Russian authors

[Oof]

It appears there isn't a thread for Russian authors. Let's fix that.

I'm currently reading We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. [Images don't work on this board??] It's the proto-1984/Brave New World/etc. If you ever read We, you have to read the Mirra Ginsburg translation.

So, russian literature ... Discuss away!

[bIGwIRE]

There are sub forums for many authors,if you scroll down. Many of the great Russians are there, with many ongoing discussions.

Did you have anything specific you wanted to talk about?

[Darcy88]

Dostoevsky is the master of Russian literature in my mind. Then there's Tolstoy and Gogol. I have not read many of the greats. Haven't read Pushkin or Turgenev or Solzhenitsyn.

I consider the development of the Russian novel in the 19th century to have been a historical literary event grand on a level of the flowering of drama in Elizabethan England or tragedy in Ancient Athens.

The psychological profundity of Dostoevsky is perhaps unmatched in literature, in my mind only Shakespeare plunged more fully into the scape of the human mind, the light and the dark of the soul of mankind. The Underground Man presents a character so much like each of us, an extreme copy of ourselves, an eminent sufferer. The theme of God in Dostoevsky greatly interests me. His theology fascinates me and I have a high respect for the Russian Orthodox Church as a result of reading him.

I still have not read the entirety of Karamazov. I've read everything else but I'm saving that novel. That book is like a woman I've long known and had strong feelings for but am not confident enough to woo and claim as mine. Reading that book will be a peak event in my life. Judging from how I responded to all his other novels I know that it will seize me and alter the very fabric of my state of mind and my beliefs. Dostoevsky does that. Something about the Russians, they suffer very well and are able to turn their suffering into jaw-droppingly profound fiction.

Gogol does the same thing, but we have not much by him. Dead Souls I read a long time ago and cannot get into in depth. I'll just say it produced the same effect as Dostoevsky. It presented extremes of human nature as commonplace. Russia is such a diverse and interesting land its authors have always had much material with which to make these great books.

Solzhenitsyn I simply must read soon or else that hole in my literary experience will keep getting to me. So many of my bookish acquaintances peg him down as another great master of fiction and I've long been dying to find out what he was all about. From translated quotations I can see in him a remarkable stylist and thinker.

Same with Pushkin. There are intelligent well-read people who compare him to Shakespeare, which is a great honour.

I have been so engrossed with Dostoevsky for so long now that I often feel like an inhabitant of St Petersburg. I pretend I'm there. I go there in my mind when I read his books and when I read the works of so effective writer I inhabit in all but body, all but physicality, the settings he writes of and invents. St Petersburg, despite my having never gone anywhere near it, never left this continent, is like another home for me. A winter home.

One thing Russian novelists do particularly well is characterization. They can invent in a single paragraph a man, woman or child who you either love or despise. You FEEL for their characters. In few words they paint realistic characters, some quite caricaturish but still believable.

[crusoe]

Dear Oof, Solzhenitsyn's "Cancer Station" would be my recommendation.

Further, Michael Bulgakov is very good. His "A Country Doctor's Notebook"
is breathtaking. Or try "Master and Margarita".

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

....Solzhenitsyn I simply must read soon or else that hole in my literary experience will keep getting to me. So many of my bookish acquaintances peg him down as another great master of fiction and I've long been dying to find out what he was all about. From translated quotations I can see in him a remarkable stylist and thinker...

....One thing Russian novelists do particularly well is characterization. They can invent in a single paragraph a man, woman or child who you either love or despise. You FEEL for their characters. In few words they paint realistic characters, some quite caricaturish but still believable.


What are you waiting for Darcy? I believe you would enjoy Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
My interest in AS developed from a couple of his books left behind by my departed parents. You might consider One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich to start with or Cancer Ward. Other AS works are daunting such as The Gulag Archipelago and the multi-part epic The Red Wheel. I have Part I August 1914 that has yet to be started, in fact the inspiration to crack it open is mounting as I type this.

Here’s a quick read from Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard address you might find interesting; A World Split Apart

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html


I’ll add Anton Chechov and his short stories into the mix.

[papayahed]

It appears there isn't a thread for Russian authors. Let's fix that.

I'm currently reading We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. [Images don't work on this board??] It's the proto-1984/Brave New World/etc. If you ever read We, you have to read the Mirra Ginsburg translation.

So, russian literature ... Discuss away!

I just finished We.

[Idril]

Dear Oof, Solzhenitsyn's "Cancer Station" would be my recommendation.

Further, Michael Bulgakov is very good. His "A Country Doctor's Notebook"
is breathtaking. Or try "Master and Margarita".

Oh yes, Cancer Ward, the translation of the title I have, is my favorite Solzhenitsyn book. I tend to prefer his fiction to his nonfiction, Gulag Archipelago was a chore to get through.

Bulgakov is great, Heart of a Dog is another great book, very short and sweet but quite brilliant.

A couple other Soviet era authors I love is Vladimir Voinovich, Victor Serge and Mikhail Sholokov, his And Quiet Flows The Don is simply beautiful.

I read We years ago and don't remember a tremendous about it but I do remember I really liked it. It might be time for a reread.

[Charles Darnay]

I agree with Darcy that Dostoevsky is really the height of Russian lit. I much prefer him to Tolstoy, not that I dislike Tolstoy.

Fathers and Sons (Turgenev) is absolutely wonderful, particularly if you are not experienced with 19th century Russian lit.

I enjoyed We, and it really made me enjoy 1984 less than I already did, but dystopian lit is not my favourite.

I would also encourage you, if you haven't yet, to familiarize yourself with Chekhov. The Seagull is one of the best (non-Shakespearean?) plays ever written.

[djameson]

I am likely rare among fans of Tolstoy. I have never made it through War and Peace, but love The Death of Ivan Ilyich. That book, alongside the short story "What Men Live By" are my particular favorites of his. Of Dostoevsky, I've read just Crime and Punishment, which I liked immensely. Perhaps if I had read more of his, I'd be more in agreement with those above who place him above Tolstoy. For now, though, Tolstoy is my one Russian love.

[Idril]

I am likely rare among fans of Tolstoy. I have never made it through War and Peace, but love The Death of Ivan Ilyich. That book, alongside the short story "What Men Live By" are my particular favorites of his. Of Dostoevsky, I've read just Crime and Punishment, which I liked immensely. Perhaps if I had read more of his, I'd be more in agreement with those above who place him above Tolstoy. For now, though, Tolstoy is my one Russian love.

I just find it very hard to compare the two. They are two very different authors and reading their respective works are very different experiences. If you pick up a Tolstoy book looking for a Dostoevskyan experience, you're going to be disappointed and the opposite is true as well. I find Tolstoy to be more readable, and by that I mean the flow of his prose is a little more smooth and natural, whereas Dostoevsky is a little more work. I can fly right through Tolstoy, I finished War and Peace much quicker than it takes me to read a book a fourth of it's size. Dostoesvky takes a little more thought and time and I think because of that, you feel a more invested, his work is always provocative and challenging and personal, for lack of a better word. Tolstoy tells these wonderful stories, you are more of an observer to his tragedies and triumphs, there is an emotional distance. With Dostoevsky, you are right smack dab in the middle of it, you are caught in the vice, it's hard to remove yourself from it, it simply gets inside your head. I am much more likely to reread Tolstoy than Dostoevsky simply because reading Dostoevsky is such an intense psychological experience, at least it is for me, I have to be in the right mood and I have to be in a really good place emotionally or he will put me in a very bad place. Although, I have to say, The Possessed is a book of his I can reread without feeling overwhelmed and his short stories.

And on that note, Tolstoy writes some amazing short stories. I think his style of writing lends itself very well to that genre whereas Dostoevsky's doesn't. Not that he hasn't written some brilliant stories but I find them a little more 'clunky' than Tolstoy's.

[Charles Darnay]

I just find it very hard to compare the two. They are two very different authors and reading their respective works are very different experiences. If you pick up a Tolstoy book looking for a Dostoevskyan experience, you're going to be disappointed and the opposite is true as well. I find Tolstoy to be more readable, and by that I mean the flow of his prose is a little more smooth and natural, whereas Dostoevsky is a little more work. I can fly right through Tolstoy, I finished War and Peace much quicker than it takes me to read a book a fourth of it's size. Dostoesvky takes a little more thought and time and I think because of that, you feel a more invested, his work is always provocative and challenging and personal, for lack of a better word. Tolstoy tells these wonderful stories, you are more of an observer to his tragedies and triumphs, there is an emotional distance. With Dostoevsky, you are right smack dab in the middle of it, you are caught in the vice, it's hard to remove yourself from it, it simply gets inside your head. I am much more likely to reread Tolstoy than Dostoevsky simply because reading Dostoevsky is such an intense psychological experience, at least it is for me, I have to be in the right mood and I have to be in a really good place emotionally or he will put me in a very bad place. Although, I have to say, The Possessed is a book of his I can reread without feeling overwhelmed and his short stories.

And on that note, Tolstoy writes some amazing short stories. I think his style of writing lends itself very well to that genre whereas Dostoevsky's doesn't. Not that he hasn't written some brilliant stories but I find them a little more 'clunky' than Tolstoy's.

Very well put!

[Mr.lucifer]

I read the complete tales of Gogol, didn't get the humor.

[The Truth]

Russian authors are some of my favorites, I do indeed love Zamyatin's We and anything by Dostoyevsky. About to start reading some Tolstoy and Daniil Kharms is one of my absolute favorite writers and inspirations.

[neilgee]

Great thread, I'm struck into a response by so many of the comments on here that I can't use quotations (there would be too many) but Darcy's post which really started it off is interesting because I hope he isn't disappointed when he finally gets to the Karamazov novel. I was. It's a very slow novel, takes time to build up, and after all that (I too took the recommendations very seriously) I thought it didn't quite deliver. Maybe something gets lost in translation on this one, but i thought Crime and Punishment was a better, more timeless work, and Underground Man for that matter.

I really wouldn't wait any longer to read it, loved your analogy about the lover you're a little afraid of, but sometimes (infact often) a fantasy of a lover doesn't live up to the reality and you don't want to wait until you're dying thinking that novel is your consolation and then it lets you down.

And if you do love it as much as you expect to well reading it now will leave you longer to savour the experience and maybe even reread.

As Gurgle implies Soljenitsyn (spelling) is simply brilliant. Cancer Ward is the tale of how he gets out of Stalin's camps because he gets the disease, (it is a direct sequel to his first novel which is a description of life in the camps) while he is in convalescence Stalin dies, he recovers and is released, the description of how he walks the streets and buys food from a street vendor, you really live those first moments of freedom moment by moment with him, extraordinary writing, extraordinary author.

Djameson agree about Ivan Ilyich, did that at Uni and it took the classes' breath away, but never got around to War and Peace, guess I understand Darcy in that respect.

Agree with Charles Darney that Fathers and sons is Turgenev's great novel, I read that several times as part of my degree and it does stand up to the rereading (always the acid test for a great novel, I think).

And Crusoe mentions my favorite Russian novel of them all: The Master and Margarita written in the following century like Soljenitsyn (The emphasis in Russian lit critisism often focuses on the 19th C but there were some great writers in the 20th C too) such a funny book, and what happened to Bulgakov - the personal interventions by Stalin in his career - make him a fascinating author, and in the tradition of great Russian wives Bulgakov's widow risked imprisonment by hiding the manuscript of the Margarita novel for years in a drawer at home after Bulgakov died until things changed after Stalin died too, think it was finally published in the 1960s, although some versions are still censored.

Other Russian novels I loved are Oblomov and Hope against Hope.

[Idril]

... I hope he isn't disappointed when he finally gets to the Karamazov novel. I was. It's a very slow novel, takes time to build up, and after all that (I too took the recommendations very seriously) I thought it didn't quite deliver. Maybe something gets lost in translation on this one, but i thought Crime and Punishment was a better, more timeless work, and Underground Man for that matter.


I felt the same way about Brothers Karamazov. It's often touted as his greatest work but it just did nothing for me. Every now and then I consider rereading it, to see if something will click on a second read but I can never muster up the motivation.

[Darcy88]

I'm not sure why I neglected to mention Chekhov in my prior post in this thread. He really is a master. His short stories are artistic masterpieces.

[neilgee]

I felt the same way about Brothers Karamazov. It's often touted as his greatest work but it just did nothing for me. Every now and then I consider rereading it, to see if something will click on a second read but I can never muster up the motivation.

Idril, you seem to be the only poster I didn't reply directly to and yet you're the only one to reply! You obviously know your Dosteyevsky so well that I felt out of depth replying directly to you, I couldn't add to anything you said (that is a compliment as well as my excuse) and regarding the Karamazov brothers novel you are bang on for me, I'm glad i'm not the only one to feel that way about TBK.

[bIGwIRE]

I felt the same way about Brothers Karamazov. It's often touted as his greatest work but it just did nothing for me. Every now and then I consider rereading it, to see if something will click on a second read but I can never muster up the motivation.

Which translation did you read? I know it is a minor difference, but it is a difference. The first time I read Karamazov it was the Constance Garnett translation. The second time I read the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky dual translation. I did enjoy the Peaver/Volokhonsky alot more. They seemed to ponder over how to preserve the "Russian" flavor in the english text more than Garnett.

After reading Karamazov the first time, the novel became a touchstone for me, measuring all I read against it. For many years I would have touted it as the greatest novel ever writen, certainly my favorite. Even today, its in the top twenty for me. Everything Dostoevsky wrote is in my barrister, many in several translations.

He lived such a tragic real life. Who else could write the epileptic fits of Smerdyakov, except an epileptic? Who could write the consuming addictions of Dimitri without wrestling with them himself? (Dostoevsky was a reported gambling addict, often losing money his young family needed) I love how every one of his characters, no matter how nobel, has a base, human element they can't escape.

I only wish that he hadn't died before he finished his work. Karamazov was supposed to be a trilogy.

[bIGwIRE]

With Dostoevsky, you are right smack dab in the middle of it, you are caught in the vice, it's hard to remove yourself from it, it simply gets inside your head. I am much more likely to reread Tolstoy than Dostoevsky simply because reading Dostoevsky is such an intense psychological experience, at least it is for me, I have to be in the right mood and I have to be in a really good place emotionally or he will put me in a very bad place.


I agree. Dostoevsky is a big emotional investment that you need some time to digest. His novels also leave me wrecked and gutted.

[bIGwIRE]

If you pick up a Tolstoy book looking for a Dostoevskyan experience, you're going to be disappointed and the opposite is true as well. I find Tolstoy to be more readable, and by that I mean the flow of his prose is a little more smooth and natural, whereas Dostoevsky is a little more work. I can fly right through Tolstoy, I finished War and Peace much quicker than it takes me to read a book a fourth of it's size. Tolstoy tells these wonderful stories, you are more of an observer to his tragedies and triumphs, there is an emotional distance.


For example, compare Tolstoy's The Cossacks to Gogol's Taras Bulba. Tolstoy's is so accurate, almost to the point of being sterile. You can learn alot about the iconic Cossack from Tolstoy, despite emotional distance.

However, Gogol wrote in Taras Bulba how the Cossacks would make a raid, bury the treasure by the river, and wake up after the party forgetting where their treasure was, or that they even had one.
To me, this tells us more about the Cossack spirit in just a few words than Tolstoy does in his whole novella.

[Darcy88]

Great thread, I'm struck into a response by so many of the comments on here that I can't use quotations (there would be too many) but Darcy's post which really started it off is interesting because I hope he isn't disappointed when he finally gets to the Karamazov novel. I was. It's a very slow novel, takes time to build up, and after all that (I too took the recommendations very seriously) I thought it didn't quite deliver. Maybe something gets lost in translation on this one, but i thought Crime and Punishment was a better, more timeless work, and Underground Man for that matter.

I really wouldn't wait any longer to read it, loved your analogy about the lover you're a little afraid of, but sometimes (infact often) a fantasy of a lover doesn't live up to the reality and you don't want to wait until you're dying thinking that novel is your consolation and then it lets you down.

And if you do love it as much as you expect to well reading it now will leave you longer to savour the experience and maybe even reread.

As Gurgle implies Soljenitsyn (spelling) is simply brilliant. Cancer Ward is the tale of how he gets out of Stalin's camps because he gets the disease, (it is a direct sequel to his first novel which is a description of life in the camps) while he is in convalescence Stalin dies, he recovers and is released, the description of how he walks the streets and buys food from a street vendor, you really live those first moments of freedom moment by moment with him, extraordinary writing, extraordinary author.

Djameson agree about Ivan Ilyich, did that at Uni and it took the classes' breath away, but never got around to War and Peace, guess I understand Darcy in that respect.

Agree with Charles Darney that Fathers and sons is Turgenev's great novel, I read that several times as part of my degree and it does stand up to the rereading (always the acid test for a great novel, I think).

And Crusoe mentions my favorite Russian novel of them all: The Master and Margarita written in the following century like Soljenitsyn (The emphasis in Russian lit critisism often focuses on the 19th C but there were some great writers in the 20th C too) such a funny book, and what happened to Bulgakov - the personal interventions by Stalin in his career - make him a fascinating author, and in the tradition of great Russian wives Bulgakov's widow risked imprisonment by hiding the manuscript of the Margarita novel for years in a drawer at home after Bulgakov died until things changed after Stalin died too, think it was finally published in the 1960s, although some versions are still censored.

Other Russian novels I loved are Oblomov and Hope against Hope.

If Karamazov lets me down I will cry and then in an act of shrieking desperation cut off all my hair again or do nothing but listen to Lou Reed alone in my room under a blanket rocking back and forth, chain-smoking. I am depending on that book. I have idealized it in my mind, like the hypothetical woman I mentioned before. To me it is a chest I have yet to open, one that's old looking, that just has about it an aura of age and wisdom. I have read the first 200 pages of Karamazov and like you I was not impressed. I am just hoping there's something in the climax to reaffirm my faith in literature and human-kind. The Idiot and The Devils and Crime and Punishment and The Underground Man all irrevocably changed me as a thinker and a man. Especially the Idiot. I am a sort of idiot and so that book really spoke to me on a deep level.

Right now I am mostly reading about war. War is my distraction from heartbreak. Albert Camus once put on a play of Karamazov. I'd like to do the same with the underground man. Make it into a movie starring myself. There are times when I really am that character, when I literally am the Underground Man.

I think Dostoevsky must have suffered much or knew much about suffering. They say he studied insane people. To write so broadly of the human soul he must have experienced both sides, bright and black, healthy and sick. I really wish I could go back and talk to the man. I really think he was not only one of the greatest writers but also greatest thinkers in Western history.

I put him right alongside Homer. I put him above Nietzsche - far, far above. Rating authors thusly is a fruitless exercise but I know of no other way to express how much I prize the works of that amazing Russian novelist.

War and Peace is on my shelf and its one I am going to read soon. I've been eyeing it up for years and it will soon be time.

[Adolescent09]

I'm not going to embellish on my perspective of the few but renowned Russian writers I've read simply because there are scholars here who far exceed my knowledge of Russian literature. I did have the pleasure however of meeting a Russian woman whose name escapes me atm that wrote an essay on Dostoevsky's The Idiot that is longer than the book itself. She went into copious detail about what the characters in the novel portend; all the way from the heroic Prince Myshkin to the less significant side characters like Draya Alexevna.

I read the book years ago and I remember that it contributed to me doing something drastic on these forums that got me hospitalized and placed on antipsychotic meds.

I must say though that I politely disagree with the poster who claimed that Karamzov is a slow-paced novel that takes time to build up. I was hooked from the first page to the very last... especially The Grand Inquisitor and Ivan's demonic dreams, pure genius..

[Darcy88]

I read the book years ago and I remember that it contributed to me doing something drastic on these forums that got me hospitalized and placed on antipsychotic meds.


We poets are deep feeling and thinking people. We are very expressive. We say things that others do not understand. Metaphor and figurative language are often misunderstood by the members of the mass herd.

Unless a person is actually at a risk to harm themselves or others, but people are quick to make that assumption given a badly thought-up phrase taken too literally.

I have nothing against antipsychotic meds, they can work miracles, but they are over-prescribed. Artists act weird sometimes and then the uppity bourgeois narks freak out and try to have us hospitalized. Doesn't matter if we are peaceful people and hurting someone else is the last thing we could possibly do.....they will take us down if given a chance.

The ones who advance culture, however harmless, often appear dangerous to lesser minds.

[djameson]

I just find it very hard to compare the two. They are two very different authors and reading their respective works are very different experiences. If you pick up a Tolstoy book looking for a Dostoevskyan experience, you're going to be disappointed and the opposite is true as well. I find Tolstoy to be more readable, and by that I mean the flow of his prose is a little more smooth and natural, whereas Dostoevsky is a little more work. I can fly right through Tolstoy, I finished War and Peace much quicker than it takes me to read a book a fourth of it's size. Dostoesvky takes a little more thought and time and I think because of that, you feel a more invested, his work is always provocative and challenging and personal, for lack of a better word. Tolstoy tells these wonderful stories, you are more of an observer to his tragedies and triumphs, there is an emotional distance. With Dostoevsky, you are right smack dab in the middle of it, you are caught in the vice, it's hard to remove yourself from it, it simply gets inside your head. I am much more likely to reread Tolstoy than Dostoevsky simply because reading Dostoevsky is such an intense psychological experience, at least it is for me, I have to be in the right mood and I have to be in a really good place emotionally or he will put me in a very bad place. Although, I have to say, The Possessed is a book of his I can reread without feeling overwhelmed and his short stories.

And on that note, Tolstoy writes some amazing short stories. I think his style of writing lends itself very well to that genre whereas Dostoevsky's doesn't. Not that he hasn't written some brilliant stories but I find them a little more 'clunky' than Tolstoy's.

Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I believe you are correct about the respective styles of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky leading to fantastic short stories from the former and, well, less fantastic ones from Dostoevsky. As for War and Peace, I don't know why I've never really been able to manage it. I've made a start of it thrice now, but every time I've bogged in the first 50-70 pages. The first and second times I felt rather bad about it, since I so love his other work, but now I'm just resigned, you might say, to the fact that I'll most likely not ever finish that great work.

[neilgee]

If Karamazov lets me down I will cry and then in an act of shrieking desperation cut off all my hair again or do nothing but listen to Lou Reed alone in my room under a blanket rocking back and forth, chain-smoking. I am depending on that book. I have idealized it in my mind, like the hypothetical woman I mentioned before. To me it is a chest I have yet to open, one that's old looking, that just has about it an aura of age and wisdom. I have read the first 200 pages of Karamazov and like you I was not impressed. I am just hoping there's something in the climax to reaffirm my faith in literature and human-kind. The Idiot and The Devils and Crime and Punishment and The Underground Man all irrevocably changed me as a thinker and a man. Especially the Idiot. I am a sort of idiot and so that book really spoke to me on a deep level.



Whoops, sorry Darcy, I didn't think you would take it so hard. I'm glad there are other, more positive views of the book on here to give you hope, although if you have already tried and couldn't get into it (I didn't realise you had already read 200 pages of it, just got the impression that the book was untouched by you, maybe it was that brilliant comparison to the abstained from, ideal lover) then maybe it's not the best Doysteyevsky novel from your point of view.

There's nothing wrong with that, why place so much hope in that particular novel?

Just because literary 'experts' largely come down in favour of this as one of his best, or the best, doesn't mean you have to conform automatically. Have the courage of your own opinions and feelings! Trust yourself.

Literature is always subjective, for example I couldn't get into The Idiot at all, and the more I read the worse it got. It was a book of the month on another forum and the discussion backed up what I'd always heard about that novel, that you either love it or hate it. There wasn't one person who read that bom who didn't have an extreme view, nobody but nobody was indifferent to the book.

This has been a brilliant thread that has restored my faith in literature forums, for now.

Thank you all who have contributed.

[The Truth]

Any fans of Kharms? I always found his work to be delightfully original and pretty relatable if you're an author.

[bazarov]

Some interesting views, I must say.

[Raven Falcon.]

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

I base this on The Brother Karamazov.

[The Kid]

The only Russian author whose work I've read is Tolstoy. He is brilliant.

I don't usually read others because of the language barrier. Does anyone else worry that literature becomes corrupted when translated into other languages? I don't know Russian, so I'm hoping the English translations don't rub away some of the gold from Tolstoy's work. I know that some books I have read in Spanish are not the same in English and so this worries me and I have become very cautious when it comes to translations.

[Raven Falcon.]

The only Russian author whose work I've read is Tolstoy. He is brilliant.

I don't usually read others because of the language barrier. Does anyone else worry that literature becomes corrupted when translated into other languages? I don't know Russian, so I'm hoping the English translations don't rub away some of the gold from Tolstoy's work. I know that some books I have read in Spanish are not the same in English and so this worries me and I have become very cautious when it comes to translations.

Try Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's translation for both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky's works.

[Idril]

Which translation did you read? I know it is a minor difference, but it is a difference. The first time I read Karamazov it was the Constance Garnett translation. The second time I read the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky dual translation. I did enjoy the Peaver/Volokhonsky alot more. They seemed to ponder over how to preserve the "Russian" flavor in the english text more than Garnett.



It was the Garnett version but I really don't think the translation was the issue. There are aspects to the novel that I loved, I still think Ivan is one of the most fascinating characters in all of literature but I was largely unmoved by Alyosha and he was so heavily featured that I had a hard time maintaining interest, I find the character incredibly dull. I know there are people who find that statement blasphemous but that's just my own humble opinion and I'm sticking to it. :wink5: I don't think the translation is going to change that. That said, I am in the process of replacing all my Russian lit with the Pevear/Volkhonsky translations where they are available and I will replace Brothers Karamazov as well.


For example, compare Tolstoy's The Cossacks to Gogol's Taras Bulba. Tolstoy's is so accurate, almost to the point of being sterile. You can learn alot about the iconic Cossack from Tolstoy, despite emotional distance.

However, Gogol wrote in Taras Bulba how the Cossacks would make a raid, bury the treasure by the river, and wake up after the party forgetting where their treasure was, or that they even had one.
To me, this tells us more about the Cossack spirit in just a few words than Tolstoy does in his whole novella.

Oh, I love Taras Bulba, it is, without a moment's hesitation, my favorite Gogol short story. It's where I fell in love with the Cossacks, not necessarily their way of life, that's not it, I don't always love what they do but they are such a fascinating culture, they are never boring and they are never black and white, they are a provocative shade of grey. Sholokhov's And Quiet Flows the Don cemented that interest. But back to the point you made, I absolutely agree. I was anxious to read Tolstoy's Cossacks but I was largely disappointed, there was none of that spirit, as you said. Sterile, that was a good word for it.

And djameson, you're right, move on, no novel is for everyone. Enjoy the Tolstoy you love, don't challenge it by reading something that doesn't work for you simply because it's by an author you love, if that makes any sense. :wink5:


Any fans of Kharms? I always found his work to be delightfully original and pretty relatable if you're an author.

I don't know wno that is? Who is he? I'm always looking for new Russian authors to read.

[The Truth]

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

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

And here's a review of my favorite book of his stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/books/review/Saunders-t.html?pagewanted=all

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

[Raven Falcon.]

It was the Garnett version but I really don't think the translation was the issue. There are aspects to the novel that I loved, I still think Ivan is one of the most fascinating characters in all of literature but I was largely unmoved by Alyosha and he was so heavily featured that I had a hard time maintaining interest, I find the character incredibly dull. I know there are people who find that statement blasphemous but that's just my own humble opinion and I'm sticking to it. :wink5: I don't think the translation is going to change that. That said, I am in the process of replacing all my Russian lit with the Pevear/Volkhonsky translations where they are available and I will replace Brothers Karamazov as well.



Oh, I love Taras Bulba, it is, without a moment's hesitation, my favorite Gogol short story. It's where I fell in love with the Cossacks, not necessarily their way of life, that's not it, I don't always love what they do but they are such a fascinating culture, they are never boring and they are never black and white, they are a provocative shade of grey. Sholokhov's And Quiet Flows the Don cemented that interest. But back to the point you made, I absolutely agree. I was anxious to read Tolstoy's Cossacks but I was largely disappointed, there was none of that spirit, as you said. Sterile, that was a good word for it.

And djameson, you're right, move on, no novel is for everyone. Enjoy the Tolstoy you love, don't challenge it by reading something that doesn't work for you simply because it's by an author you love, if that makes any sense. :wink5:



I don't know wno that is? Who is he? I'm always looking for new Russian authors to read.

Tolstoy is ultimately and historically better than Gogol, though.

[Idril]

Tolstoy is ultimately and historically better than Gogol, though.

I don't think I said he wasn't. :wink5:

And thank you, The Truth, I will check him out.

[bIGwIRE]

There are aspects to the novel that I loved, I still think Ivan is one of the most fascinating characters in all of literature but I was largely unmoved by Alyosha and he was so heavily featured that I had a hard time maintaining interest, I find the character incredibly dull. I know there are people who find that statement blasphemous but that's just my own humble opinion and I'm sticking to it. :wink5: I don't think the translation is going to change that.

Russian monks aren't for everyone. It really depends what you look for in a novel. I have a friend who only enjoys adventure stories, Dumas, Hemmingway, or Touching the Void type non-fiction.
Much of my off time is spent in wild places, hunting wild things or wild adventures, so I personally gravitate toward the psychological elements, viewing my own mind as the great frontier. I've never read a character like Alyosha, though not my favorite, I found him interesting.
Writers share what they know and understand, readers explore what is unknown to them.


Oh, I love Taras Bulba, it is, without a moment's hesitation, my favorite Gogol short story. It's where I fell in love with the Cossacks, not necessarily their way of life, that's not it, I don't always love what they do but they are such a fascinating culture, they are never boring and they are never black and white, they are a provocative shade of grey. Sholokhov's And Quiet Flows the Don cemented that interest. But back to the point you made, I absolutely agree. I was anxious to read Tolstoy's Cossacks but I was largely disappointed, there was none of that spirit, as you said. Sterile, that was a good word for it.


I also loved Sholokhov and have always enjoyed all things Cossack. The end of serfdom in Russia was a fascinating part of history. Cossacks to the Russian are like cowboys to us Americans. Despite the harships they endured, and the constant fight for life, I can't help but to envy them. Something about how they shrug off all authority, with reckless abandon and wild rebellion, echoes in the voids of my own wicked soul.

[Raven Falcon.]

Russian monks aren't for everyone. It really depends what you look for in a novel. I have a friend who only enjoys adventure stories, Dumas, Hemmingway, or Touching the Void type non-fiction.
Much of my off time is spent in wild places, hunting wild things or wild adventures, so I personally gravitate toward the psychological elements, viewing my own mind as the great frontier. I've never read a character like Alyosha, though not my favorite, I found him interesting.
Writers share what they know and understand, readers explore what is unknown to them.



I also loved Sholokhov and have always enjoyed all things Cossack. The end of serfdom in Russia was a fascinating part of history. Cossacks to the Russian are like cowboys to us Americans. Despite the harships they endured, and the constant fight for life, I can't help but to envy them. Something about how they shrug off all authority, with reckless abandon and wild rebellion, echoes in the voids of my own wicked soul.

You should read Master and Man -a short but grimly fantastic work nonetheless.

[bIGwIRE]

You should read Master and Man -a short but grimly fantastic work nonetheless.

I have always enjoyed that story. He does a good job capturing the confusion and fear of being lost and disoriented. I have it in the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation.

His best work, in my opinion, was Anna Karenina. It has been a few years since I read it, but I remember enjoying it immensely. It is one of the best novels ever written.

Tolstoy is amazing, but sometimes I do have a hard time connecting with him. At times he takes the role of historian very seriously, leaving some of his shorter works, like The Cossacks, and even great stretches of War and Peace, to feel like a newscast. Its a minor complaint, made possible only by my own uneducated personal taste, against a literary genius.

I like how Chekhov said it; "When literature possesses a Tolstoy, it is easy and pleasant to be a writer; even when you know you have achieved nothing yourself and are still achieving nothing, this is not as terrible as it might otherwise be, because Tolstoy achieves for everyone. What he does serves to justify all the hopes and aspirations invested in literature."

[Raven Falcon.]

I have always enjoyed that story. He does a good job capturing the confusion and fear of being lost and disoriented. I have it in the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation.

His best work, in my opinion, was Anna Karenina. It has been a few years since I read it, but I remember enjoying it immensely. It is one of the best novels ever written.

Tolstoy is amazing, but sometimes I do have a hard time connecting with him. At times he takes the role of historian very seriously, leaving some of his shorter works, like The Cossacks, and even great stretches of War and Peace, to feel like a newscast. Its a minor complaint, made possible only by my own uneducated personal taste, against a literary genius.

I like how Chekhov said it; "When literature possesses a Tolstoy, it is easy and pleasant to be a writer; even when you know you have achieved nothing yourself and are still achieving nothing, this is not as terrible as it might otherwise be, because Tolstoy achieves for everyone. What he does serves to justify all the hopes and aspirations invested in literature." Tolstoy the moralist or the philosopher and Tolstoy the writer were different beings in one man.

In War and Peace, he repeats himself again and again in his discourse of history.

No avid reader, however, can dismiss his masterful if not matchless ability to create amazingly life-like and realistic characters.

[bIGwIRE]

In War and Peace, he repeats himself again and again in his discourse of history.

No avid reader, however, can dismiss his masterful if not matchless ability to create amazingly life-like and realistic characters.


Not only readers, but his peers as well. From Nabakov to Faulkner, Proust to Dostoevsky, Mann to Wolfe, everyone pays tribute to Tolstoy's amazing contribution to literature, and history. It's rare to find such a plethora in total agreement.

Not even Shakespeare commands that level of respect. Has anyone seen Tolstoy's own thoughts on Shakespeare?

[Raven Falcon.]

Not only readers, but his peers as well. From Nabakov to Faulkner, Proust to Dostoevsky, Mann to Wolfe, everyone pays tribute to Tolstoy's amazing contribution to literature, and history. It's rare to find such a plethora in total agreement.

Not even Shakespeare commands that level of respect. Has anyone seen Tolstoy's own thoughts on Shakespeare?

He hated Shakespeare, but he was in his moralist mode when he wrote the essay. I think 'What is Art' is the title.

[WyattGwyon]

I don't know wno that is? Who is he? I'm always looking for new Russian authors to read.

Andrei Bely's novel Petersburg is a masterpiece.

A couple of big post-WWII novels:
Vasily Grossman: Life and Fate
Vassily Aksyanov: Generations of Winter

Andrei Platonov wrote some brilliant short stories.
Isaac Babel's Red Cavalry Stories, among others, are great.

[KCurtis]

If Karamazov lets me down I will cry and then in an act of shrieking desperation cut off all my hair again or do nothing but listen to Lou Reed alone in my room under a blanket rocking back and forth, chain-smoking..

:yikes: Don't do that! I've tried it, it doesn't work (I didn't cut off ALL my hair though)

[Mr.lucifer]

I heard victor pelevin is great.

[neilgee]

Andrei Bely's novel Petersburg is a masterpiece.



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

[WyattGwyon]

The only Russian author whose work I've read is Tolstoy. He is brilliant.

I don't usually read others because of the language barrier. Does anyone else worry that literature becomes corrupted when translated into other languages? I don't know Russian, so I'm hoping the English translations don't rub away some of the gold from Tolstoy's work. I know that some books I have read in Spanish are not the same in English and so this worries me and I have become very cautious when it comes to translations.

Dostoyevsky is the last author I would worry about in this regard, since he wrote in a very matter of fact, quasi-journalistic manner.

[Desolation]

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

Consider my interest very thoroughly piqued.

Anyone want to recommend a good translation of this?

[WyattGwyon]

Consider my interest very thoroughly piqued.

Anyone want to recommend a good translation of this?

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

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

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70407




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

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


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

I base this on The Brother Karamazov.

The Brothers Karamazov and a great deal of Dostoyevsky's fiction, in fact, is attributed to naive narrators within the frame of the stories. I suspect the author wanted to eliminate any expectation of "writerly prose" (as in Turgenev, whom he despised) in favor of a kind of naturalism. Nabokov leveled a lot of mostly silly criticism at him over his descriptive writing and his unpolished prose, but consider the source: Nabokov actually rated Turgenev the better novelist(!) :smilielol5:

[Ohmyscience]

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

[bIGwIRE]

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

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

[Mariatakis]

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

[bIGwIRE]

[I]Nabokov leveled a lot of mostly silly criticism at him over his descriptive writing and his unpolished prose, but consider the source: Nabokov actually rated Turgenev the better novelist(!) :smilielol5:

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

[bIGwIRE]

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

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

You're right, and this has been discussed on this forum a few times. Like here, for instance. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24521) Nabakov wasn't saying anything new, he just said it with more wit and style, and to a wider audience. Now nobody can speak a word about great Russian literature without also speaking about Nabakov. It really was a great bit of self promotion.

[Raven Falcon.]

You're right, and this has been discussed on this forum a few times. Like here, for instance. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24521) Nabakov wasn't saying anything new, he just said it with more wit and style, and to a wider audience. Now nobody can speak a word about great Russian literature without also speaking about Nabakov. It really was a great bit of self promotion.

He was right to some extent.

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

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

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

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

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

[stlukesguild]

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

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

And here's a review of my favorite book of his stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/books/review/Saunders-t.html?pagewanted=all

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

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

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

[WyattGwyon]

He was right to some extent.

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

[Mugs]

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

[Kyriakos]

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