Babaiyan (2010) employs the concept of intertextuality. The author traces the influence of classical Persian poets such as Khayam, Nezami and Sa’adi on Nima and the influence of him on contemporary poets such as Shahriar, Akhavan and Ebtehaj.
Mizban and Saffarzadeh (2010) compare Nima and Nazik Al-Malaika. Her “Cholera” (1947) is known as a revolution in the Arabic poetry. Both poets’ innovation changes the poetry of their nation. But they don’t entirely reject the poetic tradition of their country. The two poets’ critical writings were also a point of similarity. Another point of similarity between the two is the influence of social situations on them.
Sharia’ti (2009) juxtaposes Persian New Poetry with its Kurdish counterpart. The two poetic …show more content…
Capote. Lish’s novel proves a development in the representation of literary self-celebration in American literature. The author shows that contemporary efforts to celebrate oneself have inverted the optimistic potential assigned to self-celebration by Whitman. “The failure of democratic renown was, of course, lamented by Whitman himself less than two decades after the initial publication of Leaves of Grass” (164). “A faith in commerce as a means to higher spiritual ends, so crucial to Whitman’s initial understanding of what his literary celebrity might accomplish, surrenders … to a cynical contempt for the terminal venality of all commercial enterprises” (164). Lish’s novel “takes such cynicism as its starting point, for it limns contemporary self-celebration as a vortex of pathologies, a manipulation of renown degrading to both celebrity and mass alike” …show more content…
The author believes the two poets “share a similar vision of poetry and politics because both poets struggle through historical turmoil, try to sing for the common people living in shifting political climates, and finally forge a national epic of their people en-masse” (305). He asserts “there is truly a close affinity between Whitman and Ko Un in their poetic aspiration to create a national epic with the conviction of a democratic vision” (322). The two poets were involved in the discourses of their society and produced their own national democratic epic. Although the similarities are elaborated on, the uniqueness of each figure is not
Mizban and Saffarzadeh (2010) compare Nima and Nazik Al-Malaika. Her “Cholera” (1947) is known as a revolution in the Arabic poetry. Both poets’ innovation changes the poetry of their nation. But they don’t entirely reject the poetic tradition of their country. The two poets’ critical writings were also a point of similarity. Another point of similarity between the two is the influence of social situations on them.
Sharia’ti (2009) juxtaposes Persian New Poetry with its Kurdish counterpart. The two poetic …show more content…
Capote. Lish’s novel proves a development in the representation of literary self-celebration in American literature. The author shows that contemporary efforts to celebrate oneself have inverted the optimistic potential assigned to self-celebration by Whitman. “The failure of democratic renown was, of course, lamented by Whitman himself less than two decades after the initial publication of Leaves of Grass” (164). “A faith in commerce as a means to higher spiritual ends, so crucial to Whitman’s initial understanding of what his literary celebrity might accomplish, surrenders … to a cynical contempt for the terminal venality of all commercial enterprises” (164). Lish’s novel “takes such cynicism as its starting point, for it limns contemporary self-celebration as a vortex of pathologies, a manipulation of renown degrading to both celebrity and mass alike” …show more content…
The author believes the two poets “share a similar vision of poetry and politics because both poets struggle through historical turmoil, try to sing for the common people living in shifting political climates, and finally forge a national epic of their people en-masse” (305). He asserts “there is truly a close affinity between Whitman and Ko Un in their poetic aspiration to create a national epic with the conviction of a democratic vision” (322). The two poets were involved in the discourses of their society and produced their own national democratic epic. Although the similarities are elaborated on, the uniqueness of each figure is not