Who is better? Tolstoy or Shakespeare.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/30/writers-top-ten-favorite-books/
I really think that Shakespeare is the greatest (because it is inexplicable how a single human being could do all that wonders with language), but I enjoy more to read Tolstoy (and I think that his characters are much more life-like, while the ones of Shakespeare are artificial, some form of super-humans, mostly because of their language).
Inb4: no, Dante, Cervantes, Joyce, Proust, Goethe, Homer, Virgil are not superior to any one of the two mentioned above.
>>7712860
>ones of Shakespeare are artificial, some form of super-humans, mostly because of their language
That's called theatre.
Shakespeare is like a perfect woman.
Tolstoy is like the woman you end up actually marrying.
Equal.
>>7712864
Correctamundo
They are equal in that they are inferior to Lin.
>>7712921
Go to bed Tao.
Shakespeare. The point of Shakespeare is that it is meditative and indirect in many ways. There may be a reality associated with his ideations, but really, who would care to know? He puts words in the place of things, subject in the place of object, like Aristotle. Shakespeare is the type of philosopher which the West respects most. He's an elusive artist, and so all of his notions remain clothed, and largely free of contour.
Tolstoy I don't have much familiarity with, although I've heard that he has some of the better female characters among novelists. I think he would be worth absorbing but I don't know where to start. Apparently Norm MacDonald suggested chronologically?
Mundanely 'truthful', or detail-oriented authors, are sometimes less well respected as artists in the West. If you look at Western nature painting, it's gauzy, cubist or full of mist, and the Russians like grasping a certain Asian form and clarity to nature. I'd argue their nature paintings are technically 'better', although this same absolute quality would probably not enrapture westerners in quite the same way. I've wanted to see Russian nature paintings be loaned out to Western galleries for a long time, to test this theory.
>>7712982
The Cossacks would be a good start.
>>7712982
Many good starting points. I don't know about chronologically though. I doubt it's the most pleasant way to go.
Some criticisms of Shakespeare.
I know Tolstoi hated Shakespeare's metaphors and similes. I'm not certain of the cultural context there because the fable has remained somewhat popular in Russian life to this day.
>>7713050
>I know Tolstoi hated Shakespeare's metaphors and similes
He didn't just hate him for that. He didn't like how Shakespeare didn't have proper morals like his work or whatever.
The russian gambler wins once again.
>>7713056
Oh that might explain why I like Tolstoy so much. I thought Shakespeare's metaphors suck too, and to be doubly sure, I've disliked allusions to Shakespearian phrases, even without realizing they were references to Shakespeare.
>>7712982
>don't know where to start.
This is a kind of silly video, but hey, it dosent hurt to watch
http://www.openculture.com/2016/02/an-animated-introduction-to-leo-tolstoy.html
>>7713083
>I thought Shakespeare's metaphors suck too
So you dont like metaphors and poetry, I guess
>>7713098
Au contraire, butt sniffer.
Everybody worth noting uses metaphors.
Poetry is fairly important in my life, I have a personally printed book containing my favorite poems.
>>7713056
>He didn't just hate him for that. He didn't like how Shakespeare didn't have proper morals like his work or whatever.
I wonder what Tolstoy would make of the Arden family's moral universe. The Ardens sought to put Queen Mary on the throne, and some even decided to support Francis Throckmorton's assassination plot against Elizabeth (1583?)!
I suppose there's no direct analogy in contemporary Russian politics of the same era.
>>7713111
How much did that cost?
Do you have a picture?
What poems are in it?
>>7712860
Both go far beyond what their respective disciplines required and become the transcendental foundation for what a "good" play or novel constitutes
You don't need to choose between two of the great geniuses of literature simply because Tolstoy said he didn't enjoy "writing meant for the theatre". It's unsurprising t b h given the acute psychological/"inner world" dimension that permeates all of his works.
Shakespeare expressed the inner world via soliloquies and outward demonstrations whereas Tolstoy was all about psychology on the individual level (instead of the outward approach Shakespeare takes up)
To apply some Kant here, Tolstoy gives us the synthetic a priori truth whereas Shakespeare gives us the a posteriori emanations of synthetic a priori truth.
>>7713050
That Shaw quote isn't criticism, it's praise.
Also
"I have tried to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me."
-Charles Darwin
>>7712860
>believing there's an objective best
>not realizing 'best' is inherently relative
lol
>>7713111
tips fedora
>>7713595
I think you're right, Shaw's admitting some jealousy.
Like Rymer, I hate seeing Othello performed as a burlesque as well, it tends to iron everything out of it. I think there's some consistency in Shakespeare's decision to leave the title character out of the play to a large extent. Certainly, in Othello, the play isnt really about him, and he's allowed no extravagance of speech or wit.
>>7712860
you can't really think someone who shakes pears could possibly be a better poet than Homer (who didn't even exist). let alone Dante.
>>7713595
>"I have tried to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me."
-stemfag
>>7713775
why can't stemfags appreciate art
>>7713781
Because they've trained their brain to be interested only in essential things.
>>7713781
They can. My aunt is a physicist and a massive fedora. And somehow she loves Dante and Dostoyevsky.
>>7713756
Shakespeare covers more ground than either of them.
For example... if you saw 'Julius Caesar' and wondered why Shakespeare didn't focus more on Fulvia's relationship with her dad Bambalio, then the answer is obvious...
Desdemona's relationship with her father Brabrantio is Shakespeare's worked-up view of Fulvia. Othello is therefore easily related to Antony.
So Shakespeare is taking 1st Century BC characters and relating them to new creations some 1600 years later. And it comes off. It works because each Play is conversant with each other Play, and once you've imbibed his entire oeuvre, the Bard becomes the consummate psychologist.
>>7712982
I started with Anna Karenina. It was the first Russian work I'd read and I've never looked back.
>people are still falling for the tolstoy meme
>>7713800
That's because Dante has a profound secular interpretation
>do no harm
>work hard for what is good (don't need god for good, only in English but not in Italian)
>don't succumb to the desires of the flesh, only satisfy them
>don't feel bad for people who suffer of their own volition
>hell is what the sinners (wrongdoers) do to themselves
>purgatory is maintaining while striving for greatness, crippled by the lesser vices
Haven't gotten to paradise yet but I'm fucking loving it. Makes me wonder if Dante had a secular interpretation in mind.
I appreciate the fact that Tolstoy took firm political stands by the end of his life. Granted, had Shakespeare done the same, he would have ended up like Kyd or Marlowe, but Shakespeare takes being apolitical to an artform. I'm reading Tolstoy's "Resurrection" right now. It's Tolstoy's last novel, a story of how one cannot experience personal and spiritual resurrection without radically rejecting the corruption of the already-existing social order, which includes just about everything. It's a very brave work, something Shakespeare couldn't have pulled off not because he lacked the virtuosity, but the guts.
Shakespeare is a much rarer bits; gê is more of a miracle Than any other writer
tolstoy is shit always was always going to be
Shakespeare. Tolstoy is the greatest Russian author though.
>>7715633
You never read the man, so how can you say? (and no, the first few chapters of Anna Karenina dont make you apt to say you have "read" Tolstoy).
>>7715589
>Shakespeare is a much rarer bits; gê is more of a miracle Than any other writer
fucking auto-corrector.
I wanted to say:
Shakespeare is a much rarer bird; he is more of a miracle than any other writer. His language is a inexplicable wonder.
>>7715906
I read War and peace
it was bad
>>7715944
No, you have not read it
Tolstoy > Dante > Hafiz > Homer > Chaucer > Shakespeare/Middleton
Is Tolstoy THAT good?
>>7719319
He pretty much is. He's not known for inventing something new or revolutionising anything, like Homer or Joyce, but he managed to completely master the art of the novel. There's really nothing you can think a novel needs that you can't find in his body of work.
Also, in my opinion, he's the author that can teach you the most things about life in a purely artistic way.
>>7717479
nice algebra ;)
>>7719319
No it just huge meme especially on /lit/
He is mediocre at best
>>7720148
>He is mediocre at best
You either never read him or you dont have any talent for literature.
>>7713111
How much of a contrarian do you have to be to not like Shakespeare? It's like saying you don't like ice cream.
>>7720912
Just a troll baiting, don't mind him
>>7712998
this my man. Then you'll be hooked
I'm going to go with Tolstoy. His down-to-earth style moves me more. Shakespeare is a genius, so it's hard to decide. But nothing beats Kitty and Levin.
>>7719319
Yeah. You read a summary of one of his novels and think "who would care about this?" Or you hear a quote and you think "this isn't very insightful, almost cliche." But there's magic to him. His writing is like a rich cake.
>>7712860
Joyce is the best, actually.
Joyce was more talented than either Shakespeare or Tolstoy.
>>7724932
You dont know anything about literature: dont even try to be a writer (in case you have this ambition).
People like you are a sad lot: you are all drowning, but even if we throw ropes to help you you would disdain them.
>>7712860
>who is better? Jhon Carmack or Albert Hoffman.
I understand what you mean - kind of comparising of two writers and discussion of different ways of literature
>>7724984
lol
>>7724932
Pelevin is better than Joyce
>>7712998
This. I enjoyed it a lot more than Death of Ivan Ilyich
>>7724932
I think Joyce's command of language might rival Shakespeare's, but as far as depth and breadth of material and themes and whatever, Shakey Pear's got him beat
I also enjoy Tolstoy more than Joyce.
>>7712860
>and I think that his characters are much more life-like, while the ones of Shakespeare are artificial, some form of super-humans, mostly because of their language
Shakespeare was not a novelist.
"Shakespeare is so great that few of his readers, perhaps none, have ever taken in the whole of the purpose and significance of any one play. Who shall say, therefore, whether his works are as ' perfect ' as those of Miss Austen or not? For myself, I think they are not. Most noble is, as a rule, most incomplete; and it is probable that, from Shakespeare's own point of view, if any could attain to consider his works therefrom, they would be found very far from faultless, whereas we might safely have defied Miss Austen herself to detect a fault in anything she ever wrote. Shakespeare stands alone for greatness, not for perfectness, which we never think about in reading him. Miss Austen is as small as she is perfect; but in reading her we never think of the smallness, but only of her really almost incomparable perfection.
. . .
Shakespeare is of imagination all compact. He is most faithful, indeed, to nature; but not to nature as it is seen by ordinary eyes. A nobleman, for whom Turner had painted a picture, is reported to have complained that he 'could not see such colours in the sky'. 'Don't you wish you could?' was the painter's reply. Shakespeare's humanity is heroic. Kings, sages, lovers, villains, charlatans, and humorists walk the stage, not as they are, but as they might be if the hearts and heads of men had thrice the vigour of humanity as it is. His heroes and heroines could not have spoken in prose."
- Coventry Patmore, "Comparing Small Things With Great"
>>7725023
True, but the one's a Russian Untermensch attempting to Outpynchon both Barthelme and Delillo and other is a great English speaking writer any serious man should have tried to discuss. You know the song "this is a man's world", do you? Well, it should go "this is a an English speaking white man's world" and Russians aren't white. They're Orc. They're squat, they're swarthy and they're mongoloid.
Goethe is superior; Tolstoy and the Russians and general are beyond overrated. Tolstoy was at least the best, though.
Pretty sure the entirety of Anna Karenina can be shaved down to the chapter in which Levin mows grass with the peasants. Tolstoy isn't even on the top ten of greatest writers in history. Anna Karenina was utterly predictable, dull, and a product of his christian moralizing. He created nothing. He would have been better just writing a journal and letting Dostoevsky beat him with his divine epilepsy. (Which he did even with Tolstoy's resistance)
>>7726937
Fuck you the Ruskies are the best
>>7726905
>"Shakespeare is so great that few of his readers, perhaps none, have ever taken in the whole of the purpose and significance of any one play. Who shall say, therefore, whether his works are as ' perfect ' as those of Miss Austen or not? For myself, I think they are not. Most noble is, as a rule, most incomplete; and it is probable that, from Shakespeare's own point of view, if any could attain to consider his works therefrom, they would be found very far from faultless, whereas we might safely have defied Miss Austen herself to detect a fault in anything she ever wrote. Shakespeare stands alone for greatness, not for perfectness, which we never think about in reading him. Miss Austen is as small as she is perfect; but in reading her we never think of the smallness, but only of her really almost incomparable perfection.
>. . .
>Shakespeare is of imagination all compact. He is most faithful, indeed, to nature; but not to nature as it is seen by ordinary eyes. A nobleman, for whom Turner had painted a picture, is reported to have complained that he 'could not see such colours in the sky'. 'Don't you wish you could?' was the painter's reply. Shakespeare's humanity is heroic. Kings, sages, lovers, villains, charlatans, and humorists walk the stage, not as they are, but as they might be if the hearts and heads of men had thrice the vigour of humanity as it is. His heroes and heroines could not have spoken in prose."
>- Coventry Patmore, "Comparing Small Things With Great"
I loved this; this was obvious to me for ages, yet I could not understand why it was so dificult to see any critic comentary saying this obvious truth.
>>7726937
>Goethe is superior;
Fuck no. The guy was a poet yet could not write a single striking and original metaphor.
You pick one of Shakespeare's plays and you find more metaphoric (and metaphors are the greatest thing in poetry) exuberance than in the whole work of Goethe.
If you are not great with metaphors done even bother trying to be a poet. Is no wonder only German people read Goethe.
>>7726947
You think ideas are the thing that matter in literature? Boy, this is for you:
>>7724984
>You dont know anything about literature: dont even try to be a writer (in case you have this ambition).
>People like you are a sad lot: you are all drowning, but even if we throw ropes to help you you would disdain them.
You dont have what it takes, baby. You cant even see the most basic things.
>>7727382
>The guy was a poet yet could not write a single striking and original metaphor.
Somebody hasn't read enough of his work.
>and metaphors are the greatest thing in poetry
I see; an undergrad.
>>7727400
>Somebody hasn't read enough of his work.
Why don't you give us some evidence?
>>7727409
No, it's not my job to educate you.
Your ignorance only hurts yourself.
Surely you have read Faust at some point. There's no absence of allegory there; if you want evidence of it, go ahead and reread it.
>>7726947
I agree with you, but I don't think you can make a post like this without at least pointing out his incredibly beautiful prose.
>>7727390
Did I say that at all? I don't even think I insinuated that ideas are the thing that matters in literature. Of course, now that you mention it, they do matter. They matter quite a lot. Along with interesting plot, characters, setting, style, etc. There is a balance that must be made. I am not calling Tolstoy a poor author, I even liked Anna Karenina, in retrospect it is an interesting book to pick apart. I do not feel that by that example of his work, that he is of the greatest authors.
I will tell you at least, that I was never convinced that his characters were not simply echoes of his own mind. They never took on the form of flesh and blood, and seemed limited to him. Their actions were too perfect, too wooden, and you could easily see the puppeteer's strings. That's just my opinion on it, and an overall feeling that I got. I won't pretend that it's a scholarly opinion, but it's my own criticism.
>>7727497
to your point, I would agree, but only on the chapter with Levin cutting grass. There were moments when reality bled through, and you could feel everything he conveyed. It gave me the sense that he had dropped pretense of writing a novel, and merely gave an account of his own experience. Which is why I suggested a journal. I feel as though if he had stuck to his own experiences, he would have been considered even more divine to his followers. No question.
>>7727907
>pleb
>>7727907
>>7726947
>Anna Karenina was a product of his christian moralizing
I disagree with this. There's no clear message in Anna Karenina, just some commentary about their society and way if thought. Think of all the times people discussed women's rights throughout the book, then think of how Stepan is quickly forgiven for cucking his wife and no one besides Dolly remembers it, whereas when Anna decides that she wants to be happy the whole city condemns her. Where is this 'Christian moralizing' in the character of Stepan Arkadych?
>their actions were too perfect
If you look at Levin, he is the closest you can get to the depiction of a perfect character in literature while still being realistic. Dostoyevsky just puts an Alyosha or Myshkin on the plate and has us observe his perfect actions, but Tolstoy lets us see into the mind of such a character, how he became like this, what he wants to do with his life. Levin has a naturally kind soul, but he still gets mad at his wife, is annoyed when he doesn't win at hunting, is dissapointed when his baby gets born. The only Christian moralizing part comes at the end, where he discovers God as a solution to his metaphysical questions, not as someone who is supposed to tell him how to live his life.
>I do not feel that by that example of his work he is one of the greatest authors
Yes, because he also wrote War and Peace, a book about which every educated person has heard. Have you read that?
>>7728103
the whole premise of anna karenina is the fateful hand of god destroying a woman who was unfaithful to her husband.
you're refuting my accusation that their actions were too perfect by agreeing that one of the characters is essentially perfect? Alyosha is not perfect. His interaction with Lise was hardly perfect. Myshkin was an absolute fool. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say Myshkin was a perfect character. He was literally The Idiot.
No, I have not yet read War and Peace, however I doubt I will after having read Anna Karenina. I'm not sure I can completely justify taking the time to read it when Anna Karenina was honestly such a disappointment.
>>7728118
>the whole premise of anna karenina is the fateful hand of god destroying a woman who was unfaithful to her husband.
Says who? Does Tolstoy write a premise at the beginning which I have not read? I gave you an argument in the previous post, go read it again.
>you're refuting my accusation that their actions were too perfect by agreeing that one of the characters is essentially perfect?
Perfect and realistic. Levin was a normal person, doing normal activities, not becoming a monk then leaving to save the world and comforting a grieving father. You have very little to learn from Alyosha and his story is kinda pointless. I feel like he was just there to help develop the other characters.
And I'm sorry to say but you misunderstood The Idiot. The point was that Myshkin was as pure and close to Jesus as a person can be, the other characters from aristocratic families didn't understand that and labeled him an idiot. This book is more akin to Tolstoy's works because it shows that the Christian teachings don't have that much value in the real world and it's much more complicated being a good, valuable person.
>>7728156
Okay then, let's try this again. To say that there wasn't a pervasive christian tone throughout Anna Karenina is a lie. and when you ask why there is a double standard for a man who is a cheater and a woman who is a cheater, you think that's not christian? i guess you've forgotten that women are chattel according to many religions, christianity being one of them.
Alyosha's story is pointless to you. Besides, it's The Brothers Karamazov. Not Alyosha Karamazov. Myshkin was a moron. End of discussion there. He was an Idiot because in practical terms, regardless of his implied purity, he was still fucking worthless.
>Says who? Does Tolstoy write a premise at the beginning which I have not read? I gave you an argument in the previous post, go read it again.
There is literally an epigraph.
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
I'm sorry, but it's clearly saying that those who will oppose the will of god will lead lives rife with destruction. Stepan was an example of confession and christian reformation. he was FORGIVEN (you know, that thing christians do?) whereas Levin led a life essentially christian, hard work, devotion to marriage, and was rewarded with joy. Anna ripped apart her marriage, and even Vronsky suffers as a result of their sinful behavior.
Tolstoy himself is god, acting out with his marionettes the fate of those who would oppose the Lord. There even is an interesting quote i heard from a few sources, that Tolstoy's voice is the voice of god. Appropriate, really.
>>7728172
Okay, you're right, there is a Christian tone (altough if you'd read more Tolstoy you'd realise it's more about his view about family and happiness) but Anna is still an interesting character. She wants to be happy and feel loved, she is kind and helpful, but her 'destiny' is to stay and serve the evil Karenin. The part when he forgives her but she still refuses him is, to me, more interesting than anything Shakespeare ever wrote.
When you talk about Levin, keep in mind that he lived that good life by himself, without any help from Christianity. All of Tolstoy's characters do this, they arrive at Christian conclusions about life by themselves, not because they've read the Bible or talked to a priest. Read War and Peace and you'll understand this better.
I'd talk to you more about TBK and The Idiot, but it isn't the point of the thread.
>>7728218
hey, no question that Anna is an interesting character, most of the main characters were quite interesting (to a point). I would say that Levin being a portrait of himself, in a way, Is just his christian lifestyle easily seating itself in christianity when he has a revelation later in life, after experiencing a bit of it first. I would say that being a christian all of your life is less compelling than a mid-life conversion.
when it comes to dostoevsky, I can easily say that there are many themes I missed, though I definitely knew what he was doing with myshkin, but I'm not sure that what he was attempting to do was to express what a perfect man should be, but rather trying to create a modern day jesus. perhaps the culture around him was idiotic, though I still think the choices he made were odd and uneven. I would root for him, but he would suddenly ruin an opportunity. the brothers karamazov, i can agree that many of the characters lacked a bit of depth, but I personally enjoyed the novel because of the sense of a living community of people of flesh and blood that I came away with.
anyway, in regards to the main topic of this thread, I would just have to say that the two really just weren't the greatest. both tolstoy and dostoevsky had their flaws, maybe combined they would be the greatest author of all time, but alone, I would not put them on that pedestal. I have a lot more reading in life to do, but I would definitely say that in terms of impact, Cervantes is indispensable, as well as Dante, and that OP is too quick to try to remove them from the conversation.
tis a sad thread when a man can judge Tolstoi without reading his greatest work.
>>7729384
oh i'm sure the years between war and peace and anna karenina were so transformative that they render him utterly incomparable to his other works.
>>7729431
you're dumb lol
>>7729446
nuh uh. you are.
>>7715944
hello charles bukowski. go to bed kid
