Russian Literature vs. The World.

[phillipgr]

I've often pondered the reason why Russian Literature is so prominent on the stage of world literature. I do not wonder on account of not think it worthy of such acclimation, rather, I just wonder what has made way for it to produce the masterpieces (some would say they perfected the novel) it is known for - when many other countries/languages haven't been as successful.

Now this obviously this is just my perspective and I am not formally qualified in world literature, or anything of the like, I just have a keen interest.

I wonder if anyone can enlighten me?

[mal4mac]

I've often pondered the reason why Russian Literature is so prominent on the stage of world literature. I do not wonder on account of not think it worthy of such acclimation, rather, I just wonder what has made way for it to produce the masterpieces (some would say they perfected the novel) it is known for - when many other countries/languages haven't been as successful.

Now this obviously this is just my perspective and I am not formally qualified in world literature, or anything of the like, I just have a keen interest.

I wonder if anyone can enlighten me?

Tolstoy had to be born somewhere! The Russians were just lucky enough to get him. Read a biography of Tolstoy and and it may give some indication as why he was so great - he was lucky to to be born into the aristocracy, had some good tutors, extensive military experience, mixed with 'the right' intellectuals, and spent a lot of time with the peasantry on his estate. So he achieved a remarkable broadness of experience, and was lucky enough to be a really talented writer. There are other great Russian writers of course, who had similar advantages, but I think Tolstoy takes first place.

But, anyway, I think your thesis is wrong. An equal case could be made for several other countries, e.g., Britain, France, and Germany (Shakespeare, Dickens, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Montaigne, Zola...)

[JBI]

Most written languages have strong literary traditions. Generally, the number of readers and writers in a particular language tend to generate a good amount of literature of quality.

In general, a lot has to do with literary community - who is reading, who is writing, what their goals are, etc. If I was to hypothesize, the big outpour of Russian literature from one period is perhaps caused by a rather interesting shift in Russian politics in culture, lets say after Napoleon, and before the Russo-Japanese War.

Simply, the spirit of the age was there, the same way the spirit of the age, if you will, was present in France, particularly Paris, and in England in the 1590s.

Timing is generally everything, especially for prose and theatre, the shift in society, mixed with the political and economic shifts brings a period with room for vernacular thought - hence, you have great novelists, that basically work by crossing two levels of society, and examining them against each other. This is all helped by strong presidents from the most admired neighbor, France.

That being said, I do not think Russian literature is particularly better, or anything like that. Simply put, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that there are lots of Russian people, and also the fact that it is prose that is being read - the same can be said for French novelists, for instance. Pushkin, as it is, is not as popular universally, despite earning a somewhat excellent readership, given that he is a poet.

In the end it comes to the fact that every social misfit teenager seems to relate with social misfits in Dostoevsky, as they do with Beat writers, and in particular, the book On the Road (which is so the angstful teenage boy book, that it is ridiculous).

Dostoevsky is also said to benefit from being translated, I am not sure of that, as I do not read Russian, but perhaps that has something to do with it.


But simply put, my father grew up in Israel, there were lots of Russians even before the big post-soviet wave of immigrants, and they brought with them their literature - War and Peace was translated. Englishmen had a political presence there, but their acceptance from my understanding was more lukewarm (despite big names being translated).

Such an understanding of translation is needed.

[Alexander III]

If I was asked, I would deem Tolstoy to be the greatest novelist and a central figure upon which 20th century novels (modernism) was based. I also would comment that Pushkin is one of the great romantic poets. However this does not seem to make russia particularly special compared to other nations. Furthermore russian lit really kicks of with Pushkin, so Russian lit is roughly as young as American lit and can hardly compare with the extent of Italian, French, English, Persian ect.

When you say "many other countries have not been successful" which are you thinking about? As this might allow us to offer you a better response if you tell us what you are comparing russian lit against.

In the end it comes to the fact that every social misfit teenager seems to relate with social misfits in Dostoevsky, as they do with Beat writers, and in particular, the book On the Road (which is so the angstful teenage boy book, that it is ridiculous).

Dostoevsky is also said to benefit from being translated, I am not sure of that, as I do not read Russian, but perhaps that has something to do with it.

I have not read any Dostoyevsky, so I refer judgment, but the things you criticizes of Dost, could be said of The Sorrows of Young Werther, Rene and Child Harold's Pilgrimage

[JBI]

If I was asked, I would deem Tolstoy to be the greatest novelist and a central figure upon which 20th century novels (modernism) was based. I also would comment that Pushkin is one of the great romantic poets. However this does not seem to make russia particularly special compared to other nations. Furthermore russian lit really kicks of with Pushkin, so Russian lit is roughly as young as American lit and can hardly compare with the extent of Italian, French, English, Persian ect.

When you say "many other countries have not been successful" which are you thinking about? As this might allow us to offer you a better response if you tell us what you are comparing russian lit against.






I have not read any Dostoyevsky, so I refer judgment, but the things you criticizes of Dost, could be said of The Sorrows of Young Werther, Rene and Child Harold's Pilgrimage

Except scale. Werther is not as popular in English as Dostoevsky, and Byron is not popular at all for that work anymore (who reads poetry these days, lets face it?). Dostoevsky has the benefit of being in translation, and therefore in the vernacular of English in any given time period, or, in other words, always modern.

[Jono]

It might have something to do with the fact that the "Golden Age" of Russian literature was a fairly recent phenomenon, occurring as it did in the second half of the nineteenth century, meaning it is recent enough to still retain relevance and accessibility, while long enough ago to have achieved widely-acclaimed "classic" status. Russian literature in fact barely existed before Pushkin, Lermentov et al, and did not achieve much recognition outside of Russia until Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoevskii came along.

Then there is the fact that Russian society and politics in the 19th and early 20th centuries (The Golden and Silver eras of Russian literature) presented so many problems and enigmas (which, in spite of many attempts, have never really been resolved), which gave Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevskii et al intriguing subjects for their art, as well as great individual life-stories (Pushkin's involvement with revolutionaries and death by duel, Gogol's self-destruction and inability to write a conclusion to Dead Souls, Dostoevskii's exile, Tolsoy's last days etc. etc.)

Finally, there is a tendency among Russia's great writers of much elevated self-importance (Tolstoy is a big offender in this case) which often rubs off in their books. Russia certainly has had, since the 19th century, a great canon of literature, but the argument that it is any more prominent than that of other countries/languages is definitely up for debate- especially when you remember that literature existed before Pushkin!

[JCamilo]

Except scale. Werther is not as popular in English as Dostoevsky, and Byron is not popular at all for that work anymore (who reads poetry these days, lets face it?). Dostoevsky has the benefit of being in translation, and therefore in the vernacular of English in any given time period, or, in other words, always modern.

Well, Werther made young europeans go in suicide, right? Anyways, it is just to change it: Dostoievisky sentimentalism or teen agnst can be find in Dickens, Baudelaire and Poe. (But that is rather a simplification of Dostoievisky, he is not a teen angst writer).

The thing about Russians is that they break out the european center. They are not french, english, spanish... They seem to be break out of nowhere and not from the german tradition like Goethe, Schiller, Kant did one century before (when they made Germany the center). Sundenly there was Pushkin and Gogol. And with the Soviet Age, it seems to fade away. Most people are amazed at it.

But Catherine the great (and her Peter) were approaching Russia to europe, they did something similar to the germans. Just took more time, and the timing JBI mention is important. They developed when prose was raising, they giants had a time when the giants of english and france where dabbling with the Novel and short stories, modern drama, so they had time for inovation, to assemble uniqueness. When the rest of europe looked for references, the russians were there and they are very interesting, after all, they tell the story of upcoming russian revolution. (Plus, we must consider, the "center" of europe from XVIII onwards is Germany, Russian is close to them.) Also, Spain was completely out of the game (it would be back only when the latin american boom would cause something similar in the xx century that russians caused). A good evidence is that russians writers were not the only world wide artists of the period. The "entire" russian developed art forms to dialogue with the rest of the world (which probally increased even more the gap, or the awareness of the gap, between economic groups).

[stlukesguild]

The Russians and the Americans seem to benefit the most from the period in which there was this renewed focus on "nationalism". The great cultures of Western Europe... France, Britain, Spain, Italy... have already had something of a long tradition in which their cultures were seen as central. The Germans seem to have come upon the scene a bit too early. Goethe is almost more of a European writer in the tradition of the Enlightenment than a national poet. With Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in Russian and Melville, Whitman, and Emerson in the US we are confronted with great writers who embrace an expansive nationalistic myth. In Russia, this is a source of inspiration for music as well and results in a body of music unrivaled anywhere (at the time) outside of Germany.

I would avoid terms such as "better" and "best" when confronting the achievements of late 19th/early 20th century Russian literature (and music) for the simple reason that one might name any number of equally productive periods in the history of the arts. I agree with the notion that the artists were at the right place at the right time... this is always a major boon. They also had the luck to have written in an art form (the novel) which has become our dominant literary form. One might easily argue for the greater achievement of the 19th and early 20th century French and English poets or the short stories of the British, Americans, French, and Germans. To those who see the novel as the highest literary achievement, it is hard to surpass Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

[mortalterror]

19th century literature:

Russia: Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev, Chekhov, Goncharov, Ostrovsky

England: Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Byron, Tennyson, Browning, Rossetti, Dickens, Austen, Thackery, Eliot, Trollope, the Bronte sisters, Wells, Conrad, Kipling, Hardy

France: Hugo, Balzac, Flaubert, Zola, Gautier, Chateaubriand, Stendhal, Dumas, Goncourt, Maupassant, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Lamartine, Mallarme, Verne, Rostand, Nerval

Scotland: Scott, Doyle, Stevenson

Ireland: Wilde, Synge, Yeats, Stoker, Le Fanu,

U.S.: Melville, Twain, Whitman, Poe, Dickinson, Longfellow, Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, James, Wharton, Crane, Cooper, Bierce

Germany: Goethe, Heine, Hoffman, Holderlin, Kleist, Schiller, Buchner, Hauptmann

Italy: Leopardi, Manzoni, Carducci, Foscolo

Spain: Becquer

Norway: Ibsen,

Sweden: Strindburg

Denmark: Andersen

Nicaragua: Dario

Peru: Palma

Brazil: Assis

Austria: Schnitzler

Score
Russia: 9 World: 78
Overall, I'd say England and France did better.

[JBI]

The Russians and the Americans seem to benefit the most from the period in which there was this renewed focus on "nationalism". The great cultures of Western Europe... France, Britain, Spain, Italy... have already had something of a long tradition in which their cultures were seen as central. The Germans seem to have come upon the scene a bit too early. Goethe is almost more of a European writer in the tradition of the Enlightenment than a national poet. With Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in Russian and Melville, Whitman, and Emerson in the US we are confronted with great writers who embrace an expansive nationalistic myth. In Russia, this is a source of inspiration for music as well and results in a body of music unrivaled anywhere (at the time) outside of Germany.

I would avoid terms such as "better" and "best" when confronting the achievements of late 19th/early 20th century Russian literature (and music) for the simple reason that one might name any number of equally productive periods in the history of the arts. I agree with the notion that the artists were at the right place at the right time... this is always a major boon. They also had the luck to have written in an art form (the novel) which has become our dominant literary form. One might easily argue for the greater achievement of the 19th and early 20th century French and English poets or the short stories of the British, Americans, French, and Germans. To those who see the novel as the highest literary achievement, it is hard to surpass Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

I don't know - 19th century, and even early 20th century German writers and intellectuals seem to be the most international of all writers. Certainly Goethe was the first real multiculturalist of such an importance. Likewise the critical scope of German letters covered great distances. I would say their lack of nationalism had to do with Goethe as a precedent, as well as a duality of cultures, namely, a political culture that seems until the end of the 19th century, more or less unassociated, in terms of high art, with the writers working within it.

Of course, that changes, and Zola even notes it in his last works (pretty much saying he expected WW1), but the critics of Germany are the ones that brought Literary criticism into the 20th century. They also were the scientists who brought science into the 20th century.

As to why then Russians are read more? Well, it's obvious. There are only 3 Russian authors who are read more, namely, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, and Tolstoy. I would break it down like this - Tolstoy was a masterful author, and so, regardless of where he was, and situation, his genius is one of those things that just happen (like a Petrarch being born or something, nobody sees it coming). The next one, Dostoevsky, well, he played with some psychological things that appeal to a certain demographic of people, namely, those who read Nietzsche when they are 16 - that kind of stereotype. Talking to Russians, there is no doubt that Tolstoy was the model author, in every regard, still, Dostoevsky had some interesting characters caught in their identity, and struggling with existential issues, which appeals to young people who can take existentialism, especially its 19th century form, and think it holds all the answers, when really it is rather too simple as a discussion in Dostoevsky, and far more complex than the be all and end all that people when they are young can find in a novel.

As for Chekhov, well, he is not Ibsen as a playwright, but was great, there is no doubt about that. He had also the benefit of being preformed quite a lot even after his death. He was original, and creative, and so, wrote some good plays. As for his stories, that to me seems like another freak accident where somebody can take an existing genre, and remake it so well that they redefine the understanding of such things. He manages to shorten time, and therefore, achieve more, like a drama piece, and that is why he is highly regarded (if not so much by a mass public for his stories as his play).

The other three major players, Turgenev, Gogol, and Pushkin, well, Pushkin did not make it that well outside of Russia, because poetry is not a popular genre. He got translated, and is excellent, and there are people who swear by him, but still, he is not a best seller, because, simply, poetry is not a best seller. He did well, and had the benefit of extreme talent and good timing.

Turgenev is interesting, but ultimately, with the exception of Fathers and Sons, he is rarely discussed, especially here, for the simple reason people do not discuss much. He is, after all, Russian, which works well if you are Tolstoy, but can only take you so far out of Russia, especially with ethnocentric audiences, and anti-Russian sentiment dominating the second half of the 20th century.

And finally Gogol, who is well received for a couple of stories, the simple Diary of a Madman, the Overcoat, and a couple others - he is not a dominant figure, but his stories are dominant stories, making their way into unseen places.


In general, it's the three who made it to the world, not the 6, or a greater number, and that was similar to the way a half dozen French poets got great reception, or a handful of German poets, or artists got recognition. It's not as if other traditions didn't experience the same type of cultural advancement and recognition, it's just them being Russian seems to stand out.

And, beyond that, Dostoevsky gets way too much credit by people, particularly a demographic which exists on these very boards. He wasn't a bad author, but, lets face it, he wasn't the greatest either - his novels are flawed, ignoring his prose. The more perfect novel of the 19th century to me seems to be Flaubert, compared in any language as the bending point - Romanticism meets realism meets modernism - pretty much a century of ideas in one book, but alas, Crime and Punishment has too many kids reading it.

[mortalterror]

JBI, who are some great Chinese writers of the 19th century?

[Alexander III]

And, beyond that, Dostoevsky gets way too much credit by people, particularly a demographic which exists on these very boards. He wasn't a bad author, but, lets face it, he wasn't the greatest either - his novels are flawed, ignoring his prose. The more perfect novel of the 19th century to me seems to be Flaubert, compared in any language as the bending point - Romanticism meets realism meets modernism - pretty much a century of ideas in one book, but alas, Crime and Punishment has too many kids reading it.

While I agree with you in terms of Flaubert, he being the only Novelist of the 19th century whom can aptly rival Tolstoy; well I suppose I would also add Hugo to the list. However I have to disagree with your Dostoyevsky opinion. You view Dost in a similar manner to how many see Salinger. But, I must disagree. First of all the "greatness" of a work of art, is chiefly established by future generations of writers, (here I talk not about the 95% of mediocrity but the 5% of great). Joyce, Woolf, Hemingway, Sartre and Camus all acknowledged Dostoevsky's great influence upon them and his genius. Yet what writer acknowledges Salinger as a major influence? Now you may question Dost, but it is impossible to question his influence upon many of the great modernist writers; so I doubt that if he were a teen angst writer solely, he would have had such a great impact. Surly there must be more to him?

Maybe it is the case that Dost is to you, what Shakespeare was to Tolstoy.

[stlukesguild]

I don't know - 19th century, and even early 20th century German writers and intellectuals seem to be the most international of all writers. Certainly Goethe was the first real multiculturalist of such an importance. Likewise the critical scope of German letters covered great distances. I would say their lack of nationalism had to do with Goethe as a precedent, as well as a duality of cultures, namely, a political culture that seems until the end of the 19th century, more or less unassociated, in terms of high art, with the writers working within it.

That was what I had suggested when I spoke of Goethe as fitting more within the ideals of the Enlightenment... including a more multi-national or at least a sense of being European as opposed to exclusively German. Goethe builds on French and English models... and later draws from Greek, Roman, Italian, and even Persians. Of course I sense this in the music as well. Only Wagner seems to build a distinctly German music. As you suggest, most of the followers of Goethe... even into the 20th century with Rilke, Kafka, Wedekind, Hesse, Mann, etc... seem quite removed from the political nationalism.

Dostoevsky, well, he played with some psychological things that appeal to a certain demographic of people, namely, those who read Nietzsche when they are 16 - that kind of stereotype. Talking to Russians, there is no doubt that Tolstoy was the model author, in every regard, still, Dostoevsky had some interesting characters caught in their identity, and struggling with existential issues, which appeals to young people who can take existentialism, especially its 19th century form, and think it holds all the answers...

A bit harsh... but true. Hermann Hesse acts the same way... and perhaps even Orwell. I guess its a good thing I read Dante, Shakespeare, Homer and Cervantes first and got around to Nietzsche later.

Alex... I wouldn't underestimate Dostoevsky. I have no problem admitting that The Brothers Karamazov remains one of the greatest novels I have read. I do agree with JBI, however, in terms of the almost cult-like following that Dostoevsky has... especially among younger readers. Hell, he was voted the greatest author among LitNetters. The greatest? Really? I would have to say that Tolstoy he isn't even the greatest Russian writer as long as we have Tolstoy... but really... greater than Goethe, Homer, Virgil, Dante... Shakespeare?!

Of course, as JBI also points out, the better/best discussions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with real discussions of literature... which are indeed far too rare. I know there are attempts with the book clubs, the novel of the month, the poetry club, etc... but unfortunately... these always seem to focus on the obvious choices. Rarely do the choices seem to include something interesting or new... but I know I shouldn't complain. If you are really passionate about something, you have to start the thread yourself... and I salute Quasimodo for keeping the discussion on contemporary poets going for so long. Whenever I get the bug up my butt I make an attempt at reviving the discussions on German, French, and Spanish poetry.

[JCamilo]

Pushkin is not just a poet. His prose works are widely know, his short story about Salieri the most popular culprint for the envy version of "Salieri", his dramas well know. He is one of the top 20 best selling authors of all time, being translated (according the index translated more than Victor Hugo. If his poetry was translatable, he would probally make Verlaine look less popular).... he may not have the actual popularity of Dostoievisky or Tolstoy, but when we start to think how france and england with all their tradition can produce authors that would make E.M.Foster claim in the 20's that no novel in english had the power or quality of Brothers K, Crime and Punishement, Anner Karenina and War and Peace. It is not just numbers, it how dominant those guys sundenly are.

To talk about Tchekhov you must bring Poe, Maupassant, Borges, Kipling... Just out of nowhere. In terms of prose they are impressive in such unlikely way, unexpected, with the most unlikely idiom. Compare this to portuguese and we can have a notion how to marginal literature had this momment....

[JBI]

JBI, who are some great Chinese writers of the 19th century?

There are quite a few ones of note, Li Ruzhen, for instance, and the novel 7 Heroes and Five Gallants, but, in terms of available in translation, few particular ones are available (I would need to check online to see what is available). In general though, the19th century was a great century for scholarship in Chinese literature, and for some prose fiction, not particularly for experimental development and genre writing (those developments happened in the 17th century, and then in the 20th century to a far greater extent). Then again, there was a great development in Drama, and opera, of which, I apologize, I am rather unable to particularly talk about with any real certainty.


Generally though, from what I understand, the time after the Opium Wars marked a time when scholarship and translation were essential, rather an inward leaning, rather than expansive inventiveness - later blamed for China's lack of development by 20th century writers. the 17th and 18th centuries are quite rich in terms of literary inventiveness, but I guess after the Qianlong text of all classic texts (basically the "official" accepted list of classics of any noteworthiness) inventive letters became rather stagnate, kind of like the Age of Johnson in England. What came out of it though was a particularly remarkable amount of scholarly work, that is, editions, histories, political works, and translations, as well as anthologies and commentaries.

Still, one cannot help but think of that as a rather dry period of reluctant transition, though it did end in explosion with the 20th century.