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?
Aaron Ramirez
I am with the side who judges an author's work on their writing and not the lifestyles they lived.
Liam Ross
>Le death of the author :^)
Jacob Watson
>only the poor are 'real people'
Jason Jackson
>things OP never said
Camden Brown
Well, the two do share the same date of death*...
Christopher Nelson
>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.
Gabriel Martinez
>nobody acknowledged him in his life
t. someone who doesn't know shit
Lucas Cox
>plays are not books >Cervantes was a realist >there is trace of Cervantes himself as author in his works
Adam Phillips
Correct on all counts. This man is a true patrician.
Mason Price
Spanish lit is trash tho
Nathaniel Hall
>implying there's any rivalry between them >implying they were even aware of each other's existence
Andrew Morris
(((Cervantes)))
Jeremiah Cooper
>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
Brayden Powell
They do that every time there arent sufficient records available that prove otherwise.
Ryan Watson
Fucking whitecis males? Why would I read that?
Adam Cooper
Cervantes wasn't white and Shakespeare didnt even exist
William Brooks
you sound like a Marxist fag
Elijah Edwards
Cervantes wins. End of story
Logan Edwards
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.
Matthew Gonzalez
>newfriends dont know what implying is
Colton Clark
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.
Henry Ortiz
>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
Brayden Clark
>Cervantes was a realist lolololol
Ryder Reyes
>Shakespeare didnt even exis
Aliens are here, man The aliens are here, man The reptilians are here, man The Illuminati's listenin'
Adrian Wood
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
Jaxson Miller
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
William Myers
>write something than could be easily be taken as a post-modern work Retard detected.
Carson Brown
not an argument
Andrew Martin
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.
Bentley Russell
>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
James Morris
not an argument
Oliver Cruz
>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]
Brandon Jackson
>tfw you forget to click the button
Owen Bailey
>using spoilers incorrectly >thinking the image spoiler button enables spoilers
wew lad
Owen Reed
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.
Dylan Edwards
Is Sir Gawain also post-modern? Oh wait, no, satire has existed for a very long time!
Julian Long
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.
Jace Lee
All comparisons are potential illuminating.
Daniel Flores
>Cervantes wrote one (1) good novel >Shakespeare wrote a couple dozen great plays
Shakespeare > Cervantes numbers don't lie
Alexander Kelly
*chuckle*
The OP illustration of Cervantes is practically a merchant head.
Adam Lopez
A good novel is worth a hundred plays
Ethan Sanchez
A good play is worth a thousand novels.
Alexander Thompson
Therefore a good novel is worth 100000 novels
Lincoln Carter
Interesting paradox. How do we get out of it?
Jaxson Green
we dont, you are living on it, welcome to the simulation, bitch
Zachary Roberts
Disregard this I suck cocks
James Garcia
kek
Cervantes killed muslims, so it's obviously Cervantes.
Connor Morgan
And Shakespeare's Muslim killed the white woman, so it's Cervantes.
Ty for clarifying this seeming imponderable.
Mason Gray
That's even DotA.
Plays aren't book you cunt.
Luis Miller
>"Plays aren't book"
Except when they are, numbnutz.
Brody Gonzalez
yeah and he was ironic towards their religion on several passages of Don Quixote How can one man be so based?
Caleb Morris
shakespare btfo
Nolan Cooper
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