Russian Literature vs. The World.

[JCamilo]

I dont disagree the polishing of language is not a prime element of novels or romances. I doubt Stlukes would, as he know so well Borges and his critic towards Cervantes, exactly due to that. I do not think it is even the prime of poems (after the is poems and romances together), but I won't deny that a Novel gets better if the prime elements where better treated by the writer. Now, Dostoievisky is no Proust or Flaubert, but he is hardly dense. Brothers K advantage of Madame Bovary is that the language is better treated in action with the characters, Madame B advantage is that language is better treated as structure. In this; neither are perfect (and both prime suspects of greatest novel ever. Nobody calling it would be insane.).

When Borges got older he gave up the claim Quevedo would write a Better quixote. He said something like "That was the only Quixote possible". Nabokov is attacking Dostoievisky style (and with some reason) but frankly, those things do not move a single line from Brother K towards perfect. It is close as it could be. As some point the second part of Lolita is poorer, but what they do not see, the second part had to be that way for the first Part make any sense. Nakobok was a prisioner of his style. It had to be that way.

I would lay to say the greatest stylist of Russian literature is Chekhov and nobody else. Seems to me that he had to write short stories to allow his style to not get those flaw that a romance or novel would bring to it, when people would think his style was superior to his novel. His solution to combine Dostoievisky and Tolstoy was this one. Not fighting with them, being something anew. And fully aware, style is substance.

[sarsnake]

I would say that you haven't read much since Russian lit is mostly known for negative, unfinished endings and downright depressing vibe. Sure, Crime and Punishment ends well, but I wouldn't say it's a Hollywood type of happy go lucky novel. In fact, Dostoyevsky's style is quite heavy and depressing to many people.
Turgenev's "A House of Gentlefolk" doesn't end well, neither does Eugene Onegin or anything written by Chekhov, or Anna Karenina (I mean she kills herself!).

So, read these before passing a wrong judgement.

Couple of things, I read Russian fluently as it's my first language, so I have few thoughts to add here. Pushkin loses a lot being translated simply because Russian language is very rich compared to most languages out there (I speak three); Pushkin's strength is mostly in language and rhyme use which is lost when you translate it to English (a language which is more logical, concise and less expressive than Russian). Pushkin really shines in Russian, and unless one is able to read Russian they will never know it. He is also responsible for a Russian language reform and hence highly regarded in Russia from a linguistics point of view.
Not to diminish his achievements in any way, I just wanted to point out that he does not benefit from translation at all.

Next, none of the Russian authors benefit from being translated (frankly, I don't think any authors do). Because translation inevitably loses the original "hue", it always does.

And lastly, literature is an emotional thing; it depends what touches any given reader so it's impossible to declare that someone is better than others. It just depends on the reader and what they find better for them; so this argument is kind of futile.

What I like about most of the Russian authors, especially Chekhov and Bulgakov, is that no word is wasted, so to speak. Every word is carefully placed there. Chekhov can express million emotions with one short sentence. My personal preference leans towards densely packed reading, as opposed to Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath where there are 10 pages describing a turtle crossing the road....to me it's boring. But then it's my personal preference. I will take a one page Chekhov story over it any day.

I also don't get Flaubert's and Dostoyevsky comparison. Flaubert's most known work is Madame Bovary, great book, but I would not put it on the same level as Crime and Punishment, nor in style, subject or language. In fact, to me it's like comparing a soap opera to a Chekhov story. Again, it's my personal preference, but I think majority of litetary critics would not put Flaubert on the same level as Dostoyevsky.

[mal4mac]

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...

Please add smileys when using irony! This was a late chapter in the English retreat from empire and was hardly lukewarm, ask the British soldiers who were blown up. You might argue the British oppression was lukewarm (compared to Hitler...)

As repeated in Andrew Marr's excellent History of the World, being televised on BBC at the moment, Hitler was totally perplexed with Britain's treatment of Gandhi, "Why don't they just shoot, him?"

Still, oppression is oppression. Do the oppressed praise the literature of the oppressors?

Maybe Russian authors were more accepted in the World because, pre-Communism, Russia didn't aspire to world domination - they had Siberia to expand into...

The Russians have been blessed by pretty good translators, in the UK, from the beginning - Garnett, the Maude's, etc.

.... English (a language which is more logical, concise and less expressive than Russian).

... I also don't get Flaubert's and Dostoyevsky comparison. Flaubert's most known work is Madame Bovary, great book, but I would not put it on the same level as Crime and Punishment, nor in style, subject or language. In fact, to me it's like comparing a soap opera to a Chekhov story. Again, it's my personal preference, but I think majority of litetary critics would not put Flaubert on the same level as Dostoyevsky.

The language of Shakespeare less expressive? You need to back that up with more than "I speak three languages". I can't remember serious polyglots, like Steiner or Nabakov saying such a thing.

I've read Flaubert and Dostoevsky in translation and found both to be excellent in style and subject.

You need to back these statements with some (very) strong arguments, at the moment they just appear like outpourings from Putin's propaganda bureau...

[Alexander III]

Maybe Russian authors were more accepted in the World because, pre-Communism, Russia didn't aspire to world domination - they had Siberia to expand into...

I dont really feel like jumping into this discussion, but this is a huge historical inaccuracy. Imperial russia, particularly in the second half of the 19th century was a huge imperial threat. They were expanding into afghanistan and the english developed their entire strategy in the east to counter attack russia as they were scared they would attempt to steal India from the English. Furthermore Russia was having huge tensions between Japan and the United states for naval dominance of the pacific.

And to look at the first half of the 19th century, let us not forget the Tzar personal lead his army through paris and occupied it. Something which the majority of bonaprtists of the time, never forgave russia for. And most Monarchists never forgot the debit they owed to the tsar.

[Greenazure]

if u have mastered chinese, u will c how supernovaous its literature is! Cao Xueqin!!!!

[mal4mac]

I dont really feel like jumping into this discussion, but this is a huge historical inaccuracy. Imperial russia, particularly in the second half of the 19th century was a huge imperial threat. They were expanding into afghanistan and the english developed their entire strategy in the east to counter attack russia as they were scared they would attempt to steal India from the English. Furthermore Russia was having huge tensions between Japan and the United states for naval dominance of the pacific.

And to look at the first half of the 19th century, let us not forget the Tzar personal lead his army through paris and occupied it. Something which the majority of bonaprtists of the time, never forgave russia for. And most Monarchists never forgot the debit they owed to the tsar.

This hardly amounts to "world domination". They may have been a modest threat in some areas, but were they anything more than modestly successful? "The British were petrified at the idea of a Russian invasion of their crown colony of India, though Russia – badly defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese war and weakened by internal rebellion – could not realistically afford a showdown against Britain there.

The British were petrified at the idea of a Russian invasion of their crown colony of India, though Russia – badly defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese war and weakened by internal rebellion – could not realistically afford a showdown against Britain there.

Did they take Afghanistan? Did they expand anywere else? Anyway, these were pretty local affairs, did the the sun never set on their empire? Even with that long stretch of Siberia? Belgium seems a more successful World Imperialist - think of the Congo in Africa; also the Dutch - the East India company.

Russia badly defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese war and weakened by internal rebellion could not realistically afford a showdown against Britain in India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

Note, the title, it was looked at as a Game, hardly a title you would give to a serious threat.

They suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Japanese navy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

[kelby_lake]

I think that Russian Literature definitely deserves its place in the world literature canon but so does French Literature. English Literature has a place there, maybe German Literature as well, but I can't think of a big name German writer in the way that Tolstoy, Hugo and Shakespeare are. Then we have classical literature, in particular the Ancient Greeks. Considering the classical influence on many great novels, maybe the prize goes to the Greeks?

[mal4mac]

I think that Russian Literature definitely deserves its place in the world literature canon but so does French Literature. English Literature has a place there, maybe German Literature as well, but I can't think of a big name German writer in the way that Tolstoy, Hugo and Shakespeare are. Then we have classical literature, in particular the Ancient Greeks. Considering the classical influence on many great novels, maybe the prize goes to the Greeks?

What about Goethe? Rather than Hugo, what about Montaigne for top Frenchman?

[kelby_lake]

What about Goethe? Rather than Hugo, what about Montaigne for top Frenchman?

I'm not well-read in German Lit so I'll take your word for it on Goethe. Wasn't Montaigne a critic rather than a fiction writer?

[Paulclem]

Both Tolstoy and Doestoyevsky have benefitted from historical impetus; Tolstoys works were published in the 20th century during WW2 to inspire the troops and instil them with the Russian spirit that he wreferred to. Doestoyevsky, on the other hand does represent the tradition of the dissident voice with House of the Dead and crime and Punishment. This tradition continued with Solzhenitsyn through the 20th century. Of course they are both excellent, but the supreme exemplars of the craft?They are up there with the best.

[Literature5]

I've noticed oppression, though obviously unacceptable, has more often yielded the unparalleled art and expression that we hold highest. Its no secret that the Russians (though perhaps not Tolstoy specifically) haven't had the greatest of histories.

Hence, "I know why the caged bird sings."

[mal4mac]

I'm not well-read in German Lit so I'll take your word for it on Goethe. Wasn't Montaigne a critic rather than a fiction writer?

I'm not a Goethe expert, I've only read "Faust part 1" and "The Sorrows of Young Werther", and only in translation. But if you read any works on the literary canon, Goethe is usually mentioned in the same breath as Dante, Homer, Cervantes, Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Harold Bloom suggests that picking the top Frenchman is very difficult, as there are several possibilities, including Hugo. Montaigne is famous for his "Essays", which include, but are far more than just criticism, so I think it's a bit unfair to call him "just" a critic. But criticism can also rise to the level of literature, Dr Johnson's work, for instance.

Tolstoys works were published in the 20th century during WW2 to inspire the troops and instil them with the Russian spirit that he wreferred to.

Did that happen in other countries? War & Peace as propaganda I can imagine Churchill reading it while Hitler sent his forces into the Russian winter... Rieu read his translations of Homer to his family while the bombs were dropping on London, and turned them into Penguins first best sellers just after WW II. I guess any great works dealing with war did well in the 20th century due to historical impetus...

[kelby_lake]

Nah, I would just go all out for Hugo. Sure, there's a lot of good French writers (don't forget there's the playwrights as well), but nobody has written anything like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and probably never will. How many writers actually preserved a piece of architecture? And I haven't started Les Mis yet but that's meant to be even better. Tolstoy has the same problem. Which is better- Anna Karenina or War and Peace?

[Paulclem]

Did that happen in other countries? War & Peace as propaganda I can imagine Churchill reading it while Hitler sent his forces into the Russian winter... Rieu read his translations of Homer to his family while the bombs were dropping on London, and turned them into Penguins first best sellers just after WW II. I guess any great works dealing with war did well in the 20th century due to historical impetus...

I've not seen it referred to in the same way. The Russians published excerpts for their soldiers, and perhaps had them read out too. Perhaps these were in the Red Star, the Red army's newspaper. Vassily Grossmann - a red Army correspondant and novellist - referred to it. Of course it was the perfect reading for soldiers describing as it does the Russian spirit, (whose hijacking by the Soviets would no doubt have made Tolstoy turn in his grave), and the defeat of Napolean's forces in 1812. It had a direct link to the Nazi Barbarossa campaign in Russia.

[cafolini]

I've not seen it referred to in the same way. The Russians published excerpts for their soldiers, and perhaps had them read out too. Perhaps these were in the Red Star, the Red army's newspaper. Vassily Grossmann - a red Army correspondant and novellist - referred to it. Of course it was the perfect reading for soldiers describing as it does the Russian spirit, (whose hijacking by the Soviets would no doubt have made Tolstoy turn in his grave), and the defeat of Napolean's forces in 1812. It had a direct link to the Nazi Barbarossa campaign in Russia.

I don't see any link between Napoleon and the Barbarosa launch. Napoleon was a French shot. The Roman Catholics were probably getting ready to coronate Hitler as the new Charlemagne (the third Reich). In order to do it they made themselves independent from Rome and used Mussolini for controlling the internal italy and link with Hitler, while they restablished the Carlos V empire in Spain as National Catholicism, later used by Franco to direct the civil war. It is erroneous to think that Hitler was an atheist. According to him he was actually doing the work God demanded from him and said it several times very clearly. For his cooperation, Franco was to receive dominion over colonies in Africa among which was Gibraltar. But as the Roman Catholics saw that Hitler was going to lose, Franco exited the deal in a meeting with Hitler in Hendaya, saying that Spain would support him morally, but it was too weak financially to cooperate with military efforts (the original deal). To accomodate themselves to the new situation, the Roman Catholics also claimed that the Nazis had gotten upset and bombed The Vatican, of which there is no evidence. Meantime, Mussolini was allowed to continue, unaware of the loss. Eventually he and his girlfriend realized and tried to escape, but were captured by partisans, taken to Milan, executed, and exposed in the streets as enemies of the Roman Catholic church.