Cervantes vs Shakespeare

Cervantes: A poor spaniard who wrote about the reality of his time with human characters that reflected the troubles and faults of real people. Through simple stories he showed a complex portait of his reality. Has very few books because was a poor man who had to work for a living, was a soldier (was a war hero, and was captured by pirates), tax collector, merchant... Also was in jail.
And even though he was the best writter od Spain nobody acknowledged him in his time.

Shakespeare: son of a wealthy british family, did nothing besides writting ( he didn't need to). Writtes complicated books about people that backstab each other and then speak of the inevitability of destiny. Characters in his plays are nobles, kings, wealthy people... And when he talks about poor people it is very irreal (he never was poor). Had the fame and acknowledge of his country.He lived in cotton wool.

I'm with Cervantes,and you?

I am with the side who judges an author's work on their writing and not the lifestyles they lived.

>Le death of the author :^)

>only the poor are 'real people'

>things OP never said

Well, the two do share the same date of death*...

>Wrote complicated books

He wrote fucking plays you stupid spic.

Cervantes was a realist. Shakespeare wrote of the human soul through a stylized poetic reflection, and all the more striking and universal than any of his peers. For in this reflection no clear trace of the author himself is present.

>nobody acknowledged him in his life

t. someone who doesn't know shit

>plays are not books
>Cervantes was a realist
>there is trace of Cervantes himself as author in his works

Correct on all counts. This man is a true patrician.

Spanish lit is trash tho

>implying there's any rivalry between them
>implying they were even aware of each other's existence

(((Cervantes)))

>Modern scholars have suggested that he may have descended from a New Christian or Converso background, i.e., that his ancestors, prior to 1492, had been Jews.[48]
holy shit

They do that every time there arent sufficient records available that prove otherwise.

Fucking whitecis males? Why would I read that?

Cervantes wasn't white and Shakespeare didnt even exist

you sound like a Marxist fag

Cervantes wins. End of story

I prefer Cervantes but it is a ridiculous to say nobody acknowledged his work. DQ was a worldwide bestseller at the time and Cervantes was also a fairly successful playwright.
Comparing two writers only through their biographies is ridiculous anyway. The author might not be dead but that doesn't mean his work isn't of central value.

>newfriends dont know what implying is

Cervantes is clearly the better human being since he was poor.

All human virtue can be distilled into whether you have stuff or don't have stuff.

>nobody acknowledged him in his time
>implying
>implying they were even aware of each other's existence
>implying Shakespeare didn't read Quixote and write a play with one of his mates based on part of it

>Cervantes was a realist
lolololol

>Shakespeare didnt even exis

Aliens are here, man
The aliens are here, man
The reptilians are here, man
The Illuminati's listenin'

Even T.S. fucking Eliot was against biographical criticisms ffs

Besides if you actually READ Barthes' essay you'll learn there's a lot more to the death of the author as a phenomenon than the untenability of biographical readings, dealing with issues of cannonicity given the literary environment of his time and anti-theological arguments re: fixed meanings

Yes I'm autistic but you should kys

I would go for Cervantes but not based on your shit tier post
Don Quixote is such a genius work, I dont understand how could a dude from the 1600's write something than could be easily be taken as a post-modern work

>write something than could be easily be taken as a post-modern work
Retard detected.

not an argument

Your comparison is inaccurate. The part about the spainard is true but Shakespeare was the people's poet. He was not some oligarch writing down to what he saw to be a bunch of animals. He made fun of the oligarchy of his day and wrote classical tragedies that showed their faults and the consequences thereof. He may have been a shrewd businessman but he was no elitist. When it comes to choosing a favorite it comes to a matter of personal preference. They wrote for the same purpose. Stop pushing the race meme and fucking up what is beautiful and good.

>Don Quixote is such a genius work, I dont understand how could a dude from the 1600's write something than could be easily be taken as a post-modern work

not an argument

>Muh Shakes vs Cervantes
>Muh Dostoyevsky vs Tolstoy
>Muh Joyce vs Woolf
>Muh Hemmingway vs Faulkner
get over your apples vs oranges bullshit, both have contain necessary vitamins for sustaining your stupid body.
[Spoiler]ShakesDostoWoolfFaulkner[/spoiler]

>tfw you forget to click the button

>using spoilers incorrectly
>thinking the image spoiler button enables spoilers

wew lad

I agree with most of what you say, but he didn't simply play to the people and make fun of the aristocracy. Much of his dialogue would've gone over the heads of the commoners and was meant to entertain the aristocrats rather than just satirize them. Overall, yes, his plays were largely written to be accessible and entertaining to the masses, but I think your analysis is a tad simplistic.

Is Sir Gawain also post-modern? Oh wait, no, satire has existed for a very long time!

If it can't be confused with an actual postmodern work, it certainly addresses in a deep and knowing way many postmodern themes and concerns, and it's fairly arguable whether any actual postmodern lit has advanced much if at all beyond the terrain Cervantes has already mapped.

All comparisons are potential illuminating.

>Cervantes wrote one (1) good novel
>Shakespeare wrote a couple dozen great plays

Shakespeare > Cervantes numbers don't lie

*chuckle*

The OP illustration of Cervantes is practically a merchant head.

A good novel is worth a hundred plays

A good play is worth a thousand novels.

Therefore a good novel is worth 100000 novels

Interesting paradox.
How do we get out of it?

we dont, you are living on it, welcome to the simulation, bitch

Disregard this I suck cocks

kek

Cervantes killed muslims, so it's obviously Cervantes.

And Shakespeare's Muslim killed the white woman, so it's Cervantes.

Ty for clarifying this seeming imponderable.

That's even DotA.

Plays aren't book you cunt.

>"Plays aren't book"

Except when they are, numbnutz.

yeah and he was ironic towards their religion on several passages of Don Quixote
How can one man be so based?

shakespare btfo

It's not a paradox

1 good novel = 100 (not good) plays
1 good play = 1000 (not good) novels
Therefore 1 good novel = 100000 (not good) novels

Interestingly 1 good play equals 1 play, which makes sense because plays are all shit

>thinking book is a synonym of novel

Fucking idiot.