Thoughts on Gogol?

[Anonymous No.11124292]

I think it's pretty impressive that he managed to write successful works of weird fiction, historical fiction, and satire.

[Anonymous No.11124382]

It's actually not weird in the context of Ukrainian literature. He's one of the writers who took great inspiration from Slavonic traditions and pagan past, and he simply expressed his cultural identity. To me, as a Slav, his writing doesn't seem weird or that satirical, even though it is. It seems natural, and my guess is you are a native English speaker, right?

[Anonymous No.11124398]

>>11124292
>weird fiction, historical fiction, and satire
he wrote none of that the correct term is "gogolian fiction" because he's so big a genius that he deserves his own category

[Anonymous No.11124404]

>>11124382
I'm Russian-American. I came to the US as a kid.
When I say "weird fiction", I mean the genre called "weird fiction" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_fiction)), not "fiction that is weird". Sorry, should have clarified.

[Anonymous No.11124471]

>>11124404
Not sure you can say Gogol wrote weird fiction, the term clearly refers to a different kind of writing. You can't call Bulgarian fairy tales about vampires weird fiction, right?

[Anonymous No.11124504]

>>11124471
If the tales are retold by a Gogol, I don't see why not. Gogol didn't just write transcripts of villager narratives. He added his own touch.

[Anonymous No.11124515]

>>11124292
Dead Souls was amazing

[Anonymous No.11124538]

his email service is ok, everything else is shit

[Anonymous No.11124579]

>>11124292
he gay

[Anonymous No.11124596]

>>11124292
The beginning of Taras Bulba is one of the comfiest manliest things in the history of manly comfiness.

[Anonymous No.11124618]

>>11124292
He's my favourite writer, it's a shame he didn't write more novels

>>11124538
>>11124579
I wonder what compels somebody to make posts like these

[Anonymous No.11124630]

>>11124292
Taras Bulba is awesome. The Nose was very good also. His brothel has some nice tunes..

[Anonymous No.11124644]

Preferred english translators? Guerney seems the best for Dead Souls.

[Anonymous No.11124646]

>>11124292
I've only read a couple of short story collections and never got to Dead Souls. If there's one thing that he does better then everyone else I've ever read, it's stirring humour into melancholy and viceversa in perfect proportions in one work--hell, in one paragraph. He'll sail you from the tops of joyful hilarity to the cruelest depths of heartbreak and back up, and by the time you turn the page you'll be reeling, not knowing what hit you. He is at the top of his form in his shortest shorts (and if the story is a bit, longer he usually breaks them in chapters that are brilliant bits on their own). Although his writing is verbose and playful and not at all terse, he is master of concision. One would have loved having filmed him engage damsels at a high society ball (he was a bit of a sperg). A favourite between the ages of 12 and 16 and evermore.

[Anonymous No.11124674]

>>11124646
>stirring humour into melancholy and viceversa
He does this very well in Dead Souls and The Overcoat, but something I love about Gogol is how he doesn't have a single defining style. Reading Taras Bulba, Dead Souls and The Nose shows how great he was as a writer since they're all unique and brilliant in their own way.

>A favourite between the ages of 12 and 16 and evermore
Isn't this a nabby quote

[Anonymous No.11124947]

>>11124618
To be fair, I've certainly heard it suggested that Gogol was attracted to men. I don't know how much evidence there is for it, though.

[Anonymous No.11124963]

«Шинeль» (The Overcoat) is probably my short story. You should definitely read «Кaк cдeлaнa «Шинeль» Гoгoля» (How Gogol's Overcoat Was Made) by Boris Eikhenbaum to fully appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.11125114]

>>11124382
>Ukrainian literature

Hahahaha.

[Anonymous No.11125865]

>>11125114
Any arguments?

[Anonymous No.11125879]

>>11124644
Here are the three:

Constance Garnett: She gets his humor perfectly and is perfectly verbose in Dead Souls. Garnett is also the go-to when it comes to his short stories.

Bernard Guilbet Guerney: If you want good, flowing imagery of what is going on in the book, go with guerney. His is definitely the most immersive and supposedly perfectly, impossibly translates Gogol's transcendent sense of word usage into english. However, Guerney sadly doesn't capture Gogol's sense of humor and wit as well as Garnett or Rayfield does, which in turn misses the great tragic stuff too, so you'll most likely miss out on the parts that have made people laugh hard with tears in their eyes for 200 years. But that might be an overstatement, some people love guerney to the point where they say its the only one worth reading, but i wouldnt go that far. He is one of the three only ones you should read.

Donald Rayfield: When i read Rayfield, i feel like i am reading Gogol. The imagery is not as poetic ad Guerney, but that adds to the sense of wry dead pan comedy of Dead Souls. I feel like the text reads itself, knowing i'm grinning the whole way through. Donald's is my favorite and definitely the one i would recommend to anyone.

Buy any of these three if you want to read Gogol.

And yes, i read all three, at the same time, autistically, comparing them all the way through.

Btw, if someone tells you Garnett is shit, dont believe their lies, and if that person also suggests you should read Pevear and Volkhonsky instead: Stomp 'em. P&V are not only hacks, their translations are completely wooden and unreadable. They render books unlikeable and then go on boasting their translations are perfect in every single way, even through they completely miss the point 99% of the time. Their C&P is the only one that is a good translation and even then, McDuff, Magarshack and Garnett all slay P&V.

Pic related:

Constance Garnett

[Anonymous No.11125885]

>>11125879
Guerney 1/2

[Anonymous No.11125891]

>>11125885
2/2

[Anonymous No.11125893]

>>11125879
Rayfield

[Anonymous No.11126583]

>>11124674
>Isn't this a nabby quote
I channeled my inner Nabby there for a bit. He doesn't actually say that about Gogol, but he preaches his love for him well enough in his biography. I, for one, love them both.

[Anonymous No.11126953]

Should I read Pushkin first?

[Anonymous No.11127017]

>>11125879
Thanks, my man. I've heard high praise for Guerney but it's nice to see the comparisons.

[Anonymous No.11127240]

>>11124646
>>11125879
Two great posts that give you some hope for /lit/.

>>11126953
No
Jesus Christ, this autism with chronological reading has gone completely out of hand. As if you were super serious literary historians writing their doctorate or something.
But read Pushkin, of course, he is no less of a genius.

[Anonymous No.11127393]

>>11124471
>ayy nigga remember when the devil stole the moon?
>shit was tripping

[Anonymous No.11127414]

>>11124292
I'm so sad this nigger burned his manuscripts for Dead Souls in a fit of autism. It was lining up to be such a good story and then it ended.

[Anonymous No.11127419]

>>11125879
>tfw still no ranking for the christopher english oxford edition
It looks nice bros but no one ever reviews it

[Anonymous No.11127604]

>>11127240
I read chronologically because I like to see influence develop from writer to writer. I was asking to see if /lit/ people thinkt that Gogol takes a lot from Pushkin

[Anonymous No.11127662]

>>11127604
Yeah but thats more fun to do in retrospect. Let their art stand on their own

[Anonymous No.11127717]

>>11127662

[Anonymous No.11127736]

>>11127604
You can just pick up a book on literary history. You'll get a wider and more precise picture of development and influence that way, rather than piecing things together as you read book by book.
>if /lit/ people thinkt that Gogol takes a lot from Pushkin
Gogol's writing isn't known as particularly influenced by him. His most important antecedent is actually said to be the Ukrainian fable.

>>11127717
I hope you've read Chernishevsky's "What is to be Done", all 1000 pages of its shitty propaganda, before you touched Dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.11127754]

>>11124515
have to agree. Will be on the lookout for his stuff at used stores in the future. Dead souls was such a hilarious book, loved it. Very well written.

[Anonymous No.11127801]

>>11127736
Asking if I should read Pushkin before Gogol does not mean reading every piece of literature chronologically. It simply means that I like to read certain classics that I would read anyways in order, to see the movement from one to the other. I have very little interest in reading a book on literary history, as Id rather experience it myself.
The reason I posted >>11127717 was in response to this anon uselessly saying
>Let their art stand on their own
as if moving through classics chronologically somehow prohibits this. And implying that I don't. He is an annoying little shit and I wish him to die promptly

[Anonymous No.11127923]

>>11127801
You're just mad cause you got schooled and now you have nothing bro

[Anonymous No.11128537]

Very compelling evidence for his penis and nose having switched places

[Anonymous No.11129055]

>>11124646
If you're pretending to be Nabs you should have mentioned that Gogol's early writings are total garbage

[Anonymous No.11129069]

>>11125879
Speaking of Magarshack, he did a translation of Gogol's stories. Would you happen to have an opinion on that?

[Anonymous No.11129679]

>>11129055
They're different, yes, not as funny, not as hilariously heartwrenching, but I still liked the few that were included in the collections I've read.
>>11129069
Not that guy (who seems to be way more knowledgeable than I am), but Magarshack's was my favourite of the three short story collections I read. The stories flowed well and it didn't sound like a translation at all (which 19th century russian novels in English tend to do sometimes). Just my two hrivnas.

[Anonymous No.11130056]

Akaky Akakyevitch still lives in my heart since i read The Overcoat two years ago.

Oh god, Akaky...