/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10462961]

What do you guys think of James Macpherson's Ossian?

[Anonymous No.10462989]

>>10462961
It's based.
I haven't read it, though.

[Anonymous No.10462995]

>James Macpherson's Ossian
>implying

[Anonymous No.10463010]

>>10462961

The poems are forged, that is already known. But this guy here:

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=EDgyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=The+groan+of+the+people+spread+over+the+hills;+it+was+like+the+thunder+of+night,+when+the+cloud+bursts+on+Cona;+and+a+thousand+ghosts+shriek+at+once+on+the+hollow+wind&source=bl&ots=D1iXJGXnYB&sig=zVfAFhia2s3o4687XDIVxUNi4gA&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiyf3sla_YAhWqYt8KHW9dAX8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20groan%20of%20the%20people%20spread%20over%20the%20hills%3B%20it%20was%20like%20the%20thunder%20of%20night%2C%20when%20the%20cloud%20bursts%20on%20Cona%3B%20and%20a%20thousand%20ghosts%20shriek%20at%20once%20on%20the%20hollow%20wind&f=false

commented on the whole poem, and in every passage where he finds three or four similar words, he cites a "source" of Macpherson's work as beeing Shakespeare, or Milton, or Pope, or translations of the Iliad, of the Odyssey, and of Aeneid. (every page of Macpherson's work is an "immitation", in this guys view).

That is very irritating. The critic seems not to realize that much of tthe world poetry is made from the same materials (the same stock imagery), and that the supposedly "original" poets Macpherson is "imitating" are themselves highly derivative of other works.

It irritates me that everyone wants to see Shakespeare's influence all over the place, to see the verses of others being mere imitations of Shakespeare, when in fact Shakespeare himself was always recycling materials from his own readings.

I hate how critics often freely allow "classic" authors the same "crimes" and "lack of originality" that they condemn in authors who are not household names.

[Anonymous No.10463580]

>>10462961
bump

[Anonymous No.10463940]

Not a clue really curious myself though. Have you looked into him much?
I first herd of ossian through Goethe. It always struck me as weird that it was praised as the next homer, but the second it was found out as forged it seems to be completely dismissed.

[Anonymous No.10464072]

>>10463940
>Have you looked into him much?

see here:

>>10463010
>https://books.google.com.br/books?id=EDgyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=The+groan+of+the+people+spread+over+the+hills;+it+was+like+the+thunder+of+night,+when+the+cloud+bursts+on+Cona;+and+a+thousand+ghosts+shriek+at+once+on+the+hollow+wind&source=bl&ots=D1iXJGXnYB&sig=zVfAFhia2s3o4687XDIVxUNi4gA&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiyf3sla_YAhWqYt8KHW9dAX8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20groan%20of%20the%20people%20spread%20over%20the%20hills%3B%20it%20was%20like%20the%20thunder%20of%20night%2C%20when%20the%20cloud%20bursts%20on%20Cona%3B%20and%20a%20thousand%20ghosts%20shriek%20at%20once%20on%20the%20hollow%20wind&f=false

>>10463940
>It always struck me as weird that it was praised as the next homer, but the second it was found out as forged it seems to be completely dismissed.

It shows just how much of the criticism of art and literature depend of many other factors other than the merit of the text itself.

I was mad with the author of the link I mentioned because every single line in Macpherson's work is, to his eyes, derived from another book, as if the man himself could never had an original thought.

If Shakespeare or Milton use a common trope for metaphor and imagery then it's genius; if other people do the same then they are merely imitating the old masters. Quite unfair in my eyes.

[Anonymous No.10464411]

>>10464072
I'm >>10463940
How much do you think it has to do with him lying in the beginning with how the work came to be?
It is funny how that much work is put into reveling how much of the poem alludes back to other works. It really does just showcase how well read Macpherson really was.