Printable View
It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.
I certainly agree that Neruda is the superior poet to Borges... in some ways. Surely as a lyricist... as a visionary. I wouldn't underestimate Borges' poetry, however. It constitutes a far greater part of his oeuvre than does Joyce's. It was surely far more than a dalliance, especially when one considers that Borges often thought of himself as a poet first. One of my favorite books of the 20th century must be Borge's Dream Tigers in which the writer blurs the distinctions between short fictions, essay and non-fiction, aphorism and poetry. Nevertheless, Borges' poetry is one of narrative fictions... a poetry of ideas... not far removed from his aphorisms... and not overly sensual, lyrical... poetic.
I agree that Residence on Earth is a magnificent book... although if I were to need to go with a single poetic volume (excluding epic poetry) I might go with Shakespeare's or Spencer's sonnets, Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, or Baudelaire's Fleuers du Mal. I don't know that I would clearly place any 20th century poet above Neruda... but I do find that there are several others I prefer more, Montale and Rilke being first among these.
It looks to me like StLukesGuild just has a problem with people who have conflicting opinoins to his own. I mean, come on, some of us don't like Walt Whitman. How many times does Islandclimber have to say he respects and appreciates Whitman, but doesn't enjoy his writing? It sucks that isn't enough for you, but you can't force someone to like a poet.
Please read my posts a bit more closely before making statements that are in no way supported by what was written... or stick with your Stephen King:D.:nod:
have you actually read much Neruda for the only real love poetry he wrote for his wife was "the captains verses"... Residence on Earth has nothing to do with a wife, nor almost every other collection of poetry he put out...Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
you are right here... I kind of exaggerated his mediocrity as a poet... I still think his stories, especially labyrinths are superior to his poetry, for Labyrinths is one of my favourite collections of short stories ever written... I actually own his collected works of poetry... and though I don't think of him as a fantastic or great poet, it was a little much of me (i can admit) to compare him to Joyce in this regard, and say it was just a dalliance... I don't think they have the power of Neruda, but I agree, it is interesting the distinctions between prose, poetry, aphorism, etc... and they are full of interesting thought and idea... I just again don't get the inspiration for feelings and emotions... but you are right I don't think that is what he intended, it is a poetry of ideas...Quote:
I certainly agree that Neruda is the superior poet to Borges... in some ways. Surely as a lyricist... as a visionary. I wouldn't underestimate Borges' poetry, however. It constitutes a far greater part of his oeuvre than does Joyce's. It was surely far more than a dalliance, especially when one considers that Borges often thought of himself as a poet first. One of my favorite books of the 20th century must be Borge's Dream Tigers in which the writer blurs the distinctions between short fictions, essay and non-fiction, aphorism and poetry. Nevertheless, Borges' poetry is one of narrative fictions... a poetry of ideas... not far removed from his aphorisms... and not overly sensual, lyrical... poetic.
I agree that Residence on Earth is a magnificent book... although if I were to need to go with a single poetic volume (excluding epic poetry) I might go with Shakespeare's or Spencer's sonnets, Wordsworth and Coleridge's Lyrical Ballads, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, or Baudelaire's Fleuers du Mal. I don't know that I would clearly place any 20th century poet above Neruda... but I do find that there are several others I prefer more, Montale and Rilke being first among these
I myself don't like coleridge or spenser, and as is obvious Whitman, I admire them all for what they wrote and did for poetry, but I don't particularly enjoy them... but Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Baudelaire I love... For 20th century, I love Rilke, the poet of the mind and the soul I would say... and then Eliot, and Yeats... maybe Yeats because of my time in Ireland, it made it so much easier to relate to his poetry, and maybe is why I love it... Montale I don't really enjoy, though I couldn't really say why, sometimes a poets work can just leave a bad taste in your mouth if you know what i mean...and i think that is Montale for me.. and to be honest that is probably Whitman as well:D
interesting discussion though... I do own two copies of Leaves of Grass, one the original, and the other a more complete later revision... and I appreciate them, even admire Whitman for them, I just can't enjoy them... all opinion though... lol oh well... disagreement is fun though... :D
cheers
Interesting that you should love Shakespeare... but not Spencer. I am particularly drawn to Spencer's cycle of sonnets (and the concluding Epithalimion) because the have degree of "honesty"... "realism" that goes beyond many other Renaissance sonnet cycles. Where many other poets write in the tradition of a series of sonnets to an unattainable love who continually ignores and rebuffs the poet, Spencer never writes as if she... this woman were some "ideal"...an invention or artifice. I am struck with the manner in which the poems (and the narrative) evolve as the poet woos his wife-to-be. She rejects him at first... as is usual... but slowly the relationship changes... she comes around... and eventually a real sense of love grows between them until the culminating celebratory wedding poem, the Epithalimion. For pure playful baroque wit and artifice, however, I can't go without the Muiopotmos.
I sincerely hope people judging foreign language poetry have read it in the original language, or else, your judgments are not worth that toilet paper I just used.
:lol: I have learned spanish well enough to read Neruda and others in the original though I am by no means even slightly fluent with it.... And it so immensely beautiful in the original...Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
but you are a little harsh here, I do believe, even though I do like how you worded your attack :lol: ... I think translations do hold some value.. and judgements of translations are worth something.. a translation can be amazing... whether a language into english, or english into another language... it is irrelevant... what matters is there is still much of the original poet there, enough to decide to like it or not... to love it or not... to draw one into looking at it in the original language... or so I believe...
i know... it is a little strange... just another poetic pecularity of me I guess:DQuote:
Interesting that you should love Shakespeare... but not Spencer. I am particularly drawn to Spencer's cycle of sonnets (and the concluding Epithalimion) because the have degree of "honesty"... "realism" that goes beyond many other Renaissance sonnet cycles. Where many other poets write in the tradition of a series of sonnets to an unattainable love who continually ignores and rebuffs the poet, Spencer never writes as if she... this woman were some "ideal"...an invention or artifice. I am struck with the manner in which the poems (and the narrative) evolve as the poet woos his wife-to-be. She rejects him at first... as is usual... but slowly the relationship changes... she comes around... and eventually a real sense of love grows between them until the culminating celebratory wedding poem, the Epithalimion. For pure playful baroque wit and artifice, however, I can't go without the Muiopotmos
i find so many great poets, or poets others love to be not my cup of tea, but I'm sure it is the same with everyone... or so I hope...
How full of Truth your posts always are, stlukesguild! :thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
It's kind of interesting, though, that, in this case, James seems to have been a bit ahead of himself. That was written when he was relatively young, certainly before any of his own "important" works were written (well before Portrait, even). Yet, later in life, he seemed to take up something of an admiration for Whitman. Here's a passage from Sheldon Novick's recently completed bio, discussing reading and literary discussion at Edith Wharton's house:
I'm not sure, but I'm assuming the details (and closing quote) of this passage come from Wharton's A Backward Glance.Quote:
Someone spoke of Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass was fetched, and James read while the others sat rapt.
When he read Whitman, James seemed to be speaking directly from his innermost self. His stammer vanished, and he read with unaffected emotion, chanting to emphasize the rhythms of the songs. When he came to the elegy for Lincoln, his voice deepened with emotion, and at the passage that begins "Come lovely and soothing death," his voice "filled the hushed room like an organ adagio."
Alright, was only making sure :pQuote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
I am curious though, as I refuse to read poetry in translations (besides a few exceptions), are Neruda and Borges hard to read? I'm also not fluent in Spanish although I can read a bit, mostly Borges fictions, in bilingual editions though.
Yes, there are good translations, and if one likes the translation, probably the original would be at least as good, but a translation can also be bad (for different reasons, the first often being untranslatability) and how does one know whether the translation is good and the original bad or a bad translation to a good original if he hasn't read the original? And even over this, in any translation, especially in poetry, there is something lost.Quote:
but you are a little harsh here, I do believe, even though I do like how you worded your attack :lol: ... I think translations do hold some value.. and judgements of translations are worth something.. a translation can be amazing... whether a language into english, or english into another language... it is irrelevant... what matters is there is still much of the original poet there, enough to decide to like it or not... to love it or not... to draw one into looking at it in the original language... or so I believe...
A better translation than the original is not excluded (it is often said that Dostoevsky is better in translations, for example) but they are the exception, and undoubtedly a subject of harsh debate.
Whoa, you mean there are women who think this as well...?Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyW
You are all a bunch of mis-readers. The question isn't who do you not like, it is who is overrated. Logically there is no such thing as overrated, but that's a different discussion. In relation to the conversation, the real meaning of the thread must be discerned as "Who do you think has too big a reputation for the amount of skill as a man of letters that they posses/possessed. Saying you don't like Whitman isn't a logical argument. That does not relate to the topic, only shares your babbling stupidity.
Whitman, as it has been proven, has earned a significant reputation which can be supported by his influence on almost all Western poetry after him. Comparing him to Neruda doesn't even come close to an accurate argument, because a) Neruda came later, and b) they wrote in different languages.
If you compare, however, Whitman to his contemporaries, The Pre-Raphaelites, Emerson, Longfellow, Thereau, Wilde, Tennyson, the Brownings, Arnold, and Emily Dickinson, you will note that he stands above almost all of those poets easily.
Dickinson is probably his closest contender, but she resides in a separate place because of the rare circumstance of her life and work. Relative to the other American contemporaries named, Whitman easily is the best, hands down. The big 3 Victorians are good, but their influence was far less, and their significance far less.
Whitman as an American poet outshines everyone who came before him, without question. Whitman as a poet of the world, outshines almost everyone who came before him writing in English, with the exception of perhaps 10 names. Unless you can give me names of contemporaries of his who have had better success as poets, I consider this conversation over.
Haha, I'm sure that is the first of many SK jabs, lol. I misread your posts, and as many will come to learn, I sometimes jump to judgment, post a smart-*** reply, and later regret it. My apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
And now, back to SK. I think a character is going to be raped by a gun barrel soon, I can't wait!
Has anyone mentioned Paul Coelho?
why?
i dont think he is overrated, just famous now. no one claims him to be the greatest or something. or am i mistaken?