Was Tolstoy right about Shakespeare?

[Anonymous No.9942545]

Some of you may not be aware that Tolsstoy thought that Shakespeare was an awful writer, and he wrote a long essay criticizing his plays, read it here

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm

I find this really fascinating, because what he says here mirrors a lot of what I thought about Shakespeare but was unable to really express. It's hard to get immersed into Shakespeare's plays because the events often are so unrealistic and the characters do talk so unrealistically. The fact that Lear never recognizes Kent in the disguise, for instance, just seems impossible and takes you out of the play. Some quotes I like:

>This is asserted with such confidence and repeated by all as indisputable truth; but however much I endeavored to find confirmation of this in Shakespeare's dramas, I always[53] found the opposite. In reading any of Shakespeare's dramas whatever, I was, from the very first, instantly convinced that he was lacking in the most important, if not the only, means of portraying characters: individuality of language, i.e., the style of speech of every person being natural to his character. This is absent from Shakespeare. All his characters speak, not their own, but always one and the same Shakespearian, pretentious, and unnatural language, in which not only they could not speak, but in which no living man ever has spoken or does speak.

>In Shakespeare everything is exaggerated: the actions are exaggerated, so are their consequences, the speeches of the characters are exaggerated, and therefore at every step the possibility of artistic impression is interfered with. Whatever people may say, however they may be enraptured by Shakespeare's works, whatever merits they may attribute to them, it is perfectly certain that he was not an artist and that his works are not artistic productions. Without the sense of measure, there never was nor can be an artist, as without the feeling of rhythm there can not be a musician. Shakespeare might have been whatever you like, but he was not an artist.

[Anonymous No.9942549]

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf

"Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool"; George Orwell

[Anonymous No.9942592]

>>9942545
It depends what you expect from literature.
Shakespeare characters are nothing incredible. Tolstoy is right, there is little specificity to the characters (admittedly it was made for the theater and not for bedtime reading so most of the characterization could be pushed on the actor).
I was never bugged out by the melodramatic behavior in the plays though.

Shakespeare poetry > Shakespeare plays by the way.

[Anonymous No.9942602]

He was right that Homer is better. But that doesn't justify the hate.

[Anonymous No.9942610]

>if I don't like it it's bad.
>muh realism
He sounds like the average 4chan autist.

[Anonymous No.9942619]

>[Shakespeare's] verbal poetic texture is the greatest the world has ever known, and immensely superior to the structure of his plays as plays. It is the metaphor that is the thing, not the play.
- Nabokov
I love Tolstoy but I find his criticisms of Shakespeare to be really misguided. Just complaining that "real people don't talk like that!" is to miss the point entirely, in my opinion. Part of the appeal of Shakespeare is that he takes an extremely varied cast of characters across his works and gives them this incredible depth of expression that we aren't granted in everyday life. Through this 'exaggeration' we learn so much more about the spectrum of human experience than if Shakespeare were to just to concern himself with realism. Its become a bit cliche at this point but the idea that "Shakespeare's characters are more real than real people" mainly comes from this depth and its what has sustained his works as infinitely re-readable across generations. It seems to me that Tolstoy was treating these plays as if they were 19th Century prose novels and if anyone but Tolstoy were to make these remarks and even use such a childish term as "pretentious" then we wouldn't hesitate to laugh off this commentary as total nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9942653]

>>9942619
Tolstoy btfo

[Anonymous No.9942659]

Looks like Tolstoy accomplished his dream of being a pleb after all.

[Anonymous No.9942698]

>>9942545
>tolstoy reads shakespeare translations and thinks they're shit
what a fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.9942709]

>>9942659
This

[Anonymous No.9942720]

Tolstoy was himself an awful writer. He's bitching about an author writing in a language not his own (I will never and can never trust the opinion of a non-native on a language's literature), not writing the way he does, and not writing the way he thinks one ought.
He's a dramatist, Tolstoy is a novelist. Drama is a different genre than novel. They are not presented the same way. They aren't from the same era. They frankly have nothing in common.
It's not as if one cannot differentiate a Shakespeare character simply because he sticks to a certain language (he does not, characters absolutely do use a different sort of English, according to what they would, Tolstoy simply cannot detect this because he is ESL.)
Genuinely, I think Tolstoy, alongside all other Russian novelists, are incredible pretentious. Everything they write has a certain gravity that they have not warranted.

[Anonymous No.9942725]

>>9942698
I assume he could read English. If not, and he is criticizing a translation, then my God is he insufferable. He can criticize form, plot, character, whatever; but language, when he is not even reading the language as it was written? I think not.

[Anonymous No.9942733]

>>9942659

[Anonymous No.9942749]

>>9942659
topkek

[Anonymous No.9942751]

>>9942545
>All the butthurt anglos in the thread

My boy Leo btfo bitch ass shakespeare. Continental europe is where it's at.

[Anonymous No.9942755]

>>9942545
I think Tolstoy is a great writer, and Anna Karenina is one of my favourite novels (I've read it 3 times already) but these criticisms are pretty asinine. It's like he doesn't understand theater, poetry, or plays at all. Could Tolstoy even read Shakespeare in English?

[Anonymous No.9942759]

>>9942751
>Russia
>Continetal Europe
Um, no sweetie

[Anonymous No.9942769]

>>9942545
This is "no discernible talent" levels of silly.

[Anonymous No.9942801]

>taking seriously the petty jealous criticisms lodged by a slave rapist on translations of the single greatest literary master in existence
wew. it's almost like the reverence many have for tolstoy is ill met by the man himself.

[Anonymous No.9942834]

At what point in his life's work did Tolstoy write this?

[Anonymous No.9942846]

>>9942834
towards the end of his life

[Anonymous No.9942855]

>>9942846
Maybe he was senile?

[Anonymous No.9942862]

>>9942549
Stop posting this god awful essay. Orwell sucks.

[Anonymous No.9942864]

>>9942855
the pamphlet seems too lucid for that but as Orwell points out, it's entirely reasonable to suspect that he was in the "get off my lawn" stage, especially as the play he's shitting on resembles his own life so much

[Anonymous No.9942887]

Reminder that tolstoy wanted to be the greatest at everything he did

[Anonymous No.9942891]

>>9942659
>of

[Anonymous No.9942928]

>>9942659

[Anonymous No.9942929]

>>9942659
Owned

[Anonymous No.9942935]

>>9942619
>Just complaining that "real people don't talk like that!" is to miss the point entirely, in my opinion.

To understand Tolstoy's justification of this you have to understand his philosophy of art. Read his 'What is Art?'

[Anonymous No.9942946]

Leo Toystory is so fucking gay

[Anonymous No.9942949]

>>9942935
His justification is clear as it is. It's not that I don't understand it. I simply don't agree with it.

[Anonymous No.9942954]

>>9942549
t. The Virgin

>Tolstoy was a chad

[Anonymous No.9942959]

>>9942755
>>9942725
>>9942698
Tolstoy read Shakespeare in english (and Russian and German translations).

[Anonymous No.9943691]

>>9942619
Why do people take Nabokov the failed poet as an authority on literature? The man's characters have as much personality as an action figure and he leaks his opinions into every page to substitute that plastic reality. If you like his prose, just read poetry, because there sure as hell isnt a lot of meaning in anything he does.

[Anonymous No.9943720]

>>9943691
he is right in this instance though

[Anonymous No.9943842]

Why would you write a single word on Tolstoy before reading his diaries or his biography? You don't know him. His personal life is much bigger than his works.

[Anonymous No.9943941]

>>9943842
Why would you write a single word on Shakespeare before reading his diaries or his biography? You don't know him. His personal life is much bigger than his works.

[Anonymous No.9944002]

>>9943941
That was my first post itt.

[Anonymous No.9944388]

>>9943941
We know practically nothing about Shakespeare outside of his works so even though you are just being a shit troll it would have been nice if your shit trolling made sense.

[Anonymous No.9945025]

>>9942659

I love Tolstoy and I love Shakespeare, and I have read the threads about this debate of Tolstoy x Shakespeare with great interest many times.

Yours is the best post I have seen on all this threads. I had a great laught.

To contribute to the thread, I offer this very keen remark made by Chekhov:

>"I admire him greatly. What I admire the most in him is that he despises us all; all writers. Perhaps a more accurate description is that he treats us, other writers, as completely empty space. You could argue that from time to time, he praises Maupassant, or Kuprin, or Semenov, or myself. But why does he praise us? It is simple: it's because he looks at us as if we were children. Our short stories, or even our novels, all are child's play in comparison with his works. However, Shakespeare … For him, the reason is different. Shakespeare irritates him because he is a grown-up writer, and does not write in the way that Tolstoy does."

[Anonymous No.9945123]

>>9942545
read that whole essay and you'll see he makes a lot of actual good points for hating Shakespeare. I think he does go a bit far but I agree with him that Shakespeare was a fraud.

[Anonymous No.9945132]

>>9942891
>dream have being

[Anonymous No.9945139]

>>9945025
Great post.

[Anonymous No.9945200]

>>9942935
I actually read it a couple of years ago and I found his whole theory to be a watered-down and flat 'moralistic' interpretation of art, so I suppose I could never agree with his commentary on any writer from that standpoint.
>>9945025
That Chekhov quote just confirms the impression I got of Tolstoy from his 'A Confession.' He comes across as someone who always, in some way, has to come out on top. Even the state of phoney 'humility' that he supposedly is brought to by his crisis just manifests itself as a discarding of all religious organisations and a strange admiration for the poor that only seems to manifest itself as a reason to feel superior to the wealthy class that he would always be a part of.

[Anonymous No.9945219]

>>9942545
He was completely wrong. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are just fads. We will be reading Shakespeare for much longer.

[Anonymous No.9945291]

>>9942545
I always had an instinctual repulsion for this bastard, now I can see it was very useful.

[Anonymous No.9945308]

>>9942659
BOOM, BIG REVEAL!

[Anonymous No.9945324]

>>9942545
Wouldn't this criticism apply to every play in verses? I mean, sure, you can insert specific ways of saying and words that may let you identify a character as a peasant, but it would still be an approximation, for peasantas don't talk in rhymed verses.

[Anonymous No.9946010]

unironically, if anyone writes like shakespeare the same criticisms will apply to them. Art is like that, something is ok and then suddenly it isnt't.

["Anonymous" No.9946413]

>>9942659

[Anonymous No.9946435]

I mean, he's right to a degree. Shakespeare's characters are exalted ideals. But that's literally what makes it art.

[Anonymous No.9946441]

>>9942545
He also disliked Chekhov, I think he generally disliked plays

[Anonymous No.9946452]

>>9942720
>Tolstoy was himself an awful writer.
I'm glad amerifats like >>9942720 will die of diabetes before they can reproduce

[Anonymous No.9946461]

>>9942545
>a famous writer acts like an insufferable cunt

How is this news to anyone? Is anyone really surprised? And even if you are somewhat surprised, how could you even give a shit?

Plus everyone knows Proust is the GOAT and Tolstoy is only relevant to extent to which he influenced Proust. Other than that Tolstoy is not worth his weight in shit.

[Anonymous No.9946479]

>>9942659
Ayyyyy

[Anonymous No.9946626]

>>9942545

>"Open Shakespeare," I used to say to these admirers, "wherever you like, or wherever it may chance, you will see that you will never find ten consecutive lines which are comprehensible, unartificial, natural to the character that says them, and which produce an artistic impression." (This experiment may be made by any one. And either at random, or according to their own choice.)

Can anyone rise to the challenge?

[Anonymous No.9946694]

>>9945025
But Tolstoy also abnegated most of his own works too, don't mischaracterise him.

[Anonymous No.9946793]

>>9942801
>translations of

[Anonymous No.9946836]

Who /tolstoyboy/ here? Hadji Murat is the greatest thing ever written. I'm thinking of getting into Georgism.

[Anonymous No.9947110]

>>9942545

Both Tolstoy and Shakespeare are terrible writers.

[Anonymous No.9947124]

>>9942619
This guy's got it
Tolstoy's dismissal of Shakespeare is quite literally a better written 4chan shitpost, from the argument down to the language he used
I don't usually say this but he just didn't get it, Shakespeare's characters talk like they do because one cannot communicate the richness of human thought in a play so he just has them say it. Unconsciously, everyone is feeling emotions in a way that cannot be put to words, but Shakespeare got perhaps the closest.

[Anonymous No.9947136]

>>9945025
Holy fuck Leo Toystory blown the actually fuck out by based Chekhov

[Anonymous No.9947292]

> the most important, if not the only, means of portraying characters: individuality of language, i.e., the style of speech of every person being natural to his character. This is absent from Shakespeare.
Well, he was a fucking playwright, so

[Anonymous No.9948290]

>>9942545
We can allow him to be right about this bit of wrongheadedness one day every year, his birthday, which just so happens to be today- Happy Birthday Lev!

[Anonymous No.9948550]

>>9942755
>It's like he doesn't understand theater, poetry, or plays at all
Those are all things made by fags for fags.

[Anonymous No.9948583]

A man who's natural language wasn't English critiques the best author of all time because he doesn't adhere to some perfect scenario

Did he even know that the plays were exaggerated because they were PLAYS? In the theatre? To be performed?

What a hack