Cervantes or Shakespeare

That doesn't answer how Cervantes is modern and Shakespeare is not. Shakespeare deals with the human condition too and doesn't realy on special effects of blood and brutality with the exception of Titus Andronicus. So again I pose the question to you how is Cervantes modern and Shakespeare not?

Originally posted by pinguin Well, I don't agree. I many works of Shakespeare brutality is part of the plot: knives, poison, treason, vengance, etc., dead. It is understandable, because Shakespeare wrote theatre for the masses in a violent time.   In his favor, of course, Shakespeare selected some of the most important situations in political and social life, and touched topics like the jelousy, racism, antisemitism, courage, treason, political desire, and many others. Now, Shakespeare plays could have been excelent, but they were not revolucionary. Before him and after him people wrote theatre in that way.   On the other hand, Don Quixote was the first modern novel.  That's something any novelist knows.   Pinguin

I think we should compare them in ways where they can be compared.

First, Cervantes did not invent the form of the novel, in any sense. He even hardly perfected it (formally). See for instance Rabelais, Canterbury tales, Boccaccio, or even Chr�tien de Troyes (12th cent). As a novel, I dare to say, Don Quixote is structurally poor. No real ending for the first book, must of the chapters could be removed and so on.

For my personal tastes, I most defently prefer Las Novelas Ejamplares (where you actually have a speaking dog!). They more than the Quixote are truely modern.

That said I believe Shakespear's work much deeper. One of the most difficult task for a righter is to create characters that would speak to the whole world. Some writers had been happy enough to create more than one and don Quixote, Sancho, Dulcine and Rocinante. But the result is drawfed by Shakespear's achievement: Halmet, Othello, Romeo and Juliette and so many others.

Young called these archetypes, characters able to talk to the human soul. And in this view Shakespear was absolutely unique.

Nonetheless, if I had to pick as my only companion Cervantes or Shakespear, I'd personally go for the Spaniard.

There is limit to the argument that Shakespear's big because he wrote in English (two actually): he was instantenously famous over Europe at a time when England was not a major cultural power. As opposed to Spain for instance, when French ambassadors arrived to salute Philip III in 1605, they knew by heart entire parts of the Quixote, but it was because in these days in Europe Spain was "cool" as the most powerful kingdom in the continent.
Besides, Shakespear's fame has been acquired quite fairly. Otherwise, how would you explain that Ben Johnson is hardly palyed any more while Gogol and Dostoievski are still very much alive.

That said, it is true that the fame of Shakespear comes mainly from its European origins.

Originally posted by pinguin Now, if a worldwide group of 100 professional writers voted Don Quixote as the best book ever written, I believe there is a reason for that: That  book is the best.

are you actually trying to prove that Cervantes' the best writer ever, because 100 professionals said so?

Originally posted by Maharbbal There is limit to the argument that Shakespear's big because he wrote in English (two actually): he was instantenously famous over Europe at a time when England was not a major cultural power. As opposed to Spain for instance, when French ambassadors arrived to salute Philip III in 1605, they knew by heart entire parts of the Quixote, but it was because in these days in Europe Spain was "cool" as the most powerful kingdom in the continent.Besides, Shakespear's fame has been acquired quite fairly. Otherwise, how would you explain that Ben Johnson is hardly palyed any more while Gogol and Dostoievski are still very much alive.That said, it is true that the fame of Shakespear comes mainly from its European origins.

Maharbal, I never wrote that ''Shakespeare is big because he wrote in English''. He is obviously a great (play) writer in English literature who has become the measuring point for all writers who write in English. I was trying to say that many languages in the world have their own equivalent of Shakespeares, great writers who have become the measuring point for all the people who write in their languages. Cervantes is obviously such a writer in Spanish language and literature. However it is easy to see that out of all those great writers Shakespeare is the most known in the world simply because English is the most influencial language in the world. After all much more people speak or try to speak English compared to for example Persian, which can be the reason that shakspeare is much more famous throughout the world than Ferdosi, but this does not mean that the former is greater than the latter does it? They are both great in their own languages. This is what I was trying to say.

Edited by omshanti - 24-Feb-2007 at 09:59

There is a growing number of authorities who believe Sir Francis Bacon actually wrote Don Quixote, and owing to the political climate in England at the time could not publish it.  Cervantes allegedly was paid to put it in his name and publish it in Spain.

Pinguin, pls explain how his source is wrong.

Didn't say I believe it - asked how you disproved his source.

Kidding? There are lots of evidence about the life of Cervantes, including the fact he got lots of troubles with the women of his family, because they were "too modern" for theirs time

Edited by pinguin - 25-Feb-2007 at 14:41