tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post225749498319208819..comments2023-08-02T01:48:35.439-07:00Comments on The Grinnell College Russian Literature Blog: Nineteen is definitely not twentyKelly Heroldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13484703304084014289noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post-54416734791028325292012-05-10T10:06:18.145-07:002012-05-10T10:06:18.145-07:00I guess just to answer the question at the end of ...I guess just to answer the question at the end of the parent post: I thought that, beyond any difference in narrative style or other literary mechanics, the most striking difference between 19th and 20th century literature was about content. The authors working in the twentieth century were concerned with fundamentally different phenomena and ideas than those of the nineteenth. Where authors before the turn of the 20th century wanted to engage romantic ideas like love and tragedy, more contemporary authors are FAR more political. The individual, rather than becoming the focus of the novel, becomes a device through which an author may engage the political concern du jour.Chris Barbeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00688059384423201523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post-11117719840872671382012-04-22T17:32:09.303-07:002012-04-22T17:32:09.303-07:00I agree, Iulia, We came as a huge surprise. Other ...I agree, Iulia, We came as a huge surprise. Other than love, the way the body is described is something that has shifted dramatically between the novels we have read. In Crime and Punishment bodily descriptions are really graphic. Any scene where Raskolnikov walks outside is filled with gross imagery of his physical health and expressive discomfort. Similarly in Anna Karenina, scenes that involve a sick person are filled with explicit detail. As we talked about in class, the characters in We each have a consistent body part or feature that is mentioned but past that, it is hard to even visualize their appearance.Susanna Mollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682397917906302408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post-50582896677448296432012-04-22T17:30:42.452-07:002012-04-22T17:30:42.452-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Susanna Mollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682397917906302408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post-56894307028116557402012-04-16T15:12:46.483-07:002012-04-16T15:12:46.483-07:00In response to Addie's comment, at least part ...In response to Addie's comment, at least part of that 50 year period was spent during the revolution where writing was heavily censored. Even though books like We and Master and Margarita were *published* after the revolution, I would imagine that much of the thinking and writing of these books went on during the revolution. <br /><br />I think some of the massive shift in literary style can be attributed to authors distancing themselves from other propagandic works of the early 20th century. For example, in my tutorial, we read a novel called Time, Forward!. I would say that the writing style was much more similar to that of the 19th century novels than of the 20th century works that we have read. Perhaps some of the change was less about distancing themselves from the previous century and more about distance from the current accepted "norm"?Sydneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10985925517098965894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post-66535651069506963312012-04-14T13:44:30.306-07:002012-04-14T13:44:30.306-07:00I think the preponderance of unhappy endings is wh...I think the preponderance of unhappy endings is what has struck me most so far about the 20th century novels we've read. Of course, I haven't finished <i>The Master and Margarita</i> yet. But <i>We</i> ends with D-503 getting brainwashed. He's more content, but all of the work he has gone through developing a soul throughout the novel is for nothing -- he just gets crushed by the One State. And <i>Envy</i> ends with a sad, hopeless state of Hedonism for its characters who represent the end of the previous era. I see in these endings more focus on the consequences of the system as a whole, rather than individual characters or families like we saw in the 19th century.Shannon Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569312954602588053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post-26067594575444451982012-04-14T07:50:37.259-07:002012-04-14T07:50:37.259-07:00I did feel that We was completely different and an...I did feel that We was completely different and an unexpected changed from the 19th century - based on the novels that we have read. I'm curios about the transition though. The last 19th century novel we read, Anna Karenina, was published in the 1870s while We was published in 1921. Thus, 50 years has passed and I'm wondering what went on in literature during those years.<br /><br />Also to answer your last question, I prefer the 19th century.Addie Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05664520796526048219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1917722747536655397.post-87296960121503047162012-04-13T14:10:50.410-07:002012-04-13T14:10:50.410-07:00To me, the style change may not have been as unexp...To me, the style change may not have been as unexpected as you suggest, Iulia. If we recall that We was written in 1921, a short few years following the Revolution, the questions on my mind are: (1) was there enough time to become romantic in these turbulent times?, and (2) could one write very bluntly and openly about this new system and feel safe at the same time? My answer to these two questions is no. As far as comparing the three novels of the 20th century (I believe you wrote 19th century by accident), that is difficult to do. I like The Master and Margarita more than the other two novels because of its symbolism and complexity. However, Bulgakov completed his novel almost 20 years after Zamiatin completed We. Hence he had more time to observe, experience, and "digest" the new system which became increasingly violent in 1930s. Thus I think Bulgakov's symbolism is more powerful and telling because his writing benefitted from this additional 20-year insight.Petar Miljkovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12078752071508950975noreply@blogger.com