Russian authors

[Desolation]

I'm not disputing whether it's a masterpiece of it's kind or not but readers should in all fairness be warned that this is an experimental novel, part of it is written in a dream sequence and you have to be pretty sharp to spot where the dream begins and ends, a traditional Dosteyevskian type Russian novel it aint, and it lost me.

Consider my interest very thoroughly piqued.

Anyone want to recommend a good translation of this?

[WyattGwyon]

Consider my interest very thoroughly piqued.

Anyone want to recommend a good translation of this?

Yes, but in this case it is not only translations but versions that are at issue. I would wholeheartedly recommend John Elsworth's 2009 translation of the original, longer version, published by Pushkin Press.

Here is a link to my spoiler-free review of the novel:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=70407

I also loved Sholokhov and have always enjoyed all things Cossack.

Have you read Isaac Babel's Red Cavalry Stories? There are numerous tales in which individual Cossacks figure prominently, and they are drawn quite vividly.

I've never been able to plunge deep into the jungle of his writing. His prose is unpolished, his interest in environmental description is measly, and his characters are too unflagging.

I base this on The Brother Karamazov.

The Brothers Karamazov and a great deal of Dostoyevsky's fiction, in fact, is attributed to naive narrators within the frame of the stories. I suspect the author wanted to eliminate any expectation of "writerly prose" (as in Turgenev, whom he despised) in favor of a kind of naturalism. Nabokov leveled a lot of mostly silly criticism at him over his descriptive writing and his unpolished prose, but consider the source: Nabokov actually rated Turgenev the better novelist(!)

[Ohmyscience]

off topic. Is Russian a language difficult to translate to English? The translations I've read of Tolstoy's 'Anna Karenina', a few Dostoyevsky's were not fluid. It feels clunky.

[bIGwIRE]

Have you read Isaac Babel's Red Cavalry Stories? There are numerous tales in which individual Cossacks figure prominently, and they are drawn quite vividly.

No, I haven't. After reading a little about Babel's life I will definitely look for a copy. Thank you for the suggestion.

[Mariatakis]

I like Boris Akunin. Let say "Diamond Chariot".
It is a modern author, but he has a good one collection of books about Russian empire of the beginning of the 20th century. Also he is fond of Japanese culture that makes his books fantastic!

[bIGwIRE]

[I]Nabokov leveled a lot of mostly silly criticism at him over his descriptive writing and his unpolished prose, but consider the source: Nabokov actually rated Turgenev the better novelist(!)

Nabakov had complaints about many of the greatest writers. He even said Turgenev, "is not a great writer, though a pleasant one," but still better than Dostoevsky, apparently. He rated the greatest Russian prose writers as being Tolstoy, Gogol, Chekhov, Turgenev, and Dostoevsky. If you send Dostoevsky to the front of the line, I would acually agree with the order. (not that my opinion matters much )

He firmly believed that novels should not try to teach a reader anything, and that they should be enjoyed for their style and structure, not the abbility to connect with characters, so anything by Dostoevsky would be hard for him to like.

Nabakov's own works are amazing, I only wish he had something more conclusive to say. He put so much value on perfect art that he seems to take himself, the "human" element, out of his own work, if that makes sense. He doesn't teach or lead the reader to any destination.
His works are simply beautiful, and surgical.

[JCamilo]

Dostoievisky unpolished style is not Nabokov XX century discovery. Tchekhov and Tolstoy accuse Dostoievisky of the same thing (Tchekhov mentions a time Tolstoy was was split between "How come he write such thing" as first as if it was something as bad and minute latter as if it was soemthing good reggarding Brothers K.) Nabokov just adhere with the classicism of both.

If we look well, Dickens received similar attacks on english criticism too.

[bIGwIRE]

Dostoievisky unpolished style is not Nabokov XX century discovery. Tchekhov and Tolstoy accuse Dostoievisky of the same thing (Tchekhov mentions a time Tolstoy was was split between "How come he write such thing" as first as if it was something as bad and minute latter as if it was soemthing good reggarding Brothers K.) Nabokov just adhere with the classicism of both.

If we look well, Dickens received similar attacks on english criticism too.

You're right, and this has been discussed on this forum a few times. Like here, for instance. Nabakov wasn't saying anything new, he just said it with more wit and style, and to a wider audience. Now nobody can speak a word about great Russian literature without also speaking about Nabakov. It really was a great bit of self promotion.

[Raven Falcon.]

You're right, and this has been discussed on this forum a few times. Like here, for instance. Nabakov wasn't saying anything new, he just said it with more wit and style, and to a wider audience. Now nobody can speak a word about great Russian literature without also speaking about Nabakov. It really was a great bit of self promotion.

He was right to some extent.

The thing is, Tolstoy's works are not only usually constructed with concrete and descriptive prose, but also decorated with realistic and dynamic characters as if they were real people.

At least in The Brother Karamazov, Dostoevsky's prose is characterized by turgid syntax and abstract descriptions.

Tolstoy simply describes things better and the worst of Tolstoy's happens to be the discourse on the nature of history in War and Peace - that happens to be constructed with abstract prose.

Also, I find Dostoevsky's characters hard to believe. I see them as the author's tools to embody certain set of ideologies.

As for the environmental descriptions, again here Tolstoy triumphs over Dostoevsky. I find the former's various descriptions of his fictions' setting more ocular and metaphors more compelling.
Tolstoy's prose is very tangible to the point where sometimes, I can feel, hear, smell and see what he is describing with sheer clarity.

[stlukesguild]

Kharms is a Russian absurdist who writes, naturally absurd pieces and that is absurd in every sense of the word.

This site has many of his works: http://www.sevaj.dk/kharms/kharmseng.htm

And here's a review of my favorite book of his stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/bo...pagewanted=all

He pretty much created microfiction and many of his stories are surreal to the extreme and most oftentimes seem to lack a point unless you read deeper. Really great work.

I read about three of his stories and can't say I was overly impressed. I feel that Kafka, Tomaso Landolfi, J.L. Borges, and Augusto Monterroso do similar things in a far more interesting and better written manner.

I'll try to go back and read a few more and see if my opinion changes... but I wouldn't count on it.

[WyattGwyon]

He was right to some extent.

The thing is, Tolstoy's works are not only usually constructed with concrete and descriptive prose, but also decorated with realistic and dynamic characters as if they were real people.

Dostoyevsky is thought by many to be a master of psychological realism, as I suspect you must be aware.

At least in The Brother Karamazov, Dostoevsky's prose is characterized by turgid syntax and abstract descriptions.

I can't tell what you mean by this without an example or two.

Tolstoy simply describes things better and the worst of Tolstoy's happens to be the discourse on the nature of history in War and Peace - that happens to be constructed with abstract prose.

Once again it is impossible to tell what you mean by abstract in this context. I found Tolstoy's historical views quite interesting, though they haven't been all that well received by specialists, apparently. Isaiah Berlin's essay, "The Fox and the Hedgehog" is a wonderful exploration of these and related issues.

Also, I find Dostoevsky's characters hard to believe. I see them as the author's tools to embody certain set of ideologies.

Once again, your view runs counter to much critical opinion on the quality of Dostoyevsky's characterization and the vividness with which the internal lives of his characters are presented. I'd recommend Mikhail Bakhtin's Problems of Dostoyevsky's Poetics on this. Constantine Levin in Anna Karenina is precisely such an ideological embodiment for Tolstoy. In fact, if one transposed Levin's values to the 1890s and 1900s, he would probably have been pegged as a forerunner of Tolstoyanism, which was an actual social movement. I'm not aware of any comparable movement connected with Dostoyevsky. I would say that Tolstoy is the more likely of the two to invent characters to ride his favorite hobbyhorses.

As for the environmental descriptions, again here Tolstoy triumphs over Dostoevsky. I find the former's various descriptions of his fictions' setting more ocular and metaphors more compelling.
Tolstoy's prose is very tangible to the point where sometimes, I can feel, hear, smell and see what he is describing with sheer clarity.

Dostoyevsky's central gifts are elsewhere. Perhaps you should read more of his work before rendering broad judgments on style?

[Mugs]

I haven't ventured beyond Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Solzhenitsyn. Dostoevsky changed my life... it is almost a spiritual experience to read him sometimes. I agree that his style is hard to "visualize"... instead I tend to "feel" what the characters are feeling. It is more emotional than sensual I think. I don't like Tolstoy nearly as much.

[Kyriakos]

Gogol perhaps is the most tragic of all Russian great authors, and possibly also the most talented. In fact i have never read another author who is seemingly equally capable to present the tragic and the comedic.