University students asked to tell between Dickens and the worst writer in history scored a 48%

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It is not substantial portions of anything. It's several lines. There is no context or anything, and it's very possible to choose the very best lines for the quiz. What controls were used to make sure we have a fair representation of the authors' works?

Of course, since you couldn't tell the difference the passages must not have been a fair representation. However another test, which used complete poems produced similar results.

a reply to: vernichter

But he says he used 'random chance' (didn't know there was any other kind, but I digress).

If he actually tried to guess and got 33% right, as he says, it means he probably could perceive a difference -- it's just that he prefers bad writing.

Most people do prefer it, after all.

a reply to: Astyanax

If he could tell the difference, he would not resort to random guessing.

a reply to: Astyanax

Most people do prefer it, after all.

so snobbery as I alluded too.

My personal snobbery is I only read non-fiction, fiction is beneath me.

The last fiction book I read was "1984" about 4 years ago.

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: Astyanax
The last fiction book I read was "1984" about 4 years ago.

And if you want a real not fictional account of what happened in Room 101 check out this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vernichter

This does not explain what happened.

Of course it does. B-W was a bad popular writer in an era abounding with great popular writers (and great critics, such as Carlyle, whose names have come down to us today). By comparison with his towering contemporaries, B-W was a pygmy indeed.

Bulwer is a pygmy in comparison with Dickens if you compare his current readership with that of Dickens. But you never explained why did his readership shrunk. If you compare not the number of readers but the reader ratings, there is no big difference between Dickens and Bulwer: Famous writers just have more readers

originally posted by: Astyanax
You may be unable to perceive the difference to which I allude, but it is there all the same.

Such talented people as yourself even perceive the difference between the same things.

A related study shows that famous writers have practically the same reader ratings as the unknown ones:

www.goodreads.com...

Interestingly before the article was published by the Journal of Quantitative Linguistics it was accepted for publication by the Skeptic magazine. However in the end the editor caved in to the pressure and did not publish the article.

I believe that this survey is not entirely correct. And what if a person is not particularly interested in literature, much less as an author like Bulwer-Lytton? Of course, Dickens is a famous author, but still. Using a service that provides statistics homework help for students, you can make a better collection of information, measurement and analysis of data. Then, I think, the results will be somewhat different.

originally posted by: Phage

Are the famous writers better than the unknown ones, or they merely have more readers?

Is the quality of a story determined by a single paragraph?

Also isnt the quality of the subject matter the deciding factor , like isnt it subjective anyways , who were the people who decided that bulwer-lytton was # ?
the leading authors at the the time , being all friends in there wee clubs and cliques?!?!?

originally posted by: ieronimo
I believe that this survey is not entirely correct. And what if a person is not particularly interested in literature

A similar experiment with Cambridge English majors produced similar results

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: sapien82
Also isnt the quality of the subject matter the deciding factor , like isnt it subjective anyways , who were the people who decided that bulwer-lytton was # ?

In a related experiment music critics trashed and praised the same record released under different names

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was a dark and stormy night.

Maybe it was? I've never understood why that's such a "bad" thing. It's descriptive. Nights can be rather bright with a full moon and clear skies, after all. They can be stormy, too.

Meh. Bad is in the eye of the reader. I can't stand Dickens, or many of the so-called great writers...

originally posted by: seagull
It was a dark and stormy night.

Maybe it was? I've never understood why that's such a "bad" thing. It's descriptive. Nights can be rather bright with a full moon and clear skies, after all. They can be stormy, too.

Meh. Bad is in the eye of the reader. I can't stand Dickens, or many of the so-called great writers...

It is the rest of the sentence which is clumsy:

“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.”

Of course, Dickens is no better as the experiment had shown.

a reply to: vernichter

hey Vernichter why do you find the rest clumsy ?

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: vernichter

hey Vernichter why do you find the rest clumsy ?

Too long. Useless words. Latinate. Banal metaphors.

a reply to: vernichter

I've noticed a lot of writers do this , they learn how to write well , then show off exactly how they write with pages upon pages of rather irrelevant elaborate descriptions of the story just for the sake of showmanship

(post by AlexandraGrayson removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

Which ones?

a reply to: vernichter

I'm sure that they don't know any actual good writers, because they didn't make the 2 options mentioned in this thread.