Who do you like more Tolstoy or Dickens?

[osho]

I have read both writers's works massively. I like Dickens's style since I do not know Russian I cannot read Tolstoy's style and in translation the essence of it gets lost.

As a writer I find Tolstoy above and beyond Dickens's reach. Of coursed Dickens is amazing when it to comes to writing about poverty and man's predicaments, Tolstoy on the other hand outstrips him on several counts

Dickens is no doubt a sensible writer and he is considered a leftist writer and wrote somewhat against the rampage of capitalism.

However Tolstoy was far ahead of him considering his life and his feelings for the poor. He devoted his life to a cause. His life and works went in perfect harmony

[NiMROD]

Like both, hard for me to definitively choose one. I would say that Anna Karenina left more of an impact on me than any of Dickens' works. Haven't read all Dickens works yet either, though I really like David Copperfield.

[Dark Muse]

I have mixed feelings about both, though I have not read extensively of either of them, Judging from what I have read I would say my opinion about them is about the same. Tolstoy at least is not quite as much of a tedious writer as Dickens's can tend to be at times. Though I do not deny the talent of either of them and acknowledge them both as being tremendous writers, but neither are among my personal favorites. But I do enjoy reading thier work.

I might say that perhaps I like Tolstoy a bit more becasue I think he captures the emotions of his characters more so than Dickens's does. Tolstoy is a more philosophical writer and so he does explore the inner workings of his characters a bit more so. His work feels more soulful.

[WymanChanning]

Dicken's strength is his magic prose but his novels are relatively shallow compared to Tolstoy's, not to mention Dostoyevsky's.

[Buh4Bee]

I read Dickens in high school, but more recently, I read a Christmas Carol. I find that I do like the rich details, although I believe many find him exhausting. He is probably a good author to read for short stories. (I know he was excessively verbose, because he was paid by the word.) Tolstoy is hands down one of the greatest writers, at least in my reading experience. There are strong moral themes that run throughout both author's work. Any good writing needs to make a decent point, whether moral, amoral or immoral. I prefer moral, but that's the angel in me. Therefore, I do like both writers, but I'd probably say I'm a bigger Tolstoy fan.

[mal4mac]

You have to admire Tolstoy's grasp of history, and how he allows his characters to grow in and through it. But, for me, I prefer Dickens' magic realism, where unforgettable characters create real/unreal worlds around themselves. I don't think it's just a case of 'having to read Tolstoy in translation'. The extra magic in Dickens is in the characters he creates, not the language he uses.

Tolstoy's life and works did *not* go in perfect harmony. When he became an extreme fundamentalist Christian his work diminished - his two great novels were before this crisis, and he renounced those novels for being unchristian. Dickens kept on writing great novels until the end, and kept on admiring his own work!

Dickens is not at his best in short stories, he is (rightly) renowned as a novelist. I find some of his shorter works ("Tale of Two Cities"/"Christmas carol") tend to superficiality .... although Christmas Carol is a superb story... To get his magic to work he needs a lot of pages.

To *really* be able to compare you need to read Tolstoy's two major novels and two of Dickens' longer, unquestioned masterpieces (say, Bleak House, David Copperfield, ... )

[MarkBastable]

The extra magic in Dickens is in the characters he creates, not the language he uses.

Where's the magic in Dickens? The characters, yes. Also the stories. But absolutely the language he uses too. This is the man who - half-a-century before the Surrealists - came up with "He looked as incongruous as a dolphin in a sentry-box." Dickens' language was beautifully crafted, inventive and creative.

Dickens is not at his best in short stories, he is (rightly) renowned as a novelist. I find some of his shorter works ("Tale of Two Cities"/"Christmas carol") tend to superficiality .... although Christmas Carol is a superb story... To get his magic to work he needs a lot of pages.

To *really* be able to compare you need to read Tolstoy's two major novels and two of Dickens' longer, unquestioned masterpieces (say, Bleak House, David Copperfield, ... )

Not sure I agree with you about the short stories, but I do think that A Christmas Carol is the best story - in terms of plot and structure and all round satisfying wholeness - in the entire canon of Western literature.

I'd probably argue with your use of 'unquestioned' though - because plenty of people would question whether Bleak House was in the top rank of Dickens' work.

Still, I much prefer Dickens to Tolstoy (who I've read in Russian and in English). For me, Tolstoy has a tendency to be turgid and po-faced, and I've never forgiven him for The Death of Ivan Ilych.

[dfloyd]

One should read both, but it is not necessary to compare the two. I have read most of both, only missing one Dickens' novel: Barnaby Rudge. I have read all three novels of Tolstoy plus his three-part autobiography which he never finished. The two authors are diametrically opposed, but as a reader, not a critic, the well-read person should read both.

[Drkshadow03]

You have to admire Tolstoy's grasp of history, and how he allows his characters to grow in and through it. But, for me, I prefer Dickens' magic realism, where unforgettable characters create real/unreal worlds around themselves. I don't think it's just a case of 'having to read Tolstoy in translation'. The extra magic in Dickens is in the characters he creates, not the language he uses.

Is Magic Realism the right word?

(who I've read in Russian and in English).

You can read Russian?

[MarkBastable]

You can read Russian?

I studied Russian at school. I was lousy at it, but I got through the exams. Back then I was good enough to read Tolstoy. Nowadays, I couldn't read a train ticket. Well, no. I could read it. I just wouldn't know what it meant.

[Drkshadow03]

I studied Russian at school. I was lousy at it, but I got through the exams. Back then I was good enough to read Tolstoy. Nowadays, I couldn't read a train ticket. Well, no. I could read it. I just wouldn't know what it meant.

That's still really impressive.

[WymanChanning]

You have to admire Tolstoy's grasp of history, and how he allows his characters to grow in and through it. But, for me, I prefer Dickens' magic realism, where unforgettable characters create real/unreal worlds around themselves. I don't think it's just a case of 'having to read Tolstoy in translation'. The extra magic in Dickens is in the characters he creates, not the language he uses.

Well, the chracters in Dicken's novels are indisputably vivid, but they are single dimensional. If one character is cunning, there seems no other trait in this person but cunning through out the book, for instance, Quilp in the Old Curiosity Shop; Dickens intents to create Mr Murdstone in David Copperfield as a firm character, then it seems to me in the whole book Mr Murdstone is nothing but a firm gentleman; Agnes in the DC again, she is angelic, then seems she does not have any weakness and dark side in her personality. These single dimensioned characters are not rare in Dicken's novels. I couldn't help feeling they are more like symbols rather than human. For me, humans are complicated, and there can not be only one trait in their character. It just not real for me.

[mal4mac]

One should read both, but it is not necessary to compare the two. I have read most of both, only missing one Dickens' novel: Barnaby Rudge. I have read all three novels of Tolstoy plus his three-part autobiography which he never finished. The two authors are diametrically opposed, but as a reader, not a critic, the well-read person should read both.

How are they diametrically opposed?

Well, the chracters in Dicken's novels are indisputably vivid, but they are single dimensional. If one character is cunning, there seems no other trait in this person but cunning through out the book, for instance, Quilp in the Old Curiosity Shop; Dickens intents to create Mr Murdstone in David Copperfield as a firm character, then it seems to me in the whole book Mr Murdstone is nothing but a firm gentleman; Agnes in the DC again, she is angelic, then seems she does not have any weakness and dark side in her personality. These single dimensioned characters are not rare in Dicken's novels. I couldn't help feeling they are more like symbols rather than human. For me, humans are complicated, and there can not be only one trait in their character. It just not real for me.

You suggest all the characters in Dickens are one dimensional, and then pick out minor characters to support your very flawed case! How can you suggest that Pip, Oliver, Nickleby, etc, ... are one dimensional?!

Quilp is an interesting example, though... he's quite a major villain, and quite an interesting one, but he is a bit one dimensional... Given the genius of Dickens that's probably *intentional*, part of the makeup of this very flawed character... a one track mindedness, like that of Scrooge before "the change". Some people are like that, some people are a bit one dimensional...

[Hawkman]

I'm afraid Dickens wins hands down for me. Tolstoy thought Shakespeare was crap and that a man could get as much enjoyment from twiddling his thumbs as he could from a post prandial cigar. I suspect he wasn't all there - lol. Dickens has a superior range in my view. I have read most of Dickens major works but I never managed to finish War and Peace. I did quite enjoy the 1970's BBC serialisation though. In the novel, the characters' interminably tedious internalisations probably make it one of the first existentialist novels, way before Sartre. But for me they were not so much character arcs as they were troughs. So, Sorry, not a fan of Tolstoy. I'd rather read Gogol.

[Buh4Bee]

In a certain sense, I agree Hawkman. I would never have finished War and Peace either if I hadn't been in a situation in which I had to read it.