Quote:
Originally Posted by
stuntpickle
Any critic, suggesting Hugo is better than all English Romantic poets, isn’t worthy of the title of “critic.”
I am writing a letter to Jorge Luis Borges. He will not mind to be not called a critic, but then, he would say: Yes, Hugo is one of the finest poets ever and... well, I wont mention that the only romantic he do not put down is Wordsworth. But of course, Borges is not english, so he would not know.
Quote:
What you’re saying here makes me think you’re familiar with neither the English Romantics nor what they accomplished.
Silly thing, one of the points favorable to your argument is that it is quite easy to be familiar with all those guys.
Quote:
The Romantics didn’t simply write good poetry, they completely revolutionized all of poetry. In fact, they have been called the first modern poets. The fact you would compare “neo-classical” poets, which necessarily implies a reversion, to the great poetic revolutionaries is a little ridiculous. The Romantics accomplished a great break with the poetic past that has not since been mended. What the Romantics accomplished is similar to Dante’s use of the vernacular—perhaps even more radical than that. If you want to get technical, the great original is Wordsworth, though it must be said in close cooperation with Coleridge.
All this quite fine, except the original romantics are the germans and Coleridge and Wordsworth are working with Schiller rather anything else. And of course, they didn't got near Dante. Dante didnt modernized a language, he proposed one and ended with 1000 years domain of Latim. He is the Renaissence begin. Not even Shakespeare was the head or end of an age, much less the english romantics.
Quote:
First, let me just say that you seem to be mostly dropping names while never adequately demonstrating more than a passing familiarity with the names.
Mostly because your arguments are silly name gloatings. You are just claiming how a group of 6 poets was unmatched in any other culture, when it is easy to drop several names which status and importance that easily match them. Quite easy.
Quote:
Now let’s compare that sort of character to Hamlet. Immediately, you will notice, or should, that Hamlet oscillates wildly from bravery to cowardice, decision to indecision, deception to forthrightness; he is, in short, more human than Oedipus Rex. What would happen if you put, say, Achilles in one of Shakespeare’s plays? It could only seem like a parody. What would happen if you put Hamlet in Homer’s Iliad? Hamlet wouldn’t seem like a parody; in fact, he would steal the show.
Low, albeit Hamlet is a high-born person of generally good character which critical flaws lead to his downfall, your simple idea is already a laughable paradoy. And you know, any can play this game. Put Don Quixote in Hamlet, and Quixote would make it a paradoy, with his almost as infinite multiplicity. And this because Shakespeare with all his power, is not a master of comedy. He may be a master of irony inside the drama, but the pure comedy of Cervantes or Moliere? Even Shakespeare bows while Homer nods.
Quote:
Now, you may say that I’ve got it backwards, and superficially this would be true. Nevertheless, the strangeness owes to that Shakespeare completely re-centered the canon and remains the critical juncture through which all literature is viewed. Although I hardly agree with Bloom when he says Shakespeare created humans, I do think he is the original chronicler of humans. What Bloom calls “overhearing” is the central issue; it’s what makes Hamlet seem at once a nihilist and a moralizer. Hamlet’s character is fluid, organic—in fact, real. Shakespeare accomplished the same thing the Italian painters did: he made everything before him seem almost irrelevant. Not many care about medieval representational painting simply because it looks similar to ancient pictographs when considered next to the work of da Vinci, who finally accomplished what everyone had been attempting since the beginning, which was he made it all convincing.
Except that even Bloom reckonized Hamlet archetypical in Jesus by Mark. Shakespeare is awesome, but this is far to exagerating. He was not the center of anything when alive (England culture was marginal to dominating Spanish and French culture, and even afterwards, german culture bloomed strongly), he became after, indeed, a re-reading of Hamlet by romantic poets, found something not even Shakespeare shared (as he was no romantic at al, as the same Coleridge that praised him was very contemptous to share high literature with the masses, something Shakespeare never had a problem). The idea that neo classicism is backwards is hilarious, considering how Shakespeare owned much to Ovid and others, not mention his culture was only possible after Spencer, Chaucer, etc took to england Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio neo-classicism. In fact, Homer cult was only strengthned after Shakespeare, with translatations by Chaucer or Pope, something all romantics reckonize without fear.
Shakespeare invention of human was nothing but a re-reading of all humans before him, specially the very invention of human that happened with italians to end the middle ages. Homer is not shakespearean, it is Shakespeare that is homeric (of second rate, of course). And many would point, there is a Quixote above to be and not to be, above all.
Quote:
Look, Dante is a magnificent poet, a giant, in fact. And he can only be surpassed by the likes of Shakespeare, but he is, in fact, surpassed, and by a fairly wide margin If you put Dante the character next to Hamlet, what sort of conversation could the two have?
What kind of silly argument is this? If I put Snoopy near to Hamlet what short of conversation could the two have???? And We are still waiting for the wide margim we talk. Last time, That Comedy still holds the "Divine" near it. You know it is something like a critical judgment which very few dired to contest? (One that did, smashed both Dante and Shakespeare, so it still a draw)
Quote:
MY guess is that it would look a lot like the conversation between Hamlet and Polonius and invariably it would lead to Hamlet, the possessor of infinite complexity, largely ridiculing Dante and his mad quest. Hamlet exists in more dimensions than Dante does. One of the most astonishing accomplishments of Shakespeare was that he made Dante look like a classical writer, which is essentially what the Italian Masters did in painting.
Are you out of your mind? Shakespeare made Dante look like a classical writer? It is Dante that did it. Centuries before Shakespeare was born Dante was know as a classical writer. The very idea that you are using as argument the "infinite" shows there is no argument. I will just say, put SHakespeare near the infinite blablabla of blablabla and it is over, as the infinite is meaningless.
Quote:
Let’s be clear about Dante. His reputation doesn’t rest on Vita Nuova, which is hardly ever taught as anything but an introduction to the Commedia, nor does it rest on the Commedia; it rests exclusively on Inferno. Why does Paradiso pale in comparison to Inferno?
Thank god his reputation does not rest on Vita Nuova, altough it would be enough to make him a great poet. It is in the Comedy. But I never saw a single edition of the Comedy to be introduced by Vita Nuova. In fact, it is not mentioned near the Comedy unless you read Dante enough. And bad readers stop on Inferno. Dante Paradise is a masterwork and most people point it is the superior part of the comedy, not inferno. You seem to think "most famous" as the "better".
Quote:
It, like Milton’s Pradise Regained, fails to adequately portray the divine. In fact, Dante explicitly admits he is incapable of expressing his vision of God. So, at the end of his quest, Dante offers us very little. He does, of course, describe the layout of Heaven, but the great artistic fusion of Inferno, in which the layout is Satan, himself, is completely absent.
I am very confused. The layout of hell is Satan? And Dante EXPLICITLY say? When, his deadbed? Are you going to dare to say Dante explicity says anything in the Comedy?
Quote:
Shakespeare does what Dante can’t. He intricately describes the Yahweh character; only Shakespeare calls him King Lear.
No, only Bloom does it and it should be notable Shakespeare never claimed it. Dante had no intention to describe god, so, it is like I am saying: Dante do what Shakespeare never could: he creates a Muse. Or talks with his influence. Or say that none created Sherlock Holmes. Hey, neither created a talking stuffed tiger named Harold. All failed where Bill Watterson had success.
Quote:
When you say things like “Hamlet is reading a book before he see a ghost,” I start to think you haven’t even read Hamlet.
Sure, if you think so. I never read, nor Hamlet. He often get bored with wordes, wordes...
Quote:
And when you imply that scenery is somehow an inherent property n of poetry, I begin to think you misunderstand poetry.
I didnt imply anything. You should read better, unlike Dante, I have no complexity.
Quote:
If, however, you want to discuss imagery, I would say Shakespeare is obviously Dante’s superior. “To take arms against a sea of troubles” is a figuration unequaled in all of Dante. The bit about the “cameos” and the “best muse” seem like categories that aren’t even awarded, much like giving a movie an Oscar for best dog.
Sorry, but really? To take arms against a sea of troubles? This equate to making the ideal of perfect muse, the description of hell-purgatory-heaven circles that would and still last, to the rose of paradise, the oriental saphire, the last travel of ulysses, the 3 beasts... Sorry, but if we remove the cameos, shakespeare plays will end in 3 pages and 1 monologue.
Quote:
If you think the prevailing opinion is that Dante is superior to Shakespeare, I would say you simply don’t know the prevailing opinion.
The day we have the Divine Hamlet, you can start talking about the prevaling opinion.
