Question for MJ fans. Who is the greatest writer of all time? Is it Agatha Christie?

[pnwmom]

After all, she's sold an estimated 2 billion books -- far more than any other writer.

Or could it be that giant commercial success doesn't necessarily mark the epitome of talent?

[MNDemNY]

1. Nope , King James!

He did write that piece-o-shit, right?

[handmade34]

10. just edited it

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mz Pip]

2. SHe was certainly

prolific but I wouldn't call her the greatest writer of all time. If I were to have to name one I think I would pick Tolstoy.

[Ohio Joe]

3. George C. Chesbro

Garth, Veil, Chant and of course, Mongo.

[rpannier]

4. Actually, I find her books a pleasure to read

They're usually well crafted and have interesting characters.

Is she the greatest writer No. Not even the top 5.

But your point about commercial success equating talent is spot on.
There's a lot of commercially successful stuff out there that is just crap -- faux news for example

[jobycom]

5. I don't think anyone is claiming MJ was a better writer than Agatha Christie.

[pnwmom]

6. No. But some are claiming he was the "greatest entertainer of all time."

I'm pointing out that being the biggest commercial success in any field doesn't equate to having the most talent.

[jobycom]

11. Wouldn't success at entertainment equate with greatness at entertainment?

I mean, the goal of entertainment is to make people say "Fuck yeah, I love it!" MJ did that better than anyone. So it seems pretty hard to argue he wasn't the greatest entertainer of all time, since objectively he entertained more people more often than any other entertainer.

[pnwmom]

15. He had access to people that generations of earlier entertainers didn't have.

Not that long ago we didn't have air transportation and we didn't even have radio. How can we compare entertainers in those times to those of today?

I'm willing to concede him the title of "King of Pop" for what that's worth.

[jobycom]

20. And there were medieval peasants with bigger brains than Einstein.

Does that make Einstein less of a scientist?

[pnwmom]

34. Einstein's followers never called him the King of Science.

And I'm sure he'd laugh if anyone tried to call him that now.

[jobycom]

42. Oh, be real. People gushed over Einstein, his name has become synonymous with intelligence.

You know what I'm saying. Complaining that Michael Jackson's numbers are only higher than some past generation's idol is dumb, at best, and just mean at worst. Others could compete with Michael Jackson while he was alive. None did. Why did he sell more than Prince, or U2, or Madonna? Why is he the Prince of Pop instead of them? They were on an even playing field, but Jackson did more. He had talent. You don't want to recognize the type of talent he had, fine, but quit being disingenuous. The large number of fans proves he had a talent for pleasing fans. The large number of albums sold proves he had a talent for making sell-able albums. The large outpouring of grief at his memorial proves he touched a lot of people. Wishing it weren't so or whining because it was so doesn't change reality, and it's just a piss-poor way to be, on top of that. Let people love what they love, and go talk about what you love, instead of what you hate. You'll be happier, and you'll spread less pain.

[pnwmom]

43. The media's focus on the death of one entertainer for more than

a week shows the skewed priorities of this country.

How many soldiers have died in Iraq without a minute of national attention?

[ellacott]

46. This is a subjective judgement

If someone feels he has the most talent that is their opinion. You can't change that.

I feel he was a prodigy and a musical genius. It doesn't matter whether everyone agrees with this.

I think the best movie I've seen is Simon Birch but very few people have seen it. It doesn't change my opinion.

I don't understand why Bob Dylan is an icon but that doesn't change his status.

[jobycom]

7. As for talent, what kind of talent? AC had a remarkable talent for writing books that sell.

MJ had a remarkable talent for performances that people wanted to hear and see. That means he was a far greater performer than, oh pick any singer besides Elvis. You saying that wasn't talent?

[pnwmom]

8. No. I'm saying that commercial success is only one way to measure talent. n/t

[Phentex]

13. Has anyone argued otherwise?

:shrug:

[bettyellen]

38. no they haven't..... but some people desperately need to feel superior to others....

[jobycom]

19. Again, what type of talent? Christie was a better mystery writer than MJ.

She had greater talent than MJ. MJ was a greater entertainer than Christie, so he had greater talent than Christie.

"Talent" has to be talent at something. If I have a talent for stacking pennies on a bucking bronco, and I stack more pennies than anyone else can, that means I'm the greatest talent at stacking pennies on a bucking bronco. MJ's talent was entertainment. How else do you measure that talent than by looking at how many people he entertained?

If you ask if he had the greatest baritone in all of operatic history, I think everyone will agree he did not. You have to measure him for what he did.

[Phentex]

9. I think JK Rowling will break AC's record

in time.

[pnwmom]

12. And Stephenie Meyer could surpass JK Rowling. But that doesn't make

any of them the greatest writer of all time.

[mattvermont]

17. Meyer surpass Rowling?

I doubt that. Not that either of them are Nobel writers, but Meyer is a one hit show
then, I could be wrong.

[pnwmom]

32. I'm assuming that Meyer spends decades writing a very long series

of vampire novels, just as A.C. spent decades writing her mysteries.

[annarbor]

39. I started reading Agatha Christie when I was about 13

She was the J. K. Rowling of my time and I'm 47 now. My ten year-old pug's name is "Agatha Christie"...we call her "Aggie" for short. It was brilliant escapism for an inner-city teen from Detroit. I would thank her if she were here today...

Ann Arbor

Agatha's mom-

[POAS]

14. Chaucer n/t

[EFerrari]

31. Pffft. Chaucer never met a royal he didn't like.

lol

[hfojvt]

16. I thought it was Barbara Cartland?

I also thought Christie was supposed to be a decent writer, although I did not make it very far through one of her books that I tried to read.

[LWolf]

21. There is no "greatest writer of all times,"

just as there is no "greatest musician/singer/dancer of all times."

There are MANY great writers; too many for this bibliophile and ex-librarian to list.

As there are many great artists and performers.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. B-b-but, there can only be one! n/t

[pnwmom]

35. That is precisely my point. n/t

[JitterbugPerfume]

22. most popular

does not mean greatest

[Pool Hall Ace]

23. I get where you're coming from.

And this counter that you must be racist is just bunk.

[Ignis]

25. +1

Some people are forgetting that entertainment is a means of expressing Art. Entertainment, in and of itself, is a less praiseworthy goal for a culture to embrace than Art.

And I don't like Michael Steele, but that doesn't make me a racist. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

26. You seem to be mixing up my appreciation of Jackson with commercial success.

Although I admit that my fav was also a commercial success and all around hustler. :)

[Phentex]

27. good point

not sure why the greatest title bothers anyone. It's subjective.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. The greatest writer of all time? Why it's ...

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bulwer-Lytton,_1st_Baron_Lytton">Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, who gave us:

"the great unwashed", "pursuit of the almighty dollar", "the pen is mightier than the sword"

But, sadly he is http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/2009.htm">probably best known for:

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

[Laelth]

29. Major edit.

This essay says the Bible and Shakespeare sold more. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article566261.ece

Personally, I enjoy Poirot books. All three, imho, are worthy of recognition.

:dem:

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

33. The Bible had lots of writers, not one.

I don't know about Shakespeare's sales, but that does bring me to another point.

Someone's greatness isn't only measured by someone's current popularity, but by their endurance. Shakespeare's greatness has endured through several centuries. We shall see about MJ's.

[JI7]

36. MJ's popularlity has survived until today also , he isn't some recent star

his music from the 70s and 80s is still popular among his original fans and the newer generations who weren't even born back then.

contrast that with some of the recent pop music stars like Britney Spears and the boy bands. they just fade out within a few years.

remember Spice Girls ? how they were popular for a short time. that boy group Hansen and now the Jonas Brothers. they will all fade . the teenage fans when they get older look back on that and laugh at that.

[mitchum]

37. Nicely done

[Catherine Vincent]

40. If her fans say she is then I have no problem with it

Why waste time trying to refute them?

[pnwmom]

41. Because the news media have decided to waste their limited resources

with all-MJ-all-the-time.

[DesertDiamond]

44. I really think the media is focusing on MJ because 1) he sells, and 2) he DISTRACTS....

With all respect and love to those who love and are mourning MJ, it is true that at this moment, for some, he is just another Weapon of Mass Distraction.

[Forkboy]

45. Would you get the fuck over it already?