who is the most overrated writer ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I think Melville is overrated...

You think wrong.:D

and Poe...

As a poet, certainly.

and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

Mediocre in comparison to whom? Perhaps Dante and Shakespeare and a few others. Who are all these far superior poets? Looking at much of the vast array of 20th century poetry... not merely American and British but internationally... I would note that many of the greatest poets would seem to disagree with your dismissal of Whitman. Even T.S. Eliot, as much as he attempts to deny Whitman, is profoundly influenced by him. As much as I love and read poetry I would be hard pressed to name one poet since Whitman (American or otherwise) who surpasses him in influence or aesthetically.

---

As Harold Bloom has put it, The Wasteland is just a rewrite of "When Last in Door-yard Lilacs Bloom'd".

Whitman is critically regarded as perhaps the greatest American poet by many scholars. All subsequent modern poetry bears at least some resemblance to him.

As for egotistical, he for the most part, rarely means what he says, or says what he means. He is a huge ironist, and also famously praises all of humanity. "Song of Myself" which I assume you are talking about is, as he put it, a song of himself, and therefore shows his true identity as he sees himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

As for egotistical, he for the most part, rarely means what he says, or says what he means. He is a huge ironist, and also famously praises all of humanity. "Song of Myself" which I assume you are talking about is, as he put it, a song of himself, and therefore shows his true identity as he sees himself.

---

I agree with IslandClimber in the sense that Whitman is egotistical. Like all the other Transcendentalists, he loves to project his own identity on other people and vice-versa. He thinks he understands everybody's soul. But regardless of what Big Wally thinks, he can't take on another's identity; he can only empathize with him/her. Sorry Walt, you aren't the slave escaping the hounds, you aren't the soldier dying on the battlefield, you aren't the wife enthusiastically making babies (his image of woman, which I think proves my point.)

But don't get me wrong. What he did with verse is extraordinary. He's an excellent poet, and most poets (and writers in general) are egotistical.

I found this kind of humorous, and thought I would contribute it to the WW discussion:
"You came to woo my sister, the human soul....But for a lover you talk entirely too much about yourself. In one place you threaten to absorb Canada. In another you call upon the city of New York to incarnate you, as you have incarnated it. In another you inform us that neither youth pertains to you nor "delicatesse," that you are awkward in the parlor, that you do not dance, and that you have neither bearing, beauty, knowledge, nor fortune. In another place, by an allusion to your "little songs," you seem to identify yourself with the third person of the Trinity....We find art, measure, grace sneered at on every page."
--Henry James's review of Leaves of Grass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesian

Here is the OP:
This thread was made for the dead.

---

I see. Oh well.

J.K. Rowling, easily. I've read up to the fifth, albeit being a ten-year-old, I thought they were crap.

I found this kind of humorous, and thought I would contribute it to the WW discussion:
"You came to woo my sister, the human soul....But for a lover you talk entirely too much about yourself. In one place you threaten to absorb Canada. In another you call upon the city of New York to incarnate you, as you have incarnated it. In another you inform us that neither youth pertains to you nor "delicatesse," that you are awkward in the parlor, that you do not dance, and that you have neither bearing, beauty, knowledge, nor fortune. In another place, by an allusion to your "little songs," you seem to identify yourself with the third person of the Trinity....We find art, measure, grace sneered at on every page."
--Henry James's review of Leaves of Grass

Of course it is always possible to discover critical opinions by great authors that suggest the failings of another master. I almost would have expected as much of James. In almost every way Whitman's poetry goes counter to the highly ornate (some might say overwrought) perfectionism of form, the Baroque, excessively Latinate and even obscurantist language, as well as the sense of reserve... with regard to an open display of feelings... especially sexual... as favored by James (How's that for a Jamesian sentence?:D) One can imagine James turning up his nose at this crass and unsophisticated country bumpkin who would be poetic visionary. Of course H.G. Wells is no less favorable in his opinion of James... and his critical opinion is direct and to the point... unlike James own criticism of Whitman, referring to his prose as something akin to a "hippopotamus laboriously attempting to pick up a pea that has got into a corner of its cage."

Personally I am able to admire both writers greatly.

That chick who rights the Harry Potter books. Even for mindless entertainment, which I enjoy, I could not handle those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
and Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with America, and quite mediocre compared to so many others..

Mediocre in comparison to whom? Perhaps Dante and Shakespeare and a few others. Who are all these far superior poets? Looking at much of the vast array of 20th century poetry... not merely American and British but internationally... I would note that many of the greatest poets would seem to disagree with your dismissal of Whitman. Even T.S. Eliot, as much as he attempts to deny Whitman, is profoundly influenced by him. As much as I love and read poetry I would be hard pressed to name one poet since Whitman (American or otherwise) who surpasses him in influence or aesthetically.

---

I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

I would nominate Jeffrey Archer, except that no-one with a multiplicity of brain cells would ever rate him in the first place.

I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...

Obviously I am limited by having had to read Neruda in translation... but I will state that to my mind he doesn't come near to equaling let alone surpassing Whitman. You suggest that judging poetry (as opposed to prose? Where exactly can I find those objective standards that make it clear once and for all where Proust, Joyce, Mann, Tolstoy and Borges fall in the canon of literature?) is purely subjective... about personal "feelings"... and that Whitman inspires nothing in you. For you that is fine, but you should recognize that the measure of an artist's worth and achievement is not measured solely by you, the single reader. An artist's standing or reputation is measured by the so-called "experts" in the field: critics, historians, literary professors, by the opinions and the influence upon subsequent artists of importance, and by the audience deeply passionate about that art form... or perhaps what Virginia Woolf called the "common reader". To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me. To state that Neruda is a superior poet to Whitman or that Whitman's "own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..." appears to be making a critical judgment that goes quite against the general consensus and would seemingly call for some proof... or illumination of such statement... just as if I were to declare that Monet was a ham-fisted, mediocre painter or Franz Schubert was an amateurish composer with no ear for melody.

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

Whitman "invented" a new manner of poetry and had a huge and inescapable impact upon almost every major poet who followed in his wake: Pessoa, Neruda, Eliot, Ashberry, etc... yet he can not stand along side the giants of 20th century poetry? His own poetry is crude and boring? Why, exactly has he had such an influence? Why do you think Pessoa and Neruda and Eliot etc... have turned to him again and again? Again, for you to state that you personally dislike Whitman is fine. For you to suggest that he "is far from being a great poet" calls for some clarification as to why he falls short.

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

Eliot would have answered your question for you:

"Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot
be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great
labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense...
the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with
his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the
whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the
whole of the literature of his own country has simultaneous
existence and composes a simultaneous order...
No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning
alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation
of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value
him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among
the dead... what happens when a new work of art is created is
something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art
which preceeded it. The existing monuments form an ideal monument
among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the
new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order
is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist
after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations,
proportions,values of each work of art toward the whole are
readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and th new.
Whoever has approved this idea of order...will not find it
preposterous that the past should be altered by the present
as much as the present is directed by the past."
-T.S. Eliot


Art is a dialog: a dialog with an audience... but also a dialog with other artists. The fact that two different authors wrote in different languages and lived in different cultures in no way negates our ability to compare their achievements or their work. Homer is continually compared with Virgil in spite of a 1000 year gap and language barrier between them. Virgil continues to impact writers... even James Joyce was not immune to him... or Dante... or Shakespeare. Dante and Shakespeare did great things for poetry (talk about an understatement!) yet that does not make them great poets? Again... where do they fall short? Or is this all just personal opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I think Pablo Neruda, whether Whitman was his own hero or not, is a far superior poet... and what others poets think of him is somewhat irrelevant, as in my own readings of Whitman I found him quite mediocre... good poetry, unlike good prose, cannot really have any objective definition (even in prose it is hard to say what makes the "Literature" cut)... but poetry is all about what one feels in reading a poem... and Whitman inspires nothing in me, besides boredom...

Obviously I am limited by having had to read Neruda in translation... but I will state that to my mind he doesn't come near to equaling let alone surpassing Whitman. You suggest that judging poetry (as opposed to prose? Where exactly can I find those objective standards that make it clear once and for all where Proust, Joyce, Mann, Tolstoy and Borges fall in the canon of literature?) is purely subjective... about personal "feelings"... and that Whitman inspires nothing in you. For you that is fine, but you should recognize that the measure of an artist's worth and achievement is not measured solely by you, the single reader. An artist's standing or reputation is measured by the so-called "experts" in the field: critics, historians, literary professors, by the opinions and the influence upon subsequent artists of importance, and by the audience deeply passionate about that art form... or perhaps what Virginia Woolf called the "common reader". To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me. To state that Neruda is a superior poet to Whitman or that Whitman's "own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..." appears to be making a critical judgment that goes quite against the general consensus and would seemingly call for some proof... or illumination of such statement... just as if I were to declare that Monet was a ham-fisted, mediocre painter or Franz Schubert was an amateurish composer with no ear for melody.

I am not saying Whitman didn't influence many, nor am I saying he didn't basically create free verse, and I respect him for what he did for poetry which was great... but his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot... I respect him and admire him for what he did for poetry, but inventing a new form of poetry doesn't automatically make you a great poet, and in my opinion Whitman is far from being a great poet...

Whitman "invented" a new manner of poetry and had a huge and inescapable impact upon almost every major poet who followed in his wake: Pessoa, Neruda, Eliot, Ashberry, etc... yet he can not stand along side the giants of 20th century poetry? His own poetry is crude and boring? Why, exactly has he had such an influence? Why do you think Pessoa and Neruda and Eliot etc... have turned to him again and again? Again, for you to state that you personally dislike Whitman is fine. For you to suggest that he "is far from being a great poet" calls for some clarification as to why he falls short.

by the way I can't think of any reason to compare the poetry of Whitman to Dante and Shakespeare, as Dante wrote in another language and another time, and so did shakespeare... and the forms are so different, what is the point in comparison... They all did wonderful things for poetry, but that doesn't necessarily make them great poets... though I do believe Dante and Shakespeare to be much better poets than Whitman...

Eliot would have answered your question for you:

"Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot
be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great
labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense...
the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with
his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the
whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the
whole of the literature of his own country has simultaneous
existence and composes a simultaneous order...
No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning
alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation
of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value
him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among
the dead... what happens when a new work of art is created is
something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art
which preceeded it. The existing monuments form an ideal monument
among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the
new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order
is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist
after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order
must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations,
proportions,values of each work of art toward the whole are
readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and th new.
Whoever has approved this idea of order...will not find it
preposterous that the past should be altered by the present
as much as the present is directed by the past."
-T.S. Eliot


Art is a dialog: a dialog with an audience... but also a dialog with other artists. The fact that two different authors wrote in different languages and lived in different cultures in no way negates our ability to compare their achievements or their work. Homer is continually compared with Virgil in spite of a 1000 year gap and language barrier between them. Virgil continues to impact writers... even James Joyce was not immune to him... or Dante... or Shakespeare. Dante and Shakespeare did great things for poetry (talk about an understatement!) yet that does not make them great poets? Again... where do they fall short? Or is this all just personal opinion?

---

I did not say Dante and Shakespeare fall short anywhere... I don't think you read correctly... all I said was influence alone doesn't make a poet great... and I will stick to that belief... I think Dante and Shakespeare two of the greatest poets... and I respect that you think Whitman was great, and that so many others do as well... but in my opinion he is overrated... I also respect the so called "experts" in the field with their opinions, but I still believe Whitman is overrated, and just because people who for some reason are judged to have superior taste in poetry, say he is an amazing poet, doesn't mean I have to agree... or are you saying we should all just follow the crowd, and completely destroy all differences of opinion and thought... for if others say Whitman is great that means I have to as well????

why not just outlaw independent thinking and feeling... we can have a tyranny that controls every aspect of human existence, just so people don't ever disagree with commonly accepted opinions and ideas... for the idea that whitman is great is just a commonly accepted opinion, well, no, a commonly shared opinion, and you seem to think it should be forced on everyone... as i said what he did for poetry was wonderful, but he is far from wonderful as a poet in my opinion and therefore vastly overrated...

and i did not say his worth is measured by solely me, i just stated an opinion which is what this thread asked for, but again you seem against people having opinions that run against accepted ideas... also I think his worth is immense for what he did for poetry, so again that point you make is pointless...

as well i don't think prose has objective standards, I was just stating, again in my own opinion, it seems easier to judge for literary merit, than poetry is to judge outside of influence and solely on poetic quality...

Neruda takes what Whitman started and goes far beyond it... his lines are so much more liquid, his metaphors are so much more beautiful... I've read the spanish and the translation, and I even find the translation much more beautiful, Neruda's metaphors bring one to tears to smiles, to many immense and beautiful emotions, whereas Whitman's make one bored and inspire just the thought, that wow, this guy loves himself and america, and that's about it... Neruda is the poet of the world, of the people of the world, and Whitman is the poet of only america... to in love with his own country to see that maybe there is beauty everywhere...

not to say that Marquez is necessarily right, but I agree with him when he said Neruda is "the greatest poet of the 20th century, in any language"...

and because Eliot wrote something saying that a poet has to be judged by not just poetic quality alone, but influence on others, again you're saying I have to agree with everyone else's opinion... for that is just an opinion too... I never stated Whitman isn't great, I said "in my opinion" Whitman isn't great, is overrated, I thought that was clear, that everything here is opinion, I'm not trying to state a fact, but just an opinion... Do I have your permission to have an opinion?????

but you can keep trying to tell me that I can't have an opinion here, that is your right I guess...

Islandclimber;

No where in my post did I state that I question your and anyone's right to a personal opinion. Indeed I suggested that there were certainly authors of great reputation who did nothing for me:

"To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me."

On the other hand I question statements that seem to pass as fact... especially when they seemingly go against my own experience and the general consensus:

"Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others.."

"...his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..."

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me or with the opinions of critics, historians, other authors, etc... Certainly that is what most of the dialog here is about. To merely state an opinion... especially one that will certainly provoke disagreement... without saying anything more... well that seems rather pointless:

"I don't like Shakespeare"

And? Why? Give me some examples?

I don't question your assertion that Neruda was a great poet. I have 5 or 6 volumes of his works myself. Personally I prefer Borges among the Latin-American writers and find Borges "The Aleph" to be the most scathing criticism of Neruda's shortcomings... but I still love Neruda. You suggest that one of Whitman's shortcomings is his egocentrism... yet certainly Neruda has no less of this "flaw". Both attempt to speak in a voice that contains multitudes.

You argue that Neruda speaks for the whole world while Whitman only for America. Couldn't one then question who was the more egocentric? Personally, I think that any artist speaks only for him or herself. Neruda may indeed speak more of the world as a whole having had the experience (as few 19th century authors would have) of traveling internationally. This makes him different... but I question whether it makes him "superior". Dante, Homer, William Blake, Shakespeare (all of whom I would place well above Neruda) had little experience of the larger world. Blake made it clear that such was unnecessary... as one might find an entire "world in a wildflower".

You state that Neruda's lines are more liquid (example?) and his metaphors bring one to tears or smiles, while Whitman leaves one (you) bored... I don't question that Neruda can be more fluid... Spanish lyric poetry is almost inherently more fluid than English... but "fluidity" is no guarantee of superiority. The violin in more fluid than the piano, and yet the wealth of piano music is unrivaled. Whitman's poetry draws upon the grand, eloquent diction and cadence of Biblical Hebrew poetry as well as upon such visionary poets as William Blake. Personally I find Neruda to be a magnificent lyric poet. When he comes into direct competition with Whitman, however, he falls short and even fails miserably at times. Whitman virtually "invented"... and marvelously realized the notion of the poem as a chant or song of a sort of catalog or list (albeit limited) or the world around him. Neruda is at perhaps his worst when he mimics Whitman's catalogs in attempting to sing all of Latin America: birds, trees, plants, animals, geography, natives, peasants, the Communist Party and the Great Punisher Stalin, whose murders Neruda seemingly approves ("Punishment is needed"). Of course he still never slips to the level of self-indulgence one might find in many lesser Whitman imitators (Ginsberg and beyond). Unfortunately, the result can approach Whitman far less than it does Michael Drayton's Polyolbion, the English Renaissance poem that attempted to catalog the whole of England. This is the bulky, bombastic sprawl that Borges was so critical of.

But again... we can agree to disagree.

I think perhaps Jane Austen...
*don't hurt me!*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Islandclimber;

No where in my post did I state that I question your and anyone's right to a personal opinion. Indeed I suggested that there were certainly authors of great reputation who did nothing for me:

"To state "I don't like Whitman." or "Whitman inspires nothing in me but boredom" is fine; it is an expression of your personal opinion. Certainly I have authors who are highly regarded by critics and other writers who have done little for me."

On the other hand I question statements that seem to pass as fact... especially when they seemingly go against my own experience and the general consensus:

"Whitman is way overrated... Leaves of Grass... come on, besides the new style of poetry it is way to egocentric and in love with america, and quite mediocre compared to so many others.."

"...his own poetry so crude and boring, and out of place along 20th century giants such as Neruda and Eliot..."

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me or with the opinions of critics, historians, other authors, etc... Certainly that is what most of the dialog here is about. To merely state an opinion... especially one that will certainly provoke disagreement... without saying anything more... well that seems rather pointless:

"I don't like Shakespeare"

And? Why? Give me some examples?

I don't question your assertion that Neruda was a great poet. I have 5 or 6 volumes of his works myself. Personally I prefer Borges among the Latin-American writers and find Borges "The Aleph" to be the most scathing criticism of Neruda's shortcomings... but I still love Neruda. You suggest that one of Whitman's shortcomings is his egocentrism... yet certainly Neruda has no less of this "flaw". Both attempt to speak in a voice that contains multitudes.

You argue that Neruda speaks for the whole world while Whitman only for America. Couldn't one then question who was the more egocentric? Personally, I think that any artist speaks only for him or herself. Neruda may indeed speak more of the world as a whole having had the experience (as few 19th century authors would have) of traveling internationally. This makes him different... but I question whether it makes him "superior". Dante, Homer, William Blake, Shakespeare (all of whom I would place well above Neruda) had little experience of the larger world. Blake made it clear that such was unnecessary... as one might find an entire "world in a wildflower".

You state that Neruda's lines are more liquid (example?) and his metaphors bring one to tears or smiles, while Whitman leaves one (you) bored... I don't question that Neruda can be more fluid... Spanish lyric poetry is almost inherently more fluid than English... but "fluidity" is no guarantee of superiority. The violin in more fluid than the piano, and yet the wealth of piano music is unrivaled. Whitman's poetry draws upon the grand, eloquent diction and cadence of Biblical Hebrew poetry as well as upon such visionary poets as William Blake. Personally I find Neruda to be a magnificent lyric poet. When he comes into direct competition with Whitman, however, he falls short and even fails miserably at times. Whitman virtually "invented"... and marvelously realized the notion of the poem as a chant or song of a sort of catalog or list (albeit limited) or the world around him. Neruda is at perhaps his worst when he mimics Whitman's catalogs in attempting to sing all of Latin America: birds, trees, plants, animals, geography, natives, peasants, the Communist Party and the Great Punisher Stalin, whose murders Neruda seemingly approves ("Punishment is needed"). Of course he still never slips to the level of self-indulgence one might find in many lesser Whitman imitators (Ginsberg and beyond). Unfortunately, the result can approach Whitman far less than it does Michael Drayton's Polyolbion, the English Renaissance poem that attempted to catalog the whole of England. This is the bulky, bombastic sprawl that Borges was so critical of.

But again... we can agree to disagree.

---

I think I did give reasons for why I dislike Whitman... secondly I don't recall saying that I don't like Shakespeare... I love Shakespeare... I agree Neruda was quite egocentric at times, and I didn't mean he spoke for the world, more or less of the world is what I should have said... whereas Whitman confined himself to America, but maybe that is because Whitman spent his life in one place, whereas Neruda crossed the world... and no the world does not have to be travelled to make good poetry, but the fact Neruda could turn everything in the world into that all-encompassing wildflower that you speak of, is what distinguishes him from Whitman, Whitman's descriptions of things in my opinion are so lacking any vividity, or beauty in any sense at times.. they are so dry and unappealing to me...

And Neruda's support of Stalin has nothing to do with the quality of his poetry... I agree that "Canto General" is an imitation of "leaves of Grass" and is not one of Neruda's better works, not even close... but "Residence On Earth" is the most beautiful collection of poetry ever compiled in my opinion... it encompasses everything, leaving "Leaves of Grass" far behind in that sense, and the way Neruda describes things is so much more wonderful than what Whitman tries to do... as I said, Whitman may have invented the style, but in my opinion Neruda perfected it... and you go into talking of hebrew biblical poetry but that is under the assumption that it is so magnificent as well... and same with Blake, I like Blake, I don't think him particularly great...

as well I don't just mean Neruda's poetry is more fluid, it is beautiful the metaphors he produces, the comparisons that he creates, the dream he implies, and draws forth from each one of us... whereas Whitman goes on in endlessly boring, monotonous and dry catalogues and lists in my opinion... and yes I will agree when Neruda tried to do this he failed to a degree, for Canto General is not that amazing... but Residence on Earth is the most beautiful collection of poetry written in my opinion, just the magnitude, the scope, the melancholy, the beauty, the dream, the voice, the vision... it is everything and nothing all at once, and inspires the same... it is beautiful...

Broges is an amazing writer as well but his poetry, again in my opinion is a far cry from Neruda, and the literary critics you hold in such esteem for their opinions on Whitman for the most part agree with me here... His stories are unbelievable but his poetry is a dalliance that doesn't do him justice as a writer... Much like Joyce's failed attempts at poetry...

But, as you said we can agree to disagree... the world would be quite the boring place without differences of opinion...:)

cheers