Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brasil
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.
Obviously, I know what ideology means. The problem lies in you arguing that Hollywood uses Shakespeare (and listing this as why he was popular) because of ideology. Either this means Shakespeare had such ideology that help him to be popular in Hollywood (Considering Shakespeare anti-semitic views, any would know that Hollywood didn't adopted Shakespeare because his propaganda, obviously not the timeless aspect of Shakespeare works) or because Hollywood sells their ideology using Shakespeare works (which is true, but that have nothing to do with Shakespeare, they do it with anyone and neither explain why he is the most adapted writer of all time and will not, since that is an effect of Shakespeare popularity, not the cause).
Your laborious explanation that followed after it is not wrong or right, it is irrelevant, the point is not "What is ideology" but how Hollywood selling her own ideology is somehow related to the massive influence of Shakespeare (The answer again, it is not)
Quote:
JBI said: Shakespeare was better writer than Machado, because Shakespeare came first and Machado was influenced by him.
He didn't said the reason Shakespeare was better was because he came first at all, he said that when Machado was born Shakespeare influence was already massive. The guy even listed the influences of Shakespeare and it is obvious that he is not arguing "what came first is better", Chronology is irrelevant.
Quote:
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.
I am amazed. So, you don't know that Influence in literature is not the samething as popularity and have more to do with a long lasting merit that other writers (and artists) are inspired when working? A transmitions of ideas, styles, techniques and motives? I mean, that is basic for anyone who study Literary Teories, the importance of influence.
Anyways, one way to measure objectivelly the importance of a artist is looking into other's works, and how long the century those works are reborn by new readings (power of the aesthetic merits of the given work and the possibility of endless interpretations), you can objectivelly find Shakespeare behind Milton, Keats, Byron, Coleridge, Goethe, Borges, Joyce, Ibsen - the list goes on, in both literature and teatre. His power of influence is so massive that just Homer or Virgil can have such power. What was created after Shakespeare is amazing, and not limited to Teatre or Literature, but movies, paintings, music, and goes beyond. Removing Shakespeare from the world will create a void, giantic.
Machado influence is considerable, but minor (and is not because he is brazilian, Tolstoi influence is also minor when compared to Shakespeare) but Machado is awesome. I beg everyone to read it, without any need to compare to any writer (unless you enjoy comparative literature, but that is another story) to promote him like you did. In fact, I think your attitude is not helping people to have sympathy for him.
Quote:
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!
Influence is not the samething as fame. In 100 years you will have to find anything new created by Spears that was so awesome that lasted to the point that still could be found in the singers of that period. You know, just like you can find Machado's alive in Lima Barreto, and how you can find Voltaire in Machado and Swift in Voltaire, etc
Quote:
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?
:eek:
Jesus...
Dude, something that happened in XX Century (Hollywood using Shakespeare) can not explain a process that "happened" in the XVIII-XIX Century (Shakespeare fame and canonical status). That simple.
And seriously, The egg came first, animals are laying eggs thousands of years before the chicken. :D
Quote:
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.
The question you raised is not of the same nature you come now. And considering society is violent before the tv, this question can only exist in the mind of those who didn't studied the process of mass media.
Quote:
Dialetic, try to undestand:
1- Shakespeare is well known over the world because of Hollywood movies.
:rolleyes: When the cinema started they didn't had techniques of script writing as today, neither professinals for this. So, they went where they could have similar material to make the movies to supply the shortage of creation, and it was theatre. Who was ALREADY the most popular playwriter? Shakespeare. So, he was adapted, some of his stories, even before Hollywood industry was raised.
Quote:
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.
Which Ideology ? Shakespeare own Ideology is absent of the movies, Ideology that Shakespeare is the most important creator of english language ? (He is, it is a fact).
Quote:
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.
Only if
1 - You ignore the fact that Shakespeare was already adapted before Hollywood existed. So, Hollywood just followed a tendency.
2 - Shakespeare was already popular before the invention of photography, so, You can easily tell that it is his popularity that caused him to be adapted. It is a proccess long and continual that is Shakespeare influence on the world of art.
So you easily tell that it is all a Consequence of Shakespeare power. Not the cause at all (Nothing can be the cause of something that started hundred years before, that simple).
Quote:
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.
To tell the truth, Shakespeare movies aren't that popular, they didn't know how to adapt well and watching the plays was more rewarding. But since he was such source of material, he was never abandoned.
And there is no Maybe. Shakespeare was already popular.
Quote:
That is just speculation, maybe true, maybe not. Fact is: no one knows.
Trying to argue that no one could tell if Shakespeare was already popular or not in the end of XIX century is ridiculous. Everyone knew, he was already popular.
Quote:
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.
:redface: Mark Twain, Faulkner, Poe, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Hawthorne, Melville are all less famous than Shakespeare. (And you still think it is a matter of fame, ew) and they are north-americans. No english writer have Shakespeare popularity. The only kind of writers who share his influence (because it is not popularity, since I do not care if people actually read them, as long Art keep reading them, because Immortality is for a few chosen) wrote in Greek, Latim and Italian. French was the popular language until XIX century and no Villon, Voltaire, Pascal, Baudelaire, Hugo, Balzac ever managed to have Shakespearean influence (quite the contrary, Shakespeare is a shadow over them).
Machado is less read because it is portuguese or brazilian? Well, yes. But writing in russian didn't stopped Dostoievisky and Tolstoi to place russian literature in such high stature that english literature had troubles to face.
It is bad that Machado is not more well-know (he is quite well know inside the academic circles), yes, as much it is bad that Felisberto Hernandez from Uruguay or Karen Blixen from Denmark are not more well know, but you just can't measure Machado with Shakespeare (Machado would tell you that), and that is not because the language.
Quote:
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).
If, if, if. I could easily say that Shakespeare was brazilian he would change portuguese and brazilian culture in such way that the entire world would be another. Do you understand that when Shakespeare wrote english was not the main language in the world, not spoken outside the little island and that remained for years like that?
Quote:
Machado is unknown for the English students, and always will be below Shakespeare, because Machado is Brazilian.
Dude, even Machado would place himself under Shakespeare. I am brazilian, not english. I read machado since I was a kid. And I know Shakespeare is superior to Machado and that have nothing to do with the language he wrote.
Quote:
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.
That is why Harold Bloom, one of the most influential critics of US lists Machado in his cannonical list, having quite a liking for Him ? That is why a few months I was helping a north-american to buy Machado books for her reading? Dude, Shakespeare influence (not popularity, today Dan Brown or Paulo Coelho are more popular than him) is bigger than Machado, and english only dominated the world in the last centuries, way after Shakespeare and frankly, without a written culture as rich, Englan would have big trouble to do such effect.
Quote:
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)?
So, some relative things are relative depending the relative concept ? :D
Its only get more funny- You can tell how bad a book or a writer is, it is not relative.
Quote:
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?
I am a reasonable person who know the difference between personal taste and critical analyse, since I know Literature Teories. When someone do not , they confund taste and quality merit. Poor of those who do so.
Quote:
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.
Your personal taste (and mine) are irrelevant. My favorite writer is more likely Voltaire. I know he is not as good as Goethe. I do not use it to analyse the work of Goethe when I have to neither the work of Voltaire.
And no one here is using personal taste to claim Shakespeare power of influence. It is a fact dude.
Quote:
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.
:eek: Funny, I do not recall JBI using his personal taste to justify Shakespeare. And there is a very objective method to analyse the power of inlfuence of Shakespeare (you just have to list how many artists movemments and artists are under his influence, it is not "relative"), you can analyse also the impact of Shakespeare on language (not "relative" either) and since the influence is only lasting because the artist have quality, you can have a close call that Shakespeare was superior to, let's use an english example, Marlowe or John Donne, or Edmund Spencer.
There goes a limit, I agree, where the close call is too close, with Shakespeare, it is hard to claim this with Dante or Virgil around. But not with Machado.
Also, Literature theory will teach you how to analyse a text, the style, the characters, etc. And they do not use "relative" methods of study.
Quote:
What????? What did you undestand from me? Did you really read right my post? What kind of answer is it, JCamilo?
Yes, it is "stop trying to use personal taste", that is what you are doing. You love to say "lets not talk about this" and then do it.
Quote:
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.
Do not try to compare art and philosophy or art and science? Sorry! But I will do like many do.
And Not everything in art Subjetive. And that is irrelevant - The Objetive analyse of a subjetive object is possible.
Forgot ideologies dude- Philosophies and science are ideologic too, it have little to do with the quality of work.
Quote:
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"...
lots of people CAN and DO it for thousand and thousand years. That may be shocking for you, but if you Study Art theory you are studying methods of critics, that include history and analyse of devices. And You can say all of that you are talking. Dan Brown is worst than Dante and this can be proved by a analyse of their text.
Quote:
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).
Dude, try to get it - Science is a method of study. It is not the object. Science studies feelings. Objectivelly a subjective object.
You can OBJECTIVELLY study the history of Art. Because Art is a object, not the method. The indivudual studying it is not enjoying or producing art (altought producing is not just subjective as you like to claim) he is just studying.
And trying to imply there is only objective philosophy systems is a bit hilarious.
Quote:
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.
You only said "Cordel". You didn't spared words, you absolutely listed Cordels under Oral literature (and the example as actual). And the explanation only make it worst. Trying to imply cordels are example of oral literature because they have an oral origem is like claiming a Ferrari is a chariot because elemets of the chariot gave origem of elements of the Ferrari and thus they are the samething.
Quote:
Finishing the misunderstood: Cordel is sung (and written, as well).
And then, the killing blow. You didn't made any confusion, you really have no idea what Cordel is.
Cordel is WRITEN, and to sell it, the writer recite some of the words. That is like claming Dom Quixote is oral if a seller recites a part of it to attract costumers . Only because Cordel came from oral poetry like all literature, it does not make it oral, because it became something new. You still do not know the difference between Oral Narratives and Writen narratives and think they are linked.
Quote:
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.
Repentistas are not cordelistas. A repentista mais trait is improvisation, so claming they go reciting a text previously writen is wrong.
