Is Roberto Bolaño overrated?

Hell no. He wrote like no other. Super simple prose but deep and compelling, and absolutely full of symbolism that felt natural and not hamfisted. Not all of his works are great, some are just entertainig, but he will be remembered as a great.

No
Please explain

Had he not died early he would be competing with, and probably surpassing, Coetzee for title of best living writer.

I get that it's sort of meme-y but 2666 really is the masterpiece of the 21st century. It articulates a pervasive terror in the modern world as well as documenting the flowering of evil in a capitalist/post-capitalist West. All of it glimpsing a void at the heart of western culture, a void that allowed for the evil of the nazis, cartels, mass murders to grow, a void whose only challenge can and should be a violent last stand of love and literature and goodness.

Quoting myself here.

Bolano, Coetzee, and Sebald (the three most important writers of the last 20ish years IMO) all deal with the same thing, for the most part: How to exist as an individual within history.

Sebald does a fantastic job of this in Vertigo and Rings of Saturn. Austerlitz, while stylistically his beset, falters along with The Emigrants in essentially being thinly-veiled apologies for the Holocaust.

Coetzee's work in Disgrace and Life and Times of Michael K are almost unmatched in their marrying of theme and plot...singular characters trying to survive in conditions that care not at all for them.

Bolano does many of the same things as both of them, but he engages with these issues in a more personal/visceral way...never are his characters philisophical ciphers the way Coetzee's are, never does he obscure his moralizing the way Sebald does...he writes brutal, realistic, vibrant fiction, that engages with the violent modern world in a way unlike anyone else.

>Not liking lucious skin
>being this pleb

TSD and 2666 are both great

I'm mexican so maybe my perception of him is different.
I've only read the savage detectives and a bit of 2666 (reading it atm).
I don't think his prose is as beautiful as many other great latin american writers, and other elements might also be lacking (this would be a matter of taste though)... that said, his perception of the circumstances, situation, context, and so on, of a given time and place are incredible.
He captured mexican culture pretty well in the savage detectives.
Also his characters are quite memorable, maybe not as great as those by Marquez, but they all have this complete dimension about them.
He also seems fond of placing an introvert, a bit more intellectual than his peers, in the story and I do like this character who is a bit more perceptive of what is happening, instead of the fast living that the rest of the characters have. The whole architect dude subplot was excellent imo.
He's also funny, but not in a terribly lowbrow way as is the case with many hispanic writers. At the same time he's not highbrow for the sake of it, it's completely natural and his message and narrative always feel as being the driving point instead of simply being a vehicle to showcase his talent (as many tryhards do in southamerica).

Also, he's not argentinian and so maybe due to that he managed to escape this overused argie aesthetic and style present in many modern works.
He also avoids being a Marquez copy, i.e. a modern writer alienated from folk culture that tries to hard to integrate it in his writing.

Also he has a certain minimalist (or rather not sensual) kind of writing, and the themes are depicted in such way that are interesting but never too "gay" (not the homosexual sense), and I thank him for that because otherwise he would have turned into the next Cortazar and I find that idea repulsive.

Of course you'd identify with a promiscuous bisexual who gets scared when a slut asks him to be dominant.

Do you ever sleep?

Recordatorio que no puedes opinar ni un carajo si no lo has leído en español.
Esto se aplica también a cualquier crítica que le hagas a alguna obra literaria sin haberla leído en el idioma de origen.

he is not overrated, but not everything he wrote is gold, and everything he wrote is getting published and translated, even against his wishes.

just read 2666, savage detectives, by night in chile and distant star.

savage detectives isnt overrated, and is the book that made him famous, the second part of that book (which is 2 thirds of the book) is the best thing he wrote.

The first part of The Savage Detectives with Garcia Madero was GOAT

>Él falló por las traslaciones meme
Wew wey

The fuck did you say about Cortázar?

Do you want me to knock the shit out of you or what

No he isn't. Maybe for anglos that haven't read any other latin american literature.

Si te das cuenta de los estúpido que es esa afirmación, verdad? O solo eres un shitposter, tal vez.

his novels are good but his poetry is rupi kaur tier trash

>he really thinks spanish cant be perfectly translated to other Roman languages

>verdad?

No hagan esto en español. Cada que lo veo me sangran los ojos.

*¿verdad?

Leí Llamadas Teléfonicas y Putas Asesinas, como preámbulo a sus novelas.

Dice mucho en breve, de manera austera, sin descuidar una trama simple pero muy ambientada. Siempre me parecieron tensos sus cuentos, pero satisfactoriamente sentimentales.

No conozco a otro escritor que logre mostrar el sentimiento del desierto mexicano como él, ahh Gómez Palacio

Yo sólo he leído Amuleto, basado en uno de los capítulos de Los detectives salvajes. También vi una entrevista con él en YouTube.

El libro me pareció bueno, pero sí quiero leer Los detectives salvajes y 2666 para ver todo su potencial. De hecho ahí tengo Los detectives salvajes desde hace un buen, quizá lo empiece a leer pronto.

>Él falló por las traslaciones
>Él
>falló
>traslaciones

JAJAJA callate imbécil

>Distant Star

Shows how much you know, the short story he based it on was superior, and the collection was great and unmissable if you want to read his work and see his growth.

At first I didnt really like Savage Detectives, but then it got me hooked and now that its been months since i finished i feel it really is a great book.
2666 is even better, truly a masterpiece
however, i get what says
everyone who i know who likes bolaño are edgy fucks who think of themselves in some of the charaters of savage detectives, they are usually champage socialists too
I think Bolaño was making fun of the type of people who go around into artsy stuff, and these exact type of people are the ones that overrate him so much

i mean, the kind of people who take pics of pages they are reading or pics of themselves with a book
and then other people go and comment "wow bolaño is so great!!"
human trash

Él lleva acento cuando es un pronombre personal, puerco inculto

wew compadrito

Does Savage Detectives contain the same amount of degeneracy as 2666?

thats harsh. there are some good things in "La universidad desconocida". Claro que hay que leer la wea en español huacho

Yeah.

>la wea
wew

¿Pero qué chiganderas hablas, mano? ¡La vas a desgraciar! Mejor ve a comer una torta de jamón, García Madero, no vaya a ser que te encuentres con el chulo de Lupe.

si serás, si serás

Es que no me tienen paciencia.

lel
Is el chavo, dare I say it, /our guy/?

You didn't "get" TSD. Thinking that TSD is about "the literary life" is like thinking Animal Farm is really a story about a farm, that the Bible is factually true, and another example I don't care to think of that demonstrates my point that you don't understand the concept of METAPHOR.

Allegory*

Parable*

yes

his racism in 2666 needs to be discussed

He actually looked a lot like El Chavo, not to mention Lupe's jokes being the same as Godinez' in the art class episode.

I suppose they're rather common jokes in Mexico but I really wanna believe Bolaño was giving a nod to his more famous namesake

i dont remember any racism in 2666

>No conozco a otro escritor que logre mostrar el sentimiento del desierto mexicano como él

y rulfo?

Non-americans can't be racist

He wrote two fucking amazing African American characters. The fuck you talking bout white boi?

>No conozco a otro escritor que logre mostrar el sentimiento del desierto mexicano como él

I think both have significant meme status on Veeky Forums but he has a very distinct style in TSD that I enjoyed, particularly the way he portrays the passage of time. I liked By Night in Chile better, though.

Ahhh, cómo se me pasó

>cómo

You forgot László Krasznahorkai

Está bien esa tilde, hay una pregunta implícita ahí

Hey man, you hit the nail on the head as far as Bolaño and Sebald are concerned. I really like that about both of them, the living with knowledge of history thing.
I'd like to ask you about Coetzee. I read Waiting for the Barbarians and thought it was pretty good but I didn't love it. Any other books by Coetzee you'd recommend?

>Bolaño

He has a few distinct styles that he tends to mix in varying levels depending on what book it is. He has his social/historical commentary; his engagement with language as representation of cultural history; autobiography/self-reflection; surrealist self-reflection.

Depending on what sounds good to you, here are some recommendations.

The Childhood of Jesus - very abstract, purposefully vague, surreal and philosophical. I'd argue that it's one of his best.

Disgrace - probably his best primer, philisophical, clear and concise, like his best works it forces you to engage with his ideas.

Life and Times of Joseph K - the closest he gets thematically to what I was talking about w/r/t Sebald/Bolano...lays bare a lot of what he discusses in his other works, specifically individuals being a part of the river of history

Elizabeth Costello - essentially a collection of talks about varying topics generally about ethics and vegetarianism, ends with a surreal kafka-esque episode.

y que vas a hacer mierda?

¿Y qué vas a hacer, mierda? *

Recordatorio diario de que el signo abierto de interrogación es un meme y está condenado a desaparecer

Chupa más pija anglo, amigo

Meh. Maybe a little bit when people say he's the best sudamerican writer of the 20th century.
But at least I can say he's really good and has more than one memorable work.

Aprovechando que ambos hablamos español, te respondo así:

>I don't think his prose is as beautiful as many other great latin american writers

La prosa de Bolaño quizá no vibra con una «belleza fulgurante», pero eso ya más bien parece ser porque al mismo Roberto le importaba un carajo.
Sin ofender, pero muchos escritores latinoamericanos son más adornos que historia; más rimbombancia que ideas o personajes (¿por qué crees que dicen que todos los latinos escriben igual?).
El estilo de Bolaño se caracteriza, bien dijeron más arriba, por apelar a una escritura sencilla pero que en su simplicidad era capaz de apelar a una profundidad tremenda, ya fuera en sus parajes, historias, simbolismos o personajes.
Para ejemplificar mejor, Borges también tenía una escritura simplista y cualquiera que lo haya leído puede estar al tanto de la magnificencia que alcanzaron sus letras solo en base a las ideas que exponía en ellas.

Lmao qué es este thread. ¿es que nadie sabe escribir correctamente en español ? No les diría nada si fuese su segunda lengua. Papi, presta atención.

Gabo is Stephanie Meyer-tier but with magical realism gimmicks to hide it. Same with most stuff written by Cortazar. They were absolute faggots that wrote arguments unable to go past "muh feelings".

Wtf I hate Boom writers now

Thanks for the redpill, gringo

This is probably the worst post in Veeky Forums history.

Sabes que me importa un carajo, verdad?

Porque no lo has leído, inculto de mierda.

lol

Having read authors in several different languages (translations as both a kid and a grown up, and then in the original languages), I can say for certain there are authors you can only appreciate if you read in the original language. Gabriel García Márquez one of them, Cervantes possibly another, also Nabokov (you might be able to translate certain lines such as "guilty of killing Quilty," or "Humble Humbert," but meaning is lost). Sure, there are authors whom you can read and appreciate translated (Dostoevsky comes to mind, Borges to some extent, even though he's much better in Spanish), but some used their language in such a way that much and most of the charm is lost in translation, even with the best translators.

It's kind of like music: you can't arrange for a different ensemble a piece written for a specific group of instruments without losing something in the way; if the composer knew how to exploit each instrument to the maximum, you simply can't do such things because too much is lost.

Feel free to fight me on this.

>cervantes in the original
old timey spanish, i honestly can't imagine

It is not that different. Cervantes' Spanish is closer to today's Spanish than Shakespeare's English to today's English. Basically modern Spanish regulations (Dictionaries, ortographies, etc) were made at the time the Quijote was around and it basically was taken as the basis for these regulations. So it is not totally inaccurate to say that Cervantes invented modern Spanish.

Meaning is not lost, only alliteration and puns.

Marquez thought the English translation was superior to the original kek

He obviously was just being humble

...

> The Real Academia Española (English: Royal Spanish Academy), is the official royal institution responsible for overseeing the Spanish language. The RAE's emblem is a fiery crucible, and its motto is "Limpia, fija y da esplendor" ("[It] cleans, [it] fixes, and [it] casts splendour").
> ts aristocratic founder, Juan Manuel Fernández Pacheco, Marquis of Villena and Duke of Escalona, described its aims as "to assure that Spanish speakers will always be able to read Cervantes"

Other than words that are no longer in use, it's the same as modern Spanish. Probably comparable to how different 19th century English is from modern English.

Meant to imply "translating the wordplay" when I said translate in that sentence. If the author made a certain wordplay and put puns somewhere, they're an essential part of the text, as much as meter and rhyme are essential parts of poetry. Sure, you can read it translated, but a good author is always best read in the original language, with nothing changed.

I still firmly believe one can only give an opinion about the story until you read the original version. And everyone knows literature is about prose, not plot.

You can still translate Humble Humbert as "Humberto el Humilde" or something like that, and still mantain a certain level of alliteration, be it aural or visual, while also adding the irony of Humbert's being royal that is used somewhere else in the novel. You may say it is stretching it, but it's just an example. A good translator finds a way, or if not, he or she must compromise and choose. Still, there are translations that are in themselves works of art, such as Pope's Homer or Boscán's Castigglione.

You may believe that, but that is just puritanism that doesn't help you with anything.

>literature is about prose, not plot

It's really not. It seems a very prejudice and narrow view of literature.

> Demütig Humbert
Only works when the word has the same etymology in the target language. Most languages do not.

I'm not denying that there are good translations, or that translations can be done, but too much is lost in translation for people to make an accurate assessment of the writer's ability to write from just reading translations. That's my point.

I agree that some writers are more difficult to translate than others. Some stories of Cortázar rely heavily on alliteration and really can't work on translation, for instance. Sure you'll get the point across in a translation, but what makes the original great in the first place is irredeemably lost.
Other writers may be notoriously hard to translate not only because of wordplay but because of how they use the language. I can only imagine how much a pain in the arse it would be to translate Woolf, or how unnatural the kilometric sentences of Mann will sound without the german grammar.

However not all prose writers are untranslatable as you seem to imply. Hamsun has brilliant translators in Spanish, it all comes down to the skill of the translator. Of course it's always better to read the original, but fuck me if I'm going to learn norge just to read him and Ibsen.

>acento

>acento

m. Signo ortográfico que en algunas lenguas se escribe sobre ciertas vocales para indicar alguna particularidad fonética

>that the Bible is factually true
The people who wrote it actually thought that way. For example, jews actually thought haven was above, literally.

> It articulates a pervasive terror in the modern world as well as documenting the flowering of evil in a capitalist/post-capitalist West.

>his perception of the circumstances, situation, context, and so on, of a given time and place are incredible.

> all deal with the same thing, for the most part: How to exist as an individual within history.

Is this pseud? Please, some examples of your claims.

Have you even read his books?

No, that's why i'm asking.

Read them and find for yourself

>Go to public forum to read discussions
>"Actually we don't like to discuss things"

Ok.

>People post their opinions on certain works
>"are you guys pseuds? LMAO prove your claims" oh btw I have not read the works and therefore I don't know what you or I am talking about

Actually we don't like to spoonfeed retards

You can't really contribute or ask if something is a pseud if you've never delved into the material yourself. We aren't here to hold your hand.

That's good to know. Is it the same for the three Golden Age playwrights?

Cortázar is overrated shit that relies on dumb gimmicks
>muh "Andábamos sin buscarnos, pero sabiendo que andábamos para encontrarnos"

Yes. Anything post-1400s is readable by any person who can read modern Spanish, though the older it is, it might be a bit more difficult because different spelling of some words.

Antwerp was pretty great, 2666 is a masterpiece (like people have already said). Haven't read anything else by him but plan to.

>He fell for the Rayuela meme