/lit/ - Literature

>>18536500
He's shit and a dogmatic theoretician who knows nothing about good writing.
Also, Hispanic literature is second-rate and derivative when compared to French and English lit. (Yes, I read Spanish.)

>>18536517


RECUÉSTATE, Y MUÉRETE, ANGLOIDE.

>>18536517
>french
>good
Literal NPC.

>>18536500
His only Spiel is defending Spain against imaginary enemies that he conjures up in his mind. A modern Don Quijote.

>>18536629
Não sou anglo. A literatura espanhola é uma merda.

>>18536634
Rabelais, Villon, Moliere, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Valery, Flaubert, Corbiere, Celine... Deal with it.

>>18536664
>Villon
Literal murderer scoundrel

>Rimbaud
Wrote maybe 100 pages of decent literature

>Corbiere
LOL

Deal with it you will never be on the level of the Russians, the Germans, or the chinks. Your country is one disaster after another, both philosophically and artistically. All the ills of the modern world, all the tribalisms and consumerisms, they are on you frogs, and your despicable obscurantism.

>>18536692
>your country

Well, I literally wrote in Portuguese and you still think France is my country? Goes to show you haven't read any of those in the original, as you clearly cannot differentiate French from Portuguese.

>>18536743
WOAH BROS I CAN USE GOOGLGE TRANSLATE TO EMULATE THE LEVEL OF A 3 YEAR OLD NATIVE SPEAKER, WOAH, HOWEVER WILL ANON RECOVER????????

>>18536664
Out of curiosity, what Spanish authors have you read and what Portuguese/Brazilian novelists would you recommend instead?

>>18536743
>lying anglo can't even understand the concept of polyglotism

>>18536750
>what Spanish authors have you read

Many. A few dozens, maybe, but more than 100 if you count poets I've read in anthologies.

>and what Portuguese/Brazilian novelists would you recommend instead

Why do you assume I would recommend Lusophone authors *instead* of Spanish ones? I don't judge literature based on nationalistic criteria. Lusophone literature is even worse than its Spanish counterpart.
It's not shit, of course, I was being provocative, it's actually great, but Anglo and French literature are better, more influential, more original, and more interesting.

>>18536754
Why on Earth would I write in Portuguese when replying to a Spanish guy if my native language were French? Makes no sense. Imbecile.

>>18536773
>Why do you assume I would recommend Lusophone authors
People who shit on any given national lit tend to be quite far up their own asses, so I took my chances. I've been meaning to get into Lusophone lit for a while, since I don't get much out of Spanish prosists anymore and poetry tends to filter me.

>>18536818
Read Lobo Antunes, Eça, and Pessoa. They're the best ones. From Brazil, I'd recommend Euclides da Cunha and Jorge de Lima, but you won't find any books by Jorge de Lima outside of Brazil, so you can read Carlos Drummond instead, though some of his poetry is rather kitsch a lot of it is quite good.
As for Camões, well, he has magnificent moments and rather boring ones too. But the best music of the language is to be found in the Lusíadas.

>>18536664
Cevantes > Rabelais
Calderón and Lope > Moliere
Manrique > Villon
Baudelaire - Actually good
Rimbaud - Haven't read
Valery - Laughably bad. I read cimetière marin and inmediatley dropped the anthology
Flaubert - Actually good
Corbiere - Lmao
Celine - Actually good

Now tell me how the great Spanish poetical tradition from Góngora to Lorca is surpassed by the French flamboyant, pretentious and often empty manierism of the French.

>>18536846
It's impossible for a foreigner to enjoy Eça.

>>18536846
Thanks.
By the way, have you had any contact with Galician literature? I was reading an avant-garde manifesto from 1922 and came across this:
>Mestre: Chamámoslie mestre por ser vostede o "mestre" da Xuventude Imbécil de Galicia. Noso non; que, endebén, sabemos comparar a súa modernidade coa cobardía do debre que tan só pode vivir facendo claudicantes concesións ó forte. Non tería o seu nome acolleita nestas liñas se quixeramos tan só chamarlle aquilo. Pero ten que ser ó falar dese fato de cabezas focas, nenos "foulard e de rubi", engaiolados polo innegable prestigio da prosa e da ridícula mentira dunha epopeia aventureira que vostede, unha e outra, falsifican.
>Sabemos que con intermedios himnarios ó Gran Pontifice da baldeireza en traxe de festa (Este Gran D. Ramón ...) entran a estrago pola fala meseteira, con gran desprestigio dela, por certo. Tamén sabemos que adoecen de imbecilidade, inxénita ou contaxiada, e que a vostede lle debemos o telos levado para "alá". Isto derradeiro é cousa que nunca ben lle agradeceremos.
>Agora, o que quixeramos conseguir da súa incensada personalidade sería que intensificase a campaña castelanizante porque nos arrepía o pensamento de que eles se coidasen chamados por estas nosas verbas de mocidade e chegase algún a desertar de la "lengua de Cervantes" para vir a baldeirar na nosa Fala as produccións do seu serrín encefálico. Esto estaría moi mal. Mal para o castelán, idioma oficial da cursilería, que, polo mesmo ten dereito a aquelas cousas, e mal para o galego, digno de moita mellor sorte.
>E a vós, pobriños mamaleites literarios, desexámosvos cordialmente que calquera día vos publiquen un verso na derradeira folla dunha desas indixentes revistas madrileñas, doada palestra dos vosos esforzos, que é o máximo desiderátum voso. Madrid precísavos para personaxes da súa opereta.
It's a fine bit of shitposting.

>>18536915
It's impossible for anyone that values brevity to enjoy Eça.

>>18536517
French doesn't have a word for death

>>18536848
>Manrique > Villon

No, he isn't. Manrique is a Petrarch imitator, third-rate.
The Spanish poetic tradition is sheer imitation. Its poets are rhetorical, use too many adjectives, adverbs, and offer little substance. Not to mention the exclamation points...
Lorca is a very good one, but even Machado is often sheer rhetoric.
Here's an example by Manrique:

"VII. ESPARZA
Ya callé males sufriendo
y sufrí penas callando,
padescí no mereciendo
y merescí padesciendo
los bienes que no demando:

Si ell esfuerzo qu´he tenido
para calar y sofrir,
tuviera parara decir,
no sintiera mi vivir
los dolores que ha sentido."

The first stanza is typical Petrarchist antithesis which any high school student has already heard a thousand times before, imitated by a thousand of his 16th cent. countrymen.
The second stanza is sentimentalistic kitsch crap, like 90% of Spanish and Portuguese literature.
*Notice also the absence of concrete nouns, real-life images, original metaphors or similes. There is nothing in it, only rhetoric, and this is the main problem with Spanish literature*.
Imagine yourself reciting that to a woman. She would scorn at you, and correctly so.

>Cevantes > Rabelais
>Calderón and Lope > Moliere

Defensible views.

>Valery - Laughably bad. I read cimetière marin and inmediatley dropped the anthology

Way better than Machado. He has substance. You probably didn't understand any of it, as the philosophical charge is quite strong. I recommend reading an annotated version of La Jeune Parque or something.
I am not blaming you, though, as I myself needed annotations to start understanding him.

>Corbiere - Lmao

Have you even read him?
Anyway, if you don't like him, put Mallarmé, Gautier, Verlaine, de Nerval, even Hugo instead. French lit. doesn't lack names.
But Corbiere was very influential on Pound and Eliot, and hence on the whole of modernism.

Your literature is purely average. Each country that had Petrarchist influence had at least ten or so Manriques, ten or so Luis de Leons. You only don't realize this because of your ignorance. I could quote passages *very similar* to that poem by Manrique, written by Sá de Miranda, António Ferreira, Camões, and so on. Those are average too.
Keep in mind that "average" means it has a few very high moments, but in general I wouldn't recommend that a Russian learn Spanish in order to read Spanish poetry, while I'd definitely tell him to learn English or French. I tend to think this is the overall feeling for anyone throughout the world who isn't entirely biased, for political reasons that have nothing to do with writing, in favor of Spain.
I won't discuss any further, because it's useless. You are heavily influenced by politics.

>>18538818
Literature isn't about substance, better read philosophy

>>18539137
By substance I mean concrete images, metaphors, subjects, things seen by the author, i.e., real life.
Manrique's poetry is nothing but an imitation of Petrarchist rhetoric, there's absolutely nothing else to it. He's just saying Ancient *platitudes* in a Petrarchean way, but in Spanish.

Why are Spaniards still trying to push this meme? Don't they understand that he's cringe and obnoxious?

>>18536500
Esta fotografía no puede menos que transmitir ese sentimiento tan patricio, el de tener la mejor literatura del mundo que deja llorando de envidia a los anglos, franceses y alemanes. Simplemente, no pueden competir.

>>18539353
¿Te arde?

>>18536773
>more than 100 if you count poets I've read in anthologies.
absolute pleb

For a second I thought it was Pelevin and was surprised

>>18538818
>You are heavily influenced by politics.
It's you the one who is so heavily biased by the worthless academic standards set in place around the cultural hegemony of Central Europe, and what's worth is that you fail to realise it.
I can leave aside my national bias and affirm that the English language has a superior literary tradition than the Spanish one, but I will never accept the artificial preeminence of French literature put in place by the powers that be.
I say so having read extensively in those three languages.
Forget about Manrique, can you find a writer with the depth and aesthetic sensibility on par with San Juan de la Cruz in French? Or Santa Teresa and Sor Juana Inés? If you have the gall to say Marguerite Porete I will simply laugh in your face.
This is whitout mentioning the great American writers that continued to enrich the language in the 20th century.
If you were conpletely honest and not some assblasted Portuguese nationalist you would admit that Spanish is one of the greatest literary languages in the world.

>>18538371
That's because there's no such thing.

Has anyone actually read him?

>>18540006
>Forget about Manrique, can you find a writer with the depth and aesthetic sensibility on par with San Juan de la Cruz in French? Or Santa Teresa and Sor Juana Inés?

Pascal, Montaigne, Proust, Valery are all way better than those minor Christian writers.
San Juan's Noche Escura is a typical Petrarch-derived poem. For instance:

''5. ¡Oh noche que guiaste!
¡oh noche amable más que el alborada!
¡oh noche que juntaste
Amado con amada,
amada en el Amado transformada!''

Camões was writing pretty much the same thing. "Transforma-se o amador na cousa amada'' etc. Even the words are very similar. Sheer fashion. Nothing original in it. It gets boring real soon. In fact, I'd argue that Petrarchism wastes itself away in Petrarch himself. Poets were too lazy to notice, though.

>and not some assblasted Portuguese nationalist

Again, here you are projecting your own sickness onto everyone else. You simply *assume* that everyone is a nationalist, just like you.
Go have sex, seriously. Once you have sex, you will start valuing your nation less and yourself more.
(I am Brazilian, by the way.)

>>18539353
No, they don't. They really think the whole world in on a big conspiracy against Spain.

>>18540843
No, I just watch the compilations of his funniest moments and repeat everything he says

>>18540910
>Go have sex
If they're proper disciples of Maestro they will now reply that they don't have any sexual frustrations because they aren't protestants.

Regardless of how we might feel about Spanish lit as a whole, can we at least all agree that Juan Ramón Jiménez was a hack?

>>18540963
No, he did write a few good poems.
But, yes, he was certainly overrated. Don't know why he won the Nobel, but then again the Nobel has always been a joke.