Spanish literature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluosean

By the way, does anyone think that writers like Cervantes and Borges are as good or near as good as the best writers of English? Are there any Spanish writers that are?

---

Why should there not be any? Does the English language have some sort of monopoly on good writers?

Cervantes is a marvel and Borges is another marvel. So are the short stories of the Argentine Julio Cortázar and the Uruguayan Horacio Quiroga. And the novels of Juan Carlos Onetti (Uruguay). And the poetry of Federico García Lorca and Miguel Hernández (Spain) and Pablo Neruda (Chile) and that most wonderful of nuns, Sister Juana Inés de la Cruz (Mexico). The list could go on and on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pecksie

Why should there not be any? Does the English language have some sort of monopoly on good writers?

Cervantes is a marvel and Borges is another marvel. So are the short stories of the Argentine Julio Cortázar and the Uruguayan Horacio Quiroga. And the novels of Juan Carlos Onetti (Uruguay). And the poetry of Federico García Lorca and Miguel Hernández (Spain) and Pablo Neruda (Chile) and that most wonderful of nuns, Sister Juana Inés de la Cruz (Mexico). The list could go on and on...

---

The joke is, the pro-club in literature if you want to call it that, Cervantes, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Pushkin, etc. is probably not dominated by English lit anyway. Sure, there was the mighty decade of the 1590s, but when it comes to the key players, in novels, poetry, history, and prose essays, English is a strong language, but probably not the strongest.

Historically the dominance of English begins probably with Sidney. The Golden ages of world literature were centuries ahead - in the west there is a joke that Goethe marks the beginning of the late break of a really strong Germanic tradition, but if you look around the world - Arabic lit, Chinese Lit, Japanese　lit, Indian Lit, etc, English has always been a rather minor player.

In terms of fiction, I think English novels seem to overestimate themselves. There are fantastic authors in the English language, but to suggest that W. H. Auden is less valid a poet than Lorca is rather sad. Shakespeare for what he's worth, still isn't the be all and end all, though he was damn good.

The point is it doesn't matter anyway though.

In the genre of fiction, Spain has traditionally been light-years ahead of England - the first real major work of prose fiction in English, Nashe's Unfortunate Traveler, is essentially modeled on Picaresque novels. I Think Tom Jones is pegged as the beginning of the emergence of English prose fiction as a major force, but for a real "super" novel, and Tristam Shandy right around the corner, we wait until Walter Scott, and Jane Austen for the novel to really take shape.

Cervantes was way ahead of any English prose writer, and he wasn't the first either. Likewise, Poetically speaking, Spain seems to have been ahead of England, and despite a rather unclear period, seems to have held strong until modern times.

The Spanish language is actually incredible, in terms of literary output - far greater than Russian I would argue. There are reasons for the prevalence of Russian though, on these boards. over Spanish. My Guesses:

1) It is Russian novels, despite the short novel and short story being a major form in Russia, as it is in Italy, and France. English really is not the language of short-story writing, so people's tastes bend that way.

2) Dostoevsky appeals to an age group. The same 17-18 year old kids who discover Nietzsche or Existentialism and think they have uncovered the world seem to have a drawing to this kind of fiction, as the bitter filthiness contained within these texts, and the rather harsh, misunderstood philosophy, mixed with pessimism, fits nicely with the hormonal swings of adolescence.

3) Who here ever hears about Spanish literature, that is, classic or good Spanish Lit?

4) Dostoevsky, in circular reinforcement, is promoted and shelved according to the top list, creating a situation where reputation feeds reputation, meanwhile other works go ignored.



Still, I wouldn't mind a discussion on Gypsy Ballads or something.Or even contemporary or classical verse, if someone is up for it.




Though, I'll be honest with you St. Lukes, Pasternak, as poet doesn't really do it for me, or at least in the translation I got; I couldn't really understand him.

JBI: I agree with you on most of what you say. What a pity, though, that some of the most wonderful Spanish writers don't make it through to the English-language world... Is it due to lack of translations? Has Manrique, for example, been translated into English? Someone earlier mentioned Calderón as an example of those authors who are sadly unknown outside the Spanish-speaking world. But two hundred years ago P. B. Shelley was already enthusiastically translating one of his minor plays, 'El mágico prodigioso'. And an Amazon search yields several translations of his work --- including a Penguin Classics edition. So...

Picaresque novels, which you mention, are another example of sadly underrated and yet very funny works. Cervantes himself wrote several --- he was fascinated by the world of rogues and rascals. His novellas, picaresque or not, are wonderful. One of my favs is 'The Glass Graduate', about a young man who is under the delusion that he's made of glass and liable to shatter at any moment. Continuing with Renaissance authors, Quevedo also comes to mind --- a complex and arguably very modern man, with a scathing wit to boot.

Anyway, whatever the causes, it's a shame that such a beautiful language, and one that has produced such gorgeous writers, should be so relegated re. its foreign readership as to give rise to such questions as the one that prompted all this exchange :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The joke is, the pro-club in literature if you want to call it that, Cervantes, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Pushkin, etc. is probably not dominated by English lit anyway. Sure, there was the mighty decade of the 1590s, but when it comes to the key players, in novels, poetry, history, and prose essays, English is a strong language, but probably not the strongest.

---

I woud have no doubt that of the modern languages English is only mildly challenged by French - they are there for quite a time and with a consistency that is impressive. And it is not a matter of just England, but Ireland and United States. In every single genre you may find a english writer that is a major player, a major influence. From Poe to Joyce, Woolf to Shakespeare, Milton to Blake, Melville to Dickens, Wordsworth to Bacon, Dickinson... ah you got there. Of course, they have not a longer tradition than arabian, indian, chinese or jewish - but really, when was the last time that a jewish book managed to get the status of the biblical book?

Quote:

---

Historically the dominance of English begins probably with Sidney. The Golden ages of world literature were centuries ahead - in the west there is a joke that Goethe marks the beginning of the late break of a really strong Germanic tradition, but if you look around the world - Arabic lit, Chinese Lit, Japanese　lit, Indian Lit, etc, English has always been a rather minor player.

---

i would say it was the romantic movement that placed the english language on this central place, they are already relevant, but until them French was probally the main european language, position they took from italian with the raise of enlightment.

Quote:

---

In terms of fiction, I think English novels seem to overestimate themselves. There are fantastic authors in the English language, but to suggest that W. H. Auden is less valid a poet than Lorca is rather sad. Shakespeare for what he's worth, still isn't the be all and end all, though he was damn good.

---

But that is an extreme example. Those guys are possible, guys worst than Eliot, Yeats and Pessoa, but damn good and able to sit in the same table. I find those rankings almost impossible. I do not know what overestimate may mean here. As what? A handfull of english novels are serious candidates of "best novels ever", but I think that does not matter, the exchange between the major players of all idioms is so intensse that Dickensvalidate Dostoievisky and Dostoievisky validates Woolf and there goes the snowball. But of course, none ever will have the status of Dom Quixote...

Quote:

---

The point is it doesn't matter anyway though.

In the genre of fiction, Spain has traditionally been light-years ahead of England - the first real major work of prose fiction in English, Nashe's Unfortunate Traveler, is essentially modeled on Picaresque novels. I Think Tom Jones is pegged as the beginning of the emergence of English prose fiction as a major force, but for a real "super" novel, and Tristam Shandy right around the corner, we wait until Walter Scott, and Jane Austen for the novel to really take shape.

Cervantes was way ahead of any English prose writer, and he wasn't the first either. Likewise, Poetically speaking, Spain seems to have been ahead of England, and despite a rather unclear period, seems to have held strong until modern times.

---

All of them are predated by Italians, who you would say are ahead of them all as well. After all, even Ariosto had some humor and it is the most influential writers for Dom Quixote. You have also Bocaccio and Petrarca. However, I do not think English poets are that behind. Milton was english after all. Even Camoes was somehow ahead of them all alone, but you can somehow argue Camoes was a lonely guy - albeit interesting, considering that until his age, spanish and portuguese (and the languages of the peninsule) are still breaking from each other.

Quote:

---

The Spanish language is actually incredible, in terms of literary output - far greater than Russian I would argue. There are reasons for the prevalence of Russian though, on these boards. over Spanish. My Guesses:

1) It is Russian novels, despite the short novel and short story being a major form in Russia, as it is in Italy, and France. English really is not the language of short-story writing, so people's tastes bend that way.

2) Dostoevsky appeals to an age group. The same 17-18 year old kids who discover Nietzsche or Existentialism and think they have uncovered the world seem to have a drawing to this kind of fiction, as the bitter filthiness contained within these texts, and the rather harsh, misunderstood philosophy, mixed with pessimism, fits nicely with the hormonal swings of adolescence.

3) Who here ever hears about Spanish literature, that is, classic or good Spanish Lit?

4) Dostoevsky, in circular reinforcement, is promoted and shelved according to the top list, creating a situation where reputation feeds reputation, meanwhile other works go ignored.



Still, I wouldn't mind a discussion on Gypsy Ballads or something.Or even contemporary or classical verse, if someone is up for it.

---

What really makes russian case amazing, is that out of nowhere, a underdeveloped country, using a very odd language, just produced major players and then... Such intensity is notable. Obviosuly Spanish language is more influential, they are not that blazing explosion and have been continously producing.
Anyways, I think the main reasons are still those I posted: Cervantes and Dom Quixote, helped to change the map of literature, but prose works and picaresque works are not the "great" merit then. Then, Spain lost his work dominance, France and England fighting for europe, turning this language in the dominante language. Spain would only have a great explosion with the latin american boom, but it is a peripheric thing for europe. And mostly lead by a Borges, who is more english than the Big Ben. The russians however were major players with Romances, when spain had nobody like him, the modern romance of early XX century own a lot to them, so it is better remembered.

Now, English and short stories? Poe is what one can call the center of all short stories, he wrote in english. There was Kipling, Hawthorne, Henry James. I would say that Argentina is a place where short stories are taken more seriously, because it is Borges land. Elsewhere, all short story masters are not less or more numerous than in english. This is the modern short stories, so not the oriental fables or parables. And Short stories is even more recent than romances - Poe was basically the first one to insist on short narratives, Maupassant and Chekhov did theirs but Borges was bassically the first world wide reckonigtion for guy who lived only with short stories,essays or poems. .

Dostoievisky appeal to me more than Tolstoy and I am a bit old to be a teen. He is far more complex than teenage angst, but this is irrelevant, Rimbaud, Baudelaire have also teenager appeal. But I would say it is that appeal that a 60 years old can feel.
You may be right about the public here, but frankly: very few read Chekhov or Tolstoy, few read the less famous works of Dostoievsky. Gogol, Pushkhin or Turgueniev? Seems to me the second more read author from russia here, wrote in english, Nobokov.

And yeah, but eventually St.Lukes will talk so much about Borges that he will have more topics dedicated to him than J.K.Rowling and not even Mortal saying he only wrote short stuff will stop this :smilewinkgrin:

English has always been a rather minor player.

You really overstate your argument here. As JCamilo points out, only French can rival English among modern languages. For all the strengths of Chinese, Arabic, Greek, Latin, etc... these are largely petered out by the time that English and French become dominant. Not even you will argue that 17th or 18th or 20th century Chinese rivals Tu Fu, Li Po, Wang Wei, etc... (and I'm too buzzed right now to give a damn about your Pinyin vs Wade-Giles.) Yes, other cultures have had peak periods well before English, but suggesting that English literature is but a minor player simply makes you look ridiculous... if not drawing attention to your personal prejudices.

In the genre of fiction, Spain has traditionally been light-years ahead of England -

Examples?... beyond Don Quixote. Such a blanket statement demands examples... and as much Spanish literature as I've read, I wouldn't be able to prove such an assertion.

Poetically speaking, Spain seems to have been ahead of England, and despite a rather unclear period, seems to have held strong until modern times.

Really? Again, I would find this difficult to prove. There are some very fine Spanish poets, but following the reclamation of Spain for the Christian crown under Ferdinand and Isabella Spain enjoys a brief "Golden Age" as a result of the great wealth pillaged from the "new world"... but they also slip quickly into decadence and decline under the pathetic Spanish crown and the Inquisition. By the time of the Napoleonic invasion Spain is virtually a third world nation... isolated from the rest of Europe. There is a second burst of brilliance with the 20th century... but I doubt that any of these poets (excepting the Chilean, Neruda) rival Yeats, Eliot, Stevens, etc...

Yes... English literature is not the end-all and be-all... but by overstating your case and arguing that English-language literature is but a minor player, you fail to convince anyone. Art has always followed power and wealth... and England and America have represented the greatest wealth and power of the last 200+ years... a fact that irks you to no end... but you are ending up like a parody of Harold Bloom's imagined "School or Resentment" by simply trying to rewrite history and literary history.

...they have not a longer tradition than arabian, indian, chinese or jewish - but really, when was the last time that a jewish book managed to get the status of the biblical book?

:smilewinkgrin::ack2::biggrin5::nod::ihih::iagree:

And yeah, but eventually St.Lukes will talk so much about Borges that he will have more topics dedicated to him than J.K.Rowling and not even Mortal saying he only wrote short stuff will stop this

Borges vs Rowling and Twilight. Let's rumble!!!:ack2::willy_nilly::goof:

And where is Mortal? I haven't heard from him in a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

...they have not a longer tradition than arabian, indian, chinese or jewish - but really, when was the last time that a jewish book managed to get the status of the biblical book?

:smilewinkgrin::ack2::biggrin5::nod::ihih::iagree:

---

To Jews, The Talmud, then Rashi's commentaries, then Bialik, buy that isn't the point.

Chinese fiction up until the "century of shame" that was the 19th century in China was way more advanced than English or French prose. Sadly too, lots is available in translation, you just haven't read it.

English is your first language, but that doesn't mean it is such a strong tradition, as it is only 400 years old.

If you knew the vastness of other traditions, of work equal if not better than English, you wouldn't comment. Even modernism wasn't exclusively an English movement, and actually generated great writing in many places, but that isn't talked about.

Simply put, Shakespeare has gone from Bard to post-card. He has become an industry, and is promoted as such. The prevalence of Victorian fiction can be compared to periods like the Latin American boom, or the even greater 19th century of French fiction (where it was publications of Zola that saw Visatelli's press remake the English novel, and create accessible publishing).

Likewise for modernist poets, I wouldn't automatically promote them as somehow the best the world has ever seen - they are good, but really, that is one movement of many.

Simply put, English is not really that strong a tradition, in that it first of all is new, second of all dependent on other traditions heavily, and third of all, though better than many, others are still quite strong.

You point to the failures of Qing literature, but I gesture then to the fact that English literature seems to have produced maybe one volume worth of truly good stuff, besides Chaucer, before the 1500s most of which sitting in the 1590s. Post-Milton is nothing to brag about either for a while. And lets be honest, Victorian novels, though good, aren't the be all and end all of world literature - they have equivalents in almost every tradition that press hit - From Japan to the US.

Now my question is thus - how can you justify a sort of tradition as somehow more dominant than other, more developed traditions. Japanese fiction was 800 years ahead of English fiction, keep in mind.


English is a minor player until recently - even Modernism was essentially a reworking of different sources; Eliot copying predominantly from Sanskrit and from Symbolist French verse, and Pound, Moore, and Stevens all borrowing from many places, and each with their own reactions to different traditions synthesizing into their poetics. That doesn't make them bad, but it doesn't promote a sort of English superiority either.

The bias that is fed into English superiority in letters seems rooted in a misconceived notion that all those American poets and American novelists, as well as 19th century British ones, to a lesser extent, are somehow of canonical stature and write superior literature. The truth is, Cormac McCarthy, Pynchon, Updike, and a whole slew of others mean essentially nothing in the grand scheme of literary culture, if we want to factor in their current counterparts around the world. There has been so much written, that this shameless self-promotion of an English superiority of letters is rather pathetic.

English has been a strong language, especially in the 20th century, but it wasn't the only language. People tend to forget that.

Besides, I think in the last 50 years one could make the case that Spanish language literature has been far superior - I would say it has certainly been more interesting than the post-modern mess that dominated the 70s and 80s. Certainly one does not look to England for the centre of literary culture, and they sure as hell don't look to Canada.

Chinese fiction up until the "century of shame" that was the 19th century in China was way more advanced than English or French prose. Sadly too, lots is available in translation, you just haven't read it.

I knew you would come up with such... and its easy to make such a statement. I could counter you by suggesting that Lithuanian literature is far more sophisticated than anything ever achieved by the Chinese... you simply haven't read it. You are seduced currently by Chinese just as you were seduced a year ago by Italian and Leopardi. No one will accept your blanket statements unless you can provide names and examples... that exist in translation... because (like it or not) for a work or body of literature to be considered canonical... relevant on an international scale... it most cross linguistic borders... and because somehow I doubt that you have attained a mastery of Chinese in the last year. Not even my Chinese studio mate would make such a outlandish statement.

Simply put, English is not really that strong a tradition, in that it first of all is new, second of all dependent on other traditions heavily, and third of all, though better than many, others are still quite strong.

Lame... and vague... for making such a blanket statement you need proof... examples. Come on JBI... you can do better than that. I'm half blitzed and you can't even convince me. The English language is not a strong tradition? What European tradition... with the possible exception of French... can even begin to rival it? Yes, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Arabic, and Persian literature have grand ancient traditions that we have only scraped the surface of... but without a profound understanding and knowledge of these, to make a case for their "superiority" is ridiculous. To suggest that even if they are ultimately "superior" that the English language is but a minor player in the world of literature is simply absurd... and clearly has no purpose except to vent your own resentment that the rest of the world for some unfathomable reason greatly values the achievements of English-language literature... but doesn't recognize the brilliance and depth of Canadian literary genius.:biggrin5:

If you knew the vastness of other traditions, of work equal if not better than English, you wouldn't comment.

C'mon JBI... do you imagine you are talking to a dilettante, here? Your own grasp of Chinese literature has only been developed over the last year. Do you imagine that I have no idea what has been achieved in Germany, France, Spain, India, the Middle-East? I am well aware that my own grasp of non-Western literature barely scrapes the surface... but yours is no more profound.

Simply put, English is not really that strong a tradition, in that it first of all is new, second of all dependent on other traditions heavily...

Repeatedly making this ridiculous statement will not make it true... but certainly... keep at it. As for the notion that the English-language tradition is weak because it is rooted in the achievements of others... what tradition isn't? What single writer of any real merit isn't? Don't say China or Italy... for this will only prove your amateur grasp of their literature. I have little doubt that real Chinese scholars would be able to point out influences from abroad... even of the oldest work. The oldest Chinese writers surely had precedents as much as Homer. I have little doubt that Chinese literature owes just as much to predecessors and contacts with other nations as Chinese art or religion. Has it not been the nations with the greatest contact with other cultures (whether through trade, military conquest, etc...) that have produced the greatest art?

Now my question is thus - how can you justify a sort of tradition as somehow more dominant than other, more developed traditions. Japanese fiction was 800 years ahead of English fiction, keep in mind.

What does the "head start" prove? German literature (Parsival, Minnesang, Ludwigslied, Hartman von Aue, Gottfried von Strassburg, and Wolfram von Eschenbach, Walther von der Vogelweide, etc... far predate English and French literature... and yet German literature "peters" out... with few exceptions... until Goethe and Schiller... who reject he dominant French influence on the rather anemic German literature of the time, and build upon... guess what?... English literature. The great Russian literature also built upon international examples... the English novelists... and what of Byron's influence on Pushkin... or would you deny that? English literature has Beowulf and later Chaucer... but it isn't until Spenser (more than Sidney) that we get a tradition of great English literature building upon previous generations. The Greek tradition far precedes the English or French... but virtually disappears as well... until the 20th century.

...even Modernism was essentially a reworking of different sources; Eliot copying predominantly from Sanskrit and from Symbolist French verse, and Pound, Moore, and Stevens all borrowing from many places, and each with their own reactions to different traditions synthesizing into their poetics. That doesn't make them bad, but it doesn't promote a sort of English superiority either.

JBI... that's pathetic... not even worthy of a high-school student who paid very little attention during class. Eliot is "predominantly" influenced by Sanskrit... really?:smilielol5: All from one quote? And French Symbolism? And where did French Symbolism come from? Or do you imagine that it was a product without predecessor? You may not like Poe, but his impact upon French Symbolism is undeniable. And let's look at French poetry itself... for all the strength of the work it was formally far behind the innovations of free verse long employed by English and even American writers. And Whitman... he played but a minor role in Eliot's work? And the other English-language poets?

The bias that is fed into English superiority in letters seems rooted in a misconceived notion that all those American poets and American novelists, as well as 19th century British ones, to a lesser extent, are somehow of canonical stature and write superior literature. The truth is, Cormac McCarthy, Pynchon, Updike, and a whole slew of others mean essentially nothing in the grand scheme of literary culture, if we want to factor in their current counterparts around the world.

Oh please, great JBI... inform us illiterates as to just who are the writers who do "mean something" within the grand scheme of things.:rolleyes: Perhaps Pynchon and McCarthy and Barth, etc... are not alone in the club of great writers... but they are not slouches, either. Funny that JCamilo in Latin-America has little doubt as to the impact of English-language literature... but you... you would rewrite literary history to fit with your concept of resentment of American and British hegemony and use Chinese literature as the surogate because of your feelings of inferiority as a Canadian. Awwww!:grouphug: Let's all give a group hug to JBI. :D

English has been a strong language, especially in the 20th century, but it wasn't the only language. People tend to forget that.

English has produced a strong body of literature since the 16th century. But it was not the sole literary culture of real merit. With the exception of those with little concept of world literature and history I doubt that this is a concept that is shocking. The strength of Non-Western literature may be something of a surprise to Westerners... French and German and Spanish... as well as Anglo-Americans... but the reality is that the lack of access of translations of real merit is something that has only recently begun to change. Don't pretend that you are anything more than a dilettante yourself... skimming the surface of what exists. As a visual artist, I am not limited by language when looking to non-Western art... but I would not think to make the sort of ridiculous blanket statements about Indian or Chinese or Japanese or Persian art as opposed to the achievements of the Italians, French, Germans, etc... that you are making about the literature of the same cultures... with little more than an amateur's introduction to an entire universe.

Besides, I think in the last 50 years one could make the case that Spanish language literature has been far superior - I would say it has certainly been more interesting than the post-modern mess that dominated the 70s and 80s. Certainly one does not look to England for the centre of literary culture, and they sure as hell don't look to Canada.

Beside Neruda and Paz... who are the great Spanish-language poets you have read to make such an assertion? (Bear in mind... that I am not necessarily disagreeing with you). I might just give you fiction... considering Borges, Garcia-Marquez, Cortazar, Llosa, Carpentier, and Fuentes... but I'm not a great reader of contemporary novels. I somewhat suspect that Latin-American literature is coming unto its own in a manner not unlike American literature 100 years earlier. Only through sheer prejudice can you suggest that Melville, Poe, Dickinson, Whitman, Emerson, Henry and William James, Hawthorne, Faulkner, Eliot, Hemingway, Frost, Stevens, etc... are not worthy of standing along-side of the best of the era... including Borges, Neruda, Paz, and Carpentier... let alone the best in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, and even your beloved Chinese.

Perhaps your next argument might be to suggest that the Germans and Austrians were but minor players in the field of music.

To the Jews? Would you like me to list all brazilian writers relevant to brazilian literature and then claim they are as relevant as Lord Byron to the world? And the Talmud? How long ago it was written?

I have no idea what you mean as more advanced. It sounds silly. English Drama was more advanced than anything in the world, they had Shakespeare so long ago? What is the point? And then, it was not the century of shame or anything, but James Joyce and all of sudden the entire world seems to be behind English literature again. But it means nothing. More advanced because they had an option for style ?

And being 400 years old only (lets give to you that the entire production previous to Chaucer – maybe not him, since he is older than that – had no saying on the construction of English tradition) means it is not older as Chinese, Arabian, etc. It does not mean it is weaker or stronger . Portuguese is as old or older but I will not raise my voice saying banal chronology can say anything in this matter. It is rather obvious that if you are going to measure by time, the classical world in Rome would or Greece would weep the floor with everyone leaving some arguments towards the influence of early budhism on Pythagoras and that is all. But who uses latim and ancient greek today?

Shakespeare is part of the industry. Good that he is part of the industry in the orient too. It is an industrial world and he, who managed to overcome Voltaire prediction that he was just for English, managed to show his power adapting to this world as well. But are you telling me that oriental traditions are not part of the industry? Confucious anagrams being used in every fortune cookie, I Ching helping industrials, Madonna and her whatever it is Kaballah, Kung Fu movies repeating old mantras, the gigantic anime industry in Japan?

And ok, I didn’t even mentioned Tennyson, the browinings, Oscar Wilde, Rosetti. Victoria literature do seem more specific than others (Albeit it is the age of Lewis Carroll and his Alice just goes anywhere) but English produced Walt Whitman, Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Emerson during this period and surprise: they are fundamental keys to understand Ruben Dario, Neruda and Jorge Luis Borges, authors that build the Spanish boom. And the boom of America Latina really may only stand because someone like Borges and it is a great merit anyways, after all, the german romanticism was also a once upon a time movement. And again, the thing about English is that they have been doing this in every moment, it is not that you can not find elsewhere. Sure, you also have great romantic poets outside Wordsworth, Keats, Colerdige, Blake – but they point is there is great production in English. Sure, you had great romances in French, Russian, Portuguese, Spanish but you also had them in English. Either the Austen-Melville-Dickens or the modernity of James Joyce. You had Moliere, Racine, Ibsen but you had Shakespeare and Beckett. And there goes, the presence of English production is undeniable. I cannt say the same of Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian.

English as minor player until XX century is also funny. You are trying to avoid Shakespeare(how come any tradition with him is minor?) and Milton, but the model of romantic poet is derived from Byron and Keats, the entire short story tradition from Poe who is a major key for French symbolism (and important for japanese modernism as well, after all guys like Akutugawa were readers of Poe). Ruben Dario is basically mimicking Walt Whitman when he started, Dostoievisky was doing the same with Dickens, Voltaire only became Voltaire when he returned from England with Swift on his mind, the translation of the bible to English is a major influence and there goes, way before modernism.

And frankly, how come American Poets and American novelists, from 19th century, are not “canonical”. I will not discuss stuff too recent, silly notion, but Melville, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Keats, Henry James, Faulkner, Virginia Woolf, Wordsworth are in risk to be erased? All the world wide influence they already caused written off?

For what I know from Spanish literature, since the death of the boomers, Spanish language has not been special. They face a similar crisis of the rest of the world, plus we would not know. 50 years is too short. Bolano seems quite good to me just like Pychon and MacCarthy do. I have no reason to believe one will be there in 200 years, either of them.

Nobody forgets another language, I doubt very much this accusation fits and you know this well, St.Lukes favorites are probably written in Italian and Spanish, English is foreign language to me (and I remember that Brazilian making a case for Machado de Assis and Brazilian literature being superior to English and Shakespeare and the status just a matter of propaganda. I can easily use all arguments here for Spanish with Portuguese, which shows that they are rather feeble). I could easily make a case that my readings this year so far included medieval german literature, medieval Galician and Portuguese literature, german, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, argentine, Russian, Brazilian, danish, French, Classical Greek and Roman besides the irish, north-american, and british (not claiming I do know those languages, of course, mostly translated to Portuguese) and I have no doubt St.Lukes can pull the same. Arguments about what we know or not, what we care or not, will not keep your boat sailing.

It's not a problem of argument, but rather audience. Trying to sway Bardolators is a bit difficult.

As for English drama being more advanced - read a bit more; you will realize that drama was far more advanced outside of England before 1590 then in England. You confuse your love of Shakespeare with the fact that drama was neither invented nor perfected in England.

As for English drama being more advanced - read a bit more; you will realize that drama was far more advanced outside of England before 1590 then in England.

Can you get a bit more arrogant, JBI? You assume that you have read more than anyone else here on the site... and I somewhat suspect you are not even close. Yes... Italy had Machiavelli, Goldini, Gozzi, etc..., France had Racine, Corneille, Moliere, Marivaux, etc... and Spain had Calderon and Lope de Vega... and we haven't even touched upon the Greeks or Romans. Do any of these surpass Shakespeare alone? Yes... he is but one writer alone... but if Germany had but Goethe or Italy had only Dante it would be enough to make accusations of minor status absurd. But Shakespeare was not alone, and to dismiss Kyd, Chapman, Jonson, Wycherly, Congreve, Dryden... even Beckett as minor (to say nothing of writers in other genre: Milton, Chaucer, Spenser, Blake, Keats, Shelley, Dickens, Johnson, Donne, Yeats, Joyce, etc... etc... is no less ridiculous than to dismiss Petrarch, Boccaccio, Machiavelli, Tasso, and Leopardi... who all pale beneath Dante.

Did anybody mention Tirso de Molina? The only work I've read by him is his Trickster of Seville which is quite possibly the first version of the Don Juan story. It exists in a good translation by Roy Campbell than can only be found in old copies of Eric Bentley's The Classic Theater, Vol. III, Six Spanish Plays. I've found nothing in translation on Amazon.

I have read Campbell's translations of St John of the Cross - didn't do much for me. That may be Campbell's fault though to be honest Campbell was a marvellously talented poet and I think the material he was dealing with was such stripped down meditative stuff that there was no room for the verbal pyrotechnics that made his own poetry so good.

Not so long since I came across Unamuno and found him very interesting. So I hope to read more of his work.

W a r n i n g

Please DO NOT personalise your arguments.

If you find anyone's opinions particularly disagreeable, feel free to ignore them.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice as well as earning infraction points for those who are involved .

And Again this advanced thing. What does Machiavelli, which I know, have? Does he managed to produce the dialogue and characters alike Shakespeare? The english movement from the classical norms? And frankly, I am far from a bardlove, far from the Bardhate, but can I deny him in any way? Oedipus King or Medea are the plays I most re-read, not Hamlet, but what does it mean? I will fall in a crazy Tolstonian denial?
Oh, yeah, Spanish literature have influence even over him, and one may consider that Ibsen was better, Chekhov was better, Pirandello was better, but it stands still: Major player in english, Major turning point in literature. The biggest of all? Irrelevant. Then in the next century, we would have Milton. Then the translatations. Then the romantic poets. Then the victorian poets. The romance writers. The modernists. You wont find a period without english influnce, it was not just since XX century.

[QUOTE=ennison;914045]I have read Campbell's translations of St John of the Cross - didn't do much for me. That may be Campbell's fault though to be honest Campbell was a marvellously talented poet and I think the material he was dealing with was such stripped down meditative stuff that there was no room for the verbal pyrotechnics that made his own poetry so good.

[QUOTE]

St John of the Cross --- 'stripped down'? You must be kidding. His poetry is incredibly rich and full of colourful imagery. He also inspired poets like Miguel Hernández and García Lorca, both of them famous for the same qualities.

Yes... I quite like San Juan de la Cruz... in translation by Campbell.