/lit/ - Literature

>>17941986
He will be forgotten. In hundred years nobody would care to sit through 700 pages of clever references and Irish history. His modernist appeal will also fade like all literary movements do.

>>17941986
>In hundred years nobody would care to sit through 700 pages of clever references and Irish history

have you read the divine comedy?

He was already surpassed in his own lifetime. Proust makes Joyce look like JK Rowling.

>>17942017
proust is a faggot french frog

>>17942006
don't be a smartass the divine comedy has resonated over the years not only because of that

>>17942025
dont be a retard ulysses isnt just irish history and references

>>17942034
Italian kids will read Dante, Irish kids wont read Joyce. Retard i'm not arguing about the literary merits of both but to come on this thread and to think that it could as per OP's question be heralded as much as those other works is daft.

>>17941986
>With time will he join the ranks of Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy?
He literally already has, anon.

>>17942006
All 3 writers in the OP have universal appeal, have always had universal appeal. They don't really belong to any movement and trascended the zeitgeist of their era; Joyce, on the other hand, defined the zeitgeist of his era. We might see Joyce's influence in future literature but I can't see him becoming more than a Thomas Browne at best. (Which is still pretty great)

>>17942025
Ulysses isn't just Irish history. It's a towering work the summizes the entire era of Literature of its time and probes important and lasting questions about the human condition. I have a striking suspicion that you've neither read Dante OR Joyce.

>>17941986
I will surpass him

>>17942096
>They don't really belong to any movement and trascended the zeitgeist of their era
Not true. Shakespeare is 100% a Jacobean poet/play-write, not only historically speaking, but also through the style that defined his work-- he set the bar for the Jacobeans, and absolutely cannot be divorced from that context, no matter how good his works are.

>>17942115
Maybe in sniffing farts, but not in much else, anon.

>>17942006
Divine comedy is never a dud like Ulysses is. That certainly helped.

>>17942100
Exactly, the wordplay and puns of Joyce are probably unequalled in the English language. Not only is he great in himself but he also set a benchmark for others to aspire to.

>>17942128
Literally the only dud-like chapter in Ulysses is its opening and its designed to be that way as a parody of the conventionally bland modern novel.

>>17942118
While that is true, Shakespeare's plays have a standout quality that plays from his time lacked.
And let's be real, Shakespeare has survived because his plays have become tropes and draw in large audiences still. Can the same be said for Joyce and Ulysses? Is there any anything in Ulysses that will appeal to the unwashed masses and become part of the cultural framework? I don't think so, it would have happened if it had to. It's not like Joyce is getting any popular than he did.

>>17942161
Has anything appealed to the unwashed masses from Dante or Tolstoy? Not really aside from the basic characterization of hell aesthetically from Inferno. The place of an author within the realm of the cannon is not contingent on their popularity with the lay public but their influence on the artform itself, which Joyce has already well established at this point. What you're describing is their status as a popular cultural icon to the broader public, a separate issue altogether. Most people in the broader public today wouldn't even know who the fuck any of these people are except for Shakespeare, and they probably couldn't tell you single thing about Shakespeare aside from he wrote Hamlet and Romeo and Juliette.

>>17942137
>as a parody of the conventionally bland modern novel
Ironic that Ulysses became the face of the self indulgent, boring book for the modern audience. If only everybody shared your POV...

>>17942161
But is Shakespeare a fair comparison? Plays and novels are so different I'm not sure comparing the two authors is fair. In terms of an author whose works have "become tropes and draw in large audiences still" and "appeals to the unwashed masses", I think Dickens fits that role and is a more fitting comparison with Shakespeare than Joyce is

>>17941986
>With time will he join the ranks of Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy?
NO. But he will be remembered as a great modernist who led on to the future and did something great in the now, as Pound is.

>>17942178
Idk where you live but Dante and Tolstoy both have works that have ingrained them in public consciousness; and even middle schoolers know about him, Homer, Virgil etc. Joyce's canonical status cannot be contended but response to him is going to be ever meager as centuries roll over. Remember Shakespeare was not considered the flat out best dramatist of his time. Somebody probably had a good case for someone from that era in 1600s too, but here we are.

>>17942096
wrong

>>17942184
you are so stupid it hurts

>>17942185
Agree with Dickens, he is bigger than Joyce and I don't see that changing.
The question in OP is shaky. You can make a case for him on basis of quality but then again, a lot of his contemporaries are unfairly evaluated in his shadow in these circles. I personally rate Faulkner just as highly but not many will agree with me, not because of any considerable difference in quality but because it is Joyce.
Is Milton that technically worse than Dante? I don't think so. Does he deserve to be in conversation with him? Absolutely not. To be on Dante's or Shakespeare's level one has to both capture the unwashed masses and stand up to any meticulous literary examination. Dickens is better suited for the question than Joyce.

>>17942229
You are such a teenage pseud that you should shut up. That's how Ulysses is seen stupid fag, stick your head out of this hole someday.

>>17942258
>That's how Ulysses is seen stupid fag

filtered

>>17942262
>retard doesn't understand the difference between popular opinion and personal
>reddit spaces
All adds up, retard.

>>17942224
100 bucks say you don't even know who Browne is.

>>17941986
No, and your answer lies in your question.

Every writer / man is inherently under who you use to compare him.
Dante and Tolstoy (for example) where the Homer of their time.
You can can compare Joyce to Homer? (lol no) then he can't be in the crew of Shakespeare, Dante and Tolstoy.

>>17941986
He's already the most well known modernist and part of the western canon.

>>17942002
/thread

>>17942597
>part of the western canon
>the western canon

>>17942611
I don't see your point.

>>17942639

>>17942643
It still exists even if trannies are trying to desecrate it.

>>17942597
>The western canon
Were you the Chinaman that said you understood Finnegans Wake easily in broken english? That was a terrible thread.

>>17942664
Imagine if I, living in Iceland, decided to compile a list of the best books written in foreign countries in all ages. Would you take me seriously? No, and that's exactly what happens to Bloom outside his homeland. Enjoy.

>>17942701
people don't even take him seriously here

>>17941986
Joyce was best when he focused on the aesthetic quality of his writing. His desire to innovate was ultimately to his own detriment - if he had written novels in the maturity of his talent with the aestheticism of A Painful Case, or The Dead, or Portrait of the Artist, he could have innovated in terms of themes, like Proust did, rather than in the actual structure and formation of the text, while producing works of the highest aesthetic value. I truly believe that Proust was the better writer of the two, but that Joyce had the natural talent to be Proust's equal, had he not poured himself into the less cogent passages of Ulysses and, later, Finnegan's wake.

Tolstoy remains the greatest novelist. Dante and Shakespeare are the greatest poets (since Homer). Shakespeare remains the greatest overall writer in the English language and its not even close - in terms of the aesthetic, the depth of perception, the ubiquity of his humanism, that Renaissance humanism embodied in figures like Erasmus and More, the celebration of life for life's own sake (which, incidentally, was the root of Tolstoy's issue with him, not seeing or understanding that faith and humanism are not necessarily opposed), and the understanding of that life... Shakespeare takes it.

If we were to consider the greatest English novelist, we are limiting ourselves somewhat. I am English, but French is the more aesthetic language, and Proust and Flaubert remain the titan purely in terms of prose stylism. But the greatest English language novelist is probably George Eliot (on the basis of Middlemarch alone), or Henry James, or maybe Conrad at his best (I discount Nabokov, though he is excellent). It's actually a shame Cardinal Newman didn't write novels, his prose is very good, and Joyce ironically considered him the greatest English prose stylist.

>>17942701
Bloom didn't invent the term.

>>17942701
Harold Bloom isn't synonymous with the Western Canon. While the books included or excluded might be debated, there are objective standards of quality that can be applied to literature, and to argue otherwise is simply denial.

>>17942784
Based. It's easy to tell when someone actually knows what they're talking about

>>17942784
>that Renaissance humanism embodied in figures like Erasmus and More, the celebration of life for life's own sake (which, incidentally, was the root of Tolstoy's issue with him, not seeing or understanding that faith and humanism are not necessarily opposed)

Have you got any recs to read more about this?

>>17941986
Proust is better than every writer you listed

>>17942857
I would recommend Orwell's 'Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool'. You can find it online. There is also a small section addressing Tolstoy's criticism in 'The Genius of Shakespeare' by Jonathan Bate, which is excellent as a book.

>>17942883
>homo jew's persomal experiences
No.

>>17941986
He's already being forgotten.

>>17942901
>he was filtered by Proust
Cope

>>17942883
>>17942925
"Proust? That's not literature."—Cormac McCarthy

>>17942810
>there are objective standards of quality that can be applied to literature, and to argue otherwise is simply denial
Totally off the mark, and your pretentious tone leaves no other option. Those objective standards of quality can be applied only to the ages that you can observe from an external point of view, because otherwise (= if you are internal) they aren't objective but subjective. This means that there will never be a definitive judgment until we are knee-deep in modern age. This is even more true if you consider this current age is specifically an age of critique (cfr. E. Zolla), for which nothing is ever settled and everything is subject to revaluation and rediscovery. More than anything, I'm sure, you can not establish even a single certainty for the 20th century – a globalized, marred and deceitful century. You have no clue. You have read 1/100000000 of what the 20th century has produced. You and Bloom as well.

>>17942784
>he talks about prose stylistics without having read Daniello Bartoli
You wouldn't step on turds every single time if you simply shut your mouth, anglos.

>>17942784
>I am English, but French is the more aesthetic language,
Striver detected. Ironically your own language is far better when stripped of all that cross-pollinated frogshit.

>>17942967
Indeed, I haven't read daniello bartoli. Thanks for the recommendation. However much I read, there always seems to be more to get on to. Still, my point about English prose aesthetics stands.

>>17942554
>Tolstoy was the Homer of his time
Really? I feel like this is a very strange comparison to make

>>17942947
Uhhh you've read too much into the 'pretentious tone' you assumed I had. Absolutely objective standards can be applied to literature, and that INCLUDES taking into account historical contexts. You silly moron

>>17942017
Didn't proust influence joyce though

>>17943013
No, you don't have to read him, stick to Cardinal Newman. It's alright.

>>17943074
You seem like an unpleasant person. All the same, I wish you a good day and a happy Easter.

>>17942967
>conversation about English prose
>brings up an Italian writer

Brainlet

>>17941986
Im not dead yet

Nobody ever goes near Finnegans Wake

Joyce was a BEAST

Something very wrong with this board

>>17943242
there's some big fans on the board, but nah for me it's not worth it. the sound of the language is annoying and the decoded plot seems bland and uninteresting and the polymorphic characters lack any substance to take interest in. i'll pass.

There's almost nothing left

>>17943163
>Can't divorce language from ethnicity
You don't even deserve an insult

>>17943015
During his time Tolstoy was like a rockstar; he was called "the new russian Homer" and "a second Tzar". He wasn't any of them, but such was his fame.

OC spray, ribbonfish snub disphenoid, caird, aggravator forester, jack off, WBA, vendorspeak catabolized, antiloitering, firms, drag the chain, Lorentz group

SSRI, redistrict

for all intents and purposes..

>>17942002

>>17943253
>there's some big fans on the board
All LARPers. Ask them and they scuttle off.

>>17943163
What is cringe is the conviction you can decide who is the greatest of something. Giving absolute judgments is the prime sign of a charlatan.

A B S O L V I T O R

>>17941986
Dante is the only one there whose position is absolutely secured, and the next up would be Milton. The Christian basis of their work will help a lot with its long term survival. Shakespeare I can see being remembered a bit like the Greek tragedians, along with Marlowe, Racine, etc.

Tolstoy will probably just become uninteresting and Joyce completely impossible to understand for generations far into the future.

It's shit, innit?

CREATE SOMETHING

JUST • THINGS

>>17943365
See>>17943365

This board is filled with idiotic children. Don't you guys feel a bit silly constantly discussing who is greater? I thought we left such simplistic methods of judgement to retards that watch sports and compare sports players /lit/

>>17943463
Do you not feel a bit silly discussing which sort of /lit/ poster is better or worse lel

>>17943463
my posts are greater than yours

There's NIGGERS in this thread

>>17941986
>will he join the ranks
He already has.

>>17942002
No one sit through Dante as well. Consolidation of an author in time does not happen because of mass appreciation, but because a small community of autistic people keep talking about the book, thinking about it, writing books by using that as inspiration, etc. This usually coincides with a small part of the academic/intellectual community. They are the only ones responsible for the fact that certain authors are not lost in time by keep talking about them. If you look at the literature on Joyce, he is one of the most studied authors in academia, and one of those whom great writers refer to the most. He has already established Ulysses as a work that will survive for at least a thousand years.

I'm BOARD

>>17943531
>nobody sit through Dante
Millions of normies read Dante, it is literally structured like a fantasy adventure story. It is obviously wrong to pretend it's as hard to read as Ulysses or fucking FW

>>17942784
>the celebration of life for life's own sake
Where the fuck do you get that from? I don't see that at all in Shakespeare.

Wake up, Finnegan

GET REAL ITY

>>17943286
This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read on this board

>>17942002
Same thing could be said of Dante, yet he is continued to be read.

>>17943618
That's because you're a midwit.

https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf

http://www.electrummagazine.com/2010/12/shakespeare-and-the-classics-plutarch-ovid-and-other-sources/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20popular%20colloquial,Classical%20education%20was%20second-hand.&text=That%20Shakespeare%20borrowed%20much%20from,ancient%20writers%20is%20not%20challenged.

For that second link go to 'Shakespeare the Universal Humanist'.

There are scores of sources besides. Shakespeare was clearly enamoured with life and a keen observer and participator of it

>>17943688
Lmao no, it can not be said for Dante.

Dare I say seethe?

Tamasic as

>>17943399
If anything, Dante's and Milton's ties to Christianity will drag them down to obscurity in the future. I don't really think this will happen, but they based in Christian mythology, which the new world is increasingly becoming unfamiliar with. Shakespeare has absolute influence and a continual grasp on general culture.

>>17943926
Shakespeare - Catholic
Dante - Catholic
Mozart - Catholic
Joyce - Catholic

Really gets the noggin joggin. If nothing else faith is manifestly a strong framework to produce meaningful art across the board

>>17943991
God you are so retarded. Yes Shakespeare is catholic (or was supposed to secretly be one), but his works are not based on Christian mythology. Dante and Milton are both draped in Christianity when you consider their writing. Because of this basis, they have a higher chance of falling into obscurity than Shakespeare. The popularity and influence of Christianity has slowly been declining and will only continue to do so.

>>17943926
The notion of God will always be present in any civilization, it doesn't matter in what form. Our current passage is nothing but a brief parenthesis of declining mores. The next age will probably come to respect both Christianism and Paganism, similarly to what happened in the Renaissance.

>>17943688
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>17944040
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just making an observation. I have no comment to make on obscurity.

This has been /lit/

And you have been patterned!

>>17942935
Only stupid Americans care about McCarthy. He is one I can't wait to fall into obscurity. Such mediocre, cold writing.

>>17943531
>He has already established Ulysses as a work that will survive for at least a thousand years.
You have no idea how many "big authors" have been lost to time.
Anyway my answer is in line with OP's post. If you are going to survive only among academics then you are not cut to be ranked alongside Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dante and Cervantes; and Ulysses has had its time in the sun. We might already be past its popularity peak which doesn't bode well for Joyce.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND CULTURE?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND TIME?

INTERPOL

>>17944040
Christianity has lasted for 2000 years and has over 2 billion followers. Shakespearean style Humanism has lasted for at most 500 years and is constrained to a minority of people in the West, who are themselves dying out. Betting on Modern humanism to outlive Christianity is very illogical

>>17944118
>seething Proustfag
McCarthy will always be read more than some homo jew's turgidly written personal diaries nobody but aristocrats care about and only pseuds lap up.

a few people have mentioned itt that Joyce is past the peak of his popularity, is that true?

>>17944118
Hey I don't care or agree but if you really want hurt his fans, dont bother attacking his writing, just remind them that his real name is Charles.

>>17942784
>>17942836
Thinks Newman didn't write novels? Callista and Loss and Gain

>>17944199
Proustfags BTFO

>>17944276
What made you think he is? His peak was right around the decade of Ulysses' publishing, with a spike when Postmodernism was around in the 70s-80s.

>>17944310
Cormac was his Father's nickname given to him by his Gaelic aunt. His father's name is also Charles.

>>17944387
what a fag

>>17944276
I dont see him referenced outside this backwater of a discussion forum. I doubt that will be changing since he was a straight white male.

>>17944387
Cormac was a pseudonym he decided to use because Charles McCarthy was the name of some puppet on television which he considered to be a demeaning thing to be associated with. It's an example of Pride and Artifice.

>>17944406
>For purposes of his writing career, McCarthy changed his first name from Charles to Cormac to avoid confusion, and comparison, with ventriloquist Edgar Bergen's dummy Charlie McCarthy. Cormac had been a family nickname given to his father by his Irish aunts.
Both correct.

>>17944276
>>17944393
Ulysses is semi popular as a meme book everyone namedrops but nobody reads. Not in normie circles though.

>>17944276
I think he'll survive

>>17941986
Moore mogged him with Jerusalem

>>17944060
>The next age will probably come to respect both Christianism and Paganism, similarly to what happened in the Renaissance.
Doubtful, Christianity has become obsolete two centuries ago.

>>17944199
Enjoy only reading surface level literature and being monolingual, faggot

>>17945116
Enjoy reading "not literature."

>>17945116
There is nobody shallower than Proust. Ishiguro rightly called him dry as hell (and Ishiguro knows a thing about dryness) and Evelyn Waugh rightly called him mentally defective.

>>17945289
>dry
what do you mean by this

This is the worst thread going on this board.

I would say a good 5% of people posting have read the major works of the writers listed.

>>17941986
He's been surpassed. Have u read ducks, newburyport? The fact that you think joyce hasnt been surpassed, the fact that you havent read a single work post 1950, the fact that you are ignorant of pomo, the fact that you flaming gae faeggit, the fact that no gaddy, de fack det fin'ginz waek szuccbeegknutzatch teebeeyaytch, and the fact that joyce wrote 4 books... lucy L man is only decent desu

>>17944194
No u

>>17945291
Dry as in boring. Proust must have the largest patches of novelty prose in his works among all the dick-sucked meme writers. Hard to care for in lots of places.

>>17945377
I guarantee you that all the dryness you criticize disappears upon repeated readings of the Search. Perhaps you loathe effort but proust does take some to appreciate him, and the passages where you think he's overdone it will become your favorites, or at the very least sources from where to learn, upon rereading him.

>>17945110
Well, in the West Christianity continues to exert a powerful cultural influence. Islam will probably replace it in Europe, but the concept of God is central to that faith too.

Joyce was the kind of man who didn't repeat himself. Imagine he had written ,say, 5 more novels in the same vein as Ulysses. He would certainly be remembered as a great but instead he devoted nearly 30 years to the Wake

>>17943621
You've never read the Wake.

>>17945418
I barely made it the first time through.
Btw the dryness criticism isn't mine even though I agree with it, it's Ishiguro's. (might have heard of him; Nobel laureate and all)
He is probably good in his native French but I can't be bothered to learn it.

>>17945444
>Islam will replace christianity
Huge meme, you've taken Houellebecq all too seriously friend.

>>17945485
Fair enough, i can't stand reading translations so I understand.

>>17945121
Enjoy reading shitty westerns.
>>17945289
Have you read him or did you just copy the opinions of authors you've heard about?

>>17945492
Probably, my knowledge of the rise of Islam in Europe is dated to 2015. That said, it does seem inevitable to me.

>>17945516
See>>17945485

>>17945516
Enjoy reading dear diary entries of a homo jew

>>17945110
The next step will be the collective realization that all religions are one, although the cultures differ. That's what I meant.