/lit/ - Literature

>>21763603
You are such an extremely embarrassing person.
>That's fine. Doesn't mean that Shakespeare was better
Keats thought he was better than any other poet, Keats wrote about how much of a genius he was; Keats had undoubtedly a better eye for literature and poetry than you. This isn't proof he's better, I just mean to rub into your face how much Keats enjoyed Shakespeare.
>Just because Keats praised him doesn't automatically mean that he was inferior to him
No, the rest of Shakespeares bibliography proves that. Not only did I not say "Keats studied him AND therefor he is good" I just said that to disprove your assessment that Spenser was a greater leader in his artistic development--which is an objectively and verifiably false thing to try slipping by.
>Now who's being lazy and not showing off their undergraduate essays?
I literally cited a nearly 300 page long book detailing the links between Shakespeare and Keats, I'm not spoonfeeding you easily googled results. You can, if you feel so inclined, go to Rome (as I have, pic rel) and read Keats' own annotations.
>For someone who considers Keats to be incredibly mediocre
Never once did I say he was mediocre, I said he was great--the best of the romantics.
>I'm going to press (X) to doubt here, for I believe if you really have those collections and his letters you would've enjoyed him thoroughly.
lmao the unholy levels of cope at work here.
>was that line of Italian you used earlier from Dante?
Non era una citazione, è stata scritta da me. You couldn't even be bothered to google translate it lol, it said "had Shakespeare written an epic poem, it would have been better than Orlando furioso". The fact that you think a line of literature could potentially be from Dante, who existed centuries before Orlando Furioso was written, and be about said work boggles my mind. How fucking stupid are you?