Second Language?

[JBI]

You again put words in my mouth. I essentially said that one should separate good litterature and bad literature, and not national literature, or linguistically limited literature. Neither of those authors were linguistically limited. Shakespeare created what he did not have. You are acting (I think) just as ethnocentric as the English people, but are pushing your native works passed their limits instead of the traditional canon. You are, in affect (this is according to my opinion, I mean no personal offense), negating your own argument by proposing we, instead of read our (as you would make us believe) self-superior English work, should read the works wish you deem to be self-superior Portuguese/Brazilian works.

I mentioned nothing about South America so now you play on a stereotype, as if to make me seem like an uncultured, untraveled, unknowing, stupid American (which is false since I am an Israeli Canadian) and that I have never read a book outside of my native English, which is also false, considering I was raised on Hebrew, or that my sense of taste is limited to Hollywood movies, which is a stretch, seeing as I have not mentioned any movies, and you are just assuming I go see them because of my ethnicity.

Yes, you are right; art depends on the point of view, the taste. Some people just happen to have a sense of taste, meanwhile others just wave their pom-pons trying to shout "hey look at me! I think 3000 years of literature is stupid since it all only comes down to personal taste."

Out with Faulkner in with Coelho? Is that how this world should go? Seriously, there is something to be said of someone saying on one hand people are ignorant, and on the other that they have the sense to distinguish between aesthetically achieving art and mediocrity.

[Logos]

General Mod Note to All:

This is a one-time warning only; any further personal negative remarks directed at anther member will get that post removed.

Please discuss ideas, and *not* each other.

Oh, and PLEASE, learn how to use the function; it *really* helps to make it clear who you are addressing.

Thank you

--

[Brasil]

I am not putting words in one's mouth. I know you are Canadian, I read it before in other thread.
I told that about South-America stereotype refering for people in general.

The idea of south-america culture is poor in Hollywood movies, and even in Europe.

Here in Brazil, since the childhood, we use to study about US history, Europe history, Brazil history, etc... and all kind of art, from any where.

But the same does not happens in other countries. No one in Europe, Canada, USA.. really cares about south-american culture, or african culture.
For me, it is prejudice and self superiority belief.

One more thing: The New Criticism Theory is against the biographical and psicological critic. They argue other things, but the real reason why is because Freud has examined Shakespeare, and it hurts the feeling about Shakespeare's work. Freud presented the truth about Shakespeare.
It was a shot in the english literature pride. How can the western modern capitalist society survive without his greatest writer?
Where New Criticism Theory was born? USA, course.
So, that is ideology as well, for keeping the idea that Shakespeare (english literature) is superior than others.

But now, I will leave this kind of arguments about ideology. They want to censor. The excuse is "personal attack" but the truth is other: the mask has fallen (perhaps intentionally or perhaps unconsciously).
A truth marxist thinking exposure is forbiden? Marx is allowed in public only when those threads are lies on the marxist philosophy?
I had to keep silence, it is dangerous for me say that.
Now I have to go, cause CIA and FBI is knocking my door.

[PeterL]

Now I have to go, cause CIA and FBI is knocking my door.

Not the DOI-CODI ?

[JCamilo]

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)

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Dialetic, try to undestand:
1- Shakespeare is well known over the world because of Hollywood movies.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ?
Its only get more funny- You can tell how bad a book or a writer is, it is not relative.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Brasil]

Camilo, I can agree with the majority of your last arguments, but also I can not. Most of them depends of the point of view.

I am not pretendig to make my sentences a absolutely truth. Some sentences, I think, can be, but most of my arguments depends of the point of view, as yours depends as well.

What makes me sad is the way you undestand my posts.

I know science is a method and not the object. I said "argue about scientifical FACT". A fact is a object, not a method.

However, often the science method is also the object of the study. Did you know about Positivismo? It just 1 example among 1.000000.

The same way, you did to me about Cordel. I know repentista is improvisation. Just because I do not know how to call a person who sings cordel you concluded that I do not know what repentista means.

The same thing you have done with all my argues!

Yes, Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot, why not? Or it can be seen as a car, as well. All definitions. Always labels!
"Horsepower" is the definiton for the potence of a engine car. So, why not Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot? It is just a label.

Again, most of things that JBI and you (JCamilo) say can be true, but that kind of truth depends of the point of view. Ufortunatelly you deny to see that.

Some other arguments from you I really disagree. But better finish that, cause it does not add anyhing good to anyone .

[JCamilo]

I know science is a method and not the object. I said "argue about scientifical FACT". A fact is a object, not a method.

I am only pointing to you that the claim that Art is subjective therefore its study can not be objective (or scientific) is not true, because you can study subjetive objects. Such you claim art is.

However, often the science method is also the object of the study. Did you know about Positivismo? It just 1 example among 1.000000.

Positivism is a philosophic system (with religious origem), which views had influence on the formulation of scietific method. It does not study the scientific method, and I am aware that it is studied. It is pointless, science can study anything (and that is a very positivist thing to say).

The same way, you did to me about Cordel. I know repentista is improvisation. Just because I do not know how to call a person who sings cordel you concluded that I do not know what repentista means.

Dude, if you call a Airplane a fish, you can not complain. You can not know hwat Repentista means, if it means something who improvise verses if you claim they work with cordel, which is not improvisation.

The same thing you have done with all my argues!

Cann't you just imagine that your arguments were build in such misconceptions ?

Yes, Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot, why not? Or it can be seen as a car, as well. All definitions. Always labels!

Yes, once I saw a guy calling a hot girl a Ferrari too. Wonderful the figurative power of language, but a Ferrari is not a chariot at all (An airplane is not a zepellin either, just because both are used for the same purpose).

"Horsepower" is the definiton for the potence of a engine car. So, why not Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot? It is just a label.

That is where you argument goes, the relativism, since every word can be anything, anything can be accept. But sorry, not knowing horsepower was a figurative way of language when the engines are created is deadly wrong. I mean, you do not think just because a Mansion can have "wings" ,it is a bird.

Again, most of things that JBI and you (JCamilo) say can be true, but that kind of truth depends of the point of view. Ufortunatelly you deny to see that.

Not all POV are right, it is what I am pointing.

[Brasil]

I am tired of that.

I will not pass my life in front of a computer trying to answer each thing someone post.


I am open for debate, but not for eternity.



For anyone.
http://www.online-literature.com/for...646#post581646

[Kafka's Crow]

Talk about the total and utter destruction of a thread. The poor sod only asked one simple question:

I'm considering learning a second language and I was wondering, from a literary point of view, what would be the best language to learn? In other words, (In your opinion) what non-English language has the best literature?

As far as Shakespeare's greatness is concerned, he is the pinnacle of literary greatness. Every culture has it's own 'Shakespeare', ie. the greatest literary figure. Even literatures with absolutely insignificant tradition of 'drama' would have a Shakespeare. Ghalib is called the 'Shakespeare of India' although the good old man from Delhi might have never seen 'boards' in his entire life. He was a poet who wrote in Urdu, a literature with very negligible theatrical output, though a great wealth of poetry. 'Shakespeare' means the greatest writer and every literature has one. Decades of reading Shakespeare did not help me when I had the worst moments of my life, a few couplets from Ghalib helped understand the situation (yes literature helps you face situations in life as well as DEATH, it gives you references). But this is subjective, highly subjective. It doesn't make the good old poet from Delhi greater than any other poet. Every culture has its own Machado de Assis, its own Shakespeare, its own Ghalib. We can not say one is greater than the other. Are we in a position to judge? Do we know all the languages involved, do we know the socio-economic factors that influence a literature, the political factors that strengthen a language, till it becomes one of 'the masks of conquest' (to quote Gauri Viswanathan) along with its literature. Do we know about the role language and literature played in colonialism? There are scores of factors that influence our judgment of a literature or its representatives. Then there is the question of the genre as well. Novel and drama are more commercial genres and every re-incarnation of certain works either in translation or film or even special editions of texts puts a whole gamut of marketing machinery in motion that re-invigorates its status. Poetry is difficult to translate, specially the highly Persianised Urdu 'ghazal' is virtually impossible to be translated in English without losing a large chunk of its effect. Thus comparing writers from different cultures is not a safe exercise and can lead to error and prejudice.

Sorry I gave up on this thread after the comparison between de Assis and Shakespeare. Still this is an excellent advice:

My advice for all:
Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
Open your eyes for unknown.

[sofia82]

I appreciate all you said Kafka's Crow. Every culture and language has its own Shakespeare.

My advice for all:
Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
Open your eyes for unknown.

[Kafka's Crow]

I appreciate all you said Kafka's Crow. Every culture and language has its own Shakespeare.

But who is the Shakespeare of Iran? There are so many very great poets who wrote in Persian Language. Is it Sa'adi, the Nightingale of Shiraz, or is it Hafiz (weren't the random pages of his works used to forecast future events?) Is it the majestic Firdausi, or the beautifully lyrical Rudki. Even Ghalib and Mir and other masters from Delhi left behind a huge amount of poems in Persian. How could a language attract poets from so far and distant lands? StLukesGuild should be able to elaborate this point but Persian sensibility can be traced in the beautiful miniature paintings if you don't know the language.

http://persia.org/Images/Miniature/miniature.html

[sofia82]

But who is the Shakespeare of Iran? There are so many very great poets who wrote in Persian Language. Is it Sa'adi, the Nightingale of Shiraz, or is it Hafiz (weren't the random pages of his works used to forecast future events?) Is it the majestic Firdausi, or the beautifully lyrical Rudki. Even Ghalib and Mir and other masters from Delhi left behind a huge amount of poems in Persian. How could a language attract poets from so far and distant lands? StLukesGuild should be able to elaborate this point but Persian sensibility can be traced in the beautiful miniature paintings if you don't know the language.

http://persia.org/Images/Miniature/miniature.html

Yes, if one don't know the language, the best way is to go through the art of that country. Miniture is one of the great and typical persian art. There are so many great poets, like other countries, that no one can say this is the Shakespeare of Iran or not! Hafiz (as you said people refer to his work as a forcast for the future, and it really works, as you can interpret it the way you want. Sha'adi, Molavi (MUlana), Roodaki, Ferdousi, KHay'yam (his poetry translated by Fitzgerald, although it is good, but cannt convey the meaning and the theme in the poems), BabaTaher, Khaghani ... and so many other poets. And Nezami who was Azeri but wrote the best romances in the persian language (Leili va Majnon: Romeo and Juliet in Persian literature). There are also great modern poets and literary figures such as Nima, Sohrab and ...

I love persian miniature. And here is the official site of Farshchian, the famous artist in miniature:

http://www.farshchianart.com/farshchian.htm

[Brasil]

For Kafka's Crow
I loved you post, thanks!

For JCamilo
I told you to search for Dr. Freud, cause he wrote a analysis about Shakespeare. It is really interesting.

About music and poetry:
Chico Buarque wrote a song (Para Todos) and it is in redondilha verse.

For JBI repectfully I say:
First you told Machado and Shakespeare are not at the same level.
Latter you told that you have never read Machado.
So, I concluded that you have denied you own point of view in name of the traditional concept. It is important you have your own point of view. So you must read Machado to you have your own point of view.

For who wants to study a foreign language
Only yourself can decide what is the best literature, no one can decide for you.

My last post:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=35032&page=7

[JCamilo]

For JCamilo
I told you to search for Dr. Freud, cause he wrote a analysis about Shakespeare. It is really interesting.

Usually I find Freud Manipulative. Most people have their "bigotony" but Freud is something else. The way he reduces literature to what he desires to find for his theories...meh. I just prefer to not return to Freud (I mean, you are telling me to know one of the most famous individuals of XIX-XX centuries) is because as literature, he knew little. The criticals such as Harold Bloom that know about literature and are freudian, are more interesting to read.

About music and poetry:
Chico Buarque wrote a song (Para Todos) and it is in redondilha verse.

And, didn't you got that techniques are not exclusivity of one artistic expression only and they will move from one to another, thanks to the talent of the artist?

[PeterL]

People usually go to school, or if older, have jobs and families. They have children, bills, and mortgages to pay. They don't have the time or the money to do all those things and to travel a lot, which is very, very expensive. I was lucky I saw the world when it was a lot less expensive to travel. I know people who have a hard time buying books, let alone traveling a lot.

You're describing the lifestyle of the idle rich, who usually don't care about anything but rising in the ranks of society and getting their photo on the front page of a magazine. Most Americans are lucky to get one or two weeks of vacation each year and then they don't usually travel far away. Some spend it at home with their family, who they rarely see otherwise.

Sell everything, buy a sailboat, go where you want, eat lots of seafood, write travel articles, and spend money only when in port (two days a month). But you won't need to learn other languages, because there won't be people around to speak to.