/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11669595]

Who was the Mozart of literature?

[Anonymous No.11669599]

>>11669595
pope

[Anonymous No.11669602]

>>11669595
Definitely any Christian apologetic, probably Aquinas

[Anonymous No.11669610]

>>11669595
Lozart

[Anonymous No.11669619]

I would say David Foster Wallace because the only way to be a virtuoso in literature is to have immaculate linguistic dexterity and while any talented writer can write a good novel, it takes insane literary talent to be able to master prose the way he did.

[Anonymous No.11669622]

>>11669619

[Anonymous No.11669624]

nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11669628]

>>11669619
>immaculate linguistic dexterity

[Anonymous No.11669633]

>>11669619
>immaculate Iinguistic dexterity

[Anonymous No.11669680]

>>11669619
Hack author and a hack fan.

[Anonymous No.11669689]

Oscar Wilde

[Anonymous No.11669694]

>>11669619
>immaculate linguistic dexterity

[Anonymous No.11669706]

>>11669619
I see what you mean in one sense, but the fact that Wavey Dave Wallace so often used his admittedly virtuoso lingual talent to construct the most horrifically tortured and densely unreadable sentences ever written (and did so deliberately because he was a deeply perverted protestant who loved the suffering of work) is a far too modern and aesthetically unpleasing technique to compare him with any classical, non-contemporary musician. I dont know contemporary music but the best comparison would be someone who used technical complexity to write extremely ugly music.

>>11669595
Mozart of literature is probably Goethe, for the mix of classicalism and foreshadowing romanticism (though Goethe didn't really "foreshadow" romanticism so much as just be a romantic)

[Anonymous No.11669714]

>>11669619

[Anonymous No.11669729]

>>11669706
where do I start with gurTAH?

[Anonymous No.11669756]

>>11669610
underrated.

[Anonymous No.11669780]

>>11669729
im really not the right person to ask t b h but maybe Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, or Sorrows of Young Werther. Def don't just start and end with Faust because it's his most famous.

[Anonymous No.11669799]

>>11669595
Moses

[Anonymous No.11669801]

>>11669610
Put me in the screencap

[Anonymous No.11669841]

I don't know, but Tolstoy was the Tchaikovsky of literature.

[Anonymous No.11669851]

>>11669619
I think you meant James Joyce

[Anonymous No.11669856]

>>11669841
Tolstoy was the Dostoyevsky or literature.

[Anonymous No.11669864]

>>11669851
You're talking out your arse full of farts.

[Anonymous No.11669938]

>>11669610

[Anonymous No.11669951]

>>11669851
joyce was the ives of literature

[Anonymous No.11669960]

>>11669856
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11669984]

>>11669619
Pretty good, 8/10.

[Anonymous No.11670032]

>>11669595
John Milton

[Anonymous No.11670148]

>>11669610
ay good shit

[Anonymous No.11670496]

>>11669595
John Green

[Anonymous No.11670634]

>mozart of literature
>ctrl+f rimbaud
>0/0

Are you guys retarded?

[Anonymous No.11670635]

That is not a very productive or rigorous kind of thread. It’s funny, but at the end is actually illogical to jump from one art to another, since they are simply so different.

However, if I were to compare Mozart to a writer, it would need to be Shakespeare. Let me explain why:

>Mozart was gifted at composing both romantic and comic music, to give soul to romantic and comic characters, as Shakespeare with his comedies

>Mozart was also able to compose in the tragic vein, and his tragedy is, as the Shakespearean kind, often mingled with small islands of comic elements

>Mozart was the master of melody, and melody is the crown of music. Shakespeare was the master of metaphor, and metaphor is the crown of poetry. Both are incomparable in their fertility and variety in these respective characteristics of their art.

Here is Mozart on melody:

>“Melody is the essence of music. I compare a good melodist to a fine racer, and counterpointists to hack post-horses; therefore be advised, let well alone and remember the old Italian proverb: Chi sa più, meno sa—Who knows most, knows least.”

There was a time I might say that Beethoven fits Shakespeare better, however he was not very interested – or even that able to comprehend – most humans other than himself. He had difficulty in composing for the stage, and I guess that one of the main reasons was this: to forget himself, to forget his emotions and views and ethics and opinions and simply try to enter inside the characters of the drama and give to them their own voice. He thought that Mozart's libretos were frivolous and that he was wasting his talent with unworthy themes. If he was to compose something, it needed to be about big themes, like Freedom in Fidelio. As for Mozart, human nature - in its frailties and joys, in its glories and ridicules – was interesting enough.

[Anonymous No.11670652]

>>11670635
Who's Bach, then?
Who's the Architect of English literature?

[Anonymous No.11670656]

>>11669619
holy fucking snap

[Anonymous No.11670687]

>>11669619

[Anonymous No.11670734]

>>11670634
rimbaud is a poor mans shakespeare, pleb

[Anonymous No.11670801]

>>11670734
>prodigy
>wrote most of his works at a young age
>libertine
>died young
>had huge influence on later generations

The similarities are uncanny

[Anonymous No.11670868]

>>11669706
I don’t disagree per se but many of Mozart’s contemporaries thought his works were ‘overwritten’ or overly dense. To us, from the post-romantic vantage point he seems elegant and clear, but this wasn’t the experience of his contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.11670885]

>>11669619
>NO
>DISCERNIBLE
>TALENT

[Anonymous No.11670903]

>>11669619
>DFW fans

[Anonymous No.11670910]

>>11670868

I’m not doubting you, but I’m actually interested: could you quote some book or essay that deals with those contemporary perceptions of Mozart’s work?

[Anonymous No.11671029]

The responses seem split over whether the salient comparison is biographical or stylistic. Biographically Rimaud or Keats is probably the best comparison.

Stylistically I’m not sure but the is what traits you are looking for;

-Restraint, balance, perfect craft. Authors who’s works never have unnecessary words in their sentences, or sentences in their paragraphs. A balanced mix of moods and an avoidance of extremes or sudden happenings.

-An author who doesn’t necessarily take huge strides in breaking new ground in forms or style but take existing forms and style to their most supreme execution.

-Fundamentally about human subjects. Mozart favourites vocally conceived melodies and was first and foremost and opera composer. Unlike later romantic composers who wrote works inspired by big philosophical, mythological, or nationalistic struggles, Mozart favoured the purely aesthetic experience and the basically human conflict.

On this I’m inclined to say, as cliché as it might be, that Mozart is music’s Shakespeare. Had Mozart not died at 35 who knows what he could have written. Had Shakespeare died at 35 he wouldn’t have completely Hamlet, Othello, MacBeth, King Lear, or The Tempest.

[Anonymous No.11671040]

>>11669595
Shakespeare/Goethe

[Anonymous No.11671186]

>>11669851
Joyce is the correct answer.
They both had an ass fetish

A letter of 5 November 1777 to Mozart's cousin Maria Anna Thekla Mozart is an example of Mozart's use of scatology. The German original is in rhymed verse.

Well, I wish you good night
But first shit in your bed and make it burst.
Sleep soundly, my love
Into your mouth your arse you'll shove

[Anonymous No.11671213]

>>11670652
Chaucer

[Anonymous No.11671241]

>>11669680
Question. I see this 'hack' thing a lot in here. Is it used positively or negatively?