4 ms·
I wonder who Shishkin is writing this for, and why he bothers. Readers interested in Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, or Chekhov are presumably intellectuals. Presumably,
by azangru 4y ago
I wonder who Shishkin is writing this for, and why he bothers.
Readers interested in Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, or Chekhov are presumably intellectuals. Presumably, they will be familiar with the countless examples from history when, driven by patriotic fervor, countries cleansed themselves from the culture of an adversarial state, including language, literature, music, linguistic borrowings, scientific contributions, common history, etc. etc. Presumably, these potential readers should be sophisticated enough to separate the crude politics of the day from the valuable contributions to the history of art or science.
Is he _really_ interested in the audience whose interest in the 19-th century Russian literature is predicated on the Russian politics of the 21st century? Why does he want to reach this audience? And, more generally, in the environment that is arrogantly dismissive to "old white men" in general, why worry about the readership of Dostoyevsky at all?
- pablok2 4y ago
- xwowsersx 4y agoThis is a sort of ad hominem and not helpful. I could _guess_ what you are alluding to, but you should make your point explicitly, rather than in personal and innuendo form.
- Cupertino95014 4y agoYou're right. I happen to agree with the sentiment about The Atlantic, but yeah, that's as bad as saying "Ooh, Fox News! We can't listen to anything they say."
- WesolyKubeczek 4y agoWe can, but we should calibrate our expectations accordingly.
- pablok2 4y agoIf the internet isn't for free speech... finish the sentence
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xwowsersx 4y agoOn the one hand, I sympathize with your sentiment. However, I feel it can be overstated. Applying your reasoning, we might conclude that formulating and publishing an argument of any kind at all is futile because, as your logic states, "the people who already think this, don't need it. And the people who oppose it, aren't listening." I think this is a simplistic way of looking at it. On all issues, there are people at the margins (or perhaps, in the "center"). Perhaps they have some visceral feeling that they ought to look at Russian literature, at this moment, with some disdain. Or they feel some vague sense of shame in indulging in or enjoying Russian literature. As an audience, people like this are quite able to be convinced that their feelings are misplaced and this post lays out exactly why.
- the_af 4y agoThanks for saying this, I tried writing the same but more briefly in a sibling comment, and... it wasn't well received. I suppose my wording seemed curt.
- the_af 4y agoSo you think trying to educate people or sway their opinions should never be attempted?
- nineplay 4y agoI'm going to challenge this because I think it suggests that reading the Russian classics is an intellectual challenge with a perquisite of studying Russian history and culture. Dostoyevsky's works are amazing without any background knowledge. No 'intellectualism' is required, just a love of stories. With a few tweaks they could be set in a modern era and turned into Netflex series. War and Peace is considered a challenge because of the rambling philosophical chapters between the main action, but strip those out and you have Gone with the Wind. Easily enjoyed without any extra frontal lobe matter.
- inanutshellus 4y agoI don't think there was an inference that the books are opaque, just that people reading these books in 2022 are already weird ducks. Well, as weird as anyone reading, say, Tao Te Ching or other non-standard-academic-curriculum "classic" books you'd have to go out of your way to read.
- Spinnaker_ 4y agoAnna Karenina was an Oprah book club selection. War and Peace occasionally pops up on bestseller lists.
- nineplay 4y agoOne of my nits is implications that Great Works require some sort of extra mental exertion. I've read many Great Works and it's not just that Crime and Punishment is better than As the Crawdads Sing <ugh> but it is also more engaging. People think that these books shouldn't be read without understanding Russian history or society and without careful comparisons of the best translations but it isn't necessary. One of my mantras as a reader is that I no longer am in school and no one is going to make me write a paper or discuss overriding themes. I can read the way I like and enjoy what I like and if I missed all the mustard seed references than it doesn't matter to me. I could go into a side discussion on how literature is taught but I'm sympathetic to English curriculum developers who have to give students some books to read and have some criteria by which they can make sure students have read and understood it.