my favorite writers, any medium, no order:

Yikes, that's tough. Off the top of my head...

Douglas Adams, Kurt Vonnegut, Leo Tolstoy, John Steinbeck, J.R.R. Tolkien, Neal Stephenson, Michel Foucault, Isaac Asimov, Gloria Anzaldua, Sergei Lukyanenko.

No order there, although Adams and Vonnegut are easily the top two. And I'm not totally convinced that Lukyanenko really deserves to make the list, but I'm presently so enamored with the Night Watch books that I had to find a place for him.

Does Joss Whedon count as a writer? If so, I might have to find a place for him.

Strangely, Tolstoy and Steinbeck (despite being quite prolific) make the list wholly on peak. Tolstoy almost entirely on Anna K, though War and Peace is also quite good. And Steinbeck - despite all the legitimate criticisms and my relative lack of interest in most of his works - simply has to be there because Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men both might make my top 10.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Yeats+English+literature&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GWYA

I don't really see how it's relevant. Collections are put together to sell copies. It's factually inaccurate to refer to Yeats as an English poet. That other people do it or have done it in the past doesn't make your statement correct.

Argument ad populum

Do you think he had a choice, a viable political choice? Had he not made a big deal out of it, what you think the upshot would have been?

Maybe we have a chance to actually negotiate with Khrushchev? To treat them as rivals, yes, but not as an enemy at war?

Perhaps Kennedy should have taken some time to think about how all ineffectual and belligerent crap he heaped on the Castro government forced them into the Soviets' arms and led up to this situation?

I'm not going to pat the man on the back for making a series of blunders bringing us to the brink of World War III, then not actually starting World War III.

Who do you see at the time as doing differently? Barry Goldwater? LBJ? Who?

For all his faults, I'm almost positive that Nixon would have been much better in that position.

I listed them as English authors because that's what they are, and have been considered to be for years. As have Dylan Thomas and Samuel Beckett and many many others. That they can be something else, too, is not something I would deny. Why are you so stiff-necked about this?

Actually, I was just being annoying.

Although I will say that the categories don't make sense to me. Why have American Literature, which encompasses only American writers, and English literature, which apparently encompasses everyone else that writes in English? Maybe this is just a quirky only-in-America thing. Maybe in Australia Poe, Shakespeare, and Walcott are considered equally English and taught in the same introductory courses. I can live with that.

But I don't understand a definition of English literature that would include Irish, Australian, and Indian writers but exclude American. Which is not to say that that necessarily was your definition. I assumed that it was but am not sure.

Seriously? Marcus? What is people's obsession with Marcus? He's a goober and was only on for part of the show anyway.

Any list like this absolutely MUST contain both Londo and G'Kar. They are the heart and soul of the entire show. You can't really justify leaving off Garibaldi either. Which makes the only real question which minor character you like the most and want to include.

For me, it has to be Vir. I think you could make a strong case for Morden, too. And you wouldn't go wrong to include Ivanova, of course.

agreed about Marcus. I mean he was there purely as a male sex symbol, he brought nothing to the show. Also agreed about the Londo and G'kar comment.

I don't really see how it's relevant. Collections are put together to sell copies. It's factually inaccurate to refer to Yeats as an English poet. That other people do it or have done it in the past doesn't make your statement correct.

Have you been to school? Have you been to a university? Did you take English? Were they or were they not taught in those classes? Are they are not part of the received literature?

If you think that's all wrong, fine, but do you think here and now, doing what we are doing, basically playing parlor games, is the place and time to be arguing over this? If you don't think they qualify, fine, don't include them. But, I do, and I have authority backing me. You have some half-baked poorly thought, no authority behind you, as far as I can see. But, these lists are more or less self-defining. I've defined mine. Do yours.

On Edit:

Actually, I was just being annoying.

Well, some people can drink through their nose. Talent is what it is.

I listed them as English authors because that's what they are, and have been considered to be for years. As have Dylan Thomas and Samuel Beckett and many many others. That they can be something else, too, is not something I would deny. Why are you so stiff-necked about this? Are you able to understand the point that I and tons and tons of academicians have made for years and years?

I don't understand the point that you're trying to make.

I reacted to it because it's an old misconception. Literature depends on creative mis-interpretation. We think about authors as English authors or American authors because they're writing in a certain tradition, responding to other authors.

Is your point that they are writing in the English tradition? Because I would find that view to be rather inaccurate.

I'll see the Simpsons Non-Family Character Mount Rushmores and raise you a Simpsons Episodes Mount Rushmore.

Lisa's Substitute
One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish
Homer at the Bat
Lisa's Wedding

As a sci-fi nerd, I'm completely embarrassed to admit that I completely and utterly missed the entire Babylon 5 experience. It makes no sense to me why I would have, either. AHA! Research wins. It was on cable, and those were thin years of no cable for me. I may have a new DVD project.

Babylon 5 was on regular tv for the first couple of seasons, but if your city was like mine it was moved around time wise a lot. Personally the first three years are some of my favorite shows, the fourth year was rushed and the fifth season sucked ass. Of course my taste of TV is Space:Above and Beyond(former Marine, of course I had to love that show), Brimstone and Firefly (all shows lasted very short spans so my tastes doesn't match the popular)

Babylon 5 was what Deep Space Nine wanted to be.

Have you been to school? Have you been to a university? Did you take English? Were they or were they not taught in those classes? Are they are not part of the received literature?

If you think that's all wrong, fine, but do you think here and now, doing what we are doing, basically playing parlor games, is the place and time to be arguing over this? If you don't think they qualify, fine, don't include them. But, I do, and I have authority backing me. You have some half-baked poorly thought, no authority behind you, as far as I can see. But, these lists are more or less self-defining. I've defined mine. Do yours.

When I went to University, I went beyond survey courses, but hey, that's me.

Look, evidently you define English Literature as being anything written in English. I think that it's actively harmful to understanding the context of works, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm not dignifying the appeals to the authority of the allmighty google search with a response.

To help head off what is promising to turn into an ugly ugly fight on the definition of the people of the Isles, I'll try and name 10 of my favorite authors off the top of my head:

Alastair Reynolds, Vladimir Nabakov, Thomas Pynchon, Margaret Atwood, Jeanette Winterson, George Eliot, Neal Stephenson, Peter Ackroyd, Salman Rushdie, Charles Dickens.

Those were the first ten that came up, so that has to be worth something, if not entirely accurate. (I left off Douglas Adams on purpose as I was thinking, although proof of his importance to me is given back somewhere in the thread.)

EDIT: I can leave off a lot, as my library is my most important possession, but leaving off William Kennedy has to cost me an edit.

Although I will say that the categories don't make sense to me.

You do have an appreciation about what's been going on this thread here the last few days? If so, given what you just said, why are you here?

But I don't understand a definition of English literature that would include Irish, Australian, and Indian writers but exclude American. Which is not to say that that necessarily was your definition. I assumed that it was but am not sure.

English literature is the study of writers who write in English. In this context "American literature" as well as "English literature" are subsets of English literature proper on a similar analystic level as "Twentieth Century literature."

Tshipman is being an obstinate ass.

Although I will say that the categories don't make sense to me. Why have American Literature, which encompasses only American writers, and English literature, which apparently encompasses everyone else that writes in English? Maybe this is just a quirky only-in-America thing.

The phrase I hear more and more is British Literature.

Nine favourite authors, non philosophers division (since all the best writers are philosophers).

Beckett
Doestoevski
Camus
Chandler
Folwes
Queneau
Kennedy
Hemingway
Hesse

Look, evidently you define English Literature as being anything written in English. I think that it's actively harmful to understanding the context of works, but whatever floats your boat.

I think using context as a sledgehammer to remove the transcendent from works is actively harmful and encourages ignorance. So there.

When I went to University, I went beyond survey courses, but hey, that's me.

You think Swift and Shaw and Wilde, etc., are only taught in the survey courses?

Look, evidently you define English Literature as being anything written in English.

Why do you say that? The first thing I did when I listed writers was make categories for American, then I made one for English. According to you, they should all be together. (And for that matter, they can, if someone so defines it to include them that way. But why do you think I did?)

I told you a number times why I included them. I took my definition as given. You can make up your own, but don't pretend you are not going against the conventional wisdom. And don't pretend that somehow your position goes without saying, or argument. You are the one who wants to change things. Which is fine, just as long as you tell us. As I told you of mine when you asked.

####### Dickens. He has to be on mine, I have zero idea how he didn't make it the first time. Take off....Twain, I suppose. Twain wrote my favorite novel of all time (Connecticut Yankee), but...([EDIT] - I am not insulting the memories of Twain, Gilda Radner, and Jay-Z in one thread, I would have no one to turn to) I will say Dickens' total output is better.

Incidentally, I would have expected any later lists to also have a couple of out of the box choices like mine of Watterson and Norm. I chose writer instead of author for that reason, but that's probably not apparent to anyone not inside my own head.

Babylon 5 was on regular tv for the first couple of seasons, but if your city was like mine it was moved around time wise a lot.

You know, I thought this too, but not according to Wikipedia:

The pilot film, The Gathering, premiered on February 22, 1993, and the regular series initially aired from January 26, 1994 through November 25, 1998, first on the short-lived Prime Time Entertainment Network, then on cable network TNT.

I think that people forget how truly limited network TV was. I don't mean that as an indictment, but I seem to recall asking people if they had cable back in the day and they'd say no, and then find out they didn't have, like, HBO.

Perhaps it was bought by local stations for replay in various areas, but I agree it couldn't have been too easy to find or this nerd would have been watching.

I think using context as a sledgehammer to remove the transcendent from works is actively harmful and encourages ignorance. So there.

What is transcendent about writing in the same language?

Don Quixote has been translated into English, why not rank Cervantes in English Literature?

Why is it ignorant to search for more information rather than less?

Actual best writers of all time:

Plato
Machiavelli
Hobbes
Rousseau
Hegel
Nietzsche

Babylon 5 was on regular tv for the first couple of seasons, but if your city was like mine it was moved around time wise a lot. Personally the first three years are some of my favorite shows, the fourth year was rushed and the fifth season sucked ass.

I'd amend that by saying that season one is only occasionally great and often quite mediocre.

If the great B5 DVR project is engaged, definitely don't give up if season one doesn't quite do it for you. Things quickly get very, very good.

I also missed it on TV somehow, but had a friend kind enough to lend me the DVDs. I went straight through in about two weeks and then bought my own. I watch the occasional episode now and then, but I've now gone through the complete arc (excluding season 5 of course) three times, and my opinion of season 4 has improved dramatically. The wrapping up of the war is rushed and not particularly well done, but the final 2/3 of the season is really quite excellent. And you have to really appreciate how much work they put into the aftermath of the war. Few shows could so realistically portray how little things change even after the conflict "ends."

Why do you say that? The first think I did when I listed writers was make categories for American, then I made one for English. According to you, they should all be together. (And for that matter, they can, if someone so defines it that way. But why do you think I did?)

I told you a number times why I included them. I took my definition as given. You can make up your own, but don't pretend you are not going against the conventional wisdom. And don't pretend that somehow your position goes without saying, or argument. You are the ne who wants to change things. Which is fine, just as long as you tell us. As I told you of mine.

I said that because I was trying to give the most generous interpretation of your statement. Thinking that all literature written in English is English literature is at least logically coherent.

Saying that Rushdie, Yeats and Joyce are English but Hemingway and Faulker are American is just incoherent.

As a sci-fi nerd, I'm completely embarrassed to admit that I completely and utterly missed the entire Babylon 5 experience. It makes no sense to me why I would have, either. AHA! Research wins. It was on cable, and those were thin years of no cable for me. I may have a new DVD project.

Indeed. I have the entire series on DVD, as well as the movies. It was a worthwhile investment, if a little pricey. I'm sure you can get it on netflix. That's how I watched Star Trek: Enterprise.

I see I'm taking some grief for my Rushmore selection from the series. I admit it is an idosyncratic chois, and there's no way minor characters like Marcus and Cartagia would make a top 4. I just like the guys. Cartagia has to be one of the better played over the top characters ever. Anyway, a real B5 rushmore would undoubtably contain Sheridan, Garibaldi, Londo, and G'Kar.

Any list like this absolutely MUST contain both Londo and G'Kar. They are the heart and soul of the entire show.

I loved the line in one episode when the two were agruing about something trivial and someone asked "How long have those two been married?"

What is transcendent about writing in the same language?

Don Quixote has been translated into English, why not rank Cervantes in English Literature?

Why is it ignorant to search for more information rather than less?

Well I do think that the qualifier English should be removed and English departments should become Departments of literature. However since the context under which it was included was perfectly obvious I thought you were being obstinate.

As to context, more information is fine. The question, however, is upon which information we place the accent. Every revealing is simultaneously a concealing. Context that particularizes removes what was worthwhile in the work in the first place. Hence the invitation to ignorance since an overemphasis on context conceals more than it reveals.

Do any of you Babylonians have an opinion of the post-series movies and spinoffs and such? The Wiki entry has a lot of things listed, including some 2007 movie.

The wrapping up of the war is rushed and not particularly well done, but the final 2/3 of the season is really quite excellent.

In the commentary on the DVD, Joe Straczynski explained that they were told by the network to wrap up the series after season 4, and that they didn't know if they would get a 5th season till the last minute. That might have contributed to the rushed feeling of the plotline.

tshipman:

I'm sympathetic to your point, and I enjoy the blunt and condescending way you're making it (I think art is something people ought to be inherently elitist about). I do have a question for you, however: how would you classify Nabokov? A Russian writer? An American author? Indeterminately anglospheric? I think you can make an argument for them all.

I know of few authors who defy any sort of cultural categorization as much as Nabokov.

For all his faults, I'm almost positive that Nixon would have been much better in that position.

It's hard to see anyone in that position. For one thing we have only one example of anyone being in that position, and as I see he, he had to do something. Given that, it is an achievement that he was able to skirt a grievous outcome, and from all accounts I know of, he handled it in a textbook negotiating manner.

You may think now that having containment forces in Europe from the end of WWII is equivalent to what amounts to an incursion into a place we have always maintained is inviolate, but that's not how it was viewed then. Peoples, countries, in an adversarial relationship rarely graciously concede points like that. The Cold War wasn't 19th century Wimbledon tennis tournament of amateurs. The US, since WWII, had expended much effort and huge amounts of money, to keep the Soviets at bay in Europe, and elsewhere. It sure as hell wasn't going to let it set up missibles 90 miles away. The question then was how to prevent that with the least blowback. Seems to me that happened. And the Soviets made sure they never tried something like that again. I think many considered, and consider, that an unqualified success.

Do any of you Babylonians have an opinion of the post-series movies and spinoffs and such? The Wiki entry has a lot of things listed, including some 2007 movie.

The movies are pretty good. The one about the Mimbari War (forget the title) is the best.

The spin off Crusade is pretty awful.

Do any of you Babylonians have an opinion of the post-series movies and spinoffs and such? The Wiki entry has a lot of things listed, including some 2007 movie.

not my favorite stuff in the world, and not really necessary to enjoy the series. Of course the whole quaranteeing of Earth was just a stupid storyline to begin with, then factor in that they again intended to make the spin off series last five seasons and you are stuck with old Battlestar Galactica formulas (hunt for something, think they find it, then at the end of the episode have it be destroyed and not really what they are looking for, repeat plot for next episode)


The movies weren't bad, haven't seen anything aired after Crusade though.

Top Ten authors, any form division:

Shakespeare
Conrad
T.S. Eliot
Foucault
John D. MacDonald (he's our Charles Dickens, imho)
Jorn Utzon (his written works would fill but a single volume, but no architect wrote better, except--maybe--for this guy:
Louis Kahn
Allan Watts (a sentimental favorite--so be it)
Big Bill Faulkner
Wallace Stevens

It's too bad girls can't write.

Mt Rushmore of players who were overrated according to SABR-type-mothers-basement crowd

Steve Garvey
Joe Carter
Jim Rice aka TEH FEAR
Sandy Koufax


Mt Rushmore of players who were underrated according to SABR-type-mothers-basement crowd

Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans
Gene Tenace
????

EDIT: Roy White? Ted Simmons? Arky Vaughn?

I know of few authors who defy any sort of cultural categorization as much as Nabokov.

Percy Grainger is the perfect example of this in classical music.


It's too bad girls can't write.

I assume you're joking here.

I just found the first episode of season four of Battlestar Galactica online and wasn't that impressed. It's always seemed to me that the Balthus stuff after the first season or so was mostly filler, and

SPOILER ALERT

Starbuck's return from the dead wasn't handled particularly well. And hey, since when did we find out the four new Cylons were Cylons? I don't remember that from Season Three at all (though, granted, it's been about a year since I last saw an episode).

So, let's sum up:

Season One: Mostly Mediocre
Season Four: Mostly Lousy
Season Five: Actively Terrible

Absolutely not true. Seasons 2 and 3 were the best of course, but 4 was not mostly lousy, and 1 ranged from mediocre to very good. 5 was pretty bad though, except for the Psycorps stuff.

Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans
Gene Tenace
????

Nick Evans!

No, I got nuthin'.


I just found the first episode of season four of Battlestar Galactica online and wasn't that impressed. It's always seemed to me that the Balthus stuff after the first season or so was mostly filler, and Starbuck's SPOILER FONT wasn't handled particularly well. And hey, since when did we find out the four new Cylons were Cylons? I don't remember that from Season Three at all (though, granted, it's been about a year since I last saw an episode).

Good thing that your review is based on serious knowledge and context, then. Balthus?

You may think now that having containment forces in Europe from the end of WWII is equivalent to what amounts to an incursion into a place we have always maintained is inviolate, but that's not how it was viewed then.

Not only there, but in Japan, in Turkey, in South Korea... we had the Soviets surrounded and (despite the out-and-out lies that Kennedy told during the 1960 campaign) outgunned, and we were going to howl about a few missiles in Cuba? And we wondered why the Soviets were so intransigent...

It sure as hell wasn't going to let it set up missibles 90 miles away. The question then was how to prevent that with the least blowback. Seems to me that happened. And the Soviets made sure they never tried something like that again. I think many considered, and consider, that an unqualified success.

If anyone deserves credit there, it's Khrushchev, for being willing to lose face in order to prevent a war. Like I said, it was actions by Kennedy himself (Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, economic sanctions) that pushed the Soviets and Cubans closer together and caused this in the first place. And we're supposed to give him credit for that?

I know that, at the time, it looked like a masterstroke of statesmanship. But now that all the facts are out, it looks like the opposite - like someone who blundered his way into a bad situation and then got lucky that it didn't get astronomically worse.

Mt Rushmore of players who were underrated according to SABR-type-mothers-basement crowd

Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans
Gene Tenace
????

Bobby Grich

In the commentary on the DVD, Joe Straczynski explained that they were told by the network to wrap up the series after season 4, and that they didn't know if they would get a 5th season till the last minute. That might have contributed to the rushed feeling of the plotline.

it did, I knew why it happened but still it made the story rushed.

Part of the problem was that I watched it straight through, one episode a day, because that's how the Sci-Fi channel was showing them. So I was most of the way through Season Two before I realized that the original captain wasn't coming back, and the end-of-season cliffhangers were resolved instantly the next day. It was probably more meaningful as a group experience than as a show in its own right.

Walter Koenig was good, though.

I liked the show because it was more or less Star Trek in a Star Wars universe. The humans are of course an important race, but unlike Star Trek they aren't the only important race and are by far the least powerful of the five primary races. It dealt with a lot of issues that you would hope that other shows would touch, had an overarching storyline so that something which happened in episode 2 could be relavent two years later. It's primary flaw was that it was tough to watch out of order, with Trek you can pretty much pick up on any episode and be fine watching it, with Babylon 5, it really is necessary to have watched previous episodes.

Bobby Grich

good god--how could I have missed that one

(thats embarrassing)

Mt. Rushmore of episodes from the new Battlestar Galactica:

Basically every episode through part two of Pegasus.

Anti-Mt. Rushmore of episodes from the new Battlestar Galactica:

Literally every episode after that.

Seriously, has any show in history gone off a cliff in more complete and astonishing fashion? For one and a half seasons, it's one of the best shows on TV (with a Bonds/Pedro type peak). And then, turning on a dime, it's absolute rubbish.

Seriously, has any show in history gone off a cliff in more complete and astonishing fashion? For one and a half seasons, it's one of the best shows on TV (with a Bonds/Pedro type peak). And then, turning on a dime, it's absolute rubbish.

according to some Heroes joins that list.

Has anyone done a radio announcer Rushmore?

Hmmm...

Barber, Scully, Caray, Murphy

Honestly, I'm nowhere near old enough to do this one. I've missed at least a half-dozen who belong.

Seriously, has any show in history gone off a cliff in more complete and astonishing fashion? For one and a half seasons, it's one of the best shows on TV (with a Bonds/Pedro type peak). And then, turning on a dime, it's absolute rubbish.

I have to disagree here, but I don't really want to have the nerd debate, just disagree. I think it's about what you are looking for and is a subjective rather than objective issue.

EDITED to take out me contradicting the stance I just took about objectivity vs. subjectivity.

I'm sympathetic to your point, and I enjoy the blunt and condescending way you're making it (I think art is something people ought to be inherently elitist about). I do have a question for you, however: how would you classify Nabokov? A Russian writer? An American author? Indeterminately anglospheric? I think you can make an argument for them all.

Okay, this is a long and complicated discussion that's been going on, and I'm kind of sympathetic to both sides, but I don't see how Nabokov is relevant to the discussion in this sense, unless you want to talk about whether or not one classifies Beckett as Irish or French.

Joyce and Yeats, in particular, were no more English than Canadians are Americans. Both men were born in Ireland, concerned themselves with Irish topics, and Yeats, at least, was politically involved in anti-English agitation. It is true that Ireland was part of the British Empire at the time when both men were writing their greatest works, but it is not true -- never has been true -- that Ireland was part of England. Neither is Scotland, nor Wales. India was never England. While it might be fair to classify Joyce and Yeats as "British" authors, to call them "English" is rank idiocy. And yes, I have been to college. I was, in fact, an English lit major.

To say that they are taught in English classes is a deeply stupid argument, because all kinds of people, including American, South African, Canadian and Australian authors are taught in classes that are called "English". They write in the English language. This is vastly different to being ethnically or nationally English. No one save the most brutally ignorant would call Gordon Brown "English"; why should a different standard apply to Joyce & Yeats?

Maybe this is a semantic debate about labelling; if Monty had subdivided into "American" and "British" authors, his list would have made sense. But if one will insist on calling Irishmen "English", one opens himself up to ridicule. The assertion is a non-starter. Both men wrote in English, but neither lived in England, neither was viewed as English either by their countrymen or by English people, neither considered himself English, neither concerned himself with English subject matter. To refuse to acknowledge the difference is asinine.

I have to disagree here, but I don't really want to have the nerd debate, just disagree. I think it's about what you are looking for

I mean, I hear what you're saying. But then another part of me says: "what I'm looking for is a show that says interesting things and appears to have a point as opposed to one that says incredibly trite and predictable things and does so in a fashion that stumbles around looking for a coherent plot the way a drunken sailor looks for his lost bottle of whiskey."

I'll admit to giving up on it after season 3, so maybe they've found a way to make the seeming disaster that was the previous 30 episodes fit into a coherent plot. Once it's all done, I may go back and give it a chance, based purely on a memory of how good those early episodes were.

I do realize that a lot of people still love the show, and am willing to admit that maybe it does something for them that I just can't wrap my mind around. But man, considering how perfectly it meshed with my mental wavelengths for a while I still can't believe how quickly and utterly they took things in a direction that I hated.

I also realize this is going back a LONG way, but:

Considering the fact that I have a double-duty 42 tattooed on the inside of my left forearm, trust me, I thought of him. Sadly, he just doesn't have enough output.

I think the output is a lot bigger than it seems just from looking at the bookshelf. You've got the five Hitchhiker books, the two Dirk Gently ones, The Salmon of Doubt, The Meaning of Liff (brilliant and unfortunately forgotten), and Last Chance to See.

But in addition to the books, you have the Hitchhiker radio series (absolutely brilliant and perhaps the single finest piece of SF work ever made), the TV series, the record, and the video game. Some of those (the game in particular) include a huge amount of new material. Toss in several GREAT Doctor Who arcs and his work as a script editor for perhaps the show's single best season - and you've got a pretty big (and multimedia) career.

Well I do think that the qualifier English should be removed and English departments should become Departments of literature. However since the context under which it was included was perfectly obvious I thought you were being obstinate.

This is a perfectly reasonable position, and one that can be discussed. I would agree, I think, with the proposal about college departments.
I may be obstinate, but at least I try to be polite.

tshipman:

I'm sympathetic to your point, and I enjoy the blunt and condescending way you're making it (I think art is something people ought to be inherently elitist about). I do have a question for you, however: how would you classify Nabokov? A Russian writer? An American author? Indeterminately anglospheric? I think you can make an argument for them all.

I know of few authors who defy any sort of cultural categorization as much as Nabokov.

I think the problem of ex-patriot literature really illustrates Gaelan's point that I've quoted above.
Really, I think that Nabokov exists in a couple traditions: the descendent of Russian Formalism and the modern literature movement. I would probably state that most post-war literature really doesn't belong in the same categories as before. Calling Nabokov a Russian writer doesn't fit, because Lolita wasn't written in Russian. You can't really call him an American writer either, since he wasn't concerned with the themes or times of that place. I mean, this is the whole problem with these kinds of classifications, really.
Ultimately, I would say that Nabokov shares more with Russian writers like Chekov than American writers, but it's really not that consequential.
Everything post-WW2 doesn't really fit neatly into categories, btw, it's illustrated by Nabokov, but by no means unique to him.

I may be obstinate, but at least I try to be polite.

Lesson noted and maybe learned. I retract what I said above and apologize.

I guess my problem is that 568 is roughly what i thought, but I wanted to try to be brief, and I fear that I didn't make myself clear.

My point had nothing to do with the larger debate about literature and labeling. Just the smaller one that the labels that the poster had used were misleading and wrong.

Edit: to the above, no offense taken. I appreciate the willingness to defend the position.

Not only there, but in Japan, in Turkey, in South Korea... we had the Soviets surrounded and (despite the out-and-out lies that Kennedy told during the 1960 campaign) outgunned, and we were going to howl about a few missiles in Cuba? And we wondered why the Soviets were so intransigent...

I sympathize with that point of view, but remember: the Soviet Union had a history, and it was not a pretty one, and the atmosphere then was not, gosh, let's be fair with them. There was no reason to trust it. It had left the English (or is it British) high and dry when it made its pact with Hitler, and it had gobbled up Eastern Europe, and immediately after WWII there was real threat in the west that many countries might fall. Too, the concession to allow them to take Berlin hadn't worked out too well in the political long run.

Your argument seems to me to be tantamount to saying you know the Yankees were winning all those pennants and world series post-WWII to the mid-sixites, why couldn't they let up and let some other team win. Sorry, but that has to to do with the psychology of conflict. That's not how teams, people, countries, compete.

BTW, one of the few times Eisenhower lost his cool in public was in response to the Kennedy allegations that we were underprepared militarily. He actually shook with rage. Of course, when Kennedy took over, he found that our advantage was even greater than Ike intimated.

That you think we could afford to be concilatory, and that it was somehow fair that we should be, just doesn't comport with reality. With the way the Soviets were viewed and with the way we view a competing military presence in this hemisphere--ninety miles from home. Sorry, but you need to ramp up your appreciation of that if you want to understand why we were so hard-ass. We were hardass because we figure the Russians were mericiless, and because we had just fought a world war many thought caused by us (the US, England, France, etc.) being too understanding. Hey, you say you will bury us. This time we're taking it seriously. Eisenhower brinkmanship rested on a hugely superior military advantage. It was saying to their face: you start something, we'll lost ten-twenty million people, but you, you, will cease to exist. Where your country was will be a smoking hole. And you know, it's hard to argue against what seems to have worked.

If anyone deserves credit there, it's Khrushchev, for being willing to lose face in order to prevent a war. Like I said, it was actions by Kennedy himself (Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, economic sanctions) that pushed the Soviets and Cubans closer together and caused this in the first place. And we're supposed to give him credit for that?

I think K. does deserve credit. But it was the reasonableness that comes with "What the hell did I almost do?" I won't repeat what I'm basing my qualified admiration on. It took two to tango here. And the Russians, if they knew anything about American history, should have known, too, what was going to happen if they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Supposedly, he got a concession that we'd never try to invade Cuba again. Some say Kennedy never seriously contemplated another Bay of Pigs, so it was real concession, but it seemed like one, and that was important.

I grant you. You judge people, polticians, on avoiding doing stupidly dangerous things, but you also judge them by what they do after they do what they do. And really that's all I'm saying. There's a lot to be learned from how Kennedy handled that, given that we were in that position. Kruschev thought that he could push Kennedy around. It was obvious that after Ike K. thought Kennedy was a lightweight. That miscalculatlion says something about him, too.

Also, on the president thing:
Washington/Lincoln/Madison/Truman would be mine.

Great, well-said points about Battlestar in 569, Baldrick, and who knows, on re-watching I may think the same. I feel like it's been a hundred years since I watched the first 2 seasons. I would be curious to see, uh, how much you hate season 4, I guess? Heh. It hasn't been perfect, but I've enjoyed it a lot.

As far as Adams. I hear you, but I think my point stands. I have no doubt that reading Hitchhiker's actually caused my personality to be something it wouldn't have been otherwise, it was that big a deal, the exposure. But. The entire series fits in one (long) book. Dirk Gently was less than half that length, the toss-off non-fiction stuff wasn't much. The book and TV series and game are the same material, and some episodes of Doctor Who and script editing still make him come up short in career.

I might be holding him in too strict a judgment against the career length and output of those who I DID put on the monument, and my extreme prejudice for him may be working against him.

There are a few people who I can remember learning of their death with absolute horrible clarity, and Adams is one. I was on the subway and saw a notice on a newspaper someone was reading. Imagine the sound you might make as a Boston fan when watching Mookie's ball go through Buckner's legs and then take that sound to a quiet subway car at about midnight. Two people moved away from me.

That being said, I can only move Adams' position on the monument (4 people!) from a "no" to a "maybe".

I sympathize with that point of view, but remember: the Soviet Union had a history, and it was not a pretty one, and the atmosphere then was not, gosh, let's be fair with them. There was no reason to trust it. It had left the English (or is it British) high and dry when it made its pact with Hitler, and it had gobbled up Eastern Europe, and immediately after WWII there was real threat in the west that many countries might fall. Too, the concession to allow them to take Berlin hadn't worked out too well in the political long run.

Thing is, though, that Stalin was dead. To continue to view the Soviets as a monolithic beast bent on world domination after Stalin's death was a huge mistake, and it dragged both countries down and created all sorts of problems in the long run. Sure, Kennedy wasn't the only president to make that mistake, but it was a mistake nonetheless.

Kruschev thought that he could push Kennedy around. It was obvious that after Ike K. thought Kennedy was a lightweight. That miscalculatlion says something about him, too.

Untrue. Khrushchev respected Kennedy quite a bit. But he wasn't a Stalinesque dictator - he was subject to the same sorts of internal political pressures as Kennedy was. As he told Kennedy, he couldn't simply allow the U.S. to dictate terms to him, nor could he stand by and watch as a Communist nation was openly attacked by the United States. The more Kennedy pushed him, the more he was compelled to push back.

But that's neither here nor there. The main point is that the things that led up to the Cuban Missile crisis were entirely of Kennedy's making. Castro didn't want to place his country in the crosshairs of the U.S. by inviting an open alliance with the Soviet Union - they felt compelled to, by the numerous attempts that Kennedy made to undermine and overthrow his government.

Too bad girls can't write

This has been a frequent topic of discussion with my male friends and I lately, how none of us really like or appreciate the work of more than a handful of female artists. Most of my male friends respond to male artists almost exclusively; most of my female friends respond to female artists almost exclusively.

And strangely the only female artists I really like are musicians or actresses (with the exception of Emily Dickenson and Gertrude Stein).

Too bad girls can't write

This has been a frequent topic of discussion with my male friends and I lately, how none of us really like or appreciate the work of more than a handful of female artists.

Annie Proulx is a wonderful, ironic & vicious authoress

also Flannery O'Conner says hi..

All right, so as long as we seem to have veered off the "Mt. Rushmore" structure, I'll list the finest novels I have read in no particular order:

Lolita
Moby-Dick
Crime and Punishment
The Magic Mountain
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
The Sound and the Fury
Les Miserables

Other favorites not quite in the same class:

Pale Fire
The Grapes of Wrath
The Idiot
Sons and Lovers
Big Sur
Journey to the End of the Night

Mt. Rushmore of Beatles songs where Ringo has a writing credit:
Octopus's Garden, Don't Pass Me By, Flying, What Goes On

Barber, Scully, Caray, Murphy

Why are people so impressed with this man? His pulse never broke 70. It took a week to notice that he had died because who could tell the difference? Red Barber missed his true calling announcing train arrivals and departures.

Good grief. You might as well have the automated voice directing you to flight reservations.

Mount Rushmore of baseball announcers

Bob Prince

Some other guys

Bob Prince

Some other guys

Oh c'mon, Harveys, I SPECIFICALLY deferred to the elders on this one, you gotta have more than THAT.

Mt Rushmore of players who were underrated according to SABR-type-mothers-basement crowd

Darrell Evans
Dwight Evans
Gene Tenace
????

EDIT: Roy White? Ted Simmons? Arky Vaughn?

Well, in order, Blyleven, Jimmy Wynn, and Bobby Grich come to mind.

Thing is, though, that Stalin was dead.

The thing is, though, it wasn’t Stalin who said “we will bury you.”

The thing is, though, it wasn’t Stalin who invaded Hungary and Poland in 1956.

Stalin didn’t erect the Berlin wall.

Untrue. Khrushchev respected Kennedy quite a bit.

I’m sorry. I don’t believe that. He may have respected him later, after he was slammed, but there are plenty of accounts to the effect that he had a poor regard for JFK. For recent one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html

But he wasn't a Stalinesque dictator –

I didn’t say he was. He wasn’t Winnie the Pooh either. He blustered, bloviated, and threatened with the best of the dictators.

He was subject to the same sorts of internal political pressures as Kennedy was.

That’s right. I think you need to use some of that fair-mindedness and objectivity with regard to Kennedy, too, especially since he had the added pressure of meeting expectations of a public and a democratic electorate.

As he told Kennedy, he couldn't simply allow the U.S. to dictate terms to him, nor could he stand by and watch as a Communist nation was openly attacked by the United States. The more Kennedy pushed him, the more he was compelled to push back.

The US did not push him into putting missiles in Cuba. That was colossally stupid and asking for it on a mega-scale.

The main point is that the things that led up to the Cuban Missile crisis were entirely of Kennedy's making. Castro didn't want to place his country in the crosshairs of the U.S. by inviting an open alliance with the Soviet Union - they felt compelled to, by the numerous attempts that Kennedy made to undermine and overthrow his government.

No. We knew that Cuba and the Soviet had an alliance. That wasn’t the point. The point was a Soviet military presence in the form of missiles ninety miles from our shore. Avoiding that was only something the Soviets could have done. They could have chosen not to put missiles there. This is a no-brainer.

Somebody should do a Mt. Rushmore of American film directors because I'm getting stuck. The only one I know should be in there is Orson Welles.

I'll list the finest novels I have read in no particular order

Atlas Shrugged
The Fountainhead
The Brothers Karamazov
Le Morte d'Arthur
The Man Who Was Thursday
The Secret Agent
Moby-Dick

Lassus:

I could list Harry and Ernie. But for my tastes it begins and ends with Bob.

And I do have a special place for Bob Uecker. I think Uecker has been one of the best but since so many regard him as just a clown I know that will get shouted down as bias.

Scully is certainly good. Denny Matthews is highly underrated.

Orson Welles??

John Ford kicked his *ss.

Elia Kazan emigrated to the States as a kid.

Cripes, and Spielberg has a shot. Scorcese.

Orson Welles.....please......

Somebody should do a Mt. Rushmore of American film directors because I'm getting stuck. The only one I know should be in there is Orson Welles.

I'm thinking:

Orson Welles
Frank Capra
D.W. Griffith
Steven Spielberg

with apologies to Kubrick and John Ford. Heck, and Thomas Edison.

American film directors:

John Ford,
Howard Hawks,
[Hitchcock did become a citizen and made most of his best movies in Hollywood, but if he don't count--I know how hotly recherche these nationality determinations can be]
Frank Capra
John Huston

Thomas Edison didn't apologize to anyone, I don't think he rates one of his own...

Terrence Malick

(very high peak--not much career)

John Schlesinger looked ready to assume a place in the upper level--and then---bupkus

EDIT--Schlesinger is British (yes I know that)

American film directors:

John Ford,
Howard Hawks

Hawks is brilliant--To Have & Have Not is near the top of my all-time favorite movies

Has anyone done a radio announcer Rushmore?

Hmmm...

Barber, Scully, Caray, Murphy

In chronological order:

Allen, Glickman, Albert, Miller

Too bad girls can't write

Are you nuts?

Welty, O'Connor, Lessing, Gordimer, Marilyn Robinson, Dawn Powell, etc., etc.

Don't forget Ayn Rand, Andy.

Mount Rushmore is an abomination.

Mount Rushmore is an abomination.

I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but I'm sure there's a reason. Or are you just doing the standard drive-by?

Don't forget Ayn Rand, Andy.

You fool, were you born last night? That's nothing but Daddy Warbucks in drag.

Frank Lloyd Wright might disagree, but I guess this is the equivalent to 'is Rushdie an English writer?'

Rushmore is a monument to arrogance. Even overlooking the fact that the Black Hills were illegally appropriated from the Lakota, I cringe wherever people carve up mountains for profit. Not to mention the deadening spirit of tourism.

And threads dedicated to ranking art rankle me, the classifying and dissecting of literature and art like they're dead things.

I object to objectification.

I object to objectification.

Alex, brother, we're just having fun and kidding around.

Too bad girls can't write

This has been a frequent topic of discussion with my male friends and I lately, how none of us really like or appreciate the work of more than a handful of female artists.

It is interesting, isn't it? I do like Welty a ton (thanks for the reminder, Andy), and Sylvia Plath made a great impression on me, but my objection isn't to sensibility, but rather that women don't--yet--seem to write wonderfully well. I suspect that prejudice and societal discouragement have effectively reduced the available pool of female artists since 1350 by 98% or so. We may need several more centuries for the female Shakespeare, or Louis Kahn, or Bobby Fischer, or Picasso to flower.

Rushmore of directors:

John Huston
Billy Wilder
John Ford
Orson Welles

It is interesting, isn't it? I do like Welty a ton (thanks for the reminder, Andy), and Sylvia Plath made a great impression on me, but my objection isn't to sensibility, but rather that women don't--yet--seem to write wonderfully well. I suspect that prejudice and societal discouragement have effectively reduced the available pool of female artists since 1350 by 98% or so. We may need several more centuries for the female Shakespeare, or Louis Kahn, or Bobby Fischer, or Picasso to flower.

Really? In addition to those named by Andy and others, you've got J.K. Rowling, George Eliot, the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen, Anne Rice, Virginia Woolf, Maya Angelou, Gwendolyn Brooks. And that's just off the top of my head. The list of quality female writers is long, deep, and spans virtually all genres.

...but rather that women don't--yet--seem to write wonderfully well.

Ark, are you really this freaking stupid?

Too bad girls can't write

This has been a frequent topic of discussion with my male friends and I lately, how none of us really like or appreciate the work of more than a handful of female artists.
It is interesting, isn't it? I do like Welty a ton (thanks for the reminder, Andy), and Sylvia Plath made a great impression on me, but my objection isn't to sensibility, but rather that women don't--yet--seem to write wonderfully well. I suspect that prejudice and societal discouragement have effectively reduced the available pool of female artists since 1350 by 98% or so. We may need several more centuries for the female Shakespeare, or Louis Kahn, or Bobby Fischer, or Picasso to flower.

Too true. If only Virginia Woolf hadn't wasted her time writing Mrs. Dalloway and instead were capable of internet message board posting.

Nice to know that pretentious, ######## misogyny is still around.

Really? In addition to those named by Andy and others, you've got J.K. Rowling, George Eliot, the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen, Anne Rice, Virginia Woolf, Maya Angelou, Gwendolyn Brooks. And that's just off the top of my head. The list of quality female writers is long, deep, and spans virtually all genres.

If you're going to put that top-notch bore, Rowling, on your list, you have zero credibility.

Ark, are you really this freaking stupid?

Are you really being this much of a PC moron, Lassus? Try using your freaking head. Try reading what I wrote. And try not to be so bloody serious when someone pokes a stick in your cage. Of course there are terrific women writers, and of course, for reasons I spelled out in 605, they're a small fraction of all terrific writers. And a small fraction of terrific architects. And a small fraction of terrific chess players. And a small fraction of terrific sculptors.

Alex, brother, we're just having fun and kidding around.

Shows you what I know!

It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt.

The whole 'literature' discussion on the last page brought back bad memories of college English classes, and 'parties' of predominantly English grad students, etc. Better memories of late nights in a dive bar listenting to Jimmy Buffett croon "Why Don't We Get Drunk and Screw".

Now that's poetry for you.

Or how 'bout Zen master Ikkyu:

It has the original mouth but remains wordless;
It is surrounded by a magnificent mound of hair.
Sentient beings can get completely lost in it
But it is also the birthplace of all the Buddhas of the ten thousand worlds.

we're lost where the mind can't find us
utterly lost

Wisdom -- Sophia -- is female. Break it down and all you've got is eggshells.

Hawks is brilliant--To Have & Have Not is near the top of my all-time favorite movies

Hawks does not have the second tier level of fine films that give him the debt of accomplishment that Hitchcock and Ford have, but his first tier is as fine as theirs probably. Scarface, Twentieth Century, Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Sergeant York, Ball of Fire, To Have and Have Not, The Big Sleep, Red River, Rio Bravo, and maybe a couple of others I missed. I never get tired of BUP, HGF, and The Big Sleep. If I were stranded on the proverbial desert island, and if I thought electrical receptables were secreted somewhere on beaches, I chose the first two over any works of art period. And I am a huge fan of Ford and Hitchcock (not to mention the giants in other media). They are that entertaining.

This page of comments is unhinged.

Too true. If only Virginia Woolf hadn't wasted her time writing Mrs. Dalloway and instead were capable of internet message board posting.

How could I have missed this! Woolf >= Shakespeare. My argument fails!

Thanks for playing.

Are you really being this much of a PC moron, Lassus?

To paraphrase Selden, citing "PC" is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Try reading what I wrote.

I did. Maybe if you'd managed to express your initial above-it-all telling-it-like-it-is brilliance a little better, you could have saved yourself this reaction.

The problem is, girls can't write.

There's your opening. How very above such petty concerns of convention in not only dismissing female authorship in one fell swoop but sweeping them aside by placing them as immature girls. Really? I assume you consider this not indicative of any kind of troublesome attitude when speaking DIRECTLY of intellectual and artistic pursuits. Also, I suppose you've explained this problem by simply calling me PC.

I do like Welty a ton (thanks for the reminder, Andy), and Sylvia Plath made a great impression on me, but my objection isn't to sensibility, but rather that women don't--yet--seem to write wonderfully well.

Again, a flat-out judgment of quality, and yes, the way you say this seems like kind of a problem. You don't bother saying that there a number of women who are equal or even superior writers to men, only, you know, the fact that they've sorta been kept from that has kept their numbers way down. Maybe if you had started with this:

I suspect that prejudice and societal discouragement have effectively reduced the available pool of female artists since 1350 by 98% or so.

Jesus, it took TWO previous crappy sweeping judgments to get to that. Can you really be surprised by how it sounded to readers, and not just me?

We may need several more centuries for the female Shakespeare, or Louis Kahn, or Bobby Fischer, or Picasso to flower.

Standing around as a witness as the "girls" "flower" into proper Shakespeares and Frank Lloyd Wrights doesn't make you sound like a man convinced of his male superiority in the SLIGHTEST. Really.

Lastly, don't you think that simply saying "girls can't write" and "women don't seem to write wonderfully well" is basically an example of the prejudice and societal discouragement based on its factual leanings? Tiny bit, eh? Simply tossing in "oh, well, they've been discouraged" at that point sounds like an afterthought.

Of course there are terrific women writers,

Some of your BEST FRIENDS are terrific women writers. Seriously. Are Welty and Plath part of this group? I don't really even understand what you were getting to there. Even the ones you say you like you put an enormous "but" after which to me implies that even with the 98% of women taken out of the pool, the 2% you see as worthy of note are still inferior. If that is not what you mean, I apologize, and feel free to tell me otherwise.


Ark, this is an issue of mine, and I've snarked pretty bad, sadly, so I doubt you'll take any of what I said with any weight, which is too bad. I don't have the clear head of MCoA to try and put you in your place intellectually as well as I should on this issue. But what you've said above as an indication of the overall attitude is really to my ears part of the problem. I'm more pissed at myself for not making a better case of your wrongness, really.

EDIT: Please, as someone who has a myriad of opinions on many threads and loves to type, don't even give me the line about poking me with a stick. Certain things are important to me, as they are to you, and I react accordingly.

women don't--yet--seem to write wonderfully well

How does William Shakespeare being a better writer than Virginia Woolf and the fact that you despise 1 of the 10 female authors that I named translate into a defense of this statement?

This page of comments is unhinged.

I'm gonna keep on knocking
Gonna keep on pounding
I'm gonna knock I'm gonna pound
I'm gonna knock I'm gonna pound
I'm gonna kick your door down
Gonna kick your door down

Citing Plath is indefensible. Her celebrity is attributable to her marriage to Ted Hughes and her dramatic death. She was a mediocre poet and a hack novelist. Sorry.

Seinfeld episodes:

The Contest
The Puffy Shirt
The Boyfriend (parts one and two)
The Old Man

Also in the running:
The Soup Nazi
The Watch
The Wallet
The Hamptons
The Opposite

Curb Your Enthusiasm Episodes (sorry--I'd much rather debate the works of Larry David than chick lit):

Beloved Aunt
Thor
The Car Pool Lane
The Ski Lift

Also in the running:

The Shrimp Incident
The Doll
Krazee Eyez Killa
Wandering Bear

Frio Ni Calor

Dreams are real.

Some solid snooty smackdowns in this thread. They strongly outnumber the proclamations of the subjectivity of all matters of taste. There have been two or three of those.

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

Citing Plath is indefensible. Her celebrity is attributable to her marriage to Ted Hughes and her dramatic death. She was a mediocre poet and a hack novelist.

If you're going to put that top-notch bore, Rowling, on your list, you have zero credibility.

Insane. Kweli is unlistenable.

Any band that has Robert Plant making up the words cannot be fourth best anything.

Faulkner is possibly the worst author I have ever read.

Steinbeck is possibly the silliest author I've ever read.

James Fenimore Cooper could not write to save his damn life.

You, sir, have poor taste in film.

??? Biggie's major case is impact. He isn't anymore talented than 100 other MCs.
----------------------------
We may be defining impact differently. How are you defining it?

Hmmm. First of all, I always thought there was seismic shift in hip-hop's relationship with the greater pop music world in about 1994. All of a sudden, it no longer became an automatic negative for a rap song to succeed on the pop charts. The biggest rap stars became pop stars without fan backlash. KRS was HUGE in hip-hop for years, and made no impact to the outside world. I don't think that kind of career could exist after the mid-90s. I'm not saying this change was solely because of Biggie, but he epitomized it to me. When "Big Poppa" suddenly crossed over, everything changed. His style wasn't overtly pop-oriented, and yet it was completely accepted by the wider audience.

Of course, his success spawned imitators. I remember Heavy D dropping a new record in the wake of Biggie's success and he flowed just like Big. Heavy D had his own style, and he flipped it to sound like Biggie.

The whole mythology that has grown since his death. I get the impression he's now seen as the Alpha of rap. I bet almost any young rap fan knows Biggie, and almost none know of anything that happened before him. I remember hearing Canibus rap in '98 "the greatest rapper of all time died on March 9" and I was in shock. "Is he talking about Biggie? Is he serious? That's crazy!" And now it's common to hear him referred to as the greatest, or one of the greatest ever. Until a couple years ago I still saw people wearing Biggie (and 2Pac) t-shirts almost every day.

Ready to Die was a really good album, but I'm not sure it's even one of the top 10 rap albums of 1994 (an amazing year). But few of the others are remembered all that well. Biggie's legacy is the one that keeps growing.


I'd agree that E Double is the worst MC, but not by much, and I personally like Parrish the most out of the four. I haven't seen any of them live except PMD on his own at a SXSW dayshow some years back.

Well, I'll have to admit I've never seen EPMD live. But based on my impression of their laid-back personalities, and what I've heard from others, I cannot believe they would come close to Run-DMC. I have never a liver crowd than at a Run-DMC show.

I agree Parrish was an underrated MC. He was just overshadowed by so many late '80s titans.


Fair point on KRS, but he's got enough solo stuff that you can call him a solo act, and I think he has to be represented.

Definitely. I can't even listen to him now, he's fallen off so hard. But his performance from the mid '80s to mid '90s is enough to consider him the greatest MC of all time.

If I'm just making a 4-man Mt. Rapmore, it might be something like Kool Herc, KRS, Rakim, and...I dunno....Russell Simmons? (cringe)


Insane. Kweli is unlistenable.
------------------------
We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because it appears you find my POV as inexplicable as I find yours.

I copped the first Reflection Eternal 12" in '97. Thought it was great, and I still do. But I've barely been able to listen to him since then. His flow is so awful.

But I apologize for calling you insane twice. I can get carried away. We obviously dig a lot of the same #### and I don't wanna sabotage a rare hip-hop discussion in these parts.

Seinfeld episodes:

The Mt. Rushmore of Seinfeld episodes needs to be, like, 25 deep. Impossible to narrow that show down to four episodes.

Mt. Rushmore of Walk-Off Homers:

Joe Carter
Bobby Thompson
Bill Mazeroski
Kirk Gibson

Just out: Bucky Dent, Carlton Fisk, Kirby Puckett, Ozzie Smith.

The whole mythology that has grown since his death. I get the impression he's now seen as the Alpha of rap. I bet almost any young rap fan knows Biggie, and almost none know anything that happened before him. I remember hearing Canibus rap in '98 "the greatest rapper of all time died on March 9" and I was in shock. "Is he talking about Biggie? That's crazy!" And now it's common to hear him referred to as the greatest, or one of the greatest ever. Until a few years ago I still saw people wearing Biggie (and 2Pac) t-shirts almost every day.

I wouldn't rank Biggie as the best ever, his output is too narrow - but I think Ready to Die is every bit as great as its reputation. My vote for the greatest would go to KRS-One. Those first three BDP albums are just incredible, incredible albums and he put out quality albums for another few years after that.

Good call on Herc, in retrospect there's no way he doesn't belong a Rushmore. If I had to narrow the Mt. Rushmore of Rap down to 4 individual figures, I think I would go KRS, Dr. Dre, Herc, and Rakim. Afrika Bambaataa might belong there in place of one of those guys though.

If I had to narrow the Mt. Rushmore of Rap down to 4 individual figures, I think I would go KRS, Dr. Dre, Herc, and Rakim. Afrika Bambaataa might belong there in place of one of those guys though.

Your four is good. It's a tough call. If you're only going with one Founding Father, it's probably gotta be Herc. But I can certainly see Bam displacing one of the others.

Could go with one guy representing each "element": Herc, KRS (or Rakim), Crazy Legs, Phase 2 (I'll gladly let someone else school me on better choices for b-boy and graf writer.)