Why aren't the French as widely read as the Russians?

[mande2013]

Does anyone have any idea as to why the major French novelists like Balzac, Stendhal, and Flaubert don't have as wide a readership beyond their borders as major Russian figures like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov do beyond theirs? Just wondering. Also, I've heard people say that in France Balzac is significantly lower ranked than the other two aforementioned Frenchman, but living in France myself, I've never had that impression and have gotten the sense on the contrary that many French intellectuals see Balzac as their greatest literary glory, at least with respect to prose writers. He certainly gets mentioned more than Stendhal or Zola it seems.

[redfox1111]

One fact worth considering about Dostoevsky, there were a great deal of common people at this funeral.....

Through reading a great deal of his personal correspondence and his major works (minus the Idiot) I think it's safe to say that he was a genuinely compassionate person. I don't have the knowledge I would to on the above French authors but can the same be said for them?

I'm not going to argue that compassion is the primary reason an author is read more than others but I think it's a fact worth considering.

[mande2013]

Who would be your idea of a great writer who lacked compassion besides Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot of course?

[Pompey Bum]

Who would be your idea of a great writer who lacked compassion besides Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot of course?

De Sade? Hee hee.

[Danik 2016]

Does anyone have any idea as to why the major French novelists like Balzac, Stendhal, and Flaubert don't have as wide a readership beyond their borders as major Russian figures like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov do beyond theirs? Just wondering. Also, I've heard people say that in France Balzac is significantly lower ranked than the other two aforementioned Frenchman, but living in France myself, I've never had that impression and have gotten the sense on the contrary that many French intellectuals see Balzac as their greatest literary glory, at least with respect to prose writers. He certainly gets mentioned more than Stendhal or Zola it seems.
It depends to which readership you are refering. In Brazilian Literature, which follows largely the traditions of the Portuguese and the French Literature, Balzac is considered the most important reference of French realism.

[OrphanPip]

I think French writers are more widely read in general in English than Russian writers. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are widely read in English but I think a wider range of French authors are available in translation and read in English. French poetry is also a lot more popular in English than anything Russian (partly due to the relative ease of translating French to English in comparison with Russian to English).

[desiresjab]

You funny rascal, Pomp.

But to answer the original question: the Russians are more readable. Try reading Sentimental Education to see what I mean, if you haven't already, for a taste of Flaubert. Balzac cannot really compare to Dostoyevsky, and I did not find Stendahl as readable as Solzhenitzyn, Turgenev, Gogol or any number of Russians. I loved many Russian novels and liked very few of the French classics I tried. I was wild about a long short story of Sartre's called The Wall, however.

[desiresjab]

I liked a couple of novels by Camus, in particular The Stranger, and really enjoyed his essays as well. He was less a technical philosopher than Sartre.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

"...don't have as wide a readership beyond their borders"
Hugo anyone?

[JCamilo]

I think French writers are more widely read in general in English than Russian writers. Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are widely read in English but I think a wider range of French authors are available in translation and read in English. French poetry is also a lot more popular in English than anything Russian (partly due to the relative ease of translating French to English in comparison with Russian to English).

I have no idea why the OP come with this conclusion French novelists are less read than russian. As you said, French literatura is probally the most translated literature in the world alongside english, but also the russian trio were readers of french novelists, not only the trio balzac, flaubert, and stendhal, but also Hugo, Voltaire, Maupassant... heck, Dreyfuss case was part of Chekhov correspondence, so popular Zola was. If anything, it is the english novelists who were way behind the russians in the begining of XX century, as E.M.Foster noted when he said there were no novel writen in english as good as Dostoievisky and Tolstoy novels. (He ignored Melville or that Ulysses was published one year before he said that and didnt gave much credit to Dickens and Austen, but still).

p.s. forgot to mention the most popular of them all, Dumas.

[Dreamwoven]

Sholokhov And Quiet Flows the Don must be one the the all-time greats -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Quiet_Flows_the_Don

[desiresjab]

"...don't have as wide a readership beyond their borders"
Hugo anyone?

True enough. In high school I was was devouring Hugo. Critically, is he really as acclaimed as the first-perch French authors, though? That does not matter. He crosses borders. Two of his books are still regularly remade as films.

[JCamilo]

Hugo is the first perch french author of XIX century. The question is if the others are acclaimed as him.

[mande2013]

Hugo is the first perch french author of XIX century. The question is if the others are acclaimed as him.

That probably depends largely on who you speak to. "Leftist intellectual" types may opt for Balzac and Stendhal while the dandies may primarily go for Flaubert and Hugo.

[Aylinn]

I don't know how it looks in other countries, but in Poland if someone is interested in classics, she or he is bound to hear about French literature rather sooner than later. I remember that I had to read Balzac's Le Père Goriot and The Plague by Camus in high school. Also, over 100 classics of French literature were translated in the first half of the 20th century by one of the best Polish translators and his translations are still around. I have recently seen Stendhal and Flaubert's books which he translated in Carrefour along with stuff written by Danielle Steel, so I don't think French literature is less popular than Russian.

[JCamilo]

That probably depends largely on who you speak to. "Leftist intellectual" types may opt for Balzac and Stendhal while the dandies may primarily go for Flaubert and Hugo.

It is not just about who we pick. He was the heavy hitter of French literature in XIX century, the one who broke with the enlightment names, build himself a huge reputation as poet, as novelist, managed to get popular and was the shadow Flaubert and Balzac had to face and admire. He is the closest thing to a national hero among writers and while we may argue if Flaubert or Verlaine were better at their specific crafts as Hugo (which is purelly an argument, the truth may not be so clear), there is no doubt he is the one who could claim the highest level of quality with prose and poetry unlike any of the other big names (Even Baudelaire, his prose is great, but he rather made it be poetry or essays). Of course, by the end of XIX century, realism made Hugo a bit outdated, his political views naive, but then, you can say the same about Zola/Flaubert when Proust happened.

All in all, Hugo was not the Goethe, Cervantes, Shakespeare of France, just almost, because French literature is rather multiple and they do enjoy cutting heads.

[Jackson Richardson]

That probably depends largely on who you speak to. "Leftist intellectual" types may opt for Balzac and Stendhal while the dandies may primarily go for Flaubert and Hugo.

Don't understand. Balzac was a right winger and Hugo definitely on the left.

Oscar Wilde, a dandy if ever there was one, was a great Balzac lover.

I answer to the original question it may just be that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are particularly impressive by any standard. I'm not sure that lesser Russian novelists are more read than comparable French ones.

[ennison]

Sholokhov great? A joke surely. A little boy writing glib stories for little boys.

[JCamilo]

Don't understand. Balzac was a right winger and Hugo definitely on the left.

Oscar Wilde, a dandy if ever there was one, was a great Balzac lover.

I answer to the original question it may just be that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are particularly impressive by any standard. I'm not sure that lesser Russian novelists are more read than comparable French ones.

If you consider Saint-Exupéry as lesser something, no russian book is as popular as Little Prince. I am not sure if there is even a russian book, be War and Peace or Pushkin's as popular as Dumas most famous works.

[Jack of Hearts]

Or maybe the classic 'Russian author' trope is just incorporated cultural branding. Something people heard somewhere before, and make reference to, whether or not the reality of the situation is accounted for. It's almost passe ' -- "I enjoy 19th century Russian literature." Is that utterance just a party trick, is the speaker more interested in what it suggests rather than directly presents? Are people repeating something that's been collected and asserted into the common realm of knowledge?

To flush out the connotations, consider how "19th century Russian literature" is collectively used in figurative language, or a joke. The concept has a meaning that has been assigned to it outside of itself. 'Everybody' knows it is dense, complicated, an intellectual feat.

'19th century French literature'-- the extended meaning isn't as readily available. The utterance isn't as loaded, so to speak.

In short, the branding has failed you. That's why your question is almost equivalent to asking: "Why is the gag about Russian authors more widely known than the gag about French authors?"

"Why am I more familiar with concept A than concept B, regardless of which concept is true (if any)?"

As someone who has actually read at least portions of all but one of the authors you've mentioned, Jack of Hearts would have to say Zola and Flaubert occupy first position in terms of actual artistic capability, both authors in their original languages or in translations were clearly superior prose stylists, but there's no accounting for taste.







J

[mande2013]

Call it what you may, but I don't think novelists should be assessed exclusively on the basis of their ability as prose stylists. It's only one factor in my opinion. It would be like valuing Ingres over Cezanne because the former is *obviously* a better draftsman.

[JBI]

French relies heavily on form, which is almost totally lost on English readers. Coleridge had disparaging remarks for French literature as well; this is not a new phenomenon. Generally it's because the English world cannot read French properly, and loses a sense of feeling for the texture of the work.

French poetry in particular is far more reliant on form than most other languages; therefore if your prosody and phonology are lacking, you will not understand the poem.

[Dreamwoven]

Sholokhov great? A joke surely. A little boy writing glib stories for little boys.

Just goes to show how personal taste in literature is...

[Dreamwoven]

French relies heavily on form, which is almost totally lost on English readers. Coleridge had disparaging remarks for French literature as well; this is not a new phenomenon. Generally it's because the English world cannot read French properly, and loses a sense of feeling for the texture of the work.

French poetry in particular is far more reliant on form than most other languages; therefore if your prosody and phonology are lacking, you will not understand the poem.

I agree entirely. Sadly this is true of all languages, especially those we learn in school rather than in earlier years at home.

[JBI]

The English poetic idiom in general, however, is more contemplative than lyrical. Iambic pentameter as a meter is much slower, and offers enough room to make sustained arguments with reflection (compared to lets say Trochaic tetrameter catalectic lines which are faster, and have been used for the most lyric of English verses for instance, Blake's Tyger). In translation then, pentameter, to me anyway, seems much easier to deal with; the rhetorical argument can more or less be translated, whereas the lyrical qualities of verse are far more difficult.

French almost entirely is in the opposite camp by my understanding, so it has that disadvantage. That being said, however, Zola in translation (prose now) pretty much reshaped the economy of publication in late 19th century Britain. His publisher managed to undercut all the lending libraries to create the form of mass best-seller in a way that paved the way for modern English novels and publication. So in prose, there is definately a fashion to French novels, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Jack of Hearts]

French almost entirely is in the opposite camp by my understanding, so it has that disadvantage. That being said, however, Zola in translation (prose now) pretty much reshaped the economy of publication in late 19th century Britain. His publisher managed to undercut all the lending libraries to create the form of mass best-seller in a way that paved the way for modern English novels and publication. So in prose, there is definately a fashion to French novels, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

What does this mean? Are you talking about publishing, or actual influence "in prose" (stylistics)?

This reader is no expert in the history of 20th century publishing. But the point that Zola, in translation, influenced English prose stylistics just simply cannot be true-- wouldn't we have had better (more artistically capable) anglophone writers? Not a scholar, but as someone who likes reading, JoH doesn't see much influence of either Flaubert or Zola in early 20th century (English or American) prose style.

And isn't it also true that Zola wasn't even translated intelligently until the 1960s? Aside from parts of the original French, yours truly has read multiple translations of Zola. The earlier translations are unpleasant, and not in a 'language of the times' kind of way.








J

[JCamilo]

Not exactly about Zola, but Joyce, for example, was under Flaubert influence. You have to account how those french novelists were also an influence over russian, german and portuguese novelists. Like I said early, Zola's article on Dreyfuss was notorious in all europe. Chekhov and Gorki were ravaging about it. This without mentioning Rimbaud, Verlaine, Mallarmé, Baudelaire who are behind several authors. France was pretty much the intellectual center of western world until the wars, after all.

As english novels, we today may consider a bunch of novels writen in english as great from the period, such as Moby Dick (Melville was a bit rediscovered by europeans before the americans did, so was Poe), or Wuthering Heights or Middlemarch, etc but I recall E.M.Foster giving a lecture and pretty much claimming how the english language lacked any novel at the level of Dostoievisky, Tolstoy and the French guys. This was in the 20's, so the english world wasnt so secure of their power at that point while the French had the longest and more steady novelist tradition of Europe (Spain never kept the Cervantes level after all).

It seems to exist here a very underating of French influence/importance in this thread.

[Jack of Hearts]

Not exactly about Zola, but Joyce, for example, was under Flaubert influence.

Good point. Could easily see this, but not for his novels. Joyce is the exception, though, not the rule. And Joyce is regarded highly, and rightfully so, as a short story writer.


You have to account how those french novelists were also an influence over russian, german and portuguese novelists.

Yours truly only reads in English and French, and is concerned chiefly with style in English

Of course we say that, globally, those French writers were very influential. Nobody is arguing that.






J

[JBI]

What does this mean? Are you talking about publishing, or actual influence "in prose" (stylistics)?

This reader is no expert in the history of 20th century publishing. But the point that Zola, in translation, influenced English prose stylistics just simply cannot be true-- wouldn't we have had better (more artistically capable) anglophone writers? Not a scholar, but as someone who likes reading, JoH doesn't see much influence of either Flaubert or Zola in early 20th century (English or American) prose style.

And isn't it also true that Zola wasn't even translated intelligently until the 1960s? Aside from parts of the original French, yours truly has read multiple translations of Zola. The earlier translations are unpleasant, and not in a 'language of the times' kind of way.








J

Prior to Zola, in general readers were buying volumes of books (meaning one novel devided into 3-5parts) at an impossible amount of money. Therefore instead of buying books, people would subscribe to a library (not cheap either). This general form was undercut by Visatelli's translations and publishings of Single volume Zola novels, which were a massive best-seller in this cheap format. The serial form and then the published 3 volume form which were the media of the day ended up giving way to the cheap form embodied by Zola's publications. The journalistic quality of the work had an effect of pushing immediate commentary into the published form, as apposed to the serial form.

If you look on this website, for instance, you will see that almost all the Zola translations are like such, they are all very near the publication of the oirignal French text (usually within weeks of original publication).

This isn't so much the style or content as it is the form and method of writing, which proved far more influential than we credit.

[JCamilo]

Good point. Could easily see this, but not for his novels. Joyce is the exception, though, not the rule. And Joyce is regarded highly, and rightfully so, as a short story writer.

Flaubert is everywhere in Ulysses. You could add other french influences on Joyce (Like Mallarmé), but I see no point mentioning about his short stories. Joyce status as novelist is way above his status as short story writer. And he is not the exception. Flaubert is influence for Henry James, Faulkner, Nabokov. In a way, everytime you meantion modern realistic novel, it is Flaubert hands behind it. Critics like James Woods place Flaubert as a turning point in the history of novels and they may right as Flaubert stylistic obssession was finail nail on poetry coffin and the true stabilishment as prose as the reingning literary style.

And he wasnt the only one. People are forgetting the russian raise as stars was more in the XX century than during their lifetime. In the XIX century, French novelists were the big power which includes england and their love-hate relationship with french pals. .

[Jack of Hearts]

Flaubert is everywhere in Ulysses.

Oh, is he? Even the section that's written as a play? Even here? --

"Bald Pat who is bothered mitred the napkins. Pat is a waiter hard of his hearing. Pat is a waiter who waits while you wait. Hee hee hee hee. He waits while you wait. Hee hee. A waiter is he. Hee hee hee hee."

Look, dude. You may be right. But maybe you might take the perspective of someone who is not a scholar-- someone who is purely talking about prose stylistics... and try to find *anything* like the above, or the various other postmodern devices, or variable sentence structures, that appear in Ulysses, and find them somewhere in the two great novels of Flaubert.

The question posed was not Did Flaubert influence James Joyce? Joyce, for all intents and purposes, said that Flaubert did. The question was Did Flaubert's prose style in translation affect James Joyce's prose style (in English). Is the way they use language in their works similar, for instance? NOT a question of what that language was about.



You could add other french influences on Joyce (Like Mallarmé), but I see no point mentioning about his short stories. Joyce status as novelist is way above his status as short story writer.

Yes, we've all been socialized as much. We all have TV, or TV's influence. There's a significant subset of readers (and very famous writers) that value James Joyce's work in Dubliners over any stage piece or novel he wrote. It's not the first thing the lit undergrad would recite, and it makes no sense at trivia night-- but just because the opinion isn't as well advertised, doesn't mean it's not strong or it's not out there.


In a way, everytime you meantion modern realistic novel, it is Flaubert hands behind it.

Have heard this said before, but whatevs. Are you talking about how something is written or what is written about, or something else, or both?


And JBI-- Thanks for posting that.







J

[JCamilo]

Oh, is he? Even the section that's written as a play? Even here? --

"Bald Pat who is bothered mitred the napkins. Pat is a waiter hard of his hearing. Pat is a waiter who waits while you wait. Hee hee hee hee. He waits while you wait. Hee hee. A waiter is he. Hee hee hee hee."

Look, dude. You may be right. But maybe you might take the perspective of someone who is not a scholar-- someone who is purely talking about prose stylistics... and try to find *anything* like the above, or the various other postmodern devices, or variable sentence structures, that appear in Ulysses, and find them somewhere in the two great novels of Flaubert.

The question posed was not Did Flaubert influence James Joyce? Joyce, for all intents and purposes, said that Flaubert did. The question was Did Flaubert's prose style in translation affect James Joyce's prose style (in English). Is the way they use language in their works similar, for instance? NOT a question of what that language was about.




No, Jack, that is not the question. It is not even a question made before in this thread. First time you do it and anyone, no need to the be scholar, will not consider influence (stylish or watever) as something that must be reduced to the original idiom (or even less in the case of Joyce, who could understand more than just english). Imagine that, sundenly Petrarca influence on Camões is gone because one wrote in italian, the other in portuguese...

Now, consider Flaubert style. It was precision, sure, but that would not set him apart from Voltaire Prose. It was Style and poetry. Flaubert is in the middle of the prose-poetry XIX century change. What he used to say. Le Just Mote. Which is something about the best sounding word. He used to repeat his sentences over and over to see how well they sounded. He used to say the novels in prose would only be an work of art if they had the same impact of poetry. What we have in Joyce? The same prose that sounds better when we hear. Of course, this is more radical in Finnegans, which is a big prose poem, but he is following flaubert stylist options. What is good prose? Poetry. And this inside the same detailistic realism that Flaubert Loved. So, yeah, Flaubert is everywhere (sure, someone can reckon a hyperbole), it is the novelist model, it is the "How do you must write" mentor. Joyce took (and made better, Flaubert didnt consider himself a genius, Joyce probally did) Flaubert style to english.



Yes, we've all been socialized as much. We all have TV, or TV's influence. There's a significant subset of readers (and very famous writers) that value James Joyce's work in Dubliners over any stage piece or novel he wrote. It's not the first thing the lit undergrad would recite, and it makes no sense at trivia night-- but just because the opinion isn't as well advertised, doesn't mean it's not strong or it's not out there.

Of course not. There is people who love Joyce Short stories? Sure. They are very good? Of course. in 20, 50, 100 years people may be giving more attention to them than to Ulysses. Of course. But this change that as Novels go, there is a Before Ulysses and an After Ulysses? That Ulysses status is way more strong, than lets say, The Dead? You just cannt deny, Joyce fame, status is about Ulysses, how great it is, and Finnegans Wake. His other works are often seem as the works of an artists searching his great theme, his maturity. There is nothing much to change it, the lists and/or critics that label Ulysses as the greatest book if XX is not small, I however not saw anyone placing Dubliners in such place.




Have heard this said before, but whatevs. Are you talking about how something is written or what is written about, or something else, or both?

How something is written of course.

[mande2013]

French relies heavily on form, which is almost totally lost on English readers. Coleridge had disparaging remarks for French literature as well; this is not a new phenomenon. Generally it's because the English world cannot read French properly, and loses a sense of feeling for the texture of the work.

French poetry in particular is far more reliant on form than most other languages; therefore if your prosody and phonology are lacking, you will not understand the poem.

What's interesting is that as someone who engages in creative writing, I often almost find it easier to write in French, or at least approach certain tasks related to fiction writing in French, even though English is my native tongue and French my second. Certain things just flow more effortlessly in French whereas in English it turns out feeling somewhat labored.