3 ms·
I'm sorry you feel that way. He is certainly as relevant as Camus, Proust, Kafka, Hemingway, Beckett, Sartre, Solzhenitsyn, and many others. The fact that he i
by DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
I'm sorry you feel that way. He is certainly as relevant as Camus, Proust, Kafka, Hemingway, Beckett, Sartre, Solzhenitsyn, and many others.
The fact that he is still popular after all these years is the best endorsement a writer could get.
The bestsellers are littered with names that will be forgotten in 5 years. As N.N. Taleb says: a book that has been around for a hundred years is likely to be around for another 100. The same can't be said for a book that has been popular for 5 years.
maybe this might change your mind: https://archive.org/details/the-dream-of-a-ridiculous-man-by-fyodor-dostoyevsky-1877 https://archive.org/details/the-dream-of-a-ridiculous-man-by...
- ajhurliman 5y agoI think they're meaning to say "He has no philosophical or moral ties to the current government" rather than "He's not relevant as a literary figure in modern society"
- hnov 5y agoI think the complaint is that the author has nothing to do with the previous regime, let alone the current one.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jldugger 5y ago> I'm sorry you feel that way. He is certainly as relevant as Camus, Proust, Kafka, Hemingway, Beckett, Sartre, Solzhenitsyn, and many others. I think the point is that the author has nothing to do with the re-emergence of the Soviet regime, and banning him because "Russia" ignores two centuries of history.
- DyslexicAtheist 5y agook that makes more sense now. I have somehow taken this literally as in he is irrelevant. I can see how this wasn't what GP meant