Yes, and I'm genuinely shocked people only read the Songs of Innocence and Experience and the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. His real kino are his big three prophecies.
Personally, I don't think anyone beats Shakespeare as a yarn-spinner nor as a writer of characters, but there are poets just as, if not better, than him.
No, but still great
McCarthy and Morrison are close. I don't think anyone so consistently and comprehensively explores every facet of fiction. Everyone else gets varying degrees of a participation award.
lmao
I wanted to like him, but no. His prosody is wonky and he relies too heavily on conceit to convey an image. He can be pretty repetitive too.
He is saying that because I made a thread calling McCarthy pleb and dilettante for shitting on a much superior writer so now he and the other jackasses of this board are going full defense mode.
There are infinitely better French works out there. Proust is decadent lit for normies who never heard of it and are only familiar with great books that you find with a quick google search.
>Blake's prophetic books
Is it necessary to read these in order? Because I want to skip to Milton and Jerusalem.
Yes. Each prophecy is a refinement or expansion of the stuff from the previous prophecy. Also, you'll want to read Vala, or the Four Zoas before Milton
>I want to skip Jerusalem
Why would you skip one of his greatest works? Even Blake himself spoke highly of it.
In his letter to Mr. Butts, Blake spoke of Jerusalem, saying: "I can praise it because I dare not pretend to be anything other than the secretary whose authors are in heaven. It's the grandest poem this world contains, for the spirit of truth dictated it morning after morning, sometimes twelve, sometimes twenty or fifty lines at a time. What now seems to be the labor of a long life was produced without labor or study and quite often against my will."
Possibly the only writer you could have chosen to make this thread acceptable (Homer would be too obvious, Dante too different to really compare). Not sure I agree but I respect it.
Poets:
Dante
Poe
Milton
Drama:
Aeschylus
Sophocles
Euripides
Wagner
Language:
Joyce
Melville
Both Milton and Spenser do deserve more recognition, but no, not in a million years, sorry. Melville and Poe definitely not. Joyce is an interesting one, I would never choose to read him over Shakespeare but he's obviously a more advanced and sophisticated version of something broadly similar.
>I don't think anyone beats Shakespeare as a yarn-spinner nor as a writer of characters, but there are poets just as, if not better, than him.
Milton mogs him in mastery of English, but Shakespeare was a superior storyteller.
McCarthy and Morrison are close. I don't think anyone so consistently and comprehensively explores every facet of fiction. Everyone else gets varying degrees of a participation award.
He is saying that because I made a thread calling McCarthy pleb and dilettante for shitting on a much superior writer so now he and the other jackasses of this board are going full defense mode.
Proust couldn't lick the shit off McCarthy's cowboy boots.
9 months ago
Anonymous
He is saying that because I made a thread calling McCarthy pleb and dilettante for shitting on a much superior writer so now he and the other jackasses of this board are going full defense mode.
McCarthy did not shit on Proust. He expressed his personal taste.
>Peer Gynt is a redemption drama, and indeed, just to admit this right away, it is one of the greatest. It is deeper and more comprehensive than any of Shakespeare's, without being any less beautiful; in the significance of its conception it is the equal of, and in the power of its execution it is far above, Goethe's Faust
Homer, Aeschylus, Dante and Lope de Vega. Pindar, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Calderon, Moliere, Schiller and Goethe are all great poets, but they're not Shakespeare level.
For me it’s the J writer. I still stick with the notion that Exodus, Genesis and Numbers are undoubtedly written by a highly placed woman in the court of Solomon. The attitude, the stance, the point of view is entirely that of a very highly placed and very sophisticated and very ironical woman indeed.
Sorry lads, but the Greek tragedians, Milton and Dante can't write comedy. Melville and McCarthy can't write women. Blake can write neither comedy nor women. Wagner can't write.
>Sorry lads, but the Greek tragedians, Milton and Dante can't write comedy.
So? It's about who writes better not about who writes worse but in more genres. Dumb homosexual.
Not if he's a worse writer you pathetic low IQ pseud
9 months ago
Anonymous
If he was a worse writer he wouldn't have mastered it, would he? Shakespeare has mastered both, so is superior to any writer who only mastered one. QED
9 months ago
Anonymous
Shakespeare's tragedies are awful, he only mastered the English language. Sophocles "mastered" tragedies as a form but was a worse writer than the other 2. You're simply to low IQ to take part in this conversation.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Sophocles "mastered" tragedies as a form but was a worse writer than the other 2
Do you know Greek?
Since when can Shakespeare write comedy?
Do you actually laugh at his jokes?
Anyway, Graham Greene can write all of that. Doesn't mean he's a great writer.
>I don't think anyone beats Shakespeare as a yarn-spinner nor as a writer of characters, but there are poets just as, if not better, than him.
Milton mogs him in mastery of English, but Shakespeare was a superior storyteller.
What stories did he tell?
He mostly stole them, and the structure of his plays is not very good.
Writing comedies is not the same as mastering comedy.
Shakespeare's tragedies and historical dramas can be very good, but his comedies are mediocre. There is little in them, with few exceptions like The Tempest, but those are not comedies other than in the same sense Dante's is. Shakespeare mastered fantasy more than comedy. In his works we find an Ovid, not an Aristophanes.
Works like The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew etc. would have been more or less forgotten if not for the man who wrote them. They are too long, the humor is cheap, the characters and scenes repeat themselves -- always drunkards, always c**ks, always in the taverns or dressing themselves as women, etc. The same devices that were all too typical at the time.
Molière mastered comedy. Shakespeare did not.
No, but maybe I agree about his fantasies. The Tempest is perhaps my favorite play of his.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Damn man shut your stupid mouth up, you're the worst poster on this board
9 months ago
Anonymous
You have no arguments, you cannot think clearly, and have trouble defining your concepts. Your vision is all confused. You breath in conceptual mud.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Every post you make is more and more moronic, you should never try to engage in complex topics
9 months ago
Anonymous
>The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew
commonly held as highlights
9 months ago
Anonymous
By whom, if not by bardolaters themselves?
Every post you make is more and more moronic, you should never try to engage in complex topics
What do you even know about complex topics, monolingual imbecile?
9 months ago
Anonymous
It's something you unlock when your IQ is 130+, so it's something you'll never experience first-hand
9 months ago
Anonymous
>By whom
I was using a certain rhetorical mode that people of a certain neurological bent are known to struggle with.
You have no clarity, no arguments. All of your thinking about literature is based on pseudo-philosophical babble deriving ultimately from Romantic criticism and that which inspired them. There is no rigor in it at all.
9 months ago
Anonymous
ChatGPT tier
9 months ago
Anonymous
>everything is a debate
uninternet thy brain
9 months ago
Anonymous
Every aesthetic judgement needs to be reasoned. You need to be clear about your (ultimately subjective, though subjectivity can be critically analyzed too) standards, and specially about your definitions, and proceed from there.
You will rarely see bardolaters like Harold Bloom (I don't care about you, you're just a tool of Bloom's influence) doing that. They have no rigor, they're worse than the post-War French.
Compare it with a genuine critics like Aristotle, Horace, Dante or Leopardi and the difference is striking. Those great men wrote in clear prose, were clear about their definitions, had immense erudition of the good (fruitful) kind, and knew how to reason. In English you occasionally see some of it (I am not anti-Anglo), but most commonly it's romantic babble.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>jews hate clarity and logic
Whoah
9 months ago
Anonymous
>By whom
I was using a certain rhetorical mode that people of a certain neurological bent are known to struggle with.
> McCarthy can't write women
Why is McDonald’s even in this discussion? lol
Anyway, he wrote a schizoid israeliteess and a troony in his last one. Those are women, chud!
Reread the first sentence of your post.
Consider that you actually stopped to write that.
Then tell me, why should anyone respect America and the Anglophone world in general?
1. HOMER
2. AESCHYLUS
3. EURIPIDES
Yes, and I'm genuinely shocked people only read the Songs of Innocence and Experience and the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. His real kino are his big three prophecies.
Personally, I don't think anyone beats Shakespeare as a yarn-spinner nor as a writer of characters, but there are poets just as, if not better, than him.
No, but still great
lmao
I wanted to like him, but no. His prosody is wonky and he relies too heavily on conceit to convey an image. He can be pretty repetitive too.
There are infinitely better French works out there. Proust is decadent lit for normies who never heard of it and are only familiar with great books that you find with a quick google search.
Nice meme
You complain about normies yet you use the most normalhomosexual word for normals. I am very intelligent.
Semantics is for homosexual yids
Yes. Each prophecy is a refinement or expansion of the stuff from the previous prophecy. Also, you'll want to read Vala, or the Four Zoas before Milton
>Semantics
>reading Blake
his art is kino too
>Blake's prophetic books
Is it necessary to read these in order? Because I want to skip to Milton and Jerusalem.
>I want to skip Jerusalem
Why would you skip one of his greatest works? Even Blake himself spoke highly of it.
In his letter to Mr. Butts, Blake spoke of Jerusalem, saying: "I can praise it because I dare not pretend to be anything other than the secretary whose authors are in heaven. It's the grandest poem this world contains, for the spirit of truth dictated it morning after morning, sometimes twelve, sometimes twenty or fifty lines at a time. What now seems to be the labor of a long life was produced without labor or study and quite often against my will."
Possibly the only writer you could have chosen to make this thread acceptable (Homer would be too obvious, Dante too different to really compare). Not sure I agree but I respect it.
Both Milton and Spenser do deserve more recognition, but no, not in a million years, sorry. Melville and Poe definitely not. Joyce is an interesting one, I would never choose to read him over Shakespeare but he's obviously a more advanced and sophisticated version of something broadly similar.
>I don't think anyone beats Shakespeare as a yarn-spinner nor as a writer of characters, but there are poets just as, if not better, than him.
Milton mogs him in mastery of English, but Shakespeare was a superior storyteller.
Lol no. Milton is Dante for casuls.
They’re very very different, similarities are only superficial.
McCarthy and Morrison are close. I don't think anyone so consistently and comprehensively explores every facet of fiction. Everyone else gets varying degrees of a participation award.
>McCarthy and Morrison
He is saying that because I made a thread calling McCarthy pleb and dilettante for shitting on a much superior writer so now he and the other jackasses of this board are going full defense mode.
>being this obsessed with a writer you never read
French Homosexual fraud is still trash. You are a manchild.
Proust couldn't lick the shit off McCarthy's cowboy boots.
McCarthy did not shit on Proust. He expressed his personal taste.
lmao, fiction in general can really rot the brain, doesn’t it? Zoomers are beyond saving.
Toni Morrison?
chicken fella
>Peer Gynt is a redemption drama, and indeed, just to admit this right away, it is one of the greatest. It is deeper and more comprehensive than any of Shakespeare's, without being any less beautiful; in the significance of its conception it is the equal of, and in the power of its execution it is far above, Goethe's Faust
who said that?
Otto Weininger
1. John Donne
2. John Donne
3. John Donne
Poets:
Dante
Poe
Milton
Drama:
Aeschylus
Sophocles
Euripides
Wagner
Language:
Joyce
Melville
Homer, Aeschylus, Dante and Lope de Vega. Pindar, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Calderon, Moliere, Schiller and Goethe are all great poets, but they're not Shakespeare level.
Yes, they are above his level (except Schiller)
>*holds up spork*
Dante is above Shakespeare. Nothing Shakespeare wrote is on the level of the comedy.
Don't know about better, but he is as talented with words and imagery. No amount of seethe will disprove that.
For me it’s the J writer. I still stick with the notion that Exodus, Genesis and Numbers are undoubtedly written by a highly placed woman in the court of Solomon. The attitude, the stance, the point of view is entirely that of a very highly placed and very sophisticated and very ironical woman indeed.
Only correct answer in the thread
Sorry lads, but the Greek tragedians, Milton and Dante can't write comedy. Melville and McCarthy can't write women. Blake can write neither comedy nor women. Wagner can't write.
Blake wrote a satire doe. Not sure if it was any good at all. And Dante's most famous work was actually a comedy - *the* comedy, in fact!
>Sorry lads, but the Greek tragedians, Milton and Dante can't write comedy.
So? It's about who writes better not about who writes worse but in more genres. Dumb homosexual.
A writer who masters tragedy and comedy is superior, more universal, more myriad-minded, than a writer who only masters one.
Not if he's a worse writer you pathetic low IQ pseud
If he was a worse writer he wouldn't have mastered it, would he? Shakespeare has mastered both, so is superior to any writer who only mastered one. QED
Shakespeare's tragedies are awful, he only mastered the English language. Sophocles "mastered" tragedies as a form but was a worse writer than the other 2. You're simply to low IQ to take part in this conversation.
>Sophocles "mastered" tragedies as a form but was a worse writer than the other 2
Do you know Greek?
Since when can Shakespeare write comedy?
Do you actually laugh at his jokes?
Anyway, Graham Greene can write all of that. Doesn't mean he's a great writer.
What stories did he tell?
He mostly stole them, and the structure of his plays is not very good.
Shakespeare's comedies >>>> Shakespeare's tragedies
Writing comedies is not the same as mastering comedy.
Shakespeare's tragedies and historical dramas can be very good, but his comedies are mediocre. There is little in them, with few exceptions like The Tempest, but those are not comedies other than in the same sense Dante's is. Shakespeare mastered fantasy more than comedy. In his works we find an Ovid, not an Aristophanes.
Works like The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew etc. would have been more or less forgotten if not for the man who wrote them. They are too long, the humor is cheap, the characters and scenes repeat themselves -- always drunkards, always c**ks, always in the taverns or dressing themselves as women, etc. The same devices that were all too typical at the time.
Molière mastered comedy. Shakespeare did not.
No, but maybe I agree about his fantasies. The Tempest is perhaps my favorite play of his.
Damn man shut your stupid mouth up, you're the worst poster on this board
You have no arguments, you cannot think clearly, and have trouble defining your concepts. Your vision is all confused. You breath in conceptual mud.
Every post you make is more and more moronic, you should never try to engage in complex topics
>The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew
commonly held as highlights
By whom, if not by bardolaters themselves?
What do you even know about complex topics, monolingual imbecile?
It's something you unlock when your IQ is 130+, so it's something you'll never experience first-hand
You have no clarity, no arguments. All of your thinking about literature is based on pseudo-philosophical babble deriving ultimately from Romantic criticism and that which inspired them. There is no rigor in it at all.
ChatGPT tier
>everything is a debate
uninternet thy brain
Every aesthetic judgement needs to be reasoned. You need to be clear about your (ultimately subjective, though subjectivity can be critically analyzed too) standards, and specially about your definitions, and proceed from there.
You will rarely see bardolaters like Harold Bloom (I don't care about you, you're just a tool of Bloom's influence) doing that. They have no rigor, they're worse than the post-War French.
Compare it with a genuine critics like Aristotle, Horace, Dante or Leopardi and the difference is striking. Those great men wrote in clear prose, were clear about their definitions, had immense erudition of the good (fruitful) kind, and knew how to reason. In English you occasionally see some of it (I am not anti-Anglo), but most commonly it's romantic babble.
>jews hate clarity and logic
Whoah
>By whom
I was using a certain rhetorical mode that people of a certain neurological bent are known to struggle with.
> McCarthy can't write women
Why is McDonald’s even in this discussion? lol
Anyway, he wrote a schizoid israeliteess and a troony in his last one. Those are women, chud!
This ESL moron's prostitute mom takes Black personwiener. He has to cope by posting trannies and homos
Reread the first sentence of your post.
Consider that you actually stopped to write that.
Then tell me, why should anyone respect America and the Anglophone world in general?
Easily.