I'm sorry to have to inform you, but Milton wrote in Modern English, as did Shakespeare. Chaucer wrote in Middle English, but some of his writing was as easy to read as Shakespeare's.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Printable View
I'm sorry to have to inform you, but Milton wrote in Modern English, as did Shakespeare. Chaucer wrote in Middle English, but some of his writing was as easy to read as Shakespeare's.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Reading a dictionary can be deceptive, because Greek, Latin, German, Russian, and many other languages are all Indo-European with nearly all of their words coming from common roots more than 7000 years ago. Because the roots were the same, some of the words are similar now. I had an argument with a Latin teacher: he asserted that the English word 'have' was from the Latin 'habere'; I claimed that it was from the Germanic 'haben'. Now, I realize that we were both wrong, because both the Latin and Germanic root were from the same Proto-Indo-European root.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
Yes, the information on Portuguese history was interesting. I was surprised that there was no Basque influence, because a significant part of Spanish has Basque roots, and the Basques lived through all of western and Northern Iberian Peninsula and in Southwestern France before the Phoenicians and Romans started bothering them. There also was Celtic influence in and arouns Galacia from the period before the Irish went to Ireland. About 8% of Irish roots have Basque origins. I thought that the Phoenician settlements were from Carthage, rather than from Phoenicia, but I suppose that the very earliest would have been directly from Phoenicia.Quote:
The History I told about Portuguese language is also a resume. How could I tell all the details in a forum on line (linea)? If I wanted to tell all the periods (periodu), I would have written a book.
But the History of Portuguese language is very interesting (interessante), try to read my (meu) resume above.
I wait commentaries (commentariu)
BTW, I believe that 'history' shows up in various forms, because it reflects a PIE roots. The English word'story' is one of the many related forms.Quote:
Obs: all words between ( ) are from the Latin language, except "history", from Greek. See how English and Latin have similar words.
Originally Posted by: JBI "Machado de Assis and Shakespeare are not on the same level. Shakespeare is significant because of his time period, Assis came much later... By the time Assis was alive, Shakespeare was already the ideal of perfection in English letters. Everything after seems to be under his influence"
The influence of Shakespeare is bigger, over the world, yes. But there is a reason for that:
1- English language is the second most spoken by natives in world,
2-The influence of English language over the world (everybody studies English),
3- The U.S. Hollywood movies and tv series always making reference about Shakespeare's work. Selling ideology.
But Shakespeare's literature is not bigger than Homer, Dante, Camões, Cervantes or Machado. How could we compare so different periods? How could we judge the art, comparing different styles. How can someone define what is good art, what is bigger, what is deeper? It is so abstract!
For Policarpo Quaresma's sake, JCamilo!
Did you really read something in your life? You need to know more about Philosophy, History and Literature Theory before write in a forum.
I ignore your comentaries, cause you do not show me reason in your own words. Search for Dr. Freud.
Machado wrote about his own period in history and his own place. He was an artist of his own time and place. He was a realist writer.
Shakespeare's dramas were old myths and histories of the past, from Italy, Norway, Ancient Rome, Greece, etc... He was a "escapist" writer.
Machado wrote original histories.
Shakespeare rewrote old greek myths, and that myths were already known in Latin culture.
Machado's literature is just for read, his narrator must create images inside the mind of the readers. Machado's narrator must to be creative with words to create that images.
Most of Shakespeare's work is theatre. His narrator do not need to be great with words, cause the scene is described in another plan. Furthermore, the theatre must to be view, not read. Without actors to play the history lost a lot!
Machado wrote in Portuguese, a language with a vocabulary much bigger than English (I'm counting the british english only). Portuguese has more varieties of words (adjectives, nouns, verbs) and Machado knew how to control this huge vocabulary. Furthermore, Machado wrote in several idioms, as well.
I'm not saying Shakespeare is bad and Machado is great. But they are different and each one has his own value: Dante, Cervantes, Petrarch, Machado, Carlos Drummond, Fernando Pessoa, Camões, Tolstoi, Shakespeare...
Machado is already unknown in english culture, but it does not mean Machado's work is smaller than Shakespeare.
I would say Shakespeare is bigger than Machado still. I don't want to be rude and say that you are no authority on English, as you are essentially saying to me about Portuguese, but you can hardly appreciate the fact that even in English Shakespeare is the most quoted, the most idealized, the most imitated, and appears to be the most original man of letters.
Shakespeare is not only influential on English letters however. Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and other German intellectuals seem to have pulled from Shakespeare. The plays stemmed something like 200 operatic works, many of which are still preformed on the stage today, and are of high critical importance. Musicians from England, France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all drawn on Shakespeare, some of them quite significant, such as Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Gounod, etc..
Shakespeare is, essentially, the embodiment of the way we see literature today in the English speaking world. Everything seems to stem from him in one way or another. He has been raised to a position of near-godliness amongst the English speaking world, and as a result, is seen in almost all subsequent works. Criticism, poetry, prose, and theatre all seem to stem from Shakespeare. Shakespeare is English, as Homer is Greek. The central canon, the ideal writer, and he who is held in highest esteem.
Machado may be good, I don't doubt (I confess to not having read him) but as a cultural figure, a mere dwarf he is relative to the most quoted man in the English language, and the most preformed playwrite in the world.
Sorry,Moderm as not XX Century fantasy books and comic booksQuote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
One could easily argue that English Literature and overall culture had such quality that they could spreed this influence around the world. When French was the language of "intelectuals" Shakespeare was still influential. And trying to narrow down Shakespeare to the language he represents is narrow-minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
Ideology? Which Ideology ? That Elizabeth I and the english monarchs are cool ?Quote:
3- The U.S. Hollywood movies and tv series always making reference about Shakespeare's work. Selling ideology.
Dude, Hollywood use Shakespeare because he is the most well know story-writer of the world. Because the perfect character creation. It is the consequence of Shakespeare's fame and not the cause.
Easily, comparing because you compare different things. Shakespeare is clearly bigger than Camoes (Cervates wrote at sametime as him, and altough he wrote the most likely "Perfect Novel of all time" and have an influence almost as big as shakespeare, you just need to write Cervantes's plays, poems and other minor works to know that he could not do what Shakespeare did), As Machado - there is not even ground for comparassion. Machado is not even in his own style, the prime example of perfection, one, as himself would say that Flaubert or Balzac were.Quote:
But Shakespeare's literature is not bigger than Homer, Dante, Camões, Cervantes or Machado. How could we compare so different periods?
How could we judge the art, comparing different styles. How can someone define what is good art, what is bigger, what is deeper? It is so abstract!
Dude, leave out your pathetic personal attacks elsewhere. But I have no idea why you have the pretentious idea that anyone needs to study Philosophy, History and Literature Theory (Considering what you say about critics, I wonder why you list this one) to post in the forum.Quote:
For Policarpo Quaresma's sake, JCamilo!
Did you really read something in your life? You need to know more about Philosophy, History and Literature Theory before write in a forum.
I ignore your comentaries, cause you do not show me reason in your own words. Search for Dr. Freud.
Yeah, I am sure he is a realist writer. So much that he also wrote fantasy stories but if you need to stick down to classifications...Quote:
Machado wrote about his own period in history and his own place. He was an artist of his own time and place. He was a realist writer.
This "escapism" is a new theory you just invented? Do you understand that Realism is also a form of fantasy, and that anyone who had contact with Magic Realism and the early literature of XX century knew that the objetive of writing the real world was a fantasy itself? Do you understand that being a Realist writer does not mean "writing about his own time", as Flaubert would tell you?Quote:
Shakespeare's dramas were old myths and histories of the past, from Italy, Norway, Ancient Rome, Greece, etc... He was a "escapist" writer.
Muah, Anything but this kind of silly argument. Originality in literature is not originality of plot. Machado had not and his root on Russian and French literature was too strong to be denied. (Not to mention you just destroyed one of the most impotant works of Machado, the one as translator)Quote:
Machado wrote original histories.
In any culture. But please, how many greek myths Shakespeare wrote about? It must be what a handful of his many plays?Quote:
Shakespeare rewrote old greek myths, and that myths were already known in Latin culture.
Is there any literature that does not such thing? Probally scientific literature or similar but are you trying to argue that Shakespeare was not creative with words and Machado was?Quote:
Machado's literature is just for read, his narrator must create images inside the mind of the readers. Machado's narrator must to be creative with words to create that images.
Oh, yes, Shakespeare had the little disvantage to be a playwriter most of the time (altough his poems would be enough and funny how you now notice that the text for some art is not exactly the text for literature only, but you are contraditory in excess), and even so, we hardly read shakespeare scripts but his poetic talent and use of verses in the text still appealing. But the great merit of Shakespeare is character creation and altough Machado wrote in the age of romance, when the characters are created, he never managed to create a single character more rich than Hamlet.Quote:
Most of Shakespeare's work is theatre. His narrator do not need to be great with words, cause the scene is described in another plan. Furthermore, the theatre must to be view, not read. Without actors to play the history lost a lot!
That is irrelevant. The merit of a writer is within his idiom, not outside it.Quote:
Machado wrote in Portuguese, a language with a vocabulary much bigger than English (I'm counting the british english only). Portuguese has more varieties of words (adjectives, nouns, verbs) and Machado knew how to control this huge vocabulary. Furthermore, Machado wrote in several idioms, as well.
Do you understand that when Someone says Shakespeare is superior to Machado, it means each have his own value? If they had the same value they would be equals.Quote:
I'm not saying Shakespeare is bad and Machado is great. But they are different and each one has his own value: Dante, Cervantes, Petrarch, Machado, Carlos Drummond, Fernando Pessoa, Camões, Tolstoi, Shakespeare...
No, but Robert Browning is inferior to Shakespeare as well, and he wrote in english. The only person focusing in the language used (I mean, Virgil, Ovid, Horace are all influential even in a dead language) is you, no one else.Quote:
Machado is already unknown in english culture, but it does not mean Machado's work is smaller than Shakespeare.
I understand. There's a huge difference in the two concepts, but I was told that there are people today who have trouble with such common words as 'doff', 'don', whither', 'thither', and other words in contemporary English.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Machado is very good indeed, It would be suggestion if you like the realism of XIX century. He can be as good as Flaubert, and good enough to not be just a realist writer. But you are right, he is a dwarf close to Shakespeare, which are by the way, influeces of Machado as well. It is even arguable if he is the greatest literate of brazilian short story - as poet he is not superior to Drummond or Gonçalves dias (Neddles to say, to Camoes and Fernando Pessoa), as prose writer, Guimarães Rosa is richer and manipulated the language with more ambition and precision. But Machado, as critic, translator, thinker, and having done well in all areas could be a later version of the enlightment man here in Brazil.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
But trying to argue about him and Shakespeare is just out of this world.
Yes, It was a careless wording since I forget the term had a more specific use in literature. Anyways, between that post and now, I had to consider one of the reasons to find easier Milton or Chaucer is because reading the plays is different than writing a poem, and I was more used to read the poems. The sonnets of Shakespeare do not cause me that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Yes, the way that Shakespeare arranged the words was pretty strange sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I could argue for ever, you could argue for ever, but it would not be productive.
First: I belive personal taste is too relative, so we can not argue about that. Art is a relative subjetc, very different of Science.
Second: ideology exist indeed.
Third: I can't argue with a English speaker that have never read Machado. But at least, he has been fair in its arguments.
So, keep reading Shakespeare, but also, search for other things. And never belive in someone that tells you that a culture can be richer than other, or a writer can be better than other, or a composer can be bigger than other. All that are relative values.
fourth: And I can't argue with a person (JCamilo) that have never read Philosophy and Literature Theory. And he thinks it does not make difference in debate. The only thing he supose to know is about literature. Sometimes he seems pretend to know things that he does not really undestand.
Really, I think JCamilo is here to joke, to laugh.
Furthermore, I think he did not really understand my arguments.
So, I prefer to keep myself in silence.
Yes, I believe I am punching a nail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasil
I am not talking about your personal taste. No one here is. No one is saying you must like Shakespeare more than Machado, which would be personal taste.Quote:
First: I belive personal taste is too relative, so we can not argue about that. Art is a relative subjetc, very different of Science.
Science do study subjective objects. It is the form of study that must be objective and not what is studied. Art, as subject, can be approached objectvelly.
Objectvelly: No Hollywood movie sells Shakespeare ideology. They do not share such traits. It is Shakespeare stories that are reproduced, not Shakespeare ideology.Quote:
Second: ideology exist indeed.
He is not even analysing Machado's texts, he is pointing you something you or him won't find in Machado's texts - The Importance of Shakespeare.Quote:
Third: I can't argue with a English speaker that have never read Machado. But at least, he has been fair in its arguments.
Yes, Dan Brown is a good as Dante, because it is relative.Quote:
So, keep reading Shakespeare, but also, search for other things. And never belive in someone that tells you that a culture can be richer than other, or a writer can be better than other, or a composer can be bigger than other. All that are relative values.
Oh, cry me a lot. You make no sense, I pretend to know literature and not Literature Theory? I am not the one who argued Critics are worthless and now is asking people to know what critic must is supposed to know, which is leterature theory as well. I do not know Philosophy ? Basead on what? In the fact I told you that the world evolved beyond Plato?Quote:
fourth: And I can't argue with a person (JCamilo) that have never read Philosophy and Literature Theory. And he thinks it does not make difference in debate. The only thing he supose to know is about literature. Sometimes he seems pretend to know things that he does not really undestand.
The reason why you cann't argue is that you keep quoting some almanaque like crazy - C'mom, you listed Cordel as non-writen literature example! - and ignored everything is written then asks for a relative understanding of things. Relativism and people complaning about not knowing literature.
Yes, there is a funny movement on my lips, right on the side, a disease, that make it happens.Quote:
Really, I think JCamilo is here to joke, to laugh.
What argument?Quote:
Furthermore, I think he did not really understand my arguments.
Look how silly are the things you say : One Reason for Shakespeare to be popular is because Hollywood movies for ideology's sake. Ever heard about Akira Kurosawa dude?
Do you have any notion of basic cause and consequence? I mean, Shakespeare turned popular before the invention of cinema and they went after him to tell stories when the script writers didn't dominated the language well enough but you managed to claim that a consequence of his popularity was the cause. One fact caused something in the past. Metaphysics, wow.
Unless you mean that writen words make no noise, you are too late.Quote:
So, I prefer to keep myself in silence.
I will make your pathetic game, but just once, to prove to you (again) the weakness of your supposed arguments.
I have doubt that you know what ideology means. Anyway (I wil not explain what is ideology here, because it takes time) I will say again: ideology exist, and it is not from Queen Elizabeth, as you said.
Think: In U.S. a caucasian person is called "american" and a black person is called "black-american" (or african american or afro-american). Why such difference?
For all I know, caucasians and blacks ethnicities are both originally from other continents (not American continent).
So why a caucasian is simply called "american" and a black is labelled "african-american" (as if he was half american)?
It is a kind of ideology, to keep the blacks below the white people, and keep the black's rights denied.
Did you know that Bossa Nova in U.S. sometimes is called "brazilian jazz"?
That is ideology too. Some ones belive Bossa Nova came from the jazzist american players mixing jazz with brazilian samba. At the beginning, there was a little influence from jazz indeed, but Bossa Nova is not "brazilian jazz".
If it was true, we could say that Tom Jobim's music is below Charles Parker's.
Try to undestand the thinking, follow it:
JBI said: Shakespeare was better writer than Machado, because Shakespeare came first and Machado was influenced by him.
So, we could say Chuck Berry was better guitarrist than Jimi Hendrix, because Chuck Berry came first, and Jimi Hendrix was influenced by him.
Any person that know music, would say that is absurde!
Yes, JCamilo, it is as absurde as your arguments.
JBI said: Shakespeare's work is better than Machado's because Shakespeare's influenced a bigger group os people all over the world.
So, we could say Britney Spear's work is better than Chico Buarque's because her influence all over the world is bigger than Chico's.
It is a fact that B. Spears is more famous than C. Buarque. So, her influence is bigger, but could we say her work is bigger? I don't think so!
You, JCamilo, thinks I am making confusing of cause-consequence. That was your best argument (I won't even comment the rest).
So, if you are so smat, tell me: who came first, the egg or the chicken?
No one can answer that question. The same thing happens in the case we were talking about. SEe an example:
Is the TV violence that makes the sociey violent or is the violent society that makes TV become violent? No one can answer that question, indeed both are correct (and wrong) because the mechanism is dialetic.
Dialetic, try to undestand:
1- Shakespeare is well known over the world because of Hollywood movies.
2- But also, Shakespeare was a great writer for his own credits, and he is well known over the world because of that, and Hollywood makes movies about his work because his work is beautiful. I've never denied he was a great writer, but I've presented another fact (fact 1), the fact that ideology hides.
1- Is he famous because of Hollywood's influence?
or 2- his fame has influenced also Hollywood?
Both facts are true (1 and 2), but no one can separete cause and consequence in that case.
Maybe, a cineast who loved Shakespeare decided to make a film about him (or his work) and one single good movie made "Shakespeare" famous in world. It became a fever, and then everybody wants to make movies about Shakespeare and read his dramas. Each film about him generate another seach for his work and this seach generate other film... so it became a snowball.
That is just speculation, maybe true, maybe not. Fact is: no one knows.
Imagine if Machado was a north-american writer. He would be as known as Shakespeare, maybe more, maybe less. The fact is: Machado is less known than he deserves because of his nationality. That is true.
If Shakespeare was Brazilian and his native language was Portuguese, would his work prosper for so many years? Course not! It don't mind how fantastic he writes, the most important thing is his ethinicity and his language (a cultural product of a people).
Machado is unknown for the English students, and always will be below Shakespeare, because Machado is Brazilian.
Compare: How many people in Brazil study English and how many people in U.S (and Britain) study Portuguese?
We care about other cultures much more than they care. No one in U.S. want to know about the Brazilian writer who founded the Brazilian Academy of Letters.
You ironically said:
Dan Brown is as good as Dante, because all is relative.
I would not say ALL is relative. Yes, in some contexts, things are relative. I could say all is relative, but it does not mean I want to say ALL. (did you undestand)?
However, in this case, yes.
Maybe, for a person, Dan Brown is as good as Dante. For other one, Dan Brown is the best writer ever! Who are YOU to say the opposite to this person?
My favorite writers, until today, are: Dante, Camões, Cervantes, Pessoa, Drummond, Machado, Shakespeare and João Cabral. That is my personal taste, I am not saying they are the best writers and their works are the best ever, as you did with Shakespeare.
Because personal taste is relative. I like them, but it does not mean they are the best writers. JBI loves Shakespeare, but it is his own taste, there is no scientifical method to prove Shakespere is better than some other writer.
This is what I said: "I belive personal taste is too relative, so we can not argue about that. Art is a relative subjetc, very different of Science".
And you said: "I am not talking about your personal taste. No one here is. No one is saying you must like Shakespeare more than Machado, which would be personal taste".
What????? What did you undestand from me? Did you really read right my post? What kind of answer is it, JCamilo?
For the last time I will say this here, try to undestand: art is subjective, taste about art is relative, and all is influenced by ideologies. Dont try to compare art and philosophy, or art and science.
No one can say what is "good art" and what is "bad art". Does not exist a scientific method to say "this writer is better than this" or "this play is more poetic than that"...
But every student can argue about science facts. Yes, it sometimes is subjective too, but totally different from art. We are talking here about two different kinds of subjectivism and you are making confusion. Art is subjective for itself, it is the nature of art. But science and philosophy are totally different (I belive I do not need to explain it).
JCamilo, now let's talk about Cordel.
Read about Cordel's history.
I said Cordel came from i trovatori (trovadores), originally an oral poem. Course I know Cordel (name) came from "corda" where poets exposed their works (written text and xilogravura). But Cordel (poetry) came from trovadore's oral tradition. That is what I said, but you did not undestand cause I did not say all words. I spared time, save words, because I didn't have idea that you would create such confusion.
Finishing the misunderstood: Cordel is sung (and written, as well).
Cordel came from the oral tradition, it was sung at the past. Then came the written text, but it keep to be sung by the notheast trobadours (repentistas) and other folk notheast singers.
Just because this guy wrote in Portuguese, doesn't mean he is Shakespeare. Shakespeare isn't huge because he wrote in English (and not Latin), he is big for many other reasons, some of which having to do with the fact that he had supreme skill when it came to writing verse and plays. Why isn't Fletcher, or Middleton, or even Jonson or Marlowe the center of English letters? Is it because Shakespeare had more advantages, because he clearly didn't have many. His education came mostly from the theatre, and he learned it would seem very little in school.
Why then is Shakespeare so massive? French was the Lingua Franca before English, and I do not see any French writer as defined as the center of a canon the way Shakespeare is. Shakespeare seems to be infinite in scope and aesthetic quality. Either way, just because some people like an author, doesn't mean he is the best.
If we took a general poll for best book, I would think Harry Potter, or some trivial trash would rank in the top. Our own tastes must be separated if we are to actually study literature. To come in with your so fabled "ideology" is essentially to say, "I am looking for this guy to be the best, and for this guy to be lower, simply because I am this, and not that." It is reverse prejudice, in many different ways.
And even so, the so called "art is subjective" argument is playing on an assumption: that there is no such thing as true quality, and there are not features in a work that increase its aesthetic appeal. Such argument essentially ends with, "if everything is subjective, what is the point in reading, since everything has the same power."
I would say there is a different answer. The same way a sandcastle on the beach is less a masterpiece than Saint Paul's Basilica, so is Shakespeare relative to mediocre authors. I acknowledge the fact that one cannot only read Shakespeare, nor did I say as much, and merely received that placed in mouth by you, I just set affairs in order in the sense that saying someone is better just because you liked them doesn't work. Just because someone wrote in worse conditions (so you argue) doesn't make their work greater.
Did I argue that worse conditions make a great writer?
I tell you about Machado's biography because it is important too.
I have never intended to say his conditions make his work great.
If you really want to know what makes Machado great, read his books, know his style.
But you are english native speaker, so why wasting your time with a lower literature?
A "guy" (as you refers to Machado), from South America (wild land) can not add culture to you. Am I right?
How Brazil is shown in Hollywood movies?
Think about it: always the rainforest and nothing more. What about the other things (architecture, literature, intelectuals, inventors)?
And that was not "reverse prejudice", as you said.
Art depends of the point of view, so as taste.
Course you prefer Shakespeare.