Was Pushkin greater than Shakespeare?

no.

>>9245778
/

>>9245742
They are the two greatest black writers, yes. Shakespeare however is undoubtedly in a league of her own.

>greater than Shakespeare?

Who isn't?

shakespeare a shit

>>9245742
Definitely yes

>>9245839
heh

>>9245742
I cannot comment until I am able to read Shakespeare in the original Russian

File: 1488952435659.gif (1MB, 257x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 257x200px

>>9246900

>>9246900
Shakespeare was russian too?

Shakespeare
>language wizard
>wrote histories, comedies, and tragedies
>performed and appreciated all over the world
>work inspires endless interpretations

Pushkin
>outside russia, a literally who
>wrote one poem that he called a novel for some reason
>died in a duel with the guy who cucked him

shakespeare inspired freudian psyche and doestoyevsky

>>9245742
hahahaha haha no

>>9247026
And German and Klingon and Black and Female and Trans and Gay and so on.

>>9247030
Onegin is not even his best work.

>>9247030
>popularity dick measuring
Pushkin arguably stood the test of time better, his poems are still widely read casually in Russia, and memorizing the entirety of Onegin is still a popular academic feat. How many americans/brits can recite anything from Shakespeare other than DUDE 2B LMAO?

>>9247179
You're full of shit. No one reads Pushkin here after graduating school. And sure as hell no one recites his works casually.

It's a stupid comparison. In order to even figure out who was better you would have to be entirely free of sociocultural prejudices and all the aesthetic criteria that you culture has imperceptibly bestowed on you. You would need somebody completely objective who was just born five seconds ago, a brand-new newborn, and you'd have to wrestle from its mother's arms, which you're not allowed to do, so already you run into issues, but even if you did manage to snatch the baby and start running away to safe spot with it, with the doctors and nurses chasing after you, and the police on their way, you'd have to have already stashed some Shakespeare and Pushkin nearby, in an empty room, you'd have to know the room was going to be empty, you'd have to had cased the place for months, but even if you got in there and showed the baby Shakespeare, and then Pushkin, and then Shakespeare again, and then Pushkin again for fairness, and then side-by-side so the baby isn't just choosing the one he saw last, even if you managed all this, and the door was properly barricaded and everything to buy you time, you still wouldn't have any idea who was better, because you don't speak Baby.

>>9247355
I expected something funny at the end of your post. Don't ever dissapoint me like that again.

>>9247143
shakespeare encompasses all of humanity

Shakespeare is ludicrously better, it's not even an argument. Pushkin copied Byron of all English poets for fuck's sake.

>>9247179
I know you're a shitposter but pretending that Hamlets monologue is bad just makes you look stupid

They both suck Marlowe's dick desu

File: IMG_0759.jpg (17KB, 170x280px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 170x280px

"I cannot understand how you can be entertained by such simple fare-- tales which might have amused one's boyhood, of soldiers, and camps, villains, gallant heroes, and horses galloping over the wide open spaces, and tucked away in a suitable corner a beautiful maiden of about seventeen years of age to be rescued at a suitable moment... The Captain's Daughter... there was not a pin's worth of intellect in it... Tolstoy... did much the same thing but on a grander scale... [Pushkin] lived like a boy, wrote like a boy, and died like a boy... [Captain's Daughter] good for its period... people have become more complicated nowadays." – James Joyce

>>9247355
>In order to even figure out who was better you would have to be entirely free of sociocultural prejudices and all the aesthetic criteria that you culture has imperceptibly bestowed on you.

Why? Why do the "sociocultural prejudices" impressed upon me by culture prevent me from making an accurate aesthetic judgement of an artwork? Would you say that mathematical prejudices impressed upon me by culture prevent me from calculating 721 + 47?

Culture does not debilitate but actually HELPS us to render accurate aesthetic judgments. The proof of this is that a literal barbarian who does not understand a word of English wouldn't appreciate Shakespeare's poetry like an English scholar would.

>>9247678
>muh complex literature
Get the fuck out Joyce

>>9247700
>defending literal children's books

>>9247678
This is playwriting and poetry... Complex ideas are of importance devoid, meter and form are the substance.

Was Byron better than Dante??? xDD

>>9247678
madman

>>9247721
Yes

>>9247719
You are fucking stupid. By that standard Edmund Spenser is the greatest English poet and William Blake and John Donne are unreadable hacks.

Ideas matter. Poetry isn't form to the exclusion of ideas but the marriage of idea to form.

Silly question, obviously slavs will pick one and anglos the other. I've been reading Pushkin since I was 6 and only read translated Shakespeare until I was in my 20s. I think it's fair to say that I'm heavily biased

To add (I was thinking about this yesterday): Shakespeare is so great because he doesn't give you any bullshit. He is the most clear-headed, least sentimental writer who ever lived. He is leagues above Pushkin in depicting humanity.

>>9247743
Why? Theophile Gauthier was the utmost example of form above all yet could not touch the beauty of Donne's texts. Considering the text as a piece of aestetic art does not mean those who carefully craft it make a better point.

Reading a Wallace Stevens text what will rub your brain is not the thought but how the thought sounds and looks, and same applies to all the Donne's, Blake's and Whitman's. They are not philosophers, they are poets. They craft images first and above all.

>>9247030
Don't forget Shakespeare survives translation while Pushkin doesn't.

>>9247791
>what will rub your brain is not the thought but how the thought sounds
And my point is that you cannot separate the two.

There is a line in Lycidas which Milton took from Revelation: "and wipe the tears forever from his eyes". You will never convince me that what is beautiful about that line is anything other than the *thought* of infinite pity for sadness.

>>9247761
Silly argument. I'm Russian and Shakespeare is easily a more historically important figure, if only for his contributions to dramaturgy. Pushkin tends to be relatively unknown outside Russia, because his poetry can only be fully appreciated in Russian, which few foreigners bother to learn and even fewer master. The way he uses the language is absolutely orgasmic, though. All of it disappears in translation of course. Joyce's critique of Captain's Daughter is hilarious, considering it is literally middle school reading and far from being Pushkin's magnum opus.

>>9247964
Russian is an ugly language

File: 14644627476470.jpg (156KB, 1700x1734px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1700x1734px

>>9247972

>>9247355
This is so stupid I couldn't even keep reading, if you think we can't reach objectivity just because we're not newborns, the fault is in you.

>>9247721
Who's Dante?

>>9245742
Shakespeare is an overrated hack, the Kendrick Lamar of literature.

Did Pushkin actually acknowledge being black like Alexandre Dumas did?

He died before cameras, but even in portraits he looks kind of black.

>>9248548
Dumbass was a child of a nigger. Pushkin was 1/8 nigger. No he certainly did not.

>>9248582
whoa why all the Dumas hate

>>9245742
The scale is not linear, you can't compare the two. They share basically reinventing the languages they wrote in, and in that aspect they are equals.

Pushkin
>lyricism is consistently beautiful with few outlers both for the better and worse
>surface questions of human nature are studied in exquisite, unparalleled detail
>the work doesn't transcend time but clearly does not strive for being universal
>similarly, the work is above all else Russian and almost only Russian
>in spite and at the same time because of clear influence from Byron, characters are purposefully human and not symbolic
Shakespeare
>lyricism is inconsistant, at times being vulgar and simplistic, and at times literally divine
>deep questions of human nature are examined while surface ones are only barely touched upon
>the work transcends time and seemingly on purpose
>likewise, there's nothing particulary English about Shakespeare, as he doesn't culturally tether himself
>characters are mostly symbolic

>>9249349
>Shakespeare
>characters are mostly symbolic
Holy shit. No-one could POSSIBLY believe this.

>>9249419
but it's true.

>>9246900
original Klingon*

>>9249349
>there's nothing particulary English about Shakespeare
>characters are mostly symbolic
Ahahahah what the fuck

>>9249349
>>likewise, there's nothing particulary English about Shakespeare, as he doesn't culturally tether himself

read the fucking history plays