Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
(I hope I used the right word, or Tompe will be very upset...)
A skald was a nordic poet/singer/news carrier who wandered from place to place during the middle ages...
I believe there was a French equivalent word starting with a J, but I don't want to embarrass myself mis-spelling it...
|
Many Indo-European peoples had poet "classes": the Celts (Bards and also Fili, I believe), Greeks (Rhapsods), Slavs (There are still epic poets a la Homer among the South Slavs), Indians... I've just come home from a fantastic lecture on traces of autochtonous epic poetry in Rome (as evidenced in the Carmen Saliare), given by my favourite prof. and have really gotten geared up about that topic! I am also concurrently reading two books on Indo-European poetics: To Kill a Dragon (Watkins) and Indo-European Poetry and Myth (West) (The mention of Adam West and Skalds, really set me off on this rant). Anyone interested in the topic should give them a try, it is fascinating stuff!
Back to the topic at hand: What do you think is more of a factor in ensuring that an author is read long after his time, innovation or quality of writing in general? Are there any writers that whose works should not survive / have survived the test of time, or conversely, any that you wish had? (For example I loved Anais Nin when I was younger and had no trouble at all finding books of hers; now I find they are incredibly hard to find in brick and mortar bookshops.) Any thoughts?