My mysterious blog fans continue to ring up the views at an astounding pace. I only have one subscriber, a most discriminating and intelligent reader who I must congratulate on his fine choice, but apparently plenty of others are keeping an eye on this here blog.
Since I know some of you are annoyed and disgusted by my opinions, you're probably asking why the hell anyone would read this. Well, I'll tell you. That's what this entry is all about. And for those of you who don't read it, who do you think you're kidding? Read below and you'll realize why you should be keeping up with my writings.
In this entry, I'm going head to head with some of the giants of Western Literature, looking at the pros and cons of each of them and seeing how they measure up against the crap I write. This is a completely unemotional and objective analysis: I can freely admit that William Shakespeare might be a better writer than me. But, I'm going to empirically evaluate all the data and provide
a clear and inarguable conclusion.
Who's a better writer: me or Shakespeare? Charles Dickens: contender or pretender?
Read on, and find out!
First at the bat:
To Kill A Mockingbird
Strengths: Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the best-loved pieces of American literature; a coming-of-age story set against a backdrop of virulent racism and the Great Depression that handles all these themes with becoming soap-operatic; Sandra Bullock's recent performance as authour Harper Lee in this year's Truman Capote "biopic" Infamous is considered a strong contender come awards season.
Weaknesses: Banned by many schools and libraries (mostly in the
Why my blog is better: Despite apparent misanthropy, no overt racism (my loathing of the Wayans family knows no colour); never banned by anyone, so it's free, non-controversial entertainment for all; no murders, rapes or beatings; no terrible on-screen performances.
Verdict: I kill the Mockingbird
Now entering the ring:
William Shakespeare
Since Shakespeare really varies on the quality scale, with some great plays (Macbeth, Much Ado About Nothing) and some really tired and lame ones (Hamlet, The Tempest), it makes more sense to take Shakespeare and his literary canon as a whole instead of just a particular work.
Strengths: a massive catalogue of work; probably the most famous and enduring writer in history; unrivalled mastery of literary allusion; wrote the most famous plays and sonnets in western literature
Weaknesses: much debate exists over whether Shakespeare was truly the writer of the works bearing his name. Some point to Francis Bacon, among other Elizabethan luminaries; frequent use of pretentious and fancy-pants language, often requires use of Cliff's Notes, etc to provide context for all references and allusions; unflaterringly portrayed by Joseph Fiennes as a wishy-washy twat in the execrable Shakespeare in Love, which also had a terrible Gwyneth Paltrow win an Oscar for smiling demurely and mincing around topless.
Why I'm a better writer: authourship is undisputed by any historians or literary scholars – all the work is undeniably my own; No Gwyneth Paltrow; while occasionally pretentious, my blog employs plain English so to be accessible to the most discriminating intellectual to the lowest drooling peasant.
Verdict: I score a KO!
And finally:
A Tale of Two Cities
Strengths: a poignant story of romantic, platonic and familial love, sacrifice, despair, honour and death; spins several separate stories which inexorably intertwine as the story unfolds; a vibrant portrayal of revolutionary
Weaknesses: overly descriptive and sappy; really laboured attempts to connect the varying storylines, the book is almost too clever for its own good; one entirely unappealing character who eats rust off his fingers (what the crap?); totally improbable plot devices and twists used to make the story more dramatic; Dickens was born after the events in France that he describes, making him a creepy and manipulative poseur, using real tragedy to make his book better, the cold-blooded bastard.
Why my blog is better: concise and doesn't contrive to tug the heartstrings; one storyline per blog and, while enormously clever, doesn't try to tie all the entries together; thus far, I've been alive for all the events I talk about, so I ain't just talking out my ass.
Verdict: Dickens wins! Yeah, he wins because I finally agreed to give him some publicity and write his name in here. Otherwise, I kicked his ass.
Well folks, it's a literary hat trick for me! My quantitative analysis puts me ahead of all three challengers. I don't take much pride in demystifying these challengers, but the results speak for themselves.
Two things for you doubters: you're no doubt rolling your eyes and dismissing this as pompous nonsense. Well, if you think I just chose some lightweights to start off with, feel free to suggest some other literary masterworks/creators, and I'll do another one of these analyses sometime. Second, let me employ my (now indisputable) writing genius to put you in your place in a hilariously dismissive fashion… so piss off.
1 comments:
Steven, you are well aware that I am probably the biggest fan of your blogs, hailing you as the voice of our myspace times but you are yet to be juxtaposed to the true contenders:
a) Downtown Josh's blogs rival yours...haha, just kidding. Josh's iguana sightings and lists of obscure and would have been "soon to be forgotten", if they were ever to be remembered, music choices do not hold a candle to your utter and indiscriminating distain for the human race.
b) My friend, you have yet to read my man Jonathan Safran Foer. Once you do, we can make a little compare and contrast.
c) I am surprised that someone as sarcastic as you did not put yourself up against the greatest and biggest of all works...the Bible. I am expecting a sequel to this blog.
Post a Comment