who is the most overrated writer ever?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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

[islandclimber]

[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...

[Brucelles]

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

[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?

[islandclimber]

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...

[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.

[LadyW]

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

[islandclimber]

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

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

[islandclimber]

I love Walt Whitman. I love Pablo Neruda. But I do think Walt Whitman speaks for the whole world more than does Neruda as Neruda's poetry is, to a great degree, very personal love poetry, written to his wife. I love different things about both poets and find both of them great.

And Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors. LOL I don't think anyone has done so much with such a narrow life that was all but forced on her. I love her wit and her discerning eye. I love her characters. But I do know many people who simply can't stand her.

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...

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

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...

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

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...

cheers

[stlukesguild]

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.

[Etienne]

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.

[islandclimber]

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.

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...

but you are a little harsh here, I do believe, even though I do like how you worded your attack ... 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...

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 know... it is a little strange... just another poetic pecularity of me I guess
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...