anyone else get the feeling that if only he wasn't such

>>9826675
That's tough. Hate to say it but like Kafka or Nabokov he strikes me as a little to specialized, or niche. No Proust. No Tolstoy.

>>9826675
i think he was a megalomaniac in a way, and he was the best writer ever

>>9826675
He seemed scared of his own writings. He reached his peak relatively early in his carreer (after getting over a gauchesque phase) and after that he spent the rest of his career distancing himself from his greatest works as much as possible, backpedaling on his avantgarde tendencies so much he became a champion of sorts for anything written between the XVIth and XVIIIth century.

He was too much of a reader to be as good a writer as he could have been. He became convinced that there was no point in trying to innovate or try new things, since everything that was worth being written had already been written. So he proceeded to shit out books of bland poetry for 40 years and promptly died.

Still, probably my favourite writer.

>>9829139
Why don't you just say 16th or 18th century

>>9829172
Oh sorry, I didn't know there were rules about this

>>9829193
It's alright. We're here to learn.

>>9829193
Sorry for what?

>>9829229
For not writing down the numbers in the way >>9829172 likes it, therefore rending my entire post null and void

Wise.
No bland poetry.
Being blind brings humility... sometimes

>>9827379
i think this is a good point. borges strikes me as almost a technical writer, in comparison to a more genral craftsman of prose