/lit/ - Literature

>>6652795
At least we have dank memes

In prose fiction, yes. That turgid shite from the 19th Century is awful. But British verse is bloody lovely. Think of Shakespeare, Milton and Blake; Chaucer, Spenser, Sidney, Marlow, Fletcher, Middleton, Webster, Jonson, Donne, Herbert, Marvell, Rochester, Dryden, Pope, Burns, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley (x2), Byron, Tennyson, Browning (x2), Arnold, Rossetti (x2)...! Even the French can't boast of such a wealth.

>>6652932
Pretty much this

>>6652932
>Even the French can't boast of such a wealth.

While we're on the subject on national dick measuring, would any francophone care to offer a list of French poets equivalent (in stature) to the British ones named in the above post? Apart from the handful that have transcended national boundaries, such as Baudelaire and Rimbaud, it's hard for a non-francophone to gauge who was important and to what degree.

>>6652992
Balzac, Rabelais


Whoever wrote "la Marseillaise"

>>6652932
prose fiction is better tbh

>>6652992
Racine

>>6653453
This anon doesn't know what's up.
Balzac wrote some poems which aren't important in any way, just read his novels.
Same for Rabelais.
Both of these author's strength are not in their poems.
Rouget de Lisle wrote la Marseillaise but that's about it.
For actual interesting poets which the critic have studied

frenchmen will come up to you and spit in your face if you can't recite some of the poets works:

Hugo
Mallarmé
Racine
Du Bellais and Ronsard were part of the Pleiad, a group of seven poets around 1550
La Fontaine for the dank fables

Classic tier: at this point you're knowledgeable

Nerval
Musset, really good, read his theater if you read is poetry
Theophile Gauthier
I'm adding Clément Marot which is a bit secondary but I've taken a liking to him because he writes well and he named the bus stop I take the bus at every day


Bonus round tier:

Corbière
Apollinaire
Saint John Perse
the surrealists: google them there's a shitload
Francis Ponge, If you're struggling with french it might be a good idea to read him (prose poetry) before any of the others.

>>6653497
>frenchmen will come up to you and spit in your face if you can't recite some of the poets works

Haha holy shit what kind of place is France

>>6653464
I think he was talking about poets, not playwrights.

>>6653501
Islamic country. Most french teenagers can't even list 1/3 of the writers in that list

>>6653504
Just anyone who wrote verse.

>>6653535
Then Racine, Moliere, and Baudelaire are the three greatest.

>>6653552
>Baudelaire
>great
Take off Baudehack and add Corneille or Boileau then I would take your post seriously

>>6652795
Either pleb or troll.

>>6653565
seconding this. Baudelaire is often very romanticised.

>He was a NEET autist and wrote a entire book about how much he hated Belgium.
>He once went to India on a boat but didn't even go out of his cabin the entire time the boat was at quay in India.
>He often lost the strength in his legs because drugs and alcohol weakened him. Thus he more than once spent the night ass naked on the toilet, unable to stand up. That's when he wrote his poetry.

One of these is false, guess which one.

>>6652795
False. Russians classics are boring motherfuckers.

>>6653628
blue board dude

>>6653628
realism isn't boring... i find it comfy

>>6653628
Thanks dude, I just got hired.

>>6652932
This

>>6652992
Most anglos don't even know that Hugo is considered primarily a poet in France.

>>6652932
French can boast of more, English language hasn't had as nearly as big of an impoact as French and Russian. It's only now that English is spoken by everyone has gotten so much attention.

>>6652932
>Shelley
>(x2)
lolno

>>6653709
>English language hasn't had as nearly as big of an impoact as French and Russian. It's only that English is spoken by everyone
Cool story bro.

>>6653709
>French can boast of more
That wasn't even 1/4 of the list of the greatest English langauge poets, Anon..

>>6652932
>Chaucer, Spenser,
>Marlow
>Jonson
Babby's first early writers.
This looks like a list of major names in British poetry on wikipedia, not a list of skilled poets. Half of those aren't worth a Hugo, Rimbaud, Veraline, Valery, or Baudelaire, not to mention the medieval and renaissance French poets you've probably not bothered to look into. Even the Italians have a list of poets which I would gladly put side by side with yours without any embarrassment, not to mention the hidden gems which exist in the Hungarian and Armenian cultures.
"British literature da indisputable best" is really just a matter of translation barriers and lazy nationalism.

>>6653736
I'm sorry but 90% of those poets can stand up to pretty much any poet in any language, wehther you like it or not

>>6653709
lol

Italian poetry is by FAR the most influential, way more than French, who after classicism were derivative imitations of British and American Romantics (they worshipped Emerson and Poe, for God's sake). And literally no-one outside Russia reads Russian poetry.

>>6653752
Actually Occitan poetry is the most influential.

>>6653736
>Babby's first early writers.

lol, just lol

Chaucer alone was a revolutionary writer who brought personality back into European literature from Ovid.

>>6653736

This.

Angry anglophones incoming

>>6653748
Those of us who are bilingual know that that's not true, anon.

>>6653811
And those of us who are at least trilingual know that it is...

>>6653752
>And literally no-one outside Russia reads Russian poetry.
No one outside of Italy ever reads anything outside of 3 Italian authors son

>>6653821
epig

>>6653736
>hurrr my fav poets are better than your fav poets for... reasons

the only way to have a reasonable discussion about this sort of thing is to root it in quantifiable criteria like stature and influence, otherwise you're just sperging out insisting that your taste is better than your opponent's

>>6653822
in the 2nd half of the 20th century, correct.

>>6653853
That's the whole point of /lit/ I'm pretty sure, Anon.

>>6653736
Please name some notable Early Modern English writers that were omitted. Really, I'm curious.

>>6653736
>Half of those aren't worth a Hugo, Rimbaud, Veraline, Valery, or Baudelaire

And none of those are worth a Shakespeare or Milton.

>>6653853
>it in quantifiable criteria like stature and influence
You already know why that's no good. Hell, most British scholars can't be bothered to check out Hugo's poetry or Huysman's novels. The only reason they even know of Rimbaud is that a group of American writers and musicians were highly influenced by him.
You can't hold an international contest when the most influential universities are found in the US and Britain.
Anyway, influence doesn't prove as much as you think, nor is the discernment thereof anymore a reliable metric than random opinions, as the amount of influence of a given writer is largely a matter of opinion which even academics can'ta agree on.

>>6653872
>And none of those are worth a Shakespeare or Milton.
What's your point? We all know how desperately British literature clings to those two. If not for them, the French would have already overtaken you, and the Italians and the Americans wouldn't be far behind.

>>6653893
>British poetry would be worse if it's best authors, including the greatest author of all time, didn't exist

wow gee

>>6653736
>it's not a list of skilled poets

Are you kidding me? How contrarian at you?

>>6653902
>British poetry would be worse if it's best authors, including the greatest author of all time, didn't exist
>including the greatest author of all time?
How would you know? Have you read the French greats in the original french? Or do you just think that anglo /lit/ is the end all be all?

And my point wasn't about its best authors in general, but about the two geniuses who prop it up. If your nations entire corpus would immediately sink with the removal of one or two men, it's obviously not very strong.

>>6653893
>the French would have already overtaken you

Actually, we overtook the French.

>>6653926
>Actually, we overtook the French.

>>6653883
>Anyway, influence doesn't prove as much as you think, nor is the discernment thereof anymore a reliable metric than random opinions, as the amount of influence of a given writer is largely a matter of opinion which even academics can'ta agree on.

but at least it can be discussed constructively without just resorting to "hugo kicks tennyson's ass because i say so"

>>6653934
The French literary tradition predates the English literary tradition. Hell, for some time British literature was written in French.

>>6653916
And how do you know that Racine is better than Bongo Umbungo from Somalia? Do you speak Somalian?

>>6653916
>How would you know? Have you read the French greats in the original french? Or do you just think that anglo /lit/ is the end all be all?

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of a great many people who did read the French greats in the original, such as Goethe, Hugo and Nabokov.


>And my point wasn't about its best authors in general, but about the two geniuses who prop it up. If your nations entire corpus would immediately sink with the removal of one or two men, it's obviously not very strong.

Your point is nonsensical. Any literary tradition would sink without Chaucer, Shakespeare or Milton. They're world-renowned geniuses for a reason. The question might as well be why French literature hasn't produced anyone to rival them.

>>6653951
>"how do you know god exists?"
>"whoa how do you know anything exists at all xD"
literally your mode of reasoning

>>6652795
>shittiest classics

If you think that English lit is shit you obviously aren't reading the right classics (Chaucer, Shakespeare, Nabokov, Milton)

>>6653954
>. The question might as well be why French literature hasn't produced anyone to rival them.
But it has
And your secondhand opinions are worthless tome, I can find British authors who disliked shakespeare, even many British intellectuals who thought the Greeks far outclassed him.
Nice try though, Britfag

>>6653976
>my individual examples I googled for outweigh the general critical consensus!

ok

>>6653992
>the current critical consensus in the Anglosphere has anything to do with the few Hugo or Nabokov
>googled the opinion of a few greats and then falls back on the ever changing opinions of le community

>>6653821
haha

>>6654022
the current critical consensus has been Shakespeare is the greatest for the past 2-300 years m8.

>>6653736
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FUCKING FRENHCUCKS THINK THEY'RE LITEARTURE MATTERS
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Brits being butthurt is one of my favorite things.

btw english lit is still shit

Britbong prose fiction would be worthless without Ireland.

>>6654253
Brits aren't the butthurt ones. Anyone who claims Shakespeare is shit is butthurt to the point of retardation.

>>6654264
Think for a second about what you just posted, mate.

>>6654276
>mate.
This is so cringeworthy tbh

>>6653916
>le you cant know the best book of all time if you haven't read every book ;)

>>6654352
>he hasn't read the entirety of the Western canon in the original languages

>>6652795
It has the best classics.

>>6653752
>And literally no-one outside Russia reads Russian poetry.
Say that to the Yesenin, Pushkin, Blok, Lermontov, Krangievskaya, Mayakovskiy etc. volumes on my shelves. Notwithstanding I have on my shelves a lovely, bilingual 800 years if italian poetry book as well. It's big.

English novels are pretty low on the overall rankings but English poetry is top notch. Stop being a contrarian faggot trying to deny that he wants to be sodomised by Shakespeare.

Nobody here knows why I'm right and they're wrong

Russian and French probably have better novels before the 20th century, but if we include the 20th century, English wins

>>6656805
But 20th century French novelists were the best.
>No Proust
>No Celine
>No Mauriac
>No Rolland
>No Drieu la Rochelle
>No Gide
>...

Who cares? Classic novels suck. I'd rather kill myself than read any of the bloated crap again.

>>6654648
Name a foreign author better than Thackeray.

Protip: you can't.