Cervantes

[Anonymous No.12537712]

What can /lit/ tell me about this guy? He’s brilliant. Better than Shakespeare, in my opinion. It’s crazy to think he was born almost 500 years ago.

[Anonymous No.12537719]

>>12537712
Don't quote me on it but I read somewhere that he wrote while armless and a prisoner.

[Anonymous No.12537730]

>>12537712
>dude fuck chivalry LMAO

[Anonymous No.12537734]

multiculturalism

[Anonymous No.12537825]

>>12537712
what is don quixote actually about besides >>12537730 and the fall of spain?

[Anonymous No.12537838]

>>12537825
it's about life, have you read it?

[Anonymous No.12537845]

>>12537712
>Better than Shakespeare
Whatever helps you sleep at night, Paco.

[Anonymous No.12537858]

>>12537712
martin amis said it's mad boring

[Anonymous No.12537868]

>>12537858
he wouldn't even exist as a writer had Cervantes not written DQ

[Anonymous No.12537869]

>>12537730
Cervantes was a truer knight than any of those virgins from the ““““““““chivalric”””””””” romances.

[Anonymous No.12537878]

>>12537858
Were talking about Cervantes, not Don Quixote, you pozzed moron.

[Anonymous No.12537882]

>>12537858
>bong literally who shits on one of the most influential writers ever
literally clickbait

[Anonymous No.12537887]

>>12537838
almost done with it, maybe i need to read it again, could you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.12537905]

OP you'd enjoy Simon Leys' essay on Don Quixote. If you can't find it online, his collected essays are available on b-ok.

[Anonymous No.12537931]

>>12537905
Thanks for the recommendation, frienderino. But just to be sure, is the name of the essay "The Imitation of Our Lord Don Quixote?"

[Anonymous No.12538048]

*AHEM*

[Anonymous No.12538055]

>>12538048
What did this tryhard faggot have to say about Cervantes?

[Anonymous No.12538091]

>>12538055
He used the book in his lectures on Harvard just to shit on it.
"I remember with delight tearing apart Don Quixote, a cruel and crude old book, before six hundred students in Memorial Hall, much to the horror and embarrassment of some of my more conservative colleagues."

[Anonymous No.12538108]

>>12537931
Aye, sorry I could have mentioned that.

[Anonymous No.12538209]

>>12538091
>heh heh those chumps sure weren't expecting me to be nonplussed by one of the most universally-adored works of art humanity has ever produced
God he was such a giant faggot

[Anonymous No.12538512]

>>12537838
Wrong. It's about FUCK CHIVALRY.

[Anonymous No.12538641]

>>12538048
>caring about Nabokov's shit hot opinions

[Anonymous No.12538663]

>>12538641
>not salivating over nabby's hot shits

[Anonymous No.12538673]

>>12537845
>Whatever helps you sleep at night, Paco.

this

>>12538048
>>12538055

>I object to such statements as "[the] perception [of Cervantes] was as sensitive, his mindas supple, his imagination as active, and his humor as subtle as those of Shakespeare.” Oh no—even if we limit Shakespeare to his comedies, Cervantes lags behind in all those things. Don Quixote but squires King Lear—and squires him well. The only matter in which Cervantes and Shakespeare are equals is the matter of influence, of spiritual irrigation—I have in view the long shadow cast upon receptive posterity of a created image which may continue to live independently from the book itself. Shakespeare's plays, however, will continue to live, apart from the shadow they project.

[Anonymous No.12538695]

>>12537712
I like Cervantes but no one can dethrone Shakespeare.
Even Tolstoy wrote a cope-essay because he couldn't comprehend why his gay shit didn't surpass the Eternal Anglo.

[Anonymous No.12538737]

>>12537712
>Better than Shakespeare

lol

[Anonymous No.12538897]

>the virgin Shakespeare
>the chad Cervantes

Does this exist?

[Anonymous No.12538905]

>>12538897
no one would be retarded enough to make that. even jokingly you wouldn't be able to make a case.

[Anonymous No.12538915]

>>12538905
yeah true cervantes spent a good deal of time a slave, shakespeare was worshipped ‘this side idolatry’

[Anonymous No.12539636]

>>12538695
No one outside of anglos seriously believes that Sheakespeare is the peak of literature.
He was a decent playwritter (the screen writters of the XVI century) and had some good sonets. That's about it.
His influence in the history of literature are superficial compared to authors like Homer or Cervantes himself.
>>12538905
Cervantes was a soldier that fought at Lepanto. Sheakespeare was a bourgouise fat fuck that the closest thing that he did to a physical activity was when he licked Elisabeth's feet. I am pretty sure the first is way more Chadlike than the latter

[Anonymous No.12539698]

>>12538695
their best writer was a
>playwriter

kek anglocuks.

[Anonymous No.12539752]

>>12538905
spanish golden century writers were all warriors. Except for one, I don't remember which one, Quevedo used to make fun of him for being a pussy.

[Anonymous No.12539778]

>>12539752
Gongora?

[Anonymous No.12539828]

>>12538695
Tolstoy himself said Shakespeare wasn't a true artist
Anglos are a joke desu

[Anonymous No.12539845]

>>12539839
Only an anglo could say something that stupid, I bet you are monolingual

[Anonymous No.12539849]

>>12539636
>>12539828
>>12539845
obsessed

[Anonymous No.12539854]

>>12539849
Are they, really? Even Nabokov and Bloom mention Shakespeare when the subject matter is Cervantes. Who's the obsessed one?

[Anonymous No.12539977]

>>12539849
How are we obsessed if you guys bring Sheakespeare to a Cervantes thread?

[Anonymous No.12539979]

truth and goodness. Borges recommenda reading the first 3 or 7 chapter of DQ part I, then entirety of Part II. His Novelas Ejemplares still surpass everything written in prose nowadays.

About DQ...

>There is nothing in the world more profound or powerful than this work. This is the ultimate and greatest word that human thought has yet produced, it is the bitter irony expressible by man, and if the world were to end and someone were to ask there, somewhere, 'Well, did you understand your life on earth? What conclusions did you reach about it?' one could silently point to Don Quixote: 'Here is my conclusion about life; can you judge me for it?'"
—Fyodor Dostoevsky

[Anonymous No.12540127]

>>12539979
I wonder why nobody ever talks about La galatea.

[Anonymous No.12540159]

>>12539979
Now this is epic.

[Anonymous No.12540169]

>>12539636
>His influence in the history of literature are superficial compared to authors like Homer or Cervantes himself.
Not true at all.

[Anonymous No.12540186]

>>12538673
>>I object to such statements as "[the] perception [of Cervantes] was as sensitive, his mindas supple, his imagination as active, and his humor as subtle as those of Shakespeare.” Oh no—even if we limit Shakespeare to his comedies, Cervantes lags behind in all those things. Don Quixote but squires King Lear—and squires him well. The only matter in which Cervantes and Shakespeare are equals is the matter of influence, of spiritual irrigation—I have in view the long shadow cast upon receptive posterity of a created image which may continue to live independently from the book itself. Shakespeare's plays, however, will continue to live, apart from the shadow they project.

this 1000 times

[Anonymous No.12540204]

>>12540169
A bunch of quotes and stories with parallelism to Sheakespeares plots is not even close to revolutionizing an entire genre of literature like poetry or novels. Theater plays were the most popular literature genre way before Sheakespeare appeared,novels were something residual by the times of Cervantes. After Cervantes novels surprass all literature genres in terms of quality,volume and importance.
Shakespeare was the Vince Guilligan of the XVI century, and comparing him to Cervantes is a miservice and misjudgement of his legacy.

[Anonymous No.12540227]

>>12540204
Excellent post, my friend.

[Anonymous No.12540229]

>>12537712
Overrated spic

[Anonymous No.12540275]

>>12540204
>Thinking only in terms of genre
Absolute pleb. Shakespeare was not only a brilliant poet in English, he revolutionized all of literature by the way he delved into his characters psyche. They were not simply rigid stock characters, satirical caricatures, or legendary god men but living, breathing people with their own complicated thoughts, hopes, dreams, and nightmares.

By your own criteria Dante is also worthless simply because epic poetry isn't popular anymore.

[Anonymous No.12540290]

>>12538673
All this fallacy without an ounce of objectivity

>hur X is so much better than Y because I say so

Anglos must hang t b h

[Anonymous No.12540294]

>>12540204
>Shakespeare was the Vince Guilligan of the XVI century, and comparing him to Cervantes is a miservice and misjudgement of his legacy.

Shakespeare’s language is the greatest the world has ever seen. He is by far the greatest of all poets: do you know what this means? It means he is the single person who used the greatest invention and most defining trace of the human race – language – in its most inventive, creative, bold and awe-inspiring way. The beauty of language has its greatest pinnacles on Shakespeare: we still did not surpassed his poetical texture.

Then there is the fact he created far more characters, many more scenes, worked with a much more varied set of themes and philosophies and overall presented a much broader and more fertile world. All of that he did using a language that would be the dialect of the angels if they were real. Seriously: the Quran and several books of the Bible (including the magnificent Book of Job), works that supposedly came from the very tempestuous tongue of God himself are aesthetically inferior to Shakespeare’s greatest poetical moments.

As for Cervantes, there is no question about his influence on literature, but many other writers have surpassed him as a novelist. Only tradition and patriotism would spur one to say that Cervantes is superior to Tolstoy, for example. He simply cannot compared with the subtlety, variety, ambition and elegance of the Russian. Cervantes language and style seem that of a semi-literate village schoolmaster who knows some bits of Latin poetry, some of the modern Spamish poems of the day (who were actually quite poor) and writes in the same way that villagers talk on a day to day basis. His language is crude, unorganized, and provincial.

People hardly read Cervantes today. It’s just like Nabokov said here:

>>I object to such statements as "[the] perception [of Cervantes] was as sensitive, his mindas supple, his imagination as active, and his humor as subtle as those of Shakespeare.” Oh no—even if we limit Shakespeare to his comedies, Cervantes lags behind in all those things. Don Quixote but squires King Lear—and squires him well. The only matter in which Cervantes and Shakespeare are equals is the matter of influence, of spiritual irrigation—I have in view the long shadow cast upon receptive posterity of a created image which may continue to live independently from the book itself. Shakespeare's plays, however, will continue to live, apart from the shadow they project.

1/2

[Anonymous No.12540300]

>>12540294

2/2

There is no possible comparison between Shakespeare and Cervantes. The novel was eventually keep evolving and we had had many examples of great novelists since the time of Cervantes. However the world has never seen anything like Shakespeare before or after. He is as metaphorical complex and exuberant as Emily Dickinson, but at the same time capable of enrobing the skeletons and muscles of stories with that miraculous verb of verbs.

And no: I am not an Anglo and not a native English speaker. The problem with you Spanish people is that you let your blind patriotism dissolve your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.12540305]

>>12540294
>Seriously: the Quran and several books of the Bible (including the magnificent Book of Job), works that supposedly came from the very tempestuous tongue of God himself are aesthetically inferior to Shakespeare’s greatest poetical moments.

you almost got me, but the bait became too obvious too soon

[Anonymous No.12540311]

>>12540305

Not bait. Shakespeare's poetry is superior

[Anonymous No.12540316]

>>12540300
Anglo-fagson detected

[Anonymous No.12540327]

>>12540275
>They were not simply rigid stock characters, satirical caricatures, or legendary god men but living, breathing people with their own complicated thoughts, hopes, dreams, and nightmares.
But Sheakespeare did not create that at all. La Celestina preceeds Sheakespeare by 100 years and does all of this. Only people that have zero knowledge about the history of literature believe all of this anglocentric bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12540374]

>>12540294
>All of that he did using a language that would be the dialect of the angels if they were real. Seriously: the Quran and several books of the Bible (including the magnificent Book of Job), works that supposedly came from the very tempestuous tongue of God himself are aesthetically inferior to Shakespeare’s greatest poetical moments.
lol überpleb, aesthetically, nothing comes close to the Gospels and The Divine Comedy.

[Anonymous No.12540383]

>>12540294
>Shakespeare’s language is the greatest the world has ever seen.
No it is not. The way that you people have of defending Sheakespeare is through sheer exaggeration,ignorance and omission. It is funny how you can claim that Sheakespeare is the most aesthetic writter when you can barely quote any poetry outside of him without using google.
What you people don't understand is that Cervantes is to novels what Plato is to philosophy. When you read philosophy you are reading Plato in some way or another and when you read a novel you are reading Cervantes in some way or another. There is no Tolstoy without Cervantes. There is no Ullysses without Cervantes. There is no Dostoyevsky. There is no Dumas without Cervantes. You might like other novelists better than Cervantes as you might like other philosophers better than Plato,but without any of these two the fields that we know wouldn't exist as we know them
It is impossible to understand modern literature without Cervantes, on the other hand is pretty easy to understand modern literature if you remove Sheakespeare completly.

[Anonymous No.12540398]

>>12540327
You know, Luis, you keep accusing others of being anglocentric, but it's pretty clear you have the same impairment re. Spanish lit.

[Anonymous No.12540420]

>>12540374
>lol überpleb, aesthetically, nothing comes close to the Gospels and The Divine Comedy.
Homer beats them both

>La Celestina preceeds Sheakespeare by 100 years and does all of this
No it doesn't. Otherwise its author would be more famous and revered than both Shakespeare and Cervantes.

[Anonymous No.12540433]

>>12540383

That matter of influence being the most important standard to evaluate art is not very good.

Without Giotto there wouldn’t be Masaccio, without Masaccio there wouldn’t be Michelangelo. Without ancient Greek sculptors Michelangelo also wouldn’t exist. Yet Michelangelo is immensely superior to all those other artists.

Without the Lumière brothers there wouldn’t been Orson Welles or Kubrick, so can we say that their work is superior?

What matters is the work. If you surpass your master you are greater than your master.

And the novel was not created by Cervantes in a vacuum: it was evolving on his day and he was a part of it. Things are not as simple as you people want to believe.

[Anonymous No.12540443]

Shakespeare is fucking boring as shit

[Anonymous No.12540445]

Dick measuring contests between two authors that neither spoke the same language not wrote the same kind of literature are so fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.12540464]

>>12540445
This, but what did you expect from these illiterate retards?

Also, just saying, I love some of shakespeare sonets, most of them, but saying that it hasn't been surpased is such a clear way to show everybody that you don't read poetry

[Anonymous No.12540470]

>>12540398
I read a lot of English literature and I really enjoy it.
The thing is that before the XIX century most English literature is pretty mediocre and that is why an author like Sheakespeare is glorified by English scholars to the point of being charicaturesque. You people talk about him like if he was a demigod of prose,poetry and character building and when I first read him I was deeply disappointed.
People claiming that Sheakespeare even got close to the aesthetic value of chapter one of the book of Ecclesiastes or Dante's Divine comedy is just a joke. None of the sonets that I have read nor any passage from Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet come close to the aesthetic value of those pieces.
Overrating his influence,ignoring the tendencies towards realism that all literatures had (but specially Spanish literature) on the late XV and XVI century and giving all the credit to Sheakespeare is just pure anglocentrism as you are ignoring tones of literature that preceeded him that did exactly what you people are claiming Sheakespeare was doing.
Putting Sheakespeare in his place as a good theater writter and poet does a bigger favor to his legacy than the mystification of his figure to something that he really never was

[Anonymous No.12540471]

>>12540464
>but saying that it hasn't been surpased is such a clear way to show everybody that you don't read poetry

It's not the poetry of the sonnets, but that of the plays.

If it were for his lyric poetry alone Emily Dickinson would be far superior to Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.12540484]

>>12540470
>None of the sonets that I have read nor any passage from Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet

Here's the problem: you need to read the whole of his works to know just how immense his language was

[Anonymous No.12540506]

>>12540420
>No it doesn't. Otherwise its author would be more famous and revered than both Shakespeare and Cervantes.
This is such a stupid argument
>>12540433
It is not just importance.Cervantes built an entire genre on his own. He stablished the basis of character development,structure and plot that most novelist follow. It is not fair comparing the Quixote to the Lumiere brothers first films as modern cinematography doesn't follow the structures of the cinematography of the Lumiere brothers.
>And the novel was not created by Cervantes in a vacuum: it was evolving on his day and he was a part of it. Things are not as simple as you people want to believe.
Cervantes didn´t wrote the first novel, neither did Plato "invent" philosophy. I know that, my point was that the influence of this two authors is very deep in their field to the point that all works in their fields after them are just a continuation of their work

[Anonymous No.12540511]

>>12540229
>the eternal Anglo btfo

[Anonymous No.12540521]

>>12540484
Have you read all poetry ever written to make a claim as wide as "no author has surprassed Sheakespeare in an aesthetic level". I have not read the entirety of Sheakespeare work but I am pretty sure you haven't read all the poetry that you claim Sheakespeare has surprassed either

[Anonymous No.12540525]

>>12537712
jewish

[Anonymous No.12540540]

>>12540445
There is no dick measure contest here, it would be like measuring the Cervantes "black mamba" with Shakespeare "my earring is bigger than my clit."

[Anonymous No.12541434]

Honestly I could never get into Shakespeare. It felt old, cliched, and it's been parodied to death so you know everything.

[Anonymous No.12541487]

>>12540374
Are you basing that off their native languages or English translations?

[Anonymous No.12541977]

>>12539854
>>12539977
>op compares to shakespeare in his own cervantes thread
>anons respond regarding cervantes-shakespeare topic
>no y-you're obsessed

don't put him in the topic next time?

[Anonymous No.12541983]

>>12537712
>Better than Shakespeare

You better be reading it in Spanish to say something like that.

[Anonymous No.12542035]

>>12539698
>their best writer was a
>>playwriter
It's genius, really. It's like the most efficient way to read when done right.
Just characters in scenes, nothing else.

>>12539828
>Tolstoy himself said Shakespeare wasn't a true artist
Yep.
Wrote a cope-essay about another author inbetween being a degenerate. Basically the rent-free phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.12542049]

>>12540540
>homo posting
lol pozzed opinions
go back to /gif/ lmfao

[Anonymous No.12542127]

>>12541983
I am pretty sure most people here speak English. I highly doubt that you speak Spanish

[Anonymous No.12542141]

>>12537712
>tell me about this guy?
>He’s brilliant. Better than Shakespeare,

Don't know anything about him but you call him Brilliant?
Bloody cuck.

[Anonymous No.12542794]

>>12542141
I’ve read Meme Quixote and Exemplary Stories, you fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.12542809]

>>12539979
>Borges recommenda reading the first 3 or 7 chapter of DQ part I, then entirety of Part II.
Why skip the rest of part I?

[Anonymous No.12542826]

>>12539636
I too find the Shakespeare worship itt irritating, but you're wrong. Both Shakespeare and Cervantes are in the top 10 most influentials writers in the past 500 years of Western littérature. Shakespeare got a lot of his recognition because the French and the German were completely gay for him.

[Anonymous No.12542836]

>>12539979
Iirc Tosltoy also said that Don Quixote was the greatest work ever written in prose.

[Anonymous No.12542837]

>>12541983
I can read in english and spanish (also italian and portuguese). Try to compare both is fruitless and only illiterate monolingual retards will enter in this asinine endeavor.

[Anonymous No.12542854]

>>12540294
The Shakespeare/Tolstoy fag strikes again.

>some of the modern Spamish poems of the day (who were actually quite poor)
>shitting in golden century spanish poetry
>in a literature board

You need to read all of Gongora in Spanish twice.

[Anonymous No.12543047]

>>12537712
>Cervantes
Okay I guess. Don Quixote is pretty comfy
>Better than Shakespeare
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.12544021]

Cervantes on one hand was better than Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.12544043]

>>12542127
You're right I don't speak Spanish. And that's why I would never say something as presumptuous as Cervantes is better than Shakespeare because I read Don Quixote in translation and could have absolutely no idea whether that is the case or not.

[Anonymous No.12544056]

>Better than Shakespeare

What is it with this board and thinking that their interests follow the law of zero-sum gain? Like >hurr so many people like Shakespeare I better find someone less popular to like INSTEAD of him

Cervantes might ask: Porque no las dos? Pinche idiota

[Anonymous No.12544076]

>>12544056
tu eres el pinche idiota por no entender la broma de "una mano". Te lo dibujo?

[Anonymous No.12544095]

>>12544076
No, la entendi. Estaba respondiendo a OP

[Anonymous No.12544116]

>>12544076
"I draw it?" Traduccion, porfa?

[Anonymous No.12544180]

>>12544116
is irony, like when you have to deal with slow people so you have to draw or sketch in order to explain things.

[Anonymous No.12544185]

>>12544180
The irony is that you're the slow person here who thought I was responding to somebody else. Wew

[Anonymous No.12544195]

>>12544116
He's implying you're a retard. Similar to the English expression "You want me to spell it out for you?"

[Anonymous No.12544343]

>>12542826
Sheakespeare was unknown in continental Europe until Voltaire made him popular. He was considered a good writter and nothing else until English scholars blew him out of proportion. Most people here worship him out of inertia not because they actually have read him

[Anonymous No.12544372]

>>12544343
seething continental

[Anonymous No.12544452]

>>12544343
cope

[Anonymous No.12544455]

>>12537730
A knight who participated in wars has all the right to mock chivalry.

[Anonymous No.12545560]

>>12539752
quevedo had a hateboner for anything gongora desu
not that he didn't deserve it

[Anonymous No.12545596]

>>12540294
> a e s t h e t i c s >>> actual contentcontent
I bet you'd be a gongorafag were you a spaniard at the time

[Anonymous No.12545654]

>>12545596
>> a e s t h e t i c s >>> actual contentcontent

Shakespeare explored many more themes and world-views than Cervantes

[Anonymous No.12545676]

>>12539752
>>12539778
Góngora, aka The Jew

Quevedo was the anti-pc even for that era.

[Anonymous No.12545685]

>>12537730
if you think literature is just a vehicle for didactic meaning then read non fiction moron

[Anonymous No.12545720]

What do you read after don Quixote and exemplary stories?

[Anonymous No.12545835]

>>12545720
Don Quixote again

[Anonymous No.12545844]

He's a one hit wonder, but it's a hell of a good hit. Like the Dexy's Midnight Runners of literature

[Anonymous No.12545951]

>>12545844
Part II is even better than part I. Cervantes is pure talent. He is not like Heller that failed to write anything good once he got done with catch-22

[Anonymous No.12545965]

>>12545951
>Part II is even better than part I.
So just one book then?

[Anonymous No.12546051]

was Don Quixote, the deapool of it´s day? if so, the book is garbage then

[Anonymous No.12546068]

>>12544076
me da verguenza ajena cuando veo mexicanos comentando aca

[Anonymous No.12546251]

>>12545965
He wrote more things than the Quixote

[Anonymous No.12546280]

Has anyone read the pseudosecuel/fanfic that other guy wrote? The one that made Cervantes kill DQ?

[Anonymous No.12546350]

>>12538695
Yo learn Spanish and read Quijote as it was intended and then tell me Miguel de Cervantes < Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.12546422]

>>12546350

Borges himself said that the language of Cervantes was crude and unpolished, that Gongora or Quevedo could have improved any of his pages and that people who defended his style as poetic and unmatched were just echoing tradition.

[Anonymous No.12546493]

>>12546422
Borges said that Cervantes didn't like over verbose writting. He never said he was a brutishcwritter which is very different. Cervantes cared more about developing a story and character development than to show everyone how well he could play with words

[Anonymous No.12546512]

>>12546051

[Anonymous No.12546520]

>>12546512
you didn´t answer my question

[Anonymous No.12546800]

>>12545720
tristram shandy

[Anonymous No.12546884]

>>12546422
Borges said that Gongora or Quevedo could have improved any of his pages, but he also said that Gongora or Quevedo could never write any of his pages.

Thats why Cervantes is the greatest, his unmatched creativity.

[Anonymous No.12546901]

>>12546884

Yes Anon, but the point is: a translation is not going to ruin Cervantes because it’s not his prose style that matters.

[Anonymous No.12547590]

>>12539636
This post reeks of particularly try hard, "orange man bad"

[Anonymous No.12547601]

>pedros claiming some spic is better than Shakespeare

objectively INCORRECT

[Anonymous No.12547611]

>>12547601
I really wish Brits weren't allowed to use computers.
Sick of your shit.

[Anonymous No.12547615]

>>12547601
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.12547664]

>>12547601
Not even a spic.
Neck yourself, tasteless subhuman semitic angl*shitter.

[Anonymous No.12547701]

>>12547601
>spic
The correct nomenclature is dago

[Anonymous No.12547734]

>>12547701
mestizo is the correct nomenclature

[Anonymous No.12547786]

>>12537712
I love Dostoevsky and he loves Don Quixote but when I started reading I was surprised by the triviality, monotony and simplicity of the text. A few of the middle chapters I read look much better. Convince me to continue.

[Anonymous No.12547808]

>>12540374
>me gusta Borges!
>i copy his opinions!

[Anonymous No.12547809]

>>12547601
W-Wow...
It's, as if... other individuals would.. have different opinions!?

[Anonymous No.12547830]

>>12541434
>so you know everything
no. no you don't.

[Anonymous No.12547859]

>>12544343
>English scholars
Also Goethe, Kierkegaard, Marx, Cioran, Flaubert, Chekhov, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Pessoa, Proust, Borges, Hugo, Freud, Nabokov etc. etc.

Try again, paco

[Anonymous No.12547868]

>>12540383
>pretty easy to understand modern literature if you remove Sheakespeare completly.
lmao no paco

[Anonymous No.12547899]

>>12547611
he said in english

[Anonymous No.12547900]

>>12537845
>>12538695
>>12538737
>>12538897
>>12541983
>>12542141
>>12543047
>>12544056
>>12547601
>>12547868

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ogZzp_ihc

[Anonymous No.12547918]

>>12547899
English isn't even the native language of Britain.
Try again.

[Anonymous No.12547931]

>>12547918
lol

[Anonymous No.12547952]

>>12547918

[Anonymous No.12547967]

>>12545596
>actual content
¡le crazy paco knight adventures!

[Anonymous No.12548083]

>>12547664
>uses English to insult Brits
>LARPing as some Germanic big-browed autist

You are the definition of Amerimutt and don't even try and deny it boy

[Anonymous No.12548430]

>>12547900
Tomad nota betillas que de una hostia os espabilo

[Anonymous No.12548717]

>>12545720
el criticón
dunno if is in english though

[Anonymous No.12549011]

>>12537712
>Shakespeare; fag, wrote a novel a bout a nigger, anglo, proto-sjw

>Cervantes: mocks chilvary, original shitposter, removed kebab, funny, based iberian

[Anonymous No.12549064]

>>12549011
whatever juan, stop talking and mow the lawn

[Anonymous No.12549092]

>>12546068
igual

[Anonymous No.12549103]

>>12547786
No

[Anonymous No.12549130]

>>12537719
>handless
He got some injury while in the Lepanto Battle of 1571. He got some damage to his nerves, so he kept it, but couldn't move the hand (left one).

>in prison
Yes. He was accused of tax fraud. He was the "taxes man" and presumably stole some of the grain he was suppoused to collect. So he spent some years in prison, nonetheless, didn't begin Don Quixote while in.

[Anonymous No.12549134]

>>12549011
Cervantes was a cuck who wrote an entire book about being a beta-orbiter

[Anonymous No.12549257]

>>12549011
the beta Shakespeare vs the chad Cervantes

[Anonymous No.12549663]

>>12549134
actually cervantes literally cucked a dude (he knocked some guys wife up)

[Anonymous No.12549857]

>>12547900
>Shakespeare as product of the british academic imperialism.

>Were shakespeare Bulgarian nobody would speak about him.

ouch.

[Anonymous No.12549868]

>>12537712
Well I've just started reading pic related because some anon was shilling it last week, and it's pretty damn good.

[Anonymous No.12550094]

>>12547900
>Cervantes as product of the spanish academic imperialism.

>Were cervantes Romanian nobody would speak about him.

ouch.

[Anonymous No.12550136]

>>12550094
Actually what he says is that Cervantes is so good that the ones that shilled Cervantes were the enemies of Spain. France and Germany.

He has a point when he says that Shakespeare could be compared with Calderon de la Barca, but is not as good as Lope de Vega.

[Anonymous No.12550143]

>>12550136
and Shakespeare was shilled by the French and Germans too. whats your point?

[Anonymous No.12550176]

>>12550143
Is not my point, just watch the video.

and no, shakespeare was shilled by brits. (Harold Bloom et al).

[Anonymous No.12550182]

>>12550176
>Shakespeare is famous because of Harold Bloom
Goethe, Kierkegaard, Marx, Cioran, Flaubert, Chekhov, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Pessoa, Proust, Borges, Hugo, Freud, Nabokov etc. etc. all considered him a genius

you know nothing, Pedro

[Anonymous No.12550204]

>>12550182
ok, tell that to the guy of the video.

[Anonymous No.12550210]

>>12550204
ok sure
you both know nothing

[Anonymous No.12550225]

>>12550210
and you look upset. :3

[Anonymous No.12550231]

>>12550225
ok

[Anonymous No.12550420]

>>12542809
He was autistic and didn't believe in reading any book in it's entirety.

[Anonymous No.12550603]

>>12540433
>Without the Lumière brothers there wouldn’t been Orson Welles or Kubrick, so can we say that their work is superior?
False equivalency, a more apt comparison would be D.W Griffith instead of the Lumieres who merely invented the technology, they weren't artists nor were they interested in the medium as an art form. So going back to your question, can you say that Griffith is superior to Kubrick and Welles? Yes, you can say that.

[Anonymous No.12550621]

>>12540470
>The thing is that before the XIX century most English literature is pretty mediocre
lol what a fucking idiot, you can't have read more then a couple of works from before that era, and they were probably too hard for your low level of English.

[Anonymous No.12550644]

>>12540470
yikes. why are continentals so insecure about Shakespeare?

[Anonymous No.12551805]

>>12540433
>Without the Lumière brothers there wouldn’t been Orson Welles or Kubrick,
Using Lumiere brothers is a bad example, it should be Griffith you faglord. And Kubrick is extremely overrated. That is all.

[Anonymous No.12552419]

There’s a lot of Anglo projection going on itt.

[Anonymous No.12552514]

>>12540290
he wrote an entire book explaining his opinions, stupid paco

[Anonymous No.12552576]

cervantes honestly is better

shakespeare has much better command of language

but don quixote is as good of a character (in my opinion better) than any of the contenders the bardolators trot out (falstaff, hamlet, e.t.c) and sancho panza is barely behind.

cervantes is also way fucking funnier, and unlike shakespeare not a slave to absolutely dead forms and conventions

[Anonymous No.12552654]

You can all suck my cock. You know nothing about literature. I'm going back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.12552743]

>>12537712
yikes

[Anonymous No.12554104]

>>12537712
>He’s brilliant.
it is?

[Anonymous No.12555216]

>>12539979
>>12542836
Did these guys speak Spanish or did they read translations? I feel you would lose lots of meaning either way; meaning lost in translation or meaning lost because you haven't mastered Spanish well enough.

[Anonymous No.12555274]

Shakespeare comes close, and if we're gonna blend genres (plays vs novels) anyway, I'm going to introduce pic related and say he is a greater artist than Cervantes and Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.12555995]

Why is he never brought up lads?

[Anonymous No.12556040]

>>12537719
He was three times in "prison". The first one was in Algeria, when Turks captured him. The second one was after the war, he was accused of stealing money while he was a public servant in Seville.

>>12537712
If you think Cervantes is better than Shakespeare please, read La vida es sueño by Calderón. That only book is better than all of Shakespeare's works.

[Anonymous No.12556461]

>>12556040
>La vida es sueño
woah deep bro