Unlikely. Both C's and S's work was written by a native speaker of Spanish and English respectively. It's basically impossible to have been fluent at both back in the day. McCarthy couldn't even get the Spanish right in BM in 1985 and I'm supposed to believe an Ango wrote a masterpiece in the 1600s in that language.
Dickens, obviously. The question at issue isn't 'who's better' but rather 'who dominates (English) fiction in a similar way'(?) to Shakespeare's domination of (English) drama. That's my interpretation of this poorly constructed analogy aar
No novels in the English language influenced English literature as much as Shakespeare’s plays, not even close. The closest on unique literary achievement as a novelist of English would be Joyce
Shakespeare is to play writing what ___ is to novels.
The novel is the essentially plebeian form. The only correct answers are Joyce, Tolstoy, and Goethe. Young Werther is probably the greatest novel ever. Tolstoy perfected the form to its most pure limit. But what Joyce was doing was so unique it almost seems incorrect to call him a novelist
novels are just the tv of the 19th century. They're are quite a few notable exceptions, but its a very slight number. Novels today don't even have the grandeur of a popular phenomena, they are by and large the chosen indulgence of a special kind of maladjusted loser--or a weird homework people like to give themselves because they think reading is good for you
Idk but Kubrick was the Shakespeare of filmmaking:
>Made a critically acclaimed film in just about every genre >Wrote the scripts himself >A sparse filmography despite his long life >Both men believed to have had 200 IQs
Oh and I forgot to say they both borrowed their plots from other stories. This is the most important part. Shakespeare's only original idea was The Tempest and Kubrick was writing 2001 at the same time Clarke was.
>Stole all of his plots >Exposed himself as a hack with his narrative poems >Used tired ass iambic pentameter like everyone else at the time, but for some reason lauded as a genius for using the form >Wrote a bunch of shit (some of his plays were unfinished) but because he wrote Hamlet and King Lear, the academics pretend every single play he wrote was a masterpiece.
No novel writer is as monolithic and influential as Shakespeare.
Shakespeare
Warhammer 40k
Cervantes.
But it's silly because the significance of both Shakespeare and Cervantes is infinitely beyond any influence in a particular literary genre.
Bacon wrote both...
Unlikely. Both C's and S's work was written by a native speaker of Spanish and English respectively. It's basically impossible to have been fluent at both back in the day. McCarthy couldn't even get the Spanish right in BM in 1985 and I'm supposed to believe an Ango wrote a masterpiece in the 1600s in that language.
You can be a native speaker of two languages
Cervantes is different, he pioneered what we think of as a novel. Shakespeare didn't pioneer play-writing, he just perfected it.
Cervantes perfected the novel simultaneously as he pioneered it.
Yes but Donkey Hotay part 2 both subverts and refines what Don Keighoteigh part 1 pioneered.
Dostoevsky
Ryukishi07
Dickens, obviously. The question at issue isn't 'who's better' but rather 'who dominates (English) fiction in a similar way'(?) to Shakespeare's domination of (English) drama. That's my interpretation of this poorly constructed analogy aar
Tom Clancy
What I is to novels
Georges Simenon
No novels in the English language influenced English literature as much as Shakespeare’s plays, not even close. The closest on unique literary achievement as a novelist of English would be Joyce
The novel is the essentially plebeian form. The only correct answers are Joyce, Tolstoy, and Goethe. Young Werther is probably the greatest novel ever. Tolstoy perfected the form to its most pure limit. But what Joyce was doing was so unique it almost seems incorrect to call him a novelist
Stephen King
They're both over-hyped crowd pleasers that left me high and dry.
Balzac
Nothing. Novels are trash for ladies.
novels are just the tv of the 19th century. They're are quite a few notable exceptions, but its a very slight number. Novels today don't even have the grandeur of a popular phenomena, they are by and large the chosen indulgence of a special kind of maladjusted loser--or a weird homework people like to give themselves because they think reading is good for you
Idk but Kubrick was the Shakespeare of filmmaking:
>Made a critically acclaimed film in just about every genre
>Wrote the scripts himself
>A sparse filmography despite his long life
>Both men believed to have had 200 IQs
Oh and I forgot to say they both borrowed their plots from other stories. This is the most important part. Shakespeare's only original idea was The Tempest and Kubrick was writing 2001 at the same time Clarke was.
Kafka
Faulkner. It's the semi-handlebar moustache that gives them their power.
Wagner clears Shakespeare
>Stole all of his plots
>Exposed himself as a hack with his narrative poems
>Used tired ass iambic pentameter like everyone else at the time, but for some reason lauded as a genius for using the form
>Wrote a bunch of shit (some of his plays were unfinished) but because he wrote Hamlet and King Lear, the academics pretend every single play he wrote was a masterpiece.
Luckiest frick in the history of writing.