Quote:
Originally Posted by oats
Dickens was (in)famously paid by the word for his work, so as Certain noted he would purposely be as verbose and descriptive as possible. Which, ironically, and this is all my opinion of course, led to him being considered as brilliant as he is. He went off on intricately detailed descriptions of things to simply fill up more page, and as a result his work is open to greater interpretation. I agree with you Certain though, he and Fitzgerald occupy that same space. King is underrated as literature too, imo.
|
But literary scholars, the types who adore James Joyce, don't care for Charles Dickens.
I've never read anything by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I'm not interested, really. There are so many authors out there.