/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14359161]

Writers like Goethe, and especially Shakespeare, are often praised for not having a philosophical system. It is seen by many as one of their virtues that they don’t see the world in any one particular way. But women are incapable of developing a philosophical system of their own. They’ve never done it. So by accepting this view of great writing, are we not tacitly accepting that a woman could potentially be a truly great writer? Even though we know from both evidence and intuition that this cannot be? Are we to let the Goethes and Shakespeares of the world open the gates to women?

[Anonymous No.14359174]

>>14359161
>are often praised for not having a philosophical system
Are they? Maybe Goethe, haven't read much critique of him but Shakespeare has always been praised for his play with language. Even if that is true, every single one of Shakespeare's plays has its own internal philosophical system. It's just that they're not consistent from play to play because Shakespeare liked to explore systems from the perspective of his characters. As it should be since he's writing a play and not a philosophical treatise (or even a novel)

[Anonymous No.14359196]

>>14359174
>>14359161

yeah bro, keats's idea of negative capability

[Anonymous No.14359211]

>>14359161
Thats quite the stretch here. In order to be a great writer you need to be great at writing. Thats all. Aesthetics is king if we're talking literature.

[Anonymous No.14359321]

>>14359211
Cope.

[Anonymous No.14359327]

>>14359161
>So by accepting this view of great writing, are we not tacitly accepting that a woman could potentially be a truly great writer?
You're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.14359352]

>>14359161
>Writers like Goethe, and especially Shakespeare, are often praised for not having a philosophical system.
If anything, this is simply the direction of ones life, of a poet and not a philosopher. Their thought, unmarked by rational interpretation true or not. Just as language in general, can also obscure original thought. For the rational man who has been endowed with some fire, this must be trained and self reflected upon. So as to preserve that creative endeavour.

[Anonymous No.14359381]

>>14359352
The irrational man is lucky in this respect.

[Anonymous No.14359393]

>>14359161
Goethe did have a philosophy it was just vague and he never explained it very well. It is as of yet unclear to me whether philosophy is bad poetry, or poetry is philosophy by insane brainlets

[Anonymous No.14359671]

>>14359327
Not an argument. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.14359710]

Precisely the reason based Jane has lasted better than any other novelist of her era, because she ignored the grand narratives and focused on timeless domestic concerns rather than bore you about Napoleon or the revolutions

[Anonymous No.14359711]

>>14359211
Not true at all

[Anonymous No.14359779]

>>14359710
Yes, that’s why Dostoevsky is one of the three most remembered authors from the 19 th century (other Tolstoy, Dickens)

[Anonymous No.14359992]

>Writers like Goethe […] are often praised for not having a philosophical system.
Jesus Christ dude read a single book by Goethe like Maximen und Reflexionen or West-Östlicher Diwan or simply Faust and see how ridiculous this claim is

[Anonymous No.14360076]

>>14359161
Shakespear didnt know Venetian law society or the History of the Kings of Britain, or Roman society, Alexander library didnt burn down, Francis Bacon was illuminate and visited the vatican, but those together and youll understand why the name is so famous.

[Anonymous No.14360083]

>>14359992
Don’t act like you know shit about it. You haven’t read the works you cited. Aphorisms are not a philosophical system lmao. And as for Faust, even Walter Kauffman, a philosopher talks at length in the introduction to his translation of Faust about how it resists philosophizing. Dumb bitch.

[Anonymous No.14360102]

>>14359779
>most remembered
Austen is more remembered today than Dostoevsky, or any 19th century writer apart from Dickens

[Anonymous No.14360142]

>>14359161
shakespeare was a woman tho

[Anonymous No.14360160]

Great writers use words, and sometimes, women use words. Are we not therefore saying women could possibly be great writers????? (multiple question marks to emphasis the contempt implicit in my mockery of OP)

[Anonymous No.14360201]

It is true for Shakespeare and his empathy to breath all ways of life and perspectives into his characters seemingly all natural, is part of his plays charm. Reading Shakespeare often lets me feel like watching Tarkovsky. In the sense that he simply displays life and entrusts the audience to find the tools to understand it for themselves. Goethe on the other hand is the exact opposite. His works drip of his selected worldview, so much so that it feels like his works and characters are not natural artistic creations but more like empty boxes to stuff in weimar classicism. And that's the key point which refutes your argument OP. Goethe was part of a movement that had an inheriated view on what life, art and humanity was and should be like and he was not only incapable to see the flaws in his own view but also to ever break or step out of it, hence making your point invalid. I do think what you bring up is important to understand. As others have pointed out a curiosity and understanding for life in all its ways is key, and Shakespeare definetely has it. I never understood the praise Goethe receives on here. I do think most people simply haven't read him and buy into a widely accepted opinion on him.

[Anonymous No.14360219]

>>14360201

I for one think Goethe’s poetry is extremely boring and lifeless. Hardly any original or surprising metaphor, and the themes are mostly romantic cliches.

Goethe seems like a man who tried to do so much things in life that he never mastered one of them completely.

[Anonymous No.14360719]

>>14360219
He mastered all of them retard, fuck you

[Anonymous No.14360759]

>>14360719
>He mastered all of them retard

no. sorry, but no, not even close.

[Anonymous No.14360849]

>>14360219
>the themes are mostly romantic cliches.
He invented those "romantic cliches" dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14360891]

>>14359711
Bloom was right and you are wrong.
>>14359321
Says the guy attacking Shakespeare lol

[Anonymous No.14360912]

>>14360849
>He invented those "romantic cliches" dumbass.

No. And even if he did, those cliches are boring and shallow (Werther is one of the most sleep-inducing books I ever read).

Patriotism is not very good when judging art: it clouds your reason.

[Anonymous No.14360916]

>>14360219
You are tripping, Goethe's poetry is aesthetic as fuck and his fiction is enriched with the romantic soul.

[Anonymous No.14360926]

>>14360891
>Bloom was right and you are wrong.

Blooms was a windbag, mostly wrong about everything. For starters, he saw literature as something mystic and not as the craft that it is.

[Anonymous No.14360936]

>>14360916
>Goethe's poetry is aesthetic as fuck

Can you give an example? Make a free-verse translation. Any poet that relies on sound alone is not a great poet.

[Anonymous No.14360951]

>>14360936
The entire Roman Elegies.

[Anonymous No.14360980]

>>14360219
>Goethe seems like a man who tried to do so much things in life that he never mastered one of them completely.

The real great artist of that time was Beethoven, and Mozart before him. Goethe is nothing in literature when compared to what those guys were in music.

[Anonymous No.14360995]

>>14360951

Is this a decent translation:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7889/7889-h/7889-h.htm#link2H_4_0001

?

[Anonymous No.14361021]

>>14360926
wtf I love Bloom now

[Anonymous No.14361090]

>>14359161
>But women are incapable of developing a philosophical system of their own

And Albinos! They haven't produced any great philosophical system of they're own either!

[Anonymous No.14361102]

>>14360995
I only trust Gutenberg so I guess it is.

[Anonymous No.14361309]

>>14360916
Weird to say since Goethe's entire oeuvre post his Italian journey is about going away from romanticism, despising it and dripping his view of classicism into his works. Goethe is a writer who was too weak for the romantic life.

[Anonymous No.14361384]

>>14361309
Lmao what a cope. Romanticism is the weakest outlook you can have.

[Anonymous No.14361392]

>>14361090
please do not sully this thread by mentioning, may allah forgive me for uttering this word, alb*nians

[Anonymous No.14361402]

>>14361384
How?

[Anonymous No.14361516]

>>14360719
Faust is a failure as a play. It's a great piece of poetic imagination, but as theatre it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.14361551]

>>14361516
Faust is a closet drama....

[Anonymous No.14361584]

>>14361551
That's just something they say because it no longer really works as a live play.

[Anonymous No.14361588]

>>14361384
Personally speaking I would consider the typical /lit/ user outlook on life, only being able to think in patterns of cope and memes, much weaker.
But regarding your sentiment on romanticism being a weak outlook - is it really? And mind what I actually wrote. I didn't say romanticism was a strong outlook on life, though it requires strength to actually live it 'till the end (hence why the late romanticists all fled into religion) but that Goethe was too weak to endure the life romanticism brings with it. Hence making his entire classicism ironically enough a cope for not being able to endure being a romantic.

[Anonymous No.14361612]

>>14361584
Source: Your ass

[Anonymous No.14361618]

>>14359381
True, but he is incapable of contextualizing his irrationality, making it gay instead of based

[Anonymous No.14361631]

>>14359393
the former

[Anonymous No.14362587]

>>14359161

[Anonymous No.14362602]

>>14361584
cope

[Anonymous No.14362605]

>>14361618
Different strengths anon.

Is the rational man able to have such depth of feeling?