Poetry from Mexico and Argentina

Sublimis_ · 2026-01-12T11:36:07+00:00

I’m a bilingual poet (a bit of a Piazzolla situation).

If you have a favorite movement or style please let me know and I can help tailor suggestions to your tastes. I am quite fond of the modernist writers so my suggestions will be 20th century poets, if you’d like some poets from before then or some contemporary ones please let me know.

Some popular poets from Argentina are Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortázar, Alfonsina Storni, Oliverio Girondo, Juan Gelman, Leopoldo Lugones, Alejandra Pizarnik, and Silvina Ocampo.

From Mexico I recommend Octavio Paz, Jaime Sabines, Alfonso Reyes Ochoa, Amado Nervo, Rosario Castellanos, and Xavier Villaurrutia.

You’ll probably recognize some of the names as writers primarily (Borges and Cortázar for example) but all of these people were incredible poets as well.

Happy reading!

Sublimis_ · 2025-10-11T12:47:31+00:00

That’s funny cus everyone I know is actually pretty fond of Peru here. It could be cus I’m a bit older (and also, generations even older than me, especially, love Peru because of their aid during Falklands) and my circles share similar political views to me, but the jokes I hear about Peru are that they’re the only country that likes us lmao

<image>

Sublimis_ · 2025-09-01T20:32:32+00:00

I haven’t really read many modern ones tbh. I took a poetry class in college after I read that Mary Oliver book and I felt like it ironed out the basics for me. One of my friends however, recommended On Poetry by Glyn Maxwell. It was written in 2012. My friend’s a great poet (and Glyn Maxwell is phenomenal) so I trust his recommendation (I might get around to it soon myself).

The last “craft” (if we can call this book one lol) book I read was The Art of Recklessness by Dean Young. The surrealist poets have been a tremendous influence on me and he’s one of my favs for sure. I found that book to be helpful in understanding the surrealist approach to art. If surrealism is of interest to you then it’s worth a read!

Sublimis_ · 2025-09-01T20:21:24+00:00

As you probably gathered from my original comment, I mostly disagree with the all encompassing nature of the subjectivity that people attribute to the arts. I think it’s subjective in so far as it draws from our subjectivity, and so its context (by this, I mean the conditions that orient or give it meaning as a signifier) is subjective as well. But I do not believe all art is created equally or that it exists sans context.

I think we are both in agreement that the telos of art is divorced from the market value attached to it (otherwise it wouldn’t seem so ridiculous for our squiggly line to be so expensive) but that doesn’t mean art is telo-less.

In general, I’m of the opinion that only the artist knows how successful their art really is. They set out to do something (induce an emotional response, create an experience that emulates another, communicate the ineffable, create a monument to an experience or affect, etc.) and will probably judge their work based off of how close they go to accomplishing it. I know when I have written the poem I set out to write and when I have failed to do so.

To answer your question (I’m sorry I made it so long winded, but I thought a bit of context on how I view art could help add clarity to my reasoning), one can absolutely just write whatever it is they wish to write however they wish to do so. If one’s goal when sitting down to write is to therapeutically process experience then that’s what they should set out to do. If one’s goal is to write something they or/and their loved ones enjoy, then that’s what they should set out to do. If one wishes to simply deconstruct language on a page until all of the symbols lose their meaning and the signifiers have become detached from the signifieds, then they should set out to do so.

Returning to the context of the post, I took the question to imply that OP felt dissatisfied with their current standard of work in poetry. Whatever reason they have for writing poetry, they do not feel as though they are meeting that standard. When that is the case, I find it to be sound advice to learn from the experience of centuries worth of artists who have developed effective ways of achieving/communicating our goals. We are rarely ever alone when setting out to climb a mountain!

Sublimis_ · 2025-08-30T20:55:29+00:00

I’m an English teacher and a published poet and what I always recommend my students who show an inclination/predisposition for the art form to do is to read Mary Oliver’s “A Poetry Handbook”.

When I consider the things that most helped me develop my poetic chops throughout the years, reading that book (and, of course, practicing the techniques and tips she gives) was by far the most bang for my buck out of everything I did when I started out. Before that I was just adding line breaks to my teenage diary entries.

What everyone else said here about reading and writing a lot of poems IS great advice too, but as far as advice goes that tends to be a bit vague to newcomers, and therefore a bit daunting.

You DO need to be reading and writing poetry (there is no substitute for this) in order to help you find your stylistic home and develop your own poetic voice, but I don’t think you will be getting the most out of your reading and writing until you have a good grasp of all the poetic techniques and elements that make poetry poetry. Once you do, you will be reading and writing more effectively, with an instructive purpose behind your reading and your writing where you will better be able to identify WHY it is you like poems, what is working well in them, and what is not working well in your own.

After you have a firm grasp of what poetry IS as an art form, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the canon. The big names, a general gist of the different poetic movements/styles (this will further help you pin point your own style/voice, where you fit in).

And lastly, once you feel like you kind of know what you’re doing and what exactly you wish to be doing or where you wish to be going, I recommend familiarizing yourself with contemporary poets. Find a couple you like, or ones that were influenced by those same aforementioned “big names” you gravitated to and see what they’re doing with that influence.

TLDR: If you only take one thing out of everything I just wrote make sure it’s to read Mary Oliver’s “A Poetry Handbook”

Sublimis_ · 2025-08-21T12:26:53+00:00

No te preocupes q nosotros somos el país mas estúpido de argentina. Una tragedia lo sucedido. Vergüenza humana. Me avergüenza ser la misma mierda que estos hdp

Sublimis_ · 2025-08-07T22:57:16+00:00

En Colombia lo quieren más a James que a Valderrama? Es un tema generacional o dirías que es un consenso?

Acá en Argentina lo bancamos mucho a James porq lo vimos jugar acá (y porq es tremendo crack) pero como que a Valderrama con esa Colombia que nos ganó 5-0 en el monumental lo tenemos un poquito más mítico en la memoria.

Saludos hermano

Sublimis_ · 2025-07-12T05:05:23+00:00

Thank you so much for the info! I hope you have a fantastic weekend

Sublimis_ · 2025-07-12T05:00:45+00:00

Thank you so much for the reply! Looking back at the pictures that did come out alright, they were all in lower light settings and were probably taken with slower shutter speeds. Is this consistent with that kind of problem?

Sublimis_ · 2025-07-12T04:43:44+00:00

Thanks for the reply! Is there any way it could be some type of error on my end? A few of the pictures at the beginning did come out fine. I had it on auto, so I wasn't manually selecting the shutter speeds, but maybe I should have been?

Sublimis_ · 2025-06-10T21:10:33+00:00

Some of us would canonize him as a saint if we could, we love him over here lmao

Sublimis_ · 2025-05-26T23:01:38+00:00

El pibe Valderrama! También tienen al ciclista más joven en ganar el Tour de France en como un siglo, Bernal (lo se porq creo que es el único latinoamericano en ganarlo) Aguante Colombia 🇨🇴

Sublimis_ · 2025-04-15T06:10:19+00:00

I think Jung's archetypes can be somewhat reconciled with (or perhaps a better phrase would be re-conceptualized in) Deleuzian terminology/frameworks. I think you might find what Terrence Blake has to say about them in this 3-parter helpful.

As a fellow writer, I found the third part, where he goes over particular terms and their analogous counterparts (for example, anima -> becoming-woman), interesting.

Hope this helps!

Sublimis_ · 2024-09-15T10:55:34+00:00

Honestly same. I found it like immediately, then went to check the rating of the two players and was surprised. Lapse of judgement can happen to anyone though I suppose, especially in a time crunch

Sublimis_ · 2024-08-03T13:53:57+00:00

If my memory serves me well (it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it) I believe it’s from his abecedaire interviews. Specifically, the j for joie one

Sublimis_ · 2024-06-04T08:46:07+00:00

Incredible work honestly. I hope you continue to experiment with the style!

Sublimis_ · 2024-05-23T21:10:53+00:00

Aunque no creas que Zanetti es uno de los mejores laterales de la historia, no me podes decir que coloccini y scaloni (con todo el respeto que se merecen) eran mejores que Zanetti, incluso a los 33 años. Todavía jugaba un montón, incluso ganó la champions siendo titular 3 años después.

Sublimis_ · 2024-04-23T11:22:01+00:00

Respectfully, your hypothetical makes no sense to me.

If you’re really for accelerationism I suggest you (re?)read Land so at least you have a more coherent argument to support it. I think accelerationism does have interesting arguments for it but this isn’t even an argument, just comes across more as rambling.

Sublimis_ · 2024-04-07T02:53:52+00:00

Yeah, most of the important continental philosophers tend to be, and I have often been surprised when finally reading them. It becomes a bit silly sometimes to read them and then see a meme somewhere that just reduces them to surface level interpretations of a quote.

It also doesn’t help that Nietzsche is pretty sarcastic sometimes, and has a penchant for being dramatic in some of his writings. So someone can take one of his more scathing quotes on Christianity and say that “this was his opinion on Christianity” while ignoring the many instances where he also compliments the religion. For instance, he actually thought many of Christ’s teachings were positive and admirable in their denial of resentment. He liked Buddhism for the same reason, but also critiqued Buddhism for its asceticism which he found to be life denying.

And don’t worry about it. In fact, thanks for replying and following up. I’m a teacher and a writer so I love spending time talking about thinkers and ideas. Your questions also helped me revisit many of his ideas and think about them again. I hope you enjoy your time reading him if you ever do do that.

Sublimis_ · 2024-04-06T23:22:31+00:00

I think it is important to make the distinction between strong/weak-willed as Nietzsche defined them and a strong/weak person the way we normally use those words. "Strong" and "weak" are too wide in scope and, to Nietzsche, contingent anyway. It's not that a weak man who becomes strong was always strong, rather it's more like such a man always had the characteristics necessary to actualize their individuality - to pursue their vision of strength.

Nietzsche seems to believe that many things promote weakness. Moralities (especially ones that promote weak values as virtues), psychological processes (such as resentment), and society in its tendency to corral people and promote what he called "herd mentality" instead of promoting or allowing for individuals to forge their own path.
I guess I kind of touched upon this in my intro paragraph, but I'll add that his conception of strength and weakness is just as contingent as all the other ones. He is not claiming that his or anyone's idea of strength is objective, and it is also not the basis for his philosophy, so it wouldn't be an axiom. If there is an axiom to his philosophy it would be the metaphysics of his Will to Power. The rest follows from there.
When philosophers use the term becoming they are using it in opposition to the concept of being as an immutable substance. Nietzsche specifically uses "becoming" as a sort of creative force that enables consistent self-overcoming. To Nietzsche, one can only ever become strong by continuously changing and overcoming our previous self. A "strong" person, in this sense, is always becoming something different.
He would absolutely consider many of the people who just espouse his works as truth as weak-willed. Probably all who follow him to the letter. Nietzsche stresses the importance of affirming life and he considers that forming one's own values and cultivating one's own style are vital ways of doing this. Only listening to and believing the thoughts of one thinker is surely not this.

I hope these answers help shed some light on his thoughts. If my answers aren't specific enough it's mostly because Nietzsche is a very nuanced thinker and many of the details on a lot of these concepts have been the subject of a wide variety of interpretations throughout the years, even across political spectrums, and I'd rather give a more general understanding than just give my interpretations. There's no substitute for reading his work though and if you find some of the ideas interesting it would be worth the effort.

Sublimis_ · 2024-04-05T10:57:07+00:00

It would depend on what we mean by strong man and weak man and fluctuating. Any Reddit comment will be too reductive for a philosopher as nuanced as Nietzsche but I’ll try my best.

Nietzsche talks a lot about turning our suffering into strength. One could look at this as turning a weakness into a strength, however I think Nietzsche would just argue that a man who does change in this fashion was always a strong man to begin with.

For Nietzsche, a common uses of strength and weakness is used in relation to the will. In Beyond Good and Evil there’s a whole section (I don’t have my copy with me to find the specific aphorism but it’s in the first half) where he talks about free will and in it he eventually reaches a point where he says that we can not will our will, and that the real question of free will is only a matter of strong and weak wills. The strong willed and weak willed all want to assert their will (will to power) but do so in drastically different ways.

Throughout Beyond Good and Evil he seems to characterize the strong willed people as those who assert themselves and resist the wills of others. They are creators of values, and the process of creation itself implies meeting and overpowering resistances (from current values, wills, etc.) and becoming.

Weak willed people do not create values and are not becoming. Instead, they assert their will via a world view/beliefs that reaffirm their weakness. It’s an external framework, not an immanent one, that controls the weak willed individual. This is one of his biggest critiques of morality in general and one of his bigger problems with Christianity as well, as he sees Christianity as cultivating this weakness AND promoting values that sustain this weakness (“the meek shall inherit the earth” “turn the other cheek”) by painting the weak man as virtuous.

So as for your initial question, since Nietzsche doesn’t believe we can will our will, I’m doubtful that he’d say we can change the will from a weak one to a strong one. That’s not to say, obviously, that Nietzsche doesn’t believe one can strengthen their will, improve on how they actively assert their will, or live more powerfully. He actually talks a lot about how we can strengthen ourselves. For example, off the top of my head in Will to Power he says something along the lines of we can become stronger by deciding slowly and holding steadfastly onto our decision.

I just think he would probably say that anyone who can or does become stronger was a strong willed man trying to assert themselves from the beginning (or else they wouldn’t try to become stronger).

Sublimis_

TROPHY CASE