What do you think?
Rate this book
Tolstoy or Dostoevsky: An Essay in the Old Criticism
The first book of criticism from the acclaimed author of After Babel—a “provocative and probing” look at Russian literature’s most influential writers (The New York Times). “Literary criticism,” writes Steiner, “should arise out of a debt of love.” Abiding by his own rule, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky is an impassioned work, inspired by Steiner’s conviction that the legacies of these two Russian masters loom over Western literature. By explaining how Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky differ from each other, Steiner demonstrates that when taken together, their work offers the most complete portrayal of life and the tension between the thirst for knowledge on one hand and the longing for mystery on the other. An instant classic for scholars of Russian literature and casual readers alike, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky explores two powerful writers and their opposing modes of approaching the world, and the enduring legacies wrought by their works.
386 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1959
117 people are currently reading
2043 people want to read
About the author
George Steiner
188 books568 followersSee also: George A. Steiner, author on Management and Planning.
Dr. Francis George Steiner was an essayist, novelist, philosopher, literary critic, and educator. He wrote for The New Yorker for over thirty years, contributing over two hundred reviews. Among his many awards, he received The Truman Capote Lifetime Achievement Award from Stanford University 1998. He lived in Cambridge, England, with his wife, historian Zara Shakow Steiner.
In 1950 he earned an M.A. from Harvard University, where he won the Bell Prize in American Literature, and received his Ph.D. from Oxford University (Balliol College) on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1955. He was then a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, for two years. He became a founding fellow of Churchill College at the University of Cambridge in 1961, and has been an Extraordinary Fellow there since 1969. Additionally, Steiner accepted the post of Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Geneva in 1974, which he held for 20 years, teaching in four languages. He became Professor Emeritus at Geneva University on his retirement in 1994, and an Honorary Fellow at Balliol College at Oxford University in 1995. He later held the positions of the first Lord Weidenfeld Professor of Comparative Literature and Fellow of St. Anne's College at Oxford University from 1994 to 1995, and Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University from 2001 to 2002.
Dr. Francis George Steiner was an essayist, novelist, philosopher, literary critic, and educator. He wrote for The New Yorker for over thirty years, contributing over two hundred reviews. Among his many awards, he received The Truman Capote Lifetime Achievement Award from Stanford University 1998. He lived in Cambridge, England, with his wife, historian Zara Shakow Steiner.
In 1950 he earned an M.A. from Harvard University, where he won the Bell Prize in American Literature, and received his Ph.D. from Oxford University (Balliol College) on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1955. He was then a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, for two years. He became a founding fellow of Churchill College at the University of Cambridge in 1961, and has been an Extraordinary Fellow there since 1969. Additionally, Steiner accepted the post of Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Geneva in 1974, which he held for 20 years, teaching in four languages. He became Professor Emeritus at Geneva University on his retirement in 1994, and an Honorary Fellow at Balliol College at Oxford University in 1995. He later held the positions of the first Lord Weidenfeld Professor of Comparative Literature and Fellow of St. Anne's College at Oxford University from 1994 to 1995, and Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University from 2001 to 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
March 2, 2018
Κατ' αρχάς δεν είναι μια "μάχη" που αναδεικνύει νικητή, ίσως δεν βρισκόταν καν στην πρόθεση του Steiner. Το μεγαλύτερο κέρδος για μένα ήταν ο Tolstoy, τον οποία είχα υποτιμήσει. Βέβαια, αυτό ίσχυε μέχρις ότου διάβασα την Άννα Καρένινα.
Επειδή κάθε άνθρωπος από κάπου επηρεάζεται, ο Steiner επιμένει όχι απλώς να μιλάει για τις πηγές επιρροής του καθενός, αλλά να συγκρίνει τον Tolstoy με τον Όμηρο και τον Dostoyevsky με τον Shakespeare. Τους θεωρεί τόσο σπουδαίους, που δεν βρίσκει ανάλογό τους σε χώρες με μεγάλη παράδοση στη λογοτεχνία όπως η Γαλλία.
Στα πρώτα κεφάλαια μιλάει περισσότερο για τους μεγάλους της λογοτεχνίας, κυρίως, του 19ου αιώνα, όσον αφορά τον τρόπο σκέψης κτλ. Κάπου εκεί διαβάζεται πολύ ευχάριστα και από κάποιον που δεν έχει ξαναδιαβάσει τους δύο Ρώσους. Στη συνέχεια ξεκινάει η ανάλυση των έργων ξεχωριστά, και σε σύγκριση μεταξύ τους. Κι εδώ είναι το καλύτερο σημείο του βιβλίου, γιατί βοηθάει να αντιληφθούμε ακόμα περισσότερο το μεγαλείο και των δύο.
Δεν είναι βιβλίο που απευθύνεται αποκλειστικά σε μελετητές, αλλά στον κάθε αναγνώστη του Tolstoy και του Dostoyevksy. Το μόνο σίγουρο είναι ότι θα ξαναδιαβάσω τα περισσότερα από τα μεγάλα έργα και των δύο, έχοντας πλέον στο μυαλό μου την οπτική του Steiner, ο οποίος είναι εξαιρετικά ταλαντούχος. Δε θυμάμαι άλλη φορά να διάβασα δοκίμιο, σαν μυθιστόρημα.
Επειδή κάθε άνθρωπος από κάπου επηρεάζεται, ο Steiner επιμένει όχι απλώς να μιλάει για τις πηγές επιρροής του καθενός, αλλά να συγκρίνει τον Tolstoy με τον Όμηρο και τον Dostoyevsky με τον Shakespeare. Τους θεωρεί τόσο σπουδαίους, που δεν βρίσκει ανάλογό τους σε χώρες με μεγάλη παράδοση στη λογοτεχνία όπως η Γαλλία.
Στα πρώτα κεφάλαια μιλάει περισσότερο για τους μεγάλους της λογοτεχνίας, κυρίως, του 19ου αιώνα, όσον αφορά τον τρόπο σκέψης κτλ. Κάπου εκεί διαβάζεται πολύ ευχάριστα και από κάποιον που δεν έχει ξαναδιαβάσει τους δύο Ρώσους. Στη συνέχεια ξεκινάει η ανάλυση των έργων ξεχωριστά, και σε σύγκριση μεταξύ τους. Κι εδώ είναι το καλύτερο σημείο του βιβλίου, γιατί βοηθάει να αντιληφθούμε ακόμα περισσότερο το μεγαλείο και των δύο.
Δεν είναι βιβλίο που απευθύνεται αποκλειστικά σε μελετητές, αλλά στον κάθε αναγνώστη του Tolstoy και του Dostoyevksy. Το μόνο σίγουρο είναι ότι θα ξαναδιαβάσω τα περισσότερα από τα μεγάλα έργα και των δύο, έχοντας πλέον στο μυαλό μου την οπτική του Steiner, ο οποίος είναι εξαιρετικά ταλαντούχος. Δε θυμάμαι άλλη φορά να διάβασα δοκίμιο, σαν μυθιστόρημα.
July 27, 2011
Maybe the best book of literary criticism I've ever read. Steiner's thesis is that these -- the world's two greatest novelists -- have rival conceptions of not only the techniques of fiction, but also salvation, society, sin, God, and redemption. Tolstoy is in the epic tradition that descends from Homer. Dostoevsky, on the other hand, belongs within the bounds of the "tragic" writers descending from Oedipus Rex.
My friend Julie and I used to play "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky". It consisted of us talking about common friends and whether they were more Tolstoyian or Dostoevskian. Always fun at parties.
My friend Julie and I used to play "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky". It consisted of us talking about common friends and whether they were more Tolstoyian or Dostoevskian. Always fun at parties.
August 5, 2022
Η παρουσία του διαζευκτικού μεταξύ των δύο ονομάτων είναι ελαφρώς παραπλανητική, αφού θα μπορούσε να βρίσκεται κάλλιστα στο τέλος. Μολονότι επιχειρείται σύγκριση μεταξύ των δύο συγγραφέων, αυτό δεν γίνεται για να προταθεί/ προκριθεί ο ένας εκ των δύο, δεδομένου ότι ο Στάινερ στέκεται με ισόποσο θαυμασμό απέναντί τους. Η αίσθηση του αναγνώστη είναι ότι ο τίτλος θα μπορούσε να είναι «Τολστόι, Ντοστογιέφσκι ή…» – όπου τα αποσιωπητικά θα περιλάμβαναν το σύνολο της λογοτεχνικής παραγωγής, με τους δύο Ρώσους να κερδίζουν κατά κράτος.
Ο Στάινερ δεν κρύβει στιγμή τον θαυμασμό του, θεωρώντας τους ανώτερους από οποιονδήποτε Γάλλο (Μπαλζάκ, Φλομπέρ, Σταντάλ μη εξαιρουμένων), Γερμανό, Βρετανό κλπ. ομότεχνό τους, αφήνοντας μόνο ένα μια ελάχιστη χαραμάδα για τους Αμερικανούς όπως ο Πόε και κυρίως τον Μέλβιλ του Μόμπι Ντικ για λόγους που σχετίζονται τόσο με τη γεωγραφική θέση όσο και με το ιδιάζουσας σημασίας ζήτημα της «μυθολογίας» τους (η κατά Στάινερ θεματική των έργων τους) που επικεντρώνεται στο θεολογικό. Κατά τον κριτικό, αυτό είναι το κεντρικό σημείο διαφοροποίησής τους από τους λοιπούς, και επομένως το σημείο υπεροχής τους. Θα επανέλθω σ’ αυτό.
Κατά τα λοιπά, δεν πρόκειται να επιχειρήσω κάποια κριτική της κριτικής, καθότι θα ήταν βαρετό για τους περισσότερους και φαιδρό για όλους. Ο Στάινερ καθορίζει το χωροχρονικό πλαίσιο, εντάσσει σ’ αυτό τους συγγραφείς και τα έργα τους, επιχειρεί τις απαραίτητες συγκρίσεις, αναδεικνύοντας τη μοναδικότητά τους, τον sui generis χαρακτήρα τους με αγάπη και θαυμασμό. Εξηγεί, φερ’ ειπείν, γιατί ο Τολστόι είναι ο άμεσος απόγονος του Ομήρου και ποια η σχέση του με τα έπη ως κατ’ εξοχήν επικός συγγραφέας και γιατί ο Ντοστογιέφσκι είναι επίγονος του Σαίξπηρ (αλλά και του Θερβάντες. Βλ. Μίσκιν vs Δον Κιχώτης) ως ο μόνος σύγχρονος πολυφωνικός δραματουργός. Δεν λέω περισσότερα, ο αναγνώστης καλείται να απολαύσει το αποτέλεσμα.
Μου κέντρισε όμως το ενδιαφέρον, για προσωπικούς λόγους, εκείνο το οποίο προανέφερα: το γεγονός δηλαδή ότι αν στους άλλους μεγάλους συγγραφείς ο κοσμικός χαρακτήρας υπερισχύει, αυτό δεν ισχύει στους δύο Ρώσους, όπου η θεολογική τους στράτευση βρίσκεται κάθε στιγμή, σε κάθε σελίδα στο επίκεντρο της δημιουργίας τους. Ο Στάινερ κρίνει ότι η έκταση του περί Θεού ερωτήματος, σε συνδυασμό με το ανυπέρβλητο ταλέντο τους, επεξέτεινε τα όρια της καλλιτεχνικής τους δημιουργίας σε τέτοιο βαθμό που κατόρθωσαν να συμπεριλάβουν το όλο της ανθρώπινης ύπαρξης στα έργα τους. Δεν πρόκειται εδώ να αμφισβητήσω τον Δάσκαλο στο συμπέρασμα του, ότι δηλαδή ακριβώς αυτό είναι το σημείο υπεροχής τους έναντι των άλλων (τα είπαμε περί φαιδρότητας). Αν κάπως πρέπει να εξηγηθεί η ποιοτική διαφορά, ετούτη η παραδοχή ίσως είναι η καλύτερη δυνατή από όλες τις άλλες. Ίσως κι όχι.
Η σκέψη που αυτό το συμπέρασμα γέννησε στο δικό μου μυαλό όμως, είναι η ακόλουθη: Ας δεχτούμε ότι η μεταφυσική μυθολογία είναι το επίκεντρο και το συγκριτικό πλεονέκτημα. Από την άλλη πλευρά, όπως ο παραδέχεται κι ο ίδιος ο Στάινερ, όσες φορές ο δάσκαλος ή ο κατηχητής έπαιρνε τα πρωτεία από τον καλλιτέχνη, το αποτέλεσμα σαφώς υπολειπόταν (κλασικό παράδειγμα η «Ανάσταση» του Τολστόι). Πού θέλω να καταλήξω: Θεωρώ ότι έχει τρομερό ενδιαφέρον να εξετάσει κάποιος το σημείο αιχμής, σύγκλισης, σύγκρουσης μεταξύ καλλιτέχνη και κατηχητή, μεταξύ συγγραφέα και πιστού. Φυσικά εκ του αποτελέσματος κρινόμενα, μπορούμε να δούμε σε ποια έργα τους υπερίσχυε η μία ή η άλλη πλευρά τους. Αλλά και πάλι η διάκριση αυτή δεν μπορεί να είναι ποτέ ξεκάθαρη, καθώς συνεχώς υπεισέρχονται στοιχεία της διττής τους φύσης στο corpus του έργου των Τιτάνων.
Τελικά, πότε το σημείο υπεροχής (το μεταφυσικό) καθίσταται βαρίδι που συμπαρασύρει το λογοτεχνικό οικοδόμημα καθιστώντας το επισφαλές; Και πώς γίνεται τότε ακριβώς αυτό το «περί Θεού» να αποτελεί τη «ναυαρχίδα» της υπεροχής των δύο συγγραφέων έναντι ονομάτων όπως ο Τζόυς ή ο Προυστ με το εκκοσμικευμένο τους όριο δημιουργίας; Πόσος… Θεός είναι κατάλληλος για ένα αριστούργημα όπως το «Πόλεμος και Ειρήνη» ή οι «Αδελφοί Καραμάζοφ» και πόσος άνθρωπος για τη δογματική «Σονάτα του Κρόυτσερ»; Αν η απάντηση είναι το παραδεδεγμένο επιχείρημα ότι ο καλλιτέχνης οφείλει να επισκιάζει τον ιδεολόγο, εφόσον επιθυμεί να μην παραμείνει ο ίδιος μια σκιά κάτω από το λάβαρο της ιδεολογίας του, τότε ο Θεός θα εκδιωχθεί από τη Δημιουργία του, αφήνοντας τον λογοτέχνη στον Θρόνο. Αλλά, επανερχόμαστε, αυτή η «ένθεη ενθρόνιση» δεν είναι, υποτίθεται, η υπεροχή των δύο Ρώσων έναντι των λοιπών; Ετούτο που τους τοποθετεί στην κορυφή πώς μπορεί να είναι ταυτόχρονα και η αχίλλειος πτέρνα τους;
Προφανώς δεν έχω εγώ την απάντηση στο ερώτημα αυτό. Θα στοιχημάτιζα το εξής: ο Στάινερ αναζητά επιχειρήματα για εκείνο που θεωρεί αυταπόδεικτο στη νόησή του. Γι’ αυτόν υπάρχει μια συνέχεια από τον Όμηρο στο Αρχαίο Ελληνικό Δράμα, στο Ελισσαβετιανό και τέλος στον Τολστόι και τον Ντοστογιέφσκι. Αναζητά κοινούς τόπους, αναζητά συγκλίσεις και διαφοροποιήσεις και εκείνο το στοιχείο που συνεχώς αναφύεται είναι η πίστη, η θρησκεία. Χαρακτηριστικά αναφέρει: «το κύρος των δύο συγγραφέων δεν μπορεί να διαχωριστεί από τη θεολογική τους στράτευση». Τι κι αν, όπως είπαμε, οι δύο ημίθεοι μεγαλουργούν παρά τη στράτευσή τους, αποποιούμενοι την πανοπλία του Θεού, για να ενδυθούν τα κοσμικά ρούχα του λογοτέχνη. Έλα όμως που εκείνο το «παρά» μπορεί να γίνει κάλλιστα «εξαιτίας», αφήνοντάς μας τελικά να αναρωτιόμαστε, έως ότου απλά αποδεχτούμε το συναμφότερον του ανθρώπου – ακόμα και των δύο ημίθεων, οι οποίοι, σύμφωνα με τη δική μου κρίση, αναζητούσαν μάταια έξω από εκείνους αυτό που απλά στροβιλιζόταν με ιερή μανία εντός τους.
https://fotiskblog.home.blog/2022/08/...
Ο Στάινερ δεν κρύβει στιγμή τον θαυμασμό του, θεωρώντας τους ανώτερους από οποιονδήποτε Γάλλο (Μπαλζάκ, Φλομπέρ, Σταντάλ μη εξαιρουμένων), Γερμανό, Βρετανό κλπ. ομότεχνό τους, αφήνοντας μόνο ένα μια ελάχιστη χαραμάδα για τους Αμερικανούς όπως ο Πόε και κυρίως τον Μέλβιλ του Μόμπι Ντικ για λόγους που σχετίζονται τόσο με τη γεωγραφική θέση όσο και με το ιδιάζουσας σημασίας ζήτημα της «μυθολογίας» τους (η κατά Στάινερ θεματική των έργων τους) που επικεντρώνεται στο θεολογικό. Κατά τον κριτικό, αυτό είναι το κεντρικό σημείο διαφοροποίησής τους από τους λοιπούς, και επομένως το σημείο υπεροχής τους. Θα επανέλθω σ’ αυτό.
Κατά τα λοιπά, δεν πρόκειται να επιχειρήσω κάποια κριτική της κριτικής, καθότι θα ήταν βαρετό για τους περισσότερους και φαιδρό για όλους. Ο Στάινερ καθορίζει το χωροχρονικό πλαίσιο, εντάσσει σ’ αυτό τους συγγραφείς και τα έργα τους, επιχειρεί τις απαραίτητες συγκρίσεις, αναδεικνύοντας τη μοναδικότητά τους, τον sui generis χαρακτήρα τους με αγάπη και θαυμασμό. Εξηγεί, φερ’ ειπείν, γιατί ο Τολστόι είναι ο άμεσος απόγονος του Ομήρου και ποια η σχέση του με τα έπη ως κατ’ εξοχήν επικός συγγραφέας και γιατί ο Ντοστογιέφσκι είναι επίγονος του Σαίξπηρ (αλλά και του Θερβάντες. Βλ. Μίσκιν vs Δον Κιχώτης) ως ο μόνος σύγχρονος πολυφωνικός δραματουργός. Δεν λέω περισσότερα, ο αναγνώστης καλείται να απολαύσει το αποτέλεσμα.
Μου κέντρισε όμως το ενδιαφέρον, για προσωπικούς λόγους, εκείνο το οποίο προανέφερα: το γεγονός δηλαδή ότι αν στους άλλους μεγάλους συγγραφείς ο κοσμικός χαρακτήρας υπερισχύει, αυτό δεν ισχύει στους δύο Ρώσους, όπου η θεολογική τους στράτευση βρίσκεται κάθε στιγμή, σε κάθε σελίδα στο επίκεντρο της δημιουργίας τους. Ο Στάινερ κρίνει ότι η έκταση του περί Θεού ερωτήματος, σε συνδυασμό με το ανυπέρβλητο ταλέντο τους, επεξέτεινε τα όρια της καλλιτεχνικής τους δημιουργίας σε τέτοιο βαθμό που κατόρθωσαν να συμπεριλάβουν το όλο της ανθρώπινης ύπαρξης στα έργα τους. Δεν πρόκειται εδώ να αμφισβητήσω τον Δάσκαλο στο συμπέρασμα του, ότι δηλαδή ακριβώς αυτό είναι το σημείο υπεροχής τους έναντι των άλλων (τα είπαμε περί φαιδρότητας). Αν κάπως πρέπει να εξηγηθεί η ποιοτική διαφορά, ετούτη η παραδοχή ίσως είναι η καλύτερη δυνατή από όλες τις άλλες. Ίσως κι όχι.
Η σκέψη που αυτό το συμπέρασμα γέννησε στο δικό μου μυαλό όμως, είναι η ακόλουθη: Ας δεχτούμε ότι η μεταφυσική μυθολογία είναι το επίκεντρο και το συγκριτικό πλεονέκτημα. Από την άλλη πλευρά, όπως ο παραδέχεται κι ο ίδιος ο Στάινερ, όσες φορές ο δάσκαλος ή ο κατηχητής έπαιρνε τα πρωτεία από τον καλλιτέχνη, το αποτέλεσμα σαφώς υπολειπόταν (κλασικό παράδειγμα η «Ανάσταση» του Τολστόι). Πού θέλω να καταλήξω: Θεωρώ ότι έχει τρομερό ενδιαφέρον να εξετάσει κάποιος το σημείο αιχμής, σύγκλισης, σύγκρουσης μεταξύ καλλιτέχνη και κατηχητή, μεταξύ συγγραφέα και πιστού. Φυσικά εκ του αποτελέσματος κρινόμενα, μπορούμε να δούμε σε ποια έργα τους υπερίσχυε η μία ή η άλλη πλευρά τους. Αλλά και πάλι η διάκριση αυτή δεν μπορεί να είναι ποτέ ξεκάθαρη, καθώς συνεχώς υπεισέρχονται στοιχεία της διττής τους φύσης στο corpus του έργου των Τιτάνων.
Τελικά, πότε το σημείο υπεροχής (το μεταφυσικό) καθίσταται βαρίδι που συμπαρασύρει το λογοτεχνικό οικοδόμημα καθιστώντας το επισφαλές; Και πώς γίνεται τότε ακριβώς αυτό το «περί Θεού» να αποτελεί τη «ναυαρχίδα» της υπεροχής των δύο συγγραφέων έναντι ονομάτων όπως ο Τζόυς ή ο Προυστ με το εκκοσμικευμένο τους όριο δημιουργίας; Πόσος… Θεός είναι κατάλληλος για ένα αριστούργημα όπως το «Πόλεμος και Ειρήνη» ή οι «Αδελφοί Καραμάζοφ» και πόσος άνθρωπος για τη δογματική «Σονάτα του Κρόυτσερ»; Αν η απάντηση είναι το παραδεδεγμένο επιχείρημα ότι ο καλλιτέχνης οφείλει να επισκιάζει τον ιδεολόγο, εφόσον επιθυμεί να μην παραμείνει ο ίδιος μια σκιά κάτω από το λάβαρο της ιδεολογίας του, τότε ο Θεός θα εκδιωχθεί από τη Δημιουργία του, αφήνοντας τον λογοτέχνη στον Θρόνο. Αλλά, επανερχόμαστε, αυτή η «ένθεη ενθρόνιση» δεν είναι, υποτίθεται, η υπεροχή των δύο Ρώσων έναντι των λοιπών; Ετούτο που τους τοποθετεί στην κορυφή πώς μπορεί να είναι ταυτόχρονα και η αχίλλειος πτέρνα τους;
Προφανώς δεν έχω εγώ την απάντηση στο ερώτημα αυτό. Θα στοιχημάτιζα το εξής: ο Στάινερ αναζητά επιχειρήματα για εκείνο που θεωρεί αυταπόδεικτο στη νόησή του. Γι’ αυτόν υπάρχει μια συνέχεια από τον Όμηρο στο Αρχαίο Ελληνικό Δράμα, στο Ελισσαβετιανό και τέλος στον Τολστόι και τον Ντοστογιέφσκι. Αναζητά κοινούς τόπους, αναζητά συγκλίσεις και διαφοροποιήσεις και εκείνο το στοιχείο που συνεχώς αναφύεται είναι η πίστη, η θρησκεία. Χαρακτηριστικά αναφέρει: «το κύρος των δύο συγγραφέων δεν μπορεί να διαχωριστεί από τη θεολογική τους στράτευση». Τι κι αν, όπως είπαμε, οι δύο ημίθεοι μεγαλουργούν παρά τη στράτευσή τους, αποποιούμενοι την πανοπλία του Θεού, για να ενδυθούν τα κοσμικά ρούχα του λογοτέχνη. Έλα όμως που εκείνο το «παρά» μπορεί να γίνει κάλλιστα «εξαιτίας», αφήνοντάς μας τελικά να αναρωτιόμαστε, έως ότου απλά αποδεχτούμε το συναμφότερον του ανθρώπου – ακόμα και των δύο ημίθεων, οι οποίοι, σύμφωνα με τη δική μου κρίση, αναζητούσαν μάταια έξω από εκείνους αυτό που απλά στροβιλιζόταν με ιερή μανία εντός τους.
https://fotiskblog.home.blog/2022/08/...
April 23, 2012
A wonderful book. As weird and nerdy as it may sound, I enjoyed this book as a portable conversation. I carried it in my pocket on the T (for me, like a lot of readers, there's just no excuse for empty time) and read it intermittently over the course of a couple months. It got so I'd look forward to a little tete-a-tete with Professor Steiner amid the din of the trolley cars, heading to my girlfriend's place after a long day of work.
Steiner's prose is genteel, measured, with odd Englishy flourishes. He knows his stuff, zeroes in on what he's after, and has a wide range of referential material to support his case. I'm a sucker for any form of comparative literature, especially (but not only) when I have a sufficient bit of history with the authors in question. Either/or juxtapostions might be a little philosophically dubious, of course, and could arguably be seen as essentially reductive but I'm more prone to thinking in this kind of symbolic, quasi-Hegelian way myself so I generally ignore the naysaying argument and dive right in.
I think the juxtaposition is a fine one- Tolstoy and Dostoevsky have quite a bit in common on thier own merits (tormented existential doubts, political obsessions, large canvases, epiphanies, a tendency to didacticism and allegory, "Russian-ness") but the really interesting part is not so much where they differ but where they sort of interweave with each other: stylistically, philosophically, politically. Steiner is fascinated by the dialectic between the two writers' pas de deux and wisely decides to gently wind them up and let them go.
Here's the next-to-last paragraph, a gloriously architectured run-on sentence which serves as summation and precis. It's not a spoiler, don't worry, since the basic premise of the book is as easily found on the back cover as it would be pretty much anywhere else in the body of the text. I'm quoting it not only because I need to quote more in these things but because it's georgeous, spot-on, and powerfully imagined- antiphonal, really.
This is my idea of criticism- elegant, erudite, ironic, leaning just this side of lyricism. For contemporary readers (the book's from 1960, and Steiner himself says in a 1966 foreward that he would have phrased almost the entire book differently had he written it later) I don't know if it's outdated or fogeyish or what, but here it is:
"Thus, beyond their deaths, the two novelists stand in contrariety. Tolstoy, the foremost heir to the traditions of the epic; Dostoevsky, one of the major dramatic tempers after Shakespeare; Tolstoy, the mind intoxicated with reason and fact; Dostoevsky the contemner of rationalism, the great lover of paradox; Tolstoy, the poet of the land, of the rural setting and the pastoral mood; Dostoevsky, the arch-citizen, the master-building of the modern metropolis is the province of language; Tolstoy, thirsting for the truth, destroying himself and those around him in excessive pursuit of it; bDostoevsky, rather against the truth than against Christ, suspicious of total understanding and on the side of mystery; Tolstoy, 'keeping at all times', in Coleridge's phrase, 'in the high road of life'' Dostoevsky, advancing into the labyrinth of the unnatural, into the cellarage and morass of the soul; Tolstoy, like a colossus bestriding the palpable earth, evoking the realness, the tangibility, the sensible entirety of concrete experience; Dostoevsky, always on the verge of the hallucinatory, of the spectral, always vulnerable to daemonic intrusions into what might prove, in the end, to have been merely a tissue of dreams; Tolstoy, the embodiment of health and Olympian vitality; Dostoevsky, the sum of energies charged with illness and possession; Tolstoy, who saw the destinies of men historically and in the stream of time; Dostoevsky, who saw them contemporaneously and in the vibrant sense stasis of the dramatic moment; Tolstoy, borne to his grave in the first civil burial ever held in Russia; Dostoevsky, laid to rest in the cemetary of the Alexander Nevsky monastary in St Petersburg amid the solemn rites of the Orthodox church; Dostoevsky, pre-eminently the man of God; Tolstoy, one of His secret challengers."
Amen.
You could argue that this is antiquated thinking, and who knows but you might be right, but if this is high-blown critical language I for one am totally in favor.
***
The Millions has a wonderful essay up today wherein the author poses this question to several experts and writers. Your Humble Servant offered some blathering in the comments section. Read, enjoy, and comment!
http://www.themillions.com/2012/04/to...
Steiner's prose is genteel, measured, with odd Englishy flourishes. He knows his stuff, zeroes in on what he's after, and has a wide range of referential material to support his case. I'm a sucker for any form of comparative literature, especially (but not only) when I have a sufficient bit of history with the authors in question. Either/or juxtapostions might be a little philosophically dubious, of course, and could arguably be seen as essentially reductive but I'm more prone to thinking in this kind of symbolic, quasi-Hegelian way myself so I generally ignore the naysaying argument and dive right in.
I think the juxtaposition is a fine one- Tolstoy and Dostoevsky have quite a bit in common on thier own merits (tormented existential doubts, political obsessions, large canvases, epiphanies, a tendency to didacticism and allegory, "Russian-ness") but the really interesting part is not so much where they differ but where they sort of interweave with each other: stylistically, philosophically, politically. Steiner is fascinated by the dialectic between the two writers' pas de deux and wisely decides to gently wind them up and let them go.
Here's the next-to-last paragraph, a gloriously architectured run-on sentence which serves as summation and precis. It's not a spoiler, don't worry, since the basic premise of the book is as easily found on the back cover as it would be pretty much anywhere else in the body of the text. I'm quoting it not only because I need to quote more in these things but because it's georgeous, spot-on, and powerfully imagined- antiphonal, really.
This is my idea of criticism- elegant, erudite, ironic, leaning just this side of lyricism. For contemporary readers (the book's from 1960, and Steiner himself says in a 1966 foreward that he would have phrased almost the entire book differently had he written it later) I don't know if it's outdated or fogeyish or what, but here it is:
"Thus, beyond their deaths, the two novelists stand in contrariety. Tolstoy, the foremost heir to the traditions of the epic; Dostoevsky, one of the major dramatic tempers after Shakespeare; Tolstoy, the mind intoxicated with reason and fact; Dostoevsky the contemner of rationalism, the great lover of paradox; Tolstoy, the poet of the land, of the rural setting and the pastoral mood; Dostoevsky, the arch-citizen, the master-building of the modern metropolis is the province of language; Tolstoy, thirsting for the truth, destroying himself and those around him in excessive pursuit of it; bDostoevsky, rather against the truth than against Christ, suspicious of total understanding and on the side of mystery; Tolstoy, 'keeping at all times', in Coleridge's phrase, 'in the high road of life'' Dostoevsky, advancing into the labyrinth of the unnatural, into the cellarage and morass of the soul; Tolstoy, like a colossus bestriding the palpable earth, evoking the realness, the tangibility, the sensible entirety of concrete experience; Dostoevsky, always on the verge of the hallucinatory, of the spectral, always vulnerable to daemonic intrusions into what might prove, in the end, to have been merely a tissue of dreams; Tolstoy, the embodiment of health and Olympian vitality; Dostoevsky, the sum of energies charged with illness and possession; Tolstoy, who saw the destinies of men historically and in the stream of time; Dostoevsky, who saw them contemporaneously and in the vibrant sense stasis of the dramatic moment; Tolstoy, borne to his grave in the first civil burial ever held in Russia; Dostoevsky, laid to rest in the cemetary of the Alexander Nevsky monastary in St Petersburg amid the solemn rites of the Orthodox church; Dostoevsky, pre-eminently the man of God; Tolstoy, one of His secret challengers."
Amen.
You could argue that this is antiquated thinking, and who knows but you might be right, but if this is high-blown critical language I for one am totally in favor.
***
The Millions has a wonderful essay up today wherein the author poses this question to several experts and writers. Your Humble Servant offered some blathering in the comments section. Read, enjoy, and comment!
http://www.themillions.com/2012/04/to...
June 2, 2022
TOLSTOY OR DOSTOEVSKY (first published in 1959) was recommended to me (ages ago) by one of my university professors, when I attended a seminar on Russian literature. I wish I had read it sooner.
Steiner argues that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are the two greatest writers of all time. He suggests Tolstoy follows the tradition of Homer, the tradition of epic writing, he describes him as a moralist with clear didactic purposes in mind. Tolstoy believed salvation could only be found in the countryside, he usually associated the city with corruption and sin in his work.
Dostoevsky's writing is closer to tragic drama, to Shakespearean tragedy. He explores the depths of the individual soul including the darker side of the human experience. Dostoevsky is not interested in the countryside, he is attracted to the complexity of urban areas, where you can find both the good and the bad, the saintly and the demonic.
Religion plays an important part for both writers. Tolstoy 's religious ideas are heterodox and clearly developed in his writings. Dostoevsky's ideas are heterodox too, there are lengthy discussions about religion in his work, but religion occupies a conflicted space. The are no clear religious solutions in his novels, in fact, Dostoevsky offers no clear, outright answers for anything. There is always some ambiguity there, the reader must find his own way as best he can. However, Tolstoy, the paternalistic colossus, knows the way to happiness and will take you there if only you follow his counsel.
Despite being one of Steiner's earlier books, TOLSTOY OR DOSTOEVSKY is as erudite, clear and informative as his more mature work. The great George Steiner never disappoints.
Highly recommended for readers who have read some Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and wish to learn more.
Steiner argues that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are the two greatest writers of all time. He suggests Tolstoy follows the tradition of Homer, the tradition of epic writing, he describes him as a moralist with clear didactic purposes in mind. Tolstoy believed salvation could only be found in the countryside, he usually associated the city with corruption and sin in his work.
Dostoevsky's writing is closer to tragic drama, to Shakespearean tragedy. He explores the depths of the individual soul including the darker side of the human experience. Dostoevsky is not interested in the countryside, he is attracted to the complexity of urban areas, where you can find both the good and the bad, the saintly and the demonic.
Religion plays an important part for both writers. Tolstoy 's religious ideas are heterodox and clearly developed in his writings. Dostoevsky's ideas are heterodox too, there are lengthy discussions about religion in his work, but religion occupies a conflicted space. The are no clear religious solutions in his novels, in fact, Dostoevsky offers no clear, outright answers for anything. There is always some ambiguity there, the reader must find his own way as best he can. However, Tolstoy, the paternalistic colossus, knows the way to happiness and will take you there if only you follow his counsel.
Despite being one of Steiner's earlier books, TOLSTOY OR DOSTOEVSKY is as erudite, clear and informative as his more mature work. The great George Steiner never disappoints.
Highly recommended for readers who have read some Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and wish to learn more.
July 9, 2024
The thing about Steiner that can be hard to grasp at first is that, in the end, he’s not really saying that much. He has a basic thesis, interesting, sometimes provocative, but one that can always be summed up in a couple of lines. What fills out his books, and what makes him a joy to read, is the sheer scale of his thinking. He wraps his head around his theme over and over, bringing in as far-flung points of reference as his theory will hold. Like Heraclitus's image of the river, it’s the one idea, but never said the same way twice.
His book “Tolstoy or Dostoevsky” is a great example of this talent. You could say his thoughts on Tolstoy don’t go much beyond Berlin’s just-about-perfect essay “The Hedgehog and the Fox” What Steiner adds though, is how many ways he comes at the core idea again and again. Through Shakespeare, through Aeschylus, through the Gospels. Steiner uses every masterpiece as a doorway to another masterpiece, and layers meaning on meaning.
In Steiner, we get a perfect balance of baroque style and classical control. He never lets his metaphors get ahead of him like say, Bloom. Steiner always keeps his hand firmly on the wheel, especially when he’s doing donuts in the parking lot of the western canon.
His book “Tolstoy or Dostoevsky” is a great example of this talent. You could say his thoughts on Tolstoy don’t go much beyond Berlin’s just-about-perfect essay “The Hedgehog and the Fox” What Steiner adds though, is how many ways he comes at the core idea again and again. Through Shakespeare, through Aeschylus, through the Gospels. Steiner uses every masterpiece as a doorway to another masterpiece, and layers meaning on meaning.
In Steiner, we get a perfect balance of baroque style and classical control. He never lets his metaphors get ahead of him like say, Bloom. Steiner always keeps his hand firmly on the wheel, especially when he’s doing donuts in the parking lot of the western canon.
March 15, 2012
Having a girlfriend devoted to Russian literature I endeavored to read everything by Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. She preferred the former, so I almost finished him. I preferred Tolstoy and only read a portion of his work. Such is love.
I approached Steiner with the naive expectation that he would provide me with arguments pro and con our respective preferences, maybe helping me understand and appreciate both my girlfriend and Dostoevsky better. He didn't, though I cannot fault his erudition or writing style for that.
I approached Steiner with the naive expectation that he would provide me with arguments pro and con our respective preferences, maybe helping me understand and appreciate both my girlfriend and Dostoevsky better. He didn't, though I cannot fault his erudition or writing style for that.
April 14, 2018
Ένα ερώτημα που δεν απαντήθηκε από τον ίδιο αλλά το υπέροχο αυτό βιβλίο-δοκίμιο βοηθάει εμάς να δώσουμε τη δική μας απάντηση. Τολστόϊ διάβασα αρκετά μικρή ( Πόλεμος και Ειρήνη και Άννα Καρένινα), παρότι αναγνώρισα το μεγαλείο του δεν μπόρεσε ποτέ να με συνεπάρει. Το πρώτο βιβλίο που διάβασα από Ντοστογιέφσκι ήταν ο Ηλίθιος όταν ήμουν φοιτήτρια, αγόρασα μετά από αυτό σχεδόν όλα τα βιβλία του. Ο Ηλίθιος παρέμεινε πάντα το αγαπημένο μου.
Ο Σταινερ σε μια παράγραφο του αιτιολογεί τη δική μου προτίμηση: "Σε αντίθεση με τον Τολστοϊ , ο άτεγκτος έλεγχος του οποίου επί των ηρώων του και η παντογνωσία του δεν είναι παρά μια μεταφορά για τον τρόπο με τον οποίο κυβερνά ο Θεός τις τύχες των ανθρώπων, ο Ντοστογιέφσκι,όπως κάθε γνήσιος δραματουργός, μοιάζει να ακούει μέσα του την ανεξαρτησία και απρόβλεπτη δυναμική της δράσης".
Επίσης ο Τολστόϊ ήταν γεμάτος φύση , φως και δύναμη , ο Ντοστογιέφσκι γοτθικός , χωρίς να φοβάται ποτέ την αρρώστια , τα υπόγεια, τις αδυναμίες και το σκοτάδι,ίσα ίσα πίστευε ότι αυτά κάποια στιγμή μπορούν να οδηγήσουν στο φως.
Ευχαριστώ επίσης τον Σταινέρ ,όχι μόνο γιατί με βοήθησε να αιτιλογήσω τη προτίμηση μου αλλά και γιατί με βοήθησε να καταλάβω γιατί ακριβώς αγαπώ τον Nick Cave, είναι ο Ντοστογιέφσκι της μουσικής και των στίχων!
Ο Σταινερ σε μια παράγραφο του αιτιολογεί τη δική μου προτίμηση: "Σε αντίθεση με τον Τολστοϊ , ο άτεγκτος έλεγχος του οποίου επί των ηρώων του και η παντογνωσία του δεν είναι παρά μια μεταφορά για τον τρόπο με τον οποίο κυβερνά ο Θεός τις τύχες των ανθρώπων, ο Ντοστογιέφσκι,όπως κάθε γνήσιος δραματουργός, μοιάζει να ακούει μέσα του την ανεξαρτησία και απρόβλεπτη δυναμική της δράσης".
Επίσης ο Τολστόϊ ήταν γεμάτος φύση , φως και δύναμη , ο Ντοστογιέφσκι γοτθικός , χωρίς να φοβάται ποτέ την αρρώστια , τα υπόγεια, τις αδυναμίες και το σκοτάδι,ίσα ίσα πίστευε ότι αυτά κάποια στιγμή μπορούν να οδηγήσουν στο φως.
Ευχαριστώ επίσης τον Σταινέρ ,όχι μόνο γιατί με βοήθησε να αιτιλογήσω τη προτίμηση μου αλλά και γιατί με βοήθησε να καταλάβω γιατί ακριβώς αγαπώ τον Nick Cave, είναι ο Ντοστογιέφσκι της μουσικής και των στίχων!
February 11, 2016
Κλασική (δηλαδή ερμηνευτικά κρίσιμη) μελέτη από έναν μεγάλο για δύο συγγραφείς που καθόρισαν την Λογοτεχνία.
must read που λέμε και στο χωριό.
must read που λέμε και στο χωριό.
June 27, 2020
Tolstoi e Dostoievski tratados pelo magnífico George Steiner é tudo quanto de melhor se espera e ainda mais um bocadinho. Ser tão bom é, aliás, o seu único defeito. É que foi uma leitura ultra lenta porque recuava e relia o tempo todo.
Ia aqui recomendá-lo mas, felizmente, foi dos títulos que partilhei como estando em leitura que mais e melhor feedback me proporcionaram.
Ia aqui recomendá-lo mas, felizmente, foi dos títulos que partilhei como estando em leitura que mais e melhor feedback me proporcionaram.
September 20, 2023
Una lettura impegnativa che richiede molta concentrazione e assimilazione, ma che ti lascia dentro un'immensa ricchezza.
August 8, 2017
NON SOLO DOSTOEVSKIJ vs TOLSTOJ
Magari esagero, ma questo saggio individua nei due giganti russi i prototipi, o forse meglio le massime espressioni, dei due possibili modi di fare letteratura, vale a dire dei due possibili modi di porsi dell'essere umano di fronte al mondo: l'uomo è "nella storia del mondo", oppure è solo di fronte allo "stupore del mondo"? L'esperienza dell'uomo è un'epica o una tragedia? Tutto nasce da qui, e in effetti è molto difficile che uno si possa sentire in sintonia con entrambi gli autori: la "o" del titolo è pienamente azzeccata!
Magari esagero, ma questo saggio individua nei due giganti russi i prototipi, o forse meglio le massime espressioni, dei due possibili modi di fare letteratura, vale a dire dei due possibili modi di porsi dell'essere umano di fronte al mondo: l'uomo è "nella storia del mondo", oppure è solo di fronte allo "stupore del mondo"? L'esperienza dell'uomo è un'epica o una tragedia? Tutto nasce da qui, e in effetti è molto difficile che uno si possa sentire in sintonia con entrambi gli autori: la "o" del titolo è pienamente azzeccata!
January 1, 2016
This is a superb book. It abounds in literary-historical insight; it goes to the heart of these authors' achievements. The title is a bit misleading in that it's not really about deciding whether Tolstoy or Dostoevsky is "better" but about contrasting their literary modes: the point of the book, in fact, is that these two figures represent poles of thought and value between which western culture has been torn since its beginnings. Steiner's thesis is that, despite the many dislocations of modernity, western culture is still comprehensible as a unity, and the two Russian masters of the novel are best understood as carrying on ancient traditions: Tolstoy as the modern master of epic, the legatee of Homer, and Dostoevsky as our great tragedian, inheritor of the Athenian playwrights and of Shakespeare.
But Steiner has a bigger point to argue, namely, that these modes--epic and tragedy--are not merely aesthetic but metaphysical, ethical, and political, bearing within themselves two very different attitudes toward life. In the Homeric-Tolstoyan epic, we find a land-based evocation of natural rhythms, of the vast movements of the seasons, an ultimately hopeful sense that vitality surges on through and past the individual, who would do well to join him- or herself to the motions of the earth. In the Shakespearean-Dostoevskian tragedy, on the other hand, we see a deracinated court-and-city world of mistrust, suspicion, demonic urges, weird passions, perverse convictions, pervasive violence, cruel comedy, an underground perspective that ends in chastened humility before the suffering mystery of things. Therefore, Tolstoy's pagan-Christianity demands that we realize the Kingdom of God on earth and leads to such utopian political ideologies as communism, anarchism, and possibly national socialism. For Dostoevsky, on the other hand, free will in the face of the divine and of evil is paramount, is the essence of the holy in humanity; though the far less secular and far more reactionary of the two, Dostoevsky therefore has the metaphysical outlook more amenable to a free society. Steiner implies all this in a concluding allegorical re-write of the "Legend of the Grand Inquistor" as a debate between the Inquisitor (Tolstoy) and Christ (Dostoevsky), as if replying in advance to this article that made the rounds a few months ago.
Steiner insists that the New Criticism reigning in the 1950s when he wrote--with its focus on the well-wrought urn, the formally balanced lyric poem, the necessity of cool irony, the functionally authorless text--can't handle Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, can't address their old-fashioned creation of fiercely passionate religious/philosophical novels bursting with a moral urgency that can hardly be contained by the slyly ironic indirections of a T. S. Eliot or Henry James. Thus, he turns to an older and more holistic critical approach:
This book abounds in quotable passages--on the reasons America and Russia produced the weirdest and most intense nineteenth-century novels, on why Anna Karenina is better than Madame Bovary, on the function of Homeric metaphor, on the Gothic sources of Dostoevsky's manner and matter, on the two authors' varying fates under communism and liberalism, and more. A brilliant work of criticism.
But Steiner has a bigger point to argue, namely, that these modes--epic and tragedy--are not merely aesthetic but metaphysical, ethical, and political, bearing within themselves two very different attitudes toward life. In the Homeric-Tolstoyan epic, we find a land-based evocation of natural rhythms, of the vast movements of the seasons, an ultimately hopeful sense that vitality surges on through and past the individual, who would do well to join him- or herself to the motions of the earth. In the Shakespearean-Dostoevskian tragedy, on the other hand, we see a deracinated court-and-city world of mistrust, suspicion, demonic urges, weird passions, perverse convictions, pervasive violence, cruel comedy, an underground perspective that ends in chastened humility before the suffering mystery of things. Therefore, Tolstoy's pagan-Christianity demands that we realize the Kingdom of God on earth and leads to such utopian political ideologies as communism, anarchism, and possibly national socialism. For Dostoevsky, on the other hand, free will in the face of the divine and of evil is paramount, is the essence of the holy in humanity; though the far less secular and far more reactionary of the two, Dostoevsky therefore has the metaphysical outlook more amenable to a free society. Steiner implies all this in a concluding allegorical re-write of the "Legend of the Grand Inquistor" as a debate between the Inquisitor (Tolstoy) and Christ (Dostoevsky), as if replying in advance to this article that made the rounds a few months ago.
Steiner insists that the New Criticism reigning in the 1950s when he wrote--with its focus on the well-wrought urn, the formally balanced lyric poem, the necessity of cool irony, the functionally authorless text--can't handle Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, can't address their old-fashioned creation of fiercely passionate religious/philosophical novels bursting with a moral urgency that can hardly be contained by the slyly ironic indirections of a T. S. Eliot or Henry James. Thus, he turns to an older and more holistic critical approach:
[New Criticism's] concentration on the single image or cluster of language, its bias against extrinsic or biographical evidence, its preference for the poetic over the prosaic forms, are out of tune with the governing qualities of Tolstoyan and Dostoevskyan fiction. Hence the need for an "old criticism" equipped with the wide-ranging civilization of an Arnold, a Saint-Beuve, and a Bradley. Hence also the need for a criticism prepared to commit itself to a study of the looser and larger modes. In his Quintessence of Ibsenism, Shaw observed that "there is not one of Ibsen's characters who is not, in the old phrase, the temple of the Holy Ghost, and who does not move you at moments by the sense of that mystery."
When we seek to understand Anna Karenina, such old phrases are in order.
This book abounds in quotable passages--on the reasons America and Russia produced the weirdest and most intense nineteenth-century novels, on why Anna Karenina is better than Madame Bovary, on the function of Homeric metaphor, on the Gothic sources of Dostoevsky's manner and matter, on the two authors' varying fates under communism and liberalism, and more. A brilliant work of criticism.
February 7, 2017
Είναι Στάινερ, που και το πιο απλό θέμα μπορεί να το αναβιβάσει σε αντικείμενο αναγνωστικής απόλαυσης. Όταν το θέμα του, τώρα, είναι ήδη από σπουδαιότερα στη νεότερη λογοτεχνία (για δύο κορυφώσεις αντικρυστές και σπάνιες), απλώς καθόμαστε και απολαμβάνουμε την πρώιμη γραφή του Στάινερ να αναλύει δοκιμιακά το έργο του Τολστόι και του Ντοστογιέφσκι, φέρνοντάς τα σε διάλογο όχι μόνο με το κλασικό γαλλικό μυθιστόρημα και άλλους μυθιστοριογράφους, αλλά εντάσσοντάς τα στη χορεία που ακολουθούν, δίπλα στον Όμηρο ή τον Σαίξπηρ. Και, χωρίς προκατάληψη, ανατέμνει το ιδεολογικό περιεχόμενό τους. Το κείμενο του Στάινερ πιστοποιεί την εναρκτήρια διατύπωσή του ότι "η λογοτεχνική κριτική πρέπει να γεννιέται από ένα χρέος αγάπης" -παρότι και το "πρέπει" και το "χρέος αγάπης" ξέρουμε πως δύσκολα τα υπερασπίζεται ο σημερινός 'υποψιασμένος' αναγνώστης. Μια υπέροχη εισαγωγή σε έναν ολόκληρο κόσμο! Σαν να μας κάνει να αναρωτηθούμε ποιος νομίζει ότι μπορεί να διαβάζει τα μυθιστορήματα της τελευταίας, κάθε φορά, εσοδείας, χωρίς να έχει βυθιστεί κάποια στιγμή στη ζωή του Πιερ ή στον μύθο του Μέγα Ιεροεξεταστή, χωρίς να αγγίξει το θείο και δαιμονικό υποσυνείδητο των βασανισμένων ρώσων ηρώων της πόλης και της υπαίθρου, χωρίς να γίνει Σόνια ή Αλιόσα, αρνητής ή πιστός, λογικός ή δραματικός, χωρίς να κρατήσει ποτέ σημειώσεις από το δικό του υπόγειο;
December 21, 2020
"Dostoievski, avançando para o labirinto do antinatural, para as caves e os pântanos da alma; Tolstoi, como um colosso escarranchado na terra palpável, evocando a realidade, a tangibilidade, a inteireza sensível da experiência concreta"
April 24, 2013
Classic essay comparing the two giants of C19th Russian realism. For Steiner, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are the two greatest novelists of all time, and the spate of Russian C19th realist doorstoppers (the vintage of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgeniev, Gogol, Gorky and Goncharov) constitues one of the three major pinnacles of western culture - alongside Periclean Athens and Elizabethan and Jacobean England. One doesn't have to subscribe to this view to admire Steiner's brilliantly lucid, wide-ranging analysis.
Steiner's book is subtitled 'An essay in the old criticism'. This is a reference to the New Criticism prevalent at the time, which broadly speaking approached the text as an autonomous construct whose nature lay beyond the explicatory scope of historical, biographical or ideological discourse, which regarded the intention of the author as largely irrelevant, and according to which the role of the critic lay primarily in formal analysis. While Steiner does employ formal analysis insofar as it serves the purposes of his broader thesis, more generally he is guided by Sartre's view that "the technique of a novel always refers us back to the metaphysic of the novelist". As he notes in the preface, the fact that a version this view has since become resurgent in literary criticism may account in part for the longevity of Steiner's essay.
For Steiner, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky's novels are manifestations of contrasting and mutually irreconcilable world-views, which account for their contrasting character as artists. Essentially, Tolstoy is Homer, Dostoevsky is Shakespeare. Tolstoy has a Hellenic world-view, Dostoevsky's is tragic. Tolstoy's novels employ the techniques of the epic poet, Dostoevsky's those of the tragic dramatist. Whereas Tolstoy's 'metaphysic' is humanistic, rationalist and Pagan, Dostoevsky's tortured Christianity paves the way for existentialism, steeped in a belief in mankind's tragic freedom and the inevitability of human suffering. Whereas Tolstoy believed the good society could be created here on earth through reason, Dostoevsky believed salvation could only be attained through irrational faith. Whereas Tolstoy's genius lay in the passionate pursuit of truth at all costs, for Dostoevsky the truths of rationalism are an illusion and potentially an obstacle to faith.
Steiner's book is subtitled 'An essay in the old criticism'. This is a reference to the New Criticism prevalent at the time, which broadly speaking approached the text as an autonomous construct whose nature lay beyond the explicatory scope of historical, biographical or ideological discourse, which regarded the intention of the author as largely irrelevant, and according to which the role of the critic lay primarily in formal analysis. While Steiner does employ formal analysis insofar as it serves the purposes of his broader thesis, more generally he is guided by Sartre's view that "the technique of a novel always refers us back to the metaphysic of the novelist". As he notes in the preface, the fact that a version this view has since become resurgent in literary criticism may account in part for the longevity of Steiner's essay.
For Steiner, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky's novels are manifestations of contrasting and mutually irreconcilable world-views, which account for their contrasting character as artists. Essentially, Tolstoy is Homer, Dostoevsky is Shakespeare. Tolstoy has a Hellenic world-view, Dostoevsky's is tragic. Tolstoy's novels employ the techniques of the epic poet, Dostoevsky's those of the tragic dramatist. Whereas Tolstoy's 'metaphysic' is humanistic, rationalist and Pagan, Dostoevsky's tortured Christianity paves the way for existentialism, steeped in a belief in mankind's tragic freedom and the inevitability of human suffering. Whereas Tolstoy believed the good society could be created here on earth through reason, Dostoevsky believed salvation could only be attained through irrational faith. Whereas Tolstoy's genius lay in the passionate pursuit of truth at all costs, for Dostoevsky the truths of rationalism are an illusion and potentially an obstacle to faith.
December 25, 2017
The section on "The Idiot" (my favorite Dostoevsky novel) has so many new and thoughtful insights I had to get out the old index cards and make notes. I really enjoyed this book. He compares Tolstoy's "War and Peace" to the Iliad of Homer. I'm surprised and delighted by this analogy: the more I ponder it, the more clear it becomes! He also slices out Russian Literature as an anomaly, because it does not fit objective nor subjective criticism. Also, the effect of Flaubert is discussed on each author.
March 11, 2017
كتاب جيد وممتع جدًا. أنا كقاريء جيد لأعمال تولستوي ودستويفسكي وجدت إضافة حقيقية في هذا الكتاب، وهو يسير برفق وشغف وبساطة: يحاول الإجابة عن أسئلة طرحها في البداية مثل مشابهو عمل لعمل أو تأثير شخص في شخص أو أفضلية عمل على عمل، أو بواعث كتابة عمل معين، ومجمل الكتاب يقوم فيه بشيء ممتع للغاية.. إعادة قص الحدوتة باختصار بشكل قصصي كاشف.. يعني أثناء روايته للحكاية بيدخلك لعمقها ومقاصدها الحقيقية، وهنا طبعا بيتجاهل خرافات التفكيك والبنوية وما إلى ذلك.. ينطلق إلى العمل من قلب العمل وكاتبه على السواء.
كتاب ممتع وجميل.
كتاب ممتع وجميل.
November 11, 2017
Maravilloso. Increíble. Creo que no he disfrutado nunca tanto de un ensayo, así que estoy preparadísima para seguir leyendo a Steiner. (#TeamTolstoy, por cierto).
November 8, 2022
Tolstoy as epic poet and quasi-pagan. Dostoevsky as tragic dramatist and messianic Christian.
April 8, 2024
Pretty dense, exceptionally written. Need to return to this when I have read more Tolstoy.
June 26, 2022
George Steiner’s comparative study of the two giants of Russian literature, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, is subtitled “An Essay in the Old Criticism.” When it appeared in 1959, the “New Criticism” movement held the field in literary studies, so Steiner’s subtitle is programmatic. It should not be understood, however, as rejecting the insights of the New, which devoted attention to the text itself. Indeed, Steiner studied with some of the best practitioners of it. Instead, Steiner’s concern is that the approach was too narrow, especially when applied to forms such as the novel or drama. He turned out to be a harbinger.
Not only do novels generally profit from the broader context Steiner espouses, but the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, which present a particular problem, especially so. If the novels of Western Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—-from Samuel Richardson to Henry James—are taken as defining the form, then the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are outliers. They sprawl and present semi-digested blocks of philosophy (some New World writers—Poe, Hawthorne, and especially Melville—present a similar problem).
Part of the problem is formal. Both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky incorporated earlier literary forms in their work—forms said to be played out in their day and superseded by the novel. Tolstoy’s model was the epic poem; his point of reference—one could even say his peer—was Homer. Dostoevsky’s was tragic drama. His pole star was Shakespeare. It is remarkable, given their length, how much his books focus on dialogue and action.
But the oddity of these books is not only a matter of form. As Steiner sees it, the heart of the “problem” with these novels is that the Western novel is secular, concerned with this world alone, while Tolstoy and Dostoevsky spent their lives grappling with God. This concern unites and divides the two authors, for as Steiner demonstrates if the God of Tolstoy and the God of Dostoevsky were to meet, they probably wouldn’t get along.
Steiner’s book is divided into four long chapters. This may seem daunting, but the chapters are subdivided into sections. I read one section at a time and could follow the argument. The first chapter, the briefest, situates Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in the European literary tradition. The second offers a close reading of Tolstoy, arguing for the greatness of War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and his other works. The third does the same for Dostoevsky. Chapter Four is the payoff, devoted to the interplay of art and mythology in both authors. In an imaginative foray, Steiner recasts the poem of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov as a dialogue between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. He admits that Dostoevsky could not have known the points of contact between the philosophies of the Grand Inquisitor and Tolstoy since many of them were expressed in private notes and remained unpublished until after Tolstoy’s death, yet Steiner’s treatment illuminates. The final section builds on this and touches on the paradoxical posthumous fate of the two authors. Tolstoy, the landed patrician, was lauded in post-revolutionary Russia as a precursor of the new order. Dostoevsky, by contrast, though initially acclaimed for his grim portrayal of life in Tsarist Russia, quickly fell out of favor. Meanwhile, he was more influential than Tolstoy in the West as one of the giants of existential thought. Gide, Camus, and others acknowledged their debt to him.
George Steiner was the product of a world that no longer exists. It could be summed up by his self-identification as Middle European, although academically, his training was in Paris, Oxbridge, and the United States. He was thus uniquely fitted to appreciate the best of what the New Criticism had to offer, yet knew the value of the historical-philological work that it sought to displace. The result here is a valuable book that is both erudite and humane. Highly recommended, although no substitute for deep reading of Anna Karenina, The Idiot, and the other masterpieces he analyzes.
Not only do novels generally profit from the broader context Steiner espouses, but the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, which present a particular problem, especially so. If the novels of Western Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—-from Samuel Richardson to Henry James—are taken as defining the form, then the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are outliers. They sprawl and present semi-digested blocks of philosophy (some New World writers—Poe, Hawthorne, and especially Melville—present a similar problem).
Part of the problem is formal. Both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky incorporated earlier literary forms in their work—forms said to be played out in their day and superseded by the novel. Tolstoy’s model was the epic poem; his point of reference—one could even say his peer—was Homer. Dostoevsky’s was tragic drama. His pole star was Shakespeare. It is remarkable, given their length, how much his books focus on dialogue and action.
But the oddity of these books is not only a matter of form. As Steiner sees it, the heart of the “problem” with these novels is that the Western novel is secular, concerned with this world alone, while Tolstoy and Dostoevsky spent their lives grappling with God. This concern unites and divides the two authors, for as Steiner demonstrates if the God of Tolstoy and the God of Dostoevsky were to meet, they probably wouldn’t get along.
Steiner’s book is divided into four long chapters. This may seem daunting, but the chapters are subdivided into sections. I read one section at a time and could follow the argument. The first chapter, the briefest, situates Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in the European literary tradition. The second offers a close reading of Tolstoy, arguing for the greatness of War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and his other works. The third does the same for Dostoevsky. Chapter Four is the payoff, devoted to the interplay of art and mythology in both authors. In an imaginative foray, Steiner recasts the poem of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov as a dialogue between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. He admits that Dostoevsky could not have known the points of contact between the philosophies of the Grand Inquisitor and Tolstoy since many of them were expressed in private notes and remained unpublished until after Tolstoy’s death, yet Steiner’s treatment illuminates. The final section builds on this and touches on the paradoxical posthumous fate of the two authors. Tolstoy, the landed patrician, was lauded in post-revolutionary Russia as a precursor of the new order. Dostoevsky, by contrast, though initially acclaimed for his grim portrayal of life in Tsarist Russia, quickly fell out of favor. Meanwhile, he was more influential than Tolstoy in the West as one of the giants of existential thought. Gide, Camus, and others acknowledged their debt to him.
George Steiner was the product of a world that no longer exists. It could be summed up by his self-identification as Middle European, although academically, his training was in Paris, Oxbridge, and the United States. He was thus uniquely fitted to appreciate the best of what the New Criticism had to offer, yet knew the value of the historical-philological work that it sought to displace. The result here is a valuable book that is both erudite and humane. Highly recommended, although no substitute for deep reading of Anna Karenina, The Idiot, and the other masterpieces he analyzes.
August 9, 2009
I've read this book 4 times since I bought back in the 90s, it provides what I think is an excellent overview of two of the greatest writers of the 19th Century as well as Russia, he clearly shows how different they were in their philosophical/artistic/theological outlook. The book read so well one tends to forget it is a literary critique, I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in a wonderful study of two great minds and writers.
April 5, 2021
When bookish friends recommend novels for me to read, I’ve often asked whether it is a Tolstoyan or a Joyceian kind of book. By this, I’ve often lazily referred to the scope of the works I.e. do they speak broadly about “the human experience/condition” or are they more about the individual making their way through life ? That said, some books, such as those of Proust, defeat this parsimonious distinction.
I’m not a huge fan of works of prose that dwell too much - I prefer that in poetry (even though my poetic sensibilities are quite lacking, which says something). When it comes to prose, I’ve often found myself drawn to sprawling works, books that I believe tell me more about ways broad societies and peoples have gone about life. Such books, by studying the events of certain societies and locating human action and thought within the scope of those events, make strong claims about the existence of such a thing as ‘human nature’ (claims that the Rortyian pragmatist in me will not yield to, but is nonetheless extremely drawn to).
I’m more interested in such works than in those that intimately explore the quirks of individual psychology. So I prefer War and Peace to Crime and Punishment (I thought Raskolnikov was no genius, simply a troubled young man who could have used a therapist), Anna Karenina to Ulysses (hence the Tolstoy-Joyce distinction), Middlemarch to Mrs. Dalloway, etc. etc. As Steiner (disparagingly) notes, such books - as in the works of Tolstoy - are often seen as slices of life, not works of art (which is not to say, Steiner goes on, that they should be denied artistic and stylistic merit, as, say, appreciators of Flaubert's Madame Bovary tend to do when they speak of Tolstoy)
But I’ve often not been able to clearly/ convincingly state this distinction, partly because I lack the broad acquaintance with (western) literature that would allow me to authoritatively defend the distinction, and partly because counter examples (like Proust) make the distinction porous: such works can be both intimately individual and yet say a lot about the human condition, broadly. I’ve also never been able to explain why, despite my obvious aesthetic disfavour, I relate so much to books of the Joyce-Ian kind. After reading this book by Steiner, though, I feel like I finally somewhat have the language to state my case.
Steiner identifies two literary lineages: The epic lineage begins at Homer and ends at Tolstoy. It is grounded on the curation of the breadth of human experience, a search for ‘truth’, the insistence on reason and fact. It is based on the tangibility and concreteness of experience, and on these experiences of human beings located historically through linear time. In the end, epics help us locate ourselves as members of certain communities through marking us as heirs to certain broad traditions, ways of seeing the world etc.. In this way, they bring us into joint communion with the characters in the stories, even though they lived in different times and had many different social mores.
The tragic lineage begins at Sophocles (in Oedipus Rex) travels through Shakespeare and ends at Dostoevsky. Here, primacy is given less to reason and concrete experience and more to the ideas (and limits) of rationalism and perception; paradox is treasured and explored without necessary resolution. Here, skepticism is openly thrown at any idea of capital T “truth”, the conflicts of the human psyche are explored more. And yet here, the overwhelming fatalism of the Tolstoyan project does not exist: the human condition here is messy, but it can be approached and illumined from the perspective of individual experience, even if it cannot be mastered or improved.
Steiner argues that appreciators of literature can (obviously not perfectly) be divided into Tolstoyans or Dostoevskyians based on these distinctions, that even though they may claim to find value in both approaches to literature and to life, when pressed, they will pick a side. Some people relate primarily to epics; others to tragedies.
Generalizing from the statistically significant sample of one (myself), I agree. Even though temperamentally and somewhat philosophically I am more with Dostoevsky, an admirer of the subtleties of the human mind and a firm believer in contingency, aesthetically (which is most of what matters to me when I read fiction) I consider myself a Tolstoyan, a lover of his kind of realism, and readily identify with him.
I’m not a huge fan of works of prose that dwell too much - I prefer that in poetry (even though my poetic sensibilities are quite lacking, which says something). When it comes to prose, I’ve often found myself drawn to sprawling works, books that I believe tell me more about ways broad societies and peoples have gone about life. Such books, by studying the events of certain societies and locating human action and thought within the scope of those events, make strong claims about the existence of such a thing as ‘human nature’ (claims that the Rortyian pragmatist in me will not yield to, but is nonetheless extremely drawn to).
I’m more interested in such works than in those that intimately explore the quirks of individual psychology. So I prefer War and Peace to Crime and Punishment (I thought Raskolnikov was no genius, simply a troubled young man who could have used a therapist), Anna Karenina to Ulysses (hence the Tolstoy-Joyce distinction), Middlemarch to Mrs. Dalloway, etc. etc. As Steiner (disparagingly) notes, such books - as in the works of Tolstoy - are often seen as slices of life, not works of art (which is not to say, Steiner goes on, that they should be denied artistic and stylistic merit, as, say, appreciators of Flaubert's Madame Bovary tend to do when they speak of Tolstoy)
But I’ve often not been able to clearly/ convincingly state this distinction, partly because I lack the broad acquaintance with (western) literature that would allow me to authoritatively defend the distinction, and partly because counter examples (like Proust) make the distinction porous: such works can be both intimately individual and yet say a lot about the human condition, broadly. I’ve also never been able to explain why, despite my obvious aesthetic disfavour, I relate so much to books of the Joyce-Ian kind. After reading this book by Steiner, though, I feel like I finally somewhat have the language to state my case.
Steiner identifies two literary lineages: The epic lineage begins at Homer and ends at Tolstoy. It is grounded on the curation of the breadth of human experience, a search for ‘truth’, the insistence on reason and fact. It is based on the tangibility and concreteness of experience, and on these experiences of human beings located historically through linear time. In the end, epics help us locate ourselves as members of certain communities through marking us as heirs to certain broad traditions, ways of seeing the world etc.. In this way, they bring us into joint communion with the characters in the stories, even though they lived in different times and had many different social mores.
The tragic lineage begins at Sophocles (in Oedipus Rex) travels through Shakespeare and ends at Dostoevsky. Here, primacy is given less to reason and concrete experience and more to the ideas (and limits) of rationalism and perception; paradox is treasured and explored without necessary resolution. Here, skepticism is openly thrown at any idea of capital T “truth”, the conflicts of the human psyche are explored more. And yet here, the overwhelming fatalism of the Tolstoyan project does not exist: the human condition here is messy, but it can be approached and illumined from the perspective of individual experience, even if it cannot be mastered or improved.
Steiner argues that appreciators of literature can (obviously not perfectly) be divided into Tolstoyans or Dostoevskyians based on these distinctions, that even though they may claim to find value in both approaches to literature and to life, when pressed, they will pick a side. Some people relate primarily to epics; others to tragedies.
Generalizing from the statistically significant sample of one (myself), I agree. Even though temperamentally and somewhat philosophically I am more with Dostoevsky, an admirer of the subtleties of the human mind and a firm believer in contingency, aesthetically (which is most of what matters to me when I read fiction) I consider myself a Tolstoyan, a lover of his kind of realism, and readily identify with him.
August 6, 2024
Tolstói o Dostoievski és un assaig enlluernador, apte només per a lectors d'aquests autors - Steiner és un savi, i la seva erudició es gaudeix més si es coneixen com a mínim algunes de les obres de les que parla.
Complint aquest requisit, no puc recomanar-lo prou. No només fa una anàlisi interesantíssima de les obres de Tolstói i Dostoievski. També en dona una perspectiva que en motiva la lectura i en magnifica el geni.
Per a fans de la literatura rusa del XIX, Tolstói i/o Dostoievski, imprescindible.
Complint aquest requisit, no puc recomanar-lo prou. No només fa una anàlisi interesantíssima de les obres de Tolstói i Dostoievski. També en dona una perspectiva que en motiva la lectura i en magnifica el geni.
Per a fans de la literatura rusa del XIX, Tolstói i/o Dostoievski, imprescindible.
Want to read
February 3, 2020From Ch. 1: "The old criticism is engendered by admiration. It sometimes steps back from the text to look upon moral purpose."
June 19, 2020
The strange meta-regurgitated nature of our content-soaked lives today, has led me inexorably here, reading reviews of a review of a book, and seeking now to find some write-up on George Steiner’s views on Russian literature, how 60yrs hence these views have aged or not, and what the evolution of critical views of these authors has been across the decades.
I got a whole lot of George Steiner's stuff when I read of his death in February. I’ve only read the Death Of Ivan Ilyich, which I assume doesn’t count, so it’s with zero knowledge that I abandoned hope and entered this book. I leave with a hugely diminished opinion of myself and my distinguished record of having once started a Joseph Conrad short story before deciding the font size was too small. I came here to know what to think about Tolstoy and Dostoevsky without actually doing any work so I can pretend to prefer one over the other and say he aligns more with my personal philosophy and temperament, I didn’t know that would be a lot of work in itself. In the process I’ve discovered that it’s depressingly difficult to properly appreciate literature outside our time, that it requires multiple reading, parallel reading, and an intense understanding of historical contexts and a writer’s own literary/philosophical influences in order to transcend being just a story with a plot, a plot that has zero chance of being novel on its own.
When criticism is done well, it feels like some Russian folktale where the rich father speaks cryptically to his 5 inheritors, knowing that only the virtuous, intelligent, and industrious Alyosha, the youngest of course, will understand the words and reap the benefits. Alternatively it plays like a 1-1 conversation, where an outsider rather than feeling left out, can revel in the almost siamese preternatural connection between these 2 whose thoughts seem so transparent to each other yet so opaque to everybody else.
What is the bigger feat? Writing all of Tolstoy’s millions of pages, or reading them so many times that individual motifs and passages can be distilled, contrasted and contextualized, not just within the body of Tolstoy’s work but with other comparables like Flaubert.
Hadn’t realized that these giant books were serialized, published in installments over 6 years, in that sense this is 6 seasons of a soap-opera more than a book. So when the content strikes me as daytime-soapish, I’ve hit upon some unintended accuracy. Long books are way better because they do the one thing books/movies always mislead us with, the end of honeymoon phases. We spend an entire movie invested in the man and woman courting each other, and the ending is their successful relationship, where I’m always left with the conviction that such intense pre-relationship experiences will be impossible to live up to, and once the honeymoon phase is done the romance will be dead. Anna/Vronsky is a great example, and wouldn’t have happened in a normal size book that ended with Part 4.
Thomas Mann’s contrast of Olympian strength/endurance of Goethe/Tolstoy vs sickly weakness of Dostoevsky/Nietzsche. Dostoevsky was indeed epileptic, mock executed, etc, but lived in white heat energy.
In Idiot and Possessed both, he mentions the miraculous illumination and sharp sightedness of seizures. Like Nietzsche, through physical suffering seeing reality intensified. Proust’s asthma and Joyce’s blindness
Epic poem to small group. Drama to collective audience. But novel, one-to-one private anarchy
Novels used to be historic, took Jane Austen, Balzac, Dickens, George Eliot to show how everyday experience could be grounds for artistic and moral preoccupation
Dangers of excessive verissimilitude: Goethe thought art ran risk of becoming journalism. Base.
Impressionism made men see physical space with fresh eyes, vibrancy. Similarly literature could make them see contemporary events/time in same way.
Huge impact of Napoleon: all ambition became huge. Universal kingship. Balzac for instance.
1800s mostly peaceful. No war. European literature reflected period of remarkable stability. Major catastrophes were private. The only 2 writers who saw cracks of European stability properly were James (USA) and Conrad (Russian Empire).
Golden age of Russian novel from emancipation of serfs in 1861 to revolution in 1905, rivalling Periclean Athens, Elizabethan/Jacobean England. All predict the coming apocalypse for Russia.
Is Tolstoy epic? He compared childhood/boyhood/and/youth to Iliad. Epics have element of mythic, stylistic grandeur. Immensity, seriousness, temporal spaciousness.
Madam Bovary and Anna Karenina occupied same space. But Flaubert relied on vocabulary to bring objects to life so perfectly that reader could picture it perfectly. Tolstoy instead used magic, like impressionism, not realism. In Tolstoy, like in Iliad, physical objects described only in human context of being used
C. P. Snow: it is the demoniac works into which we most need the technical insights, if we are to get them into any sort of proportion at all
Scripture seems out of place in European novels, but Tol/Dos weave in religious conception of art
Like Romeo’s love for Juliet shown as great in contrast with previous love for Rosaline, similarly Count Vronsky’s love for Anna in contrast with previous love for Kitty. Prelude to self-knowledge.
Choosing perspective: Vronsky and Anna’s passion, shown through Kitty’s eyes. Like Homer letting old men exalt Helen. ‘Persuasion through indirection’
Tolstoy close to Homer in the luminous treatment of the erotic mood.
Great writing is like music: inner order/vitality and use of counterpoint, harmony, and motifs. Lesser writers stitch things together.
Poetry focuses us on the metric form, on particular metaphor, but prose needs to be gleaned from its whole. Russian literature specifically, therefore resistant to usual close study.
Tolstoy obsessed over presentation/narration in drafts/notes.
Homer’s ‘double-awareness’ of pathos and serenity, suffering in close-up but serenity in zoom-out, like Flemish painters who redrew pathos scenes like Icarus in the background of normal life of shepherd, ploughman going about their day
Tolstoy supposed to depend less than Dos/Dickens/Balzac on plot-driving elements, things happen naturally. But not exactly, they just seem natural because thick mesh of interwoven plots so numerous that you feel 1 in a million events have a chance of occurring given million events
Minor characters get rich backstory even in a single appearance. Integrity of a human person not reduce to plot element. Proust, in contrast, has minor characters left anonymous.
Like Homeric epics, starts ‘in the middle’ and ends inconclusively, not a neat wrap.
On Shakespeare: children, by nature truthful and not corrupted by society, find theater ridiculous and implausible. Natasha shown to be taken in by the theater as inability to distinguish between reality and artifice, as beginning of seduction by Kuragin.
Difference between epic and dramatic temper, Homer and Shakespeare. Absurdities, unnatural both in event and language, as if Shakespeare doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
Hegel: Epics like Tolstoy have ‘totality of objects’, unlike Dostoevsky where everything stripped down to human psychological nakedness, here teeming with detail.
Tolstoy wrote many dramas, but kept them strictly away from novels.Dostoevsky learned tremendously from drama but wrote no plays.
Dosto based murder not on history but contemporary. What Tolstoy was to art of historian, Dosto was to the journalist. Biggest complaint was unavailability of newspapers. Days after Crime and Punishment published, a Moscow student murdered an usurer in spookily similar circumstances
Murder of Nastasia in The Idiot based on true events. Then in Possessed, he works out connection between nihilism and murder, calls character Nechaiev, a real-life nihilistic leader who orders killing of a student. Notes for various murder trials informs Karamazov, Possessed.
Dosto’s own father was murdered by 3 serfs. Like Tolstoy, he saw the essential Russian issue of parricide metaphorically between liberal 1840s generation and radical heirs. Parricide - czar assassination.
Dosto’s imagination crystallized around a core of violent action. Dialogue culminate in gesture. Hegelian ‘totality of motion’.
Epic poetry sounds like it spans a long time, but not really. Illiad/Odyssey 50 days. Divine Comedy a week. But they suspend relentless forward motion of plot by delving deeper into history etc to give impression of sweeping time. Remembrance and prophecy.
Opposite true for drama, boiled down to essentials. Idiot 24hrs. Possessed 48hrs. Karamazov 5 days. His writing speed was just as hurtling as the rhythm of plot. First part of Idiot in 23 days.
Different realism: Turgenev/Goncharov mere painters of superficial. Tolstoy archaic and irrelevant. Dosto extreme revelation of Russian crisis and chaos.
Terribleness of city: Munch. Balzac, Dickens, Gogol, Hoffman. Dostoevsky raises it to the tragic+fantastic that Rilke and Kafka would follow him with.
Tolstoy devoid of gothic terror. Filled with clear hard light. No evil/perversion. Rejected melodrama. Pastoral simplicity.
Letters From The Underworld: I solemnly declare to you that I have often wished to become an insect, but could never attain my desire: contains germ for Metamorphosis. Consistent dehumanization of Industrial revolution. Metaphors for worms and vermin and flies.
From epic man as half-god, to loathsome half-man, odious and vile. Gogol/Turgenev/Tolstoy (Ivan Ilyich) present non-heroes who win our sympathy. Not so with Dostoevsky. Anti-hero. Camus The Fall.
By close of 19th century, treatment of religion became either romantic or sociopolitical. Both Tolstoy/Dosto were different, religious art like Michelangelo.
Is it coincidence that it is the depressive pessimism of Dostoevsky that is more instructive and revelatory about the rot of nihilism in society? Compare with Tolstoy’s terrestrial kingdom of God. Kill yourself, return to same situation that must be fulfilled.
Dostoevsky immersed in profound realities of spiritual universe. Removed from empirical world. Tolstoy opposite: steeped in sensory reality, grasp of ‘thingness’ of things. ‘Blood Wisdom’.
Tolstoy: Without humble ambiguity of Jesus, man would’ve rationally arrived at the virtues needed to attain kingdom of God. Dostoevsky: Jesus didn’t show self as god such that man can free self from within through belief rather than from without through miracle.
Tolstoy’s contrast between celestial sky and mortal earth is reminiscent of Carl Sagan Pale Blue Dot
Shaw and Tolstoy: a muscular vehemence and a contempt for bewilderment which suggest a defect of charity and of imagination. Orwell remarked on Tolstoy's leaning towards "spiritual bullying."
Tolstoy is omniscient narrator, thus the inner mental processes of characters are thin. Dostoevsky is shocked by character’s actions, a baffled spectator, hence drama is heightened.
Dosto: Man is terrifyingly free to perceive good and evil. 3 obstacles: miracles, church, and state. Without evil, there is no drive towards recognition of God. It is proof of existence of God, and existence of freedom. Freedom to refuse god must be equally real.
I got a whole lot of George Steiner's stuff when I read of his death in February. I’ve only read the Death Of Ivan Ilyich, which I assume doesn’t count, so it’s with zero knowledge that I abandoned hope and entered this book. I leave with a hugely diminished opinion of myself and my distinguished record of having once started a Joseph Conrad short story before deciding the font size was too small. I came here to know what to think about Tolstoy and Dostoevsky without actually doing any work so I can pretend to prefer one over the other and say he aligns more with my personal philosophy and temperament, I didn’t know that would be a lot of work in itself. In the process I’ve discovered that it’s depressingly difficult to properly appreciate literature outside our time, that it requires multiple reading, parallel reading, and an intense understanding of historical contexts and a writer’s own literary/philosophical influences in order to transcend being just a story with a plot, a plot that has zero chance of being novel on its own.
When criticism is done well, it feels like some Russian folktale where the rich father speaks cryptically to his 5 inheritors, knowing that only the virtuous, intelligent, and industrious Alyosha, the youngest of course, will understand the words and reap the benefits. Alternatively it plays like a 1-1 conversation, where an outsider rather than feeling left out, can revel in the almost siamese preternatural connection between these 2 whose thoughts seem so transparent to each other yet so opaque to everybody else.
What is the bigger feat? Writing all of Tolstoy’s millions of pages, or reading them so many times that individual motifs and passages can be distilled, contrasted and contextualized, not just within the body of Tolstoy’s work but with other comparables like Flaubert.
Hadn’t realized that these giant books were serialized, published in installments over 6 years, in that sense this is 6 seasons of a soap-opera more than a book. So when the content strikes me as daytime-soapish, I’ve hit upon some unintended accuracy. Long books are way better because they do the one thing books/movies always mislead us with, the end of honeymoon phases. We spend an entire movie invested in the man and woman courting each other, and the ending is their successful relationship, where I’m always left with the conviction that such intense pre-relationship experiences will be impossible to live up to, and once the honeymoon phase is done the romance will be dead. Anna/Vronsky is a great example, and wouldn’t have happened in a normal size book that ended with Part 4.
Thomas Mann’s contrast of Olympian strength/endurance of Goethe/Tolstoy vs sickly weakness of Dostoevsky/Nietzsche. Dostoevsky was indeed epileptic, mock executed, etc, but lived in white heat energy.
In Idiot and Possessed both, he mentions the miraculous illumination and sharp sightedness of seizures. Like Nietzsche, through physical suffering seeing reality intensified. Proust’s asthma and Joyce’s blindness
Epic poem to small group. Drama to collective audience. But novel, one-to-one private anarchy
Novels used to be historic, took Jane Austen, Balzac, Dickens, George Eliot to show how everyday experience could be grounds for artistic and moral preoccupation
Dangers of excessive verissimilitude: Goethe thought art ran risk of becoming journalism. Base.
Impressionism made men see physical space with fresh eyes, vibrancy. Similarly literature could make them see contemporary events/time in same way.
Huge impact of Napoleon: all ambition became huge. Universal kingship. Balzac for instance.
1800s mostly peaceful. No war. European literature reflected period of remarkable stability. Major catastrophes were private. The only 2 writers who saw cracks of European stability properly were James (USA) and Conrad (Russian Empire).
Golden age of Russian novel from emancipation of serfs in 1861 to revolution in 1905, rivalling Periclean Athens, Elizabethan/Jacobean England. All predict the coming apocalypse for Russia.
Is Tolstoy epic? He compared childhood/boyhood/and/youth to Iliad. Epics have element of mythic, stylistic grandeur. Immensity, seriousness, temporal spaciousness.
Madam Bovary and Anna Karenina occupied same space. But Flaubert relied on vocabulary to bring objects to life so perfectly that reader could picture it perfectly. Tolstoy instead used magic, like impressionism, not realism. In Tolstoy, like in Iliad, physical objects described only in human context of being used
C. P. Snow: it is the demoniac works into which we most need the technical insights, if we are to get them into any sort of proportion at all
Scripture seems out of place in European novels, but Tol/Dos weave in religious conception of art
Like Romeo’s love for Juliet shown as great in contrast with previous love for Rosaline, similarly Count Vronsky’s love for Anna in contrast with previous love for Kitty. Prelude to self-knowledge.
Choosing perspective: Vronsky and Anna’s passion, shown through Kitty’s eyes. Like Homer letting old men exalt Helen. ‘Persuasion through indirection’
Tolstoy close to Homer in the luminous treatment of the erotic mood.
Great writing is like music: inner order/vitality and use of counterpoint, harmony, and motifs. Lesser writers stitch things together.
Poetry focuses us on the metric form, on particular metaphor, but prose needs to be gleaned from its whole. Russian literature specifically, therefore resistant to usual close study.
Tolstoy obsessed over presentation/narration in drafts/notes.
Homer’s ‘double-awareness’ of pathos and serenity, suffering in close-up but serenity in zoom-out, like Flemish painters who redrew pathos scenes like Icarus in the background of normal life of shepherd, ploughman going about their day
Tolstoy supposed to depend less than Dos/Dickens/Balzac on plot-driving elements, things happen naturally. But not exactly, they just seem natural because thick mesh of interwoven plots so numerous that you feel 1 in a million events have a chance of occurring given million events
Minor characters get rich backstory even in a single appearance. Integrity of a human person not reduce to plot element. Proust, in contrast, has minor characters left anonymous.
Like Homeric epics, starts ‘in the middle’ and ends inconclusively, not a neat wrap.
On Shakespeare: children, by nature truthful and not corrupted by society, find theater ridiculous and implausible. Natasha shown to be taken in by the theater as inability to distinguish between reality and artifice, as beginning of seduction by Kuragin.
Difference between epic and dramatic temper, Homer and Shakespeare. Absurdities, unnatural both in event and language, as if Shakespeare doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
Hegel: Epics like Tolstoy have ‘totality of objects’, unlike Dostoevsky where everything stripped down to human psychological nakedness, here teeming with detail.
Tolstoy wrote many dramas, but kept them strictly away from novels.Dostoevsky learned tremendously from drama but wrote no plays.
Dosto based murder not on history but contemporary. What Tolstoy was to art of historian, Dosto was to the journalist. Biggest complaint was unavailability of newspapers. Days after Crime and Punishment published, a Moscow student murdered an usurer in spookily similar circumstances
Murder of Nastasia in The Idiot based on true events. Then in Possessed, he works out connection between nihilism and murder, calls character Nechaiev, a real-life nihilistic leader who orders killing of a student. Notes for various murder trials informs Karamazov, Possessed.
Dosto’s own father was murdered by 3 serfs. Like Tolstoy, he saw the essential Russian issue of parricide metaphorically between liberal 1840s generation and radical heirs. Parricide - czar assassination.
Dosto’s imagination crystallized around a core of violent action. Dialogue culminate in gesture. Hegelian ‘totality of motion’.
Epic poetry sounds like it spans a long time, but not really. Illiad/Odyssey 50 days. Divine Comedy a week. But they suspend relentless forward motion of plot by delving deeper into history etc to give impression of sweeping time. Remembrance and prophecy.
Opposite true for drama, boiled down to essentials. Idiot 24hrs. Possessed 48hrs. Karamazov 5 days. His writing speed was just as hurtling as the rhythm of plot. First part of Idiot in 23 days.
Different realism: Turgenev/Goncharov mere painters of superficial. Tolstoy archaic and irrelevant. Dosto extreme revelation of Russian crisis and chaos.
Terribleness of city: Munch. Balzac, Dickens, Gogol, Hoffman. Dostoevsky raises it to the tragic+fantastic that Rilke and Kafka would follow him with.
Tolstoy devoid of gothic terror. Filled with clear hard light. No evil/perversion. Rejected melodrama. Pastoral simplicity.
Letters From The Underworld: I solemnly declare to you that I have often wished to become an insect, but could never attain my desire: contains germ for Metamorphosis. Consistent dehumanization of Industrial revolution. Metaphors for worms and vermin and flies.
From epic man as half-god, to loathsome half-man, odious and vile. Gogol/Turgenev/Tolstoy (Ivan Ilyich) present non-heroes who win our sympathy. Not so with Dostoevsky. Anti-hero. Camus The Fall.
By close of 19th century, treatment of religion became either romantic or sociopolitical. Both Tolstoy/Dosto were different, religious art like Michelangelo.
Is it coincidence that it is the depressive pessimism of Dostoevsky that is more instructive and revelatory about the rot of nihilism in society? Compare with Tolstoy’s terrestrial kingdom of God. Kill yourself, return to same situation that must be fulfilled.
Dostoevsky immersed in profound realities of spiritual universe. Removed from empirical world. Tolstoy opposite: steeped in sensory reality, grasp of ‘thingness’ of things. ‘Blood Wisdom’.
Tolstoy: Without humble ambiguity of Jesus, man would’ve rationally arrived at the virtues needed to attain kingdom of God. Dostoevsky: Jesus didn’t show self as god such that man can free self from within through belief rather than from without through miracle.
Tolstoy’s contrast between celestial sky and mortal earth is reminiscent of Carl Sagan Pale Blue Dot
Shaw and Tolstoy: a muscular vehemence and a contempt for bewilderment which suggest a defect of charity and of imagination. Orwell remarked on Tolstoy's leaning towards "spiritual bullying."
Tolstoy is omniscient narrator, thus the inner mental processes of characters are thin. Dostoevsky is shocked by character’s actions, a baffled spectator, hence drama is heightened.
Dosto: Man is terrifyingly free to perceive good and evil. 3 obstacles: miracles, church, and state. Without evil, there is no drive towards recognition of God. It is proof of existence of God, and existence of freedom. Freedom to refuse god must be equally real.
October 10, 2024
What a banger
December 31, 2016
O melhor livro de crítica literária que teve nas minhas mãos, sem dúvida. Steiner se mergulha na basta produção literária dos dois maiores romancistas russos, Leon Tolstoi e Fiodr Dostoiévski, analisando suas formas de narrar desde um ponto de vista filosófico e muito profundo. Um livro de leitura obrigada, que abre olhos e abre mentes e te cativa mais e mais a medida que avançam as páginas.
September 3, 2024
Dostoevsky is what we have, Tolstoy is what we aspire to.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews