/lit/ - Literature

>>21760073
Name five

>>21760073
List some examples. You're just saying things with nothing to back it up.

>>21760073
Agreed. He was fantastically average.

>>21760078
Ben Jonson
John Donne
Christopher Marlowe
John Fletcher
John Webster
(have I put enough penis-named fellows on there yet?)

>>21760083
See above. Shakespeare was maddeningly average and it shows in his deliberately obtuse, yet dreadfully empty writing.

>>21760126
And yet somehow he’ll be known through the ages and no one will remember your name when you’re gone. Fascinating

>>21760206
Pathetic ad hominem + appeal to fame lmao when you’re personally compared to the subject of your criticism, you know you’ve won the argument.

>>21760073

Another bugman critique of a writer he's barely read. Very likely a zoomer

>>21760217
Because I’m Shakespeare. You failed to make an argument in your post, simply to offer opinions. Sad.

>>21760229
Hi Willy Boy, are you a Catholic or traitor?

>>21760073

>>21760245

>>21760244
Por que no los dos? Still no actual argument detected. You’re really bad at this

>>21760252
He already provided the names they asked for. It’s up to them to produce a following argument.

>>21760126
I kneel!

>>21760073
>He was forgotten until Voltaire or some faggot revived him from oblivion
What a fantastically wrong opinion. It is a fact that Shakespeare was popular in his own lifetime, and continued to be with almost no pauses. The largest are the two decades in the interregnum period, and the period from about 1690-1720 were the we don't see his plays staged as often. Fletcher and Jonson were definitely more popular, but Shakespeare was continuously staged for decades, and his reputation only increased as time went on.

>>21760126
None of these save Donne hold a candle to Shakespeare--they neither have his wit, his prowess for verse, or the writing of dynamic and interesting characters. If they were, they would be read more than they are. The period has no shortage of scholarly criticism, and there is a definitive reason why Shakespeare sits head and shoulders above every last one of his contemporaries. He is the single best: blank verse writer, dramatist and sonnet writer in English and there have been absolutely not contenders to his crown in 400 years.

Anyone who feels so inclined to say something like " dreadfully empty writing" should at least have the balls to back it up with some form of analysis of his work, but because this is a pseud board and we only have functionally illiterate losers commenting I guess the best we can work with is a list of names and someone who thinks "I'm calling out his hecking logical fallacies, hittin' him with that 'that's an ad hominem bro'" makes him intelligent.

>>21760393
> He is the single best: blank verse writer,
Milton is better.
>dramatist
I won’t deny it.
>and sonnet writer in English
Spenser is better.

Anon just because we can't see you doesn't mean we can't tell you're 12 years old

>>21760073
I have been studying how I may compare
This prison where I live unto the world:
And for because the world is populous
And here is not a creature but myself,
I cannot do it; yet Ill hammer it out.
My brain Ill prove the female to my soul,
My soul the father; and these two beget
A generation of still-breeding thoughts,
And these same thoughts people this little world,
In humours like the people of this world,
For no thought is contented. The better sort,
As thoughts of things divine, are intermixd
With scruples and do set the word itself
Against the word:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But whate'er I be,
Nor I nor any man that but man is
With nothing shall be pleas'd, till he be eas'd
With being nothing.

Random passage from a play that isn't even that highly regarded and you walk away with stuff like this. OP must be mad he's doing miserable in his poetry and drama 101 class

>>21760419
>Milton is better.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No seriously try backing that up, I'm all ears.
>Spenser is better.
This is almost as funny too.

>>21760438
It’s okay to pedestalize your idol. It’s not okay to be delusional. Nothing in Shakespeare’s work compares structurally to Paradise Lost as an absolute poetic work. He’s a writer of moments, of little amusing sparkles, incapable of creating a crystalized poetic work. There is a reason why back in his day he was mere entertainment to amuse plebs and monarchs alike: he was the television of his day. His sonnets are completely homosexual and the themes are degenerate. Stuff like telling a male friend he’s so beautiful so he should marry and spread his pretty seed. I much prefer the sonnets of Donne or of Spenser.

>>21760126
>John Fletcher
>John Webster

You've never read them or you're reaching. As much as I enjoy their work they are not in the same league as Shakespeare, their plays almost read as if written in the 20th century their language is so basic. (Appplies to Jonson though not as strongly, he did have some artistry.) Donne wasn't a playright; he's not comparable. It's widely accepted however that Donne was a superior poet on occassion when compared to Shakespeare's sonnets, though he had some pretty rum verses himself (Death be not proud is cringe.) Marlowe is the only playwrite on the same plane as Shakespeare during that era. I know you're trying to stake out a sort of no bs/contrarian identity with this, so imma let you finish, I just hope to fuck you're 20 or younger (or 23 or younger if you're an American, who mostly have late starts intellectually.)

>>21760455
>Nothing in Shakespeare’s work compares structurally to Paradise Lost as an absolute poetic work
People who say shit like this must have never read Paradise Lost. Paradise Lost and its--lack--of structural cohesion has been written about endlessly, from Samuel Johnson and William Hazlitt to Eliot, Pound and Pope. The structure of the poem completely falters after book 2, with some of the most dreadfully boring passages in English Literature taking place in Heaven--and the most delightfully uneventful stretches of time we spend with Adam and Eve (the collapse reveals itself towards the end, when we get two full books devoted to recapping events from the Bible). Milton's poem is only fully coherent when he is in Hell, everything else is a shallow and plodding mess with exposition that delivers its theology as deftly as a child.
>incapable of creating a crystalized poetic work
These profoundly stupid takes make me embarrassed on your behalf; not only did he write several poetic works that are fully "crystalized" (not the least of which, being the Turtle and the Phoenix--widely regarded as the finest metaphysical poem of the period), but we have the sonnets, the songs and poems present in his plays, and two mini epics. These are not poetic works in full, they are not closet dramas like the tripe Shelley and Swinburne wrote, they are plays in verse.
>he was the television of his day.
Yeah and film has produced some of the greatest artistic endeavors ever, hardly a good comparison unless you want to throw away the entire medium of film.
>His sonnets are completely homosexual and the themes are degenerate
oh You're just genuinely autistic, I see.

I'm still waiting on some actual analysis, not empty words. I posted this >>21760436 which I can expand on and pretty comfortably say it says more about humans than anything Johnson, Fletcher, Milton or Spenser wrote.

>>21760436
Pretty mid ngl

>>21760126
>Ben Jonson
>John Donne
>Christopher Marlowe
>John Fletcher
>John Webster
I've read these guys m8. Shakespeare's genius towers above them. Go read Doctor Faustus for an example. His language is good -- I'll give you that. But there's none of the extreme wit of Shakespeare. There are no Shakespeare level metaphors, nor his uncanny ability to draw out the natural irony of a situation and how it proves the fallibility of human nature.

I respect Marlowe, but his Faust proves he's not even close. There's no great psychological profiles, no brilliant turns of phrase, no great metaphors, no profound soliloquies or a poetic final 2 lines of an act. The more you read Shakespeare's contemporaries the more you'll realize he was just an anomaly and a genius who towered above everyone even then.

>>21760073
A big part of his supposed genius was commonplace back then. He only seems esoteric and mysterious to us because of his obscure language. He was forgotten until Tyrwhitt or some faggot revived him from oblivion and now every literary academist jerks off about how amazing he was while in truth he was alright for the times. There's nothing in Chaucer that doesn't also happen in other artists from the period.

>>21760497
> but we have the sonnets, the songs and poems present in his plays
How on earth are those fully crystalized? Those are little snippets, not a total poetic creation. His epics as you call them are embarrassing attempts. As I said, he never tried something big in poetry. Where is his Divine Comedy, his Faerie Queene, his Orlando Furioso? The most relevant part of his work is debatably not even literature (plays). Theatre is another art form and plays are meant to be watched.
> Yeah and film has produced some of the greatest artistic endeavors ever, hardly a good comparison unless you want to throw away the entire medium of film.
I explicitly said television, not cinema. That carries connotation. He was an amusing entertainer precisely because he commercially had failed as a poet (to be fair, there was no money in poetry).
> oh You're just genuinely autistic, I see.
No. The themes are bizarre and indefensible. The sonnets where he talks about the negress he loves are amusing, I’ll give you that.
> which I can expand on and pretty comfortably say it says more about humans than anything Johnson, Fletcher, Milton or Spenser wrote.
What is this liberal obsession with humanism? Are you a woman in her period? Is that it? “Omg that says so much about le human condition!” Spare me that tired old angle. If there’s anything of worth in his work (which there is, I won’t deny that) is the aesthetic of his writing.

>>21760073
this is just what tolstoy said

>>21760126
All you did was name five guys. Show some actual writing from them and compare it to a Shakespeare passage.

>>21760393
>neither ... or
You say "nor" after "neither," anon. Stop trying to sound fancy when you don't know basic English rules.
>>21760073
Your insight isn't particularly novel. Bernard Shaw came up with "Bardolatry" and I'm quite sure it wasn't Voltaire that revived Shakespeare for English speakers. Lots of the Romantics just wanted to ape medievalism but needed something more contemporary since it might have seemed too alien otherwise (and Shakespeare is very emotive), so Shakespeare was quite accessible. But Milton also loved brother Speare, so that's why his first poem was dedicated to the Bard.

>>21760073
I remember feeling this way when first encountering the work of his contemporaries properly for the first time. Many of the things I thought were “Shakespearean” were actually common to other dramatists, and I felt I had been duped. But those are only the accidental aspects of Shakespeare and the essential core is what matters. Yes there are superficial similarities shared in their language which have now become synonymous with “Shakespearean” in popular culture but the things that actually matter about Shakespeare’s language, like the balance and fluency of his versification, are relatively unique to him. His plays are a lot deeper too. None of his contemporaries have such a large corpus of such sustained quality as Shakespeare, none have plays equalling his masterpieces, nor their works such an immense impact on the cultural imagination. Really comparing them will reveal just how rich and strange a writer Shakespeare really was.

>>21760206
And it's fascinating how you somehow think being remembered through the ages means anything when you're dead. I'm not >>21760217 but they sum it up quite well and so I'll leave you to rot.

>>21760393
>If they were, they would be read more than they are.
No one reads today anyways so that seems a moot point.

>Anyone who feels so inclined to say something like " dreadfully empty writing" should at least have the balls to back it up with some form of analysis of his work.
I've done analyses of his work but I'm not going to waste my time here doing one knowing that it'll fall on deaf ears on a board full of pseuds and retards. As >>21760455 said quite well with the comment on "little amusing sparkles," Shakespeare was the master of ostentation without substance. He was not able to sustain beauty or tease it out. He simply knew how to pepper his plays with pretty phrases and wow solely from an exterior sense.

>>21760478
I've read both.
>(Death be not proud is cringe.)
Into the trash it goes.
>I know you're trying to stake out a sort of no bs/contrarian identity with this
It's not me trying to create a contrarian identity. I've studied Shakespeare extensively: at one point I might have even been in love with him, wanted to lie with him, sung him many a mused rhyme in the night. But after careful study and a lot of disillusionment, I came to the conclusion that he was inferior not only to those who came after him (especially so to Keats) but also to his contemporaries: there is more soul in a play of Webster's (specifically The Duchess of Malfi) than there is in the entire corpus of Shakespeare.

>>21760514
I've read Doctor Faustus and it was quite the play. If you took the authors' names away you'd have a different opinion. Most if not all of you are so brainwashed and programmed to adore Shakespeare that if researchers discovered a long-lost fragment of his toilet paper you'd herald the designs on it as the next masterpiece of literature. And it's a shame too because you're closing yourself off from the deep study of so many other fantastic artists, you're approaching these other authors with such horrible biases that it's distorting your perception of them.

>>21760836
I don't know exactly what I need to show. If I showed you each one's entire body of work it honestly would do nothing to sway you because you have to actually do the work of reading yourself, immerse yourself in these writers. Me showing you passages isn't going to do anything and would be a waste of my time and yours.

>>21760073
Read Molière

>>21761354
My point is simply that he, and you, and indeed myself are completely insignificant and contribute little to culture or wisdom in comparison to the genius and wit of Shakespeare. Your wall of text affirms my assertion: gibberish and seethe, of no consequence

>I've read Doctor Faustus and it was quite the play

>>21761456
I have no horse in this race. I know my talents completely inside and out and firmly believe that, were I put to the task (which I believe one day I will be), I would be Shakespeare's equal at the very least. I once felt a penetrating anxiety over him that lasted for years but now I see him for what he was: the son of a farmer who wrote a few good lines here and there and duped culture and history into idolizing him (there are studies, too, of England using him to assert her own cultural dominance across the world). Couple that with the worrying notion that Shakespeare may not have been Shakespeare at all, but another writer, or perhaps even several writers at once like a composite, and you've gotten yourself in quite the tangle. I feel pretty confident in my ability to be his equal so no worries there.

>>21760073
Read in "magnificent rebels" that it was actually the German romantics who rediscovered Shakespeare (passing him on to the British romantics)
>>21760887
Totally agree. What's so strange to me is that he made total masterpieces in comedies, tragedies, drama. Whatever he wrote is flawless. Who is like that?

>>21761489
Prove it. Make me eat my words. I dare you

>>21760531
>How on earth are those fully crystalized?
What an extremely autistic thing to say, "how on earth are a complete section of poetry, songs and finished poems """crystalized""" bro?"
> Where is his Divine Comedy, his Faerie Queene, his Orlando Furioso?
You're comparing apples to oranges to create an argument about intent--Shakespeare never intended to write an epic of that caliber. (fortunatamente, se lo ha fatto; sarebbe uscito meglio dell'Orlando Furioso). This says nothing about him as a poet, and hardly calls into question his poetic prowess. You are saying literally nothing.
>debatably not even literature (plays).
You need to seriously consider killing yourself lol
>No. The themes are bizarre and indefensible.
>Love is, hecking indefensible! writing about the temptation to cheat on your spouse is le, fucking bizarre!
>Spare me that tired old angle.
People have spent 400 years discussing Shakespeare and his characters, from every angle--and you want to ignore the extremely real humanity of his characters because of a liberal boogeyman? Even someone as stupid and conservative as Harold Bloom wrote "the invention of the human" on Shakespeare's unparalleled work.

>>21760846
>You say "nor" after "neither," anon. Stop trying to sound fancy when you don't know basic English rules.
Forgetting to hit "n" on my keyboard hardly counts as not knowing basic syntax rules.

>>21761354
>I've done analyses of his work but I'm not going to waste my time here
In other words "no you're not smart enough for my amazing undergrad paper on why Shakespeare sucks"

You're so fucking stupid, it's almost unforgivable to see someone say Keats, with so many completely shit poems (and exceedingly few great ones) is comparable to Shakespeare. Or that brainwashing is responsible for centuries of positive critical scholarship. The only thing you retards can say against this is "uhhh APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!!" like a spastic moron, instead of actually trying to refute. Keats lol.

>>21761489
>I would be Shakespeare's equal at the very least
Post your best verse.

>>21761510
>Read in "magnificent rebels" that it was actually the German romantics who rediscovered Shakespeare (passing him on to the British romantics)
Idk why people keep saying he wasn't consistently popular, and was "rediscovered"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_of_William_Shakespeare I mean just read this

>>21761728
>(and exceedingly few great ones)
That's because he died. Young. Of tuberculosis. And yet his Odes that he wrote at 24 are perhaps the most perfect pieces of literature in the language. You are a moron and a dilettante and you'd be better off sticking with Italian poets.

>>21761728
An d might I add, too, that had Shakespeare died at 25 as Keats did, he would've been completely forgotten and razed from history. One can only imagine the glories Keats would have given us had he lived to Shakespeare's age when he died.

>>21761965
>And yet his Odes that he wrote at 24 are perhaps the most perfect pieces of literature in the language
They aren't. They are great don't get me wrong, but he has what, a dozen poems of that caliber if we're being generous? Keats is easily the best romantic poet but he isn't Shakespeare--you only have to look at his extremely poor plays, to see the rift in quality. To say nothing of the vast majority of his works being uninteresting and downright bad.
>You are a moron and a dilettante and you'd be better off sticking with Italian poets.
Did you even try google translating what I said lol

It’s pretty funny watching Shakespeare nerds defending his sonnets to the death. They”re pretty mid.

>>21761975
Okay, so? What the fuck does this mean? That the imagined "glories" of hypothetical Keats rivals the real Shakespeare? You're taking "Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard / Are sweeter" to an extreme. You are literally saying nothing.

>>21762027
Name one (1) English poet with a more impressive body of sonnets as a whole.

>>21762027
>Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
>Is lust in action; and till action, lust
I>s perjured, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame,
>Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust,
>Enjoyed no sooner but despisèd straight,
>Past reason hunted; and, no sooner had
>Past reason hated as a swallowed bait
>On purpose laid to make the taker mad;
>Mad in pursuit and in possession so,
>Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
>A bliss in proof and proved, a very woe;
>Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.
>All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
>To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.
His sonnets are some of the best poetry in English.

>>21762031
Why? You’ll disagree anyway, even though I would be correct. You’re a fanatic. I can already predict you’re response lol

>>21762034
Then English poetry is mediocre if that’s some of the best.

>>21762041
Cope. Unlike his plays, Shakespeare's sonnets aren't peerless, but no other English poet wrote as many great ones as he did.

>>21762048
Cheerleader effect

>>21762045
Post something then.
>>21762041
Unholy amounts of cope lol.

>>21760206
In the grand scheme of things Shakespeare will also be completely irrelevant and forgotten.

Dunno what to say OP. Not everyone has an eye for literature. If you don't get Shakespeare you just don't get him, sorry

>>21762027
They were satirical. Shakespeare didn't think they were some profound poems for the ages. He was making fun of their use in England at the time.

>>21762094
That's only Sonnet 130 (which nevertheless is a great poem).

>>21762081
Tolstoy also disliked him. Did he not “have an eye” for literature? lmao

>>21760206
>Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

>>21762020
>but he has what, a dozen poems of that caliber if we're being generous?
I would take one of those dozen poems, each a masterpiece in its own right, over an entire play from Shakespeare.
>you only have to look at his extremely poor plays, to see the rift in quality
Keats was not a playwright; at least, he wasn't able to achieve much in that realm with the time he was given. Shakespeare was not a poet--he was a dramatist. My theory is that he realized that his sonnets and poems were mediocre (really, just read his early poetry and, while you're at it, take a look at his first few plays if you want to talk to me about "extremely poor" material) and decided to ply his trade elsewhere. If Shakespeare had decided to give up writing at the same time that Keats died, he would be no one. And he should still be no one.

>>21762029
Je veux dire que "glories" are what I extrapolate from Keats's achievements as a poet at such a young age. Had he been given more time, I firmly believe he would've completely outshone Shakespeare canonically (and, in my heart of hearts, I already believe that regardless of what your professor told you).

>>21762145
I approve anon, thank you. I generally prefer Luke but Matthew expresses this beautifully I cannot deny

>>21760217
>Pathetic ad hominem + appeal to fame
no, both were examples of demonstrative exceptionality. just because you name drop fallacies like a 7th grade debate club doesn't mean you are using them well.

>>21762151
>I would take one of those dozen poems, each a masterpiece in its own right, over an entire play from Shakespeare.
Absolutely insane, Shakespeare has a ridiculous catalogue of masterpieces that utterly mogs a bibliographylet like Keats.
>Shakespeare was not a poet
A hundred plus sonnets, and several plays written nearly entirely in verse would disagree with this statement.
>if you want to talk to me about "extremely poor" material
Even his earliest plays are significantly better than than Keats works in the genre, and plays like his Henry trilogy and Titus are still better than 95% of plays from the elizabethean era.
>Had he been given more time
But he wasn't and so thinking about fantasy land Keats is a boring exercise in mental gymnastics. If Shakespeare was so average, Keats wouldn't have spent his life studying and reading him and attempted to emulate him.

>>21762331
> demonstrative exceptionality
i. e. non-arguments

>>21762390
>If Shakespeare was so average, Keats wouldn't have spent his life studying and reading him and attempted to emulate him.
This is an argument I keep seeing that really has no merit. It was practically a rite of passage in those days to study Shakespeare if you wanted to become a writer. It was more a nod to the literary canon as it stood then than an actual professed allegiance to him. And, if you'd read anything about Keats, you'd know that Spenser played a far greater role in his artistic development. Again, you've come up short: perhaps Dante's more your speed. It's absolutely fine if you think that Shakespeare was some writing god before whom we should all bow, but the audacity to suggest that Keats was mediocre or not at the same level as him is an act of gross impudence and ignorance and insolence (look, I'm out-Shakespearing Shakespeare with this alliterative prowess).

>>21762473
>This is an argument I keep seeing that really has no merit. It was practically a rite of passage in those days to study Shakespeare if you wanted to become a writer. It was more a nod to the literary canon as it stood then than an actual professed allegiance to him
You're either trolling or profoundly retarded; Keats' letters show an extreme amount of reverence for Shakespeare and he actively studied and annotated plays and worked aspects of Shakespeare's writing into his own poetry. He called Shakespeare the chief of poets in "sitting down to read king lear", he called him a genius when discussing negative capability, and he continued to study him until his death bed. There are literally too many references to Shakespeare directly or indirectly in his writing for me to cover.
>And, if you'd read anything about Keats, you'd know that Spenser played a far greater role in his artistic development
A complete and utter lie, I have the penguins collection of every last one of his poems, and a good chunk of his letters: not only does Shakespeare factor in far more to his actual verse than Spenser, but Milton is a far better runner up to that crown than Spenser. Going as far into his works as Fall of Hyperion you see he was already studying Dante and learning Italian to read him.

You can read RS White's book "Keats as a reader of Shakespeare" if you want more info, since you're sorely lacking.

Plays are not literature. Daily reminder.

>>21760073
Shakespeare was huge in his own time too.

>>21760126
Bad authors.

>>21762473
Imagine getting BTFO'd so soundly that you cant even come up with a good retort or insult and just walk away from a thread with your tail between your legs lol

>>21762560
>>21763369
I was working (it's what grown-ups do during the day).
>Keats' letters show an extreme amount of reverence for Shakespeare and he actively studied and annotated plays and worked aspects of Shakespeare's writing into his own poetry.
That's fine. Doesn't mean that Shakespeare was better. Writers can be influenced by bad writing or have guilty pleasures. No one reads Robert Burton anymore (save you, friend, wherever thou art nowadays) and yet we know Keats devoted himself to him extensively. Point is, either way, it was almost a requirement back then to pay homage to Shakespeare, and it's not surprising that a young, starry-eyed, up-and-coming poet like Keats would be taken with such a prominent figure.
>He called Shakespeare the chief of poets in "sitting down to read king lear", he called him a genius when discussing negative capability, and he continued to study him until his death bed.
Vraiment? Again, see my points above. Just because Keats praised him doesn't automatically mean that he was inferior to him. The reason anyone writes in the first place is because of the belief that one can do better than one's ancestors and predecessors in the literary realm, nicht wahr?
>There are literally too many references to Shakespeare directly or indirectly in his writing for me to cover.
Now who's being lazy and not showing off their undergraduate essays?
>A complete and utter lie, I have the penguins collection of every last one of his poems, and a good chunk of his letters
For someone who considers Keats to be incredibly mediocre, you do come across as someone deeply fascinated by him. I'm going to press (X) to doubt here, for I believe if you really have those collections and his letters you would've enjoyed him thoroughly. C'est bizarre.
>not only does Shakespeare factor in far more to his actual verse than Spenser, but Milton is a far better runner up to that crown than Spenser. Going as far into his works as Fall of Hyperion you see he was already studying Dante and learning Italian to read him.
And now we come full-circle: was that line of Italian you used earlier from Dante? I suggest you go back to him now and leave English literature to the English scholars. C'est la guerre.

>>21763369
Where art thou now, Dante? Est-ce que voulez-vous m'en parler quelque chose ou quoi?

>>21762101
He spent his whole life satirising sonnets.

>>21763603
You are such an extremely embarrassing person.
>That's fine. Doesn't mean that Shakespeare was better
Keats thought he was better than any other poet, Keats wrote about how much of a genius he was; Keats had undoubtedly a better eye for literature and poetry than you. This isn't proof he's better, I just mean to rub into your face how much Keats enjoyed Shakespeare.
>Just because Keats praised him doesn't automatically mean that he was inferior to him
No, the rest of Shakespeares bibliography proves that. Not only did I not say "Keats studied him AND therefor he is good" I just said that to disprove your assessment that Spenser was a greater leader in his artistic development--which is an objectively and verifiably false thing to try slipping by.
>Now who's being lazy and not showing off their undergraduate essays?
I literally cited a nearly 300 page long book detailing the links between Shakespeare and Keats, I'm not spoonfeeding you easily googled results. You can, if you feel so inclined, go to Rome (as I have, pic rel) and read Keats' own annotations.
>For someone who considers Keats to be incredibly mediocre
Never once did I say he was mediocre, I said he was great--the best of the romantics.
>I'm going to press (X) to doubt here, for I believe if you really have those collections and his letters you would've enjoyed him thoroughly.
lmao the unholy levels of cope at work here.
>was that line of Italian you used earlier from Dante?
Non era una citazione, è stata scritta da me. You couldn't even be bothered to google translate it lol, it said "had Shakespeare written an epic poem, it would have been better than Orlando furioso". The fact that you think a line of literature could potentially be from Dante, who existed centuries before Orlando Furioso was written, and be about said work boggles my mind. How fucking stupid are you?

>An italianfag and a frenchfag simping for the anglo cock that tasted better for them

>>21763906
I'm american, I'm just not monolingual.

>>21763914
That’s even worse. You randomly sprinkle your sentences with unnecessary foreign phrases. Peak pseud.

This argument is a textbook example of what happens when an armchair intellectual comes up against a genuine, devoted literautist. It's like when that guy who constantly tries to start shit at bars accidentally picks on someone who knows MMA, I mean good fucking lord it is just unwinnable.

>>21763892
>You are such an extremely embarrassing person.
"Said the pot to the kettle...."
>Keats thought he was better than any other poet, Keats wrote about how much of a genius he was; Keats had undoubtedly a better eye for literature and poetry than you. This isn't proof he's better, I just mean to rub into your face how much Keats enjoyed Shakespeare.
Why are you bringing me into this? I don't feel insecure in the face of Keats: I know my worth and know that, were I put to the test, I would write better poetry than Keats. But I love him all the same because he's had a huge influence on my artistic development.
>I literally cited a nearly 300 page long book detailing the links between Shakespeare and Keats, I'm not spoonfeeding you easily googled results. You can, if you feel so inclined, go to Rome (as I have, pic rel) and read Keats' own annotations.
I don't need to conspicuously show my adoration or Keats by making a pilgrimage to Rome. Plus, I'd rather avoid learning Italian as I've already two other languages under my belt: c'est la vie, ou, es ist halt so.
>Never once did I say he was mediocre, I said he was great--the best of the romantics.
He was the best of all time, and infinitely better than précieux Shakespeare.
>Non era una citazione, è stata scritta da me. You couldn't even be bothered to google translate it lol, it said "had Shakespeare written an epic poem, it would have been better than Orlando furioso". The fact that you think a line of literature could potentially be from Dante, who existed centuries before Orlando Furioso was written, and be about said work boggles my mind. How fucking stupid are you?
Sorry, I don't read Hagspawn-of-Latinese. I'd rather go to the mother-language itself and learn that, which will be exceedingly facile given que je sais français. Go figure. Perhaps you should've stayed in Rome and stuck with Italian rather than give your opinion on a portion of world literature about which you know rien.

>>21763949
> Hagspawn-of-Latinese
You used French lmao

>>21762027
The sonnets are ridiculously bad. His strength was as a dramatist.

>>21763958
French is distinct enough now etymologically to be considered independent from Latin, whereas Italian is basically broken Latin. But hey, if it makes him feel better to sprinkle his posts with ugly Latin, lui laisse en faire.

>>21763921
I'm the Italian guy, I don't sprinkle much but I did in reference to a poem I can and have read in the original (something the other anon cannot) and to clarify that I was writing it myself, and that it wasn't a quote.

>>21764005
French is immensely ugly. They literally needed an academy to make the language not look like utter shit when written (it’s impossible to do the same for the spoken language). The fact fact that it deviates from Latin is a negative, not a positive. French would look like utter shit if it was written phonetically.

>>21763949
>I would write better poetry than Keats
Says the man who will never, EVER get published or at the very least, post his own actual poetry for us to read.
>I don't need to conspicuously show my adoration or Keats by making a pilgrimage to Rome
I didn't either, its called a vacation.

What an embarrassing attempt at trying to prove the superiority of an author, you spent the entire thread shooting yourself in the foot by lying about things that are easily proved false that I have a growing suspicion you haven't actually read Keats outside of his most famous poems, much less his letters. Keats is apparently the best of all time but this anon can write better poetry than him. This is why no one fucking likes the French.

>>21760073
I'll be honest with Shakespeare I really like some of his stories like Macbeth and Hamlet but outside those two he's just ok to me although Julius Caesar was good. I really enjoy Oscar Wilde. I don't like his histories at all although he was mostly writing those to kiss as to the monarch so understandable. I honestly don't like Romeo and Juliet but I tend to hate romances so it may not be him. Anyone know any good German or Russian playwrights?

>>21764044
> Julius Caesar
I honestly think that Caesar and Cleopatra by Bernard Shaw is a better play.

>>21764054
Never read or watched that one. Will have to check it out. On the topic do you guys read plays or Watch them? I've read a few but I feel weird doing so. I feel that they were meant to be seen as productions so I'm somehow ruining the experience. Also if you guys like Operettas Porgy and Bess was a great tragedy.

>>21764016
You can send me that poem now and I'll go on YouTube, watch a five-minute video on Italian grammar and pronunciation, and read it just as you allegedly have done. Please don't tempt me by saying I can't do something: that's the quickest and surest way to get me to do that very thing. Why don't you go now and stuff your nose in whatever poem that was, then come back to us once you've bored yourself enough to want to read Keats. I'm not even the OP of this thread and yet I don't feel particularly bad in speaking for him when I say you've completely and utterly ruined what he was going for with your showing off. Go read Dante if you don't care for Keats or you think he's just "good" (as if the word "good" or "bon" or whatever the fuck the word for "good" in Italian is could contain the immensity of Keats's accomplishments not only as a writer of poetry but of belles-lettres too) and then tell us how you really feel (in Italian, preferably). He tells me I can't read: I could read whatever you read better than you can and probably catch all the grammatical quirks intuitively, Italian being so simple.

>>21764029
You're judging a language on the basis of how it looks rather than what's been achieved in it. You are a fantastic pseud. And French is actually a lovely language, both phonetically and written. Get your eyes and ears checked.

>>21764042
Here's a sonnet, you stupid motherfucker:
Eternity is cast into the air
And spreads its pinions through the waking city;
A perfect sky devoured by the bare
Blankness of smoke, prologuing destiny:
She watches all, atop her crumbling spire,
Sole confidante to exile and decay;
And sits atop her throne of ash and fire
To watch her dwindling world give way to gray
And vanish; but, suspended, out of reach,
She is a portal into the unknown:
World-straddling bas-relief of the void-breach;
Sole master of her fate; she is alone.
What did you see in there? What did you see?
What lay in there, what starless mystery?

Now go to, shut the fuck up, and read another poem in the bastard child of Latin.

>>21764044
>Anyone know any good German or Russian playwrights?
Pushkin and Chekhov are the biggest two I think, I haven't read Pushkin's plays but I like Eugene Onegin. I only know Goethe for Germans but that's an obvious recommendation

>>21764073
Thanks

>>21764059
I watched the Hamlet film adaptation by Kenneth Branagh or whatever. He adapted the whole play but it’s in the 1700s or something. Sadly there is a mulatto but he’s not in any relevant role so it’s not as pozzed as modern productions. You can watch any play on YouTube (Shakespeare or otherwise).

>>21764065
He's seething hahahaha. All these words to just say "yeah I don't actually have an analysis on Shakespeare"
>You can send me that poem now and I'll go on YouTube
You're such a fucking ESL you cant even keep up with the conversation, the poem is quite clearly Orlando Furioso, a poem you referenced.
>sonnet
This is supposed to be better than Keats, or even Shakespeare? I'm sobbing, this is embarrassing
>What did you see in there? What did you see?
>What lay in there, what starless mystery?
Pic rel

>>21764065
>You're judging a language on the basis of how it looks rather than what's been achieved in it.
And you are judging a language on the basis of where it descends from. Your view is shallower. Mine at least deals with aesthetics (however subjective they might be). You’re exhibiting a tremendous lack of self-awareness.
>You are a fantastic pseud.
Says the faggot who randomly inserts unnecessary foreign phrases in his writing. Look in the mirror, you absolute pseud.
>And French is actually a lovely language, both phonetically and written. Get your eyes and ears checked.
It looks nicely written because the academy has artificially modified it over the years. It doesn’t sound nice at all. It sounds like Italian spoken by a throat full of phlegm and semen. Italian is much more musical and harmonious.

>>21764065
>And sits atop her throne of ash and fire
>She is a portal into the unknown:
>Sole master of her fate; she is alone.
This is like an insta-poem lol, I can picture someone tagging this as #girlboss.

The city is "waking" but the world actually seems to be crumbling; your scansion could also use some work. I'm assuming this is supposed to be a Shakespearean sonnet, as its 14 lines and tries iambic pentameter, but unlike Shakespeare you haven't been able to effectively communicate a single thing with this incredibly poor attempt at trumping Keats.

>>21764133
>All these words to just say "yeah I don't actually have an analysis on Shakespeare"
I do: I also don't need to share it with you or your two back-up singers, both vying to suck you off. I don't need to prove anything to you: I know what I know.
>You're such a fucking ESL you cant even keep up with the conversation, the poem is quite clearly Orlando Furioso, a poem you referenced.
Why don't you go read it then, Italiano Idiotico? For all the shit you give Keats you sure love to talk with native speakers of English about him.
>This is supposed to be better than Keats, or even Shakespeare? I'm sobbing, this is embarrassing
Let's see your poems, shit-for-brains.

>>21764146
>And you are judging a language on the basis of where it descends from. Your view is shallower. Mine at least deals with aesthetics (however subjective they might be). You’re exhibiting a tremendous lack of self-awareness.
But aesthetically speaking, French trumps Italian. And even were that not the case, it's important to consider the ancestry of a language along with what people can *do* with and in it. Sollten es nicht so sein, bitte?
>Says the faggot who randomly inserts unnecessary foreign phrases in his writing. Look in the mirror, you absolute pseud.
Je le fais parce que je peux. C'est la vie.
>It looks nicely written because the academy has artificially modified it over the years. It doesn’t sound nice at all. It sounds like Italian spoken by a throat full of phlegm and semen. Italian is much more musical and harmonious.
Italian should be relegated either to the dustbin of history with the other dead languages or restricted to the honest workers who make my deep-dish pizzas at Domino's. Wouldn't that be a delight? And I think that'd still be too good for the language.

>>21764168
>This is like an insta-poem lol, I can picture someone tagging this as #girlboss.
You don't know the context of it nor what I suffered to write it. You weren't there and you will never know. All you can do is pick apart what you will never understand because you cannot comprehend what it takes to write a poem of that magnitude, with that much passion and vision.
>The city is "waking" but the world actually seems to be crumbling; your scansion could also use some work. I'm assuming this is supposed to be a Shakespearean sonnet, as its 14 lines and tries iambic pentameter, but unlike Shakespeare you haven't been able to effectively communicate a single thing with this incredibly poor attempt at trumping Keats.
I communicated several things: the poem contains death, finality, purity, and liberation. It's indeed a Shakespearean sonnet, perhaps better than any of Shakespeare's actual sonnets and certainly rivaling those of Keats. Ç'en va.

>>21764065
This looks like a shittier Swinburne and or Clark Ashton Smith poem.

>>21764212
> what people can *do* with and in it.
Italian surpasses French, then. Nothing in French comes close to the Divine Comedy (arguably the greatest European literary work). Cope all you want, francophile.

>>21764212
that was a good poem anon. The shift in perspective at the end, where you directly address the reader and ask what they saw as they dreamed about that qt on the spire dreaming about the void was nice. i dont think literature should be a competition in the first place (keats, shakespeare, milton are all uniquely good, they all have their own strengths, it makes no sense to say any one of them is the 'best), so i dont think youre better than keats, but good on you for being creative.

>>21764212
>For all the shit you give Keats you sure love to talk with native speakers of English about him.
I am a native speaker of English, and I never gave Keats shit lol.
>Let's see your poems, shit-for-brains.
I never said I was better than Shakespeare and Keats.

>>21764212
>You don't know the context of it nor what I suffered to write it. You weren't there and you will never know.
So you're a genius who wrote inscrutable poetry with the only context clues being a future biography of yourself, ingenious.
>with that much passion and vision.
Evidently not much lol.
>I communicated several things: the poem contains death, finality, purity, and liberation
No you didn't, a complete and wholesale lie. You have those themes sure, whatever, but you didn't communicate their importance, or any semblance of meaning. Keats, Shakespeare and other sonnet writers can tell an entire story, or communicate complex emotional feelings in 14 lines; you basically stumbled over yourself 14 times, each line heaving up where the last one left off with no cohesion.

>>21764065
>>21764213
Reminds me of this, http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/poetry/5/the-abyss-triumphant

>>21764213
I vaguely recall reading Swinburne and I don't know Clark Ashton Smith. At any rate, I feel bad for all the spaces of earth that have to deplete their oxygen for you.

>>21764241
>(arguably the greatest European literary work)
There it is. That's what I was waiting for. The absolute admission of your complete ignorance on the subject of literature. I knew it before but that was the last piece of evidence I needed to be sure. "The greatest European literary work." As if. Did Dante pay you to write that? What happened to Orlando Furioso or whatever? I would rather have a line from Moliere or Racine or Proust than the entirety of the Divine Comedy.

>>21764266
The woman for whom I wrote it had a big ass, too. I am better, though.

>>21764280
>I am a native speaker of English, and I never gave Keats shit lol.
It sounded like you did, though I have neither the time nor the patience to sift through your previous posts to confirm.

>>21764288
Yes. As the thick bitches say, "Period."

>>21764294
Delectable.

>>21764337
>What happened to Orlando Furioso or whatever?
You are talking to a completely different anon than the Italian-fag, and you were the one who brought up both the Divine Comedy and Orlando Furioso.

>Delectable.
This wasn't a compliment anon, that poem I linked is shit.

>>21760073
He is the greatest English writer of all time. Sorry shitskins, sorry kikes, but Shakespeare won.

Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet are two of the best plays ever made. You are not clever, you are not even a contrarian , you just don't know the history of playrights and how they compare to ancient tragedy.

>>21764337
>Did Dante pay you to write that?
I’m not sure why you keep asking retarded questions. I’m far from the only one in this board (let alone in the world) with this opinion.
> What happened to Orlando Furioso or whatever?
I’m not that guy.
>I would rather have a line from Moliere or Racine or Proust than the entirety of the Divine Comedy.
Because you have shit taste and you’re soulless. You prefer French degenerates like Proust over a transcendental poetic masterpiece like the Comedy.

>>21760126
Nice.

>>21763603
>>21763949
The effete sprinklings of Duolingo-imparted European languages are becoming tiresome and making me appreciate even more the beating you're taking.
>I know my worth and know that, were I put to the test, I would write better poetry than Keats.
You can't write better a better argument than a rando on /lit/. If only you were 'put to the test', am I right? A shame that we will never know.

>One guy being repeatedly btfo'd as he lurches from one quickly disproven point to another
Rare but enjoyable thread. Glad I got to see the autism live.

Any truth to the assertion that Francis Bacon actually wrote much of Shakespeare’s work? I swear I read it somewhere so it must have some basis in fact

>>21766209
No, that hasn't been taken seriously for a long time. There has lately been a push to have Thomas Middleton collaborate with Shakespeare on a few plays, but these are based on textual analysis only.

>>21760126
John Donne is best as a poet, and was influenced by shakespeare

>>21764065
You're kind of like in the early Wilfred Owen/Wallace Stevens/Plath stage of poetry. You have talent but you haven't really detached yourself from the past enough to forge your own direction. That's why you still rely on standard Romantic Imagery like Eternity having pinions, crumbling spires, skies being devoured by [hazy phenomena] like some impressionistic painting, thrones of ash and fire (yawn), horrible cliched phrases like 'master of her fate' (invictus much?). You are definitely nowhere near Keats although you could be, and all it would take is a bit of humility and better care for avoiding cliches, ambiguities, and controlling your music a lot better. Your attempts at original images or phrases in "World-straddling bas-relief of the void-breach;" or "prologuing destiny" is very forced in music, nor is it even intentionally and powerfully 'ugly' the way some of Plath's poems could be ("worse than a barnyard"). Anyone with eyes and ears can just take a Keats line like:

"While barred clouds bloom the soft-dying day"

And you can already notice how much more Keats balances and leverages his sounds, how much more unique the imagery is ("soft dying day" has become cliched but context of "barred clouds bloom" plays off the connotations in interesting ways), and how ambiguous and lazy yours is in comparison. Still, you are at a good starting point. Should get the hell away from this board and stop stroking your own ego in public. Just focus on writing poems without all the attendant furor of being an artistic outcast. Nobody is going to care about a squandered talent. Also stop fancying yourself a Romantic poet and weave in words more of your immediate milieu. Write about your mom or dad or stuff or the neighbourhood dog or stuff you see at work or study and play with your surroundings rather than put on all that poetic pretense.

>>21766413
Also your theme is basically the sort of shit Yeats could shit out on a whim but you've just chose to attach it to a female motif. Your ending is a cheap escape into poetic irresolution that isn't exactly earned. Compare your sonnet to Millay's here:

Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare.
Let all who prate of Beauty hold their peace,
And lay them prone upon the earth and cease
To ponder on themselves, the while they stare
At nothing, intricately drawn nowhere
In shapes of shifting lineage; let geese
Gabble and hiss, but heroes seek release
From dusty bondage into luminous air.
O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day,
When first the shaft into his vision shone
Of light anatomized! Euclid alone
Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they
Who, though once only and then but far away,
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.

While less apocalyptic than yours, Millay also uses a female subject, the anthropomorphized Beauty (in this case Geometric or Mathematical Beauty), and structures that form of Beauty as something awe inspiring and terrifying. That's why abstractions such as "intricately drawn nowhere" works in her poem. She describes around the figure of Beauty and only reveals its form in the final line, such that you feel the gravity of that sandal-thud. Anyone looking at these two sonnets can see how you've chosen the easiest way out in the resolution of your subject. Seriously, you can do much better than that.

>>21766480
Although I do have to admit describing the sort of portal Eternity creates as a starless mystery is a bit intriguing. Doesn't go much beyond Lovecraft though.

>>21764168
This motherfucker is stupid though. Like the theme of your sonnet is so obviously anthropomorphized female Eternity watching the world decaying and falling apart while bringing attention to the portal of transcendence within her. He clearly didn't understand a single shit about what you were attempting to communicate. But don't let the existence of idiots like these make you believe that you are more talented than you in fact are.

>>21760073
His figure is a fabricated nationalistic emblem, English language is quite shallow compared to the Europeans (West) + Russia (arguably)

>>21764350
It wasn't shit to me, quite frankly. I enjoyed it. It exuded a lovely romanticism, though paling in comparison to mine. Also, I don't recall bringing up either of those. Your memory seems to be failing, la?

>>21764608
The arrogance you have to speak for the rest of the board. Are you its spokesperson?
>Because you have shit taste and you’re soulless. You prefer French degenerates like Proust over a transcendental poetic masterpiece like the Comedy.
I have more soul in my left pinky toe than you do permeating your entire body. If Proust is a French degenerate, then Shakespeare is a pimp. There is nothing degenerate in Proust: he engages with matters of the soul and nothing more, transcends our mortal coil. Yet he is indeed very situated in the corporeal, though not in a perverted way. It's curious. More on that later.

>>21765140
>The effete sprinklings of Duolingo-imparted European languages are becoming tiresome and making me appreciate even more the beating you're taking.
I'm surprised you even knew what "effete" meant. Did you conjure that one out of a nearby scholastic implement, perhaps a thesaurus? Pshaw: what I know about languages I learned from pure effort, will, and immersion.
>You can't write better a better argument than a rando on /lit/. If only you were 'put to the test', am I right? A shame that we will never know.
I've already shown one of my poems, and I intend to display another at the end of this post once I've finished replying to all these "randos."

>>21766413
The only good post in this thread. Thanks much. I'll follow your advice: it's just that it's too much fun to do battle with these dilettantes. Keats indeed was quite good, wasn't he? I hope the other anon reads your post, if only to gain some insight.

>>21766480
Yeats was another good one. I appreciate the analysis. I could've worked more on the ending of my poem to be sure. But I also am happy that it's spawned a well-thought-out interpretation that differs from the direction I intended to go with it. I suppose I'll toss this one aside and try to write another one. Good phrase, also, "attendant furor," up above.

>>21766496
If I recall, "starless mystery" was born out of a desire for melodic prosody. It does seem intriguing though, nicht wahr? I'll think on it.

>>21766530
I deal with idiots all day: his response was so commonplace that I can only imagine what he'll have to say about this next one:

Surging dominion of eternity
Over the ghosts of marigolds and birch
Crowns newly king intangibility
And kisses senseless silence in a church;
Possessed of absence, seizing what it sees
And starving color of all nourishment;
Cold conqueror of mountain-tops and trees;
Sole poisoner of sight, and sound, and scent.
It even takes her, but she dares to pass
Through portals wide, untried, invisible;
To be suspended, in a jar of glass,
Abandoning designs impossible;
Unclasping flesh, resolving to descend,
She fades against the coming of the end.

>>21765347
Literally gets BTFO so many times he becomes a poet to surpass Shakespeare himself.

>>21766870
I'm reading my poem and am noticing a few things here prompted by the analysis from >>21766413 and >>21766480 of my earlier poem. "Kisses senseless silence in a church" is a lovely line and is euphonious in its sibilant assonance but it doesn't convey much: what is "dominion of eternity" doing kissing "silence in a church"? I don't think I was trying to go for any religious allusions there so that's a throwaway line.
>Sole poisoner of sight, and sound, and scent.
Good line as well because of the sounds but "sole poisoner" is confusing. The image isn't clear: how can the senses be poisoned? And why solely by the poisoner ("dominion of eternity")? It's indeed redolent of the early phases of Owens and perhaps the Romantics.
>It even takes her, but she dares to pass
I suppose at the point in my life when I wrote this I was obsessed with the Romantic motif of anthropomorphized femininity. Throwaway line. I don't know who "she" is.

The rest of the poem succumbs to a naive and romanticized vagueness, perhaps born of wide-eyed innocence. "She fades against the coming of the end" is the cliche of all cliches. I suppose I shall write more.

>>21766870
>I have more soul in my left pinky toe than you do permeating your entire body
You’re a complete buffoon. No one who dismisses Dante has any soul left in his body.
> There is nothing degenerate in Proust
He was a sodomite. He frequented boy brothels. Homosexual and pedophile, that’s plenty of degeneracy. Carnal lust for anuses and robbing the purity of children. Completely materialistic and soulless, no wonder you like him.
> he engages with matters of the soul and nothing more
He engages with psychology which tricks the lowest kind of pseuds into thinking he deals with the soul. He is completely earthbound.

>>21766870
Literally Clark Ashton Smith.

>>21766930
Literally don't give a shit.

>>21766925
>You’re a complete buffoon. No one who dismisses Dante has any soul left in his body.
"The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body..."
>He was a sodomite. He frequented boy brothels. Homosexual and pedophile, that’s plenty of degeneracy. Carnal lust for anuses and robbing the purity of children. Completely materialistic and soulless, no wonder you like him.
Shakespeare cheated on his wife and got married barely on the cusp of manhood. Joyce fooled around with prostitutes and possibly contracted syphilis from his licentious escapades. By your reasoning, we should dismiss every writer who's ever flirted with sin, i.e., abolish the entire canon and all who reside in it. You're a prude: I bet you wear a chastity belt in the night for fear of Proust's ghost impregnating you.
>He engages with psychology which tricks the lowest kind of pseuds into thinking he deals with the soul. He is completely earthbound.
Psychology is a kind of language of the soul. Certainly you'd do well in spending less time reading Italian and more learning about how humans function.

>>21766870
This is better and pretty solid, albeit the first 8 lines seem merely metaphorical expositions of [eternity rules all] and doesn't quite create a firm poetic logic that justifies the turn. Images do not create a tight interlocking weave. And you have some musicality, but you don't seem to be considering the measured thematic use of it. Take this Dylan Thomas sonnet for instance, where he wrote this poem from hearing news about an extremely old man's death:

Among Those Killed In The Dawn Raid Was A Man Aged A Hundred

When the morning was waking over the war
He put on his clothes and stepped out and he died,
The locks yawned loose and a blast blew them wide,
He dropped where he loved on the burst pavement stone
And the funeral grains of the slaughtered floor.
Tell his street on its back he stopped a sun
And the craters of his eyes grew springshots and fire
When all the keys shot from the locks, and rang.
Dig no more for the chains of his grey-haired heart.
The heavenly ambulance drawn by a wound
Assembling waits for the spade's ring on the cage.
O keep his bones away from the common cart,
The morning is flying on the wings of his age
And a hundred storks perch on the sun's right hand.

Notice how the first two lines sound more like a commonplace report before he levies the strong sounds of 'yawned' and 'blast' to create a phonetic parallel to the everyday suddenness of death. Or when Millay shifts to 'gabble and hiss' within the Euclid poem. Measured and intentional sound variation is lacking within your sonnet.

Once again, try writing about stuff more immediate in your surroundings before dealing with the grand abstract themes. Or see if you can create those themes within discussion and dissection of a concrete situation. Wilfred Owen needed to find the War to give him his concrete subject.

Anyway, since I critiqued yours, might as well dump one of mine here. It's a sonnet but doesn't follow strict syllabic form:

I shall attain an autumn interlude
Amidst these cold and ever dreary climes;
Feel a sun abiding much less rude
Within the scale of mind’s congealing lime.
When time is at my wrist I shall obey
No clocks, nor stare upon the feathered hours.
I shall demand the sketches of the day
Within my rhyme – Fall leaves in longing vowels.
I shall attain an autumn by the throat,
Singing old songs, and wavering to tell
How long it was before I made abode
And sailed upon a memory’s youthful smell.
And long I rowed before I found the trees
Stirring barely near the praying eaves.

>>21767269
> Literally don't give a shit.
Did I hit a nerve? Your poetry is a bad mockery of Smith’s. Your ego is so prominent that you have centered a thread about Shakespeare around yourself. An attention-starved whore.
https://vocaroo.com/aPYGCMo17wO

>>21767960
Get lost, Guido: what is this, an audition for Goodfellas 2? Shouldn't you be slicking your greasy hair back and robbing at gunpoint someone who owes money to the Mafia? Get him outta here, fuggedaboudit.

>>21767920
Much thanks. I do need to better wed sound with theme. I enjoyed your poem and I'll offer my own critique if I may.

"The scale of mind's congealing lime" is the most interesting line for me and yet something is off. I'm having a hard time visualizing it but I can sense there's a compression of meaning there: it's Shakespearean in that regard. "An autumn interlude" is a lovely refrain and is musically pleasing. Much of your imagery seems borrowed from Romantic poets, particularly Wordsworth, whom I felt I was reading, which may have enhanced my initial appreciation of it given its familiarity. At the same time it also seems dull and dependent on Romantic cliches to me upon further readings (I also don't care for Wordsworth so that may explain my skepticism). "Attain an autumn by the throat" is jarring and doesn't work I think: it's too harsh and violent for me and doesn't follow the rest of the poem's tone. "Fall leaves in longing vowels" is a genuinely good line, and something about "feathered hours" touches me. "Praying eaves" is fine, but I'm not a fan of personification.

Good stuff. I think "scale of mind's congealing lime" is the seed from which other compact and fulfilling thoughts may spread: that line in particular makes the rest of the poem disappointing, albeit pleasant, when I realize the potentiality of what could've been expressed. Did Shakespeare train me to look for those lines? I wonder what Guido has to say about it.

You will never be better than Shakespeare. You won’t even aspire to lick his soles, like Keats and every poet of his era did. You can become, at best, an imitator of Clark Ashton Smith. Much to your chagrin.

>>21768080
Thanks, Guido Cavalcanti. When was your last hit? Did you make out with a lot of dough last heist? When are you going to make me that deal I can't refuse?

Again, seeing as Shakespeare doesn't have soles anymore (though he may still have his souls, komm schon), I'm not worried solely about that. I don't give a fuck about what you think about my poems.

>>21768055
To be honest, I wrote that poem in like 10-15 minutes after reading yours, as a quick exercise on an old subject. I think that shows the difference between where you are and where you could be. Anyway, good luck on your poetic future. Will be waiting expectantly for the flowering of your voice, if it should come.

>>21768130
Bless.

Fake Ashton Smith.

>>21768421
Will you take your Ashton Smith and shove him up your ass for me, pretty please, Guido?

>>21768429
I love how he makes you seethe lol he did everything in poetry you’re trying to do ITT but 100+ years ago.

>>21760073
>>21760126
>See above. Shakespeare was maddeningly average and it shows in his deliberately obtuse, yet dreadfully empty writing.
Look at this fucking STRATFORDIAN

>>21760073
>A big part of his supposed genius was commonplace back then
If you read Shakespeare's contemporaries, you gain an even deeper appreciation of how great he was, considering they're all mid as fuck

>>21761728
>Harold Bloom
>Conservative
Babbeo

>>21763949
>I know my worth and know that, were I put to the test, I would write better poetry than Keats
excellent bait

>>21768464
Blow it out your ass, pieutant.

>>21768583
Sure thing, bub.

>>21768620
I am for thee.

>>21768130
Come 'twill.

>>21760836
>All you did was name five guys
thanks faggot. now I want a burger.

>>21761965
>And yet his Odes that he wrote at 24 are perhaps the most perfect pieces of literature in the language.
Metallica wrote Ride The Lightning (the album) when they were all like 20. just sayin'...

>>21766209
start here:
https://youtu.be/2oxzvxHdDrw

>>21770009
I’m intrigued by what the forward might contain. Could you post an excerpt?

>>21765347
I liked the Spenser part of the saga
>Keats was more influenced by Spenser than Shakespeare
>What? I have read all of Keats letters, Keats was most influenced by Shakespeare, and then by Milton. Here is a massive book explaining all the ways he's influenced by Shakespeare
>Uh, well, uh, Keats had bad taste and liked bad writers
Just a positively embarrassing showing by OP

Thoughts?

>>21770147
That was not OP lol that was some faggot who chimed in randomly just to get his ass fucked.

I know the urge to oppose the bardolatry is very high, people make him out to be this untouchable incomparable God, but this extreme over exaggeration should not make you take the other false extreme exaggeration. Any way you cut it Shakespeare is one of the best writers in English ever, this doesn’t mean he’s a deity above all others, you can still compare his poems and plays to others and find others superior. Take his worst sonnets and plays and put them against say, Sidney or Jonson’s best and Shakespeare will lose. Hell take Clark Ashton smith‘s best lines and compare them to Shakespeare’s worse, you’re gonna find smith is better.

This doesn’t mean Shakespeare is trash he’s still one of the best with some of the best unity in his individual plays you can find.

Just be realistic when approaching him, it’s hard to remove the common sentiment and reaction against it from your opinion, but honestly study of these mens works will enable you to look at them without this exaggerated bias.

Also I gotta say

> There's nothing in Shakespeare that doesn't also happen in other artists from the period.

This is completely misunderstanding the point, for most of history authors aren’t praised for innovation, they’re praised for excellency. You don’t go to Shakespeare because he invented anything, you go to him because he has such a monstrous mastery of rhetoric, of verse, continuous stacking of metaphor, beautiful images and so forth. Are you gonna complain about Luciano Pavarotti’s singing because he didn’t do anything innovative with his voice, or do you appreciate the quality of his voice?

Same with Shakespeare, you go to him for excellency. If you want to go into the nuts and bolts of it I can present beautiful control of meter from various plays.

Love seeing such a long thread of a retarded OP slowly getting forced to make more and more outlandish claims, to the point he posts generic college freshman garbage with the gall to say he'll end up better than William fucking Shakespeare. In awe that we still have autists like this turning 19 every day.

>>21771375
keatsfag is not OP

>>21764065
OP you really should read that Clark Ashton smith recommendation if you’ve not already t b h.

Here’s two poems of his.

The witch with eyes of amber.

I met a witch with amber eyes
Who slowly sang a scarlet rune,
Shifting to an icy laughter
Like the laughter of the moon.

Red as a wanton's was her mouth,
And fair the breast she bade me take
With a word that clove and clung
Burning like a furnace-flake.

But from her bright and lifted bosom,
When I touched it with my hand,
Came the many-needled coldness
Of a glacier-taken land.

And, lo! the witch with eyes of amber
Vanished like a blown-out flame
Leaving but the lichen-eaten
Stone that bore a blotted name.
Tolometh

In billow-lost Posedonis
I was the black god of the abyss:
My three horns were of similor
Above my double diadem;
My one eye was a moon-bright gem
Found in a monstrous meteor.

Incredible far peoples came,
Called by the thunders of my fame,
And passed before my terraced throne
Where titan pards and lions stood,
As pours a never-lapsing flood
Before the winds of winter blown.

Below my glooming architraves,
One brown eternal file of slaves
Came in from mines of chalcedon,
And camels from the long plateaus
Laid down their sard and peridoz,
Their incense and their cinnamon.

The star-born evil that I brought
Through all the ancient land was wrought:
All women took my yoke of shame;
I reared, through sumless centuries,
The thrones of hell-black wizardries,
The hecatombs of blood and flame.

But now, within my sunken walls,
The slow blind ocean-serpent crawls,
And sea-worms are my ministers,
And wandering fishes pass me now
Or press before mine eyeless brow
As once the thronging worshippers...

And yet, in ways outpassing thought,
Men worship me that know me not.
They work my will. I shall arise
In that last dawn of atom-fire,
To stand upon the planet's pyre
And cast my shadow on the skies.

>>21771432
I'm OP. That faggot is not me. The text in the OP is bait I've already used in this forum. I would never say half the shit that faggot says lol

>>21771447
I’m also trans btw

>>21770130

"I am very pleased with the publication of this edition of Dr Martin Lings' remarkable book. He seeks to interpret for a wider audience the profound wisdom that is contained in the symbolism of some of Shakespeare's plays. It is a book which I found difficult to stop reading, since it was undoubtedly written from an intimate and personal awareness of the significance of the symbols Shakespeare uses to describe the inner drama of the soul's journey, a drama which is contained, as it were, in the outer earthly drama of the plays.
Of course, the difficulty in writing anything about Shakespeare is that many have already done so, and will continue to do so for generations. Every conceivable theory about the meaning of his plays, their authenticity, and about their author seems to have been aired at one time or another. Some of these theories are more esoteric than others, and I dare say that Dr Martin Lings' book will be seen as too esoteric by many.
Be that as it may, the author's insight into this field of human experience will surely strike a chord in some people's hearts and may open for them a hidden door in a corner of their being - a corner of which they may not have been aware. It may, also, transform their understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare's plays and of his intuitive genius and lead them to understand that the true meaning of our earthly existence is inscribed in the context of the great inner odyssey we are called upon to perform."

>>21771510
Read Clark Ashton Smith.

>>21769708
>comparing a Metallica album to some of the greatest poetry written in the language
You're in the wrong field, my friend. Quiet now, the adults are speaking.

>>21770147
I'm not the OP. And it's not impossible that Keats liked bad writers.

>>21771096
I didn't get my ass fucked. What universe are you living in, you stupid motherfucker whom your mother shitted out of her ass?

>>21771383
Thanks for the vote of confidence. "Keatsfag." I should make that my epithet.

>>21771432
Much thanks. I'm not OP; apparently I'm Keatsfag. I'll study these more in-depth, and thanks.

>>21771447
Again, thanks for the vote of confidence.

>>21771375
You haven't posted anything of yours, so you can blow it out your ass.

>>21771991
The delusion continues lmao you're a local lolcow at this point.

>>21771991
I’m down for the verse penis contest if he’s not willing, here have a verse of mine.

thou lidless eye thou limnless I,
the vision’s cry, and in it I,
though formed of force and limbless fly,
the demon sky,
of deepest night,
where hides creation’s secret light,
In the fire Phoenix flight,
of nightmares dreaming sight,
he is light, he is like,
brazen serpents helix-twined,
elixir bind what is the elixir of mind?
Ichor-like the inner I,
seraphic tears of wizard might,
wizened by the eyeless night,
“ I ignite, i ignite “
the knife is sight,
the night is sliced,
the light is Christ,
wither then in winter’s breath,
thou wicker flesh, go thither hence,
as a picture blessed the figure dressed,
in roar or rathe or wrath of rift,
the hoards of rape and blackened drift,
i rest in the river‘s cleft,
and richer yes,
as the holy scripture says:
“Give me neither poverty nor riches”
Lord, windy ether honors thee more, with its
shifting meters wandering forth, in this
twisting cedar conjuring your discus,
spinning creature hollering door’s image,
who from who, has through you its fathering,
harboring,
God, word, King,
all in one star burning,
in whom the dark earth sings.

>>21771991
Btw his big poem which you should really read is “the hashish eater” it’s really beautiful!

>>21772033
>>21772029
Thank you, maître. Too tired now to reply fully but I wanted to bump this to remind myself to get back to you and so that the thread doesn't die before then.

>>21773188
cringe

>>21773190
>>21772017
Don't you get fucking tired of responding to me? You've already been BTFO once or even twice. Are you a masochist? Do you enjoy getting fucked? Why do you keep coming back for more?

>>21773193
> You've already been BTFO once or even twice
In your dreams, maybe. The only person who was BTFO ITT was you, the bad copy of CAS. We all saw it.

>>21773213
We're not going to bring up CAS anymore. Comprends-tu? Verstehe? Enough now. The joke's run its course and everyone's tired of it. I know your knowledge of English literature is très, très limited so I'll give you however long this dying thread lasts to find someone else with whom to compare me. But I don't want to hear anymore about him. I've shown my poetry and yet I've seen nothing from you in that regard. I have more ambition in my right, my droite pinky toe than you do in your entire body. I shouldn't even deign to speak with you at this point, but you're a fly and a gnat that I find myself wanting to swat at. And to all my naysayers who say it isn't possible, I assure you I will be a better writer than Shakespeare ever was. I don't need to prove anything to you: I've done that already with my poetry. You can cry out, "CAS, CAS!" and it doesn't make a difference, for I know my worth inherently and don't need the validation or approval of bumpkins and the country groundlings.

Good day to you, Orlando.

>>21771432
People that think that this is good poetry need to be removed from the gene pool. Some of the least rhythmic and unmusical verse I've ever read; a poor imitator of Keats, Shelley and Swinburne. When CAS writes:
>I crown me with the million-colored sun
>Of secret worlds incredible, and take
>Their trailing skies for vestment when I soar,
>Throned on the mounting zenith, and illume
>The spaceward-flown horizons infinite.
>Like rampant monsters roaring for their glut,
>The fiery-crested oceans rise and rise,
>By jealous moons maleficently urged
>To follow me for ever; mountains horned
>With peaks of sharpest adamant, and mawed
>With sulphur-lit volcanoes lava-langued
He is doing nothing but poorly imitating Swinburnes alliterative style, and some aspects of Keats' Hyperion and Shelley's Prometheus Unbound (Milton of course, being the precursor for the two previous poets). Everything is maximized to an extent that it becomes a tedious and boring mess--no real insights, no real music or interesting language save what someone like Swinburne did before:
>The glory, the terror, the passion that made of the midnight a miracle, died,
>Not slain at a stroke, nor in gradual reluctance abated of power and of pride;
>With strong swift subsidence, awful as power that is wearied of power upon earth,
>As a God that were wearied of power upon heaven, and were fain of a new God's birth,
>The might of the night subsided: the tyranny kindled in darkness fell:
>And the sea and the sky put off them the rapture and radiance of heaven and of hell.
Compare CAS also with these sections from Prometheus Unbound:
>By ebbing light into her western cave,
>When she upsprings from interlunar dreams;
>O'er which is curved an orblike canopy
>Of gentle darkness, and the hills and woods,
>Distinctly seen through that dusk aery veil,
>Regard like shapes in an enchanter's glass;
>Its wheels are solid clouds, azure and gold,
>Such as the genii of the thunderstorm
>Pile on the floor of the illumined sea
>When the sun rushes under it; they roll
>And move and grow as with an inward wind;
>Within it sits a wingèd infant, white
>Its countenance, like the whiteness of bright snow,
>Its plumes are as feathers of sunny frost,
>Its limbs gleam white, through the wind-flowing folds
>Of its white robe, woof of ethereal pearl.
>Its hair is white, the brightness of white light
>Scattered in strings; yet its two eyes are heavens
>Of liquid darkness, which the Deity
>Within seems pouring, as a storm is poured
>From jaggèd clouds, out of their arrowy lashes,
>Tempering the cold and radiant air around,
>With fire that is not brightness; in its hand
>It sways a quivering moonbeam, from whose point
>A guiding power directs the chariot's prow
>Over its wheelèd clouds, which as they roll
>Over the grass, and flowers, and waves, wake sounds,
>Sweet as a singing rain of silver dew.

>>21773365
Did Swinburne invent alliteration?

>>21760126
Marlowe is so incredibly inferior, this is the ultimate midwit opinion

>>21773365
I’m a maximalist far beyond anything you’ll find in the west, I don’t agree that this dissolves musicality I see it as strictly benefiting it, as for insight, I don’t go to poetry for insight or knowledge or philosophy, i go to it for beauty, but the phantasmagoria of the poem does reach in its apex an insight about the incomprehensibility of the Godhead, and the imagery is inarguably beautiful.

And imitation is not a mark of evil, all of these men praised the successful combinatory imitation technique the same which the ancients also shilled. So yes I agree in smith you see Swinburne, you see George Sterling, Keats, Milton, Shelley, Shakespeare and Spenser, these are compliments !

As for tedium and boring mess, I again disagree we see similar maximalism in the likes of Spenser, and in Asia in the likes of kalidasa and the whole mahakavya tradition, the prosaic usage of highs and lows is better suited for prose and plays, every line in a poem having maximal possible beauty is to me undoubtedly a good thing.

>>21773368
No but he used it to an extreme degree, he wrote this as a self parody and I found it inspirational.

From the depth of the dreamy decline of the dawn through a notable nimbus of nebulous noonshine,
Pallid and pink as the palm of the flag-flower that flickers with fear of the flies as they float,
Are they looks of our lovers that lustrously lean from a marvel of mystic miraculous moonshine,
These that we feel in the blood of our blushes that thicken and threaten with throbs through the throat?
Thicken and thrill as a theatre thronged at appeal of an actor's appalled agitation,
Fainter with fear of the fires of the future than pale with the promise of pride in the past;
Flushed with the famishing fullness of fever that reddens with radiance of rathe recreation,
Gaunt as the ghastliest of glimpses that gleam through the gloom of the gloaming when ghosts go aghast?
Nay, for the nick of the tick of the time is a tremulous touch on the temples of terror,
Strained as the sinews yet strenuous with strife of the dead who is dumb as the dust-heaps of death:
Surely no soul is it, sweet as the spasm of erotic emotional exquisite error,
Bathed in the balms of beatified bliss, beatific itself by beatitude's breath.
Surely no spirit or sense of a soul that was soft to the spirit and soul of our senses
Sweetens the stress of suspiring suspicion that sobs in the semblance and sound of a sigh;
Only this oracle opens Olympian, in mystical moods and triangular tenses—
"Life is the lust of a lamp for the light that is dark till the dawn of the day when we die."
Mild is the mirk and monotonous music of memory, melodiously mute as it may be,
While the hope in the heart of a hero is bruised by the breach of men's rapiers, resigned to the rod;
Made meek as a mother whose bosom-beats bound with the bliss-bringing bulk of a balm-breathing baby,
As they grope through the grave-yard of creeds, under skies growing green at a groan for the grimness of God.
Blank is the book of his bounty beholden of old, and its binding is blacker than bluer:
Out of blue into black is the scheme of the skies, and their dews are the wine of the bloodshed of things;
Till the darkling desire of delight shall be free as a fawn that is freed from the fangs that pursue her,
Till the heart-beats of hell shall be hushed by a hymn from the hunt that has harried the kennel of kings.

>>21773365
and I have to double down on my disagreement on tedium, I’ve read hashish eater so many times and listened to recitations of it in complete so many times, I can’t possibly agree with this tedium argument.

>>21760126
>>21760297
To the King of the Psueds.

>>21773365
Cont.
>And from the other opening in the wood
>Rushes, with loud and whirlwind harmony,
>A sphere, which is as many thousand spheres,
>Solid as crystal, yet through all its mass
>Flow, as through empty space, music and light:
>Ten thousand orbs involving and involved,
>Purple and azure, white, and green, and golden,
>Sphere within sphere; and every space between
>Peopled with unimaginable shapes,
>Such as ghosts dream dwell in the lampless deep,
>Yet each inter-transpicuous, and they whirl
>Over each other with a thousand motions,
>Upon a thousand sightless axles spinning,
>And with the force of self-destroying swiftness,
>Intensely, slowly, solemnly roll on,
>Kindling with mingled sounds, and many tones,
>Intelligible words and music wild.
>With mighty whirl the multitudinous orb
>Grinds the bright brook into an azure mist
>Of elemental subtlety, like light;
>And the wild odour of the forest flowers,
>The music of the living grass and air,
>The emerald light of leaf-entangled beams
>Round its intense yet self-conflicting speed,
>Seem kneaded into one aëreal mass
>Which drowns the sense. Within the orb itself,
>Pillowed upon its alabaster arms,
>Like to a child o'erwearied with sweet toil,
>On its own folded wings, and wavy hair,
>The Spirit of the Earth is laid asleep,
>And you can see its little lips are moving,
>Amid the changing light of their own smiles,
>Like one who talks of what he loves in dream.
I'm not really going to spend much time breaking down the comparison between CAS and the poets I've mentioned; any discerning reader can spot the similarities (these are admitted to by CAS who was called "the last of the romantics" for a reason) but I think the major take away is how un-lyrical and forced Smith's poetry is: he has nightingales and million colored suns, phoenixes and meteors not because they are interesting pieces of visual imagery--but because he was an actual autist who was obsessed with these poetic descriptors and used them as frequently as possible, to the point that you can read a dozen of his poems at random and can basically claim to have read them all. Compare "Saturn" from him to Keats' "Hyperion", or "Satan unrepentant" to most any passages featuring Satan from Paradise Lost to get a feel for how off the mark he is when it comes to poetry. Every aspect of it is a dilution in form, and substance from those who came before him.

>>21773365
>>21773403
cont.
His best poems are his shorter and more human works--especially his haikus--and his prose poetry:
>In the quest of her whom I had lost, I came at length to the shores of Lethe, under the vault of an immense, empty, ebon sky, from which all the stars had vanished one by one. Proceeding I knew not whence, a pale, elusive light as of the waning moon, or the phantasmal phosphorescence of a dead sun, lay dimly and without lustre on the sable stream, and on the black, flowerless meadows.
"phantasmal phosphorescence" is a stroke of genius. Notice how everything flows so well, neatly fitted together (not dropping from one line and picking up from the next in a heave). This is why to me, he was always a prose writer first and a downright mediocre poet second, his prose works have time to breathe, to let the lyrical nature of the something like "lustre on the sable stream" shine, without tedious verbiage. CAS wrote poetry because he had read a lot of poetry, not because he experienced anything profound.
http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/prose-poetry-plays/12/a-dream-of-lethe
http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/prose-poetry-plays/4/chinoiserie
http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/prose-poetry-plays/7/the-crystals

>>21773406
> This is why to me, he was always a prose writer first and a downright mediocre poet second
To you? That’s the modern consensus. His poetry is considered secondary to his œuvre. The form might be technically clumsy but I like the pulse behind them. A kind of otherworldly authority.

>>21773368
You are a complete moron, and since you clearly cant read ill reiterate it for you:
>He is doing nothing but poorly imitating Swinburnes alliterative style
Does not mean "Swinburne invented alliteration and everyone who uses it rips him off". It is his specific style of alliteration that he frequently employed , seen here >>21773379 and from Atalanta in Calydon:
>Maiden, and mistress of the months and stars
>Now folded in the flowerless fields of heaven.
...
>Lighten as flame above that flameless shell
...
>With sanguine-shining steam divides the dawn,
>And one, the maiden rose of all thy maids,
>Arcadian Atalanta, snowy-souled
And repeat ad nauseam.

>>21773376
>I don’t go to poetry for insight or knowledge or philosophy, i go to it for beauty,
Good poetry does one or two, great poetry does all of it at once. I have a temperamental aversion to bad verse, and I don't waste time reading empty and utterly meaningless words when given the choice between something of substance, REAL poetry.
>and the imagery is inarguably beautiful.
And inarguably dull, with nothing new being communicated. If you want are content to read about "azure chasms, and gulfs of containing infinite sapphire stars of the abyss god who is..." for the rest of your life, enjoy.
>And imitation is not a mark of evil . . . these are compliments!
Yeah it's absolutely not a compliment when you imitate POORLY. I always hate talking to you because you just run off in a completely different direction in a conversation, I said it was a poor imitation, not that imitation is poor.
>Spenser
In his worst poems, yes. Like the shit "four hymns" you try shilling.
>every line in a poem having maximal possible beauty is to me undoubtedly a good thing.
You are a special breed of moron: real beauty is not derived from verbiage, or infinitely layered lists of "things" with the dull formula of "color" + "verb" + "adjective" used without regard for the sound, sense or structure of the poem:
>With scrolls of fulvous dragon-skin whereon
>Are worm-like runes of ever-twisting flame,
>Would stay me; and the sirens of the stars,
>With foam-like songs from silver fragrance wrought,
>Would lure me to their crystal reefs; and moons
>Where viper-eyed, senescent devils dwell,
>With antic gnomes abominably wise,
>Heave up their icy horns across my way.
If you like this you have no sense of aesthetics or what real, good prosody sounds like.

>>21773403
Again derivation is not a negative and favorite imagery being expressed beautifully is simply actually having an aesthetic.

>His best poems are his shorter and more human works--especially his haikus--and his prose poetry:

Humanity, what is this a concern with, I don’t see why this is a value in terms of his actual skill in the writing, while I enjoy his prose I simply don’t agree that his long poetry feels forced at all, the imagery is beautiful and the sound is very good,

A serpent rises, whiter than the root
Of some venefic bloom in darkness grown,
And gazes up with green-lit eyes that seem
Like drops of cold, congealing poison.

How is that not a striking image?

How can you say this doesn’t have musicality and a phantasmagoric unfolding?

I find me in a monster-guarded room,
Where marble apes with wings of griffins crowd
On walls an evil sculptor wrought, and beasts
Wherein the sloth and vampire-bat unite,
Pendulous by their toes of tarnished bronze,
Usurp the shadowy interval of lamps
That hang from ebon arches. Like a ripple
Borne by the wind from pool to sluggish pool
In fields where wide Cocytus flows his bound,
A crackling smile around that circle runs,
And all the stone-wrought gibbons stare at me
With eyes that turn to glowing coals. A fear
That found no name in Babel, flings me on,
Breathless and faint with horror, to a hall
Within whose weary, self-reverting round,
The languid curtains, heavier than palls,
Unnumerably depict a weary king
Who fain would cool his jewel-crusted hands
In lakes of emerald evening, or the field
Of dreamless poppies pure with rain.

>>21773444
>Good poetry does one or two, great poetry does all of it at once.

Not necessarily, plenty of great poems with no philosophic and negative philosophic value, the poet is not as insightful as the mystic or the philosopher, if you want insight you should read actual wisemen not the aesthetic fixated, not to say beauty contemplation cannot produce wisdom, but wisdom is simply not their point, I can show beautiful poems ranging from nerval to Whitman to Horace to Shakespeare to gascoign which are wonderful but have a bad or neutral or lack philosophy.

>i have a temperamental aversion to bad verse,

Nah If you’re realistic with yourself you just prefer humanity and the contours of ups and downs as is more common in prose and plays

>REAL poetry.

Nigga it’s all real poetry even rupi kaur’s poetry is real poetry, quality doesn’t define the category of the type of art.

>And inarguably dull, with nothing new being communicated. If you want are content to read about "azure chasms, and gulfs of containing infinite sapphire stars of the abyss god who is..." for the rest of your life, enjoy.

Dull to you perhaps, endless monsters, seasonal flowers, cosmic explosions and so forth are pretty beautiful and far more interesting than the common love angst and existential drama.

Cont

>>21773444
Explain what is specific about his style of alliteration vs alliteration in general.

>>21773444
> with nothing new being communicated
The modern obsession with novelty was a mistake.

>>21773457
> Humanity, what is this a concern with
It’s one of the fixations of the literary pseud. Something can’t just be good, it has to be “human”, which in their world is a high compliment.

>>21773444
>poor imitation

It’s absolutely not poor, the meter is on point, when recited it sounds musical, the alliterations are effective, the contrasts work well, but put up or shut up, take lines from hashish eater and critically explain how those specific lines are poor in technique in specific in terms of how his usage was poorly executed and didn’t work in according to his own ideal of Good verse. Show how his alliteration worked against the line, show how his meter falls flat or gets corrupt, etc.

>In his worst poems, yes. Like the shit "four hymns" you try shilling.

Nah the styles also in fairy queen, ruins of time, that butterfly poem, that gnat translation, etc. people complained about his savage musicality In his own time.

You are a special breed of moron: real beauty is not derived from verbiage, or infinitely layered lists of "things" with the dull formula of "color" + "verb" + "adjective" used without regard for the sound, sense or structure of the poem:

So do it, prove yourself, show how the sound of the lines, the sense (which is for the purpose of phantasmagoria induction gradually building up to a vision of God as beyond man through the conceit of a drug trip.) is not well executed and explain the errors in structure.

I see no problem with it, the blank verse puts the tone in a solemn, the rapid fire imagery passing works with the entire structures basis of an ever passing intense and more intense dream vision.

>>21773459
I can explain that, after Spenser who was himself an atavist in style, they were very fixated on sweet clear elegance and naturalness, Swinburne’s alliterative style has no regard for sounding natural or human it simply Cares about maximized artificial sounding beauty, which results in Swinburne’s mixed anapestic-iambic style, high alliteration and usage of internal rhyme. While it’s not uniquely his it’s associated with him due to his high success with it. You can see similar alliteration being used by hopkins, Tennyson and even browning to some degree. Example from browning

Flame at my footfall, Parnassus! Apollo,
Breaking a-blaze on thy topmost peak,
Burns thence, down to the depths — dread hollow —
Haunt of the Dire Ones. Haste! They wreak
Wrath on Admetus whose respite I seek.

Beautiful very forceful very fiery! But natural? It is not.

>>21773478
Thank you for explaining the alliteration thing. Is there an email address you have for 4chan stuff or whatever? You seem like a good poster and I’d like to ask you some questions on certain topics.

>>21773531
Nope, while I’m not gonna be on discord for another month or so, you can dm me on it, either that or ask around for me in the poetry threads or write what’s on your mind threads, I’ll see ya.

Discord ID: @Hairy#9550

>>21773457
>Again derivation is not a negative and favorite imagery being expressed beautifully is simply actually having an aesthetic.
Yeah, when its done POORLY you fucking inbred new jersey hick.
>it-its just an aesthetic
A bad one. One that's directly mirrored off of Milton.
>Humanity, what is this a concern with
A notice to you and the other mouthbreather commenting: a work is not better or even good because it is "human" but his best poems happen to be those that touch on something CAS can actually place his finger on--actual real emotion, not noise.
>phantasmagoric
Using this word in my post seems to have broken your brain, as its all you say now.
>quote
Literally nothing. There is nothing to read here, its just noise. Admit you're a child who likes to read about le epic and cool "vast" verse with no care or artistry already.
>Not necessarily, plenty of great poems with no philosophic and negative philosophic value
Name some lol
>you just prefer humanity
Headcanon. I just posted extracts from Shelley that are in the same vein as CAS but flat out better.
>Dull to you perhaps, endless monsters, seasonal flowers, cosmic explosions and so forth are pretty beautiful and far more interesting than the common love angst and existential drama.
That's because you're an immature child, pure and simple.
> . . . show his meter falls flat . . . etc
>Then, In one enormous, million-flashing flame
Its lines like these that show that CAS only obsession was expressing "vast" and innumerable ideas and concepts without regard for anything other than shallow aesthetics in poetry--its why he was never a successful poet, and as I mentioned above its why his prose is vastly superior, he allows it to breathe.
>Gather and throng to the base of darkness; flame
>Behind some black, abysmal curtain burns,
>Implacable, and fanned to whitest wrath
>By raisèd wings that flail the whiffled gloom,
The only thing holding this together is the basics of English syntax: each line (most noticeably from "flame" "behind") drops, and the next line has to pick up the energy--the lines exist like messily arranged prose renditions of the same ilk. To quote EP: "Don't retell in mediocre verse what has already been done in good prose. Don't think any intelligent person is going to be deceived when you try to shirk all the difficulties of the unspeakably difficult art of good prose by chopping your composition into line lengths". This says it all. His enjambment and blank verse form a nearly sing-song approach to a reading, with rises and falls as dictated by meter not by sense or style - and the only reason you don't read it as sing songy as you would Shelley's blank verse, is a disordered sense of structure, usually by mixing color with common poetic images like stars, and numbers / adjectives of size. So now we get lines like "million-flashing flame", neither musical or interesting, a dull phase like "flashing flame" being paired with something as mundane and prosaic as "million".

>>21773540
Thanks! See you around.

>gets told that his poems are like a poor man’s Clark Ashton Smith
>proceeds to seethe at CAS with obviously resentful and bitter opinions
>thinks everyone who challenges him is le New Jersey devil (a guy from a vocaroo from like 3 years ago)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA newfags, everyone.

>>21773478
>Nah the styles also in fairy queen
No it isn't, and you're a fucking liar (something of a running theme in this thread). The Faerie Queene often goes into actual pastoral territory, and you only have to get someone to read 4-6 stanzas to know its not maximalism in any capacity, why would you lie about something to fucking stupid and antithetical to your point?

/lit/ has gotten to the point where we have retards who think Frater is intelligent, and no one has read any real literary criticism. What an embarrassing display of pseud-ism.
>I love it when poems are a nigh-meaningless collection of noise and concepts stolen from better authors, and diluted to the point that the highest aspect of my poetry is flat and overused descriptors of stars and fire, with no substance.
t. Frater

>>21773562
Frater is literally from New Jersey, anon.

>>21773548
>Yeah, when its done POORLY you fucking inbred new jersey hick.

New York get it right!

>A bad one. One that's directly mirrored off of Milton.

Okay and? Milton is great what’s wrong with that?
>Using this word
Ya just trying to back off from the fact that it’s accurate.

>Literally nothing. There is nothing to read here, its just noise.

Nah they’re pretty clear and pretty images and well built sounds.

>Admit you're a child who likes to read about le epic and cool "vast" verse

YES YES YES, I love cool things, I like pretty things, explosive, large, powerful, decadent, huge, ornate, monstrous, exotic, oriental! Force and fire! Burning stars monstrous meteors made by men into terrible idols of tyrant demons, great warriors and horrible witches, possessions and all manner of wealth and riches! What’s wrong with that! These are innately beautiful and grand things, even a child can appreciate the beauty of them, why should I feel ashamed about liking the things which are obviously good?

>with no care or artistry already


There’s plenty of care and artistry! You try to write as cool!

>That's because you're an immature child, pure and simple.

Then a child who enjoys better aesthetic pleasures than yourself! Pfft let loose! art is about pleasure, fun, if you seriously cared about insights and philosophy you’d put down the light weight poetry and actually hit the hard philosophy straight and sit with quiet contemplation over it, what’s wrong with poetry being entertaining? You only say it’s childish because it’s so easily consumable.

>Its lines like these that show that CAS only obsession was expressing "vast" and innumerable ideas and concepts without regard for anything other than shallow aesthetics in poetry--its why he was never a successful poet,

Poetry is nothing but a storehouse of images and sounds, painting nothing but a collection of colors, music nothing but Melodies and rhythms, if the song is successfully rhythmical and melodic it is a good song, if the poem creates an aesthetic and does it well, it, though illusionary as all art is nothing but illusionary impressions, artifice, it is a good piece of art.

>million-flashing flames
>not cool
>doesn’t sound enjoyable
>doesn’t produce an image in your brain

Who are you lying? Ahhahahah.

>>21773567
I’m literally not.

Cont

>>21773582
>>21773565

Middle of the cantos
>Unkindnesse past, they gan of solace treat,
And bathe in pleasaunce of the joyous shade,
Which shielded them against the boyling heat,
And with greene boughes decking a gloomy glade,
About the fountaine like a girlond made;
Whose bubbling wave did ever freshly well,
Ne ever would through fervent sommer fade:
The sacred Nymph, which therein wont to dwell,
Was out of Dianes favour, as it then befell.

You sure? No maximalist alliteration?

>Then gan the Dwarfe the whole discourse declare,
The subtill traines of Archimago old;
The wanton loves of false Fidessa faire,
Bought with the blood of vanquisht Paynim bold;
The wretched payre transformed to treen mould;
The house of Pride, and perils round about;
The combat, which he with Sansjoy did hould;
The lucklesse conflict with the Gyant stout,
Wherein captiv'd, of life or death he stood in doubt.

Liar?

What about in the last canto?

So faire and fresh, as freshest flowre in May;
For she had layd her mournefull stole aside,
And widow-like sad wimple throwne away,
Wherewith her heavenly beautie she did hide,
Whiles on her wearie journey she did ride;
And on her now a garment she did weare,
All lilly white, withoutten spot, or pride,
That seemd like silke and silver woven neare,
But neither silke nor silver therein did appeare.
Well maybe you just read the first few cantos?

First two stanzas of canto 1

A GENTLE Knight^ was pricking on the plaine,
Ycladd in mightie armes and silver shielde,
Wherein old dints of deepe wounds did remaine,
The cruel markes of many'a bloudy fielde;
Yet armes till that time did he never wield:
His angry steede did chide his foming bitt,
As much disdayning to the curbe to yield:
Full jolly knight he seemd, and faire did sitt,
As one for knightly giusts and fierce encounters fitt.

II

And on his brest a bloudie Crosse he bore,
The deare remembrance of his dying Lord,
For whose sweete sake that glorious badge he wore,
And dead as living ever him ador'd:
Upon his shield the like was also scor'd,
For soveraine hope,^ which in his helpe he had:
Right faithfull true he was in deede and word,
But of his cheere did seeme too solemne sad;
Yet nothing did he dread, but ever was ydrad.

Nah there’s still high alliteration there!

You can’t rewrite history, people have always complained about Spenser’s atavistic high alliteration, older language and heroic fantasy mode.

>>21761489
Why do retards always have the most confidence?

Off for now, if you do reply I’ll have to reply tomorrow, apologies.

>>21773601
See >>21773265
> I assure you I will be a better writer than Shakespeare ever was

>>21773604
Rest well, based anon.

Anyone who thinks Frater is intelligent, or a good judge of poetry should be forced to read these replies.

>>21773591
This is why I hate talking to you, you said:
>As for tedium and boring mess, I again disagree we see similar maximalism in the likes of Spenser . . . every line in a poem having maximal possible beauty is to me undoubtedly a good thing.

>>21773591
>You sure? No maximalist alliteration?
Now its suddenly not about aesthetic maximism, but about "maximalist alliteration" a concept you have suddenly created and one which had no barring on the previous discussion. You are unable to follow a thought to its conclusion without changing the parameters of the discussion, its truly remarkable.
>not cool . . . brain
Nothing-burger statement. No its not cool to me, but I'm not calling into question what is and isn't cool. I prefer something slightly different for cool, but that's neither here nor there, because at no point did I bring up "cool". And it doesn't, and if it did it would be a rather mundane and outlandish one (inb4 "ha you got no imagination!" arguments). Here is something I prefer:
>He spake, and to confirm his words, out-flew
>Millions of flaming swords, drawn from the thighs
>Of mighty Cherubim; the sudden blaze
>Far round illumin’d hell: highly they rag’d
>Against the Highest, and fierce with grasped arms
>Clashed on thir sounding Shields the din of war,
>Hurling defiance toward the Vault of Heav’n.
Look, its actually saying something! Clear visual imagery, not abstract (in a negative way, I mean "blurry") but concrete in its approach. A million swords is impossible to visualize, but "swords" grounds the idea enough to be approachable.
> if the song is successfully rhythmical and melodic it is a good song, if the poem creates an aesthetic and does it well, it, though illusionary as all art is nothing but illusionary impressions, artifice, it is a good piece of art.
This is why you will never, ever be a good poet. You have such a one note brain I truly believe it is impossible for you to write something of substance. The qualifiers for what makes great art has eluded humanity, but pretending that you can boil away substance and leave artifice and be left with good art is the biggest trap in every medium in art. Every single author who thought as you did has been left to the wayside, abandoned by time and history and utterly forgotten. Not even Milton was this shallow, and English critics have spent 350 years pounding his rhetoric laden verse.
> I love cool things . . . why should I feel ashamed about liking the things which are obviously good?
You are a child and generalize everything to an extreme. Its like talking to an MCU fan saying "but its got cool fights, I don't want to see that boring cinema bro". This is literally how I thought in highschool when I read every epic poem I could get my hands on, and shit fantasy stories like Malazan. You will continue to write dreadful poetry, and be inspired by mediocre verse.

>>21773582
>Then a child who enjoys better aesthetic pleasures than yourself! Pfft let loose! art is about pleasure, fun, if you seriously cared about insights and philosophy you’d put down the light weight poetry and actually hit the hard philosophy straight and sit with quiet contemplation over it, what’s wrong with poetry being entertaining? You only say it’s childish because it’s so easily consumable.

What "light weight" poetry are you referring to? I'm all ears. And again, not that its relevant to the topic but I quite obviously read a lot of philosophy; which is why I can pretty safely say you're a retard, and one who couldn't even give me the list of "great" poems that don't feature philosophy, or have "negative" philosophic value. I can name literal dozens of authors to the contrary.

Can you guys analyze this children’s poem like you so with the more serious type of poetry?

I guess you think you know this story.
You don't. The real one's much more gory.
The phoney one, the one you know,
Was cooked up years and years ago,
And made to sound all soft and sappy
just to keep the children happy.
Mind you, they got the first bit right,
The bit where, in the dead of night,
The Ugly Sisters, jewels and all,
Departed for the Palace Ball,
While darling little Cinderella
Was locked up in a slimy cellar,
Where rats who wanted things to eat,
Began to nibble at her feet.

>>21773645
Full poem: https://www.familyfriendpoems.com/poem/cinderella-by-roald-dahl

>>21773562
Bingbangbong, motherfucker.

I kind of feel sorry for Shakespeare. He’s a talented writer. He even goes down in history as the greatest of the english language.

But then along comes a yank who outdoesnhim in everyway: language, theme, plot, character.

Don’t worry, Will. Being second best is a great achievement.

>>21774326
no joke, i think the simpsons will be a study for professors for generations to coom. 500 years from now, if this country--if humanity is lucky enough---to have this country spread democracy and freedom and love around the globe, if it's still standing....

>>21774340
>i think the simpsons will be a study for professors for generations to coom. 500 years from now
And that's a good thing

How the fuck did this thread go from Shakespeare, Milton and Keats to fucking Clark Ashton Smith? Niggers seriously take that bad Lovecraft copy seriously as a writer?

>>21773628
>Now its suddenly not about aesthetic maximism, but about "maximalist alliteration" a concept you have suddenly created

Oh come now, what is aesthetic maximalism but attempting on every line to have maximal beauty, his attempt to have a maximum of efficient alliteration, as many heavy hitting lines and so forth is clearly this.

>Look, its actually saying something!

They’re both saying something, you just like the edge of this one more so because you find more to be sentimentally connected with, which is why you find the smith just noise, you want a human connection my Nigga.

>Clear visual imagery, not abstract (in a negative way, I mean "blurry")

In which way is

“A serpent rises, whiter than the root
Of some venefic bloom in darkness grown,
And gazes up with green-lit eyes that seem
Like drops of cold, congealing poison.”

Abstract and blurry ?

but concrete in its approach. A million swords is impossible to visualize, but "swords" grounds the idea enough to be approachable.

>The qualifiers for what makes great art has eluded humanity,


Not really, if I ask Remy du gourmont his answer isn’t so far off to Schiller isn’t so far off from Goethe isn’t so far off from Hegel Wagner isn’t so far off from Dante isn’t so far off Blake isn’t so far from mallarme or Swinburne and so on and so forth, they all see elegance, musicality, high imagination and so forth are as the key elements.

>You are a child and generalize everything to an extreme. Its like talking to an MCU fan saying

There is literally nothing higher about the medium of poetry than the marvel movie other than the fact the poetry is (on a case by case basis) of a higher aesthetic quality, you are not above the dude sperging over the avengers, you are both lovers of an entertainment medium.

The difference is he can enjoy his medium without pretense, you however cannot do so.

>What "light weight" poetry are you referring to? I'm all ears.

All poetry, all poetry is lightweight in comparison to the actual systematic philosophies, this is why I mock seeking them out for insight and wisdom, they’re the easy aesthetic-obsessives path, not the better one. They’re all by contrast to any of the great philosophers actual philosophical lit gonna be light weight.

>And again, not that its relevant to the topic but I quite obviously read a lot of philosophy;

Name your two favorite systematic philosophers and give a brief run down of their ontology and epistemology, if you can give a detailed phenomenology let’s hear it. What, are you gonna seethe more and throw out some names? Claim actually having opinions on details isn’t as insightful as random platitudes and pithy posturing lines of poetry?

>which is why I can pretty safely say you're a retard, and one who couldn't even give me the list of "great" poems that don't feature philosophy, or have "negative" philosophic value. I can name literal dozens of authors to the contrary.


Cont

>>21774685
Of course I can point to poets who are neutral in expression of philosophy beyond that which is given by the basis of philosophy determining their aesthetic inclinations,

Tell me about the philosophy and insight you draw from Shakespeare’s sonnets other than “go and breed”

What is the great philosophical insight what is the great humanity in

“If the dull substance of my flesh were thought,
Injurious distance should not stop my way;
For then despite of space I would be brought,
From limits far remote where thou dost stay.
No matter then although my foot did stand
Upon the farthest earth removed from thee;
For nimble thought can jump both sea and land
As soon as think the place where he would be.
But ah! thought kills me that I am not thought,
To leap large lengths of miles when thou art gone,
But that so much of earth and water wrought
I must attend time's leisure with my moan,
Receiving nought by elements so slow
But heavy tears, badges of either's woe. ”


Go ahead, show us, explain, or perhaps let’s go to Coleridge?

>In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round;
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.


Etc you know the rest, where’s the great philosophy, where’s the insight? Are you so contrarian you’ll say Shakespeare and Coleridge’s kubla khan aren’t great ?

How about we do two birds with one stone and try Milton AND Horace?

>What slender youth, bedew’d with liquid odors,
Courts thee on roses in some pleasant cave,
Pyrrha? For whom bind’st thou
In wreaths thy golden hair,
Plain in thy neatness? O how oft shall he
Of faith and changed gods complain, and seas
Rough with black winds, and storms
Unwonted shall admire!
Who now enjoys thee credulous, all gold,
Who, always vacant, always amiable
Hopes thee, of flattering gales
Unmindful. Hapless they
To whom thou untried seem’st fair. Me, in my vow’d
Picture, the sacred wall declares to have hung
My dank and dropping weeds
To the stern god of sea.


Where’s the philosophy! Where’s the insight! Tell me! Tell me! I’m all ears!

Or what, you think Milton, Shakespeare, Horace and Coleridge are wrong but you’re right? Damn!

Cont

>>21774730
As for negative philosophy, you need simply point to writing which expresses philosophy you yourself find abhorrent and yet still wonderful as verse, you know I shill Swinburne all day, his philosophy is hot steaming garbage, I am not going to pretend that his hymn of man isn’t a phenomenal poem even if I would beat him senseless and slam his dirty head into the ground for writing it if given the chance, that doesn’t mean it isn’t Good in quality despite the wrongness of it.

Likewise I find Whitman’s aesthetics to be evil and his Americanism wrong his sentimentalism horrible the basis of him bad all about it, whether I agree or obviously disagree with poems like chanting the square deifiic or out of the cradle endlessly rocking, they are obviously well crafted, they obviously have an aesthetic power whether I agree with them or not, whether the conscious mind behind them is a font of sewage water or not.


There is nothing wrong with there being philosophical mind or insight in a poem, but these are not the standards of what makes a poem a great poem, what makes a poem great is purely an aesthetic question of how it’s written and what’s being written of, in terms of rhetoric employed, images selected, narrative used, unity of sound and sense, etc.

Again at the end of the day for the goal of actual wisdom, poetry in contrast to hard philosophical and theological study is a light weight pursuit, you say you love studying loads of philosophy, explaining two systematic philosophers thought and getting into the nitty gritty of it should be easy then.

>>21774490
CAS is a better writer than HPL

>>21774490
Btw they were contemporaries AND Lovecraft borrowed the toad god from Smith.

Bump

>>21774685
>his attempt to have a maximum of efficient alliteration
So not only did you not address what you yourself already said, but have narrowed down one aspect of the argument to something I never said with "oh come on now, really?". Did your brain go without oxygen for several minutes when you typed this out? The Faerie Queene never was, and never will be a maximalist poem--it is borderline pastoral, with vast stretches of extremely boring meandering plot and landscape poetry--stop saying "maximalist, but alliteration" as if I argued to the contrary, or made any point close to that.
>sentimentally connected with, which is why you find the smith just noise, you want a human connection my Nigga.
You have the funniest headcanon. You're literally making this up. Human connection, in Milton? Are you daft? Samuel Johnson and T.S Eliot made the mention that there are in fact, no humans in PL (they were correct)
>Abstract and blurry?
Yeah I didn't quote this though did I? How the fuck are you pulling a quote from me, from a separate passage and pretending I said it about another passage?
>so far off
Nice punctuation, but more importantly you've just admitted that there is a set of ideals one group agrees with, that other schools of thought disagree with. So, yes what I said is 100% true. Aristotle to Ezra Pound there is no consensus--I didn't say that there wasn't anything written on the subject. Why do you continuously make shit up?
>There is literally nothing higher about the medium of poetry than the marvel movie
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No comment
>you are both lovers of an entertainment medium . . . all poetry
You are a fucking moron. The Cantos, The Maximus Poems, A, Ark, The Passages, Double Trio ETC. I could go on and on, on poems that aren't "light" that have messages, that require years to understand and delve into, works that are the culmination of someones entire life--effortlessness weaving theology and philosophy, economic and sociological ideas, and more in verse. You read the equivalent of Marvel movies for poetry, shit like CAS and The Faerie Quenee, they have their place (at the bottom of the trash heap) and serve their purpose, but the reason you cannot fathom or grasp any meaning besides "le aesthetics" are because there is nothing else there besides aesthetics. You're world view is a shallow as the poetry you consume.

>>21777130
> The Maximus Poems
Redpill me on these. Second mention on this board in just a week.

>>21774685
>What, are you gonna seethe more and throw out some names? Claim actually having opinions on details isn’t as insightful as random platitudes and pithy posturing lines of poetry?
Why would I, you've already made up your mind on reading and I'm not going to effort post. I read Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Adorno and Heidegger--with special interest in Hegelian structural unity, which I would boil down to this, from I think, Wissenschaft der Logik: "to bring ones thoughts together is the method in which we create systems . . . The science of the Absolute is essentially a system, because only through developing out of itself, bringing and holding itself together in unity, that is, as a totality, can truth be made concrete."
>What is the great philosophical insight
The sonnets in their entirety exist in relation to sexual and sociological problems that face humans--they are an examination of these forces. To quote "William Shakespeares sonnet philosophy":
>"The template (pic rel) represents the logical relation between beauty (sensations) and truth (ideas) as expressed in sonnet 137 where what is sensed as best or worst becomes articulated through saying as true or false. The Mistress sonnets from 127 to 152 are devoted to exploring the logical distinction between ‘seeing’ and ‘saying’. Then the intensely erotic final two sonnets of the Mistress sequence (153, 154) prepare for the return to the beginning of the set with its increase argument.
He wrote 500 pages on the subject, cited from here https://quaternaryinstitute.com/thepoetryandthedrama.html

There is, a lot of philosophy directly embedded in the sonnets of Shakespeare, and his plays. I'm deeply sorry you're not intelligent enough to pick up on it.
> Coleridge’s kubla khan aren’t great ?
Well it isn't.
>How about we do two birds with one stone and try Milton AND Horace?
Neither of these are great poets.
>Where’s the philosophy! Where’s the insight!
There isn't any, that's why everyone from Samuel Johnson to Ezra Pound bullied Milton for having verse that was nothing but rhetoric and visual imagery, with no humans and no meaningful philosophy. This is the first thing you've said all thread that was correct.

As for your other two points I don't have anything to add other than Swinburne was a lousy and entirely forgotten poet, and your distaste of Whitman cant really be argued against because its too subjective.

Yikes this is a long thread. I should probably read a book instead of reading these lengthy seething incel posts. Or perhaps some shakespeare now that I'm in the mood for it

>>21777177
>Cuckspeare

How about reading an author with some substance and a command of the english language as it actually is today instead of pretending shit like “wherefore beest thou” is beautiful?

If you need a rec, start here:
>>21774326

>>21777190
No I'm going to read Romeo and Juliet because its the most famous one

>>21777201
hamlet is the most famous

>>21777202
hamlet bamlet. Phooey!

>>21777143
Don't really know how to lol, if you know what modernist long format poems can be like and enjoy that (or like Ezra Pound) then you'll enjoy this. I have only finished the first volume but enjoyed them immensely. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47496/i-maximus-of-gloucester-to-you you can read the first one here, or the google preview and see if it grabs you. Sorry I can't say much else on it, I haven't studied Olson nearly as much as I have Pound and Zukofsky so I have no real substance to offer other than my wholehearted enjoyment. https://poets.org/book/maximus-poems this is like the only good summary of it I found online, so hopefully reading that will encourage you to pick them up.


I can however, shill the absolute fuck out of Ronald Johnsons' ARK:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52411/ark-99-arches-xxxiii
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52345/beam-30-the-garden

Absolutely adore this mans work, just read this: on one hand extremely lyrical but equally as--seemingly--disjointed. It reads like Emily Dickinson and Zukofsky had a baby, and it was raised by Pound.
>Internetted eternities, interspersed
>with cypresses
Good shit all around, highly recommended. On the topic of philosophical poems, I will never not shill Clarel:
>Emblazoned bleak in austral skies--
>A heaven remote, whose starry swarm
>Like Science lights but cannot warm--
>Translated Cross, hast thou withdrawn,
>Dim paling too at every dawn,
>With symbols vain once counted wise,
>And gods declined to heraldries?
>Estranged, estranged: can friend prove so?
>Aloft, aloof, a frigid sign:
>How far removed, thou Tree divine,
>Whose tender fruit did reach so low--
>Love apples of New-Paradise!
>About the wide Australian sea
>The planted nations yet to be
>When, ages hence, they lift their eyes,
>Tell, what shall they retain of thee?
>But class thee with Orion's sword?
>In constellations unadored,
>Christ and the Giant equal prize?
>The atheist cycles--must they be?
>Fomentors as forefathers we?'

>>21777201
Everything you want in that can be found in the Roger and Jessica sections of GR

>>21777202
All of Hamlet is contained within Against the Day

Watching Frater get his back blown out is never not funny.
>create point to argue or ask question
>get reply
>ignore it and continue from another point
>start suddenly using the same word and phrase when it enters his vocabulary like a parrot
>make up and twist arguments with zero regard for the point that was being made
He comes here, gets pounded into submission the moment he steps outside his small area of expertise. Anytime someone says "it sounds good" or "its musical" without bothering to attempt to explain why in syntax (or says something as frustratingly stupid as, "poetry is basically the same as Marvel movies") you can completely ignore him. This thread is a perfect example of people saying shit and actively lying and getting shutdown.

>>21777417
I’ve been goading him without actually responding to his posts hoping this thread would contain him but alas, to no avail. Namefags a shit

>>21777508
What's honestly so fascinating and entertaining is your getting so absolutely beat the fuck out by him and me. How's it feel, Orlando Furioso? How's the weather in Jersey? Did things go well last heist, made out with lots of money, did you?

>>21777508
Idk how people have the stamina to argue on the internet for this long. Words words words words words, you really expect me to read all that?
>>21777549
You are the funniest anon this board has had in a while. Complete schizo-french fag who thinks everyone who insulted him is the anon who blew him out, and are now associating frater with that anon.

>>21777209
Thanks. I had never heard of it but it seems intriguing. I wonder what are your thoughts on The Bridge by Hart Crane and Paterson by Williams. Those are also modernist long poems. I have to admit that The Bridge filtered me lol

>>21777549
You honestly think I’m one of the retards effortposting here? I don’t even read. Man you’re dumb

>>21777549
The CAS ripoff fag is the one who got BTFO.

>>21777583
> You are the funniest anon this board has had in a while. Complete schizo-french fag who thinks everyone who insulted him is the anon who blew him out, and are now associating frater with that anon
Lmao he’s literally seething at a vocaroo from like 3 years ago. He thinks everyone is that New Jersey guy, even the tripfag. Completely delusional.

>>21777583
Well désolé, mein Bruder et frater meus, for not being able to keep track of who's who in a thread with 55 different posters. I don't give a shit, really: the only people who are of any worth in this thread are the ones who shared their poetry, i.e., not you. Lord knows what abominations we've been spared. I said it once and I'll say it again, if only to help it sink in: I don't have anxiety over Shakespeare or any other writer, including Keats. While I acknowledge my debt to them, I know that, were I put to the test, I could beat them at their own game, as I have a spectacularly poetic, passionate, and sensitive mind, spanning several languages and informed by the memories of my having carnal relations with your mother. Now go to and let me know how things go at the Mafia inauguration: you're a made man, now, Jimmy Furioso!

>>21777586
>I don't even read
>Man you're dumb
Let the record show that never has there been such delicious irony on display before. We know you don't read: you don't need to say that again.

>>21777599
I don't know whom you're referring to, but certainly it isn't to me: I was the one championing Keats and who shared my poems but I don't remember asking to be compared to another poet. Désolé, aber ich denke du hast den falschen Mann, nicht wahr? Try again, s'il vous plait.

>>21777610
I didn't say that Frater was the New Jersey guy. You all write the same to me, and so stupidly, so I do apologize for confusing the lot of you. Hélas, as I've said several times before, you can quite surely blow it out your ass and come back and tell us how that goes.

I love this. You've really improved your poetry since when you started posting a few years back mate. Kudos. (How'd you do it?)

>>21777217
Sucks Pynchud is shit thoughever.

>>21777627
You’re the retard who was BTFO at the beginning of the thread, the one who said Shakespeare was not a big influence on Keats and how you assured us you were going to be better than Shakespeare (lol), and then someone compared you with CAS and that completely mindbroke you. Are you not that faggot, then? Because that faggot was raped ages ago.

>>21777653
I'm not the person I even was an hour ago so I don't know how to respond this. I remember that I was another self who said those things, and I still stand by them; at the same, I am different from that "faggot" you so vulgarly name, as my molecules have all been rearranged since then. This is simply a long-winded way of saying you can go fuck yourself. And I told you before, we don't need to bring up CAS anymore. My poems aren't like his at all and I don't need to hear his name anymore. Capiche, Antonio?

>>21760073
why is it fair for shakespeare to follow the rule that every 2nd sentence in his sonnets should rhyme, but I can't because of the new rule in poetry of "don't force yourself to rhyme"?

>>21777584
I haven't heard of those before, ill check em out, thanks.
>>21777627
> you're a made man, now, Jimmy Furioso!
Again, I am not Italian. I do not care about Orlando Furioso. The fact that I compared your extremely bad poetry to CAS seems to have utterly annihilated any chance you had at living a normal life, so I apologize.

>>21777692
That guy thinks everyone who talks to him is an Italian from New Jersey. Mindbroken.

>>21777692
>>21777731
You guys are both absolutely butt-blasted and broken and I sincerely hope thou seek help.

>>21777743
Projection.

>>21777731
I suppose the irony is that I am in fact of Italian descent and originally from New Jersey, although I live in California now

Bump

>>21762104
And Orwell had an interesting response to Tolstoy's supposed "criticisms".

>>21778789
Elaborate?

>>21777130
> boring meandering plot and landscape poetry--stop saying "maximalist, but alliteration" as if I argued to the contrary, or made any point close to that.

If we’re not talking about stylistic maximalism and continuously trying to stack lines of high beauty with little to no nuance of high and low but just continuous beauty, what are we even talking about? When did we stop talking about a stylistic mode? What do you mean by maximalist if not how the lines and what the lines are trying to do?

> You have the funniest headcanon. You're literally making this up. Human connection, in Milton? Are you daft? Samuel Johnson and T.S Eliot made the mention that there are in fact, no humans in PL

You misread what I said, I said YOUR tastes are human obsessive, I have no complaints against Milton, I don’t fetishize the humanity.

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No comment

They’re literally just aesthetics, in of themselves they have no height to them, you are not better than the marvel enjoyer for consuming one medium over another. Any value in the spiritual and intellectual nature of a specific poem is due to it having a higher aesthetic quality, but beyond this question of quality they are not actually better or worse than each other in terms of categories, you have conquered nothing by consuming poetry just as the marvel fan has conquered nothing by consuming it, your contemplation has not expanded to regions unthinkable prior, you have seen pretty images and pretty sounds, whether you accept it or not, that’s the weight of it.

>You are a fucking moron.

Cont

>>21779161
Nah you’re just seething.

>The Cantos,

I’ve read it, I’ve also studied secondary material on it, it’s again light weight philosophically, its core is some basic heydon some basic Taylor and other basic bitch sources on Neoplatonism in terms of the core guts of its philosophy, your mind would gain a thousand fold from reading the enneads or iamblichus, or studying the actual work on Neoplatonic material such as the Orphic hymns we have, his knowledge of china is again absolutely basic bitch and what’s presented is light weight, his approach to other languages and histories are likewise all lightweight and fragile, even his usage of other languages is pretty choppy, I had scholar friends who speak the languages fluently look over and study the works with me since I gave that nigga pound absolutely the best possible chances, while I’ve not studied A or Ark I’ve looked into them and wasn’t impressed, the fact you mention them with the cantos as if the cantos is some fucking masterpiece and not a poorly rhythmical mishmash of posturing, “black beetles in condoms “ copy pasting of random letters and an incapacity to understand the spirit of God as goodness as the animating force in history, that is the actual secret behind the cantos and why pound failed, his whole history and seething over usury is trying to locate a temporal-evil and by contrast trying to locate the Essence of temporal Good, which he mistakenly identifies with art until the bitter end where he realizes his work was a failure and his art-centric view cannot harmonize history or purify his spirit.

The cantos is an absolute DAMNING point against you for lifting it up, it’s absolutely the light weight posturing aesthetic fixation that I’m speaking of, it is not as high as the great philosophers.


>-effortlessness weaving theology and philosophy, economic and sociological ideas,

Using these ideas as props and not actually elaborating and outlining and structuring isn’t deep, it’s simply a taste, a light aesthetic high, you just jerk off to the image of intellectualism brutha.


>>21777165
> Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Adorno and Heidegger--with special interest in Hegelian structural unity

Nice so you should have no problem answering a few basic questions

1=According to Hegel what is the philosopher’s stone, and under what circumstances does “freedom” exist, what is “freedom”
2= what is the relation between husserl’s lebenswelt and Heidegger’s conception of dasein, and how does Heidegger deal with the phenomenological “given” especially in relation to sorge, what is it and what are its effects to your experience of being?
3=How does Marx’s law of value specifically concerning rate of profit and price of production in his third volume relate to the theory of value explained in the first volume?

These shouldn’t be too difficult!

Cont

>>21777165
>The sonnets in their entirety exist in relation to sexual and sociological problems that face humans--they are an examination of these forces. To quote "William Shakespeares sonnet philosophy":

> There is, a lot of philosophy directly embedded in the sonnets of Shakespeare, and his plays. I'm deeply sorry you're not intelligent enough to pick up on it.

Then show us with your grand intellect and your grasp on the nuances of his philosophy, what is the hidden nuanced philosophy in

If the dull substance of my flesh were thought,
Injurious distance should not stop my way;
For then despite of space I would be brought,
From limits far remote where thou dost stay.
No matter then although my foot did stand
Upon the farthest earth removed from thee;
For nimble thought can jump both sea and land
As soon as think the place where he would be.
But ah! thought kills me that I am not thought,
To leap large lengths of miles when thou art gone,
But that so much of earth and water wrought
I must attend time's leisure with my moan,
Receiving nought by elements so slow
But heavy tears, badges of either's woe


Not quoting or referring to another, break down line by line or explaining the poem as a whole, what in that specific poem is sociological, what is being elaborated upon in his philosophy concerning sex and love, come on! Tell us! Use your words!

>There isn't any, that's why everyone from Samuel Johnson to Ezra Pound bullied Milton for having verse that was nothing but rhetoric and visual imagery, with no humans and no meaningful philosophy. This is the first thing you've said all thread that was correct.


“Bullied” he’s one of the most respected poets in all of history and so many people pastiching him and his being a mark on history forever is something you’ll never change, you’ll also never change the high admiration Horace has by many great poets. Same to Milton, praised by poets who will forever be above our peaks of grasping aesthetic harmony.

Hating things because they’re popular is an ugly look, ya contrarian fuck.

>>21777417
All art is just art, you are not a better man for consuming your preference in art.

All this is pointless because AI will soon surpass everything.

>>21779351
How soon? The current AI poetry is pretty bad. Only good to show people the new curiosity.

>>21760073
>A big part of his supposed genius was commonplace back then.
Not even remotely true. Go read Tamburlaine the Great or Oronooko and then compare them to Macbeth. No one even came close to the level of Shakespeare until Melville.

pic unrel

>>21779161
>>21779183
>>21779196
>>21779196
This thread will be archived before I'm home and get a chance to reply, I just wanted to let you know that you're a retard--i mean this in the fullest sense of the word. I'm not humoring your unbelievable patience for writing long and grammatically incorrect posts, or asking me questions about philosophy as if they're relevant to the topic at hand: which is the fact that CAS is a joke of a poet who never wrote a line worth studying, and he's been left in the dustbin of poetry for a reason. I gave you an analysis which you conveniently ignored, and to be frank it's just tiring talking to someone who starts inserting new arguments and points in every post without even engaging with what I wrote (but continuous to push in directions that are in fact, further away from the original topic)

As for your comments on the Cantos, there is literally nothing more incorrect in this thread than your take on them (I am writing my thesis on the relevance of the Cantos in English long form poetry), and writing about how dense the cantos are would take several whole threads. There is so much literature and criticism written on the subject that your extremely shallow and unlearned take on them is insulting. You only read shit poets, so you can only compare them to shit movies--you're like a Marvel fan claiming a film can't be more than dull action because he's never seen Béla tarr or Tarkovsky (and I strongly suspect; have not read a book witten in the 20th century or beyond)

>>21779635
Everything I said on the cantos is correct, Milton is a great poet, and when asked to demonstrate that your knowledge isn’t shallow you resorted to insults and running away. Goodbye, run away.

>>21779960
>Doesn't engage with that I said and shifts the topic
Everytime you've asked me to "demonstrate" my knowledge you sound like an insecure pseud.

Either reply directly to what I wrote or fuck off--you've written absolutely nothing of substance and flat out ignored what I said.

>>21779960
>and when asked to demonstrate that your knowledge isn’t shallow you resorted to insults and running away.
He gave you a somewhat detailed breakdown of the poetry from CAS, cited multiple works and directly addressed the quality of the poetry. I'm not sure what else you want from someone in an online debate.

>>21779161
>you are not better than the marvel enjoyer for consuming one medium over another
Is there a way to filter out tripfags.

>>21779960
He said Milton was a shit poem? Let me guess, he’s a Pound fanboy and believes everything he said (including his comments on Milton).

>>21780124
Samuel Johnson, Eliot, Keats and William Hazlitt wrote far more about Milton's defects as a poet than Pound did; the only reason people quote Pound more is because he's succinct. And yes, they are all correct about Milton.

>>21780287
Samuel doesn’t sound like he hates Milton.

> ‘Paradise Lost’; a poem which considered with respect to design may claim the first place, and with respect to performance the second, among the productions of the human mind.

> His great works were performed under discountenance and in blindness; but difficulties vanished at his touch: he was born for whatever is arduous; and his work is not the greatest of heroic poems, only because it is not the first.

>>21780287
Lines on seeing a Lock of Milton's Hair by Keats

CHIEF of organic Numbers!
Old Scholar of the Spheres!
Thy spirit never slumbers,
But rolls about our ears
For ever and for ever.
O, what a mad endeavour
Worketh he
Who, to thy sacred and ennobled hearse,
Would offer a burnt sacrifice of verse
And Melody!

How heavenward thou soundedst
Live Temple of sweet noise;
And discord unconfoundedst:
Giving delight new joys,
And Pleasure nobler pinions -
O where are thy Dominions!
Lend thine ear
To a young delian oath - aye, by thy soul,
By all that from thy mortal Lips did roll;
And by the Kernel of thine earthly Love,
Beauty, in things on earth and things above,
When every childish fashion
Has vanish'd from my rhyme
Will I grey-gone in passion
Give to an after-time
Hymning and harmony
Of thee, and of thy Words and of thy Life:
But vain is now the bruning and the strife -
Pangs are in vain - until I grow high-rife
With Old Philosophy
And mad with glimpses at futurity!

For many years my offerings must be hush'd:
When I do speak I'll think upon this hour,
Because I feel my forehead hot and flush'd,
Even at the simplest vassal of thy Power, -
A Lock of thy bright hair!
Sudden it came,
And I was startled when I heard thy name
Coupled so unaware -
Yet, at the moment, temperate was my blood:
Methought I had beheld it from the flood.

>>21780287
Both Pound and Eliot thought Milton was great. They only seethe at his supposed “bad influence” on English poetry,

>>21760073
>English
>Culture

Choose one

>>21780308
I never said he did. Feel free to quote me.

Samuel did discuss the many aspects where in his eyes PL fails, as did Pope.

>"None ever wished it longer than it is. Its perusal is a duty rather than a pleasure. We read Milton for instruction, retire harassed and overburdened, and look elsewhere for recreation; we desert our master, and seek for companions."

>Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires and puts down, and forgets to take up again
Eliot and Pound were extremely successful in their attacks, just look at how Milton criticism has evolved from a post WWII standpoint.

>>21780327
This is written before Keats did "Hyperion" . Look at his letters for what he thought about Milton, specifically "English must be kept up"
>>21780337
They absolutely did not, they also detested him as a poet--but Pound and Eliot did praise aspects of his poetry (musicality and rhythm most especially)

I also never said Milton was bad (I don't think) I just said he wasn't great, which Eliot also said. He's a good poet and I like most of PL.

>>21780396
> We read Milton for instruction, retire harassed and overburdened, and look elsewhere for recreation; we desert our master, and seek for companions
> Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires and puts down, and forgets to take up again
Complete projection. I seriously hope you don’t think is good criticism. If that is the level of criticism that is accepted, then I can fairly claim that Milton is far more read these days than Johnson, Eliot, and Pound, and thus this tells me everything about their work.

>>21765347
You love to see it. I stubled in here after seeing the infuriating "Shakespeare wasn't the author of the plays" schizo thread, and by god, what a good showing. It was over for OP when he started off in his , what? Second? Third post? Saying he's analyzed Shakespeare closely but doesn't have to share his arguments here. How embarrassing.

>>21780409
> Many people will agree that a man may be a great artist, and yet have a bad influence
From Eliot’s writing on Milton.

>Obliterates anglos into oblivion

>>21780418
You are a complete pseud and it's not worth explaining their positions to you. Why not just read it and make up your mind from more than a sound bite I only posted to counter yours?
>>21780496
Yes, and?

>it's another "frater gets humiliated in a debate" thread
This was a fun read

>>21777627
Holy shit, you're as bad as the /rhet/ schizo. No one would be blowing you the fuck out up and down this thread if you just reined in your more general claims and if you actually bothered to give examples of analysis. Fuck, when I'm in Plato threads, I cite and quote everything even knowing it's tedious, since it's better than loosey-goosey "x says y in z" claims that are never backed up.

>>21780549
What you posted were opinions, not criticism. Am I supposed to just swallow everything a famous name said? That’s what a pseud would do. You could’ve chosen actually incisive and critical sections yet you chose the most banal shit imaginable which is very telling of you. When you grow up you’ll realize that dogmatic suppositions are not valid criticism.

>>21780549
> Yes, and?
And he’s talking about Milton. He thought Milton was great yet a bad influence.

>>21780597
>literal no u
not even worth arguing with. out of my sight.

>>21780605
If that’s what all you took from what I said, you’re even more worthless than I imagined. Keep riding famous dick regardless of what they say.

>>21762145
Verse chapter and book please. I know it's gospel but I'm an illiterate and I love this/ verse/verses. I want more

>>21760518
Fresh pasta

>>21780621
That anon replied for me, for some reason. Anyway you should probably just read the actual works you yourself quoted from. The most relevant in my mind are "the lives of English poets" (I think Johnson and Hazlitt share this title?) Letters of john Keats, which are digitized and you can ctrl-f for "Milton" and "English must be kept up". T.S Eliot's essays titled "Milton 1-2". Pound has no organized body on the subject. Pope only has sparse mentions, but I believe "essay on criticism" contains some.

Hazlitt and Johnson are the two most famous pre-modernist critics, saying "it's just an opinion" is pretty stupid.

>>21781177
Sorry it's actually "lectures on English poets" for Hazlitt.

>>21771078
Seems legit

>>21781382
kek

>>21760073
>A big part of his supposed genius was commonplace back then

It might be true, but he was not an ordinary person whose role in society is to subjugate himself to the ruling class and, be a reproducing npc.

>>21782705
Did Willy have any recorded offspring? Was he ever married? Did he even ever touch a boob that wasn’t his momma’s? Was he, dare I say it, one of us?

There is plenty of common genius in our history. Michael Faraday and Oliver Heaviside were both from extremely humble origins. Along with Clerk-Maxwell they are the fathers of Electromagnetism, the greatest achievement of Physics prior to Einstein. Maxwell's Equations are really Oliver's.

There is indeed the voice of the commoner in Shakespeare, from Marlowe, Kid, Nash, Munday et al.
Shakespeare himself was not "one of us" in this regard. He was measurably the most entitled high born person in our history, We know who put this together now, and that's causing a lot of trouble for people who have had a nice blank sheet of paper to work with up to now.
It was the masons who rehabilitated these works in the mid 18th century, sent Garrick off to evangelise and drilled it into the curriculum. Voltaire was a mason. The masons dig this stuff, and I mean really really dig it.

>>21777996
>>>/x/34266931

Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Cryptographic Time Bomb
https://deedeltadot.wordpress.com/

>>21783520
Go back to your containment thread, namefag.

>>21784176
You've lost me, is this something to do with Docker ?

>>21783520
> He was measurably the most entitled high born person in our history

Let those who are in favour with their stars
Of public honour and proud titles boast,
Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,
Unlooked-for joy in that I honour most.
Great princes’ favourites their fair leaves spread
But as the marigold at the sun’s eye,
And in themselves their pride lies buried,
For at a frown they in their glory die.
The painful warrior famoused for might,
After a thousand victories once foiled
Is from the book of honour razèd quite,
And all the rest forgot for which he toiled.
Then happy I, that love and am beloved
Where I may not remove nor be removed.

>>21760073
>He only seems esoteric and mysterious to us because of his obscure language.
Nah, I've read him translated in other languages, still good.

>>21784772
this. OP couldn't have been written by anyone but a monolingual mutt.