Borges is an excellent critic. Quite better than Eliot, because, put frankly, Borges capacity of interpretation and to find something new on old works is much superior than the capacity of Eliot. No wonder, many of the "professional critics", carry Borges under their arm. And it is hilarious to think he is anything but very competent to talk about the romantic poets. Any know of his love towards Blake, that he was fascinated by Ode to a Nightingale (the poem that taught him what poetry is), Coleridge Kubla Khan and literary biographia, Byron poetry and, albeit this is veiled, he liked Wordsworth a lot. Only reggarding Shelley I have seen him without some enthusiams. Yet, he, as people who study french litterature deeply consider Hugo first and foremost a poet. And a great one. (Borges would deliver similar attacks on Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Shakespeare, Milton, Poe, meaning, poets he liked to read and knew well. And Borges approach is always aesthetical).
But anyways, the point is How utter ridiculous are arguments as "any critic who disagree with me does not deserve to be named a critic." It is laughable.
Wordsworth inovation is what? Writing about a cottage???? That is nice. So, when Pope wrote about hair, he must have changed all world! Modern Confessional poetry owes to him (as if he was the first who did something similar) ? But Modern Confessional poetry is hardly the most representative bulk of moderm poetry. Yeats alone (Who own much to romantics indeed) is more relevant than the moderm confessional poetry. But it says nothing to Neruda, Pessoa, Lorca, or other heavy heights of modernism which own much more to Baudelaire, Verlaine and Rimbaud? That is the best you can give about Woodsworth? Ad we are not even talking about a nobody! It should be quite easy to point really the merits of Woody man... But instead you try to "show-off" mentioning Aristoteles (of course I saw it was a pointless, I know classic theory of drama, as it said nothing to your argument at all, but you seem to really have a problem to get irony). And yet, you try harder, and the first romantics are going to be german, they are those spreading to russia, france and england itself, because this guy Schiller is the one that came up with the romantic aesthetic and it is not wonder almost all mentions him over and over. This when they are not dealing with french politics, but since this is more less aesthetic, lets put this apart, right?
Quote:
Okay, before you offer more hand-waving, you need to understand that what you are doing fails to examine anything remotely aesthetic, which is the entire problem. Who read who, doesn't deal with the artifact, itself--the text. I never said "neo classicism is backwards," so stop putting words into my mouth. The word "revert" has none of the pejorative connotations of "backwards." Neo-classicism is explicitly a return to something that happened previously; that's not an insult, but a definition. To suggest something neoclassical is somehow as original as something entirely new is irrational--by definition. Your point that Spencer and Chaucer wrote before Shakespeare is moot. Are we even having the same discussion here?
I find this priceless. First, you are the english talker. You should know that backward means moving back to the past. The negative is your mind. So, you claim the neo-classic (I suppose the name gave you a clue) is a backward movement of the past, as if there is no creation on the entire movement. It is a cute old dated critic. Typical non-sense but very romantic indeed. And Coleridge and Wordsworth loved it because it was a way to release the limitations of neo-classic style on english poetry. But one step foward, and Byron would be all for neo-classicism and Keats would be praising Champman and Homer, etc.
But this would lead to two ridiculous idea, Neo-classicism was a return to the past, as If Dante or Ariosto, or Voltaire or Racine, are just copying the model and waiting Milton to free them or that Romantics are such rupture that all about them was original. (This from a guy who come quoting Ariostoteles).
The idea is ridiculous. Not only romantics have as much of the past as neo-classics, as neo-classics are as a rupture as romantics. You seem to not graps it well, it is neo-classicism that break with middle age. It is an entire new man, organizaiton, philosophy that was born. They play with the models of the past? Of course, just like any great artist, they modify those models to their needs. Just like the romantics hardly forgot the classics (enough references to them in all their poetry), didnt recovered the celtic past (albeit, it was first with Mcpherson), dealt with biblical themes (like Blake did, not to mention Swenderborg), oriental exotism (plenty of 1001 nights references), Milton and Shakespeare (albeit your early crazy contemporary line), Dante himself, and the list go on. It would be quite hard for a movement that is often looking back ot the past, to break with this past completely. Wake up, as Adorno pointed: Romanticism is just a development of the enlightment.
Quote:
Listen, that model of character isn't mine, but Aristotle's, you know, the guy who started the whole aesthetic theory thing. Take it up with him. Don Quixote the character is hardly the equal of Hamlet. Quixote is hardly the equal of Anna Karenina. There's a reason the largely episodic work of Don Quixote is only praised as the quintessential novel by persons who have staked their careers on it. Moliere is mostly an historic example of Enlightenment thinking in drama, aesthetically he's just not that important. Of course, you could always demonstrate how that is wrong, rather than pretending to divine the opinions of a dead man who lived centuries before Cervantes or Moliere--if he even lived at all.
Really? Are you joking? Lets remember that Wordsworth himself placed Quixote references in his Prelude. Not of... Oh, I forgot, he is original, he didnt read as a kid.
You are really making a big effort to be clumsy? Moliere is not just historical, his aesthetic merit is widely reckonized. Because lets put simply: he was more funny than Shakespeare. (And what is the dead man thing? Are you lost?)
Quote:
There's is absolutely nothing in history before Shakespeare demonstrating as robust a character as Hamlet--nothing that suggests the intricacy of intellect and humor, which is to say nothing as convincingly human. To mention the cartoon of Don Quixote, who does little more than get bopped on the head through an endless string of episodes, as approaching Hamlet's complexity is just--I don't know--unconscionable.
This is what a kid would say. Don Quixote just a dude that is bopped in the head (it is when you should say: sorry, I forgot my pantalones in the bathtub or something else, because it makes no sense) and then the funny part that people have read for 2500 years or so, but all characters looked less human to them, which imply the writers that Shakespeare copied are so clumsy that they are unable to represent humanity. Of course, this is when we laugh together. But I will be reading a book with Hamlet.
Quote:
One is obviously more multi-dimensional than the other. The fact that you think the word "Divine" is any kind of stumbling block for anyone or anything, makes me think you completely misunderstand its use. Whoever smashed Dante and Shakespeare doesn't matter. Are you even slightly aware of how to judge a work aesthetically? I only ask because you haven't yet demonstrated it, and when I actually did you basically insulted Aristotle's aesthetic theory.
No, you have not showed any capacity to judge any work aesthatically, You have been shouting names. Your clumsy quoting of Aristoteles (get a clue, Aristoteles is reasonable accessible, it does not impress anyone) didnt showed anything. Even because your online description of protagonist is not relevant, can be just applied to dramas without you raising the aesthetical quality of the work, can be applied to Hamlet, albeit Shakespeare is inovative enough to break classical drama traditions. And If you think it is offensive, saying that your line applies to Hamlet (which it does), good for you. Aristoteles won't mind at all.
As your argument, it is the kind of argument kids have. "Hey, who will won, Wolverine or Batman?". Of course, if DC publiishes, Batman win, if Marvel, Wolverine steals batmobile. It is not a show of aesthetical judgment, knowledge or anything. It is fanboyism. One could point that Hamlet, outside his play, is nobody. Without Shakespeare voice, he would be mute, perhaps waiting Godot. If you to write fanfiction go ahead, but before coming with the pretencious idea of your almighty aesthetical capacity of judgment, do not build such ridiculous arguments.
Quote:
I'm saying Shakespeare made Dante look dated. Despite Dante's innovation, his work seems to hew more closely to an explicitly classical tradition of epic poets, whereas Shakespeare seems thoroughly original, despite having influences. There's a reason Shakespeare's characters are used even today and Dante's are not. Dante's characters simply aren't intellectually sufficient to pass muster with a modern audience. They're about as complex as Odysseus. To rewrite a Dante type character would seem like archaism today. Hamlet is still clever as ever.
Odysseus is one of the characters of Dante, but you probally didnt paid attention did you? Again, your argumentantion seems silly. First, Dante still used to today. He is a model to Eliot, Borges and suprise... Even X-Men! So, what would happen if Hamlet meets Wolverine?
Second, both Shakespeare and Dante excells in more than just character creation, and the simple fact that you do not read latim anymore, would tell you Dante lasting influence is quite bigger than you think. The very notion of how hell or heaven is belong to the Comedy. Of course, nobody can (albeit they try) bring Dante-Virgil pair, it would look ridiculous, because it was a one shot thing. Bring simple the greatest poet ever and pretend he is our equal while you have done something equal to him yet... And Dante managed it out. And surprise, who even placed himself as Dante placed as in the narrative before? Oh, you mean, the samething Borges did in XX century with himself????
Now, I wont say you have not touched the "artifact", but this is not reading. Better read more.
Quote:
I never said Vita Nuova was printed inside the Commedia. I meant that it is generally read as an introduction to Dante and Beatrice. If all Dante had written was Vita Nuova, we might not even know who he was. If all Shakespeare had written was Hamlet, we would still know him. If all he had written was King Lear, we would still know him. I daresay if all he had written was Macbeth, we would still know him. I never said I stopped at Inferno; again, stop putting words in my mouth to make yourself feel better. I said that Paradiso was an aesthetic disaster in comparison to Inferno and even explained why. In case you don't know, that's essentially what you have to when examining a particular work: pick a particular section and examine it in the particular.
But you seem unable to do it. Because you cannt even read what that particular phrase "And bad readers stop on Inferno." does not makes reference to you. If you cannt understand a simple phrase like this (do not blame my english, Bad readers is not a mispelling of stuntpickle) what good you will do analysing anything more complex like Dante, Shakespeare or Cervantes (some of commentaries suggest that no good, but I am more than willingly that you are trying to be sarcastic or just, as you said, too passsionate)?
And you know, this is another kid idea. I love Star Trek and they could defeat Star Wars. But they have Jedis. But if you remove Jedis, then Star Trek would won. Dante was already famous before the Comedy, he would be remembered, but of course, if Shakespeare had written only Pericles, who would remember him?
Quote:
Satan is part of the landscape of hell, and as far as character goes, he might as well be a rock. Dante, the character, says any number of things explicitly all throughout the Commedia, which I presume you have read.
You should be carefull and read yourself. Satan is part of the scenary (Hell) or really a character? You know, if you see woods moving, it is because they are not woods. (You know, someone who know how to analyse works, do not demands to its elements to act out of the pressumed function. Is Satan ever suppose to pop out, give us a monologue and invite Dante to a drink? Or he is doing exactly the fuction pressume in Dante's work?)
And Yes, I read. And still, Dante explicitly in the Comedy is something funny, considering he explicitly said he didnt write poetry as such. You know, Dante, the one who loved medieval alegories, that wrote a treatise on the inner obscure meanings of the texts (his own texts by the way) writing things explicitly (which ,as you know since you speak english since birth, expressing without vagueness)? Another thing good when you analyse works is not claiming, I asked you where he claims explicitly he cannt describe good and this should imply that he offers us very little at the end. (The use of alegory is of course a clue, if you really want to go after aesthetics of medieval age, not Aristotele).
Quote:
I think it's fairly obvious that Yahweh is the archetype for Shakspeare's Lear--a figure terrible in his power, who relinquishes his power to his children who then promptly forsake him. You say Dante had no intention of describing God, but then showing up at his house seems a little ridiculous. The equivalent is like Stoker's Dracula being invisible throughout the entire novel. Muse, muse, muse, you act like having a muse is something more than pedestrian by Dante's time. Muses were fairly stock items insofar as epic poems were concerned. There's hardly anything original in Dante having one. That's just Dante strictly writing in the epic mode. If you think Dante having a muse is some critical marvel, then you are obviously bereft of the necessary tools to aesthetically judge anything. That a muse is so central to Dante's work indicts it, rather than praises it.
The problem is quite simple, When does Yaweh is a forsaken god? Of course, Bloom nails right, the Jewish's relation with God after the jews without kingdom and he is latter without temple, the jews without kingdom and there is a short of "revision" and change of relation between jews and god. But that is Jewish text and culture and Shakespeare had considerable other sources from irish/celtic culture closer than show the same type of King (the lost, mad abandoned King) which are much closer to King Lear. Of course, they are all similar, just like Ulysses is similar to Simbad, Achilles to Sigriefid, etc. Bloom can make this reading, Shakespeare, complete out of jewish culture and their abandon didnt.
You think it is ridiculous Dante showing up to his house? So, Mister thinks one of the most praised works of all time, the trip of a man from hell to heaven, is ridiculous? Put the head to rest and think: Am I wrong or 700 years of culture that have been impacted by this ridiculous idea?
And of course, God is not visible. (Godot arrives? Moby Dick is a show off? and Ahab?) The work is not about showing God, but a little bit of knowledge of middle age aesthetic and metaphysics easily answer this one (This also answers the process that turned Jesus in a divine being).
Having a Muse is quite important, a feature of epic poetry. But the process of creation of Beatrice (which influence is notable, after all Dante is not the only one who tries to create a muse and she became the model, just like Shakespeare made models, after all many of his characters, Romeo, Juliet, Hamlet, Lear, etc are not just stock models, but already present in early works) is unique. And she does mean more than a line in the text. If you think, Beatrice equates Callyope, then sorry, you have to read more books.
Quote:
I never said there wasn't a book in Hamlet. I said that saying "Hamlet reads a book before he sees a ghost" makes me think you've never read the play. It would be like me saying Dante goes to heaven before he meets Virgil. The book has nothing to do with the ghost, and you have the chronology all wrong--mistakes that seem likely only if the person making them has never read the play.
That is funny as hell. You think I never read a play because when I mention that Shakespeare didnt bothered (and I should not judge it as failure, because it is a play) to fill descriptions of scenary, etc. I mention the irrelevance of it by mentioning of his few descriptions (and obscure line, I think in second act) and you are arrogant enough to read "You diddnt read a play, because the chronology is wrong"? Dro you think I bothered with chronology? Do you think someone who have not read hamlet remembers that one of the few details described is him holding a book? Not that I quote Shakespeare back and forth, or any poem for what matters, but I find this detail funny. Make me think of Quixote, of course, the guy which your absurdly equated with 3 stooges. Get yourself a hold dude.
Quote:
Don't pretend to insult my reading, especially when you can't even get Hamlet anywhere close to right.
I am not insulting your reading, but I will. Unless you quote where I claimed '"scenery is somehow an inherent property n of poetry", proving I am wrong and you actually can read.
Quote:
Apparently, you have no idea what a rhetorical figuration is. I'm beginning to think, more and more, that you simply don't have the tools to critically analyse anything.
You didnt said a single word about "rhetorical figuration", You used both imagery and figuration. So, I am starting to imagine you not only have problems reading others, but yourself. You have the arrogance to repeat it over and over and give the most infantile question about God representation in Dante. Any kid now what the main aesthetic purpose of alegory is, any would know the answer quite easily. You get how lost you are?
Trying to judge a work, because in a different work, elements used with different purpose, would not fit in this specific work is not comparite literature, dude. It is fanboyism.
Let's make a aesthetical Analyse: Who would win a fight? Romeo or Harry Potter. This is the kind of "analyse" you have been suppling us. If we have hamlet written by Rowling, how well would his monologues go? :D
