Talk:The Death of Ivan Ilyich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Short story (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Short story task force.
WikiProject Russia / Language & literature (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.


The article introduction seems to include a plot summary detailing the ending. This seems pretty inconsiderate. (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the title of the story, I can only assume that this comment is a joke. "Spoiler alerts" don't apply to encyclopedia articles, anyway ( (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)kbrewer36)

Cleanup needed[edit]

  1. The many external links here should each be of a form along the lines given in Wikipedia:Cite Sources, possibly with further annotation.
  2. There Russian title should be given, in Cyrillic and transliterated.
  3. Also, a lot more could be written.

Jmabel | Talk 08:26, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, especially the statement that says "The novella was acclaimed by Vladimir Nabokov and Mahatma Ghandi as the greatest in the whole of Russian literature.". --AySz88^-^ 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
My translation (by Lynn Solotaroff) also has a very different ending than what is in the article right now (for example, "For those present, his agony continued for another two hours", "It is all over," said someone standing beside him", "'Death is over'"), and it gives a far different feel to me. --AySz88^-^ 06:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Definitely. I think a characters section might be appropriate, as the novella is very character-driven. --Millancad 09:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree mostly, but each translation is different and gives a different but not necessarily "more accurate" feel. Perhaps, there should be quotes from multiple translations, or rather simply the translation cited, and information on other translations available.

Also, I feel there is too much opinion in this article now because of whomever added the biblical understanding. Though, they could very well be correct in their assumption, it is only one viewpoint, and a specific one at that. It should either be completely deleted or replaced by a more general and "bigger picture" understanding.

While this article is NOT very good in its current state, any revision ignoring the Christian worldview that underpins this story--and all of Tolstoy's work, for that matter--is doing a disservice to both the man and the work.K. Scott Bailey 08:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


what is the controversy in the controversy section? seems there is none, and the title is a dramatic attempt to draw attention. it seems to be more about intrerpretation or analysis of the story from some POV, which is fine, but the claims made are uncited and thin. if this section stays, it needs to be reworked.Platypusjones 03:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that we should change the title of the section to something like, 'Interpretation.' Any thoughts? Woland37 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the article should be formatted o use the template suggested by wiki for the novel project: [[1]]Platypusjones (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that interpretation of the book with Gerasim in mind. Something about how the peasants and the religion of the peasants is superior than that of the high society. Or at least link this page to his main page that shows his views of the Russian Orthodox Church.`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Read[edit]

The Death of Ivan Ilyich is part of the National Endowment of the Arts Big Read Event in the United States. Champaign, IL has a descendent of Tolstoy visiting. They are showing Ikiru as well as the Tom Hanks film, Philadelphia. Maybe one of these elements should be put into the article. (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The fair use image.[edit]

Someone is disputing the use of an image, because it relies on a fair use rationale, on the grounds that the fair use rationale is weak because there are numerous other images that could equally well be used with the same rationale. Or so I gather from the poor forum of discussion in the edit summaries.

The person with the problem with the image needs to articulate the problem more clearly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at our non-free content criteria. This image clearly fails both NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. Yes, it is usually accepted that the original book cover is a useful addition to the article- in this case, the original cover would be freely licensed, so all the better. The cover of this particular edition, especially when this cover is non-free and this edition is not mentioned (nor should it be) in the article, is completely unwarranted. What is it adding to the article? Nothing. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree on NFCC#8. Illustrations are everything, to some people at least. Personally, I'd prefer to the a picture of a book, not just the cover. I think a picture of a book, being such a minor aspect of a book, is not offensive to NFCC#3a, especially given the clear compliance with NFCC#3b and NFCC#4. Am I far out on a limb here?
NFCC#1 is clear. Can you please explain how I can get the image, and why it is free? At 114 years old, is an image of the book automatically free? Would it be in a rare book library? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
At 114 years, yes, in this case, the image is public domain. As for your "Illustrations are everything, to some people at least"- ok, that's nice, but why is it so important we see the cover of this particular edition? It simply isn't. Yes, an illustration is nice, but this one adds nothing. Sorry this reply was so late- the image has already been deleted as per this. However, for future reference, I can assure you that this should have been entirely uncontroversial- the image should not have been there in the first place. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree, that particular edition is of little significance, that I know. The original, or perhaps the best selling, would be better. I understand and agree with out urge to try for public domain images. Is there evidence that a public domain version still exists? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Google Books lists a few public domain editions, but, sadly, does not have them scanned in. Ideally, the original cover would be best (unless another cover was particularly significant, although I think that would be an issue of having sourced discussion of why said cover is significant in the article anyway- can't think of an example of this off-hand, but I am sure there are some), but there is no harm in having a different free cover while we wait for the original to surface. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Does he have a real disease or is it fictional? What sort of disease could cause such symptoms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)