blackvegetable
Verified User
Ahh Russian novelist...why say in 3 words what can be said in 30,000!
unlike Dickens, they weren't paid by the word.....and if you can't hack the long books, try Turgenev or the grossly underappreciated Lermontov
Ahh Russian novelist...why say in 3 words what can be said in 30,000!
Ahh Russian novelist...why say in 3 words what can be said in 30,000!
For real!
I blame it on the long, dark, cold Russian winters. Being trapped indoors for eight months a year either turns one towards vodka.... or it gives one lots of time to think about the human condition. Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky were basically philosophers of a sort, and their massive tomes I believe give a false impression that Russian literature is by nature epic and vast. Anton Chekhov was, in fact, basically the inventor of the modern short story and writes in an economical, almost impressionistic way. Gogol, Turgenev, Tolstoy and others wrote many short stories which are quite good.
But I totally know what you mean. It took me about six months to finish Brothers Karamazov. And a couple weeks ago I almost picked up Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, but it took two hands to even lift it! I was so intimidated by the size, I ended up getting some comic books instead!
Read Anna even if it takes months, it's well worth it. I read it going back and forth to work via public transportation and it did take a long time, but it's a great book... sad and depressing but great. Picture Vivien Leigh as Anna while you're reading. She was just so beautiful.
Thanks, it is on my bucket list, and I appreciate the recommendation.
Reading during the commute is the way to go.
I like to read on my lunch break at work. Almost every day. That is how I finished Dostoyevsky tome, and that's how I finished reading all six bloody books in the Harry Potter series (p.s. I should punch myself in the mouth for being such a geek).
Whimper and Wither
There must be something seriously wrong with all that superficial wisdom, because it was followed by totalitarian Communist tyranny.
Thank you for that, Midcan. The "Grand Inquistor" chapter from Bothers Karamazov?? I have read from literary critics that chapter is among the most famous in world literature, and I cannot argue with them. I found it to be a remarkable and unique intellectual and philosophical piece on the nature of God, truth, and the nature of humanity. A style of prose and philosophy that is uniquely Dostoyevsky.
Here is another quote from Brothers Karamazov that is relevant to todays world. Why? Because this sounds like it was written about Donald J. Drumpf. It could even apply to a large contingent of JPP righty posters!
Thanks for the insights.
I really like Dostoyevksy, and it would be a bummer if somebody convinces me to hate him!
True dat. Some are tolerable. Many are not.
A very few however rise above their textual origins, transcend them. My favorite example of this is Rashomon, the film that first got Akira Kurosawa noticed. Based on two interesting but not widely known or appreciated short stories by R. Akutagawa.
We may have had this conversation somewhere else, but....If you are gonna go BIG, there are far more enjoyable options than Tolstoy.....
Had not heard of this, I will give it a look, thanksThe Sot Weed Factor for one.....and it is a f...ing riot....not to mention, a great primer on pre-revolutionary American history....
You might get hold of Vladimir Nabokov's Notes on Russian Literature, if you haven't already, and read what he writes about The Overcoat. Very illuminating.
That's it, yes. Mea culpa.I looked for that, found nothing. Did you mean "Lectures on Russian Literature"?
That's it, yes. Mea culpa.
Again, if you like Dostoyevsky, your fondness for him may take a hit.
However, you in particular will I'm sure be very interested in what he has to say about the art of translation. Many of his examples are English-French, IIRC, and where he discusses translation into and from Russian, he provides clear explanations that require no knowledge of the language.
Dostoevsky, who was nearly executed as a "Decembrist", recovered to become a Lapdog of Reaction....spent his final years as the Rich Lowry of his generation.
Great to see you here, BV
We may have had this conversation somewhere else, but....
...granted the de gustibus aspect, one objective reason to read Tolstoy is for the unflinching honesty.
Thus in W&P, it is obvious from e.g. his depiction of the Battle of Borodino that Tolstoy hates warfare, sees it as a stupid and pointless waste of lives. But he is also perceptive enough to see that it also has its positive aspects, e.g. in character formation, and he is too honest to omit this. So Pierre is finally able to achieve discipline and self-respect largely, it is suggested, through his soul-searing experiences after Borodino.
That, the epic sweep, and the fully-formed characters, who are never less than three-dimensional, and always, always believable, are powerful reasons to read him IMO....
Had not heard of this, I will give it a look, thanks
Concur with what you say about Lermontov as well
Did not know about his Rich Lowry years. Evidently, Tolstoy went a bit off the rails in his latter years, apparently considering himself some kind of Christian spiritualist.
It was 150 years ago, and there is so much cultural and historical filter between us, and Russia of the late 19th century, I tend to not think about it too much, unless circumstances in their personal lives informed their writing. As was the case with Dostoyevsky's years in the Siberian penal colonies. The published letters he wrote while in Siberia are riveting.
The limited amount I have read about Anton Chekov leads me to presume he was generally a very decent human being, charitable, egalitarian, and a fiercely honest. But he knew he was going to be dead before he reached 50, so perhaps that influenced his almost manic commitment to accomplishing great things.
Oh, and... I discovered I find it very, very hard to translate English into another language. Funny how that goes, once two realms governed by different languages are established, with next to no interaction between the two. So, I'll have to see whether the Lectures are pertinent.
The limited amount I have read about Anton Chekov leads me to presume he was generally a very decent human being, charitable, egalitarian, and a fiercely honest. But he knew he was going to be dead before he reached 50, so perhaps that influenced his almost manic commitment to accomplishing great things.
He was also quite modest. When asked how long he expected he would continue to be read after his death, IIRC, he replied "seven years. Isn't that about the shelf life for a writer like me?" --paraphrasing of course.
He also had a nice sense of humor, honed during his first few years of writing, when journals would demand humorous very short tales that could be fit onto a single page.
In one letter of his, sent from his new estate in the country to his brother, a fire marshall: "When you come to visit, we will hold a fire drill in your honor"
“Gazing at the opposite shore, I feel that if I were a convict, I would escape immediately, whatever the consequences.”
-Anton Chekhov, The Island of Sakhalin, 1895
“‘Though the trip may be nonsense – stubbornness, a whim – consider the matter and tell me what I have to lose by going? […] For example, you write that Sakhalin is of no use or interest to anybody. Is that really so? Sakhalin is useless and uninteresting only to a society that does not exile thousands of people to it and spend millions to maintain it […] From the books I’ve read and am reading, it is clear that we have sent millions of people to rot in prison, we have let them rot casually, barbarously, without giving it a thought; we have driven people in chains, through the cold thousands of miles, have infected them with syphilis, made them depraved, multiplied criminals, and we have thrust the blame on red-nosed prison officials. Now, all educated Europe knows that the officials are not to blame, but rather all of us; yet this has nothing to do with us, it is not interesting? […]
No, I assure you, Sakhalin is of use, and it is interesting; and I regret only that it is I who am going there and not someone else who knows more about the business and would be more capable of arousing public interest'”