What's the literary equivalent of Piero Scaruffi's infamous take on the Beatles?
Proposal: "Few critics have even admitted that Hamlet the play is the primary problem, and Hamlet the character only secondary...far from being Shakespeare’s masterpiece, the play is most certainly an artistic failure"
Other urls found in this thread:
scaruffi.com
scaruffi.com
twitter.com
Nabokov's pasta
...
I heard Kurt Vonnegut in a lecture say that Shakespeare was not a good storyteller and writer but acknowledged that Hamlet is a masterpiece.
Nabokov's BTFOing of Dostoyevsky
Bloom on Wallace
Christgau tier
Possibilities
>Tolstoy on Shakespeare
>Nabokov on Dostoevsky or Faulkner
>Bloom on DFW
>Woolf on Ulysses
Whatever it is, Nabokov is unquestionably the Scaruffi of Yea Forums
>Comparing the Beatles with Shakespeare
Beatles is the harry potter of music, so someone shitting harry potter would be the equivalent
stretching your legs eh
>Bloom on Wallace
This
Yeah except Nabokov isn’t a complete pseud fraud like Scruff
>Bloom on Wallace.
Post it boys
user...
>Beatles is the harry potter of music
this is the average Yea Forums user
Nabokov was a hack. Such an overrated psued writer.
Where is the lie?
He's right. Prove him wrong. Beatles were a commercial boy band with faux artsy tendencies to appear deep to normies, but is not even close to the true Western art music canon. It is closer to *nsync than Bach.
you're right, the beatles are vastly superior.
Velvet Underground are the true Yea Forums 60s band. Beatles are for normies who think they're deep.
Scaruffi's take on literature and philosophy
scaruffi.com
scaruffi.com
>muh true Yea Forums
"no".
>implying the velvet underground isn't the ultimate 'normies-pretending-they're-deep bad"
There is no such thing as being deep. They just explored new sonic territories that ended up sounding great and being influencial.
More like Bloom on Vineland. OP's proposal bashes Hamlet, not Shakespeare. Bloom hates DFW altogether. Loves Pynchon, was insulted by Vineland.
LRD are the true patrish band though
That would be the Doors, actually.
Their self-titled with Nico is the best thing you’ll ever listen to from the decade of 60-70.
You cannot debate this, it’s an objective fact :3
Thank for you an objective musical fact. We don’t have enough of those these days.
Way too many wishy washy pseuds
>There is no such thing as being deep.
I think you are expecting to find something that no one who "believes in depth" ever asserted to exist.
literally just discount TVU but nosier and longer
t. retard, they're a far more evolved tvu, that existed independently of them.
they were huge fans of TVU though, everything they did was pretty much based off of Sister Ray lol
(btw I don't hate LRD, they're decent just nowhere near as good as TVU)
Go to bed Piero
That's what made them so great
The Beatles are superior to absolutely nothing
This
But hes correct
The Beatles and TVU both suck.
Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart are the patrician 60s rock artists.
This absolutely
Joe's Garage is one of my all-time favorites. I know it's later, but still.
Piero doesn't know shit about literature, which is to be expected
Objectively correct take: The Beatles were revolutionary and outstanding for their time, but have been outdone by newer bands and so seem decent at best looking back.
The ultimate master of 1960s music is Bowie. Bowie was always the best in every decade he existed in. It's amazing how he captures the zeitgeist of every single decade of the second half of the 20th century.
>scaruffi
This but with Homer
Supposedly Tolkien's publishing agent initially thought The Hobbit would completely flop, so got his son (a friend of Tolkien's who convinced him to publish in the first place) to front the money for publication and accept the loss.
To my knowledge, the book has not been out of print since.
>The homosexual lobbies are so powerful in the USA that they are even distorting history to prove their points. Sometimes i feel there is an odd conspiracy theory not only to prove that homosexuality is "natural" (which is weird enough for anybody who has a biological definition of "natural") but even that everybody should become gay.
>I really think we should modify the law so that one can be sued for defaming not only living people but also the memory and reputation of people who died centuries ago.
>In fact, for the first time in my life, I am worried about the fact that children might be "brainwashed" in schools throughout the country to "tolerate" homosexuality ("tolerate" as in "hail"), which may turn out to be an encouragement to 1. uncritically approve gay marriage, and 2. become gay yourself.
>Michael Brown was a thug.
>If the cop honestly felt that this was a young black man (as politically incorrect as it sounds, this is the most violent category of people in the USA) aiming a gun at him, the cop can hardly be blamed for shooting first.
>Why are there age limits? why can't i marry a 12-year old? Helen of Troy was 12. Juliet and Cleopatra were still teenagers when they became famous. Most heroines of classic novels and poems were underage by today's laws. Thomas Edison married a 16-year-old. Medical studies show that the best age for a woman to have children is between 15 and 25 (lowest chances of miscarriage, of birth defects and, last but not least, of the woman dying while giving birth); while the worst age is after the mid 30s. And the younger you are, the more likely you are to cement a real friendship with your children; the older you are, the more likely that the "generational gap" will hurt your children's psychology. Therefore it is much more natural to have a child at 16 than at 40.
What did he mean by this?
T.S Eliot still loved Hamlet and Shakespeare. He existed in a pre-degraded academic universe when literary criticism was a meticulous objective thing, and not about finding ways to discuss your views of transgenderism. He wanted to build his works on top of the Anglo literary canon and saw himself in this context. He wouldn't debate Shakespeare's importance.
i.e he was the authentic peak Ivy League/Cambridge package that Harold Bloom tries to LARP as.
Btw since no one ITT has credited OP's quote, it's from "Hamlet and His Problems" by T.S. Eliot.
His views on the role of criticism and its relationship to artists is very erudite, well-spoken, and interesting. It's his only real prose work as well.
this thread is gay
>scaruffi.com
It's hilarious how he has a page with """summaries""" or a ton of philosophers and he included himself among them. Scaruffi wisdom:
>The mental cannot arise ex nihilo from the non-mental
>Cognition is pervasive in nature
>The mental is a property of matter, of all matter
>Imitation, not innovation, is the fundamental social instinct
>Ignorance, not knowledge, is the natural state of humans
>Western democracy ("one person one vote") tends to become the rule of the mediocre (if they are free, they want to be ignorant)
>The remedy is a "democracy of the wise": each voter counted proportional to her/his knowledge
>Religion is the ultimate evil, because it is founded on a lie (God exists)
>All wars are, ultimately, religious wars
>Religion is about absolute certainty, knowledge is about relative uncertainty
>Ethics should be refounded on knowledge instead of religion, so that people engage in endless studying instead of endless killing
Leftards on Evola
The fact that so many fiction critics still name Harry Potter as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" work of fiction ever only tells you how far fiction music still is from becoming a serious art. Philosophy critics have long recognized that the greatest philosophers of all times are Hegel and Nietzsche, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Fiction critics are still blinded by commercial success. Harry Potter sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore it must have been the greatest. Philosophy critics grow up reading to a lot of philosophy books of the past. Fiction critics are often totally ignorant of the fiction of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that Rowling wrote anything worthy of being saved.
This is the wop who said the Beatles are not that good, right? Which is totally, objectively, unambiguously true, so the equivalent would have to be something like Theodore Dalrymple pointing out that Virginia Woolf was a terrible person and her works are a sack of hot shit.
Make it "Music critics have long recognized that the greatest musicians of all times are The Beatles, [...]"
so it's meta
>Nabokov isn’t a complete pseud fraud
...
>wine mums on my Yea Forums
Does anybody have the 'reactionary' pasta. you know the one
Yeah, Tolstoy has that essay where he shits on Shakespeare...
this or the critic as an artist by Wilde
>Asked about novelist David Foster Wallace, who took his own life in 2008, but who has a new book out, “The Pale King: An Unfinished Novel,” put together from manuscript chapters and files found in his computer, Bloom says, “You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But ‘Infinite Jest’ [regarded by many as Wallace’s masterpiece] is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.”
I'm glad someone called me out on this. I was lowkey trying to gauge how well known that essay was by contributing it to him.
It's definitely true that Eliot wasn't just bashing the play and was more using it as an excuse to talk about "objective correlative" as a concept.
Absolutely not, and I say that as someone who loves Bowie. Most of his 1960s music was totally forgettable. His peak was 1970 to 1980.
David Bowie turned marketing into the essence of his art. All great phenomena of popular music, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles, had been, first and foremost, marketing phenomena (just like Coca Cola and Barbie before them); however, Bowie turned that into an art of its own. With Bowie the science of marketing becomes art; art and marketing become one. There were intellectuals who had proclaimed this theory in rebellious terms. Bowie was, in many ways, the heir, no matter how perverted, of Andy Warhol's pop art and of the underground culture of the 1960s. He adopted some of the most blaspheme issues and turned them upside down to make them precisely what they had been designed to fight: a commodity.
Bowie was a protagonist of his times, although a poor musician: to say that Bowie is a musician is like saying that Nero was a harp player (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Bowie embodies the quintessence of artificial art, raises futulity to paradigm, focuses on the phenomenon rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.
Bowie died of cancer in january 2016.