Russian literature

[Mag Master 21]

Thanks to this thread, I just ordered 16 Russian books...

Yay!

[promtbr]

Dostoevsky and Tolstoi lose something essential in English. Can judge, for I'm from Russia.
Annensky said - we were tortured by Dostoevsky. And his "anguish" doesn't surge in translation.

This is very interesting and important to any discussion of literature in translation. In your opinion, is this also true of the recent (newer) translations of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky's works by the much acclaimed team of Richard Pevear and Larrisa Volokhonsky?

I do not like the older Constance Garnett translations (have read them side by side to see.. )

I have purposely stayed away from Re-reading any Gogol and no longer have any of his books. I have read a paper that illustrated how his works lose MOST of their double meanings and nuances and plays on parts of speech through any current translations! Do you have an opinion on Gogol's translated books?

[Mag Master 21]

And two think I just got two Gogol novels... oh well.

[shud-shee]

The poser is that these languages are way too different, so my recommendation is to learn Russian. Besides, there's a mystery that is called Russian soul. Regarding Gogol, it depends on a work, but my general opinion is that he is more "translatable". This is also applicable to Tolstoi.

[shud-shee]

concerning Richard Pevear and Larrisa Volokhonsky, I'm afraid I can't tell you.

[Tsuyoiko]

Dostoevsky and Tolstoi lose something essential in English. Can judge, for I'm from Russia.
Annensky said - we were tortured by Dostoevsky. And his "anguish" doesn't surge in translation.

I often wondered if that was the case. I've read most of Dostoevsky, but was most aware of his anguish in Notes from Underground. I wonder if that was down to the translator, or if this work shows his anguish more than the others?


I want to pick up a copy of "Family Happiness" but I cannot find it anywhere. I realize it is on the internet but I absolutely cannot sit at my computer and read something like that.

I would definitely recommend it. I read it in a Penguin Classics edition, bound with The Cossacks and The Death of Ivan Ilyich. It's quite short, so you might consider printing out an e-book edition. It's a particularly appropriate read for a 17-year-old I think. In this book, and in Anna Karenina, I was particularly struck by Tolstoy's ability to convincingly depict the feelings of women.

[Tyler Self]

^^If those three come in one book together I will be a happy man. I bought a penguin classic on Thoreau. It had Walden, Civil Disobedience, Life Without Principle, and many more.

[shud-shee]

in Notes from Underground D has crystallized his "philosophy of tragedy" - that's the point

[Justxxxne]

Ok i'm new to this forum so this is officially my first post :nod:

I was listening to an interview of the musician Regina Spektor and she mentioned a whole heap of famous russian writers and I jotted down all the names except one because she said it so quickly and I didn't know how to spell it either. Russian names are hard to pronounce and spell for someone who only speaks English!

SO it sounded like this: "preykoffi vichenkovski"

Has anybody out there heard of this author and knows how to spell the name correctly? I'd really love to find out who it is as I've suddenly developed an interest in Russian literature.

I would very much appreciate your help!

Thanks in advance :wave:

[mal4mac]

I recently read Tolstoy's shorter novels, which are at least as amazing as the two big books. I can't get "The Cossacks" out of my mind, and certainly don't want to! It's a wonderful dream of love & adventure.

[dfloyd]

novelists such as Tolstoy, Pushkin, Turgenev, and Pasternak etc.
When I was in my twenties, they were tough reads. But now that i'm older they are fairly easy to read. It's like many other things in life, they get easier as time goes by. I have read Doctor Zhivago twice, the first time with a paperback published right after he won the Nobel prize. The last time, I read Zhivago in a nice edition published by the Folio Society in about 2000. Of course, Pasternak is a 20th century novelist so all translations are fairly recent. It might help if you viewed the movie first, one of my favorites with Omar Sharrif (sp?), Julie Christie, Rod Steiger etc.

I don't think you can go wrong with the Constance Garnett translations of the Russian 19th century novelists. She was almost contemporary with Dostoevsky, and she lived in Russia. Modern translations might be easier for a novice to read, but you will lose much of the flavor of the author. Nice editions are avaiable in the used book market: published by the Folio Society, the Easton Press, and the Heritage Press. The Heritage and Easton Press editions are illustrated with woodcuts by Fritz Eichenberg which add considerable impact. I realize some editions are beyond the means of college students, but they can be a lifetime investment. Just this year, I purchased a two volume edition of The Brothers Karamazov in the Limitedi Edtions Club version. It was published in 1950 and I consider myself fortunate to find this copy in nearly mint condition for $250. This next time will be my third time through the Brothers.

[mal4mac]

I don't think you can go wrong with the Constance Garnett translations of the Russian 19th century novelists. She was almost contemporary with Dostoevsky, and she lived in Russia. Modern translations might be easier for a novice to read, but you will lose much of the flavor of the author.

I think Garnett is easier to read than several modern translators! There's a growing tendency to try and maintain the Riussian sentence structure, instead of translating the structure into English as well . I don't like this. If you are going to translate, why not go the whole hog!

So Garnett has been accused by "strict types" that she has "smoothed" Dostoevsky. But she has admitted this herself. Her excuse is that we would struggle otherwise. I'm not complaining. And according to Middleton Murray her BK is the greatest translation in the English language. Those needing a strictly literal translation, though, may need to look elsewhere.

Then again, I've seen literal translators slammed for mistranslating sentences that Garnett got right! So Garnett might even be the best, overall, literal translator.

I read the shorter novels of Tolstoy and War & Peace in the Maude translations. They were translating at the same time as Garnett, and Tolstoy approved their translations in glowing terms, saying that no other translators would ever be needed. I read Anna Karenina in the Garnett translation and it was pretty good. But I'd just give Maudes the nod for Tolstoy.

The Maudes liked Garnett's translations and tried to get her involved with their translations of Tolstoy. But she liked to fly solo.

[Three Sparrows]

Interesting. So you would recommend Garnett? I always heard Pevear/Volokonsky was the best. I am looking to buy Pushkin soon, and have no idea what translation is best, so everyone feel free to recommend your favorite translators into English. Sometimes I feel like I am drowning in translators, there are to many to choose from!

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Nabokov, problably the most qualified commentator on translating Russian into English, despised Garnett, as did another seminal writer of both Russian and English literature, Joseph Brodsky.

[mal4mac]

Nabokov, problably the most qualified commentator on translating Russian into English, despised Garnett, as did another seminal writer of both Russian and English literature, Joseph Brodsky.

Bloom points out how "petulant and unpleasant" Nabokov could be about the competition.

The critics in the Oxford Guide to Literature in Translation generally give Garnett a good press, and haven't succumbed to the Pevear/Volokonsky hype, for instance saying "their English translation sometimes seems distinctly odd". And, "... literalism means that the dialogue is sometimes impossibly odd "... foreignizing fidelity makes for difficult reading."

Modern translators do get some positive comments, e.g. for maintaining the humour that Garnett and Maude might lose in places.

When there are several generally admired translators, from Garnett onwards, it makes choosing a translator very difficult. I generally just take what they have in the library, or on the discount shelf.

[mal4mac]

The Oxford Guide to Literature in Translation says there are 11 translations of Eugene Onegin! Actually, that's until 1995 and so doesn't include the Wordsworth Classics translation, which looks interesting as well as inexpensive. They say the "most remarkable" is the first one by Spalding in 1881. Another example of old is best?

"The ones which preceded Nabakov by no means deserved the withering scorn which he poured upon them."

So it wasn't just Garnett he disliked then. Has anyone read a biography of Nabakov? He sounds like a nasty piece of work...

Nabakov's(1965) version has "deadly accuracy vitiated by quirky English prose with a vague iambic plod." But it gets the recommendation for literal accuracy, and detailed commentary, so that more modern translators now "never make mistakes" (!)

Oxford give the same version of a verse from three translators. I compared it to "Wordsworth Classics" and think I prefer that version. If you like user-friendly prose translations of poetic epics it's definitely worth a look. Wordsworth seem to be moving away from using old, bad translators and are now hiring good, modern translators - their Faust is also worth a look...

P.S. "The Oxford Guide..." is a must buy.

[mal4mac]

Dostoevsky and Tolstoi lose something essential in English. Can judge, for I'm from Russia.
Annensky said - we were tortured by Dostoevsky. And his "anguish" doesn't surge in translation.

I am tortured by Dostoevsky translations, at least as much as by existential texts in English (William Burroughs, "Junky", say.) Many great English critics say the same - Harold Bloom for instance.

Why would Dostoevsky and Tolstoy be considered the greatest novelists by so many English readers unless much of their essence did translate?

As you are a native Russian I would say you were least able to judge their impact in English. As you have already read them in Russian then reading them in English is bound to have much less impact than your original reading, because: 1) The translation will obviously not be as good as the original 2) Your English will not be as good as your Russian.

[five-trey]

I've read Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and I'm almost done with The Brothers Karamazov; and so far, I love Dostoevsky's work.

I was born in Eastern Europe and my first language was Bulgarian(fairly close to Russian) but I am a more fluent writer and speaker in English. So I feel very comfortable with English translations because many literal translations, which seem inelegant to a native English speaker, make perfect sense to me when I translate them. Perhaps that is why I find Dostoevsky's writing so enticing.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Bloom points out how "petulant and unpleasant" Nabokov could be about the competition

Nabokov never regarded Garnett, as 'competition' (for what exactly?, Nabokov was a writer first, and a translator second, and he never attempted to translate the same books as Garnett), I doubt that Nabokov would have even envisaged Garnett as being in any way, shape or form his literary equal, Nabokov was unconcerned by 'competition' in the proper sense of the word, he would have regarded it as a banal and glib gauge of his own and other writers literary merits, and the writers who he admired who he was coterminous with, such as Mandelstam, Bunin and Khodasevich, he praised, as he appreciated artists on their own individual level.

Nabokov was not a 'nasty piece of work'-it is completely arbitrary to judge a human being on the basis of two sentences based on his aesthetic preferences. Nabokov was a kind, sensitive, generous and gentle person, I have read several of his biographies, the main themes in his books are about human cruelty and pain. Yes Nabokov was stringent in his criticsms of other authors and translators, but that was because of his exacting aesthetic standards, and yes, a good degree of personal arrogance.

[kiki1982]

Why would Dostoevsky and Tolstoy be considered the greatest novelists by so many English readers unless much of their essence did translate?

As you are a native Russian I would say you were least able to judge their impact in English. As you have already read them in Russian then reading them in English is bound to have much less impact than your original reading, because: 1) The translation will obviously not be as good as the original 2) Your English will not be as good as your Russian.

As a native Dutch-speaker I have to disagre with this strongly. It is not totally impossible to judge on a neutral basis whether something is as good in the one language or the other.

I definitely find that English and French works lack in both Dutch and German translations. Dutch is absolutely abominable mostly (bad translators or bad language? I go for the second as I have had a go myself. Not so much vocabulary that can convey the feelings which words arouse). Characters either speak too stiffly or become too informal for their time. It is a problem. Descrptions are totally ridiculous. German is more lyrical and goes well in descriptions, but loses it as soon as people start talking in novels. Characters become too German and not English or French enough.

Dostoevsky and Tolstoy can still be deemed brilliant writers, although their works miss something in translation. If a work is brilliant, it will stay brilliant, only a little less. Gold is still gold, even if it has lost its true shine.

Now, on topic for the Russians here:

I have had the crazy idea after reading Pushkin that I will put my shoulders under the Russian language and read in Russian some day.

So far it is going well, but can you recommend authors to start with after I have gone through the obligatory newspapers, magazines and children's books? Who is easy?

[Maryana]

I can hardly imaging reading Pushkin in English or German... Some things simply can't be translated. One of the best things about Pushkin is that he sounds strangely modern, despite the fact he lived 200 years ago. And yet you feel that this was written by a person who lived in a different epoch. That's what you can see if you're a native speaker... I am:)

[blazeofglory]

I have read Russian literature massively and most of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and I feel few have written so grandiloquently the way the Russians did. They are matchless and I rate Russian is the greatest literary world

[Aravona]

I've read one book which comes under Russian literature. Russian Author at least :) The Secret History of Moscow - Ekaterina Sedia. I very much fell in love with that book, and am greatly inspired now by this thread to wade down to the deep end of the Russian literature swimming pool.

[blazeofglory]

The two Russian writers I find matchless in the history of world literature are Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and no books both in terms of philosophy and style were ever written compared with War and Peace and the Brothers Karamazov. And this is my evaluation.

[blp]

I can hardly imaging reading Pushkin in English or German... Some things simply can't be translated.

As I remember it, this was also Nabokov's view. The greatest prose stylist of all time, but no non-Russian speaker would ever understand why. Something like that.

[Mockingbird_z]

Now I got a crazy idea, having read Pushkin's "Evgeniy Onegin" in oroginal i will have a go and read it in translation. For the sake of experiment.

[byquist]

Tolstoy is special, including Resurrection.

[Babak Movahed]

It's great from Pushkin to Bulgakov. I mean Crime and Punishment is in my opinion the greatest novel of all time and it for sure will be on any top 10 greatest novels list. Dostoevsky can be called (and by many is called) the greatest writer of all time, with Tolstoy not to far behind him on that list.

[testwilliams]

This question has been killing me for hours now. Does anyone know what short story Chekhov wrote the line "and suddenly everything became clear to him" in? I've searched what seems like every quotations and other similar webpage that shows up when I search for it, but still can't find it. All I know is that apparently it's from one of Chekhov's short stories and that Raymond Carver really liked the quote, so much that he pinned it to the wall above his writing desk.

[Mr.lucifer]

I heard that russian literature is still going strong. Kolyma tales is a good example and is perhaps one of the greatest short story collections of all times,perhaps even comparable to chekhov's tales.

[Vlad Dracula]

The Russian culture and mentality is something special and unique!! Lately I had the occasion to meet it and I am really fascinating!

[blazeofglory]

The Russian Renaissance was awe-inspiring and the writers it birthed were insuperable in their creative works. Chekov for instance has always been a matchless storyteller. Dostoevsky remained an unparalleled master on novels. Tolstoy was an epical personality. Even no Americans and Europeans could equal them. They were really deep and profound in their characterization and in their delineation of human natures

[stlukesguild]

blazes... you offer nothing new... just personal opinion confused with fact. Checkoff is a matchless story-teller? Really? One might suggest any number who equal or arguably surpass him (Maupassant, Kafka, J.L. Borges, Thomas hardy, Joseph Conrad, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Ambrose Bierce, Poe, Hemingway, Dickens, Hawthorne, Boccaccio, the author/s of the 1001 Arabian Knights...). Dostoevsky is the greatest novelist? Truly? Many at LitNet might agree with you, but as JBI has pointed out many young or inexperienced readers come across Dostoevsky and Nietzsche an identify with their existentialism and confuse their admiration with aesthetic merit. This is not to suggest Dostoevsky is not a great novelist... but so was Cervantes, Victor Hugo, Flaubert, Lawrence Sterne, Dickens, Murasaki Shikibu Thomas Hardy, Zola, Balzac, Joseph Conrad, James Joyce, William Faulkner, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, etc... Indeed, one might quite easily make an argument that Tolstoy was the greatest novelist. As for Tolstoy as the author of epic personality... one might easily argue that Shakespeare, Cervantes, Lawrence Sterne, Dickens, and even Twain created characters that are just as "epic" in development... characters that virtually "live" beyond the confines of the text in which they were created.

Seriously, your adulation of the Russians strikes me as just one more aspect of your continual diatribe to the effect of "They just don't write like they used to."

[Mr.lucifer]

Besides, have you even read any of the asian traditions? I hear theres a wealth of writers that rival the masters of the west.

[tonywalt]

Name a few Asian writers. Actually they seem underepresented on this forum, maybe there are less translations.

[AJ Culpepper]

I love a lot of Russian works. "The Brothers Karamazov" and "Anna Karinina" are counted amongst my favorites.

Even though I enjoy the works of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin and Helena Roerich, I always feel that I'm missing something. I follow the stories and I "get them", don't get me wrong. But it always feels that things get left out when the works are translated from their original language (not just Russian to English but any languages). The depth and feel of them changes.

[kelby_lake]

This question has been killing me for hours now. Does anyone know what short story Chekhov wrote the line "and suddenly everything became clear to him" in? I've searched what seems like every quotations and other similar webpage that shows up when I search for it, but still can't find it. All I know is that apparently it's from one of Chekhov's short stories and that Raymond Carver really liked the quote, so much that he pinned it to the wall above his writing desk.

I recall it as well. Maybe 'The Kiss'?

[blazeofglory]

Writing indeed tarnishes the image of a book. It distorts its meaning, disparages its beauty and degrades its quality.

Just see even in their translational form Russian literature is far superior to American and British novels and stories.

I read Mark Twain, Charles Dickens and the like but Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy are far better and their fictions are of higher quality and philosophically are far ahead.

[Mr.lucifer]

I think Blazeofglory is a romanticist.

[stlukesguild]

I read Mark Twain, Charles Dickens and the like but Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy are far better and their fictions are of higher quality and philosophically are far ahead.

Romantic? There are probably other words for one who makes such blanket moronic statements. What Blazes claim comes down to is: "Based upon my reading experience, I like Russian literature the best." There is no attempt at proving how Russian stories are "far superior" to German, French, American, British or Italian writers. There is no attempt to back up the claims that Russian fiction is "far better and of a higher quality" than all the other national literature. Really? And what Russian writer surpasses Shakespeare or Dante or Homer or Firdowsi? And there is no attempt to explain just how Russian fiction is philosophically superior? Again... superior to what? prove to us where Russian literature is so profound in comparison to all other national literature, otherwise all you are doing is spouting hot air.

[Mr.lucifer]

I read Mark Twain, Charles Dickens and the like but Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy are far better and their fictions are of higher quality and philosophically are far ahead.

Romantic? There are probably other words for one who makes such blanket moronic statements. What Blazes claim comes down to is: "Based upon my reading experience, I like Russian literature the best." There is no attempt at proving how Russian stories are "far superior" to German, French, American, British or Italian writers. There is no attempt to back up the claims that Russian fiction is "far better and of a higher quality" than all the other national literature. Really? And what Russian writer surpasses Shakespeare or Dante or Homer or Firdowsi? And there is no attempt to explain just how Russian fiction is philosophically superior? Again... superior to what? prove to us where Russian literature is so profound in comparison to all other national literature, otherwise all you are doing is spouting hot air.

Well, I think we can all be certain Tolstoy would beat them all at Drag racing. After all, Homer could write like a god, but he was a wimp.

[stlukesguild]

Homer might have problems in a street fight, to say nothing of drag racing, considering his blindness. The Elizabethans, on the other hand, were a rather rowdy bunch (remember Marlowe) vs Tolstoy the pampered celibate aristocrat with illusions of becoming a prophet so I think Shakespeare could certainly hold his own ground. My money, however, would go with Dante, who survived any number of rounds of vicious political upheavals. This, after all, is not the portrait of someone to trifle with:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/5778271603_72de4f3547.jpg

[Mr.lucifer]

Homer might have problems in a street fight, to say nothing of drag racing, considering his blindness. The Elizabethans, on the other hand, were a rather rowdy bunch (remember Marlowe) vs Tolstoy the pampered celibate aristocrat with illusions of becoming a prophet so I think Shakespeare could certainly hold his own ground. My money, however, would go with Dante, who survived any number of rounds of vicious political upheavals. This, after all, is not the portrait of someone to trifle with:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/5778271603_72de4f3547.jpg

Wow, badass and great writing skills, and they say great writers are boring.

[kelby_lake]

He looks really scary :(

[blazeofglory]

Russian literature is really insuperable and it has a wonderful variety and so many forms. Tollway for example is a matchless writer in war and peace, Anna Karena, Resurrection. Chekhov has so many masterpieces. Dostoevsky's novels transports us into our inner selves and Gogol' sarcasm is superb and beyond compare. The rest of the world must learn from the Russian tradition. I always take Russian as writers my guiding stars. They are my fountainheads of inspirations.

[Alexander III]

French literature is really insuperable and it has a wonderful variety and so many forms. Flaubert for example is a matchless writer in Madame Bovary, Salammbo, Sentimental Education. Zola has so many masterpieces. Stendhal's novels transport us into our inner selves and Baudelaire's sarcasm is superb and beyond compare. The rest of the world must learn from the French tradition. I always take French writers as my guiding stars. They are my fountainheads of inspirations.



English literature is really insuperable and it has a wonderful variety and so many forms. George Eliot for example is a matchless writer in Middlemarch, Daniel Deronda, Silas Marner. Dickens has so many masterpieces. Joseph Conrad's novels transport us into our inner selves and Thackeray's sarcasm is superb and beyond compare. The rest of the world must learn from the English tradition. I always take English writers as my guiding stars. They are my fountainheads of inspirations.



Italian literature is really insuperable and it has a wonderful variety and so many forms. D'Annunzio for example is a matchless writer in The Child Of Pleasure, The Innocent, The Triumph Of Death. Verga has so many masterpieces. Manzoni's novels transport us into our inner selves and Svevo's sarcasm is superb and beyond compare. The rest of the world must learn from the Italian tradition. I always take Italian writers as my guiding stars. They are my fountainheads of inspirations.



American literature is really insuperable and it has a wonderful variety and so many forms.Whitman for example is a matchless writer in Song Of Myself, O Captain My Captain,I Saw in Louisiana a Live-Oak Growing. Emerson has so many masterpieces. Melville's novels transport us into our inner selves and Twain's sarcasm is superb and beyond compare. The rest of the world must learn from the American tradition. I always take American writers as my guiding stars. They are my fountainheads of inspirations.


There we go I fixed your statement

[Alexander III]

Homer might have problems in a street fight, to say nothing of drag racing, considering his blindness. The Elizabethans, on the other hand, were a rather rowdy bunch (remember Marlowe) vs Tolstoy the pampered celibate aristocrat with illusions of becoming a prophet so I think Shakespeare could certainly hold his own ground. My money, however, would go with Dante, who survived any number of rounds of vicious political upheavals. This, after all, is not the portrait of someone to trifle with:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/5778271603_72de4f3547.jpg

I do think you undervalue Tolstoy, in his youth he was a military officer serving in the caucasus and participating in several battles, the most significant of which was the siege of Sevastopol which was a dam harsh fight.

But I think the tittle for bad arse must go to Cervantes, his resume includes:

- Serving 6 years in the Spanish Navy Infantry

- Fought in major naval Battle against the Turks in 1571, where he received three gunshot wounds.

- Participated in military expeditions to Corfu and Navarino; and in the conquest of the capital of Tunis - La Goletta.

-On his way to Barcelona his ship was captured by Algerian pirates, and he was taken into slavery, serving five years as an algerian slave before his family was able to pay his ransom and free him from slavery. During those five years he attempted to escape four times, unsuccessfully.

- On his return to Spain he left the army and traveled the spanish empire as a tax collector. During this period he was imprisoned twice for debt.

- Towards the end of his life he settled in Madrid.


What writer can top that level of bad assery? Come to think of it his life would make an awesome movie.

[JCamilo]

The truth is that many poets of Spanish golden age were soldiers or had militar careers. Camoes too. It was somehow a trait of period.

You can include here, maybe François Villon, a not good guy, or Cicer, who obviously, fought against Caesar an Octavio (albeit he was no footman or something). Obviously, Richard Burton is a writer and since he is Indiana Jones he would defeat them all.

[G L Wilson]

I liked Gogol, what was left of him, as a young man. I read Crime and Punishment and liked the end. I loved Zamyatin's We. Not much more to tell, I am afraid.

[Fyodor]

The Russians are the best because many (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn etc) lived during totalitarian regimes who would kill you if they didn't like what you said. Thus much of their intention is cloaked within the deep, penetrating, heavy nature of their work. In this way Dostoevsky criticized the Russian institutions, including the church, while evading execution.

While I do love Bulgakov and Tolstoy, Dostoevsky is the master here. That's why I chose Fyodor as my handle. His best work, The Brother's Karamazov does not show the length and depth of this penetration, even if it is his best effort. The Possessed, or The Demons is the best illustration of what it took to say 'something' during this radical time of political and social oppression.

It is unfortunate that so many people are forced to read "Crime and Punishment" which is his worst novel. Instead try either "Notes From Underground" or "The Gambler" for an introduction to his writing.

[Kundan]

I have not read any but have heard much praise of it.

[Buffalo Girl]

The Russians are the best because many (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn etc) lived during totalitarian regimes who would kill you if they didn't like what you said. Thus much of their intention is cloaked within the deep, penetrating, heavy nature of their work. In this way Dostoevsky criticized the Russian institutions, including the church, while evading execution.

While I do love Bulgakov and Tolstoy, Dostoevsky is the master here. That's why I chose Fyodor as my handle. His best work, The Brother's Karamazov does not show the length and depth of this penetration, even if it is his best effort. The Possessed, or The Demons is the best illustration of what it took to say 'something' during this radical time of political and social oppression.

It is unfortunate that so many people are forced to read "Crime and Punishment" which is his worst novel. Instead try either "Notes From Underground" or "The Gambler" for an introduction to his writing.
I have to agree. I began Dostoevsky with Crime and Punishment and thought it was just OK, felt a little predictable in parts. But Brothers Karamazov, for me, was thorougly engaging beginning to end. And for a work of dark characters - a murder mystery, and some pretty deep philosophical inquiries, it managed a good deal of humor.

Tolstoy's War and Peace, I found to be a page turner, once you got through the first 100 or so pages and got straight with all of the characters.

[G L Wilson]

War and Peace? God, that's so Russian - it's got jackboots.

[stlukesguild]

The Russians are the best because many (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn etc) lived during totalitarian regimes who would kill you if they didn't like what you said.

What does the environment that an artist works under have to do with the merit or lack of merit of his or her work? Even were this true, many other writers lived under equally oppressive conditions and in dangerous times. Dante was banished under penalty of death from his home of Florence as the result of shifts in politics. The great majority of the artists and writers of the Italian Renaissance worked for rapacious, violent, and vengeful rulers who were not far removed from the Latin-American drug lords of today... and this doesn't even begin to deal with the Church especially at the height of the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, and the various religious wars that ripped through Europe. It is quite possible that Chaucer was a casualty of the coup which ousted Richard II and replaced him with Henry Bolingbroke and the bloodthirsty Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury and later Lord Chamberlain (Who MUrdered Chaucer? A Medieval Mystery by Terry Jones, Robert Yeager, Terry Dolan, Alan Fletcher, and Juliette Dor). Thomas Kyd was arrested for alleged libelous and heretical writings and brutally tortured before being released. He died a year later at the age of 36. Christopher Marlowe, who shared lodgings with Kyd was also summoned before the courts but died in a bar-brawl (assassination?) with known government agents. Sir Thomas More was executed on trumped up charges of high treason. Sir Walter Raleigh was also executed upon trumped up charges of treason. Any number of other writers have dealt with arrest, banishment, imprisonment, jail time, institutionalization and execution for "crimes" ranging from mental illness, treason, profanity, and obscenity to homosexuality (John Clare, Torquado Tasso, Ovid, Seneca, Oscar Wilde, Holderlin, Verlaine, Jean Genet, etc...).

Thus much of their intention is cloaked within the deep, penetrating, heavy nature of their work. In this way Dostoevsky criticized the Russian institutions, including the church, while evading execution.

The fact that a work of literature is dark, brooding, and "heavy" in no way assures us that the same work is inherently "better" or more profound than many other "lighter" or humorous books. Of course that's a prejudice common to the young and inexperienced. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are certainly great writers... but in no way are they (and their other Russian peers) clearly "better" than the strongest writers of France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, Greece, etc... to say nothing of Indian, China, Japan, Persia, and the whole of the non-Western world.

[Fyodor]

But I don't agree that you have actually said anything.





The Russians are the best because many (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn etc) lived during totalitarian regimes who would kill you if they didn't like what you said.

What does the environment that an artist works under have to do with the merit or lack of merit of his or her work? Even were this true, many other writers lived under equally oppressive conditions and in dangerous times. Dante was banished under penalty of death from his home of Florence as the result of shifts in politics. The great majority of the artists and writers of the Italian Renaissance worked for rapacious, violent, and vengeful rulers who were not far removed from the Latin-American drug lords of today... and this doesn't even begin to deal with the Church especially at the height of the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, and the various religious wars that ripped through Europe. It is quite possible that Chaucer was a casualty of the coup which ousted Richard II and replaced him with Henry Bolingbroke and the bloodthirsty Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury and later Lord Chamberlain (Who MUrdered Chaucer? A Medieval Mystery by Terry Jones, Robert Yeager, Terry Dolan, Alan Fletcher, and Juliette Dor). Thomas Kyd was arrested for alleged libelous and heretical writings and brutally tortured before being released. He died a year later at the age of 36. Christopher Marlowe, who shared lodgings with Kyd was also summoned before the courts but died in a bar-brawl (assassination?) with known government agents. Sir Thomas More was executed on trumped up charges of high treason. Sir Walter Raleigh was also executed upon trumped up charges of treason. Any number of other writers have dealt with arrest, banishment, imprisonment, jail time, institutionalization and execution for "crimes" ranging from mental illness, treason, profanity, and obscenity to homosexuality (John Clare, Torquado Tasso, Ovid, Seneca, Oscar Wilde, Holderlin, Verlaine, Jean Genet, etc...).

Thus much of their intention is cloaked within the deep, penetrating, heavy nature of their work. In this way Dostoevsky criticized the Russian institutions, including the church, while evading execution.

The fact that a work of literature is dark, brooding, and "heavy" in no way assures us that the same work is inherently "better" or more profound than many other "lighter" or humorous books. Of course that's a prejudice common to the young and inexperienced. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are certainly great writers... but in no way are they (and their other Russian peers) clearly "better" than the strongest writers of France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, Greece, etc... to say nothing of Indian, China, Japan, Persia, and the whole of the non-Western world.

[stlukesguild]

Well if you are having such difficulty grasping what I have said I'll put it in simple terms: Russian literature certainly produced a body of marvelous literature but it is in no way clearly superior to the bodies of literature produced in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, England, India, Persia, China, or any number of other nations.

[Ecurb]

Well if you are having such difficulty grasping what I have said I'll put it in simple terms: Russian literature certainly produced a body of marvelous literature but it is in no way clearly superior to the bodies of literature produced in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, England, India, Persia, China, or any number of other nations.

This is certainly untrue. In one way, at least, Russian literature is "clearly superior to the bodies of literature produced in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece..."

What is that way? The opinion of Fyodor, of course.

[stlukesguild]

Quite true. And isn't this where there is the source of debate... when one places one's personal opinion up as if it were a fact set in stone and beyond all question? There have been those of us who have equally questioned the assertion by one member that Ulysses is the single greatest book ever written.... or even that Shakespeare is clearly the single greatest writer without question.

[Fyodor]

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying. It's my contention that you are not saying anything.

[Ecurb]

I prefer the "who would win in a fight" argument. Since you're into painting, what about Carravaggio representing that art form. He was banished from Rome for killing a man in a sword fight.

Tolstoy may have been a soldier as a young man -- but wasn't he a die-hard pacifist later in life? That has to count against him. Byron (club foot and all) is still a hero in Greece for fighting the Turks (and athletic enought to swim the Hellespont, too). Hemmingway fancied himself a boxer, and FX Toole (of "Million Dollar Baby" fame) was a pro boxer.

I think we should disqualify professional athletes who (perhaps) have ghostwriting help for their books. WE have to go with people who are famous for their artistic talents (rather than banking on their athletic fame ot whip out some books). Didn't Alexandre Dumas fight some duels?

[JCamilo]

Richard Burton vs. François Villon.

[stlukesguild]

I prefer the "who would win in a fight" argument. Since you're into painting, what about Carravaggio representing that art form. He was banished from Rome for killing a man in a sword fight.

Artists in a bar fight. Hmmm... Caravaggio would surely be a contender... but those sculptors were involved in some seriously heavy labor. I imagine Michelangelo, Donatello, ad Bernini must have had arms like roofers.:lol:

[stlukesguild]

It's my contention that you are not saying anything.

Fair enough... considering my contention is that you don't know anything.:ciappa:

[mortalterror]

Fair enough... considering my contention is that you don't know anything.

As much as it pains me to agree with any statement followed by an emoticon, I have to concur with Stlukesguild on this one. Anyone who would contend that the works of Tolstoy and Dostoyevski occupy an unrivaled position in literature superior to Homer's Iliad, Virgil's Aeneid, Vyasa's Mahabharata, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, Dante's Divine Comedy, Cao Xueqin's Dream of the Red Chamber, Cervante's Don Quixote, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and Goethe's Faust is demonstrating an appalling ignorance about world literature.

[WyattGwyon]

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying. It's my contention that you are not saying anything.

Wrong. St. Luke presented a cogent argument against Russian exceptionalism with well-chosen examples. It is you who haven't said anything.

Mortalterror,

Does a pair of waggling virtual butt-cheeks qualify as an emoticon?

[JCamilo]

And if the emotions is before the statement, does it have more appeal?

:idea:Moby dick has certainly qualities that rivals any novel even written, even the without doubt, most influential of all, Don Quixote. It is as epic as Tolstoy and as deeply psychological as Dostoievisky at once.

Sounds how bad?

[Fyodor]

Start here, boyo:

I say that the Russians are the Best. Maybe this is my true opinion, maybe it's a bit hyperbole, maybe I know that it is impossible to say for a fact what is the best in terms of art, maybe I don't. I don't think it's a great crime, however, you are ready to indict me.

The Russians are the best because many (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn etc) lived during totalitarian regimes who would kill you if they didn't like what you said.

And this is your indictment? Look at the start, you ask a rhetorical question, what does environment have to do with merit? Then you say 'even if it were true...' Even if WHAT were true?
This lacks even a small amount of sense.
Then you go into a diatribe about examples in history to show how very, very smart you are. Nice job, but I can't possibly care because of the poor start.
What does the environment that an artist works under have to do with the merit or lack of merit of his or her work? Even were this true, many other writers lived under equally oppressive conditions and in dangerous times. Dante was banished under penalty of death from his home of Florence as the result of shifts in politics. The great majority of the artists and writers of the Italian Renaissance worked for rapacious, violent, and vengeful rulers who were not far removed from the Latin-American drug lords of today... and this doesn't even begin to deal with the Church especially at the height of the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, and the various religious wars that ripped through Europe. It is quite possible that Chaucer was a casualty of the coup which ousted Richard II and replaced him with Henry Bolingbroke and the bloodthirsty Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury and later Lord Chamberlain (Who MUrdered Chaucer? A Medieval Mystery by Terry Jones, Robert Yeager, Terry Dolan, Alan Fletcher, and Juliette Dor). Thomas Kyd was arrested for alleged libelous and heretical writings and brutally tortured before being released. He died a year later at the age of 36. Christopher Marlowe, who shared lodgings with Kyd was also summoned before the courts but died in a bar-brawl (assassination?) with known government agents. Sir Thomas More was executed on trumped up charges of high treason. Sir Walter Raleigh was also executed upon trumped up charges of treason. Any number of other writers have dealt with arrest, banishment, imprisonment, jail time, institutionalization and execution for "crimes" ranging from mental illness, treason, profanity, and obscenity to homosexuality (John Clare, Torquado Tasso, Ovid, Seneca, Oscar Wilde, Holderlin, Verlaine, Jean Genet, etc...).

And Now, I say that much of their intention is cloaked within the deep, penetrating, heavy nature of their work.

Thus much of their intention is cloaked within the deep, penetrating, heavy nature of their work. In this way Dostoevsky criticized the Russian institutions, including the church, while evading execution.


You seem to think I said 'dark, brooding and heavy. You only got one out of three correct and missed my point entirely.
The fact that a work of literature is dark, brooding, and "heavy" in no way assures us that the same work is inherently "better" or more profound than many other "lighter" or humorous books. Of course that's a prejudice common to the young and inexperienced. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are certainly great writers... but in no way are they (and their other Russian peers) clearly "better" than the strongest writers of France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, Greece, etc... to say nothing of Indian, China, Japan, Persia, and the whole of the non-Western world.

Thus, in your quixotic fashion you are fighting a windmill that nobody ever built. Perhaps this means you are an even greater genius than you yourself can hope. But I doubt it.

So to be fair to the rest of the nice folks on this forum, if you’re going to go around nitpicking and attempting to force your vision of superior intellect on people, please, for the love literature, at least make sense. Generally speaking.

[Ecurb]

Are "Russian literature is the best" and "Russian literature is my favorite" synonymous? It seems to me that one attempts to make a general classification, the other expresses a personal preference.

[JCamilo]

Fyodor slipped sloppery...

[Mr.lucifer]

The true greatest tradition of writers are the canadians.

[G L Wilson]

The true greatest tradition of writers are the canadians.

Canadians should stick to maple syrup and learn how to spell.

[Venerable Bede]

Canadians should stick to maple syrup and learn how to spell.

Hey I'm Canadian! But yeah, we don't really have a great canon of literature.


Fyordor, Stlukes's post makes perfect sense. You're just pissed cuz he owned you with his "superior intellect." :p

[mortalterror]

And if the emotions is before the statement, does it have more appeal?

:idea:Moby dick has certainly qualities that rivals any novel even written, even the without doubt, most influential of all, Don Quixote. It is as epic as Tolstoy and as deeply psychological as Dostoievisky at once.

Sounds how bad?

Emoticons make a writer look like an idiot who doesn't know how to use words. There is no proper way to use them which would make the user either look more intelligent, or improve his statement. The inclusion of emoticons in a message is the equivalent of juvenile netspeak such as lol or rofl. We already have a great medium for expressing ideas and feelings called "the word." This goes double on a literary forum devoted to the discussion of eloquence.

[G L Wilson]

Emoticons make a writer look like an idiot who doesn't know how to use words. There is no proper way to use them which would make the user either look more intelligent, or improve his statement. The inclusion of emoticons in a message is the equivalent of juvenile netspeak such as lol or rofl. We already have a great medium for expressing ideas and feelings called "the word." This goes double on a literary forum devoted to the discussion of eloquence.

I reckon the smilies are kinda cute.

[stlukesguild]

Emoticons make a writer look like an idiot who doesn't know how to use words. There is no proper way to use them which would make the user either look more intelligent, or improve his statement. The inclusion of emoticons in a message is the equivalent of juvenile netspeak such as lol or rofl. We already have a great medium for expressing ideas and feelings called "the word." This goes double on a literary forum devoted to the discussion of eloquence.

But remember, Mortal, I am a visual artist, so I don't underrate the image and overrate the "word" to the same extent as you... although admittedly, emoticons aren't the greatest of imagery. I'll try to dig up a good appropriate image next time just for you.

[Mr.lucifer]

Canadians should stick to maple syrup and learn how to spell.

Just for existing, the canadians are the greatest people in existence.

[mortalterror]

But remember, Mortal, I am a visual artist, so I don't underrate the image and overrate the "word" to the same extent as you... although admittedly, emoticons aren't the greatest of imagery. I'll try to dig up a good appropriate image next time just for you.

I know that. You are a special case; so I make allowances for all the pictures you throw up or the visual arts references you make. I also don't object to them to the same extent in other non-literary forums. There is nothing new about them, and in time I've grown to accept them as a regrettable part of internet culture, just as I've made peace with 1337, lolcats, Rickrolls, and multiple exclamation points. I just don't expect to encounter them in the comments of older more sophisticated posters.

[Mr.lucifer]

I know that. You are a special case; so I make allowances for all the pictures you throw up or the visual arts references you make. I also don't object to them to the same extent in other non-literary forums. There is nothing new about them, and in time I've grown to accept them as a regrettable part of internet culture, just as I've made peace with 1337, lolcats, Rickrolls, and multiple exclamation points. I just don't expect to encounter them in the comments of older more sophisticated posters.

Come on man, Rickrolls and lolcats are priceless. Encyclopedia dramatica definitely has some literary merit. Its a like a modern devil's dictionary.

[G L Wilson]

I don't like the question mark myself.

[JCamilo]

Emoticons make a writer look like an idiot who doesn't know how to use words. There is no proper way to use them which would make the user either look more intelligent, or improve his statement. The inclusion of emoticons in a message is the equivalent of juvenile netspeak such as lol or rofl. We already have a great medium for expressing ideas and feelings called "the word." This goes double on a literary forum devoted to the discussion of eloquence.

:iagree:

[Danik 2016]

Have you exausted Wikipedia in the available languages?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Mayakovsky

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Маяковский,_Владимир_Владимирович

[CharlesSwann2]

If you love literature, as I do, Russian literature--especially 19th Century novels--are among the greatest in world and close to Shakespeare in their value as literature in general. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy are, of course, the giants, with Gogol close behind. Chekhov did not write novels but his short stories (especially the later ones) and his plays are a great as anything ever written. I hate to seem snobbish, but you don't really know anything about literature until you've feasted on the Russians!

[Pompey Bum]

If you love literature, as I do, Russian literature--especially 19th Century novels--are among the greatest in world and close to Shakespeare in their value as literature in general. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy are, of course, the giants, with Gogol close behind. Chekhov did not write novels but his short stories (especially the later ones) and his plays are a great as anything ever written. I hate to seem snobbish, but you don't really know anything about literature until you've feasted on the Russians!

Welcome to the site, CharlesSwann. I am never happier than when I am reading good Russian literature although I do not pretend to be nearly well read enough in the subject. I have never read Turgenev, for example, and I have only recently started Gogol. You may be interested to join this thread about several authors (in fact, any you like), but which recently turned to Dostoyevsky, Dickens, Fielding, and Gogol (two out of four ain't bad :) ). I am frankly weak on the Russian authors, and I would appreciate any insight you could provide. Here's the thread:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?87945-Literature-Ramble

[Goodman Brown]

Ok I've read through this whole thread and nobody even mentioned Dimitry Gregorovitsh,,,,, so now I must suggest everyone look up Dimitry Gregorovitsh and procure a copy of (the Fishermen) and report back here in two weeks , ample time for the book has less than 400 ,pages, a good read is guaranteed to all,,,,,,

[Pompey Bum]

Ok I've read through this whole thread and nobody even mentioned Dimitry Gregorovitsh,,,,, so now I must suggest everyone look up Dimitry Gregorovitsh and procure a copy of (the Fishermen) and report back here in two weeks , ample time for the book has less than 400 ,pages, a good read is guaranteed to all,,,,,,

Sorry, but I'm rereading the Possessed after more than 30 years. That (and Christmas) will take up my time for a while. But thanks for reading the other thread. You should go back over there and start talking about Gregorovitsh. JCamilo is more broadly read than I am, so he probably knows all about him. But if not, you can teach us a little and we will read him when we are ready. Your comments would be welcomed in any case.

[Goodman Brown]

After reading the thread and not seeing Dimitry Gregorovitsh as a author that was being read here I decided to maybe get him some attention sort of speak but it's not really surprising because if you Google top Russian Authors he doesn't appear , still I enjoyed reading his book and maybe someone else will as well , of course at your own time and pace,,,,