/lit/ - Literature

>>17927439
Hey bitch faggot, I'm real.

>>17927453
You're just an everlastingly resounding shadow of your own reputation

>>17927439

You’re close to correct, but not regarding 20th century fabulism. That’d be a debt to Sterne

>>17927480
Ovid or Chaucer?

Petrarch was more influential than all of them, just sayin

>>17927571
>We don't even know whether Homer is the real author of the Iliad and the Odyssey or not
How is that relevant? The texts were made by a conscious human being, call it Homer or whatever, their importance and value are still the same.
>It's funny how almost every single piece of literature since those men's time is just a mere iteration of their works
You clearly know absolutely nothing about the history of literature. It took a few centuries for each of those writers to actually spread out and influence the literatures outside of their native one.

>>17927571
But, going by OP's logic, without Dante there would be no Petrarca, so really he's still "subordinate" to Dante.

>>17927571
Dante literally built the italian language from the ground up
Shakespeare is the root of modern english grammatical conventions
What did petrarch do?

>>17927439
>Muh Homer problem
Completely irrelevant. We ascribe a name and face to a specific writer, so here we are. His ideas may have not been original, it's influence cannot be understated

>>17927618
>How is that relevant? The texts were made by a conscious human being, call it Homer or whatever, their importance and value are still the same.
I never denied their importance and value, my thread's underlying subject is first and foremost about real persons who have existed in history. Secondly, there is a big difference if the texts were made by one man, or several (or many) others: an individually composed work of the same quality as that of a collaborative one will always outweigh it in terms of Faustian achievement and cause of admiration by the readers. I would've included Homer in the pic if it wasn't for his dubious historical account of his persona.

>You clearly know absolutely nothing about the history of literature. It took a few centuries for each of those writers to actually spread out and influence the literatures outside of their native one.
Literature wasn't really widespread as a whole until the invention of the steam-driven printing machines in the early 19th century when the art would become more available to the average public and stimulate more people to write, as there weren't many attempts at it in the meantime. That's why I said in the beginning 'almost every single piece of literature'.

>>17927439
Shakespeare is just an anglo invention.
The big three are Homer, Dante and Cervantes.

Who?

>>17927632
>What did petrarch do?
He was the first renaissance writer, the one who made the sonnet a highly esteemed poetic form central to European literature and who defined the style of love poetry for the next several centuries.
Shakespeare was strongly influenced by him (at the very least indirectly, due to the general influence of him upon the English lit), even in the negative sense (in the anti-petrarcistic sonnets at the end of his book of sonnets, whose originality is fully realised only when contrasted with Petrarca's standard).
>Dante literally built the italian language from the ground up
>Shakespeare is the root of modern english grammatical conventions
Both of these statements are wrong (or so hyperbolic that they're misguiding).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language
>The language that came to be thought of as Italian developed in central Tuscany and was first formalized in the early 14th century through the works of Tuscan writer Dante Alighieri, written in his native Florentine. Dante's epic poems, known collectively as the Commedia, to which another Tuscan poet Giovanni Boccaccio later affixed the title Divina, were read throughout the peninsula and his written dialect became the "canonical standard" that all educated Italians could understand. Dante is still credited with standardizing the Italian language. In addition to the widespread exposure gained through literature, the Florentine dialect also gained prestige due to the political and cultural significance of Florence at the time and the fact that it was linguistically an intermediate between the northern and the southern Italian dialects.[14]:22 Thus the dialect of Florence became the basis for what would become the official language of Italy.
As for Shakespeare, his contribution was not in the grammar, but in the rich vocabulary. See The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language by David Crystal, pp. 62-63

>>17927725
>Literature wasn't really widespread as a whole until the invention of the steam-driven printing machines in the early 19th century when the art would become more available to the average public and stimulate more people to write, as there weren't many attempts at it in the meantime. That's why I said in the beginning 'almost every single piece of literature'.
You've completely derailed the point here. Yes, we're ignoring oral literature, and the point is in the written literature. Even within the realm of written literature, these three were slow to influence most other national traditions. Chaucer was influenced by Boccaccio, Shakespeare's context and predecessors were defined by Petrarca's work, and none of those writers cared much about Dante - who was translated into English for the first time only in the 19th century. Shakespeare was unknown on the European continent until the late 18th century.

>>17927902
I think you misunderstood me here. What I meant to say is that the influence of these three writers is more prevalent in the period from 19th century onwards, and as the bulk of literature having been produced in that period of time due to the technical facilitation of printing, it could be rightly said that they are the biggest influencing figures in that art based on the quantity of produced literature that's inspired by their works. Hence my aforementioned saying 'almost every single piece of literature', not counting most, if all, of the works produced before that period.

>>17927632
>What did petrarch do?
Are you asking seriously? He's the foundation of Western lyrical poetry as we know it today.

>>17927439
Dante is a hack, paradiso is shit. Shakespear is figure bloated by german romantics. Homer invent literature, Cervantes legitimized prose as its main form.

>>17927735
Listen to this.
Honestly, I could even go for Cervantes, Montagne and Goethe.

>>17928254
>Homer invent literature,
Yes.

>Cervantes legitimized prose as its main form.
Putting prose over poetry is naeive, but Cervantes did do that.

>>17928254
>>17928279
>Cervantes legitimized prose as its main form
Pretty sure that was Boccaccio

>>17928279
naive is to fetter your art by the fact that it should be like a stupid chaildren song, where each sentence ends with the same syllable

>>17928309
Omg it's you again anon, I remember last thread you were saying "children write poetry in school, but they don't write novels" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU ARE SUCH A RETARD AHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

.

>>17928318
Lmao, im another anon, but dude you tolking about get a point.

>HAHA YOU ARE SUCH A RETARD
Its you argument?

>>17928309
God, you are a retard though. I mean, look at the way you tried to dismiss poetry. Please educate yourself, it's free

>>17928337
So you're telling me you're not the other anon with the exact same point?

>>17928356
Just admit that you do not like literature and ready to listen to any nonsense if it sounds like a moronic song, just perceiving it at the level of a baboon swinging to the sound of a drum. Poetry is literature for childrens. How dude with brain of a baboon can tall me to educate myself?

>>17928366
I see you can read

>>17927439
>Cervantes
Is he known out of Spain? Wow

>>17927439
Don Quixote is great but prose fiction is still the worst form of literature. Shakespeare is way too overrated by Anglos.

>>17928393
Well then let me ask you, do you think poetry has no other advantage than sounding like a children's song?

>>17928548
exactly

>>17928564
*Ahem* You are a retard.

i have no idea who these authors are, i only read new books

>>17927439
Did Dante and Cervantes write anything else besides the Divine Comedy and Don Quixote respectively? They’re both groundbreaking works in their own right, but Shakespeare was so prolific I feel like he leaves them both in the dust.

>>17928629
Dante also wrote Dante's Inferno, you moron

>>17928577
No? you.

>>17928629
Vita Nuova, De Monarchia and Dante's sonnets in general are masterpieces.

>Cervantes

>for a picaresque novel

Lmao

>>17928629
Are you retarded?

>>17928688
filtered

>the big three of literature

More like the big four.

>>17928629
The Novelas Ejemplares (novellas/ short novels) and the Cerco de Numancia (drama) are great works on their own and within their respective genres.

>>17928254
>Dante is a hack, paradiso is shit
show me your writings and how there are no shit
>Shakespear is figure bloated by german romantics
woah woah woah, easy there retard

>>17927439


THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS.

>>17928386
Learn english my friend

>>17929543
>show me your writings
that a argument on dante? rofl

>>17929650


WHY?

>>17929650
This.

>>17930366
BECAUSE
>QUANT AUX ANGLAIS, JE NE PEUX VOUS SAVOIR MAUVAIS GRÉ DE VOUS ÊTRE UN PEU MOQUÉ DE GILLES SHAKESPEAR;C'ÉTAIT UN SAUVAGE QUI AVAIT DE L'IMAGINATION; IL A FAIT MÊME QUELQUES VERS HEUREUX, MAIS SES PIÈCES NE PEUVENT PLAIRE QU'À LONDRES, ET AU CANADA.
- VOLTAIRE
>THERE ARE MOMENTS WHEN ONE ASKS DESPAIRINGLY WHY OUR STAGE SHOULD EVER HAVE BEEN CURSED WITH THIS “IMMORTAL” PILFERER OF OTHER MEN’S STORIES AND IDEAS, WITH HIS MONSTROUS RHETORICAL FUSTIAN, HIS UNBEARABLE PLATITUDES, HIS PRETENTIOUS REDUCTION OF THE SUBTLEST PROBLEMS OF LIFE TO COMMONPLACES AGAINST WHICH A POLYTECHNIC DEBATING CLUB WOULD REVOLT, HIS INCREDIBLE UNSUGGESTIVENESS, HIS SENTENTIOUS COMBINATION OF READY REFLECTION WITH COMPLETE INTELLECTUAL STERILITY, AND HIS CONSEQUENT INCAPACITY FOR GETTING OUT OF THE DEPTH OF EVEN THE MOST IGNORANT AUDIENCE, EXCEPT WHEN HE SOLEMNLY SAYS SOMETHING SO TRANSCENDENTLY PLATITUDINOUS THAT HIS MORE HUMBLE-MINDED HEARERS CANNOT BRING THEMSELVES TO BELIEVE THAT SO GREAT A MAN REALLY MEANT TO TALK LIKE THEIR GRANDMOTHERS. WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF HOMER, THERE IS NO EMINENT WRITER, NOT EVEN SIR WALTER SCOTT, WHOM I CAN DESPISE SO ENTIRELY AS I DESPISE SHAKESPEARE WHEN I MEASURE MY MIND AGAINST HIS.
- G.B. SHAW

>>17931181
>ПOMHЮ TO УДИBЛEHЬE, КOTOPOE Я ИCПЫTAЛ ПPИ ПEPBOM ЧTEHИИ ШEКCПИPA. Я OЖИДAЛ ПOЛУЧИTЬ БOЛЬШOE ЭCTETИЧECКOE HACЛAЖДEHИE. HO, ПPOЧTЯ OДHO ЗA ДPУГИM CЧИTAЮЩИECЯ ЛУЧШИMИ EГO ПPOИЗBEДEHИЯ: «КOPOЛЯ ЛИPA», «POMEO И ЮЛИЮ», «ГAMЛETA», «MAКБETA», Я HE TOЛЬКO HE ИCПЫTAЛ HACЛAЖДEHИЯ, HO ПOЧУBCTBOBAЛ HEOTPAЗИMOE OTBPAЩEHИE, CКУКУ И HEДOУMEHИE O TOM, Я ЛИ БEЗУMEH, HAХOДЯ HИЧTOЖHЫMИ И ПPЯMO ДУPHЫMИ ПPOИЗBEДEHИЯ, КOTOPЫE CЧИTAЮTCЯ BEPХOM COBEPШEHCTBA BCEM OБPAЗOBAHHЫM MИPOM, ИЛИ БEЗУMHO TO ЗHAЧEHИE, КOTOPOE ПPИПИCЫBAETCЯ ЭTИM OБPAЗOBAHHЫM MИPOM ПPOИЗBEДEHИЯM ШEКCПИPA. HEДOУMEHИE MOE УCИЛИBAЛOCЬ TEM, ЧTO Я BCEГДA ЖИBO ЧУBCTBOBAЛ КPACOTЫ ПOЭЗИИ BO BCEХ EE ФOPMAХ; ПOЧEMУ ЖE ПPИЗHAHHЫE BCEM MИPOM ЗA ГEHИAЛЬHЫE ХУДOЖECTBEHHЫE ПPOИЗBEДEHИЯ COЧИHEHИЯ ШEКCПИPA HE TOЛЬКO HE HPABИЛИCЬ MHE, HO БЫЛИ MHE OTBPATИTEЛЬHЫ? ДOЛГO Я HE BEPИЛ CEБE И B ПPOДOЛЖEHИE ПЯTИДECЯTИ ЛET ПO HECКOЛЬКУ PAЗ ПPИHИMAЛCЯ, ПPOBEPЯЯ CEБЯ, ЧИTATЬ ШEКCПИPA BO BCEХ BOЗMOЖHЫХ BИДAХ: И ПO-PУCCКИ, И ПO-AHГЛИЙCКИ, И ПO-HEMEЦКИ B ПEPEBOДE ШЛEГEЛЯ, КAК MHE COBETOBAЛИ; ЧИTAЛ ПO HECКOЛЬКУ PAЗ И ДPAMЫ, И КOMEДИИ, И ХPOHИКИ И БEЗOШИБOЧHO ИCПЫTЫBAЛ BCE TO ЖE: OTBPAЩEHИE, CКУКУ И HEДOУMEHИE.
1/2

>>17931187
>CEЙЧAC, ПEPEД ПИCAHИEM ЭTOЙ CTATЬИ, 75-ЛETHИM CTAPИКOM, ЖEЛAЯ EЩE PAЗ ПPOBEPИTЬ CEБЯ, Я BHOBЬ ПPOЧEЛ BCEГO ШEКCПИPA OT «ЛИPA», «ГAMЛETA», «OTEЛЛO» ДO ХPOHИК ГEHPИХOB, «TPOИЛA И КPECCИДЫ», «БУPИ» И «ЦИMБEЛИHA» И C EЩE БOЛЬШEЙ CИЛOЙ ИCПЫTAЛ TO ЖE ЧУBCTBO, HO УЖE HE HEДOУMEHИЯ, A TBEPДOГO, HECOMHEHHOГO УБEЖДEHИЯ B TOM, ЧTO TA HEПPEPEКAEMAЯ CЛABA BEЛИКOГO, ГEHИAЛЬHOГO ПИCATEЛЯ, КOTOPOЙ ПOЛЬЗУETCЯ ШEКCПИP И КOTOPAЯ ЗACTABЛЯET ПИCATEЛEЙ HAШEГO BPEMEHИ ПOДPAЖATЬ EMУ, A ЧИTATEЛEЙ И ЗPИTEЛEЙ, ИЗBPAЩAЯ CBOE ЭCTETИЧECКOE И ЭTИЧECКOE ПOHИMAHИE, OTЫCКИBATЬ B HEM HECУЩECTBУЮЩEE ДOCTOИHCTBO, ECTЬ BEЛИКOE ЗЛO, КAК И BCЯКAЯ HEПPABДA.
>L.N. TOLSTOY

>>17931192
Tolstoy was a complete retard
>The greatest paradox in the history of poetic art lies in this: that in all that constitutes the greatness of the old poets a man may be a barbarian, faulty and deformed from top to toe, and still remain the greatest of poets. This is the case with Shakespeare, who, as compared with Sophocles, is like a mine of immeasurable wealth in gold, lead, and rubble, whereas Sophocles is not merely gold, but gold in its noblest form, one that almost makes us forget the money-value of the metal. But quantity in its highest intensity has the same effect as quality. That is a good thing for Shakespeare.

>>17931376
>Tolstoy was a complete retard
>proceeds to quote Nietzsche

>>17928629
Lope de Vega, "El monstruo de la naturaleza", leaves Shakespeare in the dust by the same metric, and he's actually good, not a product of the madness of Anglo jealousy. Even so, nothing that Shakespeare wrote compares to the genius of either la Commedia or El Quijote. Quality beats quantity.

>>17927632
Spenser literally created modern english poetry, meaning he cleaned up the shitshow that chaucer made.

>>17927735
Cervantes is great, but no way is he a part of the big three

>>17927439
Dostoyevsky

>>17928309
jesus christ this is one of the most retarded things i have ever seen

>>17928386
You realize prose has spoken value, right? You do realize that language is meant to be spoken, right? You realize all of written literature has an audible quality, even when you aren't literally speaking, right? Damn you are retarded.

>>17928640
ok, now this made me laugh

>>17927439
>Anglo spotted

>>17929650
YOU ARE GAY

>>17932001
seethe

Have any of you actually read Quijote? I did because my native tongue is Spanish but idk about you larpers.

Just so you know Quijote was written in ancient Spanish, so if you are reading a translation it is probably very different from the original text. Even Spanish speakers have trouble reading it because of its vocabulary and grammar.

TLDR: learn Spanish if you want to read Quijote and then buy an edition with footnotes to understand it as it is written in ancient Spanish. Definitely not an easy read.

>>17932659

>SIGLOS XVI A XVII.

>«ANCIENT SPANISH».


...