Talk:Russian literature

Russia Start‑class High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aleksandr Nekrasov, as far as I can gather ([1]), was a philogist and professor, and not a major figure in Russian literature. If the author meant Nikolai Nekrasov (whom I have just added), then please delete the name.

History

This article should really be developed and then moved to History of Russian literature, and the current page remain as more of a general introduction to the highlights of Russian literature itself. Comments welcome. -- Simonides 08:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that a major problem with the article is the way in which it simply lumps together Russian literature after the Russian revolution, into one huge 'block.' (The article says that is was 'sovietized.') As I understand it, there was no continuity between the literature and art of the early Russian revolution, and that of the stalinist reaction of late 1920's onward. Compare Trotsky's (a leader of the revolution and high figure in the early govt) comment that

"Art, like science not only does not seek orders, but by its very essence, cannot tolerate them...Truly intellectual creation is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and the spirit of conformity." (Trotsky: Art and Revolution. New York: Pathfinder, 2003.)

with that of the stalinist govt and their views on'socialist realism.'

Simply saying the 'soviet era' fails to consider what actually took place during this 'era,'and thus cannot explain Russia literature and its development during the last hundred of so years.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.185.101 • 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree. In one way though, there is a continuity. The beautiful earthiness and internal poetry of those authors who spanned both eras is identical. Only in the outward sense are their writings of after the 1920's different. It is only from the newer writers, just maturing in the 1920's, that one senses the ominous cheerfulness and wry stoicism of those who never knew the "Mother Russia" of Krylov and Paustovsky.

Shykee 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]

Bunin and Bulgakov should be mentioned in the first section. Bunin won the Nobel Prize in literature, IIRC.--Levalley (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Levalley[reply]

Americentric point of view?

While I am not a trained specialist in Russian literature (and thus would hesitate to edit the article myself), I am a native speaker and am fairly well-read in Russian literature and criticism. My opinion of the article is that, in its current form, it is somewhat Americentric: the writers emphasized are those most respected in America, and many great authors who simply do not translate well (or have not been well-translated) into English are given less attention than they deserve, based on their influence in the development of Russian literature.

For example, while Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are the most visible Russian novelists abroad, most Russian writers and intellectuals (e.g., Nabokov) would probably cite Gogol as a much stronger influence than Dostoyevsky, who is generally less respected in Russia than in America.

In poetry, Akhmatova was NOT the most influential poet of the silver age (and certainly not of lyricism, as her poetry is among the less lyrical of the major figures of the time), and was generally considered (by Russian poets) an excellent poet, but much less influential than, e.g., Madelstam, who does not translate well into English.

Sozhenitsin is a very well-known dissident, and I mean nothing against him when I say that as _literature_, his work has not been as influential as that of other writers. This is not to say that he does not belong in the article; but the emphasis on him seems rather stronger than would be proportional to his influence.

I hope that someone who is an expert in Russian literature will take heed of my plea and edit the article to reflect a point of view more proper to the Russian tradition as it appears from within, rather than from without.

-George

69.150.3.210 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George, I see no one replied to you in more than 2 years! I agree with you. Gogol should be mentioned in the first section. Solzhenitzin is over-emphasized here as a literary figure when he should be mentioned as secondary in literature - and Gogol should be much more emphasized. I'm not Russian (I'm an anthropologist who studies Russia, especially its literary traditions) but I know many, many Russians who agree with you and believe that the scholarly literature inside Russia agrees with you too.Levalley (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

intro

I changed the intro because it did not seem right to me to say so stridently about Russian literature declining under Soviet era. Yes I would agree 20th century literature did not have figures such as Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky - but by their standard what country wouldn't decline? Do we say English literature declined because there were no more Dickens or Shakespeare? Russia in the 20th century produced many great writers of poetry and prose. Certainly not all of them dissidents - and to call such as Pasternak a disident requires a very wide use of the term. A dissident cannot just mean someone who was, at one point in their life as against another, opposed to a regime. Solzhenitsyn okay - though whether one of the greatest Russian writers of the century is more a question. Or must we call Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky dissidents against tsarism? I think the intro was making a particular and here incorrect political statement.Stepyanov 02:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work - but I think it should go even further. Who is the expert who knows when Russian literature "culminates"? It's true that most sane people would say that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are the peak of Russian literary achievement, but to imply that in any sense they are the "culmination" of all that came previously (and everything sense is somehow related to them and a denouement) is to undermine both authors' views of history (especially Tolstoy's). At any rate, it needs a large number of citations. More neutral language (leading to...?) rather than language implying causality needs to be used. It would be better to be encyclopedic, that is, to simply mention pre-19th century authors, then major 19th century authors (including Bunin) then 20th century authors and allow readers to figure out on their own who resulted in whom. If some are to be held to be literary references to others (Tolstoy arose from someone else, for example), citations are needed - did Tolstoy actually read those Russian authors while writing, for example, War and Peace (there's quite a bit known about this) or not?Levalley (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Masta n margarita.jpg

The image Image:Masta n margarita.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on changing the part about avant garde writers.

Referring to the removal of Iff and Petrov. They belong in the article but not under avant garde.Levalley (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External influences in Russian literature

Did someone suggest that Burns is THE most important external influence on Russian literature? I for one didn't anything that said that he was THE most important influence, merely that he was and still is an influence. Saying that Burns does not merit inclusion in this wiki page is only POV. The info added regarding the influence of Burns in Russia is credible and has been fully referenced (unlike everything else currently in the Russian Literature wikpedia page). If you are able to provide references that say that Burns has had no influence in Russia then please provide those.

Anyone else who is aware of others from outside Russia who have influenced Russian literature, please also add them to this section. This section should be for others who have influenced Russian literature, not just Burns.

I welcome opinions from others and collaborative working on this of course.

Best wishes to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External influences in Russian literature

Naming a section "External influences" in plural and giving just not the most one influence leads to distortion of the article. Imagine an article on Russian literature with just one writer mentioned - Lermontov or Platonov. Or, imagine an article about American literature with External influences section dedicated exclusively to Chekhov. Such an article instead of informing of real picture would create a perverse image of it. Same here, until the section is well-balanced it shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise you, willingly or not, mislead article reader and distort the picture just to serve your personal preferences.

If you will insist on adding the Burns section (because it's not an External Influences section but personal a Burns section) I will request protected status for the article. If you really want to help, make a research and create a balanced section. I would be the first to thank you.

Vryadly, 15.05.2009

External influences in Russian literature

Hi Vryaldy,

Of course there are other external influences on Russian Literature. Where did it say that the only influence was Burns? The info on Burns was added as a further subheading under the heading of 'External influences on Russian Literature'. My understanding was that the purpose odf wikipedia for people to work together as a team to add info? I've added the info on Burns; I invite you and other contributors to add info on the other influences

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Vryaldy,

Is there an independent forum in wikipedia where we can take this discussion to? Let's get the opinion of others. I am more than happy to listen to other as I am sure you will be also.

For info I have updated the article with a request for assistance from others in expanding the article.

All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External influences in Russian literature

Hi, I do not mind your last version of the section.

Vryadly (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A journal info about the topic.....

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03043479 --222.64.26.148 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]