Does /lit/ have an opinion on Friedrich Hölderlin? I heard he's

>>8837798

He is very classical in his style, in a sense that he uses an ordered and sober imagery, and few metaphoric colors.

He is also quite complex: you will have a great deal of difficulty to understand what he is saying, for he makes references to old Greek myths and terms, in a confuse Pindaric style. Most of the time his poetic diction is misterios: you don’t know what the hell the poem in question is about.

To my taste he is not that interesting because I like poets with a very dense and metaphoric style, with several images and similes (poets like Shakespeare, Neruda, Aeschylus, Coleridge, Nabokov-prose, Büchner-drama).

Holderlin is more like Sophocles: clean and a recycler of old metaphors. Not my cup of tea, but classicists might like him.

I like this response.

>>8838306
me too

>>8838359
I am indifferent to this response.

>>8838362
I find this response unnecessary.

>>8838376
I find this response self referential.

>>8838383
I find this response ambivalent.

>>8838416
I find this response inconsequential.

>>8838489
I find this to be a bit played out.

He's a great philosophically dense poet with a knack, as Heidegger realized, for really killer aphoristic lines.

>>8837914 is a good post. His imagery is very symbolic and in service of his philosophy. There's not much to make your heart swoon, but he's good for the brain