/lit/ - Literature

>When one recalls the conventionality of speech in certain Italian and Spanish poets, how startled one is by the directness here [King Lear]; one sees that Shakespeare must have been a Protestant.

Wagner is too aristocratic for /lit/.

>>19701748
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNQqzb961NU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j6vy8M0KFs

>>19475440
Reminder Wagner is just Zapffe but better.

>Lost plays of Aeschylus. He is believed to have written some 90 plays, of which six plays survive. A seventh play is attributed to him. Fragments of his play Achilleis were said to have been discovered in the wrappings of a mummy in the 1990s.[3]
>Lost works of Aristotle. It is believed that we have about one third of his original works.[4]
>one
>fucking
>third
>Lost works of Chrysippus. Of over 700 written works, none survive, except a few fragments embedded in the works of later authors.
>over 700
>Lost works of Democritus. He wrote extensively on natural philosophy and ethics, of which little remains.
>Lost works of Pyrrhus. He wrote Memoirs and several books on the art of war, all now lost. According to Plutarch, Hannibal was influenced by them and they received praise from Cicero.
>Lost plays of Sophocles. Of 123 plays, seven survive, with fragments of others.

Feels good knowing i got into classical music(specifically Bach) before seeing anyone else mention it in the light of being one of those great academic beacons and ive always wondered why it isnt considered to be such

Everyone recognizes Michelangelo as a great artist or Virgil as a great writer, but why doesnt Bach have such a famous reputation as well? Granted, everyone knows his fucking name but everyone knows the works of these great artists and writers despite being laymen yet no layman knows great works of Bach(shit like Cello Suite no 1 and Air on the G String do not count).

Why the form of fugue or imitative counterpoint in general isnt treated as a high art is beyond me.

>>19329475
>Wagnerian fatalism
>implying this isn't based

>>19250818
Mandatory Wagner post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w-4Qf3pVnQ

>>18976499
>In the evening we are visited by Dr. Rée, whose cold and precise character does not appeal to us; on closer inspection we come to the conclusion that he must be an Israelite.
>R. reads some of Nietzsche's latest book [Human, All Too Human] and is astonished by its pretentious ordinariness. "I can understand why [Paul] Rée's company is more congenial to him than mine." And when I remark that to judge by this book N.'s earlier ones were just reflections of something else, they did not come from within, he says, "And now they are Rée-flections!"

>>18902346
That was in what, 1845? Way before he ever heard of Schopenhauer. If it was the end of the Phenomenology, it was not the end of Hegel, but it was the end of neither:

>During the 1848 Revolution in Dresden, when Wagner was appointed by the revolutionary faction to keep watch from a tower, he was discovered at his post deeply immersed in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

Hegel-chads win again.

>invents "live, laugh, love"
Why did he do it?

>Wagnerian

>>18714594

Just want to remind everyone that Wagner invented the phrase "live, laugh, love."

>>18679487
Over 150 years later and people are still being filtered by its sublime wisdom.

>>18664975
No, Parsifal is.

>It is, I think, characteristic of our psychology that we find on the threshold of the new age two figures who were destined to exert an immense influence on the hearts and minds of the younger generation: Wagner, the prophet of love, whose music runs the whole gamut of feeling from Tristan down to incestuous passion, then up again from Tristan to the sublime spirituality of Parsifal; and Nietzsche, the prophet of power and of the triumphant will for individuality. Wagner, in his last and loftiest utterance, harked back to the Grail legend, as Goethe did to Dante, but Nietzsche seized on the idea of a master caste and a master morality, an idea embodied in many a fairhaired hero and knight of the Middle Ages. Wagner broke the bonds that fettered love, Nietzsche shattered the “tables of values” that cramp individuality. Both strove after similar goals while at the same time creating irremediable discord; for where love is, power cannot prevail, and where power prevails, love cannot reign.

>>18630459
Wagner is Tolkien for adults.

>>18498761
>Reader is not ready to see the point of writing is for the writer to advance their perspective philosophically or politically whether it be commercial or social achievement

Reminder Wagner engaged with the question and dangers of technology in his Ring before any philosopher.

>>18334870
Le problem?

>>17764307
Wagner was superior.

>>17605520
>Wagnerian

>>17500958
Wrong.

>We have nothing here to do with the astoundingly varied attempts of speculative human reason to explain the nature of this Son of the God, who walked on earth and suffered shame: where the greater miracle had been revealed in train of that manifestation, the reversal of the will-to-live which all believers experienced in themselves, it already embraced that other marvel, the divinity of the herald of salvation. The very shape of the Divine had presented itself in anthropomorphic guise; it was the body of the quintessence of all pitying Love, stretched out upon the cross of pain and suffering. A—symbol?—beckoning to the highest pity, to worship of suffering, to imitation of this breaking of all self-seeking Will: nay, a picture, a very effigy! In this, and its effect upon the human heart, lies all the spell whereby the Church soon made the Græco-Roman world her own.

Shakespeare shouldn't have subverted our expectations by killing off Hamlet at the end. I found it unsatisfying and abrupt.