3 ms·
"American universities don’t teach Soviet literature because American students show little interest in reading it. All of the professors with whom I corresponde
by marincounty 11y ago
"American universities don’t teach Soviet literature because American students show little interest in reading it. All of the professors with whom I corresponded said that universities were full to the brim with Soviet literature courses in the sixties, but interest took a nose dive once Russia ceased to be the Evil Empire."
This is supposedly the reason? When I was in school, I was not required to read any Russian Liturature. I didnt care at the time, I was working towards a business degree, with a minor in biology. My writting skills, and use of the English language was, and still is atrocious; I ended up taking most the required English, and Literature courses my last semester.
My first introduction to Russian Liturature was years later. I checked out Lolita by Valadimire Nabokov. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Well, after reading the book, I finally appreciated good writing. I found his writing beautiful, and easy to read. I wonder why some of his work wasn't required reading. I wish I was forced to read at least one of his books in high school, or college.(I understand why a high school english teacher wouldn't even mention Lolita. It wouldn't be worth the backlash, but his other books are appropriate?).
As to why I wasn't introduced to any Russian Liturature, I always thought it was due to the Mcarthy Era--where anything remotely related to socialism/communism was career ending? And, professors remember what their predecessors went through, and just decided it wasn't worth it. Stick with the safe stuff politically? I assumed, today, Russian Literature, at least some authors, were required reading in most American college Lit. departments? I had no idea, the students were the one's whom showed no interest in Russian literature? Are their any recent English, Lit. majors who would chime in? Just curious to see If you agree with the author?
(Valadimire Nabrakov Lolita is one of his English novels. I always thought it was translated. His first nine novels were in Russian.)
- RobertKerans 11y agoTo nitpick, Lolita is not Russian literature, it's English
- marincounty 11y agoJust realized, came back to edit--if possible?
- swimfar 11y agoI had to look it up to see what you meant. You are referring to the fact that the book was written in English. But would it not still be considered Russian literature, at least in some sense? I mean, his "true" Russian works are still considered Russian literature even when translated into English, so why would a book by the same author not be considered Russian if he initially wrote it in English? Or are all his books written after moving to the US considered to be English literature? Would that be the case even if one was written in Russian? These are honest questions, I don't know (and had never thought about) how literature is classified in this sense.
- gizmo686 11y agoNabokov is a relatively weird case. He grew up in a tri-lingual house (Russian, English, and French), and learned to write English before Russian.
- marincounty 11y agoI'm curious too. Vladimir Nabokov's family came to America in 1940. They were fleeing the the advancing German troops. "In June 1953 Nabokov and his family went to Ashland, Oregon. There he finished Lolita and began writing the novel Pnin." I guess he's considered a Russian and American author? Still doesn't sound right, but I'm definitely not the one to ask.
- RobertKerans 11y agoAs @gizmo says, he's a weird case. He's one of the best prose stylists in English, his use of the language is incredible. But then at the same time he wrote his first 9 novels in Russian, and translated his own English works back into Russian, and into French. I'd classify a large chunk of his work as English literature, but I can't comment on how he's viewed in Russia, or for that matter in France, given several of his novels were written in the language then translated.
- gyardley 11y agoThe author is correct. Honestly, during the entire Cold War every American university was pumping up the size of their Slavic Studies department - hiring professors left and right. While it certainly wasn't required, studying the Russian language, history, and literature was a fairly popular thing to do, and there certainly weren't any political problems with either teaching or studying it. Anything academic relating to Eastern Europe was funded very generously by the federal government, and with a background in Russian you could go on to get a respectable career in that same government. After the Cold War ended, the funding dried up, Russian stopped being such a desirable specialty for government work, and the tenured Slavic Studies professors who retired stopped being replaced. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - the size of the field was artificially inflated and now is returning to a somewhat more rational level.