Which commonly studied writers or thinkers do you absolutely hate?

[DontHate]

I personally have a passionate distaste for Junot Diaz (what a misogynistic, sloppy, one-note hack), and he seems to appear on every f'ing world literature syllabus nowadays.

[bluecheese]

Continuing from Junot Diaz: Jonathan Franzen, David Foster Wallace, etc.

 

Contemporary-ish, realist dude-novels are generally bothersome things.

[sebastiansteddy]

To change it up a bit... I HATE Jane Austen.

[DontHate]

It will be a more entertaining discussion if you explain why you hate whoever you hate.

[asleepawake]

I have a tumultuous but ultimately wonderful relationship with Hemingway. If bullfighting or fishing/boating plays a major part in the work, I probably despise it, so much so that I cannot stand to read or discuss it. If it's another of his works, I just might appreciate it quite a bit - For Whom the Bell Tolls is fantastic and I have much to say! I don't think there is any writer/thinker that I really hate completely; I prefer these confusing relationships.

Edited January 13, 2013 by asleepawake

[ohgoodness]

I dropped a class on the final assignment during my freshman year (english Iiterature) because we had to read the mistress of spices. Has to be worst book ever to be included in a reading list. Such a fake way of writing, thinking and feeling.  I finished the course two years later - had to read howards end instead .. 

 

During that class - we had to read oranges are not the only fruit (winterson) disgrace (coetzee) and on beauty (smith) and then mistress of spices.  Yes this was english lit 1 with a slight hint of post-colonialism.. 

Edited January 13, 2013 by cherub

[Two Espressos]

This is a great DontHate thread, kind of goes off the "is it significant" thing I said elsewhere.  But you did the work for me, so kudos for that. 

 

This will bring many down-votes.  Let's see:

 

-Gertrude Stein, for writing meaningless word games.  Why is she important again?

-Sigmund Freud, for being egregiously abused by people in the humanities who know little to nothing about psychology.  Historically significant, but no longer relevant.

-Jacques Lacan, for the same reasons (sans significance), and for writing in the most turgid way possible.

-Slavoj Žižek, for taking Lacan seriously and writing a ridiculous amount of books expressing repetitive ideas.  He's occasionally insightful, but I'm skeptical of any thinker with such a voluminous output. (I'm looking at you, Derrida.)

 

Basically, if you're writing about psychology in the humanities and aren't reading, researching, and citing contemporary empirical studies, I'd probably hate your work, too.

[sebastiansteddy]

-Sigmund Freud, for being egregiously abused by people in the humanities who know little to nothing about psychology.  Historically significant, but no longer relevant.

-Jacques Lacan, for the same reasons (sans significance), and for writing in the most turgid way possible.

-Slavoj Žižek, for taking Lacan seriously and writing a ridiculous amount of books expressing repetitive ideas.  He's occasionally insightful, but I'm skeptical of any thinker with such a voluminous output. (I'm looking at you, Derrida.)

 

Basically, if you're writing about psychology in the humanities and aren't reading, researching, and citing contemporary empirical studies, I'd probably hate your work, too.

 

You're not applying to Buffalo, are you? 

[ohgoodness]

-Slavoj Žižek, for taking Lacan seriously and writing a ridiculous amount of books expressing repetitive ideas.  He's occasionally insightful, but I'm skeptical of any thinker with such a voluminous output. (I'm looking at you, Derrida.)

 

People tend to say that you go to a cafe/pub in the balkans and find 10 Zizeks talking drunken drivel..  I agree but then again - haters gonna.. 

Edited January 13, 2013 by cherub

[bfat]

Heidegger. Not because of his ideas, or even because he was a Nazi, but because his writing makes me want to murder kittens.

[DontHate]

Heidegger. Not because of his ideas, or even because he was a Nazi, but because his writing makes me want to murder kittens.

 

I kind of agree. I like having read Heidegger, and thinking about his ideas, but I hate the actual process of reading him. He's a parody of himself. Gunter Grass does a good job mocking him.

[t1racyjacks]

Baudrillard. Hyperreal blah blah blah. Not just obvious, but boringly obvious -- and not very helpful I think, when it comes to the big issues of writing.

 

Judith Butler: nothing to do with what's in her work. it's her writing.

 

Homi Bhaba: also his writing. I think he's boring too. So you plough through all that shit, to get something boring in the end

 

Kenneth Goldsmith is on my hatelist after someone introduced him in chat. Pretentious wanker, can't even write poetry. I think a 4 year old's attempts at spelling are more interesting. Any other smart ass 'performative' attempts at literature which involve farting, tracing the shape of one's fingernail clippings and writing an essay about them -- or something of the sort. Quit it already. The 'concepts' behind such art don't impress me.

 

Ayn Rand: JUST DISAGREE with her. Not too commonly studied however.

 

Italo Calvino: and the rest of the ostensibly 'metafiction' gang. Eco is sometimes ok, but I thought Foucault's Pendulum was too much. However Name of the Rose was fine.

 

Charles Dickens: I'm sorry, I just find him very boring. All the cheap sentimentalism etc.

 

I'll probably add as I think of more

[bluecheese]

I just read 150 pages of Heidegger (Being and TIme) for a reading group on Monday (I read 90 pages of it on Monday before 4pm, which was crazy).

 

To be honest, I spent so much time with it back in the day, mostly it makes me feel at home. It is a warm, enclosed world. A kind of Nazi womb decorated with term ornaments.

 

 

 

Wait, why do you hate Kenneth Goldsmith so much? He is just silly. He is kind of more comedic than anything. Did you meet him in person and he was unpleasant? I mean, in terms of conceptual writing he is no Vanessa Place... and really who cares that much about conceptual writing generally (it is kind of boring). But, I don't see any reason to hate in any more than most other contemporary poetry. If I was going to drop hate towards any body of contemporary poetry, it would be the neo-modernist drivel that is pushed by the prozac funded poetry foundation journal "poetry." Although they're going to have a new editor, so maybe things will change a bit.

[practical cat]

I'm with you on Diaz, donthate, for the same reasons.

Joseph Conrad because I have never in my life been bored by something (other than maybe Downton Abbey, oops) the way I am bored by Heart of Darkness.

[1Q84]

bored by something (other than maybe Downton Abbey, oops)

 

Oh no you didn't.

[DontHate]

I feel like this could quickly become a Downton Abbey flamewar

[practical cat]

Bored, I am so bored! I won't defend the position but.

[dazedandbemused]

I see your Conrad and raise you a Henry James. I might be alone here, but I just can't stand his stuff. It doesn't help that all of the things I've read by him were taught in conjunction with psychoanalytic theory, which I generally find unimpressive and needlessly complex.

 

Oh, and Wordsworth. hate that guy.

Edited January 14, 2013 by dazedandbemused

[dazedandbemused]

To change it up a bit... I HATE Jane Austen.

 

Ain't nobody gonna talk about my girl Jane like that.

[asleepawake]

Oh, my gosh, yes, Heart of Darkness. I think I was assigned it twice in undergrad and twice in my MA. I hope to never see it again.

[sebastiansteddy]

Ain't nobody gonna talk about my girl Jane like that.

 

Haha! She is just soooooo incredibly boring. Cannot get through any of her novels.

 

To add another... I can't stand reading Spenser.

[dazedandbemused]

Haha! She is just soooooo incredibly boring. Cannot get through any of her novels.

 

To add another... I can't stand reading Spenser.

 

We might have to take this into an alleyway. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Spenser! I can't get too mad though; I wouldn't call reading him the most enjoyable experience either.

[sebastiansteddy]

We might have to take this into an alleyway. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Spenser! I can't get too mad though; I wouldn't call reading him the most enjoyable experience either.

 

Haha. If we end up at the same school we'll have to brawl! I wrote my undergrad thesis on Sir Thomas More. Now I study much more contemporary literature. Spenser and Austen have to be my two least favorite authors. 

 

I am also interested in critical theory, and am trying to think of people in that department who annoy me... hmm... Catherine Malabou annoys me sometimes. So does Agamben sometime. But I wouldn't say I hate either of them.

[BrookeSnow]

Heidegger. Not because of his ideas, or even because he was a Nazi, but because his writing makes me want to murder kittens.

 

So glad to know I'm not the only one. 

[IG-88]

So Dickens is a cheap sentamentalist, psychoanalysis is "unimpressive," Freud's no good because of the ways in which he has been "egregiously abused," Stein is unimportant, and Austen and Conrad are just plain boring.