor. The professor has the edge there.

Rowling is actually a trash tier author in her generation who writes childrens novels with half the depth of any of the people i mentioned.
That's just the thing here, for the vast mass of humanity simple is great, twilight sold millions, its the worst written piece of crap i have ever picked up.
If you tried to read malazan book of the fallen you would struggle to even keep up with the sheer scale of it, 12,000 pages of sweeping high fantasy, gods, ascendents, dragons, demons, elder gods and mortals all of whom can rival each other, fighting for various reasons of their own.
It is just on an entirely different level to anything a guy like twain could ever imagine.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on May 24 2019 10:10pm

Simpler times means more attention to your craft, your statement is a non-sequitur. Today's world is filled with distraction and about a billion other things creative people can do. Back then people spent countless hours reading to get away from their dull lives. I haven't read that many books but I've yet to read anyone that deconstructs the human psyche like Dostoyevsky.

Your example doesn't make sense. Aristotle was a maverick, the professor just regurgitates, is that somehow supposed to be impressive?

Your subjective preference for past authors is irrelevant.

You are taking the "greats" and ignoring all the trash of the time. There are great authors of every era, and this is no exception. Also the greats tend to just be the ones that are popular not the ones that are the best writers. Seriously look up some of the toilet humor in Shakespeare. He basically makes Family Guy tier jokes.

>i havent read much
>i havent read somebody better at X than Dostoyevsky

You realize the former weakens the latter right?

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2019 10:19pm

I don't think you understand what a professor does lol. Their primary job is to contribute to the field via research. They are able to stand on the shoulders of giants, not necessarily due to intellect, but due to the times.

The same principle applies to authors. They have the ability to learn from their predecessors, be exposed to alternative viewpoints that help with creativity, etc. There's simply no contest.

This post was edited by thundercock on May 24 2019 10:23pm

Give stephen king or james patterson a week and they will write something better.

Not really subjective when they are world recognized and are household names in literature. They were household names 15 when I was a kid years ago and they remain the same. They are taught in schools because people recognize their greatness. They remain a top of literature must read because once again people recognize their greatness. Shakespeare is a great regardless if not all his works are equally great.