/lit/ - Literature

>>10022213
No, Dante is not on Shakespeare's level. He's just another writer of epics, albeit an excellent one.

>>10022295
I'm not monolingual; I am fluent in French and have lesser capabilities in the other Romance languages and Latin. I have actually probably read more French than British novels. However, British poetry and drama is amazing.

>>10022711
I have read the other authors. I'll let you know what I think then.

>Joyce
Great novelist and psychologist. Revolutionized the novel (sort of - stream-of-consciousness is just a continuation of free and indirect discourse in prose), however, only a select few have chosen to write in his vein. Joyce's influence doesn't extend beyond a few elitists.

>Proust
I think Joyce said it best when he said something along the lines of "the reader finishes Proust's sentences before he does." They say he's more direct in French, but anytime I've opened him up in French, I discern no difference. Vastly overrated author. I would not even rank him with the best French novelists such as Flaubert or Stendhal. Even Maupassant is better than this mama's boy.

>Tolstoyevsky
It baffles me how people meme about Russian literature when there's only one author people actually read, Tolstoyevsky. Most of the Russian authors weren't even available in English until the 1920's because people wanted to understand why the Russian revolution happened; before then, Russian literature and culture was seen as backwards and irrelevant. What Tolstoyevsky said about Shakespeare's popularity being due to the work of German philologists is actually sort of true about the Rooshians; they were a historical curiosity that became popular because of a few edgy scenes that satisfy the edgelords such as that guy who kills the old lady and has dreams about donkeys being beaten.

>Dante
Again, just another writer of epics, although he certainly is a master of it. Obviously the Divine Comedy is far superior to, say, Don Juan by Lord Byron. Dante is the only writer here who comes close to Shakespeare and Homer. Maybe he belongs on the same tier as Homer which is within grasping distance of Shakespeare's tier?

>Homer
Homer is a baffling case because it's hard to imagine literature without him. It's a bit like that quote by Russell (?) about philosophy being a footnote to Homer. Literature would not be crippled too much if Joyce, Proust, and Tolstoyevsky had never existed. On the other hand, a world without Homer and Shakespeare is simply unimaginable. Since I am a modern, obviously Shakespeare is more comprehensible and his genius is far easier to comprehend. But Homer, it's a bit more of an effort.

tl;dr Other authors are great, but you're fooling yourself if you think any others deserve the designation "GOAT" equally with Shakespeare.