the 4 corners of literature

>>8506760
>Pushkin

Pushkin is a polemic choice. Care to show why you chose him?

I would say:

Shakespeare
Homer
Cervantes
Montaigne

As the 4 corners (or genres) of literature

>>8506774
>putting a nigger among these thrones of dead white cis males

>>8506779
Pushkin had more white russian ancestry than he had black ancestry

this isn't america, the "one drop rule" doesn't apply

>>8506775
I seriously don't think you can leave out Dante

>>8506760
>>8506774
>>8506775
Hello Dhalgren poster, you mufaka.

One of my hypos was that (s)he was planning on subtly pushing for other authors of black ancestry, in this case, pushing for Pushkin (who was 1/4th black, as is Delany).

Report the spammer and hopefully they'll get banned.

>>8506786
>whitewashing literary history
I bet you think Holmes and Watson weren't gay and that Odyssey wasn't by a woman

>>8506787
Indeed, Dante is one of the pillars of literature, and his work.ha been greatly influential in all of Western culture. But Homer is *the* epic poet, more so than Dante, Milton, Ariosto, and Spenser. He is a pillar because he is fundamental, just as Montaigne was for the essay and Cervantes for the modern novel. One.could say that Shakespeare's controbutions to drama as a genre are not that great as his controbutions as a poet, and in that case I would put Beckett in his place, but Shakespeare is definitely a pillar, and perhaps the most central of the four.

>>8506803
ahhh I see what you were going for

fair enough

>>8506760
Shakespeare
Homer
Virgil
Dante

>>8506827
It's alright.
Virgil is a more refined, civilized storyteller than Homer. The Æneid is a lot shorter than even the Odyssey, and you won't find the same kind of 200-page-obituary tedium you get in the Iliad.
But everything is so artificial and derivative and railroaded, there's no freshness or authenticity. It's like a theme park version Homer. Every book, especially in the first half, is a piece in a different "genre" or theme, with a very thin story connecting them. There are lots of really ridiculous scenes- the one wherein the Carthaginians somehow have all the famous Trojan War scenes on their temple comes to mind. And there's a fucking miracle every five lines. The hero just follows the gods' constant direction from point A to B to C, and nothing he does makes any sense whatsoever except in this context. There are machine-born-gods coming of Virgil's ears. It's like Skyward Sword. It certainly doesn't have anything like the philosophical and melancholy fury of the Iliad, nor the immense intellectual interest of being a massive artifact of Indo-European culture.
There are some really potent parts- Pyrrhus kiling Priam, Dido's issues, Mezentius's death. But, for instance, Book 5 is basically pointless and just there since Homer had a sports episode too. I'd say the second half is better and more organic than the first. On that I'm in the historical minority. And even there the actual set-up to the war is rushed through in less than a book, and the very fact the the poem is neatly divided in the Odyssey Half and the Iliad Half is a discredit to it.
Obviously it's probably more appreciable in the Latin, especially if you're into poetry (I'm not).

Nos debemus munire existentiam nostri gentis et felicia futura nostris Latinis et Etruscis filiis. Ave Turne.

auteurs don't make "lists"