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.

[osho]

Tolstoy is far greater as a writer than Dickens. Dickens never could fathom the depth Tolstoy did. Anna Karenina is for example such a book none of Dickens's novels could scale that height.

Tolstoy's ideas are revolutionary and multidimensional and broke with the traditional writing style. Dickens remained superficial and could not advance giving a philosophical flavor

[MarkBastable]

Tolstoy is far greater as a writer than Dickens. Dickens never could fathom the depth Tolstoy did. Anna Karenina is for example such a book none of Dickens's novels could scale that height.

Tolstoy's ideas are revolutionary and multidimensional and broke with the traditional writing style. Dickens remained superficial and could not advance giving a philosophical flavor

Phew. For a moment there I thought it might be debatable, and we'd have to debate it. What a relief to be told it's that clear cut.


So, Sorry, not a fan of Tolstoy. I'd rather read Gogol.

Me too. What was he was good at was - well, I was going to say tragi-comic stuff, but that's too pompous. It's more the inseparability of funny and sad - Shinyel being a good example.

Gogol did succumb, towards the end, to the idea that he ought to write something morose and acclaimable. But at least, unlike Tolstoy, he didn't start that way.

[magictrick]

I have not read all the great works by these two authors so my opinion may change. The two novels that are most fresh in mind are War and Peace for Tolstoy and Great Expectations for Dickens.

I like Tolstoy's ability to write a true epic saga where characters grow and evolve through their experiences and adventures. Dickens writes on a much smaller scale, but the story is just as interesting.

Based on just those two books I will say I liked Dickens more for now. I plan to read a lot more from these authors soon, probably Anna Karenina next.

[OrphanPip]

Comparing them is a bit misguided, they come from different periods, and though they both write novels, they are writing in completely different forms of the novel.

Dickens being one-dimensional is a silly statement. Dickens wrote some of the greatest bildungsromans ever written: Great Expectations and David Copperfield. Moreover, Dickens is not fully a realist, his novels have not left behind the tradition of stock characters, the gothic, and the picaresque of previous eras. What Dickens is better characterized as is a social realist, an author who places sort of fantastical characters in realistic positions. We don't believe anyone as moral and pure as Little Nell exists, but we do believe there are good people who get treated badly and end tragically, and that is where the real in Dickens comes out.

(Edit: Anna Karenina is one of my favourite novels though)

[Desolation]

I've never read Dickens, so I can't really say who I like better with authority.

However, I can say that I've never felt even the slightest inclination to read a Dickens novel. Someday I'll have to get around to him, but I'm going to take my time on that one. Maybe I'll like him when I do pick up one of his novels, or maybe I won't. It's hard to say.

Leo casts a long shadow, though. I doubt there are more than a handful of novelists that can compare to him.

[Mr.lucifer]

I'd rather choose who I would like to get high with. The winner would be my good man dickens.

[mal4mac]

I think you'd get high just being with Dickens. I'd like to have been part of the support crew that went on tour with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8LP0yM3UL4

Desolation - how did you develop an inclination not to read a Dickens novel? Don't let bad adaptations and "over familiarity" put you off. Things get a whole lot better when you go to the source.

[osho]

Dickens is interesting no doubt and I remember how his Hard Realities captivated my mind. There is something magic about his writings and he had touched on the innermost human sentiments and the realties, particularly of the poverty of his days with a nuance of his creative faculty and aptitude. I have cried when I read his novels and his masterful presentation is magical and few could match his style and word power. With that said, however I want to assert that Tolstoy reached a different and a little higher apex and he had peaked a higher dimensional altitude. Art-wise, of course range-wise Tolstoy scaled much higher. There was a variety and he had evolutionary phases. He grew with multidimensionality. Dickens grew but he got mainly stuck with his peripheral realities. If you are an independent critic you will not tire of appraising Tolstoy's works keeping him on a higher plane.

[Mr.lucifer]

Really, it depends on who moved you more.

[osho]

Different writers move different readers differently and this judgement is therefore flawed when you try to judge someone based on your liking and disliking.

Dickens of course moves me and emotionally touches my inner heart when I read his novels. However given something that can rise beyond these personal attributes Tolstoy is a greater writer.

[Mr.lucifer]

Who moves you more?

[osho]

Tolstoy moves me emotionally, philosophically addressing and arriving at some solutions. He has a variety to give and he is more read in philosophies and his personality is reflective of his expression and he lived the way he wrote. He is matchless on several counts

[ellenc]

i LIKE both, but I much prefer Anna K to War & Peace, tho I did get weary of Anna by the end.

[mal4mac]

Tolstoy's final solution, an explicit avowal of the centrality of Christ's teachings, was already present in Dickens from the start:

"With a deep sense of my great responsibility always upon me when I exercise my art, one of my most constant and most earnest endeavours has been to exhibit in all my good people some faint reflections of our great Master, and unostentatiously to lead the reader up to those teachings as the great source of all moral goodness. All my strongest illustrations are drawn from the New Testament; all my social abuses are shown as departures from its spirit; all my good people are humble, charitable, faithful, and forgiving."

Unlike Dickens, Tolstoy became an extreme evangelist, while Dickens was as far from being an evangelist as a Christian could get! Unfortunately for Tolstoy, his evangelism destroyed him as a novelist, while Dickens faith seemed to help him, or at least not hinder him, giving him an essential moral core that any humanist could agree with, but no tendency to sermonise. His lack of any ostentatious religiosity makes Dickens a continually attractive figure to everyone, even atheists. This is not true of Tolstoy after Anna K.

[osho]

I agree Tolstoy was a Christian and sounded evangelistic in his writings. But the kind of evangelism he advocated is not supercilious and hollow. His humanism is universal. Tolstoy was a diehard critic of the doctrine of Christian churches. His avowal of the centrality of Christ’s teachings was not faulty. War and Peace or Anna Karenna got higher ratings internationally and Dickens stood nowhere close to Tolstoy in writings

[MarkBastable]

I agree Tolstoy was a Christian and sounded evangelistic in his writings. But the kind of evangelism he advocated is not supercilious and hollow. His humanism is universal. Tolstoy was a diehard critic of the doctrine of Christian churches. His avowal of the centrality of Christ’s teachings was not faulty. War and Peace or Anna Karenna got higher ratings internationally and Dickens stood nowhere close to Tolstoy in writings

Okay, pal. You've made your point. You prefer Tolstoy to Dickens. When you started the thread you said, "Tolstoy was far ahead of him <Dickens>." And that's still your position. We get it.

Some people agree with you.

Others prefer Dickens to Tolstoy.

Can we move to another heads-up, knock-down, toe-to-toe literary slugfest now? Something just as germane, perhaps. I'd suggest, Who do you like more - Joyce or Solzhenitsyn?

[cafolini]

Chekov in his clarity and accuracy and simplicity has ten times more to say about Russia than Tolstoy. Gogol is far better than Tolstoy, not to speak of Dostoevsky.

[cafolini]

Solzhenitsyn is a good revelation of a few aspects of Stalinism. But James Joyce is one of the first truly successful postmodern writers. What amazes me about this thread is its insistence on comparing writers that are in completely different circumstances and so far from each other in themes. Dickens vs Tolstoy? Ridiculous, whether you like one more than the other.

[Arrowni]

Tolstoy's final solution, an explicit avowal of the centrality of Christ's teachings, was already present in Dickens from the start:

"With a deep sense of my great responsibility always upon me when I exercise my art, one of my most constant and most earnest endeavours has been to exhibit in all my good people some faint reflections of our great Master, and unostentatiously to lead the reader up to those teachings as the great source of all moral goodness. All my strongest illustrations are drawn from the New Testament; all my social abuses are shown as departures from its spirit; all my good people are humble, charitable, faithful, and forgiving."

Unlike Dickens, Tolstoy became an extreme evangelist, while Dickens was as far from being an evangelist as a Christian could get! Unfortunately for Tolstoy, his evangelism destroyed him as a novelist, while Dickens faith seemed to help him, or at least not hinder him, giving him an essential moral core that any humanist could agree with, but no tendency to sermonise. His lack of any ostentatious religiosity makes Dickens a continually attractive figure to everyone, even atheists. This is not true of Tolstoy after Anna K.


Tolstoy had bad books before hitting his extreme christianity though.

[osho]

I am making a comparison considering their craftsmanship as storytellers. Even considering their short stories Tolstoy proved higher as a writer. Dickens is also moving but when you take some factors that make literature high-rated it is always Tolstoy. I have read Tolstoy's books in translation and even in that Tolstoy sounded better. Some critics considered his War and Peace the greatest novel ever written in the world of novels.

It is very difficult to keep the original in a translation and though translated Tolstoy' works remain imp-regnant with passion and substance. I am not from a Russian speaking community or English and my judgement is independent of both influence.

[MarkBastable]

Or possibly JRRTolkien vs Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

[cafolini]

Why not Robin Williams and Lawrence Olivier? I love this threadosaurus a la Freud. A philogenetic fantasy discovered in an old trunk by Dracula and full of sexy images of Jocasta, a fetus with the whole history of involution, and the interpretation of a dream of Electraified Jung.

[MarkBastable]

Why not Robin Williams and Lawrence Olivier?

I was going to head towards Kermit and Sir Ian McKellen, but I think I prefer yours.

[osho]

It is really funny or revealing with so many juxtaposing ideas. You can compare anything. In the world of literature anything is relative. I do not think the comparison I did between these two giants is not immaterial.

[cafolini]

It is really funny or revealing with so many juxtaposing ideas. You can compare anything. In the world of literature anything is relative. I do not think the comparison I did between these two giants is not immaterial.

Relative to what? That's precisely the problem. "Anything is relative," cannot be specified. It's like the saying of an angel that has forgotten that his wings do not work in airless space.

[blazeofglory]

Relative to what? That's precisely the problem. "Anything is relative," cannot be specified. It's like the saying of an angel that has forgotten that his wings do not work in airless space.

That is why you keep on making comparisons. Isn't it relative as Osho pointed up? Making one writer relative to another comparatively.

[TheChilly]

Tolstoy.

The end.

[mal4mac]

I am making a comparison considering their craftsmanship as storytellers. Even considering their short stories Tolstoy proved higher as a writer. Dickens is also moving but when you take some factors that make literature high-rated it is always Tolstoy. I have read Tolstoy's books in translation and even in that Tolstoy sounded better. Some critics considered his War and Peace the greatest novel ever written in the world of novels.

It is very difficult to keep the original in a translation and though translated Tolstoy' works remain imp-regnant with passion and substance. I am not from a Russian speaking community or English and my judgement is independent of both influence.

In what way is Tolstoy higher as a writer? What do you mean by 'higher'?

Both authors have their supporters amongst the major critics and the general reading public. War & Peace does often get picked as top novel, but then so does 'Bleak House' - it's Bloom's choice as 'canonical novel' in his "Western Canon' - along with George Eliot's Middlemarch.

English is my first language, and I can only read Tolstoy in translation. Dickens' English certainly 'sounds better' to me than that of Tolstoy's translators. So perhaps my leaning towards Dickens is because I can't read Tolstoy in the original.

Guess I'll just continue reading both...

The End?

[The Comedian]

I could never really get into either one of these writers, honestly. I suffered through the endless tedium Anna Karenina several years ago. Then I made yet another attempt to get through a Dickens novel without giving it up for something more palatable, but I failed. I got about 150 pages into A Tale of Two Cities before I put it in the "not worth it" stack. Something about Dickens' characters: I just can't believe them. They seem like hackneyed puppets to me, not flesh and blood people.

[mal4mac]

I could never really get into either one of these writers, honestly. I suffered through the endless tedium Anna Karenina several years ago. Then I made yet another attempt to get through a Dickens novel without giving it up for something more palatable, but I failed. I got about 150 pages into A Tale of Two Cities before I put it in the "not worth it" stack. Something about Dickens' characters: I just can't believe them. They seem like hackneyed puppets to me, not flesh and blood people.

Why not try War & Peace? There's a lot "War" so it's pretty exciting! Just skip the historical asides, towards the end of the novel, if you find tedium encroaching... though I quite liked them...

Alternatively, try his short novels they move along very quickly - "The Cossacks" is *really* exciting.

To me, Dickens characters *are* flesh and blood characters who often occupy a world of fairy tale magic. Many writers and critics have commented on this aspect of Dickens, and surely it is part of his popular appeal.

For me, "A Tale of Two Cities" is his worst novel. It's the only one not on my re-read list. No magic. He's dealing with big ideas, and the opening paragraphs are superb, but the characters are weak, and not very memorable. Why not try "Oliver Twist", or "Great Expectations" (or any others!) before dismissing this Great Author...

[cafolini]

That is why you keep on making comparisons. Isn't it relative as Osho pointed up? Making one writer relative to another comparatively.

I think you didn't get it. I don't buy the blank idea that anything is relative. Relative to what, I ask. Milk is relative to cow or goat or sheep, the grasslands, the inches of rain, etc., etc., etc. "Anything" is vertical. Would you want me to start with a cup of coffee and related to the plasma at the center of the earth? What's meaningful. Anything and nothing are two sides of the same coin that wasn't there.

[Mr.lucifer]

Sometimes, a great writer doesn't click with you no matter how much you try them.

[OrphanPip]

The Dickens novel for those who don't generally like Dickens is Hard Times, the novel is short, but retains a lot of Dickens flare for character. The novel has generally been popular with critics that don't usually like Dickens.

[Isla]

Couldn't agree with you more OrphanPip-- on your first observation on the writing differences between Dickens and Tolstoy and the very different literary movements from which they emerged; you are spot on! Though what I've always especially appreciated about both Dickens and Tolstoy was their social commentary of the injustices which each author had witnessed in their time; they are obviously both brilliant tale-spinners.

More recently, I've marveled at magical intonations Dicken's weaved into "Little Dorrit," and "Bleak House," which I humbly believe are some of his best works.

[hampusforev]

I like Dickens, but haven't read enough of his work, only David Copperfield. So far Tolstoy is miles ahead imho

[osho]

There has been too many arguments and yet everybody here seems swayed recklessly and futilely. Both have attained heights no doubt in different lands and circumstances. I have read Resurrection, Anna Karenina, so many stories and essays, though never completed one of his masterpieces - war and peace. I like him beyond words and he emerged colossally and has earned great commendations from the world critics. However he swerved, deviated to defy some of his readers who always wanted true arts from him not his philosophic or evangelic maxims. He lost his charm and his critics has been sour on him.

These few deviants aside, he stands as a giant in literati unquestionably.

Dickens, my childhood favorite and I cried when I read David Copperfield, who though incapable of making breakthroughs has impressed his readers with bunches of magically written novels. I am really find him matchless considering his style and the manner in which he can absorb, though ephemerally.

[ellenc]

I have been re-reading Little Dorrit and have been fascinated by the Merdle episode, Mr Merdle supplying the money for his greedy family, and they were not interested in how he came by it, but they delighted in spending it - I think the same kind of people are with us today, so Dickens is up-to-date.
Tolstoy changed so much in the end and was not satisfied with his work

[osho]

Tolstoy have variety and many dimensions in his works of art and he has many points of view; he knew the politics of the day better. He was a philosopher and thinker. You cannot say the same thing about Dickens. He was not a thinker and educationist the way Tolstoy was.
Tolstoy had multidisciplinary subjects and he in the beginning of his writing careers came up with many bests like War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Resurrection and wonderful stories. Towards the end of his life he changed his philosophy of life and he argued that art is not for the sake of art alone. Art has to give something to society and he stuck with that philosophy.

Overall Tolstoy remained invincible as an artist. Never ever even in any critics's opinions or rankings he stood next to Dickens.

[mal4mac]

Overall Tolstoy remained invincible as an artist. Never ever even in any critics's opinions or rankings he stood next to Dickens.

That's wrong. For instance, Harold Bloom, The Western Canon: "No nineteenth-century novelist, not even Tolstoy, was stronger than Dickens..."

[MarkBastable]

Overall Tolstoy remained invincible as an artist.Never ever even in any critics's opinions or rankings he stood next to Dickens.

What? That's simply not true. I mean, there are parts of your argument that are opinion, which is fair enough, but the bits that cite facts ought at least to be accurate.

[osho]

What? That's simply not true. I mean, there are parts of your argument that are opinion, which is fair enough, but the bits that cite facts ought at least to be accurate.

Mark, you cannot expect accuracy in such ideas. I do not claim there is accuracy in my posts. I just write for discussion and I did not expect I would get positive responses.

However based on some assessment I find Tolstoy a bit higher.

[MarkBastable]

Mark, you cannot expect accuracy in such ideas.

I do expect accuracy in facts. And it's not just me - it's three thousand years of philosophical and critical dialogue.

If you make definitive statements like this...

Never ever even in any critics's opinions or rankings he stood next to Dickens

...someone here - almost everyone here - is going to ask whether that's true. If it's not, your entire argument - the subjective bits and the objective bits - are undermined.

So, I'm offering this advice. If I were you, I wouldn't make statements that will be read as objective facts unless you're pretty sure you can back them up. Because - believe me - everyone does expect accuracy when it comes to statements of verifiable fact.

[Vonny]

I do expect accuracy in facts. And it's not just me - it's three thousand years of philosophical and critical dialogue.

If you make definitive statements like this...

Never ever even in any critics's opinions or rankings he stood next to Dickens

...someone here - almost everyone here - is going to ask whether that's true. If it's not, your entire argument - the subjective bits and the objective bits - are undermined.

So, I'm offering this advice. If I were you, I wouldn't make statements that will be read as objective facts unless you're pretty sure you can back them up. Because - believe me - everyone does expect accuracy when it comes to statements of verifiable fact.

Is osho breaking the rules, Mark?

[cafolini]

Is osho breaking the rules, Mark?

Vonny. You have very humorous questions.

[MarkBastable]

Is osho breaking the rules, Mark?

Not as far as I know. Why do you ask?

[Vonny]

Not as far as I know. Why do you ask?

I've enjoyed osho's threads, and on this one learned about Dickens and Tolstoy.

[MarkBastable]

I've enjoyed osho's threads, and on this one learned about Dickens and Tolstoy.

Oh. Good.

[Griffith]

Dickens is a beggar compared with Tolstoy.

[cafolini]

Fruit now comes in every happy meal.

[osho]

I do not exactly claim my understanding of these two giants is absolute and final There is nothing final I want to say out of humility. Both of these literary giants rose to colossal heights and I always enjoyed Tolstoy and found at him a source, a spring of inspiration.

Having that said I do not want to dethrone Dickens and I cried and cried when I read several of his books and his writing skills, use of words have remained unsurpassed. I cannot think today's world of novels without these two huge literary figures.

All these euphoric comments aside for both I sill lean toward Tolstoy whose life and creation have been one whole. I repeat - for philosophy, for variety, for direction I worship Tolstoy

[Arrowni]

That's wrong. For instance, Harold Bloom, The Western Canon: "No nineteenth-century novelist, not even Tolstoy, was stronger than Dickens..."


He just slightly overrates a certain kind of text. Tends to happen when you try to limit what great literature is meant to be.

[PoeticPassions]

Subjectively (of course) and with regard to my own taste, I like Tolstoy more, because I enjoyed some of his novels more than I did that of Dickens. (though I admit I have not yet read War and Peace)

But I also like some of Dickens. Some of his characters are just so brilliant I just think, for me, that they are two quite different authors with different styles of writing and coming from two different socio-political situations at the time. They had different purposes in writing.

Tolstoy himself considered Dickens as one of the greatest novelists of the time; but many of Tolstoy's contemporaries and those that came after consider him one of the greatest novelists of all time.

The debate is open, but it really doesn't matter much. They both have their contributions and value. But Tolstoy had a knack for really analyzing the human mind and soul. :)

[osho]

Tolstoy had a knack for really analyzing the human mind and soul. :)

That is exactly what made me choose Tolstoy. I never said Dickens is uninteresting. In a literary world we will have to make an analogy and certain attributes like an analyzing mind and philosophical touch got me to choose Tolstoy to rank a little higher. Or else I equally enjoy Dickens. It is not only we seek enjoyment in a piece of art. It must appeal to our philosophical and artistic taste.

[mal4mac]

He [Harold Bloom] just slightly overrates a certain kind of text. Tends to happen when you try to limit what great literature is meant to be.

*You* say Bloom overrates a certain kind of text. But who are you to say that? Prove it :)

In any case, this is beside the point. Osho said that *no* critic suggested that Dickens stood beside Tolstoy. Bloom's book was nearest to hand so I just pulled out a quote to show that osho was wrong... simply *factually* wrong... As Mark pointed out, osho needs to get his facts straight.

If you don't get your facts straight you end up worshipping the Bhagwan and paying for his Rolls Royces...

[osho]

I am very happy at the fact that this thread has been carried over to this extent with so many comments. I do not think I am overly critical of them though I am somewhat.

We live with our narrow sentiments, preoccupations and some English speaking communities and particularly from England are much leaning to Dickens with their Geo-sentimental leaning. I do not care since I do not come from both - the Russian speaking land nor from an English speaking community. I for that reason have no leaning, no partiality or no narrow geo or national sentiment and that is why I am coming up with my independent thinking.

That is why my basis has been unpreoccupied.

[blazeofglory]

I am really thrilled to read so many arguments centering around the world's best novelists. I in fact cannot say who is the greater as a novelist. Dickens is a masterful novelist and he has the art of telling stories few can rival. I do not think even Tolstoy has scaled the height he did. He has a magical style and wonderful amalgamations of words and sentence structures speaking stylistically of course. With that said however and as an independent thinker and observer I side with Osho to give Tolstoy a little more credit. Tolstoy in addition to being a great artist was a humanitarian also and that is why on that ground he merited a little higher stature.

[osho]

blaze, you seem to be a very studious man and I can say it from the way you have responded to my writing.

I do not want you to support or oppose my argument and I do not want to say you are right just because you supported my ideas and I am an Independent thinker and I am sharing my thoughts with all.

I am learning more from those who opposed my ideas and proved me wrong than those who simply supported my line of thought.

With that said however I hope you do not feel neglected.

I honor your intellectual elevation and also appreciate your study of Tolstoy and Dickens.

Judging writers of that height is no easy job from the bottom at which we readers live. Anyway this is a luxury to talk about them, let alone understand them fully.

[blazeofglory]

Osho, you misunderstood me. First, thank you for your appreciable words.

You have said I have supported you, nah, I never did. All I did was I made my message clear. And all I put across through my post is my understanding of these two colossal figures.

I always reserve comments and unnecessary judgments. I am not as intellectual as you are. You seem to outsmart me through your erudite aptitudes, Osho. While I always love reading your posts and write a few independent comments and nothing to do with siding with anyone.

[osho]

Blaze of Glory do not feel humiliated and I never meant so since this is an open discussion forum and our discussion is limited to the subject we are in not beyond that.

Let us draw a line between the points. And do not take it wrongly

[blazeofglory]

Blaze of Glory do not feel humiliated and I never meant so since this is an open discussion forum and our discussion is limited to the subject we are in not beyond that.

Let us draw a line between the points. And do not take it wrongly

I am here on this forum much earlier than you and can understand the significance of this forum. What I do understand is you at times get swayed to disenchant who do not support your ideas.

[Vonny]

Osho, you misunderstood me. First, thank you for your appreciable words.

You have said I have supported you, nah, I never did. All I did was I made my message clear. And all I put across through my post is my understanding of these two colossal figures.

I always reserve comments and unnecessary judgments. I am not as intellectual as you are. You seem to outsmart me through your erudite aptitudes, Osho. While I always love reading your posts and write a few independent comments and nothing to do with siding with anyone.


This is me as well. I don't want to side with anyone.

It's just that we all come from different backgrounds and cultures and may have flaws in our communication, especially when we first begin posting on a world-wide forum. Some people are jerks, but others don't realize what they are doing. I like this thread that osho started and have learned from the many contributors here. My only issue is I hate to see the hounds go after anyone, especially with Mark's avatar which can be intimidating. I think it should be gently suggested that we'd appreciate if he'd get his facts straight, or if he's too pompous, or whatever, and then give him a chance to breathe and figure out how to adjust. Beyond that it's up to the mods.

[osho]

I did not say Blaze you did not support me. You did and you are one of my favorite friends. This misunderstanding has not substance and is therefore insignificant. Sometimes our words or language is too poor to carry our real message. I apologize for all this.

[blazeofglory]

Osho, no need for apology. We are friends despite this and will continue to be so.

[osho]

Thank you Blaze. Keep on commenting me and I always like that

[Vonny]

Thank you Blaze. Keep on commenting me and I always like that

I think that osho is friendly and will adjust himself, given a bit of time and understanding. He's from a different culture than many of us, and the languages don't translate exactly.

I started a sentence on another thread with the words "I know," and I don't know at all... it was my way of speaking to people in my life who know very well that I don't know anything.

Edit: As I read over osho on this thread, I honestly can't see why this person is being criticized. If he prefers Tolstoy to Dickens isn't that what this forum is about? I really don't understand. I am fully confused.

If osho likes public nudity and I don't, so what? He doesn't need to prove why nudity is better than being clothed.

I'm fully confused.

[MarkBastable]

I think that osho is friendly and will adjust himself, given a bit of time and understanding. He's from a different culture than many of us, and the languages don't translate exactly.

True.


As I read over osho on this thread, I honestly can't see why this person is being criticized. If he prefers Tolstoy to Dickens isn't that what this forum is about? I really don't understand. I am fully confused.


No one's saying that he shouldn't prefer Tolstoy to Dickens. At no point has anyone said that, as far as I can see. If you think that's what's being said, you are indeed fully confused.

[prendrelemick]

To be fair Osho is factually correct. Dickens never did stand next to Tolstoy.

[MarkBastable]

To be fair Osho is factually correct. Dickens never did stand next to Tolstoy.

Oh, great. Now you've done it.

[Vonny]

Tolstoy have variety and many dimensions in his works of art and he has many points of view; he knew the politics of the day better. He was a philosopher and thinker. You cannot say the same thing about Dickens. He was not a thinker and educationist the way Tolstoy was.
Tolstoy had multidisciplinary subjects and he in the beginning of his writing careers came up with many bests like War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Resurrection and wonderful stories. Towards the end of his life he changed his philosophy of life and he argued that art is not for the sake of art alone. Art has to give something to society and he stuck with that philosophy.

Overall Tolstoy remained invincible as an artist. Never ever even in any critics's opinions or rankings he stood next to Dickens.

I see value in osho's posts. To criticize the above bolded statement is petty.

We understand (or we should understand) that when something is Never, ever, that that is just a writing style, because nothing is as definitive as that. However, it's fine to point out to a person that there is a flaw in his communication, and how they can adjust to to avoid misunderstandings. (Also remember that you could be mistaken and perceiving a flaw where there is none. But if several people see a problem, then there's a good chance that it exists, unless you are a person of stature who is influencing the others.) Then give that person a chance to breathe, because it takes a little while to see what your doing and to make adjustments.

I don't get the criticism of osho in comparing these two writers. If someone compares coffee and the center of the earth, what's wrong with it if we learn something about both?


When I was in school I used to begin every sentence in my essays with the words "I think." I received criticism on my paper in red ink which said, "Don't begin every sentence with 'I think' because it's tedious. If you are writing it, then everything you write is what you think unless you specifically state that it's what someone else thinks." For this reason, I dropped a lot of the "I think" from my writing. Sometimes there are reasons for a person's habits.


It seems to me (and I want to emphasize the preface to this sentence because it's my opinion) that once one person who is of stature in a community, finds a flaw in a person, they become like a fish in a fishbowl that has a little cut on it, and every fish will pick at it until it's dead. In a tight-knit community, once a fish is the object of being picked to death, other people are reluctant to step forward and say, "Why is that fish getting picked at?" because they don't want to also be frozen out of the community.


For the record, I love Dickens. A Christmas Carol is one of my favorite stories. I love Dickens flaky characters, and his happy themes. I love David Lean's Great Expectations. I haven't read a lot of Dickens, and I haven't read Tolstoy at all. I want to read both. After this thread I'll know not to get upset at myself if I find some of Dickens writing inaccessible to me.

If osho thinks differently from most people then it stirs debate, and what's wrong with that? I see osho over and over again trying to explain himself and trying to get people off his back, and I haven't seen him be offensive or overbearing, so it's true that I don't understand and I wish I did.


This is a wonderful forum, the one I always craved as a writer. I am quite new to you all and yet I am sure I will be used to or get familiar with you in a while. I went through a bunch of articles as a guest for a few days and finally decided that this is the type that can fascinate me.

My subjects of interest range high, and however literature is my cup of tea. I want to connect to all and if anybody wants to make friends with me can PM me and I will be excited about reading your message, your thoughts publicly and privately.

I may sound a bit more ambitious at the start only yet the topics I have come upon are very absorbing and I feel have lots of things to share with and learn from the brilliant people writing on this forum.

I am really elated to talk with you all

This was osho's very first post on this forum, which no one responded to. I can't help but like him. I think he is intelligent and he is a valuable member of the forum. In fact, I see him making a better contribution than many who criticize him.

[MarkBastable]

I see him making a better contribution than many who criticize him.

Fair enough. What do you mean by 'better'?

[Vonny]

Fair enough. What do you mean by 'better'?

Well, he began this thread and I learned a lot from different people: osho, Pip, Neely and others. Also osho's thread, "How do you love if there's no love in your life" was interesting.

He thinks about the different philosophical subjects and doesn't go around simply policing the forum and intimidating people with a scary avatar.

[cafolini]

Well, he began this thread and I learned a lot from different people: osho, Pip, Neely and others. Also osho's thread, "How do you love if there's no love in your life" was interesting.

He thinks about the different philosophical subjects and doesn't go around simply policing the forum and intimidating people with a scary avatar.

Fair, Vonny. Osho stands on his own two feet and motivates individual thought.

[Vonny]

Fair, Vonny. Osho stands on his own two feet and motivates individual thought.

Thank you.

He's also humble. He spells his name with a lower case "o." When he gets an avatar it will probably more resemble Blaze's spirit, which I love.

[MarkBastable]

We

He thinks about the different philosophical subjects and doesn't go around simply policing the forum and intimidating people with a scary avatar.

I think we all know you're talking about Scheherezade. She is a bit of a bossy-boots. Though I'm not sure what you find scary about her avatar.

[Vonny]

I think we all know you're talking about Scheherezade. She is a bit of a bossy-boots. Though I'm not sure what you find scary about her avatar.

No not Scher. I discovered that Scher is kinder in PMs than she is on the forum.

[MarkBastable]

No not Scher. I discovered that Scher is kinder in PMs than she is on the forum.

Really? She scares the living daylights out of me.

But anyway, if not her - who?

[Vonny]

Really? She scares the living daylights out of me.

But anyway, if not her - who?

In my opinion, you take the prize for scariest avatar, Mark. And we're ruining this thread with this!

[MarkBastable]

In my opinion, you take the prize for scariest avatar, Mark.

Thank you - but I'd be more flattered if you weren't so easily frightened.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not discuss each other (particularly not me!) but the topic at hand.

Further off-topic posts will be removed.

The OP:
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

Vonny > I'd appreciate it you did not spread rumours about me being kind.

[ellenc]

I have just been given Martin Chuzzlewit ! Has anybody read it, any thoughts on it?

it looks a very solid piece of work, probably take me a year to read!

[Arrowni]

*In any case, this is beside the point. Osho said that *no* critic suggested that Dickens stood beside Tolstoy. Bloom's book was nearest to hand so I just pulled out a quote to show that osho was wrong... simply *factually* wrong... As Mark pointed out, osho needs to get his facts straight.

If you don't get your facts straight you end up worshipping the Bhagwan and paying for his Rolls Royces...


I was just adding a comment to your post, not siding against anyone or anything in that argument.

So your post is besides the point :brow:



*You* say Bloom overrates a certain kind of text. But who are you to say that? Prove it :)


Geez, I was kind of hoping we could have a nice discussion without someone asking for my credentials. Is it my fault that you don't know my work and my legacy or is it yours? :)

To answer your question, Bloom states this himself: "It’s impossible to overstate Shakespeare’s genius.", no matter what Shakespeare is, that's overrating.

[PoeticPassions]

To steer us back on topic... pretty good article on the subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2007/dec/05/tolstoyanddickenswhodwini

:)

I still vote for Tolstoy... Aside from his literary talents I noted already, he was also an inspiration to Gandhi as well as other proponents of nonviolence and civil resistance.

But Dickens leaves us with, perhaps, more memorable characters.

[Arrowni]

Not surprised, given Bloom's focus on characterization :p

[mal4mac]

Never ever even in any critics's opinions or rankings he stood next to Dickens.

I see value in osho's posts. To criticize the above bolded statement is petty.



I took him to be saying "All critics say Tolstoy is greater than Dickens." I was simply pointing out an error of fact, in what *I* saw as an error of fact. To say I *should* have read it in another way is simply language fascism - I read it in the way I read it. Full stop.

It *might* have been a flaw in communication, but I thought it was an error of fact. This can easily be cleared up by osho saying, that he agrees that some leading critics count Dickens as 'standing next to Tolstoy', and that his post was a miscommunication

Instead, he chooses to attack the credentials of critics. For instance, he accuses Bloom of having a bias against writers who don't speak his first language, English. An accusation that has little in its defence - Bloom heaps praise on French writers like Proust and Montaigne, German writers like Goethe, etc, etc.

I consider myself to stand beside everyone in this forum, everyone has the same stature - St Luke, Osho, even Mark :) ... This allows me to speak plainly and not bend over bakcwards to nurture 'poor littlo osho', 'cause osho is equal in stature to me!

I didn't see a flaw in a Osho, just a mistake in his factual understanding. I wish everyone would point out the flaws in my factual understaning - quickly and bluntly - then I might learn something!

[mal4mac]

He thinks about the different philosophical subjects and doesn't go around simply policing the forum and intimidating people with a scary avatar.

In what way does Mark go around 'policing the forum'? How can anyone be intimidated by an avatar, however much face paint is used?

[prendrelemick]

I have just been given Martin Chuzzlewit ! Has anybody read it, any thoughts on it?

it looks a very solid piece of work, probably take me a year to read!


Give it back - or to someone else.

[The Comedian]

Give it back - or to someone else.

:lol:

[Arrowni]

Instead, he chooses to attack the credentials of critics. For instance, he accuses Bloom of having a bias against writers who don't speak his first language, English. An accusation that has little in its defence - Bloom heaps praise on French writers like Proust and Montaigne, German writers like Goethe, etc, etc.


I don't think Bloom is biased against non-english speakers per se and I agree that attacking the credentials of the critics is null and void -if you need to attack the credentials of your critics is probably because the argument is defensible and the critic is doing his job-; but respecting Proust and Montaigne is not a proof of not being biased, is a prove of knowing how to read :)

[Vonny]

I wish everyone would point out the flaws in my factual understaning - quickly and bluntly - then I might learn something!

We're to stop discussing each other and to get back to the thread topic. Why should other members fret about conforming to your expectations when you ignore what Scher asked of you?

[mal4mac]

I have just been given Martin Chuzzlewit ! Has anybody read it, any thoughts on it?

it looks a very solid piece of work, probably take me a year to read!

I read it and liked it - it's on my re-read list. It's an easy read, it shouldn't take you a year, unless you try and figure out the plot :) It may be his most hilarious, free-witted and inventive novel, so just go with the flow, don't worry about the plot too much, and enjoy the crazy characters. If you haven't read anything else by Dickens I'd be a bit wary of starting here, but, hey, it's a freebie so give it a shot! It has the reputation of starting badly, so give it some time - it gets really funny about chapters 8 or 9.

[Vonny]

I read it and liked it - it's on my re-read list. It's an easy read, it shouldn't take you a year, unless you try and figure out the plot :) It may be his most hilarious, free-witted and inventive novel, so just go with the flow, don't worry about the plot too much, and enjoy the crazy characters. If you haven't read anything else by Dickens I'd be a bit wary of starting here, but, hey, it's a freebie so give it a shot! It has the reputation of starting badly, so give it some time - it gets really funny about chapters 8 or 9.

It's good to know to give it time. Reading Dickens is a goal of mine. I love his crazy characters, even if they are superficial. Although his stories deal with poverty, they are very funny. I do also want to read Tolstoy, but there's something about Anna throwing herself under a train that makes me wonder if I can identify with that story.

[osho]

It is really nice we have discussed so much about both of these writers and we have gone very far. I always wanted to have a fair and unbiased review on this topic. I often feel that Russian literature has been starting off with Gogol then Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and finally Chekhov and Gorky birthed extraordinary writers. Dostoevsky and Chekhov rose to a position few others did.

We read Dickens and other English writers in their originals and the Russians through translations. However some Russian writers rose much higher in terms of content and style.


Russian literature at some points in history, though they did not continue the tempo the way the rest of European and American writers did though they had matchless writers, has been accredited with such pieces the world of world literature owe to them immeasurably. After Nabokov we have not heard much about Russian writers though we have plenty of English and Americans.

Maybe after the communist regime the representation of Russian literature has come to a halt though literature never stops flowing.

[Mr.lucifer]

From what I heard, russia still has a strong tradition. I've seen a few translations but they haven't gotten much buzz.

[osho]

From what I heard, russia still has a strong tradition.

Unfortunately they could not publicize themselves the way the rest of other Euro zones writers could. Maybe they still have the quality they had once but they have not come into stream world literature. Maybe their books have not received enough translators.

[Arrowni]

Isn't there a modern literature topic? I'm interested on it mysef and I think many posters will share that interest.

[mal4mac]

It's good to know to give it time.

That's not a general recommendation, many of his novels get going from the beginning, are quite short, have a tight plot, and also have great characters - Great Expectations, Oliver, Hard Times... might be best to start with one of these.


I love his crazy characters, even if they are superficial.

Dickens' characters are *not* superficial. That's a slander put about by some minor, jealous modernists who couldn't write a popular novel, or even a literary one :). These resentful characters were given immense backing by the usually superb George Orwell - his attack on Dickens ranks second only to Tolstoy's attack on Shakespeare as "big mistake by a big writer". Maybe this was down to subconscious envy of Dickens - Orwell's greaest weakness was the inability to create great characters - I know this from reading his complete novels in Penguin - an exercise I certainly never want to repeat (1984 excepted - perhaps the greatest novels of ideas ever?)

But Dickens survived - other literary critics of the rank of Orwell (Bloom, Nabakov, Leavis, ...) recognised him as one of the true greats of the canon - and they would not have done that if his characters were superficial.

Leavis, interestingly, changed his mind - one suspects he had a tendency to follow fashion - believing too much in Orwell's lapse, and what the second rate modernists were saying - but with enough integrity and intelligence to acknowledge his mistake:

http://www.faber.co.uk/work/dickens-novelist/9780571243600/

By the way, I just heard the BBC are going to produce a version of Edwin Drood in the New Year, so that's one to read *now*. I read it six months ago and it's really first rate Dickens. The characters are superb, and the plot is gripping from the get go. Shame he didn't finish it - but there's enough there to make it a great read.

It's always better to read Dickens before seeing him so that you don't get the idea that the characters are superficial from inadequate TV dramas (though, if it's good, it might expand your understanding - at worst you can enjoy slamming it - so definitely watch it - but READ DICKENS FIRST.)




We read Dickens and other English writers in their originals and the Russians through translations. However some Russian writers rose much higher in terms of content and style.



Tolstoy makes explicit references to Schopenhauer, Dickens does't paraphrase any philosophers. Does that make his content higher? Or is Tolstoy just a name dropper?

Tolstoy stole much of his style from Dickens. One of Dickens's main tricks for heightening his descriptions was to keep repeating one word over and over, (see the "fog" and "It was..." examples in the "poetry in prose" thread.)

Tolstoy does this:

"As to the last meeting between father and son, it was so touching that she could not think of it without tears, and did not know which had behaved better during those awful moments--the father who so remembered everything and everybody at last and had spoken such pathetic words to the son, or Pierre, whom it had been touching to see, so stricken was he with grief, though he tried hard to hide it in order not to sadden his dying father. "It is touching, but it does one good. It uplifts the soul to see such men as the old count and his worthy son," said she. (W&P 1.1.24.43)

But this doesn't build the passage's anxiety level like Dickens. So he steals the idea, but doesn't use it as well.

The following has an interesting analysis of style in W&P:

http://www.shmoop.com/war-and-peace/writing-style.html

This indicates, I think rightly, that Tolstoy used a wide variety of styles very well - from the Homeric to the journalistic. That is admirable, but if Dickens uses fewer styles better than him, then who is higher? I think you can only say they stand beside each other on heights. I don't see how you can say one is higher than the other.

[osho]

Tolstoy stole much of his style from Dickens..

This kind of criticism does not fit and should not fit into any form of critical works. Tolstoy wrote to a towering position and to say he stole from some other writers who are not better than him in terms of style or content is really very low esteem and a kind of predisposition. You must have a particular leaning towards Dickens or racial or national disposition.

Tolstoy has all kinds of style whether it is stories or novels or essays or plays. Can you say war and peace or Anna Karenina or his stories or his essays, particularly what is art lesser arts for him to imitate a derogatory term steal o to plagiarize somebody's work.

Unfortunately you are the single person who said he stole. To smear the name of one of the greatest, some writers / critics said the greatest novelist too, is not a worthwhile thing to do.

[victorianfan]

I have just been given Martin Chuzzlewit ! Has anybody read it, any thoughts on it?

it looks a very solid piece of work, probably take me a year to read!

Seth Pecksniff from Martin Chuzzlewit is, maybe, the best Dickens' novel character.

[Arrowni]

Tolstoi stole style? Wow, that's hardcore.

[Drkshadow03]

Tolstoy makes explicit references to Schopenhauer, Dickens does't paraphrase any philosophers. Does that make his content higher? Or is Tolstoy just a name dropper?

Tolstoy stole much of his style from Dickens. One of Dickens's main tricks for heightening his descriptions was to keep repeating one word over and over, (see the "fog" and "It was..." examples in the "poetry in prose" thread.)

Tolstoy does this:

"As to the last meeting between father and son, it was so touching that she could not think of it without tears, and did not know which had behaved better during those awful moments--the father who so remembered everything and everybody at last and had spoken such pathetic words to the son, or Pierre, whom it had been touching to see, so stricken was he with grief, though he tried hard to hide it in order not to sadden his dying father. "It is touching, but it does one good. It uplifts the soul to see such men as the old count and his worthy son," said she. (W&P 1.1.24.43)

But this doesn't build the passage's anxiety level like Dickens. So he steals the idea, but doesn't use it as well.

Do you have any evidence that Tolstoy specifically learned the technique from Dickens? Because I'm pretty sure rhetorical techniques such as repetition of phrases/word long predates Charles Dickens. . . .

[mal4mac]

Such repetition occurred before (To be or not ...), but was it used so heavily by anyone before Dickens? Was it used so heavily by another novelist? Tolstoy was a great fan of Dickens and admits to learning a lot from him. From Spark Notes on Death of II:

'Tolstoy wrote of Dickens, "I consider him the greatest novelist of the nineteenth century." Along with having a picture of Dickens on his wall, and reading almost everything Dickens wrote, Tolstoy internalized and reshaped Dickens's work.'
-----
I didn't say there was anything wrong in Tolstoy's 'stealing'. As Oscar Wilde said, "Talent borrows, genius steals". I stole that idea from Oscar...:)

[prendrelemick]

Dickens did create some marvellous quirky characters, but Tolstoy puts you right inside his character's head.

[mortalterror]

Dickens did not invent antithesis.

The various tribes of Britons possessed valour without conduct, and the love of freedom without the spirit of union. They took up arms with savage fierceness; they laid them down, or turned them against each other with wild inconstancy; and while they fought singly, they were successively subdued.
-Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire


You were initiating, I was initiated; you taught, I attended classes; you took minor parts in the theatre, I was a spectator; you broke down, I hissed.
-Demosthenes, On the Crown


Our former minister betrayed the interests of his country by his pusillanimity; our present minister would sacrifice them by his Quixotism. Our former minister was for negotiating with all the world; our present minister is for fighting against all the world. Our former minister was for agreeing with every treaty, though never so dishonorable; our present minister will give ear to none, though never so reasonable.
-William Pitt, Speech in the House of Commons 1743


To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
-Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

[Arrowni]

Tolstoy wrote of Dickens, "I consider him the greatest novelist of the nineteenth century."


Wow, not only Tolstoy in better than Dickens, he's also humble!

[wessexgirl]

I love them both, but if I was pushed to only have to read one or the other, it would be Dickens. Prepare yourselves for an onslaught soon, as we will be celebrating the great man's bi-centenary, and particularly here in Britain, we will be treated to all sorts of goodies, like BBC dramatisations of Great Expectations and I think, Edwin Drood.

I think great as Tolstoy is, he has not created characters that have become so ingrained in popular culture as Dickens has. And I think it's highly speculative to make statements of the kind that every critic knows Tolstoy is better. That is not a fact but a subjective opinion. I'm not knocking Tolstoy because I love him too, but my personal preference would be for Dickens. I don't know if it's because I'm English, but I feel as if I have an innate empathy with him, and I pretty much adore him.

[Drkshadow03]

Such repetition occurred before (To be or not ...), but was it used so heavily by anyone before Dickens? Was it used so heavily by another novelist? Tolstoy was a great fan of Dickens and admits to learning a lot from him. From Spark Notes on Death of II:

'Tolstoy wrote of Dickens, "I consider him the greatest novelist of the nineteenth century." Along with having a picture of Dickens on his wall, and reading almost everything Dickens wrote, Tolstoy internalized and reshaped Dickens's work.'
-----
I didn't say there was anything wrong in Tolstoy's 'stealing'. As Oscar Wilde said, "Talent borrows, genius steals". I stole that idea from Oscar...:)

Well, "To be or not to be" is more an example of antithesis than repetition, hence Mortalterror's reply. A better example of repetition in Shakespeare is Antony's "Friends, Roman, Countrymen" speech in Julius Caesar, in which he repeats Brutus assertion that Caesar was ambitious and that Brutus is an honourable man for rhetorical effect.

A good early example of repetition in literature is, of course, The Bible. Specifically the first story of the first book of the Bible (Genesis 1). "God created . . . And it was good." I would say that is a pretty heavy usage there. Repetition in general as a literary technique (whether specifically anaphora, epiphora, or the many other variants) long predates Dickens by thousands of years.

However, I will grant that Tolstoy at least admired Dickens work given the evidence you provided, but I think it's a difficult claim to prove that he specifically learned that literary technique from him.

[mal4mac]

Dickens did create some marvellous quirky characters, but Tolstoy puts you right inside his character's head.

I think Dickens gets you into the head of his main characters, and the 'external view' of many others is not to be missed!

The Ecclesiastes example is a great example of repetition. Very similar to the style at the beginning of "Tale". Dickens obviously stole from there :)

I agree my Shakespeare example wasn't great - sparked good ones from MortalTerror and DrkShadow, though...

I wasn't trying to argue that Dickens invented repetition, maybe, just that he was perhaps the first novelist use it effectively (put's on flak...hat :willy_nilly:)

The Drood adaptation was announced on the BBC news a couple of days ago, even including a scene...

Lots of writers here comment on whether they think Tolstoy was the greatest or not:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/jan/06/leo-tolstoy-greatest-writer

Rankin makes a very good point about Tolstoy when he says, "I did feel that he was happier writing about the haves than the have-nots." That's something that Dickens was better at, I feel.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've all but given up on A Tale of Two Cities. I just can't seem to be satisfied with Dickens at all.

Reading Chekhov short stories and plays at the moment (which I love). The introduction to one collection sites critic Katherine Mansfield as saying "only three writers actually live and they are all Russian: Dostoevsky, Tchehov [Chekhov] and Tolstoy". I'm not sure about that, and it's probably a quote out of context, but an interesting line nonetheless.

I've read War and Peace but it was a long time ago now but I'm sure I would personally prefer him to Dickens. I enjoy and admire patches of Dickens, but for me the whole works don't hang together well at all. At least they make me feel that way.

[mal4mac]

I've read War and Peace but it was a long time ago now but I'm sure I would personally prefer him to Dickens. I enjoy and admire patches of Dickens, but for me the whole works don't hang together well at all. At least they make me feel that way.

I recently re-read War & Peace, and read "Barnaby Rudge" soon after. I had the feeling that War & Peace didn't hang together all that well. All those historical asides, however interesting, distract from the action. Plus there's a lot of jumping around to check on the progress of different main characters. Barnaby Rudge held together better - even though it's a historical novel there are no seriously long historical asides. Plus there's less jumping around to various sub-plots.

[Vonny]

Vonny > I'd appreciate it you did not spread rumours about me being kind.

I wish I understood Why?

Forgive me for getting off topic. I'd just like to learn.


Edit: Never mind, it's off topic, and somehow my thinking just doesn't mesh, because I live in a different world.

[Scheherazade]

I wish I understood Why?

Forgive me for getting off topic. I'd just like to learn.

It was a simple joke, Vonny, implying that I was not actually "kind"; hence, to claim so would be spreading unfounded rumours.

[osho]

We seemed to have taken a little respite here from discussion.
I am reading A Christmas Carol by Dickens for a second time. I was absorbed by the book and his storytelling way. It absorbed me and lost me in a fancy and got me to a world of certain realities, helped me understand what poverty is and strikingly how inhuman were the capitalists of his days. It imbibed in me a flood of sympathy and helped me understand the poor around me.

These few soul searching thoughts, feelings, steaming emotions notwithstanding, I find it rather shallow philosophically. It is a textbook type book and it can generate some feelings for a while, something of cinematic quality and formulaic as something in a flash. But its impact is skin-deep

Tolstoy is at a higher peak.

[mal4mac]

We seemed to have taken a little respite here from discussion.
I am reading A Christmas Carol by Dickens for a second time. I was absorbed by the book and his storytelling way. It absorbed me and lost me in a fancy and got me to a world of certain realities, helped me understand what poverty is and strikingly how inhuman were the capitalists of his days. It imbibed in me a flood of sympathy and helped me understand the poor around me.

These few soul searching thoughts, feelings, steaming emotions notwithstanding, I find it rather shallow philosophically. It is a textbook type book and it can generate some feelings for a while, something of cinematic quality and formulaic as something in a flash. But its impact is skin-deep

Tolstoy is at a higher peak.

A Christmas Carol is a short work, and no one argues that it his one of his deeper works. To make a comprehensive, and fair, comparison with Tolstoy you would have to read his longer, deeper works - try reading Bleak House and War & Peace at the same time.

[MarkBastable]

And while we're at it, rather than defend Dickens, who doesn't need it, why not take a couple of shots at Tolstoy?

So - The Death of Ivan Ilych. Dull and shallow stock characters, predictable and undynamic plot, didactic tone, absurd over-romanticisation of the peasantry, and not a single laugh in it.

[PoeticPassions]

So - The Death of Ivan Ilych. Dull and shallow stock characters, predictable and undynamic plot, didactic tone, absurd over-romanticisation of the peasantry, and not a single laugh in it.

Well that's quite harsh. I agree that the book was not dynamic and quite predictable, but I don't think the characters were all that shallow, nor did I really think there was an absurd over-romanticization of the peasantry... More so an attack on the dull middle-class who go through life not contributing anything. Though idealistic, it sticks to Tolstoy's own assumptions about life.

I rather thought the novella had some merits. I mean, Tolstoy starts out by saying, "Ivan Ilych's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible." I think the fact that Tolstoy really sticks to this through the way he writes the book and through his characters, make the work kind of brilliant.

[Alexander III]

So - The Death of Ivan Ilych. Dull and shallow stock characters, predictable and undynamic plot, didactic tone, absurd over-romanticisation of the peasantry, and not a single laugh in it.


To be honest this critique speaks more about your reading than Tolstoy's writing.

I dont want to appear like a Tolstoy fan boy - but if you criticize you might pick one of his actual sub-par works.

You could discuss how The Cossacks shows immaturity and too much of a purple romantic style, you could talk about how Tolstoy arguably ruined the ending of Anna Karenina due to his sudden and strong religious conversion. You could even say that his female characters seem far less able to create their own destiny compared to the males who have always more freedom in his depictions.

But you don't...

[MarkBastable]

To be honest this critique speaks more about your reading than Tolstoy's writing.

I dont want to appear like a Tolstoy fan boy - but if you criticize you might pick one of his actual sub-par works.

You could discuss how The Cossacks shows immaturity and too much of a purple romantic style, you could talk about how Tolstoy arguably ruined the ending of Anna Karenina due to his sudden and strong religious conversion. You could even say that his female characters seem far less able to create their own destiny compared to the males who have always more freedom in his depictions.

But you don't...

I think I've read enough literature, enough Russian literature and enough Tolstoy - in Russian - to be given at least the credit for having a supportable view, as opposed to being dismissed in that supercilious way.

[osho]

I think I've read enough literature, enough Russian literature and enough Tolstoy - in Russian - to be given at least the credit for having a supportable view, as opposed to being dismissed in that supercilious way.

You cannot say you have read enough to give your judgement about Russian literature. I have read the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky several times and each time I feel I have not read enough of it. And each time I find a different meaning, something new I might have missed in my first reading. I never can say I have read and if I claim I have read enough it would be my arrogance. I might have said I have read enough of Dostoevsky how could I say I had enough of Tolstoy's war and peace, one of the few greatest novels ever written in the world and there Turgenev, Puskin, Gogol, Chekhov, Gorky and many others. How could I justifiably say I have read enough of this great treasure of literature.

[Scheherazade]

I consider myself an expert neither on Dickens nor on Tolstoy so cannot offer much constructive analysis of their works or writing. However, I am puzzled by the premise of this discussion as well as by the need to discuss these authors in such a manner.

Apart from the fact that they are both 19th century authors (though Tolstoy lived 40 years longer than Dickens - into the 20th century), what do they have in common that warrants comparison or contrast? To my uneducated eye, pretty much nothing, which makes me wonder why we are discussing these two authors in such a manner.

[MarkBastable]

You cannot say you have read enough to give your judgement about Russian literature.

Yes I can. And even if I couldn't - how would you know?

[MarkBastable]

...which makes me wonder why we are discussing these two authors in such a manner.


Because someone started a thread. Which has become, actually, less about Dickens and Tolstoy and more about how one should go about discussing such things.

I get your point though. For some reason my suggestion of a discussion comparing Vonnegut and Joyce never took off, but if the current one can fly, I don't see why mine shouldn't.

[Scheherazade]

For some reason my suggestion of a discussion comparing Vonnegut and Joyce never took off, but if the current one can fly, I don't see why mine shouldn't. Maybe you should promote your thread more... Want a spot in the next Forum Newsletter?

[mal4mac]

However, I will grant that Tolstoy at least admired Dickens work given the evidence you provided, but I think it's a difficult claim to prove that he specifically learned that literary technique from him.

I agree - could make an interesting subject for a PhD thesis.