Chekhov has also spawned an adjective: Chekhovian. Mainly thrown about when discussing theatre.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Kafka is important to Modernism but Chekhov is important to Naturalism.
Printable View
Chekhov has also spawned an adjective: Chekhovian. Mainly thrown about when discussing theatre.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Kafka is important to Modernism but Chekhov is important to Naturalism.
Who's best threads are tiresome. This one attains great heights of silliness. Proust (massively trivial) a better novelist than Tolstoy? Please! Seriously comparing Flaubert with Dostoyevsky? (putting aside the insurmountable apples and oranges thing) Yeah right. (To JBI: perfection is overrated and a pretty cheap aspiration; If you want a perfect French novel, Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris—or Les Miserables—is a better choice.) Has no one recognized Kafka's debt to Gogol and Dostoyevsky? If you are talking about Goethe, why Werther and Elective Infinities (snore) instead of Wilhelm Meister?
Anyway, Russia and France produced lots of great literature and I see no point in this exasperating comparative rating game.
Bely, Aksyanov, Bunin, Babel, Platonov, Nabokov, Grossman? Bulgakov was mentioned at least, if not well appreciated.
Thank you for your comments, however ridiculous and self centered.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
You seem to be of the mind that only authors passing your approval, or writers you like are worth mentioning, and we are all fools for only slightly and not over-praisingly mentioning Balgakov and the like, so I will say, do I need to say more? Your argument speaks to the maturity and seriousness, as well as the respect your opinion seems to hold for others. At least you could have mentioned something about the texts besides the essential quality they have of you liking them (which, by the way, is irrelevant to anybody else).
As for these types of threads being tiresome, I agree with you wholeheartedly - however, you fueling them with statements of everyone is wrong but me, and "this author is better because I say he is" doesn't quite do anything that isn't tiresome either.
Doestosvky is the best cause i say so. Tolstoy is overrated because he bored me, even though he has a good measure of influence on western literature.
Kafka is important to Modernism but Chekhov is important to Naturalism.
"Kafkaesque" is a term that exists beyond the literary world. It has become somewhat synonymous with "Surreal" although Surrealism often suggests something fantastic (ala Dali) where Kafka's fits more within the merger of the mundane and the absurd (ala Magritte). His name is connected in many ways with the absurdity and inhumanity of modern Bureaucracy. I cannot help but think of him when I look at a painting like this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/...6f465332_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/...4321193f_b.jpg
Of course I wouldn't underestimate Checkoff... although I tend to prefer his marvelous short stories to his plays. My favorite Russian tale, however, might be that most Kafka-esque tale by Gogol: The Nose... made even more memorable as an opera by Shostakovitch.
WyattGwon-Who's best threads are tiresome. This one attains great heights of silliness. Proust (massively trivial) a better novelist than Tolstoy? Please! Seriously comparing Flaubert with Dostoyevsky? (putting aside the insurmountable apples and oranges thing) Yeah right. (To JBI: perfection is overrated and a pretty cheap aspiration; If you want a perfect French novel, Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris—or Les Miserables—is a better choice.) Has no one recognized Kafka's debt to Gogol and Dostoyevsky? If you are talking about Goethe, why Werther and Elective Infinities (snore) instead of Wilhelm Meister?
Anyway, Russia and France produced lots of great literature and I see no point in this exasperating comparative rating game.
Bely, Aksyanov, Bunin, Babel, Platonov, Nabokov, Grossman? Bulgakov was mentioned at least, if not well appreciated.
JBI-Thank you for your comments, however ridiculous and self centered.
You seem to be of the mind that only authors passing your approval, or writers you like are worth mentioning, and we are all fools for only slightly and not over-praisingly mentioning Balgakov and the like, so I will say, do I need to say more? Your argument speaks to the maturity and seriousness, as well as the respect your opinion seems to hold for others. At least you could have mentioned something about the texts besides the essential quality they have of you liking them (which, by the way, is irrelevant to anybody else).
As for these types of threads being tiresome, I agree with you wholeheartedly - however, you fueling them with statements of everyone is wrong but me, and "this author is better because I say he is" doesn't quite do anything that isn't tiresome either.
I'm pretty much in agreement with JBI here. Proust is massively trivial why? Because you don't like him. Because there are no great battle scene? No car chases and explosions? Impressionism stands as one of the great movements in the whole of art in spite of the fact that the subject matter was largely "tivial": paintings of flowers, still-life, landscapes, friends and family of the artists, Paris nightlife, ballerinas... Flaubert and the whole of perfectionism is overrated why? Again because you say so? And "seriously"... The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Les Miserables as a better example of "perfection"? I can't think of a critic who hasn't suggested that either novel would have greatly benefited from some serious editing. As much as I like both books, they are great, imperfect, sprawling masterworks laden with unnecessary digressions ala Don Quixote. As for Gogol's influence upon Kafka... it is possible, but I can't remember coming across his name in any of Kafka's notebooks. How well translated was Gogol at the time? The obvious influences include The Bible and various Jewish narratives including Yiddish folk tales, Don Quixote, Goethe, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Flaubert, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Darwin... all mentioned in his notebooks.
Again... I quite like a lot of Russian literature... but the comparative thing is ridiculous... especially when it is based on little more than what the individual likes... and more often than not is based on a limited reading experience... not even having read many of the major works of a culture that one is dismissing as "minor".
Oh, without quesiton. Kafka knew and owned Dostoievisky book, often mentioning Gogol like Crime and Punishment. He has too much formal traits, not just the storyline plot. I think he mentions reading gogol essays to Max Brood and also that General Inspector was the finest play. Plus, at that time, Russians are already getting popular in the english world, germany was the bridge and a closer link, I have no doubt Kafka could get a gogol.
I do not think this imply that the fantastic of Kafka was necessarily born from Gogol (but the contept for burocracy yes), considering the source of gogol fantastic was german and closeby to kafka.
I actually quite enjoy these types of debates. I wouldn't mind having more of them; but like most discussions, whatever the subject, the quality is largely dependent upon the intellectual level of the speakers involved. When Plutarch does it, it's a masterpiece. When I do it, it's something less. That doesn't mean that I don't have a deep and abiding curiosity or opinions about which writers are best at their respective crafts: Yeats vs Eliot, Goethe vs Hugo, Milton vs Tasso, Petrarch vs Chaucer, Baudelaire vs Whitman, Euripides vs Racine, Dickens vs Dostoyevski, Cervantes vs Tolstoy, etc. The whole history of western literature is based upon agon or contest. Supposedly, it's this constant striving with one another, each attempting to be the best, which motivates and drives us to higher and higher levels of achievement. How could that be tedious?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Because of this thread, I went out and read The Death of Ivan Ilyich the other day, and I don't even like Tolstoy. I just wanted a refresher on what his writing style looked like. It had me thinking about certain parallel themes in Thomas Mann's Death in Venice. The debate between Tolstoy's War and Peace versus Flaubert's Madame Bovary for best novel got me thinking about Chinese literature, because they have these great sprawling massive novels like War and Peace or In Search of Lost Time, but I haven't seen their trim flawless Madame Bovary, and I wondered if they had one. I read a bit more of their poetry as I thought about it and I wondered where they were hiding their epics. They have giant plays and giant novels, so where are their giant poems? Every other society has them, so why not the Chinese?
Unlike JBI or Stlukesguild, I do find these discussions stimulating.
But, the real question... how much less than Plutarch ? :D
Quite a bit, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Whom shall I set so great a man to face?
Or whom oppose? Who's equal to the place?
-Aeschylus
If I were to name a proper opponent for Plutarch, the great biographer, it would have to either be Giorgio Vasari or Dr. Samuel Johnson.
Personally. I'd prefer debating who'd win in a fight.
Well, Mortal have seen Kung fu movies, which Plutarch has no idea what is... so I think he has an advantage...
This. Dostoevsky does look to be stronger than Flaubert, so I'd bet on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer
There is a difference. The bulk of Western literature is not based on saying who is better, but on comparing to show strengths and weaknesses, especially against a theoretical ideal of one sort or another - that's what we call, after all, history and evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
So when someone like Vasari does it in his lives of the artists, he does it with the simple idea in mind that he will create a tradition (somewhat trivially albeit) from a classical precedent, and then expand on development, theoretical views of art, and then comparison of artists, as a way of demonstrating artwork (throwing in anecdotal and biography of course).
The idea of based on contest seems a half truth, it is more to be based on comparison than direct competitiveness.
They may not be perfect novels but they do have something about them. I think that it's practically impossible for a novel to be structurally perfect- there's bound to be some pretty passages that are ultimately unnecessary- but the tone and emotions it provokes can be almost perfect.Quote:
And "seriously"... The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Les Miserables as a better example of "perfection"? I can't think of a critic who hasn't suggested that either novel would have greatly benefited from some serious editing. As much as I like both books, they are great, imperfect, sprawling masterworks laden with unnecessary digressions ala Don Quixote
They may not be perfect novels but they do have something about them. I think that it's practically impossible for a novel to be structurally perfect- there's bound to be some pretty passages that are ultimately unnecessary- but the tone and emotions it provokes can be almost perfect.
I am not suggesting that they are aesthetic failures any more than Don Quixote... or Shakespeare, for that matter, who is sometimes faulted for his digressions as opposed to Racine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
Oh okay, though I am quite inclined to agree with your rebuttal, I'll explain some of my thinking starting with the easy bits. The list of Russian authors at the end was to suggest that a discussion aspiring to a comprehensive comparison of Russian literature with that of other cultures should perhaps not ignore so many important authors.
JCamilo has adequately addressed the Kafka and Gogol issue. I will only add a concrete example — Kafka: Man wakes up to find himself an insect. Attempts to go about his business despite this distressing development (and without addressing the deep metaphysical questions one would think might be foremost in his mind.) Gogol: Man wakes up to find his nose is missing. Attempts to go about his business despite this distressing development (and without addressing the deep metaphysical questions one would think might be foremost in his mind.) The second description is of the beginning of The Nose; you know Kafka. It's obvious, no?
Perfection and Hugo: Notre Dame de Paris contains two large digressions. But since they are discreet chapters, there would be no point in editing them out. One simply skips them, just as one skips the every-artwork-that-ever-had-a-whale-as-its-subject chapter in Moby Dick. I would suggest it was expected and conventional to do so. Otherwise, the novel has nothing extra, nothing wasted. The sheer genius of the opening scene, wherein virtually every one of the novel's characters is introduced in the same public setting, the perfect unity of theme and story (spider/fly/sun — Frollo/Esmeralda/Phoebus), the clockwork unfolding of the intricate plot, the sheer poetry of the descriptions. I could go on . . .
Les Miserables is a tougher nut. But consider just the biggest digression, the description of the Battle of Waterloo. It is brilliant in its own right as a historical document but the reason it is novelistically brilliant is that it is all a set up to put Thernadier's role in the battle (picking the pockets of corpses) in relief. Thernadier's self-aggrandizement becomes the butt of a cosmic joke. It's hilarious and devastatingly effective. As for the sewers of Paris: Once again, skip it. It would be conventional to do so. Otherwise . . . well I don't think I need defend the novel's widely acknowledged qualities, many of which it holds in common with Notre Dame de Paris.
In short, I don't think the kind of conventional digressions found in these works count against novelistic perfection.
I will address the rest of the issues in another post as this one is getting long. Stay tuned . . .
Okay, I will indulge this game a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Re: The comparison of Flaubert and Dostoyevsky.
First of all, this seems a dreadful category error to me. Two completely different conceptions of novelistic aesthetics. On one hand, polished perfection of expression in which every word is labored over. The aesthetics of poetry foisted on a foreign domain one might argue. Dostoyevsky would have found this whole notion tedious and absurd and to avoid even thinking about it he attributed the prose of most of his major novels to naive narrators within the novel (Devils, Brothers Karamazov, Adolescent, many shorter works as well). He had bigger fish to fry. Like revolutionizing the process of characterization (Rhav: "the first novelist to have fully accepted and dramatized the principle of uncertainty or indeterminacy in the presentation of character") and the relation between author and subject (Bakhtin: the dialogic stance, polyphony, heteroglosia.) A whole new conceptual vocabulary had to be generated to even describe Dostoyevsky's innovations. The psychological realism resulting from these (and other) innovations influenced or cast a shadow over countless later novelists, dramatists, and writers of screen plays. Can anything remotely like this be said of Flaubert? If influence is a relevant criterion, there is no comparison.
Proust and Tolstoy? Similar category error. Same outcome. Bely is probably a more apt comparison. If I ever finish his seven novels I'll be in a position to render an opinion on how he stacks up.
One final comment: You seem to know your French literature much better than your Russian, hence, I suspect, the failure to mention numerous important Russian novelists and poets. If you insist on running your war game, you might want to avoid Napoleon's errors: Understand the lay of the land a bit more thoroughly, don't send your troupes into a foreign domain they don't comprehend and with which they will have no idea how to deal (alluding here to whole new vistas of theory and aesthetics), and more fully assess the depth of your opponent's reserves.
This being said, I would be hard-pressed to render an opinion on the general issue of French versus Russian literature. But then I'm a pacifist in this regard and love both.
One more thing: My answers on perfection and Hugo, Kafka, etc. ended up in a response to JBI above.
Look, the problem is that there is a story about a man who sundenly wakes up and find himself sick, poor, attacked by his family and friends and abadoned by God. It is Job. Kafka knew this one as well. Of course, I wont, after mentioning Kafka's closest friend afirmation dismiss a link between Kafka and Gogol. It is not just the fantastic (which both belong to the romantic germanic tradition anyways) but also the ironic criticism of burocracy. One could point Kafka's jewish style against Gogol (and general russian) anti-semetism, but then, Kafka is mofe jew when he denies it. The thing, is that sometimes the precussor is not exactly better. Oscar Wilde is a precussor of Borges, Charlotte Bronte of Virginia Woolf, Marlowe of Shakespeare, etc. Showing a link between Kafka and Gogol only shows a link between Kafka and Gogol. Nothing else.
As Dostoievisky and Flaubert? Why not? It is not wonder both are precussors of Joyces, Woolfs, etc. Because there is strength in both. What about the cynical view of society (of course, with Flaubert a violent negation and Dostoievisky a christian-socialist mix), the work with their voice hidding behind every character? All depends the point of view, but I would deny Dostoievisky would find Flaubert boring. The closest we can have as novelist is Tolstoy and Dostoievisky admired the count and many times complained he would write as him if he had the time the count had.
About perfection, this is silly. If a huge work is perfect and also brillant (i would say some works are perfect, but just normal.) it is the Comedy. And it is not perfect. Hugo is very good, that is all.
I love to read japanese books, not only the manga. I also tend to love spanish.
My distrust and low opinion of perfection (I didn't say anything about perfectionism I don't think) is part of an intuitive sense of novelistic aesthetics that this discussion may help me to refine. The main issue is this: Beautiful, poetic prose, word-polishing, whatever you want to call it—that quality in the name of which Nabokov (Essays on Russian Literature) laid Dostoyevsky low and elevated Turgenev—the very quality Nabokov cultivated in his own prose and for which he rated Bely's Petersburg as one of the four greatest works of 20thc. literature, has never struck me as an essential value in the composition of novels. In poetry, certainly, but not in narrative literature. To cite an extreme example: Consider Gaddis's JR. It is virtually all dialogue and probably more than half of it is in sentence fragments or ludicrously ungrammatical. Nary a polished sentence throughout. And yet it is a masterpiece of a novel. It records with frightening precision the tenor of its times, the modes of expression adopted by many of its inhabitants, and the state of their consciousnesses. These, to me, are, arguably, more essential qualities one should expect from novels. Not that I mind poetic prose. Petersburg, in the excellent English translation I read, was gorgeously poetic and a great novel by the values I consider more central as well. "Give me chaos and the true expression of life as it is spoken and lived and save the poetry for . . . well, poetry," is a statement I don't even really believe but which I nevertheless feel like shouting when I read many novels with flawless poetic prose.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
And yes, the car chases and explosions in Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and Hugo are vastly preferable to flowers and ballerinas.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying Dostoyevsky would find Flaubert boring, I was saying he would have found writing in that style intolerable—perhaps even if he was so disposed and capable of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I dont disagree the polishing of language is not a prime element of novels or romances. I doubt Stlukes would, as he know so well Borges and his critic towards Cervantes, exactly due to that. I do not think it is even the prime of poems (after the is poems and romances together), but I won't deny that a Novel gets better if the prime elements where better treated by the writer. Now, Dostoievisky is no Proust or Flaubert, but he is hardly dense. Brothers K advantage of Madame Bovary is that the language is better treated in action with the characters, Madame B advantage is that language is better treated as structure. In this; neither are perfect (and both prime suspects of greatest novel ever. Nobody calling it would be insane.).
When Borges got older he gave up the claim Quevedo would write a Better quixote. He said something like "That was the only Quixote possible". Nabokov is attacking Dostoievisky style (and with some reason) but frankly, those things do not move a single line from Brother K towards perfect. It is close as it could be. As some point the second part of Lolita is poorer, but what they do not see, the second part had to be that way for the first Part make any sense. Nakobok was a prisioner of his style. It had to be that way.
I would lay to say the greatest stylist of Russian literature is Chekhov and nobody else. Seems to me that he had to write short stories to allow his style to not get those flaw that a romance or novel would bring to it, when people would think his style was superior to his novel. His solution to combine Dostoievisky and Tolstoy was this one. Not fighting with them, being something anew. And fully aware, style is substance.
I would say that you haven't read much since Russian lit is mostly known for negative, unfinished endings and downright depressing vibe. Sure, Crime and Punishment ends well, but I wouldn't say it's a Hollywood type of happy go lucky novel. In fact, Dostoyevsky's style is quite heavy and depressing to many people.
Turgenev's "A House of Gentlefolk" doesn't end well, neither does Eugene Onegin or anything written by Chekhov, or Anna Karenina (I mean she kills herself!).
So, read these before passing a wrong judgement.
Couple of things, I read Russian fluently as it's my first language, so I have few thoughts to add here. Pushkin loses a lot being translated simply because Russian language is very rich compared to most languages out there (I speak three); Pushkin's strength is mostly in language and rhyme use which is lost when you translate it to English (a language which is more logical, concise and less expressive than Russian). Pushkin really shines in Russian, and unless one is able to read Russian they will never know it. He is also responsible for a Russian language reform and hence highly regarded in Russia from a linguistics point of view.
Not to diminish his achievements in any way, I just wanted to point out that he does not benefit from translation at all.
Next, none of the Russian authors benefit from being translated (frankly, I don't think any authors do). Because translation inevitably loses the original "hue", it always does.
And lastly, literature is an emotional thing; it depends what touches any given reader so it's impossible to declare that someone is better than others. It just depends on the reader and what they find better for them; so this argument is kind of futile.
What I like about most of the Russian authors, especially Chekhov and Bulgakov, is that no word is wasted, so to speak. Every word is carefully placed there. Chekhov can express million emotions with one short sentence. My personal preference leans towards densely packed reading, as opposed to Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath where there are 10 pages describing a turtle crossing the road....to me it's boring. But then it's my personal preference. I will take a one page Chekhov story over it any day.
I also don't get Flaubert's and Dostoyevsky comparison. Flaubert's most known work is Madame Bovary, great book, but I would not put it on the same level as Crime and Punishment, nor in style, subject or language. In fact, to me it's like comparing a soap opera to a Chekhov story. Again, it's my personal preference, but I think majority of litetary critics would not put Flaubert on the same level as Dostoyevsky.
Please add smileys when using irony! This was a late chapter in the English retreat from empire and was hardly lukewarm, ask the British soldiers who were blown up. You might argue the British oppression was lukewarm (compared to Hitler...)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
As repeated in Andrew Marr's excellent History of the World, being televised on BBC at the moment, Hitler was totally perplexed with Britain's treatment of Gandhi, "Why don't they just shoot, him?"
Still, oppression is oppression. Do the oppressed praise the literature of the oppressors?
Maybe Russian authors were more accepted in the World because, pre-Communism, Russia didn't aspire to world domination - they had Siberia to expand into...
The Russians have been blessed by pretty good translators, in the UK, from the beginning - Garnett, the Maude's, etc.
The language of Shakespeare less expressive? You need to back that up with more than "I speak three languages". I can't remember serious polyglots, like Steiner or Nabakov saying such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by sarsnake
I've read Flaubert and Dostoevsky in translation and found both to be excellent in style and subject.
You need to back these statements with some (very) strong arguments, at the moment they just appear like outpourings from Putin's propaganda bureau...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I dont really feel like jumping into this discussion, but this is a huge historical inaccuracy. Imperial russia, particularly in the second half of the 19th century was a huge imperial threat. They were expanding into afghanistan and the english developed their entire strategy in the east to counter attack russia as they were scared they would attempt to steal India from the English. Furthermore Russia was having huge tensions between Japan and the United states for naval dominance of the pacific.
And to look at the first half of the 19th century, let us not forget the Tzar personal lead his army through paris and occupied it. Something which the majority of bonaprtists of the time, never forgave russia for. And most Monarchists never forgot the debit they owed to the tsar.
if u have mastered chinese, u will c how supernovaous its literature is! Cao Xueqin!!!!
This hardly amounts to "world domination". They may have been a modest threat in some areas, but were they anything more than modestly successful? "The British were petrified at the idea of a Russian invasion of their crown colony of India, though Russia – badly defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese war and weakened by internal rebellion – could not realistically afford a showdown against Britain there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
The British were petrified at the idea of a Russian invasion of their crown colony of India, though Russia – badly defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese war and weakened by internal rebellion – could not realistically afford a showdown against Britain there.
Did they take Afghanistan? Did they expand anywere else? Anyway, these were pretty local affairs, did the the sun never set on their empire? Even with that long stretch of Siberia? Belgium seems a more successful World Imperialist - think of the Congo in Africa; also the Dutch - the East India company.
Russia badly defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese war and weakened by internal rebellion could not realistically afford a showdown against Britain in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
Note, the title, it was looked at as a Game, hardly a title you would give to a serious threat.
They suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Japanese navy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War
I think that Russian Literature definitely deserves its place in the world literature canon but so does French Literature. English Literature has a place there, maybe German Literature as well, but I can't think of a big name German writer in the way that Tolstoy, Hugo and Shakespeare are. Then we have classical literature, in particular the Ancient Greeks. Considering the classical influence on many great novels, maybe the prize goes to the Greeks?
What about Goethe? Rather than Hugo, what about Montaigne for top Frenchman?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
I'm not well-read in German Lit so I'll take your word for it on Goethe. Wasn't Montaigne a critic rather than a fiction writer?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Both Tolstoy and Doestoyevsky have benefitted from historical impetus; Tolstoys works were published in the 20th century during WW2 to inspire the troops and instil them with the Russian spirit that he wreferred to. Doestoyevsky, on the other hand does represent the tradition of the dissident voice with House of the Dead and crime and Punishment. This tradition continued with Solzhenitsyn through the 20th century. Of course they are both excellent, but the supreme exemplars of the craft?They are up there with the best.
I've noticed oppression, though obviously unacceptable, has more often yielded the unparalleled art and expression that we hold highest. Its no secret that the Russians (though perhaps not Tolstoy specifically) haven't had the greatest of histories.
Hence, "I know why the caged bird sings."
I'm not a Goethe expert, I've only read "Faust part 1" and "The Sorrows of Young Werther", and only in translation. But if you read any works on the literary canon, Goethe is usually mentioned in the same breath as Dante, Homer, Cervantes, Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Harold Bloom suggests that picking the top Frenchman is very difficult, as there are several possibilities, including Hugo. Montaigne is famous for his "Essays", which include, but are far more than just criticism, so I think it's a bit unfair to call him "just" a critic. But criticism can also rise to the level of literature, Dr Johnson's work, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Did that happen in other countries? War & Peace as propaganda :) I can imagine Churchill reading it while Hitler sent his forces into the Russian winter... Rieu read his translations of Homer to his family while the bombs were dropping on London, and turned them into Penguins first best sellers just after WW II. I guess any great works dealing with war did well in the 20th century due to historical impetus...Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Nah, I would just go all out for Hugo. Sure, there's a lot of good French writers (don't forget there's the playwrights as well), but nobody has written anything like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and probably never will. How many writers actually preserved a piece of architecture? And I haven't started Les Mis yet but that's meant to be even better. Tolstoy has the same problem. Which is better- Anna Karenina or War and Peace?
I've not seen it referred to in the same way. The Russians published excerpts for their soldiers, and perhaps had them read out too. Perhaps these were in the Red Star, the Red army's newspaper. Vassily Grossmann - a red Army correspondant and novellist - referred to it. Of course it was the perfect reading for soldiers describing as it does the Russian spirit, (whose hijacking by the Soviets would no doubt have made Tolstoy turn in his grave), and the defeat of Napolean's forces in 1812. It had a direct link to the Nazi Barbarossa campaign in Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I don't see any link between Napoleon and the Barbarosa launch. Napoleon was a French shot. The Roman Catholics were probably getting ready to coronate Hitler as the new Charlemagne (the third Reich). In order to do it they made themselves independent from Rome and used Mussolini for controlling the internal italy and link with Hitler, while they restablished the Carlos V empire in Spain as National Catholicism, later used by Franco to direct the civil war. It is erroneous to think that Hitler was an atheist. According to him he was actually doing the work God demanded from him and said it several times very clearly. For his cooperation, Franco was to receive dominion over colonies in Africa among which was Gibraltar. But as the Roman Catholics saw that Hitler was going to lose, Franco exited the deal in a meeting with Hitler in Hendaya, saying that Spain would support him morally, but it was too weak financially to cooperate with military efforts (the original deal). To accomodate themselves to the new situation, the Roman Catholics also claimed that the Nazis had gotten upset and bombed The Vatican, of which there is no evidence. Meantime, Mussolini was allowed to continue, unaware of the loss. Eventually he and his girlfriend realized and tried to escape, but were captured by partisans, taken to Milan, executed, and exposed in the streets as enemies of the Roman Catholic church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I've noticed oppression, though obviously unacceptable, has more often yielded the unparalleled art and expression that we hold highest. Its no secret that the Russians (though perhaps not Tolstoy specifically) haven't had the greatest of histories.
Hence, "I know why the caged bird sings."
There often is this illusion... perhaps due to the romantic notion that an artist must suffer to create an art of depth... but just how much truth is there to it? Looking at this century we discover how the Soviets and the Nazis effectively destroyed artistic cultures that were flourishing prior to their seizing power. The arts in Classical Greece, Rome, Renaissance Italy, 19th century France and England, etc... were born in wealthy, powerful nations where the arts were supported and valued. No culture is without censorship... whether explicit (imposed by church and state) or implicit (implied by self-appointed moral critics and the economy). But wealth and power and support for the arts should not be confused with liberal politics, peace and harmony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cydkTy6GmFA
I'm merely referring to the link between the respective invasions of Russia by napoleon in 1812 and the Nazis with their Barborossa campaign. that's the lnk.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Within France, Balzac is generally considered 'numero uno' among their literary giants, at least when it comes to prose. But then again, maybe I just watch too much French New Wave cinema. Either way, Balzac always comes before Hugo among French intellectuals, but oddly enough, the former seems somewhat neglected in the Anglosphere. Stendhal/Balzac/Flaubert is the nineteenth century narrative fiction triumvirate coupled with Baudelaire/Rimbaud/Verlaine as the poetry triumvirate. Zola, Hugo, and Dumas are respected, but they're generally placed on a second rung, at least in France it seems.
The original questioner pondered why Russian Literature was so prominent in the world.
The reason why most great Literature comes about, is usually that there is a swirl of literary activity in that location, Homer in Greece, Cervantes in Spain, Shakespeare in England, they were not in vacuums there was a lively literature around, but also they wrote prose that bordered on poetry, but also played with the words and strove to write well in a natural way.
Hence the disappearance of D.H. Lawrence versus Norman Douglas from the forums, they wrote pretentious claptrap.
A lot of the so called greats of Literature from any Country would be edited by today’s publishers, Frankenstein, Crime and Punishment could both benefit from the editors blue pencil, and I suspect many of you have thought that bit could be cut or shortened from even your favourite read, Homer and Shakespeare are about the only two I have read that could not do with some decent editing.
Also the themes of stories read by an International audience are usually International, and the stories are always about subjects that touch us in some way.
Agatha Christie, not great Literature, set in rural England, someone gets murdered in an English country house. Nothing International there I hear you say, most people do not live in large houses, however we live in neighbourhoods, and know a limited number of people, we gossip, and have a limited amount of philosophical views on the world, but like puzzles simply put.
Guess what most of Chrisite’s stories contain those elements and appeal to millions and are competently written so hence sell millions.
Crime and Punishment ponders the philosophy of a murderer, written well and has a good plot, although rather long it touches the soul and gives the reader things to think about as they go along.
That is what tends to bind all good writing.
I would agree that Russia does not have more than British Isles or France and Germany, but it certainly has more than most of the World. Great Literature thrives in good schooling, hence why USA has a lot of Literature from the late 19th & 20th Centuries.
Russia was late in getting widespread Education, which is why it suddenly blossomed when it did.
The reason why Shakespeare and Homer would not need any editing (sic!) is because they are heavily edited already.