Russian Literature vs. The World.

I've often pondered the reason why Russian Literature is so prominent on the stage of world literature. I do not wonder on account of not think it worthy of such acclimation, rather, I just wonder what has made way for it to produce the masterpieces (some would say they perfected the novel) it is known for - when many other countries/languages haven't been as successful.

Now this obviously this is just my perspective and I am not formally qualified in world literature, or anything of the like, I just have a keen interest.

I wonder if anyone can enlighten me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phillipgr

I've often pondered the reason why Russian Literature is so prominent on the stage of world literature. I do not wonder on account of not think it worthy of such acclimation, rather, I just wonder what has made way for it to produce the masterpieces (some would say they perfected the novel) it is known for - when many other countries/languages haven't been as successful.

Now this obviously this is just my perspective and I am not formally qualified in world literature, or anything of the like, I just have a keen interest.

I wonder if anyone can enlighten me?

---

Tolstoy had to be born somewhere! The Russians were just lucky enough to get him. Read a biography of Tolstoy and and it may give some indication as why he was so great - he was lucky to to be born into the aristocracy, had some good tutors, extensive military experience, mixed with 'the right' intellectuals, and spent a lot of time with the peasantry on his estate. So he achieved a remarkable broadness of experience, and was lucky enough to be a really talented writer. There are other great Russian writers of course, who had similar advantages, but I think Tolstoy takes first place.

But, anyway, I think your thesis is wrong. An equal case could be made for several other countries, e.g., Britain, France, and Germany (Shakespeare, Dickens, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Montaigne, Zola...)

Most written languages have strong literary traditions. Generally, the number of readers and writers in a particular language tend to generate a good amount of literature of quality.

In general, a lot has to do with literary community - who is reading, who is writing, what their goals are, etc. If I was to hypothesize, the big outpour of Russian literature from one period is perhaps caused by a rather interesting shift in Russian politics in culture, lets say after Napoleon, and before the Russo-Japanese War.

Simply, the spirit of the age was there, the same way the spirit of the age, if you will, was present in France, particularly Paris, and in England in the 1590s.

Timing is generally everything, especially for prose and theatre, the shift in society, mixed with the political and economic shifts brings a period with room for vernacular thought - hence, you have great novelists, that basically work by crossing two levels of society, and examining them against each other. This is all helped by strong presidents from the most admired neighbor, France.

That being said, I do not think Russian literature is particularly better, or anything like that. Simply put, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that there are lots of Russian people, and also the fact that it is prose that is being read - the same can be said for French novelists, for instance. Pushkin, as it is, is not as popular universally, despite earning a somewhat excellent readership, given that he is a poet.

In the end it comes to the fact that every social misfit teenager seems to relate with social misfits in Dostoevsky, as they do with Beat writers, and in particular, the book On the Road (which is so the angstful teenage boy book, that it is ridiculous).

Dostoevsky is also said to benefit from being translated, I am not sure of that, as I do not read Russian, but perhaps that has something to do with it.


But simply put, my father grew up in Israel, there were lots of Russians even before the big post-soviet wave of immigrants, and they brought with them their literature - War and Peace was translated. Englishmen had a political presence there, but their acceptance from my understanding was more lukewarm (despite big names being translated).

Such an understanding of translation is needed.

If I was asked, I would deem Tolstoy to be the greatest novelist and a central figure upon which 20th century novels (modernism) was based. I also would comment that Pushkin is one of the great romantic poets. However this does not seem to make russia particularly special compared to other nations. Furthermore russian lit really kicks of with Pushkin, so Russian lit is roughly as young as American lit and can hardly compare with the extent of Italian, French, English, Persian ect.

When you say "many other countries have not been successful" which are you thinking about? As this might allow us to offer you a better response if you tell us what you are comparing russian lit against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

In the end it comes to the fact that every social misfit teenager seems to relate with social misfits in Dostoevsky, as they do with Beat writers, and in particular, the book On the Road (which is so the angstful teenage boy book, that it is ridiculous).

Dostoevsky is also said to benefit from being translated, I am not sure of that, as I do not read Russian, but perhaps that has something to do with it.

---

I have not read any Dostoyevsky, so I refer judgment, but the things you criticizes of Dost, could be said of The Sorrows of Young Werther, Rene and Child Harold's Pilgrimage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

If I was asked, I would deem Tolstoy to be the greatest novelist and a central figure upon which 20th century novels (modernism) was based. I also would comment that Pushkin is one of the great romantic poets. However this does not seem to make russia particularly special compared to other nations. Furthermore russian lit really kicks of with Pushkin, so Russian lit is roughly as young as American lit and can hardly compare with the extent of Italian, French, English, Persian ect.

When you say "many other countries have not been successful" which are you thinking about? As this might allow us to offer you a better response if you tell us what you are comparing russian lit against.






I have not read any Dostoyevsky, so I refer judgment, but the things you criticizes of Dost, could be said of The Sorrows of Young Werther, Rene and Child Harold's Pilgrimage

---

Except scale. Werther is not as popular in English as Dostoevsky, and Byron is not popular at all for that work anymore (who reads poetry these days, lets face it?). Dostoevsky has the benefit of being in translation, and therefore in the vernacular of English in any given time period, or, in other words, always modern.

It might have something to do with the fact that the "Golden Age" of Russian literature was a fairly recent phenomenon, occurring as it did in the second half of the nineteenth century, meaning it is recent enough to still retain relevance and accessibility, while long enough ago to have achieved widely-acclaimed "classic" status. Russian literature in fact barely existed before Pushkin, Lermentov et al, and did not achieve much recognition outside of Russia until Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoevskii came along.

Then there is the fact that Russian society and politics in the 19th and early 20th centuries (The Golden and Silver eras of Russian literature) presented so many problems and enigmas (which, in spite of many attempts, have never really been resolved), which gave Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevskii et al intriguing subjects for their art, as well as great individual life-stories (Pushkin's involvement with revolutionaries and death by duel, Gogol's self-destruction and inability to write a conclusion to Dead Souls, Dostoevskii's exile, Tolsoy's last days etc. etc.)

Finally, there is a tendency among Russia's great writers of much elevated self-importance (Tolstoy is a big offender in this case) which often rubs off in their books. Russia certainly has had, since the 19th century, a great canon of literature, but the argument that it is any more prominent than that of other countries/languages is definitely up for debate- especially when you remember that literature existed before Pushkin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Except scale. Werther is not as popular in English as Dostoevsky, and Byron is not popular at all for that work anymore (who reads poetry these days, lets face it?). Dostoevsky has the benefit of being in translation, and therefore in the vernacular of English in any given time period, or, in other words, always modern.

---

Well, Werther made young europeans go in suicide, right? Anyways, it is just to change it: Dostoievisky sentimentalism or teen agnst can be find in Dickens, Baudelaire and Poe. (But that is rather a simplification of Dostoievisky, he is not a teen angst writer).

The thing about Russians is that they break out the european center. They are not french, english, spanish... They seem to be break out of nowhere and not from the german tradition like Goethe, Schiller, Kant did one century before (when they made Germany the center). Sundenly there was Pushkin and Gogol. And with the Soviet Age, it seems to fade away. Most people are amazed at it.

But Catherine the great (and her Peter) were approaching Russia to europe, they did something similar to the germans. Just took more time, and the timing JBI mention is important. They developed when prose was raising, they giants had a time when the giants of english and france where dabbling with the Novel and short stories, modern drama, so they had time for inovation, to assemble uniqueness. When the rest of europe looked for references, the russians were there and they are very interesting, after all, they tell the story of upcoming russian revolution. (Plus, we must consider, the "center" of europe from XVIII onwards is Germany, Russian is close to them.) Also, Spain was completely out of the game (it would be back only when the latin american boom would cause something similar in the xx century that russians caused). A good evidence is that russians writers were not the only world wide artists of the period. The "entire" russian developed art forms to dialogue with the rest of the world (which probally increased even more the gap, or the awareness of the gap, between economic groups).

The Russians and the Americans seem to benefit the most from the period in which there was this renewed focus on "nationalism". The great cultures of Western Europe... France, Britain, Spain, Italy... have already had something of a long tradition in which their cultures were seen as central. The Germans seem to have come upon the scene a bit too early. Goethe is almost more of a European writer in the tradition of the Enlightenment than a national poet. With Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in Russian and Melville, Whitman, and Emerson in the US we are confronted with great writers who embrace an expansive nationalistic myth. In Russia, this is a source of inspiration for music as well and results in a body of music unrivaled anywhere (at the time) outside of Germany.

I would avoid terms such as "better" and "best" when confronting the achievements of late 19th/early 20th century Russian literature (and music) for the simple reason that one might name any number of equally productive periods in the history of the arts. I agree with the notion that the artists were at the right place at the right time... this is always a major boon. They also had the luck to have written in an art form (the novel) which has become our dominant literary form. One might easily argue for the greater achievement of the 19th and early 20th century French and English poets or the short stories of the British, Americans, French, and Germans. To those who see the novel as the highest literary achievement, it is hard to surpass Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

19th century literature:

Russia: Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev, Chekhov, Goncharov, Ostrovsky

England: Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Byron, Tennyson, Browning, Rossetti, Dickens, Austen, Thackery, Eliot, Trollope, the Bronte sisters, Wells, Conrad, Kipling, Hardy

France: Hugo, Balzac, Flaubert, Zola, Gautier, Chateaubriand, Stendhal, Dumas, Goncourt, Maupassant, Baudelaire, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Lamartine, Mallarme, Verne, Rostand, Nerval

Scotland: Scott, Doyle, Stevenson

Ireland: Wilde, Synge, Yeats, Stoker, Le Fanu,

U.S.: Melville, Twain, Whitman, Poe, Dickinson, Longfellow, Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, James, Wharton, Crane, Cooper, Bierce

Germany: Goethe, Heine, Hoffman, Holderlin, Kleist, Schiller, Buchner, Hauptmann

Italy: Leopardi, Manzoni, Carducci, Foscolo

Spain: Becquer

Norway: Ibsen,

Sweden: Strindburg

Denmark: Andersen

Nicaragua: Dario

Peru: Palma

Brazil: Assis

Austria: Schnitzler

Score
Russia: 9 World: 78
Overall, I'd say England and France did better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The Russians and the Americans seem to benefit the most from the period in which there was this renewed focus on "nationalism". The great cultures of Western Europe... France, Britain, Spain, Italy... have already had something of a long tradition in which their cultures were seen as central. The Germans seem to have come upon the scene a bit too early. Goethe is almost more of a European writer in the tradition of the Enlightenment than a national poet. With Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in Russian and Melville, Whitman, and Emerson in the US we are confronted with great writers who embrace an expansive nationalistic myth. In Russia, this is a source of inspiration for music as well and results in a body of music unrivaled anywhere (at the time) outside of Germany.

I would avoid terms such as "better" and "best" when confronting the achievements of late 19th/early 20th century Russian literature (and music) for the simple reason that one might name any number of equally productive periods in the history of the arts. I agree with the notion that the artists were at the right place at the right time... this is always a major boon. They also had the luck to have written in an art form (the novel) which has become our dominant literary form. One might easily argue for the greater achievement of the 19th and early 20th century French and English poets or the short stories of the British, Americans, French, and Germans. To those who see the novel as the highest literary achievement, it is hard to surpass Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

---

I don't know - 19th century, and even early 20th century German writers and intellectuals seem to be the most international of all writers. Certainly Goethe was the first real multiculturalist of such an importance. Likewise the critical scope of German letters covered great distances. I would say their lack of nationalism had to do with Goethe as a precedent, as well as a duality of cultures, namely, a political culture that seems until the end of the 19th century, more or less unassociated, in terms of high art, with the writers working within it.

Of course, that changes, and Zola even notes it in his last works (pretty much saying he expected WW1), but the critics of Germany are the ones that brought Literary criticism into the 20th century. They also were the scientists who brought science into the 20th century.

As to why then Russians are read more? Well, it's obvious. There are only 3 Russian authors who are read more, namely, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, and Tolstoy. I would break it down like this - Tolstoy was a masterful author, and so, regardless of where he was, and situation, his genius is one of those things that just happen (like a Petrarch being born or something, nobody sees it coming). The next one, Dostoevsky, well, he played with some psychological things that appeal to a certain demographic of people, namely, those who read Nietzsche when they are 16 - that kind of stereotype. Talking to Russians, there is no doubt that Tolstoy was the model author, in every regard, still, Dostoevsky had some interesting characters caught in their identity, and struggling with existential issues, which appeals to young people who can take existentialism, especially its 19th century form, and think it holds all the answers, when really it is rather too simple as a discussion in Dostoevsky, and far more complex than the be all and end all that people when they are young can find in a novel.

As for Chekhov, well, he is not Ibsen as a playwright, but was great, there is no doubt about that. He had also the benefit of being preformed quite a lot even after his death. He was original, and creative, and so, wrote some good plays. As for his stories, that to me seems like another freak accident where somebody can take an existing genre, and remake it so well that they redefine the understanding of such things. He manages to shorten time, and therefore, achieve more, like a drama piece, and that is why he is highly regarded (if not so much by a mass public for his stories as his play).

The other three major players, Turgenev, Gogol, and Pushkin, well, Pushkin did not make it that well outside of Russia, because poetry is not a popular genre. He got translated, and is excellent, and there are people who swear by him, but still, he is not a best seller, because, simply, poetry is not a best seller. He did well, and had the benefit of extreme talent and good timing.

Turgenev is interesting, but ultimately, with the exception of Fathers and Sons, he is rarely discussed, especially here, for the simple reason people do not discuss much. He is, after all, Russian, which works well if you are Tolstoy, but can only take you so far out of Russia, especially with ethnocentric audiences, and anti-Russian sentiment dominating the second half of the 20th century.

And finally Gogol, who is well received for a couple of stories, the simple Diary of a Madman, the Overcoat, and a couple others - he is not a dominant figure, but his stories are dominant stories, making their way into unseen places.


In general, it's the three who made it to the world, not the 6, or a greater number, and that was similar to the way a half dozen French poets got great reception, or a handful of German poets, or artists got recognition. It's not as if other traditions didn't experience the same type of cultural advancement and recognition, it's just them being Russian seems to stand out.

And, beyond that, Dostoevsky gets way too much credit by people, particularly a demographic which exists on these very boards. He wasn't a bad author, but, lets face it, he wasn't the greatest either - his novels are flawed, ignoring his prose. The more perfect novel of the 19th century to me seems to be Flaubert, compared in any language as the bending point - Romanticism meets realism meets modernism - pretty much a century of ideas in one book, but alas, Crime and Punishment has too many kids reading it.

JBI, who are some great Chinese writers of the 19th century?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

And, beyond that, Dostoevsky gets way too much credit by people, particularly a demographic which exists on these very boards. He wasn't a bad author, but, lets face it, he wasn't the greatest either - his novels are flawed, ignoring his prose. The more perfect novel of the 19th century to me seems to be Flaubert, compared in any language as the bending point - Romanticism meets realism meets modernism - pretty much a century of ideas in one book, but alas, Crime and Punishment has too many kids reading it.

---

While I agree with you in terms of Flaubert, he being the only Novelist of the 19th century whom can aptly rival Tolstoy; well I suppose I would also add Hugo to the list. However I have to disagree with your Dostoyevsky opinion. You view Dost in a similar manner to how many see Salinger. But, I must disagree. First of all the "greatness" of a work of art, is chiefly established by future generations of writers, (here I talk not about the 95% of mediocrity but the 5% of great). Joyce, Woolf, Hemingway, Sartre and Camus all acknowledged Dostoevsky's great influence upon them and his genius. Yet what writer acknowledges Salinger as a major influence? Now you may question Dost, but it is impossible to question his influence upon many of the great modernist writers; so I doubt that if he were a teen angst writer solely, he would have had such a great impact. Surly there must be more to him?

Maybe it is the case that Dost is to you, what Shakespeare was to Tolstoy.

I don't know - 19th century, and even early 20th century German writers and intellectuals seem to be the most international of all writers. Certainly Goethe was the first real multiculturalist of such an importance. Likewise the critical scope of German letters covered great distances. I would say their lack of nationalism had to do with Goethe as a precedent, as well as a duality of cultures, namely, a political culture that seems until the end of the 19th century, more or less unassociated, in terms of high art, with the writers working within it.

That was what I had suggested when I spoke of Goethe as fitting more within the ideals of the Enlightenment... including a more multi-national or at least a sense of being European as opposed to exclusively German. Goethe builds on French and English models... and later draws from Greek, Roman, Italian, and even Persians. Of course I sense this in the music as well. Only Wagner seems to build a distinctly German music. As you suggest, most of the followers of Goethe... even into the 20th century with Rilke, Kafka, Wedekind, Hesse, Mann, etc... seem quite removed from the political nationalism.

Dostoevsky, well, he played with some psychological things that appeal to a certain demographic of people, namely, those who read Nietzsche when they are 16 - that kind of stereotype. Talking to Russians, there is no doubt that Tolstoy was the model author, in every regard, still, Dostoevsky had some interesting characters caught in their identity, and struggling with existential issues, which appeals to young people who can take existentialism, especially its 19th century form, and think it holds all the answers...

A bit harsh... but true. Hermann Hesse acts the same way... and perhaps even Orwell. I guess its a good thing I read Dante, Shakespeare, Homer and Cervantes first and got around to Nietzsche later.

Alex... I wouldn't underestimate Dostoevsky. I have no problem admitting that The Brothers Karamazov remains one of the greatest novels I have read. I do agree with JBI, however, in terms of the almost cult-like following that Dostoevsky has... especially among younger readers. Hell, he was voted the greatest author among LitNetters. The greatest? Really? I would have to say that Tolstoy he isn't even the greatest Russian writer as long as we have Tolstoy... but really... greater than Goethe, Homer, Virgil, Dante... Shakespeare?!

Of course, as JBI also points out, the better/best discussions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with real discussions of literature... which are indeed far too rare. I know there are attempts with the book clubs, the novel of the month, the poetry club, etc... but unfortunately... these always seem to focus on the obvious choices. Rarely do the choices seem to include something interesting or new... but I know I shouldn't complain. If you are really passionate about something, you have to start the thread yourself... and I salute Quasimodo for keeping the discussion on contemporary poets going for so long. Whenever I get the bug up my butt I make an attempt at reviving the discussions on German, French, and Spanish poetry.

Pushkin is not just a poet. His prose works are widely know, his short story about Salieri the most popular culprint for the envy version of "Salieri", his dramas well know. He is one of the top 20 best selling authors of all time, being translated (according the index translated more than Victor Hugo. If his poetry was translatable, he would probally make Verlaine look less popular).... he may not have the actual popularity of Dostoievisky or Tolstoy, but when we start to think how france and england with all their tradition can produce authors that would make E.M.Foster claim in the 20's that no novel in english had the power or quality of Brothers K, Crime and Punishement, Anner Karenina and War and Peace. It is not just numbers, it how dominant those guys sundenly are.

To talk about Tchekhov you must bring Poe, Maupassant, Borges, Kipling... Just out of nowhere. In terms of prose they are impressive in such unlikely way, unexpected, with the most unlikely idiom. Compare this to portuguese and we can have a notion how to marginal literature had this momment....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

JBI, who are some great Chinese writers of the 19th century?

---

There are quite a few ones of note, Li Ruzhen, for instance, and the novel 7 Heroes and Five Gallants, but, in terms of available in translation, few particular ones are available (I would need to check online to see what is available). In general though, the19th century was a great century for scholarship in Chinese literature, and for some prose fiction, not particularly for experimental development and genre writing (those developments happened in the 17th century, and then in the 20th century to a far greater extent). Then again, there was a great development in Drama, and opera, of which, I apologize, I am rather unable to particularly talk about with any real certainty.


Generally though, from what I understand, the time after the Opium Wars marked a time when scholarship and translation were essential, rather an inward leaning, rather than expansive inventiveness - later blamed for China's lack of development by 20th century writers. the 17th and 18th centuries are quite rich in terms of literary inventiveness, but I guess after the Qianlong text of all classic texts (basically the "official" accepted list of classics of any noteworthiness) inventive letters became rather stagnate, kind of like the Age of Johnson in England. What came out of it though was a particularly remarkable amount of scholarly work, that is, editions, histories, political works, and translations, as well as anthologies and commentaries.

Still, one cannot help but think of that as a rather dry period of reluctant transition, though it did end in explosion with the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

... Pushkin did not make it that well outside of Russia, because poetry is not a popular genre. He got translated, and is excellent, and there are people who swear by him, but still, he is not a best seller, because, simply, poetry is not a best seller. He did well, and had the benefit of extreme talent and good timing.
-Russian sentiment dominating the second half of the 20th century.

...

And finally Gogol, who is well received for a couple of stories, the simple Diary of a Madman, the Overcoat, and a couple others - he is not a dominant figure, but his stories are dominant stories, making their way into unseen places.

---

Pushkin has not done well outside of Russia, not because poetry is an "unpopular genre" but because poetry does not translate well. Within Russia he is most certainly a bestseller- within Russia Pushkin has an equal, if not even greater, status as that of Shakespeare in English literature, Dante in Italian and Goethe in German- he is simply regarded as the greatest ever Russian writer and in many ways the father of Russian as a literary language, especially poetry (which, perhaps because of the role it played in the dissident movement during communist times- Achmatova etc., has a larger audience in Russia than it does in the UK or the States).

And Gogol has a similar position in Russian prose. He might have never completed his greatest work, but both Russia and particularly the Ukraine he is held in very high esteem indeed.

Pushkin is not unpopular or little translated outside Russia. I would say, Pushkin faces two problems to be so representative...

First, Dostoievisky and Tolstoy carry each other. They are two sides of the same coin. One would say the flaws of one are the merits of the other and in a way, Tolstoy became a dostoievisky character in the end, while Dostoievisky always tried to be Tolstoy. (And Tchekhov carry both with him).

Second, Pushkin does not represent as well the socialist-czarist tension that was so relevant in the early XX century when we think about Russia.

I have read plenty of Russian literature. Russian literature is unmatched by any others. Today we have no equals of Russian literature. Can any other writers equate with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekov? They are inimitable writers . It is through Russian literature I got introduced to world literature. In fact even England could not birth any literary giants who can equate with Russian writers. It has Charles Dickens but in no respects he can be compared with Dostoevsky or Tolstoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I have read plenty of Russian literature. Russian literature is unmatched by any others. Today we have no equals of Russian literature. Can any other writers equate with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekov? They are inimitable writers . It is through Russian literature I got introduced to world literature. In fact even England could not birth any literary giants who can equate with Russian writers. It has Charles Dickens but in no respects he can be compared with Dostoevsky or Tolstoy

---

Let me give a shot. Tolstory considered Hugo's Les miserables to be the greatest novel, dickens was a model for tolstoy and dostoevksy. Flaubert could give both a run for their money with madame bovary. Others include, gogol, balzac,proust,joyce,cervantes,de maupassant,de Queiroz,de assis, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer

Let me give a shot. Tolstory considered Hugo's Les miserables to be the greatest novel, dickens was a model for tolstoy and dostoevksy. Flaubert could give both a run for their money with madame bovary. Others include, gogol, balzac,proust,joyce,cervantes,de maupassant,de Queiroz,de assis, etc.

---

I agree Dickens might have been a role model for even Tolstoy. But he exceeded that model and he distinguished himself.

Tolstoy has ascended higher and higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I agree Dickens might have been a role model for even Tolstoy. But he exceeded that model and he distinguished himself.

Tolstoy has ascended higher and higher.

---

I'd say cervantes surpasses him.

I have read plenty of Russian literature. Russian literature is unmatched by any others.

At some point in your life you may move beyond the self-centered thinking of the teenager and come to recognize that you are not the measure of all things. The Russians have produced some marvelous literature... but so have any number of other nations:

The French have Montaigne, Rabelais, Ronsard, Voltaire, Moliere, Racine, La Fontaine, Cornielle, Rousseau, Tocqueville, Hugo, Balzac, Zola, Flaubert, Dumas, Huysmans, Maupassant, Stendhal, Alain-Fournier, Nerval, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Mallarme, Valery, Antaole France, O.V. de Milosz, Pierre Louys, Paul Claudel, Andre Breton, Paul Eluard, Jean Genet, Marcel Proust, Jean Anouihl, Edmond Jabes, E.M. Cioran, Jean Paul Sartre, Jean Cocteau, Marguerite Yourcenar, Jean Giono, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Michel Fournier, maurice Blanchot, St. Jean Perse, Yves Bonnefoy

The Germans can lay claim to Nibelungenlied, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Sebastian Brant, H.J.C von Grimmelshausen, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Friedrich von Schiller, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Johann Gottfried Herder, Immanuel Kant, Gottfried Leibniz, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, Goethe, Holderlin, Moricke, Heinrich Hesse, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Kleist, Gottfried Keller, Buchner, Frank Wedekind, Adalbert Stifter, Annette von Droste-Hulshoff, Franz Grillparzer, Friederich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamen, Ranier Maria Rilke, Georg Trakl, Franz Kafka, Gottfried Benn, Robert Walser, Hermann Hesse, Thomas Mann, Hermann Broch, Joseph Roth, Max Frisch, Friederich Durrenmatt, Gunter Grass, Heinrich Boll, Paul Celan, Ingeborg Bachemann, etc...

The Italians have Guido Cavalcanti, Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch), Niccolò Machiavelli, Giovanni Boccaccio, Benvenuto Cellini, Marco Polo, Leone Battista Alberti, Matteo Boiardo, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarotti (yes, the artists were both important writers as well), Baldassare Castiglione, Ludovico Ariosto, Pietro Bembo, Torquato Tasso, Pietro Aretino, Carlo Goldini, Antonio Vasari... it would seem that the writers of the Italian Renaissance alone might easily rival and surpass those of Russia... yet we have yet to mention: Ugo Foscolo, Metastasio, Vittorio Alfieri, Giacomo Leopardi, Gabriele d'Annunzio, Giosuè Carducci, Italo Svevo, Luigi Pirandello, Cesare Pavese, Filippo Marinetti, Salvatore Quasimodo, Giuseppe Ungaretti, Umberto Saba, Eugenio Montale, Giuseppe di Lampedusa, Leonardo Sciascia, Umberto Saba, Primo Levi, Italo Calvino, Tomaso Landolfi, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Umberto Eco, etc...

I won't even stoop to listing the great writers of British literature.

Of course the whole game of who is better is absurd. I don't read Shakespeare because I wish to brag that what I am reading is better than what you are reading. I read Shakespeare for the aesthetic pleasure he brings. I read Verlaine, and Poe, and Augusto Monterroso, and Stig Dagerman, and Cees Nooteboom, and Gore Vidal, and Donald Bartheleme for the same reason.

Seriously, the whole game of who is better than whom is rather tiresome and juvenile... (as JBI has suggested, it seems that many have this misguided idea that literary criticism is nothing more than offering judgment: "Two Thumbs up!" "4 and a half stars out of 5".) ...and it grows even more so when individuals make sweeping statements about what literature is the "greatest" and what literature is not so "great" based solely upon their own limited reading experience. It would be nice to actually discuss a work of literature sometime.

I think that the notion of declaring one country's literary achievements to be superior to all others is absurd. Just because you may have a preference for Russian authors hardly makes them the undisputed champions of literature. I personally would tend to rank the authors of Great Britain as the highest, merely because I predominately read British works, but I would not make such a claim, because everyone has their own preferences and their own ideas on what is the "greatest." It's fine if you like the Russians better than anyone else, just don't declare their superiority as a given fact.

I can't help but wonder...How many of us here have actually read any of these works in Russian? Perhaps JBI is really onto something when he speaks of the benefit of translation.

Personally, I LOVE Dostoevsky and Tolstoy enough to label Russian literature among my favorites, but I honestly haven't been able to get into any of the others (Gogol, Turgenev, Chekhov, Bulgakov, and Solzhenitsyn being the others that I've tried reading, none of whom I have ever been able to complete a novel/story by). And even Dostoevsky and Tolstoy tend to suffer from incredibly weak endings to their novels...Everyone finds Christ, falls in love, has children, and lives happily ever after. That's a cultural thing, though, I'm guessing.

While I wouldn't say that they're the "Greatest," I'm going to have to give my vote of favoritism to the French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

Personally, I LOVE Dostoevsky and Tolstoy enough to label Russian literature among my favorites, but I honestly haven't been able to get into any of the others (Gogol, Turgenev, Chekhov, Bulgakov, and Solzhenitsyn being the others that I've tried reading, none of whom I have ever been able to complete a novel/story by).

---

What have you tried to read by Solzhenitsyn? I couldn't make much headway with "Gulag", but I found his "proper novels" "One Day..." and "First Circle" to be superb page turners. I had difficulty giving up to get some sleep...

How can you not finish a Chekhov short story!? Besides the fact they are wonderful, most are very short and very straightforward. Was it the plays you gave up on? I forced myself to read the Seagull online in a bad translation and could imagine someone giving up on that...

I read The Master And Margarita by Bulgakov last year and found it to be an unputdownable page turner, really funny and inventive.

I found Turgenev's Fathers and Sons a short, easy read, perhaps not as good as I hoped, but it had enough going on to keep me interested - maybe not up to the standards of the best of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, but certainly not one to give up on...

He may have read very little, russian literature is balanced by a Schopenhauer pessimism. How Ivan illitch, the idiot, the overcoat, the cherry garden, Onegin can be classified as happily ever after or anything as that? Even the idea of endings is something Tchekhov often challenged, cutting sometimes the end of his short stories when he demmed it as unecessary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

I can't help but wonder...How many of us here have actually read any of these works in Russian? Perhaps JBI is really onto something when he speaks of the benefit of translation.

---

I disagree with JBI's point about "the benefit of translation"; the job of the translator is to render as close an approximation of the meaning and style as possible in the target language- thus if the author is using archaic terms or grammatical structures, it is the translator's duty to convey that to the reader.

Compared to English, Russian has changed far less as a literary language since the nineteenth century (the influence of Pushkin again - Russian kids even today are taught his works by rote). It is interesting that JBI points out Dostoevsky for his observation, as he actually has quite a complex and difficult prose style which I think is quite well conveyed by the translations that I have read of his works, while Tolstoy has a far more simple and liberated style, making both the original Russian and more recent translations feel like they could have been written yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

What have you tried to read by Solzhenitsyn? I couldn't make much headway with "Gulag", but I found his "proper novels" "One Day..." and "First Circle" to be superb page turners. I had difficulty giving up to get some sleep...

How can you not finish a Chekhov short story!? Besides the fact they are wonderful, most are very short and very straightforward. Was it the plays you gave up on? I forced myself to read the Seagull online in a bad translation and could imagine someone giving up on that...

I read The Master And Margarita by Bulgakov last year and found it to be an unputdownable page turner, really funny and inventive.

I found Turgenev's Fathers and Sons a short, easy read, perhaps not as good as I hoped, but it had enough going on to keep me interested - maybe not up to the standards of the best of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, but certainly not one to give up on...

---

The novels that I've tried by the authors named are Dead Souls (enjoyable, funny, but for some reason I couldn't find the motivation to finish it), Fathers and Sons, The Master and Margarita, and One Day. I plan on going back and reading all of them to the end at some point. After all, I'm only 21 and have a lifetime of reading before me to catch up on all the classics. But, at this point, I just couldn't get through them for one reason or another.

In the case of Chekhov...I guess that it just comes down to the fact that I don't particularly like short stories. This goes for just about anyone. Franz Kafka and Jorge Luis Borges are two other prominent examples of writers that I really admire, but whose short stories I had a bit of trouble with. I don't know, I'm just partial to long novels. I find them easier to read and finish than short stories and novellas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

He may have read very little, russian literature is balanced by a Schopenhauer pessimism. How Ivan illitch, the idiot, the overcoat, the cherry garden, Onegin can be classified as happily ever after or anything as that? Even the idea of endings is something Tchekhov often challenged, cutting sometimes the end of his short stories when he demmed it as unecessary...

---

The most prominent examples, to me, of weak "happily ever after" Russian endings are Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, and War and Peace. The three are, nonetheless, among my all-time favorites, but the endings kind of made me cringe. I like the idea of abandoning endings altogether...That's very intriguing.

This is all just my opinion, though. Like I said before, I'm young and not quite so well-read as many people on here, so all of my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. I certainly don't mean to offend or disrespect anyone's favorite writers/works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

The most prominent examples, to me, of weak "happily ever after" Russian endings are Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, and War and Peace.

---

I question your classification of Anna Karenina as having a "happily ever after" ending considering the fates of Anna, Vronsky and, with the unfazed Oblonsky at its helm, Russian society in general. Even for Levin, despite the fact his spiritual crisis seems resolved, is not necessarily set to live happily ever more (- after all, he is in many ways a autobiographical representation of Tolstoy himself, who despite his spiritual togetherness and family was far from "happy" in his later years.)

As for Crime and Punishment, this assessment is reasonable, but it is not if you discount the Epilogue- which was actually critically very poorly received in Russia (and elsewhere) for Dostoevsky's "Christ solves everything" approach, which I think counters your suggestion that this is a phenomena common to Russia. There aren't so many happy endings in the rest of his work - and remember that while the ending is happy for Raskolnikov, his "Dostoevskian Double" Svidrigailov is ultimately doomed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jono

IAs for Crime and Punishment, this assessment is reasonable, but it is not if you discount the Epilogue- which was actually critically very poorly received in Russia (and elsewhere) for Dostoevsky's "Christ solves everything" approach, which I think counters your suggestion that this is a phenomena common to Russia. There aren't so many happy endings in the rest of his work - and remember that while the ending is happy for Raskolnikov, his "Dostoevskian Double" Svidrigailov is ultimately doomed.

---

I'd be perfectly fine with pretending that the Epilogues for Crime and Punishment and War and Peace didn't exist.

I might just have to rethink Karenina, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desolation

The most prominent examples, to me, of weak "happily ever after" Russian endings are Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, and War and Peace. The three are, nonetheless, among my all-time favorites, but the endings kind of made me cringe. I like the idea of abandoning endings altogether...That's very intriguing.

---

Yes, C&P is an example of Dostoievisky happiness, but the russian prime trait is the variation, he have Myshkin (his most christ -like figure) which end is tragic or the absolute no-conclusive end of Brother Karamozov, where you find the optmistic, the romantic, the pessimistic all together.

In the end, with him, you have a more romantic, melodramatic start. Then he starts to shift, gets bleak, ironical. Even all the happyness of C&P is a bit of cynical.

Similar to Tolstoy, he starts with a epic-romantic novelistic size but slowly he turns his bakc to it. Ivan Illitch for example is a psychological novel about a guy dying and coming to the conclusion his life pretty much sucked. No redemption, anything. He has some very dark short stories too. But at the end, his messianic transformation, he became way simplistic and really some happy stories, with a touch of oriental parables, which everyone reckons is the worst of Tolstoy.

As Gogol, irony all the time. He is a natural born critic. Pushkin has the romantic tragedy on him. Someone humor, but most tragic characters, he is a bit like a XVIII enlightment writer turning romantic. With Turgeniev, Tolstoy and Dostoievisky russians go for the psychological novel, so you will find their dark days.

As Tchekhov, it is really a matter of short stories. Not only this he wrote, but he is neither happy or sad. Tchekhov hated to give conclusions, moral readings, etc. At some point, he started to write stories, when finished he cut the begining and end (or just one) if he tought they would only make the reader not to think and because he considered those aspects were important for him to develop the real action in the middle of the story. His editor and him had many fights about it, so sometimes he had to send the full text, but he had that sense of using only the necessary. But if you dislike short stories, there is not much to do about him. :D

Quote:

---

This is all just my opinion, though. Like I said before, I'm young and not quite so well-read as many people on here, so all of my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. I certainly don't mean to offend or disrespect anyone's favorite writers/works.

---

No worries, opinions are not blows, strong opinions are not strong blows. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The Germans can lay claim to Nibelungenlied, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Sebastian Brant, H.J.C von Grimmelshausen, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Friedrich von Schiller, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Johann Gottfried Herder, Immanuel Kant, Gottfried Leibniz, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, Goethe, Holderlin, Moricke, Heinrich Hesse, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Kleist, Gottfried Keller, Buchner, Frank Wedekind, Adalbert Stifter, Annette von Droste-Hulshoff, Franz Grillparzer, Friederich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamen, Ranier Maria Rilke, Georg Trakl, Franz Kafka, Gottfried Benn, Robert Walser, Hermann Hesse, Thomas Mann, Hermann Broch, Joseph Roth, Max Frisch, Friederich Durrenmatt, Gunter Grass, Heinrich Boll, Paul Celan, Ingeborg Bachemann, etc...

---

You obviously know a lot about literature (much more than I), I don't want to start an argument here. I agree with most of what you said, but I want to add that I think it depends on how quality is weighed against quantity.

If it's not about quantity (and not about the philosophers either), meaning if we're looking for literature able to compare favorably to the best of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pushkin and Solzhenizhyn, then, judging by my limited understanding of German literature, I'd narrow it down (even after including Fontane, Briest and others that were omitted) to Goethe, Schiller, Hesse (Hermann), Mann, Kafka and maybe Dürrenmatt -- these at least have a (small) chance. So while, as you rightly point out, it isn't easy (or even recommended) to play 'who's better', I personally am quite convinced that these Germans are no match for the Russians mentioned above.

Take for instance the comparison of 'Sorrows of Young Werther' to Dostoevsky's 'Notes from the Underground'. I admit this one is a matter for personal taste more than anything (though I personally would favor just about any book over 'Werther'), but as soon as you compare it to 'TBK', 'The Idiot' or 'C&P', it clearly can't compete in terms of scope and depth. 'Faust' is different I suppose, that's why I think Goethe is relevant, but that's one work (counted as one anyway since the parts are small), how is that going to compare to the several Russian masterpieces of even a single author like Dostoevsky or Tolstoy?

I can't comment on Italian or French literature because I haven't read much of that (if even). Concerning English literature, given its long history and the number of people writing English, it shouldn't be a surprise if it could compete with Russian literature, and obviously I think it can (so yeah, Russian literature isn't undoubteldy 'number one'). I basically agree with a lot of what you're saying, I just wanted to agree with the ones saying that the famous Russian novelists really are extraordinary, and that I'd thus be interesting in reading more theories about why Russian literature developed in such a remarkable way.

I think you may have a point when you talk about the quality of the top russians be top (and I would say, a russian would probally produce a list of good authors which would make quantity a game), but really...

Goethe (Faust is not exactly small) will walk over Tolstoy. He has two fausts, he has Werther over Ivan Illytch, he has Wilheim Meister, his poetry, Elective Affinities... heck, you cann't dismiss his other texts, the guy is just a walking monster. We must be carefull, we blink and Goethe will be walking over Shakespeare or Dante too.

But the point is... if you narrow, why not narrowing to Schiller vs. Pushkin. Schiller can handle Pushkin pretty easily if you ask me. Goethe can certainly match any single writer. Kafka can match Tchekhov quite well too. (Or Dostoievisky). Hoffman too. And Rilke can match any poetry from any place.

The problem is not dismissing the philosophers (why anyways?) or the nordic sagas... It is just that Russia literature found a bridge to europe thru germany, like all. Germany started to challenged the franco-british center a century before and they did in apalling manner. Schiller and Goethe where huge shadows on all english and french romanticism. We only narrow it because well... in the end of the day, we know little of germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

You obviously know a lot about literature (much more than I), I don't want to start an argument here. I agree with most of what you said, but I want to add that I think it depends on how quality is weighed against quantity.

If it's not about quantity (and not about the philosophers either), meaning if we're looking for literature able to compare favorably to the best of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Pushkin and Solzhenizhyn, then, judging by my limited understanding of German literature, I'd narrow it down (even after including Fontane, Briest and others that were omitted) to Goethe, Schiller, Hesse (Hermann), Mann, Kafka and maybe Dürrenmatt -- these at least have a (small) chance. So while, as you rightly point out, it isn't easy (or even recommended) to play 'who's better', I personally am quite convinced that these Germans are no match for the Russians mentioned above.

Take for instance the comparison of 'Sorrows of Young Werther' to Dostoevsky's 'Notes from the Underground'. I admit this one is a matter for personal taste more than anything (though I personally would favor just about any book over 'Werther'), but as soon as you compare it to 'TBK', 'The Idiot' or 'C&P', it clearly can't compete in terms of scope and depth. 'Faust' is different I suppose, that's why I think Goethe is relevant, but that's one work (counted as one anyway since the parts are small), how is that going to compare to the several Russian masterpieces of even a single author like Dostoevsky or Tolstoy?

I can't comment on Italian or French literature because I haven't read much of that (if even). Concerning English literature, given its long history and the number of people writing English, it shouldn't be a surprise if it could compete with Russian literature, and obviously I think it can (so yeah, Russian literature isn't undoubteldy 'number one'). I basically agree with a lot of what you're saying, I just wanted to agree with the ones saying that the famous Russian novelists really are extraordinary, and that I'd thus be interesting in reading more theories about why Russian literature developed in such a remarkable way.

---

I agree that that it's not simply a numbers game Dodo, but I think you're being a little dismissive of the Germans, and Goethe in particular. It's probably true that few authors can compete with Dostoyevsky for scope, although the width of an author's purview is by no means correlative to the quality of his work. Indeed, for mine, Dostoyevsky's great weakness is his inability to balance the exposition of his philosophy with the aesthetic demands of fiction. Werther might be a slighter, more intellectually concentrated work, but it speaks to me with far greater intensity than Crime and Punishment. And let's not get started on Kafka, whose parables of anguish and futility make Dostoyevsky seem positively adolescent by comparison. I'm not sure that Solzhenitsyn advances the Russian case any further. I don't agree with J that Goethe 'walks all over Tolstoy', but nor do I agree that Tolstoy is unquestionably superior to Goethe.

If literature were a slugfest, I would most certainly put my money on Goethe unless he were up against Dante or Shakespeare. He would seemingly be more than an equal for anyone else. His oeuvre is huge... and more than impressive even limited to essential works such as The Sorrows of Young Werther, Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, Faust I & II, The Italian Journey, Egmont, Goetz von Berlichingen, Torquato Tasso, Elective Affinities, From my Life: Poetry and Truth (Goethe's Autobiography in 4 Volumes), and his large collection of poetry. Hölderlin and Novalis are towering poets of the Romantic era, every bit equal to Pushkin. Kafka might not rival Dostoevski, but he surely rivals Checkoff. Arguably his truncated short fictions are among the most central works of Modernism... to such an extent that his very name has been employed as an adjective: Kafkaesque. That leaves Dostoevsky. Hermann Hesse might not be a rival for him... even though Hesse's oeuvre is severely hampered by the fact that his poetry... which Thomas Mann argued was his finest achievement... is largely unknown outside of Germany. But what of Hesse & Mann? The Russians have some brilliant poets in the 20th century including Anna Akhmatova, Marina Tsvetaeva, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Osip Mandelshtam, and Boris Pasternak... the latter of whom is generally acknowledged as the greatest of them all. Yet none can rival Rilke. Pasternak himself was profoundly impacted by Rilke's poetry. Beyond Rilke, the major 20th century German poets include Paul Celan, Hermann Hesse, Ingeborg Bachmann, etc... This still leaves major figures such as Gunter Grass, Hermann Broch, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Kleist, Schiller, Lessing, Hermann Hesse, Friederich Durrenmatt, Heinrich Boll, Bertolt Brecht, etc... THis doesn't even touch upon the philosophical and critical literature of Germany that has been so influential... even upon writers such as Dostoevsky: Nietzsche, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Walter Benjamen, Theodor Adorno, Sigmund Freud, etc...

France vs Russia? I would argue that this would be a blow out. Only the British in the West might rival them. Proust in surely every bit the equal to Tolstoy... and if he weren't we could throw in Zola for good measure. Flaubert could dispense with Dostoevsky... and if he had any difficulty we'd always have Balzac to back him up. That would leave Victor Hugo... not only the novelist, but the towering critic and poet to do away with Pushkin. Checkoff? Moliere and Cornielle can handle him... and we still have Racine, Jean Genet, Beaumarchais, and half a dozen other major playwrights. What does this leave the Russians? A half dozen 20th century poets (are they any match for Baudelaire, Verlaine, Mallarme, Rimbaud, Ronsard, and easily a dozen other major poets? Bely, Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn, and Turgenev vs Montaigne, Rousseau, and Voltaire? With La Fontaine, Stendhal, Maupassant, Valery, Sartre, Camus, Rabelais, Alfred Jarry, Andre Breton, Paul Eluard, and at least several dozen others left in reserve. If the Napoleonic invasion had been a war of French literature vs the Russians the outcome would have been quite different.

Again, I find the competition thing somewhat absurd and a waste of time... I don't think we can easily establish the hegemony of any national body of literature... especially as we become more versed in what exists in the bodies of literature beyond those that are frequently read as part of the usual English-language high-school and college courses. I also ponder over what it all proves? I am almost certain that Shakespeare was the greatest writer who ever lived... but does that mean that I'm not going to read Dante, Tolstoy, Cervantes... or even such "lesser" writers as Poe, Verlaine, Umberto Eco, or Donald Bartheleme ever again? I have little doubt that bach was the greatest composer ever... but I still love Faure, Samuel Barber, Muddy Waters, and the Rolling Stones.

I think what JBI and others have suggested is that it would be far more interesting to discuss what a reader admires about a specific writer than to argue that he is the "greatest"... especially when there is so much that any of us has not read. Mortal Terror and I have repeatedly championed Firdowsi as a rival to Dante among the great epic poets. Others who haven't even read Firdowsi have rolled their eyes. Several members have proclaimed that contemporary poetry is but a bleak failure... and yet from just a brief discussion with them it has become obvious that they haven't even made the least serious attempt to read anything by the leading contemporary poets.

Can we discuss literature in a way that moves beyond an arm-wrestling match of "Is Shakespeare the greatest poet" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

If literature were a slugfest, I would most certainly put my money on Goethe unless he were up against Dante or Shakespeare.

---

Or Homer, Virgil, Vyasa, Valmiki, Firdawsi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

He would seemingly be more than an equal for anyone else. His oeuvre is huge... and more than impressive even limited to essential works such as The Sorrows of Young Werther, Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, Faust I & II, The Italian Journey, Egmont, Goetz von Berlichingen, Torquato Tasso, Elective Affinities, From my Life: Poetry and Truth (Goethe's Autobiography in 4 Volumes), and his large collection of poetry.

---

There are a couple of guys I think have bodies of work equal to Goethe's. Ovid had his Metamorphoses which I'd place alongside Faust for greatness, then he had the Amores, Heroides, Ars Amatoria, Cures for Love, Tristia, Fasti, and other minor works. Chaucer wrote Canterbury Tales, Troilus and Criseyde, The Book of the Duchess, the House of Fame, and the Parliament of Foules. Milton has Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistes, Comus, Areopagitica, Lycidas, as well as various sonnets and psalms. Tasso and Spenser are pretty powerful.

Victor Hugo is another match I'd make for Goethe. His novels are far more beloved than Goethes. Between Les Miserables and the Hunchback of Notre Dame there can be no comparison to Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship or Elective Affinities. In addition, he wrote a number of good plays: Hernani, Cromwell, Ruy Blas, Lucrece Borgia, Torquemada, and Le Roi S'Amuse was even adapted by Verdi into the opera Rigoletto. Hugo is also a a master poet: Odes and Diverse Poems, Odes and Ballads, The Orientals, The Chastisements, The Contemplations, and The Legend of the Ages. The man was a triple threat and highly prolific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Hölderlin and Novalis are towering poets of the Romantic era, every bit equal to Pushkin.

---

I agree that they are all very good, but what work of Holerlin or Novalis would you say was equal to Eugene Onegin? Pushkin also has major dramas and prose fiction to his credit Boris Godinov, The Queen of Spades, The Captain's Daughter. They reminded me of Tolstoy the prose style was so good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Kafka might not rival Dostoevski, but he surely rivals Checkoff. Arguably his truncated short fictions are among the most central works of Modernism... to such an extent that his very name has been employed as an adjective: Kafkaesque.

---

I wouldn't give Kafka the prize for short fiction as long as Hemingway, De Maupassant, Poe, Akutagawa, and Borges are around. But what makes Chekhov great is primarily his plays. The Cherry Orchard, The Seagull, Uncle Vanye, and Three Sisters are probably more important than The Lady with the Dog. A better match for him there would be Ibsen, who fairly crushes him in the drama department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

That leaves Dostoevsky. Hermann Hesse might not be a rival for him... even though Hesse's oeuvre is severely hampered by the fact that his poetry... which Thomas Mann argued was his finest achievement... is largely unknown outside of Germany. But what of Hesse & Mann? The Russians have some brilliant poets in the 20th century including Anna Akhmatova, Marina Tsvetaeva, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Osip Mandelshtam, and Boris Pasternak... the latter of whom is generally acknowledged as the greatest of them all. Yet none can rival Rilke.

---

Or Cavafy, Eliot, Neruda, and Lorca.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

France vs Russia? I would argue that this would be a blow out. Only the British in the West might rival them.

---

Or if we are going to consider literature from all time periods there are the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Tang Chinese, Sanskrit, and medieval Persian. Instead of simply putting Proust or Cervantes up against Tolstoy for greatest novelist we might add Cao Xueqin or Luo Guanzhong.

I do not know if Tchkehov is mostly renowed due his plays. When the english modernists talk about him, they metion more often his short stories. When Hemingway laments that Tchekhov was married with Medicine, he says Tchekhov wrote a handful of short stories that were perfect and didnt mention plays. Futhermore, Tchekhov status as short story writer is considerable, often listed alongside Maupassant, Poe, Borges,kafka and cia. while his plays, as good as they are, were not the exactly the same status.

Wow, I must remark, I am delighted witht he discussion and dialouge running through this thread. By all means, continue, and I shall read/observe - for I am out of my league haha.

that is complicated. history reason and so on. well, be honest, i do little thing about this.

Dostoevsky and Tolstoy do create imbalance, but in total weight of talent Russia is no greater or lesser.

I can easily be swayed, because it's a very subjective topic.