[HN Gopher] 8-Part Film Adaptation of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina Is...
___________________________________________________________________
8-Part Film Adaptation of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina Is Free Online
Author : georgecmu
Score : 162 points
Date : 2022-07-11 11:08 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.openculture.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.openculture.com)
| throwawayarnty wrote:
| I hear a lot how people find it difficult to slog through anna
| karenina because of its length and numerous characters.
|
| They cannot see how such a book could be one of the greatest of
| all time.
|
| I think the analogy to music may be like: Beethoven's 9th
| Symphony is one of the greatest of all time. But it's a really
| long and complex piece lasting over an hour. It can be hard to
| pay attention to the entire piece.
|
| That said, the recommendation for reading Anna Karenina would be
| to read it fast or watch a good tv series on it. War and piece
| 2016 tv series was excellent for example.
| carabiner wrote:
| I find AK pretty easy going, and I've read it 3x, each time a
| different translation. War & Peace OTOH is impenetrable. I
| tried to build a habit of 10 pages each day. I lasted 8 days.
| Brothers Karamazov was similar. The most I got was 100 pages in
| during a 10-hour flight with no wifi, then put it down,
| probably forever.
| OriginalPenguin wrote:
| You should keep going with Brothers Karamazov. The first 150
| pages are indeed, mind-numbingly boring. But starting at
| around page 151, it does indeed become one of the best, if
| not the absolute best book ever written.
| briandarvell wrote:
| Very interesting! I as well really enjoyed AK, but I also
| extremely enjoyed The Brothers Karamazov, even more than Anna
| Karenina. It's probably my favorite Russian classic! I too
| gave up on War and Peace however about 200-300 pages into the
| story.
|
| I find timing plays a big part of my enjoyment of tougher
| classic novels. If I'm extremely busy or don't have time to
| dedicate to reading in decent chunks (an hour or more per
| day) then I find it hard to maintain motivation to read dense
| novels.
|
| I somehow got through Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow but don't
| recommend anyone do that, I was just too stubborn to let it
| get the better of me :)
| olvy0 wrote:
| Just as another data point, I managed to finish and kind of
| enjoy Gravity's Rainbow, accepting that I just couldn't
| understand everything and just go along for the (rocket)
| ride. Only after finishing it I read some notes and
| interpretations online.
|
| But I tried several times reading or listening to The
| Brothers Karamazov and I didn't manage to finish it, I felt
| out of touch with the characters, their little lives and
| foibles weren't interesting, the tone felt dry and
| didactic, and there was no "fun" mystery to keep me hooked.
|
| This was weird because I did manage to finish and
| ultimately like Crime & Punishment several years earlier.
|
| However like you said, this was back before I had my
| current job. I wouldn't be able to read any of them today,
| I think, I'd lose motivation.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| I have read the first book of War and Peace a long time ago
| and had a fairly similar experience to you. I never got to
| reading the second one because I didn't have the time to do
| so at the time. I remember it as long but easy reading
| however. War and Peace definitely is entertaining.
|
| > I somehow got through Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow but
| don't recommend anyone do that, I was just too stubborn to
| let it get the better of me
|
| Strangely I think everyone should do that. It's an insanely
| fun book once you have accepted you are not supposed to get
| everything. Pynchon is probably my favourite author all
| things considered. Still I think starting with Inherent
| Vice, The Crying of Lot 49 or Vineland is probably a good
| idea.
| romanhn wrote:
| These comments are very interesting to me. I first read
| War and Peace in abridged format in English as a high
| school assignment, and loved it enough to follow up
| immediately with unabridged in Russian (am a native
| speaker). Found it enthralling.
|
| On the other hand I recently gave Gravity's Rainbow a go
| right after slogging through David Foster Wallace's
| Infinite Jest, and just couldn't do it. The premise seems
| interesting/odd enough, but I found the writing
| impossible to follow. I'm sure listening to it as an
| audiobook didn't help, but this was the first book I gave
| up on after 15 years of audiobooks. At some point I just
| thought to myself, why am I subjecting myself to
| something I neither comprehend nor enjoy...
| briandarvell wrote:
| I can imagine reading them in original Russian would add
| another level to the experience.
|
| Interestingly enough, I devoured Infinite Jest and loved
| the entire novel. Gravity's Rainbow was simply too
| confusing to me and I think I would have done better had
| I used a reading guide to support me through the novel.
| krylon wrote:
| https://pynchonwiki.com/ has page-by-page annotations to
| all of Pynchon's novels.
|
| A similar website exists for Infinite Jest:
| https://infinitejest.wallacewiki.com/david-foster-
| wallace/in...
|
| I think it is almost impossible to read Gravity's Rainbow
| exactly once. Either you give up halfway through it, or
| you finish it and re-read it. It makes more sense, I
| think, when re-reading it.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| I can't help you with the Infinite Jest comparaison. I
| have only read short stories by Foster Wallace, didn't
| really like his style and had no interest in the themes
| explored in Infinite Jest so I am probably never going to
| try reading it.
|
| I really like Pynchon style however. I think he perfectly
| nails the mix of serious and zany. Vineland is a good
| example. On the one hand, it's a fairly serious book
| about the end of the counterculture and what the election
| of Nixon meant for the American dream but on the other
| hand it's also a book in which a community of living-dead
| has its own radio station, one hundred pages in the
| middle of it concerns a woman training to be a lethal
| ninja and perfecting a delayed assassination technique
| and Godzilla makes a cameo and despite all of that the
| whole things feel coherent and properly jointed. I also
| really enjoy the rhythm of Pynchon sentences. I can
| definitely see why it wouldn't work as an audiobook
| however. It's writing you definitely have to read at your
| own pace.
| mek6800d2 wrote:
| Youth and timing! I dropped out of college after my 3rd
| semester. I read widely and kept seeing W&P cited as the
| greatest piece of literature ever. I read it and liked it
| -- in two weeks, which was about 100 pages a day. I read it
| during breakfasts, dinners, coffee breaks and lunch at
| work, and then at bedtime until 2 in the morning. So, I was
| able to concentrate on it and enjoy it; being young, I
| could slough off the lack of sleep.
|
| I read AK next and it was great. A customer at work saw me
| carrying AK and suggested I read BK, so I did. I too found
| BK to be my favorite of FD's novels. I also read most of
| his other novels, except I only got part-way through _The
| Idiot_. When I returned to school, I took a Russian
| Literature course, for which I reread W &P, AK, BK, and
| _Crime and Punishment_ (instead of using the Cliff 's
| Notes).
|
| (My professor pointed out the humor at the end of AK,
| something I had failed to see in two readings: the narrator
| is talking to what's-his-name, who has a horrific toothache
| and therefore doesn't really care that the most beautiful
| woman in Russia ... oops, no spoiler here! It was kind of
| funny when he explained it and he was a zillion times more
| knowledgeable than me about FD and FD's writings.)
|
| Again, I had youth on my side and, as you noted is
| important, I had the time to concentrate on the books.
| Decades later, a few years ago, I finally read _The Idiot_
| all the way through -- it was a long slog; it being a weird
| story anyway didn 't help.
| cardanome wrote:
| That is interesting because I found War and Peace the easiest
| to go through.
|
| Though it might be because I actually found his materialistic
| approach to history very interesting and his views an
| leadership extremely valuable. So I am one of the few that
| actually enjoyed all the rambling about how much Napoleon
| sucked.
|
| It is one of the few books that made a lasting impression on
| my worldview. I wish more management type people would read
| it. It just so exhausting to work with people that see
| leadership as some ego trip. A good leader's job is to simply
| enable the people to do their job.
|
| Funny enough I don't remember much about the actual
| characters. Really need to read it again some other time. AK
| was a bit more difficult for me as it is more story-driven
| and a bit more subtle with it themes.
| huevosabio wrote:
| Yes, exactly this!
|
| I enjoyed much more the "essay-like" parts than the actual
| novel, and they stuck with me unlike the rest of the
| details of War and Peace.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| AK is not difficult to read, IMHO. I say that as someone not
| particularly persistent about "difficult" books: I couldn't get
| through either War and Peace or The Brothers Karamazov, or many
| other "classics".
|
| Whereas I've read AK three times.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Difficult to slog through _Anna Karenina_ because of its length
| and number of characters???
|
| Have any of those critics tried reading a George R.R. Martin
| novel from the past 25 years or so?
| tombert wrote:
| Honest question; how do you force yourself to get through a book
| like Anna Karenina? I have sincerely tried multiple times to get
| into it, and haven't been able to make it more than 30 or so
| pages.
|
| I'm generally a fairly well-read guy, so I would like to knock
| this classic out, but I am not sure how.
| Etheryte wrote:
| As someone who had this book as mandatory reading in high
| school, along with many other books I would call dense, I would
| say the secret ingredient is to go fast. With regular books, I
| take breaks to ponder the ideas multiple times per chapter. If
| I know I have to go through 800+ pages, I decide to read 100
| pages a day, and just brute force it through. After you've gone
| through the whole thing, there's plenty of time to go back and
| revisit the themes you found more interesting, I know other
| students also made heavy use of notes and sticky notes to grok
| the thing.
| DavidSharff wrote:
| It may seem so boring at first because it is so real. The depth
| of insight into the characters and culture is what makes it so
| moving as the plot picks up.
|
| Another perspective shift that makes it more enjoyable: it's a
| time machine. I wouldn't care for that level of detail in a
| modern American context or even a fantasy, but a distinct
| culture nearly 200 years ago? Sign me up.
|
| Then again, if you don't dig it no shame in moving on. There
| are more books than there is time to read them.
| MaxBorsch228 wrote:
| This is a national meme in Russia. War and Peace is mandatory
| reading in schools, but it's always only 3-4 students in class
| who really read it. Most students just skim through ("read
| diagonally", as we say), use summary or watch the movie.
| billfruit wrote:
| War and Peace is fairly interesting, in the sense the battle
| scenes really detailed and action packed, even more than can
| be shown in movies.
| AlexeyBrin wrote:
| If you didn't enjoy it, first try with a different translation
| or read something else, life is short and there are plenty of
| good books. Personally I really liked Anna Karenina and read it
| twice. War and Peace on the other hand, I had to force myself
| to finish it.
| tombert wrote:
| Well, I mean, "reading something else" has been what I've
| opted to do thus far, hence why I've only gotten about 30
| pages in, but I've found that sometimes when I force myself
| to actually one of these "certified classics" I end up
| feeling glad I did. That's how I felt about Crime and
| Punishment, for example.
| ipv4dhcp wrote:
| crime and punishment is what got me hooked on russian
| literature. i would try some of dostoyevsky's other works
| before moving on to tolstoy. just finished karenina this
| year but enjoyed the idiot and karamazov more.
| hcrisp wrote:
| You might try "Notes from Underground" by Dostoevsky first,
| which is much shorter, just to get a taste of his characters
| and writing style. If you like that, go on to "Crime and
| Punishment", and then read "The Brothers Karamazov" last.
|
| I saw a dust jacket quote that said something like,
| "Dostoevsky writes about the unconscious as though it were
| conscious". When I started reading his books, I felt like he
| naturally reveals his character's psychology through dialogue
| (both inner and intrapersonal). They are surprisingly
| relatable. They have quirks and insecurities, can be hot-
| headed one minute and fearful the next. "Do you know what it
| means to demand when you are only in a position to implore?"
| asks one protagonist. They struggle with big questions, their
| motivations are laid bare, and they endear empathy as would a
| self-destructive family member. Dostoevsky may not write
| inspired literature, but he has something important to say,
| and he says it from his uniquely Russian soul.
| throwawayarnty wrote:
| Highly recommend the 2016 tv series of war and peace starting
| Paul Dano.
|
| Sometimes the movie can be better than the book, especially
| if the book is a dense classic.
| AlexeyBrin wrote:
| Thanks, I saw it and it was good, but I read the book a few
| years before that.
| defphysics wrote:
| Maybe try audio. I really like the version narrated by David
| Horovich.
| kaiwen1 wrote:
| In principle, I understand how this book can fail to connect
| with some people. I've encountered many "great" books that I
| just couldn't read. But Anna Karenina is so damn good that it's
| hard to fathom others see it differently. The writing and
| character development are exquisite. I can reread it endlessly,
| or start randomly at any page. It's always a pleasure.
| stephen_g wrote:
| I found it quite readable, easier to get through than War and
| Peace. Has to be a good translation though.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| What translation do you recommend?
| stephen_g wrote:
| I just have the newest Penguin Classics version, translated
| by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. Not sure if it's
| the best one, but I found it good. I've just tried reading
| some Russian Classics from public domain translations and
| sometimes they are a lot harder to read.
| josephorjoe wrote:
| first, i'd just read The Death of Ivan Ilyich which is much
| much shorter.
|
| after reading that if you feel like reading tolstoy is
| something you want to do a whole lot more of, then pick up Anna
| Karenina or War and Peace. I've read both, because i enjoy
| reading Tolstoy, but i would not recommend reading them if you
| do not enjoy the process. there are plenty of other great
| literary works out there (and most of them are shorter).
| iamwpj wrote:
| I focused on the individual characters I liked. Levin is a
| personal favorite and as you get further along you get a little
| more of him. Read each character story as a vignette and don't
| worry about connecting the dots of the whole book until later
| -- or until it comes up again. Interestingly, it's the same
| method I use for Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| There is a contrasting beauty of prose in Marquez, though, in
| spite of war being a common theme. Maybe because of
| environment: 19-century Russia seems raw and cold, whereas
| Marquez's Latin America is warm and colorful, and of course
| magic realism adds another level of aesthetics.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| This happens to me, too, on occasion. You might want to try an
| audio book version. This helps in a couple of ways. The
| narration might change narrator for different characters or
| change their voice and the name pronunciation is probably much
| better for languages one does not speak. This also gives you a
| basis for the character in your mind and frees up your
| imagination for the text not related to character voice and
| emotion. I still find some books with a larger number of
| characters or particularly different cultures/settings
| requiring multiple re listens at the start for me to be able to
| _see_ what is described in my mind 's eye, versus my brain
| being immediately receptive to other books from the beginning.
| It does require a certain amount of concentration to comprehend
| and not just hear like background music that is available when
| I am walking or riding a bicycle or cooking, sometimes when I
| am driving.
| jperoutek wrote:
| I listened to it as an audiobook over the course of a week or
| two, and it was pretty bearable. I know there is some debate
| about whether that counts as "reading" the book, but on
| something like this I consider it close enough.
| bombcar wrote:
| An audiobook and a character name cross-reference can be
| instrumental in getting through some of these massive Russian
| tomes. I was definitely confused by War and Peace (I think it
| was) until I realized that there was _one_ character with
| fifteen various names and not fifteen different characters.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| It's a great read that sucks you in. I couldn't put it down and
| finished it over a vacation.
| adamors wrote:
| Couldn't agree more, I read it last year and it's as good as
| everyone says it is. That said, I did read a lot of Russian
| literature during that period so the constant names/nicknames
| didn't bother me.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Levin's monologue at the end might be my favorite part of
| any book.
|
| Also war and peace is truly amazing in the same vein
| goto11 wrote:
| > how do you force yourself to get through a book like Anna
| Karenina?
|
| Don't force yourself to read a book you don't enjoy. Life is
| too short. There are so many books out there.
|
| As many 19th century novels, the plot takes some time to get
| underway, but I was gripped by the characters and the language
| from the start. Perhaps you should think of it like a TV show
| which take a few episodes to establish the characters and
| universe, before the story gets underway.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| I think it's worth reconsidering why you wish to read this book
| if you do not enjoy it.
|
| The classics are not a homework assignment to be suffered
| through.
| cal85 wrote:
| A desire for intellectual growth is a very good reason. If
| other minds that I find interesting tend to mention a
| particular book a lot, I want in. I want to get it, to
| understand it, to have what they're having. This drive has
| led me to learn and enjoy many things that I would have
| missed out on if I hadn't persevered past the "I don't get
| this" phase (in literature, programming, science, anything).
| The notion that people should only read things they already
| 'enjoy' is modern anti-intellectual bullshit. Some things
| take effort before the reward. It's perfectly sensible for
| someone with a thirst for growth to ask for tips on how to
| get into something that smart people, in their estimation,
| seem to enjoy. And when they do ask for help, they should be
| encouraged.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| >> so I would like to knock this classic out, but I am not
| sure how.
|
| First of all, this sounds like wanting to "having had read"
| a book to check a box rather than the desire for the
| intellectual growth that comes from reading it.
|
| > If other minds that I find interesting tend to mention a
| particular book a lot, I want in. I want to get it, to
| understand it, to have what they're having.
|
| That isn't a book chosen for intellectual growth, that's a
| book chosen out of mimetic desire.
|
| > The notion that people should only read things they
| already 'enjoy' is modern anti-intellectual bullshit.
| Perhaps enjoy was not the best word for me to use.
|
| My point being, there are more classic books and books
| which other intellectuals reccomend than there is time in
| the world to read. Rather than keep banging ones head
| against the wall because this particular book does work
| out, they may be better served by trying a different book
| (one of the other 1,000s).
| haswell wrote:
| > _My point being, there are more classic books and books
| which other intellectuals reccomend than there is time in
| the world to read._
|
| This point was not at all clear from your parent comment,
| which was easy to interpret as "if it's hard, why try?".
|
| You've clarified that this was not your point, but I
| understand why someone would interpret the original
| comment as anti-intellectual.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| That almost is what my original comment was, and I still
| stand by the original one.
|
| But rather than "if it's hard, why try?", what I meant by
| it is "you've tried several times and still don't like
| it. Why is it that you're trying in the first place".
|
| It is not anti-intellectual to say that one should stop
| reading a book they don't enjoy and don't have a good
| reason to get through. There are many other books which
| will qualify as an intellectual pursuit that the person
| could enjoy.
| haswell wrote:
| But in order for this to be acceptable advice (IMO), it
| has to include the 2nd part, which is that not trying
| doesn't mean you abandon the pursuit of what you
| originally had in mind when you picked up the book,
| assuming you still have the same underlying goal.
|
| Pulling this momentarily into the technical domain, there
| are hundreds of ways to learn about computing, and the
| underlying concepts that make it all work.
|
| If one day, I decide I want to learn how operating
| systems work, there are a myriad of resources I can
| choose from.
|
| I might choose one, and discover that something about it
| just doesn't help me learn the subject matter. Perhaps
| it's too dense, or assumes knowledge that I don't yet
| have, or is just not written very well.
|
| My end goal is still to learn about operating systems. I
| can abandon this goal entirely (which is how one might
| read that original comment, and I think it's fair to ask
| whether it's imperative that I learn about operating
| systems), or I can find other resources that help me
| achieve the same goal, possibly through a very different
| learning process.
|
| All I'm saying is: _" If it's hard, why try?"_
|
| Is _very_ different from: _" If it's hard, consider
| looking for another starting point"_
|
| To the point that the 2nd sentence takes on an entirely
| different meaning and leads to a very different
| conclusion than the 1st.
|
| > _It is not anti-intellectual to say that one should
| stop reading a book they don 't enjoy and don't have a
| good reason to get through_
|
| I agree with this statement, but this is not what the
| original comment stated. The original comment made no
| distinction about "a good reason to get through" the
| material.
|
| I'd go a step further and say that if you don't have a
| good reason to get through the material, and you don't
| enjoy it, it's actively harmful to spend the time. At
| that point, you might as well fire up your favorite video
| game or Netflix series, which will at least give you some
| momentary enjoyment.
|
| But even then, some uncertainty emerges when deciding
| which things are important to get through. It is often
| not easy to make that judgement without understanding the
| material, which you cannot do without getting through it.
| And so we look to others who we respect, who found
| profound meaning, and trust that there's something there.
|
| I think the most important thing is forming some idea of
| what you hope to achieve (a new understanding of things,
| or some insight into a particular phenomena, or personal
| growth, etc), and then making decisions about which steps
| you take next based on whether or not you're achieving
| that goal.
|
| One of those steps might be choosing to stop struggling
| through a particular book. Or one of those steps might be
| deciding the original goal isn't worth the effort. But I
| do think that choosing purely based on enjoyment or
| difficulty will lead to never growing.
|
| Growth usually comes via the hardest stuff, and if growth
| is important to you, a different decision making
| framework is required.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > All I'm saying is: "If it's hard, why try?" > Is very
| different from: "If it's hard, consider looking for
| another starting point"
|
| Yes, but I never claimed the first. I said "I think it's
| worth reconsidering why you wish to read this book if you
| do not enjoy it."
|
| My point being that the original comment sounded more
| like wishing to check a box of having read a classic book
| rather than wanting to approach the book for what was in
| it and growing from the experience: > I'm generally a
| fairly well-read guy, so I would like to knock this
| classic out, but I am not sure how.
|
| > I'd go a step further and say that if you don't have a
| good reason to get through the material, and you don't
| enjoy it, it's actively harmful to spend the time.
|
| Yes I broadly agree with that.
|
| > And so we look to others who we respect, who found
| profound meaning, and trust that there's something there.
|
| There being something there for others does not mean that
| we will get the same thing out of it, or even anything at
| all if we're not in the right place for it. Doubly so if
| we did not pick the book because we wanted to get out of
| it what those others have said they got out of it.
| haswell wrote:
| > _There being something there for others does not mean
| that we will get the same thing out of it, or even
| anything at all if we 're not in the right place for it._
|
| Sure, but it's reasonable to want to try, especially for
| a novel considered by some to be "the greatest work of
| literature ever written". That seems worthy of
| investigation at least. Giving up when things get tough
| is a pretty problematic approach if you want to grow.
| Whether my objection matters admittedly depends on
| whether the goal is to learn/grow, but I think there's a
| good case to be made that it is.
|
| > _My point being that the original comment sounded more
| like wishing to check a box of having read a classic book
| rather than wanting to approach the book for what was in
| it and growing from the experience_
|
| But the point of being well-read isn't just to complete a
| checklist. I think you are reading very deeply into
| something and drawing a potentially unwarranted
| conclusion.
|
| Everyone I know who reads avidly, and who many would
| consider well-read, who are even aware of the existence
| of Anna Karenina read not for the sake of it, but to
| improve themselves, their knowledge and understanding of
| the world around them, etc.
|
| I think that's where our differences in this thread are
| coming from. I'm assuming the whole point is the
| acquisition of knowledge/understanding, and you seem to
| be assuming a different motivation, although I'm not
| entirely sure what that motivation is (I don't think
| "checking a box just for the sake of it" is a warranted
| conclusion in context, and "checking a box" is just a
| rhetorical device to help us understand that this person
| has a gap in their reading that they haven't succeeded in
| filling yet). Perhaps they primarily value good
| literature, in which case having a list makes quite a lot
| of sense.
|
| If someone expressed the same frustration about the Greek
| myths, a potentially more productive response would be to
| point someone to Stephen Fry's Mythos, Heroes and Troy,
| which he wrote exactly for the reason that this comment
| thread exists: some people find the original material
| difficult to get through, but the underlying message was
| important enough to re-tell.
|
| In the case of Anna Karenina, perhaps exploring the
| various translations that exist and choosing one vs. the
| other would be the ideal next step.
| yazantapuz wrote:
| If Shakespeare interests you, that's fine. If you find him
| tedious, leave him. Shakespeare hasn't yet written for you.
| The day will come when Shakespeare will be right for you
| and you will be worthy of Shakespeare, but in the meantime
| there's no need to hurry things. -- Jorge Luis Borges.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Maybe in your country. In mine we had to suffer through all
| this stuff before we got old enough for it to be a meaningful
| reading.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > we had to suffer through all this stuff before we got old
| enough for it to be a meaningful reading.
|
| Maybe that time would have been better spent on books you
| found meaningful at the time and to come back to this one
| when you would find it meaningful.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Of course, this is exactly what I mean.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Ahh! I see what you were referring to "the classics are
| not a homework".
| voidmain0001 wrote:
| This is how I got through it - I read it in 1990 while riding
| the bus to and from a summer job. I had nothing else to do to
| kill the time. I don't remember it being a terribly boring
| story. So, to get through it - get off the Internet, and all
| devices since they're just time wasters much like Anna
| Karenina.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| I think the "go fast" guy is right. The problem with really old
| classics is that they have been imitated a lot. I had the same
| issue with "War & Peace" - I felt like I have read the book a
| 1000 times before. I find Chekov and Bulgakov to be far more
| interesting. Their work is shorter and hits harder.
| elevaet wrote:
| What do you recommend by Chekov?
| sleightofmind wrote:
| Just about anything. Go to Project Gutenberg, pick a book
| of plays, or short stories, and just start reading. Be
| forewarned, though. Chekov doesn't do endings (for the most
| part) and he made no apologies for his lack of endings.
| You'll find out with a minimal investment of time whether
| or not you like his style. I do, despite the paucity of
| endings.
|
| Endings are hard. I suspect one of the things that has
| enhanced Tom Hanks' acting career is making sure most of
| the stuff he did had a good solid ending, not a quick fade
| -- consider Saving Private Ryan, and Castaway. Killer
| endings. Tolstoy, unlike Chekov, does great endings.
| billfruit wrote:
| Sholokov and Solzhenitsyn do continue the style and approach
| of Tolstoy, I think.
| adammarples wrote:
| Within a few pages I knew it was great and honestly was sad
| that it couldn't have lasted longer. If you're not enjoying it,
| just stop, it's meant to be enjoyed like a nice whisky or
| something. No point forcing yourself.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| I've read it three times and it didn't take any forcing.
| Whereas other long Russian classic novels: not so much.
|
| I don't know if this is a "tip" or not, but what I found easy
| about AK was the descriptions of people's inner lives, and how
| much insight Tolstoy has on the human condition. He was a very
| religious man, but the characters don't so much _think_ about
| Christianity as _live_ it (or try to).
|
| Anna's feelings about Karenin's stuffiness, and their inability
| to connect, are SO modern. You see how they treat their son,
| and contrast it with the way "modern" parents try to raise
| their kids. Vronsky's behavior with his fellow soldiers is a
| beautiful picture of male bonding before there was such a term.
|
| Writers are exhorted to "show, don't tell" and Tolstoy doesn't
| _tell_ you Anna felt guilty, he _shows_ you.
| auxym wrote:
| Don't know, I actually didn't have too much trouble getting
| through Anna Karenina, and it remains one of my favorite
| novels. Saying this as someone who has tried and failed many
| times to finish other classics such as One Hundred Years Of
| Solitude.
| sleightofmind wrote:
| Force myself? That's the last thing I have to do. I can't start
| reading it again, because I know I won't be able to put it
| down. But I do look forward to a third pass through the book at
| some point. And another reading or two of War and Peace.
|
| Start with some easy Tolstoy, like Kholstomer, The Story of a
| Horse, or Master and Man. If you don't like those, maybe you're
| just not a Tolstoy reader. No problem there.
|
| http://www.lrgaf.org/training/kholstomer.htm
|
| https://www.gutenberg.org/files/986/986-h/986-h.htm (Master and
| Man)
|
| I love 19th-century English literature, especially Hardy, and
| the same goes for the Russians Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and the
| Ukrainian/Russian Gogol, so maybe it's a patience for carefully
| described settings/characters, carefully developed plots, and a
| willingness to be dragged, slowly, methodically, and for me,
| magically into another world and time. Not sure. It's possible
| certain books only suit certain temperaments. Tolstoy, I'm
| almost certain, appeals to those who've wrestled with religious
| belief or doubt for decades, whether they've moved towards or
| away from belief. He himself scared the Russian elite greatly
| because of his strong desire to live a truly Christian life,
| and his apparent willingness to do so. A truly Christian life
| terrifies most folks, religious or not. Don't assume I'm in
| sympathy with Tolstoy on this topic. But his sincerity clearly
| bled through into his writing, and gives it a power few other
| authors exhibit.
|
| There may be authors on a par with Tolstoy, but I'm hard
| pressed to come up with one I consider better. War and Peace?
| Best book I've ever read.
| smitty1110 wrote:
| Anna Karenia is still on my list, but here's what I did for
| Jane Austen and the Tale of Genji: Just read one chapter a
| night. My old AP Lit teacher gave me that advice, said you need
| to treat these books like a soap opera, because they're written
| with the same idea in mind.
| ctdonath wrote:
| Massive tomes work well as audiobooks: expert reader paces the
| content well, forcing you to carry through the bogged-down
| parts.
|
| Anecdote: War And Peace was so massive it broke my audiobook
| reader app. 400 pages in it just quit progressing.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Some classics just aren't worth the work if they're that much
| of a slog. There's a reason I never finished watching Gone the
| Wind but had no issue reading Crime and Punishment.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| I got to the intermission in Gone with the Wind, said "great,
| that movie can be over now" and never looked back.
| jyriand wrote:
| It all starts with the attitude. If you just want to "knock
| this classic out" then you set yourself up for a failure from
| the beginning. I can read classics only for enjoyment of the
| language and images.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| I read Anna Karenina and also War and Peace at a time in my
| youth between work and school where I had the time to just
| relax with friends and just read a lot of novels. Only in
| retrospect do you realize how precious those times are.
|
| War and Peace was hard to start because of all the characters,
| but I got lost in it and it was really worth it. You don't have
| to pay a lot of attention to the chapters on the meaning of
| history unless it interests you. Anna Karenina I felt like I
| dived right into because it was a "smaller" story focused on
| really well defined characters. But I don't feel like it
| gripped me all the way through as much as War and Peace.
|
| With books like that-- if you have the time to really sink into
| them-- you feel like you know the characters as people in the
| way you know your friends. They are like people you have known.
| The closest modern book to that I think is A Suitable Boy.
|
| But if it isn't for you in terms of your time or your interest
| you shouldn't feel bad about it.
| huevosabio wrote:
| Exactly this, there were periods in high school and college
| were for whatever reason I had full days of nothing to do. I
| also didn't have a smartphone so wasting time online was less
| tempting.
|
| There were the perfect openings for laying down and just read
| until you forget to eat. In the end, there was some sort of
| sorrow of having to leave the characters behind.
|
| It is very hard to get such openings today.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| If you enjoy classic Russian films, many of the Soviet era are
| available on YouTube including Stalker, Come and See and other
| unusual classics.
| cbHXBY1D wrote:
| I thought a lot of the Soviet classics got taken down when
| Youtube deleted a bunch of Russian accounts earlier this year.
| Am I imagining things?
| somenameforme wrote:
| Another great resource is rutracker.org, which has active
| torrents of media dating all the way back to shortly after the
| turn of the century.
|
| If somebody is looking for a wonderful series, 17 Moments of
| Spring (Semnadtsat' mgnovenii vesny) is an amazing series about
| the end of WW2 and the international tug-of-war largely between
| the USSR and USA to determine the fate of Germany, from the
| perspective of an individual who inside of Germany at the time.
| One of the few series I've watched multiple times.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| How historically accurate do you think it is?
| billfruit wrote:
| Yes, many Mosfilm classics seems to be on YouTube. I recommend
| Assa https://youtu.be/VOeDP6eUgD0
|
| Such crisp, captivating film making from beginning to end. I do
| think the Soviet era is sort of mis-characterized in Western
| portrayals. Compare the Assa and the recent Chernobyl, both
| depicting about the same era.
|
| Also "Assa" seems like a Soviet mirror image of how Blood
| Simple depcits the USA.
| transistor-man wrote:
| Another great Mosfilm, Kin-Dza-Dza!. Spaceships run on
| matchsticks while rusty bolts are required for intergalactic
| travel.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUtZOl_QxvY
| myth_drannon wrote:
| It's much deeper than that... But honestly I don't think
| Western audience will appreciate the movie. It's such
| profoundly prophetic look at future of Russia after
| collapse of USSR.
| para_parolu wrote:
| For many non Russians I know this is the first film that
| comes to their mind when I ask what Russian/USSR movies
| they have seen. Kindzadza is not only about particular
| country. It show wide set of social issues even in modern
| world.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I love it after stumbling upon it somehow. (Non-ex-USSR-
| ian here.)
| tinalumfoil wrote:
| Tangential, but the "Most Replayed" feature on you tube makes
| me really not want to watch movies on there. Every-time I
| mouse over the scrubber a graph shows up that shows me
| exactly what the most rewatched section is, so for instance I
| immediately know there's an important scene 20 minutes into
| Assa.
| lelandfe wrote:
| "Something important happens at 17:81, th-"
|
| Ugh, no spoilers, you've ruined the movie for me now...
| billfruit wrote:
| Another good one:
|
| Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears:
| https://youtu.be/NTWA_7-ld_U
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > Yes, many Mosfilm classics seems to be on YouTube
|
| This seems to vary a lot. I just checked and there were
| several Moscfilm films available (including Stalker) but I'm
| pretty sure I checked this about 6 months ago and there
| weren't many available - some were available for rent, but
| not free view.
| haunter wrote:
| That's because they have 2 accounts a russian and a global
| english one.
|
| Russian https://www.youtube.com/c/MosfilmRuOfficial
|
| Global https://www.youtube.com/c/Mosfilm_eng
|
| Usually both channels have subtitles but generally the
| global one is burnt-in while the russian one is selectable
| from the Youtube interface. Also the russian channel has
| much much more uploads.
|
| And movies differ too to some extent. For example, Solaris
| is a single title in the global english channel (restored
| vesion) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ZhQPaw4rE
|
| Whereas it's 2 part title as it was originally back then (2
| reels)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-4KydP92ss
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXa6XpaxBS0
|
| Last but not least check geoblocking
| https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi For example
| Solaris is geoblocked in the US, both versions
|
| https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=https%3A%2F%
| 2...
|
| https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=https%3A%2F%
| 2...
| fredley wrote:
| No Such Thing As A Fish has ruined Anna Karenina for me.
| syntaxfree wrote:
| Android Karenina did it for me.
| j7ake wrote:
| Browsing open culture I realised there is enough free content to
| last several life times ... why do you think people still pay for
| content like books, music, movies if the classics are good and
| free? Is it a marketing problem ?
| gmadsen wrote:
| not sure who you interact with regularly, but the vast majority
| of people are not interested in watching classic film
| sudobash1 wrote:
| I think that it is partially a matter of relevance. For
| instance, there are vast newspaper and magazine archives which
| are free to read, but they don't have the same relevance as
| (eg) the latest New York Times articles. (Not that they are
| without value by any means, but reading them serves a different
| purpose).
|
| Perhaps a better example would be someone in the 60's choosing
| to listen to an old Andrew Sisters record, or purchase a new
| Bob Dylan LP. The Andrew Sisters (as fun and lovely as their
| music is) would not speak to that present moment in the same
| way that Bob Dylan would.
|
| Many aspects of art and culture are timeless, but many are not.
| There will always be a demand for new works to respond to the
| current day.
| j7ake wrote:
| I'm totally binging now on this TV series, it's great so far!
| IshKebab wrote:
| The classics generally _aren 't_ as good. There are exceptions
| (e.g. Star Wars) but old films generally have terrible pacing.
| Film making skills have not stood still.
|
| The only thing that hasn't got better is speech clarity which
| is often terrible in modern films.
| aasasd wrote:
| > _The uploader has not made this video available in your
| country_
|
| In Russia, that is. Har har har.
|
| Not sure what's going on here and who blocked whom, but when
| people propose boycotting this vid due to its provenance, I have
| trouble even counting the layers of irony. There are at least
| two, but then it gets confusing.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >"boycott all that is Russian"
|
| Is that a thing? I mean, besides a few extremists. I'm French
| and I haven't heard anything recommending to boycott Russian
| cultural goods.
|
| We can discuss this but it's probably negligible so let's not
| make this an "issue" until it is.
| cal85 wrote:
| It certainly was a thing. There was a spate of things like
| this happening in the first couple of months of the war:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60684374
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/college-backtracks-banning-
| teaching...
|
| Hopefully that particular brand of stupidity is mostly over
| now though.
| watwut wrote:
| Western people did not exactly read arab poets while ISIS was
| expanding their territory either. Also, people in west were
| never too quick to read Ukrainian, Polish, Czech or whatever
| literature.
|
| My point here is: if art of other countries is so important for
| nations being together, why is the Russian one being
| _constantly_ treated as more important then everyone else? Why
| not urging us to read Finnish, French, German, Polish, Slovak
| and Ukrainian? Or literature from Belarus for that matter?
|
| Seriously, why did emphasis on Russian art went UP after the
| latest invasion?
| DeWilde wrote:
| Russian literature has been a mainstay among western
| audiences for the last hundred years. Works like Punishment
| and Crime, War and Peace, Anna Karenina are widely known
| across the world.
| watwut wrote:
| First, I am saying that emphasis on them went UP after last
| invasion. I am not saying no one ever read them.
|
| Second, I am asking why should we treat Russian art as more
| important then everyone elses - or even as representants
| for Eastern Europe in general.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| This is just tradition, personally I don't believe
| Russian writers of 18/19 centuries were better or worse
| than their counterparts living in Eastern Europe, for
| example. It is indisputable Russia produced some great
| writers and poets, such as Anna Akhmatova (but especially
| for poetry 70% is lost in translation). The reason that
| Tolstoi and Dostoyevski got famous is largely
| geopolitical; what we are doing now is just a part of
| tradition. I remember I relatively enjoyed reading Crime
| and Punishment, but when I started to read Brothers
| Karamazov, I started to have a feeling there are so many
| better ways to spend my life than reading these two
| bricks and this feeling only increased with time. YMMV.
| foverzar wrote:
| > Why not urging us to read Finnish, French, German, Polish,
| Slovak and Ukrainian? Or literature from Belarus for that
| matter?
|
| So why don't you? AFAIK, Alexander Dumas for example is
| studied in schools all over the world. Or Thomas Mann?
| Nikolai Gogol?
|
| > Seriously, why did emphasis on Russian art went UP after
| the latest invasion?
|
| Because some freaks tried to "cancell" it and it backfired.
| watwut wrote:
| Why do you assume I dont?
|
| > Alexander Dumas for example is studied in schools all
| over the world. Or Thomas Mann? Nikolai Gogol?
|
| Literally none of them was even mentioned HN or elsewhere
| for years the way Russian writers lately are.
|
| > Because some freaks tried to "cancell" it and it
| backfired.
|
| Nah, it does not look that way at all. Also who are some
| freaks here and why are you calling them freaks, really?
| shuntress wrote:
| It's a difficult thing.
|
| In the long term, certainly we want to be able to appreciate
| the positive contributions made by talented creative people.
|
| But in the short term, it feels pretty awful to contribute to
| anything that might even in some small way support an
| unjustified war of aggression.
| rob74 wrote:
| Well, if you don't have to pay for it, you watching it might
| be considered a net negative, so the opposite of support.
| OTOH, https://literarydevices.net/beware-of-greeks-bearing-
| gifts/
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| You don't pay for watching propaganda, yet it influences.
|
| Some of the rus authors have had a significant role in
| shaping the current rus culture and imperialism. The same
| that thinks it's alright to murder, loot, rape and pillage.
|
| So I'd still be careful.
|
| Edit: just saw your otoh link
| Nitrolo wrote:
| I understand that train of thought, but does this really
| apply to Anna Karenina? It's a pre-soviet work from well
| over a century ago, from a time when the Russian state
| and society were very different from what exists today.
| watwut wrote:
| This movie was made in 2017. Soviet era ended in 1990.
| War in Ukraine started in 2014.
| mavhc wrote:
| Does that apply to a filmed version though?
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/25/russia-ukraine-war-
| lite...
| foverzar wrote:
| Wow...
|
| Well, I guess I should be used to the fact that western
| media often treats their readers as illiterate idiots
| without their own opinions, but still... Wow!
| foverzar wrote:
| > Some of the rus authors have had a significant role in
| shaping the current rus culture and imperialism.
|
| I don't believe that you have any first-hand knowledge of
| Russian culture or literature. In fact, this seems more
| like ignorant western propaganda talking points.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| I had to chew through quite a few of those rus books in
| school, read Dostoyevsky again later. Quite enjoyed
| Bulgakov. But still most of the big names convey rus
| greatness and how suffering for the czar is honorable.
|
| Also nice ad hominem, well done.
| foverzar wrote:
| No they don't. That's like the opposite of Russian
| literature (at least that which had survived through the
| ages)
|
| I'd get if this was a difference in interpretation, but I
| don't understand how can you even make such a claim, when
| it is a historic fact that most of the "big names" had
| been in confrontation with czars, had problems with
| overcoming censorship or were altogether considered
| crimanals and were exiles.
|
| Either you are confusing the author's point of view with
| the point of some character (maybe due to cultural
| perspective and different traditions of virtue
| signaling), or maybe you don't get the Aesopian language,
| or worse.
|
| Also, ad hominem is quite a valid argument, especially if
| it comes to subjective stuff. Especially if we have to
| consider cultural background.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/azVDmmb_700b_v2.jpg
| foverzar wrote:
| Wow.
| shakow wrote:
| > Some of the rus authors have had a significant role in
| shaping the current rus culture and imperialism. The same
| that thinks it's alright to murder, loot, rape and
| pillage.
|
| You don't really know Tolstoy, do you?
| watwut wrote:
| But the director of this movie is among of those people.
| samatman wrote:
| Any strategy of war must be effective. Russia maintains a
| positive trade balance, largely by exporting commodities, and
| most of the world remains happy to buy them. On 1st January,
| a Euro would buy you 85 rubles, today, you'd get 62.
|
| It might feel like the right thing to do. It might even _be_
| the right thing to do, the West is wealthy and can afford to
| take certain haircuts as a moral stance.
|
| It doesn't appear to inflict any harm to the target, however.
| Asia makes all the electronics and Russia has its own heavy
| industry, what can we deny them, Facebook? No they have their
| own one of those as well.
|
| The harm it does to our side is obvious, and the polite thing
| is always to ignore it, but that's premised on the sanctions
| harming the enemy in some fashion, which, they don't.
| lotusmars wrote:
| Europe pays billions for gas daily basically sponsoring
| invasion.
|
| It's enough for Russian elite to flourish and pay people
| and companies reliant on state (most of Russia).
|
| Putin's bet is that sanctions will be lifted before tech
| embargo hits anyway.
|
| Western politicians already drag their feet on arming
| Ukraine. Just mentioning unrest and refugee influx from
| North Africa due to hunger is enough. They will pressure
| Ukraine to surrender and gradually lift sanctions.
| havblue wrote:
| I'm not sure if I see how boycotting a free version of a series
| based on a long dead author's public domain work makes a
| difference one way or another.
| tokai wrote:
| Yeah sanctions/boycott related to the Russo-Ukraine war is
| not even close to tangibly related to this.
| lotusmars wrote:
| Series director Shakhnazarov is one of the ultra pro-war and
| pro-Putin celebrities.
|
| He's almost daily on Russian TV spewing hatred against
| Ukrainians, Americans, minorities.
|
| Be careful. It's tempting to say "not all Germans", but this
| case is clear-cut.
|
| Anna Karenina is great and there's plenty of other versions
| to watch.
| mellosouls wrote:
| This interview clip of him pushing back against that
| narrative would seem to suggest your own case here is not
| so clear cut:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Ue45dJxy0
| watwut wrote:
| That is not exactly all that much. It is tiny little
| something ... and still promotes narrative of Ukraine
| being "bound" to Russia.
| pessimizer wrote:
| So the problem with him is that he's not sufficiently
| supportive? That's a scary goalpost move.
| watwut wrote:
| I will repeat comment you responded to: Series director
| Shakhnazarov is one of the ultra pro-war and pro-Putin
| celebrities. He's almost daily on Russian TV spewing
| hatred against Ukrainians, Americans, minorities. Be
| careful. It's tempting to say "not all Germans", but this
| case is clear-cut.
|
| Your link is not showing ANYTHING to cancel out the above
| or undo the damage. He is still spewing hatred. There is
| literally no goalposts movement, except yours.
|
| Lets quote Shakhnazarov in state TV saying approvingly:
| "The opponents of the letter Z must understand that if
| they are counting on mercy, no, there will be no mercy
| for them. [...] There will be concentration camps, re-
| education, sterilisation of those who oppose the letter
| Z". This is him saying what should happen.
| mellosouls wrote:
| two different commenters...
| lotusmars wrote:
| Thanks for trying to whitewash him, but no, we Russians
| know him very well.
|
| Sterilization of anti-invasion people is one of the
| mildest things he suggests. He's also a huge homophobe
| standing against "Western homosexual values".
|
| He's been an almost weekly speaker on Russia 1 channel
| since 2000's. His views were on clear display for years.
|
| He's one of the most hawkish anti-Ukrainian and
| ultraconservative Russian filmmakers save for Mikhalkov.
|
| In exchange he's been given tons of state awards and kept
| as a head of largest filmmaking company (Mosfilm). Also
| budgets for productions like this.
|
| He had a couple okay-ish films during perestroika
| (Courier) but afterwards his sole job is a person
| shouting on state TV how he hates Western gays and
| Ukrainians.
|
| So weird seeing his "works" on HN.
| mellosouls wrote:
| _Thanks for trying to whitewash him_
|
| Please assume good faith; your arguments will carry more
| weight. I googled the guy, and that came up which clearly
| countered the invective against him here.
| pessimizer wrote:
| These don't seem like good reasons to guard your brain from
| being exposed to him, they sound like good reasons not to
| be his friend.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Looking at how well propaganda works in Russia nowadays,
| I would be vary of being exposed to his recent films.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > bringing nations closer together
|
| People are asked to bear sacrifices to hurt the Russian nation
| through all out sanctions, and you are also asking them to have
| empathy and identify with Russian characters through their
| Russian life.
|
| Some people compartmentalize enough to be able to do both, but
| that's a tall order.
| DeWilde wrote:
| Hurting the Russian nation state through financial and
| technological sanctions is one thing. Vilifying Russian
| culture or the Russian people is more slanted towards fascism
| --the same thing the Russian government is doing in Ukraine
| towards Ukrainians.
|
| What you propose is also pretty ironic seeing that the
| majority of civilian casualties and destroyed cities in
| Ukraine are from areas that have majority of Russian
| speakers. Not really fair towards those people I suppose :).
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| > What you propose is also pretty ironic seeing that the
| majority of civilian casualties and destroyed cities in
| Ukraine are from areas that have majority of Russian
| speakers.
|
| This is the terrible irony of this war! I've had many
| colleagues in eastern cities like Kharkov. They would all
| identify as Russians. It wasn't a big deal, ever - they
| were Russians living in Ukraine, speaking Russian just like
| everyone else, of course knowing some Ukrainian but not
| caring about that much. And most of them would welcome
| joining Russia just like many people in Crimea did.
|
| But a few days or weeks after the war they realize they are
| just insignificant pawns in the hands of cruel people:
| their own kind were shelling them, killing their families
| and so on. They realized this way too late, it's a tragic
| situation. (Fortunately most of my colleagues managed to
| escape, but not everybody was able to, especially old
| people.)
| foverzar wrote:
| > the same thing the Russian government is doing in Ukraine
| towards Ukrainians.
|
| It is so fun to see how this whole thing was turned upside
| down.
|
| Just a small advice: when researching this topic and
| googling for information, consider setting a time limit on
| before the conflict, before propaganda machines had been
| turned on at full power.
|
| It is just very insightful to see what people had to say on
| some matter, before it became politically significant.
| DeWilde wrote:
| I'm not picking up on your implications, what are you
| trying to say?
| makeitdouble wrote:
| There's a huge gap between villifying Russian culture and
| not wanting to watch Russian movies in the current climate.
| You're pushing it to an extreme that was not in the
| discussion.
|
| Also, do you really draw a line between hurting "Russian
| nation state" and the actual Russian people's everyday life
| ?
|
| I can't imagine the current sanction has no effect on the
| regular population's everyday life nor near-future
| prospects, and it's a choice we're making as we have no
| other lever to pull. I understand the trade-off and am not
| comfortable sugar-coating it in "nation state"
| denomination.
| DeWilde wrote:
| Of course the sanctions are hitting the pockets of the
| citizens of Russia, but that was not the point I was
| making.
|
| I was saying that there are a lot of Russians not living
| in Russia, some of whom are currently the victims of the
| current war that the government of Russia started. So
| isolating these people, making them double victims is to
| me really dumb.
|
| Culturally isolating Russians in Russia is also a dumb
| move as this is a goal of Putin as well.
|
| I can't stop you from actively helping Putin, I can only
| point out that what you are doing is counter productive,
| if what you are doing is done out of ignorance :).
| dmos62 wrote:
| Same with sanctions, or any other form of violence (violence,
| in the most abstract sense). The idea is to positively
| influence by exerting pressure. That's the ideal, anyway.
|
| It can become difficult to tell whether violence is motivated
| by noble intentions, or vengeance and disdain. Or, whether it's
| done by conscious choice, or via group-think.
| the_af wrote:
| Why would anyone boycott Anna Karenina or any of the Russian
| classics?
|
| How can you even be "torn" about it? There's only one right
| answer.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I had thought that, too, but then I read this and it changed
| my overall perception a bit:
|
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1516162437455654913.html
| the_af wrote:
| The implications of that article are pretty dangerous.
|
| It's one tiny step removed from plain claiming some
| (Russian) authors should be canceled or not read because
| there's some folklore surrounding their importance for the
| construction of the national identity, and/or they defended
| some nationalistic ideals, and/or school children are
| taught silly nonsense about them.
|
| Not many classic authors in any language would survive that
| filter.
|
| Why, if we were to bar pieces of culture because school
| children are taught silliness about them, not much of the
| culture of the English-speaking world would survive!
|
| I get that the current trend is to abhor anything Russian
| -- and also, that the current situation has not made it
| easy to sympathize with Russian-ness -- but really... this
| kind of articles is positively Orwellian.
|
| Nothing good can come from ignoring/banning/canceling
| classic authors.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I see your point and I agree with most that you wrote. I
| don't believe the article I linked to is dangerous,
| though. It clarified many things for me (not to mention
| putting Brodsky in a new context, personally I found it
| quite shocking).
|
| I remember watching the Chinese movie Hero (2002),
| sponsored by the state. The main premise of this
| beautiful movie is that dictatorship has its value that
| must be respected, and only people with deeper insight
| can understand it. Banning such works serves no purpose,
| but it's important for people to learn to spot
| manipulation and propaganda.
| the_af wrote:
| I sure hope they never ban "Hero", it's one of my
| favorite wuxia movies! I don't see it as propaganda at
| all, regardless of the ambiguous interpretation of its
| ending.
|
| As far as I can see it has many people from Hong Kong in
| its cast -- including the awesome Maggie Cheung -- and
| the production company was from Hong Kong. _Regardless_ ,
| I don't consider "sponsored by the state" to be a naughty
| word, nor do I consider "fully privately sponsored" to be
| a badge of honor.
| lotusmars wrote:
| The director of this TV version is a literal pro-Putin Nazi,
| suggesting sterilization of people. Just watch some other
| version, there are plenty of good ones.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >There's only one right answer.
|
| Everybody make your own damn mind up.
| DeWilde wrote:
| Boycotting cultural works unrelated to this war crosses in
| the territory of fascism for me, so there is not much
| making of mind that I have to do.
| watwut wrote:
| It is fascist to decide to not watch movies made by
| fascists? People are free to not read feminists books and
| most of them don't precisely because of who authors are.
| But, why is willingness to go out of your way for art
| made by fascist always the mandatory test? (And yes the
| director counts in that category.)
| lotusmars wrote:
| Even Russians don't really watch vanity garbage made by
| this director (Shakhnazarov).
|
| The only reason he gets huge budgets and heads state
| filmmaking companies is because he's an enormous Putin
| and war supporter.
| DeWilde wrote:
| I wasn't referring to this movie in particular but just
| culture in general.
|
| But that also applies to this movie if the creators
| ideology hasn't leaked into it. Haven't watched so can't
| say.
| curiousgal wrote:
| The whole boycott _at the consumer level_ is stupid in my
| opinion. Shops have already paid for their inventory so your
| impact is literally zero.
| telesilla wrote:
| Won't it mean shops will be refusing new orders? It's
| affecting future purchase decisions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-11 23:01 UTC)