/lit/ - Literature

Lorca wasn't a bad poet, but he was a better playwright.

Are you brain dead OP? The value of a critic does not depend on how closely his value judgements match up with yours.

Stevens was a pretty good poet, but the fact that he hated Eliot while also holding Hart Crane as his favorite 20th century poet is just hilarious. He also went on a long tangent about how Blood Meridian is, in essence, about gun control and school shootings.

>>17582374
Who are you quoting?

>>17582374
Bloom is "Oh look, I'm an American Jew so I must be smart" tier garbage. Read Stephen Hinds instead.

>>17582409
He doesn’t have any insight or facility with language either. So there’s nothing there. Feel free to cry about it though.

>>17582442
To be fair to the oaf, he started letting go of his Eliot prejudice near the end of his life. He talked pretty regularly in the later pieces and interviews about how great Eliot is.

>>17582374
>Loved Whitman best and basically judged poets by how Whitmanian they are. Whitman is good but grow up.
Whitman is extremely influential. His influence on poetry in the Americas is virtually unquantifiable. That's a fair position to take.
>Called Melville’s the Confidence Man unreadable. Didn’t like Clarel either.
He wasn't wrong to say so. He also left Clarel in his Canon list, so I assume he had at least some appreciation of it.
>Called anyone who was ever slightly critical of the jews a bad writer despite speaking out constantly against a group of bogies called “the school of resentment”.
He praised Céline.
>Always neurotically tried to get past Poe because his mentor lauded him (anxiety of influence there)
Yup.
>Thought Lorca was a great poet
He was.
>Thought Stevens was a great poet
He was.
>Was a hardline stratfordian
Source?

>>17582374
>Always neurotically tried to get past Poe because his mentor lauded him (anxiety of influence there)
Kek Freud did this too. Why do jews hide their intellectual influences?

>>17582485
Influence doesn’t equal quality. It’d be like the preeminent music critic shilling the Beatles, which I’m sure they do, whoever they are. And yes he was absolutely wrong about Clarel. It’s one of the greatest poetic works ever produced in America. But the thing that really disqualifies your non argument is liking Lorca. What the fuck? You absolute pleb. Dude, the silver horse climbed the crimson sky and met a skeleton in the clouds. Woah...

Honestly I’m fine with having differing opinions but the two things that rub me wrong about him are this.

1= his application Luria/Kabbalah to interpretation/literary analysis is pretty shallow/skin-deep, his treatment of the sephiroth and their correspondences makes no real sense and this is best seen in him placing Shakespeare as kether-of-Kether, which would make Shakespeare the highest part of Godhead, but also completely ignoring the aesthetic and philosophical implications of what kether even means.

2= I honestly don’t understand the hate against Poe, I’ve looked into his complaints and I see nothing of substance. Maybe it’s because I coomsoom decadents and that’s just my taste but there’s just so much hate towards poe, so much calling him childish. But Ive never seen a specific example, and say what you want, there’s a reason the raven is one of the most popular poems in English as a whole.

>>17582579
>I honestly don’t understand the hate against Poe, I’ve looked into his complaints and I see nothing of substance.
It’s literally because he was trying to differentiate himself from Northrop Frye, the superior critic.

>>17582579
Good evening. You didn't respond to my question in a previous thread, so I will pester you with it again.
>Salve etiam atque etiam litterarum decus -- in primus sint 99 examinati. Quomodo se res habent tuæ? Te rogo, quare Nasonem, quem, ut ait vir disertissmus Quintillianus, præstare poterit si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere maluisset, plurimi æstimes aliosque poetas malis. Si me diligas, quæstionem hanc tractabis diligenter...

Prove you're not a pseud and answer me.

>>17582579
>I honestly don’t understand the hate against Poe
I've seen a shit-ton of hate against him from literary circles too, and I don't understand it either; the guy was weird, wrote pretty good, and was highly influential. If anything, I would say he's very "basic" (literally babby's first decent into "real literature") but I think that's just because we've all been exposed to his influence before being exposed to him, so he doesn't come off as original

idk, I like his poetry, probably not the best out there but it's weirdly comfy

>>17582579
Bloom couldn't explain why he loved what works he did either. He seemed incapable of quantifying anything.

>>17582651
Yes he’s the best argument ever against the idea that reading makes you smarter and more articulate. Few read as much as he did and few said as little of value ever. He had some charisma though and that’s what he got by on. But his head seemed empty.

>>17582606
I don’t speak Latin, anon. Pic related is the languages I know, what I have interest in and so forth. Surely if I asked a question in Romani you also would ignore, tu chi jhanas khako, chi mos-sai. Ive always kept it clear that when I’ve read Italian or Latin or Greek authors ive read in translation, anon. If that makes me a pseud, so be it.

>>17582594
Never read him.

>>17582641
I mostly see people calling him diseased and childish honestly.

>>17582651
I noticed that the most on his writing on William Blake, he explains Blake got him into poetry and how he’s had a life long love of Blake, so I was very excited to hear his hot takes, and he gave me nothing about it.

>>17582679
He was sensitive, let's not take that away. Reading as much as he did, his sense of aesthetic was finely honed even if he couldn't explain it. Poetry is not my game --yet-- but James wood praised his poetry recs, and he is his most vocal critic.

>>17582712
>Never read him.
You should, really. The only genius critic of the twentieth century.

>hardline stratfordian
what's wrong with this? Unless I'm misreading what you mean

>>17582712
I can teach you Greek and Latin (and German for that matter) for a reasonable price. I politely revoke the pseud comment.

>>17582728
What’s wrong is there’s no evidence or compelling argument for it and that Oxford was Shakespeare.

>>17582742
except for all the people from the time that referred to him directly?

>>17582790
Oh wow I never thought of that. What a powerful argument. Watch Alexander Waugh’s videos and learn about the climate of Elizabethan cryptology.

>>17582606
You abandoned your thread philolochad, what are your 3 favorite books?

>>17582813
yeah, dude, it was a massive conspiracy conducted within an industry that comprised of a three figure sum of people

>>17582846
All the suggestions were meme books, anon. Plus enough irony to kill DFW thrice. It was a shit thread, so I left. I'll start another one this weekend in the hope of better results.
>Ilias (in original), I have memorised the first 300 verses of book I and can recite it at will
>Vergil's Eclogues (in original, especially 3 and 10)
>Der Zauberberg
Yes, I am German. Yes, I am based. Yes, that is a strange combination.

>>17582579
He kinda gets into the Poe in "The Art of Reading Poetry" where he compares his "Alone" with Emerson's "Rhodora" and Byron's "Lara". But basically he's jingly, flaccid and was way outdone in what he was trying to do by others. I'm inclined to agree, he's got nothing on the french who loved him imo. He's alright but has a very basic verve and is just overrated as fuck, especially by normies.

>>17582442
>he hated Eliot
as a critic. he praises his poetry

>>17582553
>Influence doesn’t equal quality.
In this case it does.
> Dude, the silver horse climbed the crimson sky and met a skeleton in the clouds. Woah...
You've been filtered. Let me guess, you like Rimbaud's dense metaphors but don't like Lorca's? If so, your cognitive dissonance is showing, and if you don't like Rimbaud, then you probably know nothing about poetry.

>>17582723
Kenneth Burke and Empson would like a word.

>>17582737
Thanks anon, but I would like to learn Hebrew first.

>>17582913
I mean; I like very much Jingly, because to you it might be jingly, I see in it the same style as the soothsayer rhyming style in China or the like, it’s very akin to ritualistic stuff. As for flaccid, I mean I don’t know what that means practically, was he basic and not very experimental, was he uncaring about the sentimental, was he “like wearing a ring on every finger” yeah, but I like all that stuff. Kek. He does what he likes to do well and he sticks with that. And I think only like, two of his poems are even read often/overrated but again, I still think they’re effective on a mythic level which many poets simply do not have the skill to do, the mythic I mean.

>>17583002
I know Hebrew too, even took a state regulated exam for it.

>>17583013
Based, what’s your favorite book you’ve read in Hebrew? How many languages do you even know? I’d like to one day create translations of a ton of Kabbalistic lit

>>17582374
>called anyone who was ever slightly critical of jews a bad writer
Source? His canon is literally filled to the brim with authors who certainly weren't to kind to Jews

>>17583027
I am a philologist by profession, so I know Hebrew, Greek and Latin fluently. I speak German, English (obviously), Italian, French and a bit of Russian. יר הַשִּׁירִיםשִּׁ is the best Hebrew lit, other than some Yiddish folk songs that are not properly Hebrew.

>>17583104
Unrelated but there is also a good thread active now with some original poetry that is very /lit/ (look for a profile of Ezra Pound). Bump and critique, anons. I have already done the same.