some say booth tarkington is the voice of his generation which would make him a very important writer and yet /lit/ has not read him. why or why not?

>>24578299 (OP)
i read him.
i read this book on the train to university when i first left home. because of the orson welles film. i like the 'yachtsman' bit.

>>24578299 (OP)
Plenty of famous writers get forgotten. Sinclair Lewis was the first American author to with the Nobel, and very few people read him today. John O'Hara was an extremely popular author, and the same goes for him.
Perhaps some authors are just too tied to their time for their work to resonate in other eras.

Orson Welles' film adaptation completely eclipsed the novel, culturally. Simple as.

Olden days people liked all kinds of shite. Why should I care?

i didnt care for the movie

>>24578632
>>24578672
Yeah, this pretty much.

well ok so u don't like the ambersons how about some of his other shit like penrod or whatever

>Major Amberson had “made a fortune” in 1873, when other people were losing fortunes, and the magnificence of the Ambersons began then. Magnificence, like the size of a fortune, is always comparative, as even Magnificent Lorenzo may now perceive, if he has happened to haunt New York in 1916; and the Ambersons were magnificent in their day and place. Their splendour lasted throughout all the years that saw their Midland town spread and darken into a city, but reached its topmost during the period when every prosperous family with children kept a Newfoundland dog.

This book cover looks like a captcha.
Please click all of the squares containing:
*People*

>Gottlieb criticized Tarkington's anti-modernist perspective, "his deeply rooted, unappeasable need to look longingly backward, an impulse that goes beyond nostalgia," for preventing him from "producing so little of real substance."

based?

>>24578632
>>24578672
>>24578853
I heard the film's production company or whatever made a lot of changes and constrained Welles' freedom with the film. Still, I really liked the film.