That was how I got into it. The Paradise Lost quotation at the start of the first book really interested me.
Into this wilde Abyss,
The Womb of nature and perhaps her Grave,
Of neither Sea, nor Shore, nor Air, nor Fire,
But all these in thir pregnant causes mixt
Confus'dly, and which thus must ever fight,
Unless th' Almighty Maker them ordain
His dark materials to create more Worlds,
Into this wild Abyss the warie fiend
Stood on the brink of Hell and look'd a while,
Pondering his Voyage.
Sadly, only a small part of the poem has this huge interstellar quality. But the rest of it is still good in other ways.
>only a small part of the poem has this huge interstellar quality
but even those parts without it are incredibly beautiful
when Adam consoles Eve after her nightmare, chapter V, are my favourite passages in any work of literature >Best image of myself and dearer half, The trouble of thy thoughts this night in sleep Affects me equally; nor can I like This uncouth dream, of evil sprung I fear; Yet evil whence? In thee can harbor none, Created pure
then skip a few lines and:
Evil into the mind of God or Man
May come or go, so unapprov'd, and leave
No spot or blame behind: Which gives me hope
That what in sleep thou didst abhorr to dream,
Waking thou never wilt consent to do.
Be not disheart'nd then, nor cloud those looks
That wont to be more chearful and serene
Then when fair Morning first smiles on the World,
And let us to our fresh imployments rise
Among the Groves, the Fountains, and the Flours
That open now thir choicest bosom'd smells
Reservd from night, and kept for thee in store.
No its one of the 5 greatest works in the English language
It doesn't get discussed because lit is fricking gay and barely discusses literature anymore.
The only effort threads are philosophy and its always Kant, Hegel, or for some weird reason Geunon.
Beyond that, Shakespeare and Tolstoy threads will 404 at less than 30 replies, whereas twice a week a bronze aged homosexual thread will get 300+. Thats the state of this literature board
Milton has no chance of legitimate discussion. If you want to talk seminal works of literature, hang around uni dept or go to book swaps idk. Here is not the place though
NTA But good taste anon, I’ll be honest I’ve only read as I lay dying by Faulkner so far though. Faerie Queen is just so damn good. I love the meter in it a lot and obviously there’s a great, profound thought every other line
8 months ago
Anonymous
I really want to read faerie queen but I’m busy with other stuff. Glad to see anon finds it worth it.
>Collected tragedies of Shakespeare
This is cheating. It's like saying your favorite album is The Beatles' discography. Stop being a coward and pick one.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Shakespeare's collected works were published in book form before the individual plays. "Collected tragedies" is moronic. Should be Collected works.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's still cheating. His works were never intended to form a cohesive whole. They are separate, distinct entities and should be judged as such.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Plays are not even literature to begin with. It's cheating to even include him at all. Might as well include movies.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Not really. Thats like saying you have to pick a book of the bible without including the whole thing.
For your answer you want, obviously Hamlet. The only other contenders are MacBeth, Lear, and Othello.
Shakespeare's collected works were published in book form before the individual plays. "Collected tragedies" is moronic. Should be Collected works.
Collected works would disqualify it. Too many of his historical plays and comedies are subpar compared to the rest of his catalogue. His tragedies are by far his strongest and most enduring works.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Othello is mid. There are better ones.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Othello top tier fr. Thats the only play where one of the main characters lays down some serious bbc on some phat white ass.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Shut up, Tyrone.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Thats like saying you have to pick a book of the bible without including the whole thing.
No, because the books of the Bible were always intended to be read sequentially, as part of the same canon. Shakespeare never intended such a thing for his tragedies. >For your answer you want, obviously Hamlet.
Yes, agreed.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>No, because the books of the Bible were always intended to be read sequentially, as part of the same canon.
No they weren't. There are books that were left out and later added again and many more that were lost to time or ruled heretical. The bible we have now was formed over centuries of theological debate between leading members of the Hebrew and early universalist Christian churches. We know this for sure from the discovery of the Nag Hammedi library. Very little known history remains on the formation of the old testament but it likely came about from a similar process. It wasn't until well until well into the first millennium that there came an ordered and officiated bible as we have today.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Save for this poetry, Shakespeare never intended to be read but to be seen (as a play).
8 months ago
Anonymous
You have no idea what Shakespeare intended for his plays. Obviously they were meant to be performed, for aside from poetry there was no other literary medium in existence yet.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Obviously they were meant to be performed, for aside from poetry there was no other literary medium in existence yet.
Novels, novellas, essays...
8 months ago
Anonymous
Novels didn't exist in Shakespeare’s time. Dom Quixote, the first modern novel, wasn't published until 1605. It would be more than a hundred years later before the novel form was widely adopted in England.
Essays were produced as functions of academia and centred almost exclusively on political philosophy and theology. There was not an option to write essays on form or human nature etc. Shakespeare had no means of literary expression aside from drama and poetry, so thats where he concentrated his writing.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Dom Quixote, the first modern novel
Nope, that would be Genji Monogatari.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>medieval book >modern novel
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Japanese manuscript that was virtually unknown in the West for 500 years and had no existing english translation until the late 1800s
Aw shucks, of course anon! Clearly in 1500s London Shakespeare mustve been influenced by this and chose not to write his works in novel format
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The Golden Ass: Late 2nd century AD >Le Morte d'Arthur: 1485 >Gargantua and Pantagruel: 1532 >Beware the Cat: 1561 >The Anatomy of Wit: 1578 >Don Quixote: 1605
Novels/fiction prose works already existed in Shakespeare's time.
>Essays (Montaigne): 1580 (1603 in Florio's Eng trans).
Essays already existed in Shakespeare's time.
Plays were meant to be watched, not read. He could've written a novel or a prose work if he wanted to.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Did you even read my post, lol.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Did you read mine? Novels already existed in his time and in his country. Not an excuse.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Dude, you are autistic or something. The whole purpose of my post was that nothing like a novel was commonly available to the populace of Shakespeares time. Just because something like a novel existed in the 1500s does not mean it was accepted and commonplace in London society. The rise of the novel did not happen until the 18th century. Literally any source will tell you this. I dont know why im wasting time arguing with someone dense as plum loaf. Last you youre getting from me
8 months ago
Anonymous
You downright said they didn't exist (which is evidently false), now you're saying they did exist but weren't as accepted. Those are two different things. You were confidently saying that he chose to do plays because plays and poetry were the only media in his day. That's also false.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about but the worst thing is your blatant dishonesty and goalpost-moving when exposed.
8 months ago
Anonymous
YOU ARE AN AUTIST
8 months ago
Anonymous
YOU ARE AN AUTIST
Now, now, settle down. You're arguing about the historical origin of the novel form on an anime discussion forum, you're BOTH autistic morons.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Also, Shakespeare didn't get into plays because "they were the only medium." It was because he didn't make money with his poetry. Plays, on the other hand, could make money (thanks to the audience and also royal favors, not the readership).
8 months ago
Anonymous
>capitalism ruining art since the middle ages
color me surprised
8 months ago
Anonymous
Shakespeare is Francis Bacon who didn't need money.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It was a very rare art form at the time. Swifte, Richardson, and Fielding are coming to terms with what a novel even is in their work.
Novels may have served Shakespeare well, who knows.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Dom Quixote, the first modern novel
Nope, that would be Genji Monogatari.
>The Golden Ass: Late 2nd century AD >Le Morte d'Arthur: 1485 >Gargantua and Pantagruel: 1532 >Beware the Cat: 1561 >The Anatomy of Wit: 1578 >Don Quixote: 1605
Novels/fiction prose works already existed in Shakespeare's time.
>Essays (Montaigne): 1580 (1603 in Florio's Eng trans).
Essays already existed in Shakespeare's time.
Plays were meant to be watched, not read. He could've written a novel or a prose work if he wanted to.
>medieval book >modern novel
The Bible is prose, you morons.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the most famous work of verse of all time is prose
what did he mean by this
Regardless, "prose" is not the same thing as a novel. The Bible is not a novel and you are moronic.
8 months ago
Anonymous
mong
8 months ago
Anonymous
Literally just read a fricking definition. A novel, BY DEFINITION, is a work of fiction. >hurr durr the bible is a work of fiction
No, it isn't. Made up, inaccurate, or inauthentic is not the same thing as fiction. Fiction ALSO has a definition you can easily look up.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I agree with everything you said, and I never said the Bible was a novel. I still think you're a mong though
8 months ago
Anonymous
How how about an entire book of hymns and a book literally called "Song of Songs"? The Bible has both prose and poetry.
His work centred on a niche branch of metaphysics which itself is niche branch of philosophy. Not that hes bad, he produced some very interesting ideas, but hes considered a niche 20th century philosopher and given the limited scope of his output its weird as frick that there are 2-3 posted about him every single day.
>It doesn't get discussed because lit is fricking gay and barely discusses literature anymore.
Reminds me IQfy where everyone just talks about their fast food and candy brands instead of the art of cooking.
>It doesn't get discussed because lit is fricking gay and barely discusses literature anymore.
Reminds me IQfy where everyone just talks about their fast food and candy brands instead of the art of cooking.
It honestly seems like /lit has gotten worse in a manner of months. Never was here in the glory days I've heard about it. Perhaps there are archived threads
>Never was here in the glory days I've heard about it.
It has always been pretty shit. At one point it was basically leftypol at best. Then it got diluted by twitter gays who adopted hardbacks as a personality. Now it's just eceleb bait. I still come here cause there is a 1 in 1000 good thread but that is rare
reading is le hard.
moby dick and infinite jest get mentioned a lot though.
It honestly seems like /lit has gotten worse in a manner of months. Never was here in the glory days I've heard about it. Perhaps there are archived threads
You said that last year. And the year before that. and the year before that even though that year was actually better than the year that preceded it.
I think your ilk just wants to seem part of something higher quality but doesnt have the quality to do anything besides regurgitating the same unthinking wistful lines.
That fat gay wouldn't stop quoting it in his dictionary and wrote severally Rambler essays on Milton's technique so clearly he couldn't get enough of the poem.
>The Measure is English Heroic Verse without Rime, as that of Homer in Greek, and Virgil in Latin; Rhime being no necessary Adjunct or true Ornament of Poem or good Verse, in longer Works especially, but the Invention of a barbarous Age, to set off wretched matter and lame Meeter
Get wrecked rhymegays
It is one of my biggest inspirations, I've read it several times and studied it too. Last time I discussed it on IQfy, I called Milton "pretty good" as a humble expression of my taste. Which caused some English anon to have a total and utter meltdown because I didn't perform the proper prostration ritual in praise of Milton. Still laughing about it.
Because it's written as a poem and is difficult to navigate without understanding The Book of Genesis. Maybe if this board knew that McCarthy borrowed heavily from it in Blood Meridian, then maybe they'd give a shit about it.
I liked it fair enough, and it's important because it's influenced a lot of theological thought about Satan, but I wouldn't describe it as "Bible fanfiction", unlike the Apocrypha.
>because it's influenced a lot of theological thought about Satan
It influenced popular thought about Satan that has nothing to do with Christian theology.
I am reading it currently (on Book III). I find the language to be astounding, and on a line by line, clause by clause, basis I find I comprehend Milton's writing much more readily than Shakespeare's, but there is something very distinct about the syntax that can be puzzling at moments. This is the only aspect of Milton's language that I find more difficult than Shakespeare. I notice it more when reading aloud rather than silently. It's difficult for me to pinpoint. One thing I can say is that I'll encounter a clause that seems like it would have occurred lines earlier if the sentence had been written in English by someone else. Is this because of the heavy influence of Latin on Milton?
I remember Eliot saying that he thought that Milton was not as skillful as other great poets at sustaining an image, but Milton's rather sudden shifts in imagery makes sense to me, given that Satan and the other angels are made of an ethereal substance. They would not have the kind of firm parameters in terms of what they look like as we do, and their actions would be so different than ours that the fluidity of the imagery seems fitting.
I agree re. OP's starting question. There's too many meta-discussions on IQfy (why aren't we talking about x, why is poet/writer A always mentioned and not B., all the ranking of writers) and not enough discussion proper.
I am reading it currently (on Book III). I find the language to be astounding, and on a line by line, clause by clause, basis I find I comprehend Milton's writing much more readily than Shakespeare's, but there is something very distinct about the syntax that can be puzzling at moments. This is the only aspect of Milton's language that I find more difficult than Shakespeare. I notice it more when reading aloud rather than silently. It's difficult for me to pinpoint. One thing I can say is that I'll encounter a clause that seems like it would have occurred lines earlier if the sentence had been written in English by someone else. Is this because of the heavy influence of Latin on Milton?
I remember Eliot saying that he thought that Milton was not as skillful as other great poets at sustaining an image, but Milton's rather sudden shifts in imagery makes sense to me, given that Satan and the other angels are made of an ethereal substance. They would not have the kind of firm parameters in terms of what they look like as we do, and their actions would be so different than ours that the fluidity of the imagery seems fitting.
I agree re. OP's starting question. There's too many meta-discussions on IQfy (why aren't we talking about x, why is poet/writer A always mentioned and not B., all the ranking of writers) and not enough discussion proper.
>"Him who disobeys me disobeys"
NOT LATINISATION OF MUH HECKING ENGLISH
ARGHHHHHH I'M GOING INSANEEEEE
Well, there’s not as much going on there, it’s presented in a fairly straightforward way. It doesn’t have anything approaching the mythic imagination of PL, it’s almost all discursive with a slight dramatic frame. Still impeccably well-written though. And the dynamic between Satan and Christ is mildly compelling.
Basically all IQfy is is using books as an aesthetic, or a background. Many of those who actually read use books as a form of Pokémon battle; books and writers are pitted against each other so anons can prop themselves up, call others a moron or midwit, while they themselves are based or patrician. Not much going on beneath the surface here. A bunch of angry pseuds who were “gifted” as kids, but have “failed to live up to their potential”, or they’re just morons. Can anyone keep a straight face and say Reddit isn’t better? Look at this place. A bunch of homies who like the idea of reading but not actually reading
Most are intelligent socially frustrated autists, they were never gonna be the next anything and just can't accept that they're good enough for an adjunct professor/high school teacher (If they become less weird) position or technical writer. So, they come here and use their taste as a way to show superiority. Who cares, though, IQfy has pretty much always been this and you either play ball or go somewhere with less autists.
If only most anons were like that..but that’s just most readers here. Take a close look at many threads and post. There is zero signs that many anons read or have any level of intelligence.
i was planning on reading it in august, stopped at book 2 where God and Jesus are having back and forths about taking responsbility for the sins of man, to instead read the chronicles of narnia (just finished, was okay). i stopped reading it because i'm not used to poetic verse. it's quite poignant in its imagery. i'll continue maybe in november when it gets cold.
>IQfy
>reading anything but /misc/ shit and genre fiction
his dark materials is based on it
His what?
his BBC
the golden compass books
>golden compass
Freemasonry?
a whatty what
That was how I got into it. The Paradise Lost quotation at the start of the first book really interested me.
Into this wilde Abyss,
The Womb of nature and perhaps her Grave,
Of neither Sea, nor Shore, nor Air, nor Fire,
But all these in thir pregnant causes mixt
Confus'dly, and which thus must ever fight,
Unless th' Almighty Maker them ordain
His dark materials to create more Worlds,
Into this wild Abyss the warie fiend
Stood on the brink of Hell and look'd a while,
Pondering his Voyage.
Sadly, only a small part of the poem has this huge interstellar quality. But the rest of it is still good in other ways.
>only a small part of the poem has this huge interstellar quality
but even those parts without it are incredibly beautiful
when Adam consoles Eve after her nightmare, chapter V, are my favourite passages in any work of literature
>Best image of myself and dearer half, The trouble of thy thoughts this night in sleep Affects me equally; nor can I like This uncouth dream, of evil sprung I fear; Yet evil whence? In thee can harbor none, Created pure
then skip a few lines and:
Evil into the mind of God or Man
May come or go, so unapprov'd, and leave
No spot or blame behind: Which gives me hope
That what in sleep thou didst abhorr to dream,
Waking thou never wilt consent to do.
Be not disheart'nd then, nor cloud those looks
That wont to be more chearful and serene
Then when fair Morning first smiles on the World,
And let us to our fresh imployments rise
Among the Groves, the Fountains, and the Flours
That open now thir choicest bosom'd smells
Reservd from night, and kept for thee in store.
No its one of the 5 greatest works in the English language
It doesn't get discussed because lit is fricking gay and barely discusses literature anymore.
The only effort threads are philosophy and its always Kant, Hegel, or for some weird reason Geunon.
Beyond that, Shakespeare and Tolstoy threads will 404 at less than 30 replies, whereas twice a week a bronze aged homosexual thread will get 300+. Thats the state of this literature board
Milton has no chance of legitimate discussion. If you want to talk seminal works of literature, hang around uni dept or go to book swaps idk. Here is not the place though
What are the other 4?
Faerie Queene
Canterbury Tales
Absalom, Absalom
Moby-Dick
>Prose
Yikes.
Should we never read prose only poesy?
NTA But good taste anon, I’ll be honest I’ve only read as I lay dying by Faulkner so far though. Faerie Queen is just so damn good. I love the meter in it a lot and obviously there’s a great, profound thought every other line
I really want to read faerie queen but I’m busy with other stuff. Glad to see anon finds it worth it.
>Miltongays are tarred by this homosexual's shit taste
I wish to make a public declaration before IQfy that not all Paradise Lost enthusiasts are giant a homosexual as this one.
Post your top 5 ( reminder: if you post le Shakespeare or le Bible, you’re a homosexual).
Pro tip: Only Chaucer, other that Milton, is acceptable in your list.
Nice deflection
Faerie Queene chads literally dabbe on Miltoids all day btw
What is it about his other 4 works that anger you? What would you have chosen instead
Collected tragedies of Shakespeare, King James Version of the Bible, Joyce’s Ulysses, and Melville’s Moby Dick
>Collected tragedies of Shakespeare
This is cheating. It's like saying your favorite album is The Beatles' discography. Stop being a coward and pick one.
Shakespeare's collected works were published in book form before the individual plays. "Collected tragedies" is moronic. Should be Collected works.
It's still cheating. His works were never intended to form a cohesive whole. They are separate, distinct entities and should be judged as such.
Plays are not even literature to begin with. It's cheating to even include him at all. Might as well include movies.
Not really. Thats like saying you have to pick a book of the bible without including the whole thing.
For your answer you want, obviously Hamlet. The only other contenders are MacBeth, Lear, and Othello.
Collected works would disqualify it. Too many of his historical plays and comedies are subpar compared to the rest of his catalogue. His tragedies are by far his strongest and most enduring works.
Othello is mid. There are better ones.
Othello top tier fr. Thats the only play where one of the main characters lays down some serious bbc on some phat white ass.
Shut up, Tyrone.
>Thats like saying you have to pick a book of the bible without including the whole thing.
No, because the books of the Bible were always intended to be read sequentially, as part of the same canon. Shakespeare never intended such a thing for his tragedies.
>For your answer you want, obviously Hamlet.
Yes, agreed.
>No, because the books of the Bible were always intended to be read sequentially, as part of the same canon.
No they weren't. There are books that were left out and later added again and many more that were lost to time or ruled heretical. The bible we have now was formed over centuries of theological debate between leading members of the Hebrew and early universalist Christian churches. We know this for sure from the discovery of the Nag Hammedi library. Very little known history remains on the formation of the old testament but it likely came about from a similar process. It wasn't until well until well into the first millennium that there came an ordered and officiated bible as we have today.
Save for this poetry, Shakespeare never intended to be read but to be seen (as a play).
You have no idea what Shakespeare intended for his plays. Obviously they were meant to be performed, for aside from poetry there was no other literary medium in existence yet.
>Obviously they were meant to be performed, for aside from poetry there was no other literary medium in existence yet.
Novels, novellas, essays...
Novels didn't exist in Shakespeare’s time. Dom Quixote, the first modern novel, wasn't published until 1605. It would be more than a hundred years later before the novel form was widely adopted in England.
Essays were produced as functions of academia and centred almost exclusively on political philosophy and theology. There was not an option to write essays on form or human nature etc. Shakespeare had no means of literary expression aside from drama and poetry, so thats where he concentrated his writing.
>Dom Quixote, the first modern novel
Nope, that would be Genji Monogatari.
>medieval book
>modern novel
>Japanese manuscript that was virtually unknown in the West for 500 years and had no existing english translation until the late 1800s
Aw shucks, of course anon! Clearly in 1500s London Shakespeare mustve been influenced by this and chose not to write his works in novel format
>The Golden Ass: Late 2nd century AD
>Le Morte d'Arthur: 1485
>Gargantua and Pantagruel: 1532
>Beware the Cat: 1561
>The Anatomy of Wit: 1578
>Don Quixote: 1605
Novels/fiction prose works already existed in Shakespeare's time.
>Essays (Montaigne): 1580 (1603 in Florio's Eng trans).
Essays already existed in Shakespeare's time.
Plays were meant to be watched, not read. He could've written a novel or a prose work if he wanted to.
Did you even read my post, lol.
Did you read mine? Novels already existed in his time and in his country. Not an excuse.
Dude, you are autistic or something. The whole purpose of my post was that nothing like a novel was commonly available to the populace of Shakespeares time. Just because something like a novel existed in the 1500s does not mean it was accepted and commonplace in London society. The rise of the novel did not happen until the 18th century. Literally any source will tell you this. I dont know why im wasting time arguing with someone dense as plum loaf. Last you youre getting from me
You downright said they didn't exist (which is evidently false), now you're saying they did exist but weren't as accepted. Those are two different things. You were confidently saying that he chose to do plays because plays and poetry were the only media in his day. That's also false.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about but the worst thing is your blatant dishonesty and goalpost-moving when exposed.
YOU ARE AN AUTIST
Now, now, settle down. You're arguing about the historical origin of the novel form on an anime discussion forum, you're BOTH autistic morons.
Also, Shakespeare didn't get into plays because "they were the only medium." It was because he didn't make money with his poetry. Plays, on the other hand, could make money (thanks to the audience and also royal favors, not the readership).
>capitalism ruining art since the middle ages
color me surprised
Shakespeare is Francis Bacon who didn't need money.
It was a very rare art form at the time. Swifte, Richardson, and Fielding are coming to terms with what a novel even is in their work.
Novels may have served Shakespeare well, who knows.
The Bible is prose, you morons.
>the most famous work of verse of all time is prose
what did he mean by this
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-original-Hebrew-Bible-written-in-poetic-form-or-in-prose
Idiot.
Regardless, "prose" is not the same thing as a novel. The Bible is not a novel and you are moronic.
mong
Literally just read a fricking definition. A novel, BY DEFINITION, is a work of fiction.
>hurr durr the bible is a work of fiction
No, it isn't. Made up, inaccurate, or inauthentic is not the same thing as fiction. Fiction ALSO has a definition you can easily look up.
I agree with everything you said, and I never said the Bible was a novel. I still think you're a mong though
How how about an entire book of hymns and a book literally called "Song of Songs"? The Bible has both prose and poetry.
tragedies of Shakespeare, King James Version of the Bible, Joyce’s Ulysses, and Melville’s Moby Dick
>plays
>not literature, kys
>garbage
>garbage
>or for some weird reason Geunon
What's so weird about Guenon (pbuh)?
His work centred on a niche branch of metaphysics which itself is niche branch of philosophy. Not that hes bad, he produced some very interesting ideas, but hes considered a niche 20th century philosopher and given the limited scope of his output its weird as frick that there are 2-3 posted about him every single day.
>It doesn't get discussed because lit is fricking gay and barely discusses literature anymore.
Reminds me IQfy where everyone just talks about their fast food and candy brands instead of the art of cooking.
It's called being ironic.
It honestly seems like /lit has gotten worse in a manner of months. Never was here in the glory days I've heard about it. Perhaps there are archived threads
>Never was here in the glory days I've heard about it.
It has always been pretty shit. At one point it was basically leftypol at best. Then it got diluted by twitter gays who adopted hardbacks as a personality. Now it's just eceleb bait. I still come here cause there is a 1 in 1000 good thread but that is rare
Now it’s /misc/ shit also.
reading is le hard.
moby dick and infinite jest get mentioned a lot though.
You said that last year. And the year before that. and the year before that even though that year was actually better than the year that preceded it.
I think your ilk just wants to seem part of something higher quality but doesnt have the quality to do anything besides regurgitating the same unthinking wistful lines.
I'd like to find threads that help me more deeply understand literature instead of endless threads debating the rank of authors.
"DFW is mid, McCarthy is chud and Proust is a cuck" type stuff. It smells of sublimated dick measuring.
The competitive, obsessive desire to label others as midwits is the very thing that I'd like to see the board move away from you shitbird.
Cormac McCarthy mogs John Milton
Have you read Blood Meridian ? Could the Judge have led the angelic rebellion ?
None ever wished it longer
good morning sir, have you redeemed your card yet?
Do you gays even read?
Shit. Turns out I was the tard all along. I apologize, anon.
Some to be more to do more like
That fat gay wouldn't stop quoting it in his dictionary and wrote severally Rambler essays on Milton's technique so clearly he couldn't get enough of the poem.
Bible myth is boring cause you know it's just made up out of nothing, instead of being based in some kind of traceable national or ethnic history.
>doesn't rhyme
>The Measure is English Heroic Verse without Rime, as that of Homer in Greek, and Virgil in Latin; Rhime being no necessary Adjunct or true Ornament of Poem or good Verse, in longer Works especially, but the Invention of a barbarous Age, to set off wretched matter and lame Meeter
Get wrecked rhymegays
Rhyming makes attempts at serious writing sound like jingles from tampon and insurance commercials.
You sound upset
Why would I be upset by those who are beneath me? The only thing I feel towards them is pity.
It is one of my biggest inspirations, I've read it several times and studied it too. Last time I discussed it on IQfy, I called Milton "pretty good" as a humble expression of my taste. Which caused some English anon to have a total and utter meltdown because I didn't perform the proper prostration ritual in praise of Milton. Still laughing about it.
He is pretty good tbf
Because it's written as a poem and is difficult to navigate without understanding The Book of Genesis. Maybe if this board knew that McCarthy borrowed heavily from it in Blood Meridian, then maybe they'd give a shit about it.
Are there any epic fights in this book? Like an anime?
Hehe
?
:3
:S
satan kills god which was an easy top 10 anime fight moment for me
On the contrary, it's too good for IQfy.
I liked it fair enough, and it's important because it's influenced a lot of theological thought about Satan, but I wouldn't describe it as "Bible fanfiction", unlike the Apocrypha.
>because it's influenced a lot of theological thought about Satan
It influenced popular thought about Satan that has nothing to do with Christian theology.
That too, though both apply in varying extents.
What's the point of discussing it with people who have tin ears or who don't even read poetry often?
I am reading it currently (on Book III). I find the language to be astounding, and on a line by line, clause by clause, basis I find I comprehend Milton's writing much more readily than Shakespeare's, but there is something very distinct about the syntax that can be puzzling at moments. This is the only aspect of Milton's language that I find more difficult than Shakespeare. I notice it more when reading aloud rather than silently. It's difficult for me to pinpoint. One thing I can say is that I'll encounter a clause that seems like it would have occurred lines earlier if the sentence had been written in English by someone else. Is this because of the heavy influence of Latin on Milton?
I remember Eliot saying that he thought that Milton was not as skillful as other great poets at sustaining an image, but Milton's rather sudden shifts in imagery makes sense to me, given that Satan and the other angels are made of an ethereal substance. They would not have the kind of firm parameters in terms of what they look like as we do, and their actions would be so different than ours that the fluidity of the imagery seems fitting.
I agree re. OP's starting question. There's too many meta-discussions on IQfy (why aren't we talking about x, why is poet/writer A always mentioned and not B., all the ranking of writers) and not enough discussion proper.
>Is this because of the heavy influence of Latin on Milton?
yes, dude studied latin and greek intensively so that really breaks a homie's syntax
Lucifer did literally nothing wrong
>"Him who disobeys me disobeys"
NOT LATINISATION OF MUH HECKING ENGLISH
ARGHHHHHH I'M GOING INSANEEEEE
If you want underdiscussed, try Paradise Found. That one is totally ignored by everyone.
Well, there’s not as much going on there, it’s presented in a fairly straightforward way. It doesn’t have anything approaching the mythic imagination of PL, it’s almost all discursive with a slight dramatic frame. Still impeccably well-written though. And the dynamic between Satan and Christ is mildly compelling.
I found his minor poems at the flea market, and I've been enjoying myself so far. Might make a thread when I'm done.
Basically all IQfy is is using books as an aesthetic, or a background. Many of those who actually read use books as a form of Pokémon battle; books and writers are pitted against each other so anons can prop themselves up, call others a moron or midwit, while they themselves are based or patrician. Not much going on beneath the surface here. A bunch of angry pseuds who were “gifted” as kids, but have “failed to live up to their potential”, or they’re just morons. Can anyone keep a straight face and say Reddit isn’t better? Look at this place. A bunch of homies who like the idea of reading but not actually reading
Most are intelligent socially frustrated autists, they were never gonna be the next anything and just can't accept that they're good enough for an adjunct professor/high school teacher (If they become less weird) position or technical writer. So, they come here and use their taste as a way to show superiority. Who cares, though, IQfy has pretty much always been this and you either play ball or go somewhere with less autists.
If only most anons were like that..but that’s just most readers here. Take a close look at many threads and post. There is zero signs that many anons read or have any level of intelligence.
beautiful writing, some parts are good, but the god/jesus/goody two shoes angel stuff is so cloying
>Benjamin Mcevoy is here to help anybody who wants to partake in this endeavor:
kek. This guy seems like a pseud that wants to sell his "reading" lectures. Good for him. Though he gives decent advice
i was planning on reading it in august, stopped at book 2 where God and Jesus are having back and forths about taking responsbility for the sins of man, to instead read the chronicles of narnia (just finished, was okay). i stopped reading it because i'm not used to poetic verse. it's quite poignant in its imagery. i'll continue maybe in november when it gets cold.
Bumbp. What do we think of Hyperion in comparison to PL? Tragic that it was never finished, or better off that way?