# Reading > General Literature >  How Embarassing Is It That Russia Imprisoned Some of Its Greatest Novelists?

## keilj

Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn are two that spring to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Both were sent to prison camps for things they had written - Dostoevsky was even subjected to a mock execution

How lamentable must this be as part of Russia's history - locking away men who have contributed so much to the world

And, while engaging this discussion - I am also aware of artists in the United States who had to flee to Europe becasue of McCarthyism

----------


## mayneverhave

It's hardly a phenomenom unique to 19th century Russia. Governments have been imprisoning, executing, and exiling writers who are considered seditious since there have been governments and writers.

As to your question: how lamentable is it? I'm rather ambivalent. On some level, a writer is aloof from society, a man on his own, so to speak. The fact that governments have exiled writers does mean at least one thing: at least some one is reading.

----------


## keilj

> The fact that governments have exiled writers does mean at least one thing: at least some one is reading.


Ha.

Yeah, good point. Thoreau was essentially a fugitive in the U.S. becasue of the things he wrote about and did

While I don't think it is unique - I do think Russia kind of holds a dubious honor for having imprisoned some of their absolute greats. Imagine if England had imprisoned Shakespeare and Dickens...

But yes, persecution for ideas is something that will never die. The comic book writer Frank Miller has some amazing things to say about censorship and its still-relevant dangers

----------


## Modest Proposal

Dante was imprisoned. One thing that I think you may be noticing, is that though most countries have a history of censorship and oppression, Russia has the distinction of practicing this type of blatant oppression hundreds of years after most other western nations have stopped.

As far as artists being persecuted, you should look at some of what happened to African writers of the 20th and 21st centuries. Not just imprisonment, but often torture and sometimes death.

----------


## Desolation

Well, had Dostoevsky not been sent to prison, he most likely would not have had the spiritual awakening and bleak worldview which lead to the writing of _Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot,_ and _The Brothers Karamazov_. Do we really want to live in a world without these works? 

So, in essence, we should be grateful that the Russian government decided to imprison him.

----------


## neilgee

Stalin would get personally involved in the persecution of writers. Mikhail Bulgakov wrote one of Stalin's favourite plays, The Days of the Turbins. Stalin went to see this play numerous types despite it's supposedly seditious content, and there was trouble when those in charge of such things banned the play! Even the censors didn't know where they stood with Stalin. Yet Bulgakov after initially being offered a lifeline personally by Stalin who got him a job in the theatre was subsequently frozen out, all his ideas were rejected and eventually he was unable to work, and his masterpiece stayed in a drawer until after Bulgakov's and Stalin's deaths. 

Yes, I would be embarrassed to have had a leader like that of my country, but it's not as if anybody was allowed to vote him in or out of power.

----------


## stlukesguild

Dante
Victor Hugo
Sir Walter Raleigh
Baudelaire
Oscar Wilde
Marlowe (a political execution?)

and any number of others... including quite possibly Chaucer (_Who Murdered Chaucer_ suggests Chaucer's sudden disappearance was due to another political execution) and William Blake supposedly escaped charges of treason because he was portrayed as mad.

----------


## OrphanPip

I'd think the mass murder committed by the Stalinist, and the vast negligence of the Czars is far more embarrassing than sentencing some writers to a stint in jail lol.

----------


## Modest Proposal

> Dante
> Victor Hugo
> Sir Walter Raleigh
> Baudelaire
> Oscar Wilde
> Marlowe (a political execution?)
> 
> and any number of others... including quite possibly Chaucer (_Who Murdered Chaucer_ suggests Chaucer's sudden disappearance was due to another political execution) and William Blake supposedly escaped charges of treason because he was portrayed as mad.


I think the topic is more about imprisoning writers for their writings. Not just imprisoning people who happened to be writers. Wasn't Wilde imprisoned for pedophilia?

----------


## OrphanPip

> I think the topic is more about imprisoning writers for their writings. Not just imprisoning people who happened to be writers. Wasn't Wilde imprisoned for pedophilia?


For "Gross indecency" with other men. Not pedophilia.

----------


## keilj

> One thing that I think you may be noticing, is that though most countries have a history of censorship and oppression, Russia has the distinction of practicing this type of blatant oppression hundreds of years after most other western nations have stopped.


This is a very good point. I think this is why Russia's actions are quite embarrassing - because they subjected learned men to this, and it was not done in the dark ages, but quite recently. 

But McCarthyism might have been just as bad - for having been done in such a "free" country. 

I do find myself reading some Russian novels and sort of trying to spy what might have been danced around or lightened a bit by the author - for fear of being sent to Siberia

----------


## JCamilo

It is a mockery thinking Russia did it centuries after some western civilized non-sense. The very thread openner named the persecution in the XX century, United States. 
Neruda for Chile, Graciliano Ramos for Brazil are other examples. And I am sure we will find in many nations, writers who just escaped from jail because what they wrote due to their popularity or a particular friend in a high place.

----------


## keilj

> It is a mockery thinking Russia did it centuries after some western civilized non-sense. The very thread openner named the persecution in the XX century, United States. 
> Neruda for Chile, Graciliano Ramos for Brazil are other examples. And I am sure we will find in many nations, writers who just escaped from jail because what they wrote due to their popularity or a particular friend in a high place.


Indeed - knowing human nature - there will always be bigotry (which I think typically amount to sadism), so will always be those thought-police people who want to hurt people for their very ideas


I think however my general intent for opening this thread was just trying to picture the Russian lit teachers today - explaining to their students how Dostoevsky is not only a Russian master, but respected worldwide as one of the great masters, and then explaining why he was sent to Siberia

----------


## Binx

Actually, Russia is unique. Other countries may have also exiled or imprisoned writers, but Russia is notorious for it, and with good reason. 

I looked all over for this fantastic passage that I read awhile back, but I could not find it. It was about the difference between the perception of literature in countries like the U.S. versus Russia. It pointed that no one was ever sent to Alaska for something they wrote, yet in Russia it was normal for authors to be exiled. The author claimed that the main difference with Russia was the Russian perception of literature; in Russia literature has a significance that it does not have in the U.S. 

Although this may be somewhat embarrassing, it may also be indicative of a cultural affinity to literature (and other art forms), and therefore be more embarrassing for countries that have not persecuted their writers. 

Just a thought.

----------


## Modest Proposal

> For "Gross indecency" with other men. Not pedophilia.


I KNOW this kind of talk can get ugly really fast so I will start off by saying that it is abominable by any measure of human decency to use the state to patrol such things as peoples "decency", and as insult to injury, Wilde's death most likely at the hands of an illness he caught in the terrible jail conditions is similarly tragic.

However, what I was saying, I believe, still stands. And that what the OP was noting was the IRONY that people known because the greatness of their writing where imprisoned for the same reason. The unreasonableness of Wilde's prosecution aside, he wasn't attacked for his writing but for breaking a law (that forbidding sodomy). Again, I'm not supporting the law but noticing the difference between this and what happened in Russia.

----------


## JCamilo

Obviously, Wilde is not the only example in Stukles list and frankly, the difference between Russia and England was mininal, one was killed because his political ideas, other because he was gay. Of course, that was very humanistic and pleasant. 
Do we need a list again - because the list was given - that proves Russian is not unique?
Nazists from that wonderful progressive Germany, killed several intelectuals just like the Czars did. Walter Benjamin was not killed because he sucided before and the number of peers who run away to other countries was not small. Marcathism did almost the same. And a little before the Czars (lets remember it really started with Pushkin) France killed several individuals for beliving in political ideals other than the french revolution. 

As Dostoievisky go, he was not so innocent, neither his writtings. He had a political position and what got him in the jail was not Myshkin goodness or Ivan dreams.

----------


## stlukesguild

Many of the great early British writers were aristocrats and involved in various intrigues of one sort or another. Meeting with the wrong person at the wrong time or place, or saying the wrong thing could lead to serious political repercussions. Such was the fate of Sir Walter Raleigh. Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd's problems arose from political and religious reprisals in response to written political treatises attributed to them: 

_In early May 1593 several bills were posted about London threatening Protestant refugees from France and the Netherlands who had settled in the city. One of these, the "Dutch church libel," written in blank verse, contained allusions to several of Marlowe's plays and was signed, "Tamburlaine". On 11 May the Privy Council ordered the arrest of those responsible for the libels. The next day, Marlowe's colleague Thomas Kyd was arrested. Kyd's lodgings were searched and a fragment of a heretical tract was found. Kyd asserted, possibly under torture, that it had belonged to Marlowe. Kyd suggested that during the time in which he and Marlowe were sharing a workroom, the document had found its way among his papers. Marlowe's arrest was ordered on 18 May. On 30 May, Marlowe was murdered. Various versions of Marlowe's death were current at the time. Francis Meres says Marlowe was "stabbed to death by a bawdy serving-man, a rival of his in his lewd love" as punishment for his "epicurism and atheism._
-from Wikipedia

John Milton was forced into hiding and briefly imprisoned as a result of his writings in defense of the British Republic. _The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates_ defended popular government and implicitly sanctioned the regicide. The _Defensio Pro Populo Anglicano_ was written in further defense of the legitimacy of the British Republic having seized control and a dismissal of attempts by supporters of the aristocracy including the Catholic Church to portray the execution of James I as a martyrdom. Upon the Restoration Milton escaped serious reprisals as a result of the assistance of high-ranking friends (including the poet Marvell) and as a result that the poet's blindness was imagined as God's own retribution.

Chaucer, it is argued in _Who Murdered Chaucer_, by several academics, was possibly but one of endless writers "silenced" during the dark days following the overthrow of Richard II by Henry IV and Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury as part of the attempt by the blood-thirsty Arundel to re-write history and eliminate the religious freedoms and silence any criticism of the abuses of the church (abuses well documented in Chaucer's writings) which Richard II had tolerated.

Charles Baudelaire and Gustave Flaubert were both faced with repeated censorship and legal battles as a result of their writings, while Emile Zola may have paid the ultimate price as a result of his open letter, _J'accuse_, in support of Captain Dreyfus. There were several attempts upon his life and the writer died of carbon monoxide poisoning several years later... as a probable result of one of his enemies having blocked his chimney. Victor Hugo was exiled for his opposition, especially in writing, to Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III). He was offered amnesty, but refused to return to France at this time knowing it would mean ending his written opposition to the abuses of Louis Napoleon.

There are endless examples of writers (perhaps going back to Socrates) being confronted with reprisals from those in power (church and state and otherwise) for the simple reason that writing often deals with an exploration of ideas... ideas that are seen as threatening or dangerous to those in power. This is in no way unique to Russia.

Dostoevsky, by the way, was not arrested and imprisoned for his writings, but rather for his being part of the liberal intellectual group, the Petrashevsky Circle.

----------


## Lulim

Imprisonment and opression of writers is by no means limited to the past, it is happening today for reasons already mentioned, and it is not limited to russia either.

Zhao Dagong was imprisoned in China on January, 11th, 2010, and interrogated for several days 24 hours a day. Since his release, he is being observed. Also imprisoned in China was Liao Yiwu.

Julio Cesar Mendivil Trelles was imprisoned in Peru in 1999. 

Ken Saro Wiwa was executed in 1995 in Nigeria.

----------


## mal4mac

> Dante was imprisoned...


Was he? I know he was permanently exiled from Florence, but haven't read that he was imprisoned.

Dickens father, and his mother and sister, ended up in debtors prison. Dickens wasn't imprisoned, but did have to suffer child labour, in conditions a lot worse than many prisons. In fact, he considered his Sunday visits to the prison a treat! 

Compared to Russia (or even the USA!) the 20th century British state, in peace time, has been kind to its authors. Those who 'suffered for their art' had to seek it out - Orwell wasn't made down and out by the British state. Of course some authors, like the fictional author in Orwell's "Aspidistra", had a hard time making money from their art. But they could always get a job in a bank, like Eliot, or in a library, like Larkin. Orwellian moanings about this 'being bad for the soul' never looked convincing - and made his novels very tedious...

Twentieth century France also looked a pretty safe haven in peace time - Sartre could seemingly get away with spouting any kind of revolutionary tosh (including supporting Stalin) with no repercussions...

Germany wasn't too bad, if you supported Hitler (e.g., Heidegger), otherwise ... not so good.

England wasn't so kind to its computer scientists, though - look at what it did to Turing...

----------


## JCamilo

There is more than one form of repression, some have nice liberal guises. Take for example, the political correctness that affects the judgment of authors like Twain, Conrad, Melville. It is also repression. Or how Rimbaud or Verlaine (More even Verlaine) had to adhere to a total non-conformism to fit to the label "damned poet" and be accepted for french society in someway. 
Oscar Wilde for example, you can not really separete an author from his works, and his works were used as arguments towards his "crimes". It is pretty much clear that english society finally understood his irony and was pissed to discover he was making fun of the upper class.

----------


## Mockingbird_z

the worst thing was when almost all Russian Intelligentsia was forced to leave the country when Soviet Government took the power. Most writers couldn't afford publishing in their mother country. This is the part of our history I am most ashamed of. 
Dostoevsky was sent to Siberia, to Omsk, but at that time it was already a place good enough to live, besides he was in his own country!

----------


## Binx

> Obviously, Wilde is not the only example in Stukles list and frankly, the difference between Russia and England was mininal, one was killed because his political ideas, other because he was gay. Of course, that was very humanistic and pleasant. 
> Do we need a list again - because the list was given - that proves Russian is not unique?
> Nazists from that wonderful progressive Germany, killed several intelectuals just like the Czars did. Walter Benjamin was not killed because he sucided before and the number of peers who run away to other countries was not small. Marcathism did almost the same. And a little before the Czars (lets remember it really started with Pushkin) France killed several individuals for beliving in political ideals other than the french revolution. 
> 
> As Dostoievisky go, he was not so innocent, neither his writtings. He had a political position and what got him in the jail was not Myshkin goodness or Ivan dreams.


Um, i don't think merely listing something "proves" anything. I don't think anyone said that Russia was the only country that was repressive to writers and other intellectuals, but that it stands out because of the severity of repression. The Nazi's were around for but a tiny fraction of the time that the Tsars were. Again, McCarthyism was no where near as bad as Soviet Russia; I don't think the two are even comparable really. What exactly do you mean "before the Czars?" Pushkin was around during the Czars, and no it did not start with Pushkin. 

People like Neruda did more than just write "subversive" literature, a lot of the people mentioned have been involved in political conflicts, or were persecuted by brief periods of time under radical regimes. I think what the OP was getting at (or at least myself) is that Russia is notorious for its practice of exiling writers and intellectuals, from Ivan IV to Putin. 

In the U.S. teachers can talk about the horrible period of McCarthyism as a particularly repressive period, but as the OP mentioned how do Russian teachers talk about the periods of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Nicholas I and II, Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, Putin, really all of Russia's most famous leaders and explain all of their horribly repressive policies towards writers?

----------


## JCamilo

> Um, i don't think merely listing something "proves" anything. I don't think anyone said that Russia was the only country that was repressive to writers and other intellectuals, but that it stands out because of the severity of repression. The Nazi's were around for but a tiny fraction of the time that the Tsars were. Again, McCarthyism was no where near as bad as Soviet Russia; I don't think the two are even comparable really. What exactly do you mean "before the Czars?" Pushkin was around during the Czars, and no it did not start with Pushkin.


No sense, listing several others sittuations proves that Russia was nowhere Unique as you claimed. And to be precise, there is nothing more severe in Russia - they imprisioned and destroyed lifes just like elsewhere, included McCarthyism. And nothing is more severe than killing the individual, and it was also done elsewhere. The fact that Nazis governament lasted less does not make them less or more severe and the only thing we can be sure is that McCarthyism and Soviet Russia are related, exactly as something we can compare and it was awful. 
And before the Czars, means France. Guys like Voltaire were imprisioned, banned, had to live in Swissland to avoid persecution (and was not the only one). 




> People like Neruda did more than just write "subversive" literature, a lot of the people mentioned have been involved in political conflicts, or were persecuted by brief periods of time under radical regimes. I think what the OP was getting at (or at least myself) is that Russia is notorious for its practice of exiling writers and intellectuals, from Ivan IV to Putin.


No idea what he is talking but Dostoievisky was not imprisioned because he wrote romances, but his ties (and his brothers) to oposition groups in more than one oportunity. Exactly like You claim Neruda did. 
Matter of fact, we can not separete an author from fiction and non-fictions, he is always both and of course, governaments do not make the distiction and will use any excuse to censor oposition. 




> In the U.S. teachers can talk about the horrible period of McCarthyism as a particularly repressive period, but as the OP mentioned how do Russian teachers talk about the periods of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Nicholas I and II, Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, Putin, really all of Russia's most famous leaders and explain all of their horribly repressive policies towards writers?


No idea, but McCarthyism period is not only identified as a dark age of America, is it? After all, it is the after wars reconstruction, the period when USA became the top country in the world, they may certainly talk good things about this period as well, since McCarthyism is not the only event happening there. And thinking well, does English teachers tell badly about Elizabeth I period, she was not exactly the nicest democratic queen in the world, Lui XIV in france, does german talk about Otto von Biskmark like you demand the russians must do?

----------


## keilj

> And nothing is more severe than killing the individual


there are worse things than dying. ...But that is another discussion

----------


## Binx

> No sense, listing several others sittuations proves that Russia was nowhere Unique as you claimed. And to be precise, there is nothing more severe in Russia - they imprisioned and destroyed lifes just like elsewhere, included McCarthyism. And nothing is more severe than killing the individual, and it was also done elsewhere. The fact that Nazis governament lasted less does not make them less or more severe and the only thing we can be sure is that McCarthyism and Soviet Russia are related, exactly as something we can compare and it was awful. 
> And before the Czars, means France. Guys like Voltaire were imprisioned, banned, had to live in Swissland to avoid persecution (and was not the only one). 
> No idea what he is talking but Dostoievisky was not imprisioned because he wrote romances, but his ties (and his brothers) to oposition groups in more than one oportunity. Exactly like You claim Neruda did. 
> Matter of fact, we can not separete an author from fiction and non-fictions, he is always both and of course, governaments do not make the distiction and will use any excuse to censor oposition. 
> No idea, but McCarthyism period is not only identified as a dark age of America, is it? After all, it is the after wars reconstruction, the period when USA became the top country in the world, they may certainly talk good things about this period as well, since McCarthyism is not the only event happening there. And thinking well, does English teachers tell badly about Elizabeth I period, she was not exactly the nicest democratic queen in the world, Lui XIV in france, does german talk about Otto von Biskmark like you demand the russians must do?


No sense? Just because repression existed in other countries does not mean that it is comparable to Russia, so once again, no, listing off countries does not "prove" anything. I am well aware of Nazi suppression of literary dissent, as well as many of the other cases mentioned, but I still do not believe that it is comparable to Russia. 

Voltaire was before the Czars? I am not sure what you are talking about, because my understanding of Russian history is that Russia had "Czars" since the 16th century, and repression did not start with them. 

The Petrashevsky Circle was a group of intelligenstia, who although were opposed to the Tsar, did not actually constitute a political threat. They were merely critics. Neruda, however, was actually directly involved in politics. I am not very familiar with Chile's history or Neruda, but it seems to me that his censorship was largely do to a particularly tumultuous time, and to his direct political ties. Dostevsky was exiled, if I remember correctly, for one letter in which he criticized the Tsar (I could be mistaken). 

I am not saying that Russians must talk poorly about their leaders, I never said that! I am merely bringing up the fact that Russia's history, particularly its literary history, has been been filled with repression, far beyond the U.S. or many other countries (not all). From the very beginning, with Radischev up until today, with Politskavaya, Russia has seen any literary criticism as a direct threat. Even novels like Notes from the Underground, in which the conservative Dostoevsky was *criticizing* the radical groups, were censored for its tiny religious content!! Please, show me an example of that in 19th century U.S. or France. Maybe it happened, I don't know, but you have only outlined was appears to be the glaring exceptions, not proven that they were the rule, as in Russia. 


Anyways, please don't make claims like I have no sense. It is uncalled for and fatuous, and it serves no purpose in a discussion (or debate) like this.

----------


## JCamilo

> No sense? Just because repression existed in other countries does not mean that it is comparable to Russia, so once again, no, listing off countries does not "prove" anything. I am well aware of Nazi suppression of literary dissent, as well as many of the other cases mentioned, but I still do not believe that it is comparable to Russia.


Again, this proves that the uniqueness of Russia seems like left-overs of anti-comunist propaganda. Several nations exterminated the intelectuals, they are nominated and you still think Russia was unique. Why, they drInk vodka?





> Voltaire was before the Czars? I am not sure what you are talking about, because my understanding of Russian history is that Russia had "Czars" since the 16th century, and repression did not start with them.


For god sakes, the mentioned Czars of the so called UNIQUEand barbaric russia of 19 century. 




> The Petrashevsky Circle was a group of intelligenstia, who although were opposed to the Tsar, did not actually constitute a political threat. They were merely critics. Neruda, however, was actually directly involved in politics. I am not very familiar with Chile's history or Neruda, but it seems to me that his censorship was largely do to a particularly tumultuous time, and to his direct political ties. Dostevsky was exiled, if I remember correctly, for one letter in which he criticized the Tsar (I could be mistaken).


The Petreshevsky was actually responsable for the reading, publication,etc of texts banneds by the Czar. And trying to imply the Dostoievisky lived in a not turmutuous time in Russia is not going to work: bottomline: Neither was arrested (or exiled, or punished) because their works. Both for activities beyond it, and in Neruda case, for critics and defending the communist party. 




> I am not saying that Russians must talk poorly about their leaders, I never said that! I am merely bringing up the fact that Russia's history, particularly its literary history, has been been filled with repression, far beyond the U.S. or many other countries (not all).


I am sorry, I grow up in a world where economic factors labeled my country as third world, not because we came in third, but it means we are economic dominated by a country who also is responsable for several small wars in the XX century and of course, this is not repression, after all the dicatorship that controled my country for 20 years with torture and death, receiving support from United States included training from CIA (I must say killing and exiling several writers and intelctuals) so I find pathetic claims that the story of USA is more clean from Oppression than any other country. I came to remember the little Paraguay, a country that in XIX was the only latin american country without illiteracy and already an industrial country, which obviously did not pleased England, Brazil and Argentina, so we had a small war with them because of that and killed 80% of the male population leaving a coutnry in debrils which they never recovered. I also love how an entire Continent named Africa, where Russia barelly laid a finger but Holand, England, Portugal, United States, Spain, France, Germany,Italy have been fighting for... hmmm 2000 years? leaving it with several problems and having to deal with his population being official slaves of the civilizated world for 300 years was not oppressed. 
As far literature goes, the list of intelectuals killed by the Inquistion is more impressive and I hope you consider it oppression. 




> From the very beginning, with Radischev up until today, with Politskavaya, Russia has seen any literary criticism as a direct threat. Even novels like Notes from the Underground, in which the conservative Dostoevsky was *criticizing* the radical groups, were censored for its tiny religious content!! Please, show me an example of that in 19th century U.S. or France. Maybe it happened, I don't know, but you have only outlined was appears to be the glaring exceptions, not proven that they were the rule, as in Russia.


That is when the listing proves: Madame Bovary was victim of censorship. So was Baudelaire. Maupassant. Ulysses also. Bugsy Bunny, Mad magazine and Superman are victims of CENSORSHIP because of "tiny religious content". Do not ignore the lists, they already showed that oppression by power goes way beyond a mock execution.




> Anyways, please don't make claims like I have no sense. It is uncalled for and fatuous, and it serves no purpose in a discussion (or debate) like this.


Your arguments make no sense. USA is one of the most conservative countries in the western, they have moral codes of conduct for art because of this since ever. If you want to prove Russia is unique, you must show something not so unique, unlike something like Garcia Lorca being killed or Jorge Luis Borges being sent to account for the number of eggs laid by chicken in the market.

----------


## Binx

> Camilo;868403]Again, this proves that the uniqueness of Russia seems like left-overs of anti-comunist propaganda. Several nations exterminated the intelectuals, they are nominated and you still think Russia was unique. Why, they drInk vodka?
> 
> For god sakes, the mentioned Czars of the so called UNIQUEand barbaric russia of 19 century.


I know! I know you are talking about the RUSSIAN Czars, but I am saying that Russian Czars have existed BEFORE Voltaire! Again, I never said that Russia was the only country to repress their intellectuals, I am merely saying that McCarthyism is no where near as bad as Stalinism, and I have no idea how you can insinuate otherwise. I am not saying that McCarthyism was not bad. 





> The Petreshevsky was actually responsable for the reading, publication,etc of texts banneds by the Czar. And trying to imply the Dostoievisky lived in a not turmutuous time in Russia is not going to work: bottomline: Neither was arrested (or exiled, or punished) because their works. Both for activities beyond it, and in Neruda case, for critics and defending the communist party.


No Neruda was a politician was he not? Again, I do not know much about him, or Chile, but it seems to me that he was punished for his direct involvement (as a senator) in politics. The Petrashevsky Circle is hardly the subversive organization that you make them out to be. 






> I am sorry, I grow up in a world where economic factors labeled my country as third world, not because we came in third, but it means we are economic dominated by a country who also is responsable for several small wars in the XX century and of course, this is not repression, after all the dicatorship that controled my country for 20 years with torture and death, receiving support from United States included training from CIA (I must say killing and exiling several writers and intelctuals) so I find pathetic claims that the story of USA is more clean from Oppression than any other country. I came to remember the little Paraguay, a country that in XIX was the only latin american country without illiteracy and already an industrial country, which obviously did not pleased England, Brazil and Argentina, so we had a small war with them because of that and killed 80% of the male population leaving a coutnry in debrils which they never recovered. I also love how an entire Continent named Africa, where Russia barelly laid a finger but Holand, England, Portugal, United States, Spain, France, Germany,Italy have been fighting for... hmmm 2000 years? leaving it with several problems and having to deal with his population being official slaves of the civilizated world for 300 years was not oppressed. 
> As far literature goes, the list of intelectuals killed by the Inquistion is more impressive and I hope you consider it oppression.


First of all, to say that Russia barely laid a finger in Africa is wrong. 
Second, why do you seem to think that I am attacking Russia? You seem to imply that I am some nationalist American berating the heathen Russia, which is not true at all. This argument is completely off-topic, and again only makes you seem fatuous. I am well aware of the horrible things that the U.S. has done all over the world. I know about the School of Americas, I know about the CIA's continued effort to influence (sometimes using force) foreign politics. I am opposed to all of those things, I have always been. BUT, that has nothing to do with historical literary repression!!!! 






> That is when the listing proves: Madame Bovary was victim of censorship. So was Baudelaire. Maupassant. Ulysses also. Bugsy Bunny, Mad magazine and Superman are victims of CENSORSHIP because of "tiny religious content". Do not ignore the lists, they already showed that oppression by power goes way beyond a mock execution.


I KNOW!!!! I am not and have never denied censorship in other countries!!! This list does not prove that censorship or historical repression of literature existed to the same severity as in Russia!!! 






> Your arguments make no sense. USA is one of the most conservative countries in the western, they have moral codes of conduct for art because of this since ever. If you want to prove Russia is unique, you must show something not so unique, unlike something like Garcia Lorca being killed or Jorge Luis Borges being sent to account for the number of eggs laid by chicken in the market.


Really, what does the U.S. being conservative have to do with ANYTHING!!!? I know the U.S. is conservative!! Believe me, I am all to aware of it! Do you really think that your argument is sooo much more cogent? I have had to reread what you wrote many times because it is so confusing (the point about the Czars for instance). So again, stop with your fatuous haughty replies. I have read many about similar analysis' of Russian censorship many times, so I am not alone, I am well aware that that does not make me correct, but I am not forming my opinion based solely on my observations.

----------


## JCamilo

> I know! I know you are talking about the RUSSIAN Czars, but I am saying that Russian Czars have existed BEFORE Voltaire! Again, I never said that Russia was the only country to repress their intellectuals, I am merely saying that McCarthyism is no where near as bad as Stalinism, and I have no idea how you can insinuate otherwise. I am not saying that McCarthyism was not bad.


McCarthyism is as bad as Stalism, both politics of repression of governs that destroyed many lifes. MCarthyism with the joy of happening in a country were civil liberty was supposed to be the "modus operanti" and responsable for the international wave of fear of communism that justified several dictadorships in Latin America. 





> No Neruda was a politician was he not? Again, I do not know much about him, or Chile, but it seems to me that he was punished for his direct involvement (as a senator) in politics. The Petrashevsky Circle is hardly the subversive organization that you make them out to be.


Again: Neruda was not exiled, punished, etc because he was a Senator, but because he wrote in defense of communist party. And the Petrashevsky, subversive or not, was responsable for illegal acts. And albeit harmless (as harmless a group that included one man that would be one of the most influential intelectuals of the XIX century could be) the argument stands out: Just like Neruda was not punished because he wrote a Ode to Stalin, Dostoievisky was not because his fictional work. 








> First of all, to say that Russia barely laid a finger in Africa is wrong.


Compared to those countries I mentioned? They barelly did. 




> Second, why do you seem to think that I am attacking Russia? You seem to imply that I am some nationalist American berating the heathen Russia, which is not true at all. This argument is completely off-topic, and again only makes you seem fatuous. I am well aware of the horrible things that the U.S. has done all over the world. I know about the School of Americas, I know about the CIA's continued effort to influence (sometimes using force) foreign politics. I am opposed to all of those things, I have always been. BUT, that has nothing to do with historical literary repression!!!!


I think you are attacking Russia because it is what you are doing. According to you they are unique or more severe. Yet, you can not give a reason for this. Many people are killed, arrested, exiled. Yes. But to you are given a list of intelectuals in several countries that suffered the same destiny. Yet, not only claiming those lists do not prove anything (albeit asking later for a list of examples, which silly enough, were already given in this thread) but not saying what exactly would be this same severity or uniqueness, that of course, must be done comparing countries. You just claim it. 
Of course, the only form of repression is not the legal form, aka. Czar Nick wrote "kill him", but with repressive censorship, for example, how the black population suffered in America (until half of the so clean story of America, they are slaves.) and until the start of XX century, several forms of intelectual expression (mostly musical) are repressed, not only legally or economically. 
And if you really knew about the whole repression and Banana Republicas, you would never claim there is nothing to do with literary repression. Several forms of artistic expressions forbidden, censorship everyday, intelectuals having to flee to another countries. 





> I KNOW!!!! I am not and have never denied censorship in other countries!!! This list does not prove that censorship or historical repression of literature existed to the same severity as in Russia!!!


Only in your mind. If people are also treated like in Russia, claiming in Russia it was more severe is an indication of bias. And you denied: "Even novels like Notes from the Underground, in which the conservative Dostoevsky was criticizing the radical groups, were censored for its tiny religious content!! Please, show me an example of that in 19th century U.S. or France. Maybe it happened, I don't know, but you have only outlined was appears to be the glaring exceptions, not proven that they were the rule, as in Russia. " 

If you are asking for examples, and then later claiming it was some exceptions (albeit Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Maupassant are "attacked" in sequence and obviously a little later the Dreyffus case happened) you are denying it. 





> Really, what does the U.S. being conservative have to do with ANYTHING!!!? I know the U.S. is conservative!! Believe me, I am all to aware of it! Do you really think that your argument is sooo much more cogent?


You, not me, asked for examples in the 19 century in USA. I gave you several in the XX. Plus your argument is that russia is unique or more severe, so you must compare with other countries, otherwise it is neither. 






> I have had to reread what you wrote many times because it is so confusing (the point about the Czars for instance). So again, stop with your fatuous haughty replies. I have read many about similar analysis' of Russian censorship many times, so I am not alone, I am well aware that that does not make me correct, but I am not forming my opinion based solely on my observations.


It was confusing to you that Stlukes talked about Victor Hugo being perssecuted? Or confusing to you that Garcia Lorca was killed for sympathy for commies in Spain? Or Neruda being exiled for being commie? Baudelaire, Flaubert and Maupassant for Being immoral? Walter Benjamin because he was Jew? Geez, I think we should not even go to homossexuality, woman or black artists, because the repression would even get bigger than Dosto's mock execution.

----------


## Binx

This is getting old; if you think McCarthyism is just as bad as Stalinism than we are not going to agree. I would just like to clarify that I have a huge passion for Russia, so do not for a second interpret my claim, as you have done, as a direct "attack" on Russia. And no I was not confused about Garcia Lorca being killed, etc. I was confused by your wording.

Overall I was saying that you can not list a number of authors that have been censored and expect that it proves a subjective argument. I can't think of a single country where 
there has never been literary repression of some kind, but that does not mean that it was on the scale of the Soviet Union, where any sort of literature that deviated from socialist realism was completely prohibited. Once again, my argument is NOT that literary censorship or repression did not happened in other countries, but that Russian censorship was unique because of its degree of severity and overall character, and that in Russia literature was seen as a threat that it was not in countries like the U.S. (Again, these are not my words, but an author's that I read awhile back). 

I very well could be wrong (Yet again, as well as the scholars that I am echoing), but my main issue with your argument is that you are have merely listed a hodgepodge of writers that have been persecuted, examples of U.S. intervention in foreign countries, and the overall repressive nature of countries like the U.S. and then from that make fatuous claims about "proving" me wrong. What you have proven is that repression exists everywhere, which I agree with, but again we go back to the point of comparing McCarthyism to Stalinism. If you think the two are the same, then fine, lets just agree to disagree, because for as much as I hate McCarthyism there is no way I will ever think it comparable to Stalinism.

----------


## JCamilo

I find abusive how you claim 2 decades of intervetion as hodgepoint while you never mention a single event of stalisnism. 
However we are not going to agree, RUssia is evil, Communism nasty. They are unique, they did mock executions.

----------


## Binx

And I find "abusive" how you claim 2 decades of intervention as evidence of literary censorship, more importantly I find it "abusive" how you think proving U.S. imperialism some how proves that censorship in Russia was just like everywhere else. I did not think it necessary to name events of Stalinism.

Haha, you really are thick aren't you. Вы говарите по-русский? Ну мая семя Русская!

To put it in plain English, stop assuming that I am attacking Russia! You are so damn pretentious it is ridiculous; never once did I say that Russia was evil, never once did I deny U.S. imperialism, never once did I say communism was bad. You say that I am bias, yet you do not even know me; YOU are the one that assumed that because I am American that I am attacking Russia, which is just stupid and only shows your bias. Сукин сын!

----------


## kiki1982

wowowo. 

It is not because one's family is Russian that one can assume that one knows best. It is not because one does not agree on one regime being especially uniquely abusive that one is thick. 

In my mind, maybe Russia during Stalinist times was very severe (maybe severer than other countries who oppressed writers), but I think that was mainly down to Stalin himself. He was a very ruthless person, threatening for 'fun' to kill someone if he did this or this (in the end it didn't turn out to be fun because such things did occur). Very unsettling person whom his staff didn't even know. Very impredictable. One never knew what he liked or disliked, and if you missed it, you were the one to blame. 

Keeping in mind that Russian Roulette was a game invented by Russsian prison staff so they could bet on who would collapse and played by Russian officers genuinely, it shows the kind of morbid nature some people in that country possess (still probably). Also Stalin. Still, they are also a very cultured people. 

That said, though, there is no reason to state that Russia is the worst ever, certainly not in view of all the times before and after. Other countries maybe did it in a less underhand way (locking people up in lunatic asylums, deporting them to Siberia where they will hopefully die, etc was substituted by just bannishing them or puting them in prison for a while), but nonetheless they did it, and it is pretty sad as well. the manner in which pretty much excpresses the nature of a people. 

The English who put Defoe in prison because of the indecency in his work, is pretty bad, seen as there is rarely a writer to be found who was put in prison only for his writings in that country. That is pretty sad. (I hope that claim is right though)

----------


## Binx

I was not claiming that by having a Russian family I knew any more about Russia, but that it shows that it is pretty ridiculous to assert that I am attacking Russia, especially when I have already mentioned, I have a huge passion for Russia. It is because of this and a few other specific claims that I was calling him thick, not his overall argument, but the way he has twisted around what I was saying to claim things like I am attacking Russia or denying U.S. imperialism, and more importantly the haughtiness and arrogance in which it was said. 

I am not saying that Russia is the absolute worst, all that I am claiming is that Russia's reputation for its treatment of writers is not an unfounded conclusion. As you have pointed out, maybe that view is because of Stalin, or because of the blatancy and not actually the degree to which they did it (Siberia vs. normal prison), I do not know.

----------


## applepie

> How lamentable must this be as part of Russia's history - locking away men who have contributed so much to the world
> 
> And, while engaging this discussion - I am also aware of artists in the United States who had to flee to Europe becasue of McCarthyism


I imagine it isn't any worse than Galileo having been excommunicated by the Catholic Church for his theories on our solar system. Turns out he was right, and many centuries later Pope John Paul II finally renounced the excommunication. 

Ignorance breeds hate and bad decisions. I don't think it is really much of a blight on a nation or groups history, rather I think it is a good point to look at to see how they've grown or not I suppose depending on the case.

----------


## kiki1982

I think (without actually wanting to get into an argument here  :Wink: ) that maybe the degree of it strikes people who do not comprehend the ruthless spirit people can possess. 

Without wanting to really throw all Russians on one pile here (the country is WAY too big for that), people say the Italian maffia is scary, take it and multiply it and then you get he Russian maffia (the Albanian is even worse). Without wanting to offend you in your passion for Russia, I think it is a very passionate country. Learning Russian I have got interested in it. 

They are passionate about everything. When they are proud, they are it very much. When they are angry, they are it very much. When they find something beautiful, they find it very very beautiful. There is not something in between. When they pronounce their letters, it is with 'great vigour', as my very thorough Soviet book says  :Wink: . It is not a weak 'r', it is an r to say waw. When they are rich, they are rich. They have replicas made of bedrooms of the czars,in true baroque style. The Hermitage is incredible, the palaces of the czars are incredible. In that, they do everything with passion, also disapprove and they will go all the way. 

My look on that is, that yes, it is wrong to lock people up or to persecute them for what they have written, but it happens in all countries. In Russia it was pretty severe, but those people knew in what place they were living and consequently they knew what they were getting themselves into if they published this or that. They knew how ruthless burocracy was and why is it that every time again, they try? Because 'surely I'm above it' or 'it will not happen to me'? It is puzzling why they always try. People get shockd about the extent of (mainly Stalin's) persecutions becuse I do'nt think they understand that it is all or nothing. I fact, Pushkin, I believe was very lucky that at least the czar liked his work. Otherwise, he would not have lived. Yet, it is profoundly sad that his work was never published how he had written it, because the czar himself made changes to it. 

That sad though, I do not approve it, but one should know that the consequences of one's actions have to be borne. 

As an original Russian, what do you think?

----------


## Binx

Haha, you are right about Russians being passionate. I must confess that my Russian is really poor (I just realized I spelled family wrong, haha), and although my family is part Russian I really consider myself American, I haven't even been to Russia, although I hope to go this fall. 

I think you bring up a really good point about the difficulties of comparing countries given the complexities of cultural nuances. In my studies of Russia I have found many, what I feel to be, misconceptions because people interpret certain things, for example Putin, through their own personal experiences. People in the U.S. are often shocked to learn about Putin's popularity and have a hard time understanding why a leader like that is so popular, but I feel that it is because they haven't taken the time to examine him through the perspective of Russians. Even how people view seemingly objective things like censorship different greatly depending on factors like one's culture. It always amazes me how Russian's, or people from Central Asia do not seem to view state attacks on the press as a completely bad thing, but I am not from there so it is hard for me to relate. 

Thank you for your insight. I think you bring up some great points. I also don't want to argue, I just got really defensive because of the way in which some of the responses to my arguments were worded (more attacks than responses) and (mis)interpreted.

----------


## kiki1982

Thanks, at least we are not fighting now  :FRlol: . 

Indeed, you wrote it wrong; It should be with a miachkisnak (or how you write it in English). It hadn't occurred to me, bt it is kindof logic, although they seem not to have any rules on when a miachkisnak is included in the soft vowel and when not... 

I think the problem of state attacks and popular people like Putin is for a great part down to history. 

If we think about it, dictatorship in Russia started pretty much in about 1917 (not directly after the revolution, as always, but almost then). Before that, there was also a kind of dictatorship. I am not really sure, but I don't think there was total freedom of speech. Not like the rest of Europe had from about 1815. (Asia left on the side). The greatest part of Russians grew up during Stalin or after which had 'great leaders' and people who knew best. For some time, they were allowed to be 'free', but that went together with great losses in services (bus service f.e.), people not getting paid etc One would for less start to long for 'a great leader' again who will solve all the trouble. In Putin, they see an old KGB guy who will solve all the trouble. It even goes so far that he has now swapped places with his prime minister and no-one bats an eyelid. But the population has never been allowzd to think. They do not know what it is to vote and not be forced to vote for one party and elect it with 99%, what it is to disagree with your government (without being blamed for it), so they all walk in a flock behind Putin. They still have to learn, but whether the die-hards will let them, is another matter. The other countries that were swallowed by the Soviet Union after WWII still had people in them in the 90s who knew how easy it was before, so they serve to educate the rest in 'how to be free', but the Russians haven't had that chance, because they were oppressed for generations already. People who still knew how Russian was before the revolution (if there was any serious freedom then), must have been about 90. In the other countries they were still 'young'. 

Let's say that the Russian idea now is a mix of Slavic passion and maybe generations of unwanted indoctrination.  :Smile: 

My husband went to Russia for his studies in the language in the early 90s. He speaks it fluently (maye now a little less as he cannot usei often). I'd like to visit some towns, but I should speak a ord or two if my hubby gets into trouble and I have to explain myself...

----------


## Quark

> How Embarassing Is It That Russia Imprisoned Some of Its Greatest Novelists?


At least the Russians read their greatest novelists.

----------


## Scheherazade

> At least the Russians read their greatest novelists.


Or had/has some...

 :Tongue:

----------


## Quark

> Or had/has some...


Nicely done, Scher. 

By the way, I saw you and Janine were talking about the Lawrence discussion. Is Janine on the mend and ready to start that up?

----------


## Scheherazade

> Nicely done, Scher. 
> 
> By the way, I saw you and Janine were talking about the Lawrence discussion. Is Janine on the mend and ready to start that up?


I think she would like to but has some problem finding a suitable one. 

However, it's be best to discuss it with her personally  :Smile: 

Glad to see you posting!

----------


## Quark

> However, it's be best to discuss it with her personally


Oh, okay. I'll go PM her. I am dying to know what's going on with that. I'm just killing time until another book discussion opens up.

----------


## Binx

Yeah, I hate that damn miachisnak, haha. 

Don't forget about the horrible economic depression during the 90's. The death rate rose 13% in only a few years. It is not hard to imagine how a country that first experienced "democracy" (I use quotes because it is debatable whether or not it was really a democracy) and capitalism during one of its most devastating periods in recent history would be loathe to continue following the West's policies, especially given the insult of NATO expansion (as well as many other Western policies). 
Anyways, hugely complex issues with no definitive answers. I am always curious to see how events will continue to unfold in Russia...what will Putin do next?

I love Russian studies, it is such as a fascinating country, especially given the dichotomy between the U.S. and Russia (or the West and Russia).

----------


## kiki1982

oh my God  :Eek: 

I knew it was bad (suddenly converting to capitalism was the most stupid thing they could do. I suppose the US was dying to see Russia crumble... But let's stop that, because that's politics), but not that the death rate rose 13%! I am quite shocked about that, but then again, it is to be expected because inflation probably went sky-rocketing up (products were sold much too cheaply I think. 5 kopeck for a bus ticket and a few rubles for a few chairs...). It could never be so cheap as they sold it for initially. So I can imagine that people couldn't pay for anything and when they become sick, they cannot pay for treatment. 

But indeed, fascinating country.

----------


## Rosie Cotton

I would agree that both Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky would have NEVER been able to write what they did had it not been for their imprisonments (and for Dostoevsky, his mock execution). Just has Lermontov and Gogol wouldn't have been able to write what they did without their exiles.

----------


## PSRemeshChandra

Communism was conceived as the highest and loftiest language of the human heart, but wherever this ideology acquired supreme power, hearts were crushed, lives ruined and the most abominable things done to human beings. The reason was simple-in the absence of free speech and criticism, it happened everywhere, in all ages, in all countries. Writers were not alone in their plight, imprisonment, suffering and execution. Scientists, artists, political opponents and party rebels- all were persecuted. The only difference with the Russian Comunists were that they thought they were also the only ideological deputees to save the world. Today we definitely know why those people were persecuted, even authors respected by the whole world. It is very hard not to be polluted and corrupted by authority, whether it be Communism or any other Ism. Their great leaders when viewed at close-quarters were none other than persecutors and perverts in many ways. As Mao's personal doctor revealed, he compulsorily insisted several child girls sent to him each night. Is this how Communism protects each and every citizen? Is this what Karl Marx stormed his head 32 years in the British Museum for? The moment the red flag was hoisted above Cremlin, their carnivorous pleasures began. So they feared everyone, including authors. They could not simply help it. That is why we simply see this ideology and it's empires being thrown out of this world. Mankind is confident human heart will invent yet another lofty language.

The real question is are there fine examples of how Administrators should behave towards Authors and Artists? After the Second World War, Jean Paul Sarthre was the person who told the world youth who stood stuck and still what to do next in this destructed and ruined world, knowing not what to do next and where to go. 'Life is the sum total of all your actions from morning till night, so act'. Sarthre was the ultimate in human freedom and Degaule the last word in Administrative Orthodoxy and Kindness. He ordered the French Surete shall not arrest or even touch the traffic-rules-disobeying Sarthre on the Paris roads. This is what a citizen expects from an Administrator, whatever be the ruling Ism. What can not comprehend this will be ultimately thrown out of this world because that is what is the world's will and might. The intelligent and aggressive China also knows this. India's most famous Author and Administrator Jawaharlal Nehru once told the most pungent and acerbic cartoonist of his times: " Sankar, please do not spare me".

----------


## stlukesguild

I would agree that both Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky would have NEVER been able to write what they did had it not been for their imprisonments (and for Dostoevsky, his mock execution). Just has Lermontov and Gogol wouldn't have been able to write what they did without their exiles.

The artist must suffer? A rather dated Romantic notion. I like John Ciardi's thoughts on the idea: 

_You don't have to suffer to be a poet; adolescence is enough suffering for anyone._ :FRlol:

----------


## Alexander III

> I would agree that both Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky would have NEVER been able to write what they did had it not been for their imprisonments (and for Dostoevsky, his mock execution). Just has Lermontov and Gogol wouldn't have been able to write what they did without their exiles.
> 
> The artist must suffer? A rather dated Romantic notion. I like John Ciardi's thoughts on the idea: 
> 
> _You don't have to suffer to be a poet; adolescence is enough suffering for anyone._


I disagree, not necessarily must an artist suffer but one must live. I mean for example, Tolstoy could have never written his great works had it not been for his military experience and his participation in the siege of Sebastopol.

And there are countless other examples.

As powerful as imagination is, it is it's mingling with reality that creates beauty, not it by it's self. Much in the same way that the stars without darkness cannot be seen.

----------


## JCamilo

But then, Shakespeare never lived what he wrote.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'm surprised you didn't mention J.L. Borges.

----------


## stlukesguild

Tolstoy could have never written his great works had it not been for his military experience and his participation in the siege of Sebastopol.

Perhaps... perhaps not. Quite likely he would have been just as great of a writer... albeit a different writer. It would seem to me that the artist draws upon his or her life experience... but the experience of a blind librarian (Borges) may ultimately be no greater of a source of inspiration than that of the greatest adventurer.

----------


## JCamilo

Everything Borges wrote happened with Borges.

----------


## dfloyd

He had a homosexual affair with the nephew of the Marquis of Queensbury who called Wilde a pederast. Wilde, who was married, sued the Marquis for slander. It was proven in court that the old Marquis was correct, and because the English laws at that time were slanted and quite harsh against those proven guilty of more or less lying under oath, he was given a prison sentence. This sentence contributed to his everlasting literary reputation since while in jail he penned The Ballad of reading Gaol. 

When released from prison, Wilde got together with the nephew and they departed to France, but the relationshp didn't last. Alone and broke in France, Wilde suffered the ill health of the destitute. While on his deathbed, Wilde looked at the paper covering the wall and ejaculated, "One of us has to go". With that said, he expired.

The point is, Wilde was not prosecuted for his homosexuality. If he hadn't sued the Marquis, nothing would have happened to him. As he started his prison term outside Reading Gaol, it began to rain. As he was drenched by the downpour Wilde, always the wit, remarked, "If her majesty (refering to Queen Victoria) treats all her prisoners like this, she doesn't deserve to have any,"

----------


## JCamilo

Yes, however, he was arrested for his sexual behaviour, not for lying in court.Not would happen to him, but this only show the hypocrisy of english society who could condemn a writer they loved (Everyone was gay under closet reading Wilde) just because he messed with someone in power. 

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...-425#highlight

----------


## dfloyd

as if you are a confirmed anglophile.

----------


## JCamilo

Let me understand this: If England do something shameful and someone says they did, the person is a anglophile. Instead we will still sit in the throne of moral righteouness of a huge empire while attacking Russians for the same kind of behaviour is fine?

----------


## Alexander III

> Tolstoy could have never written his great works had it not been for his military experience and his participation in the siege of Sebastopol.
> 
> Perhaps... perhaps not. Quite likely he would have been just as great of a writer... albeit a different writer. It would seem to me that the artist draws upon his or her life experience... but the experience of a blind librarian (Borges) may ultimately be no greater of a source of inspiration than that of the greatest adventurer.


My point was not about adventure per se, rather it is the experiences in life which shape the artist works. I do not know much of Borges but as you said, his experience as a blind librarian was surely as pivotal for him as Tolstoy service in the army. The same way, Milton's blindness shaped his work and Byron's and Pushkin's ennui with life shaped their work.

You said that Dostoyevsky's stint in prison and sufferance had nothing to do with him becoming a great writer. Sure many russians suffered the same as him and it did not make them great writers, but to deny that such an event did not have a dramatic impact upon his life and shape his art seems wrong and false.

----------


## Heteronym

Writers should see it as a compliment. If a government considers a writer dangerous enough to lock away it's because he's on the right path  :Wink:

----------


## stlukesguild

I don't know that being ostracized, persecuted, blacklisted, jailed, etc... is likely to be an experience any writer would want... and few of us would envy. 

By the way... I do agree with JCamillo that the very precept of Russia's abuse of its greatest writers ignores the fact that endless other nations have done as much. Flaubert, Zola, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, etc... all faced legal challenges and even imprisonment. I remember reading an essay by Robert Louis Stevenson in which he bemoaned the fact that the French were so free to explore sexual issues in literature which would be censured in the British press. J.L. Borges was notoriously ill-treated under the Peron government. A vast array of German writers, living and deceased, were proclaimed "Degenerate" and publicly burned under Hitler. Joyce' _Ulysses_ underwent a famous obscenity trial in the US. Sir Walter Raleigh was executed, Thomas Kyd was imprisoned and tortured, Christopher Marlowe was killed in a barroom brawl, but there is reason to suppose it was an assassination. There is also much to suggest that Chaucer was "eliminated" after the assumption of Richard II by Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Arundale (Archbishop of Canterbury and Later Lord Chancellor) who imposed a dictatorial control over Britain. And then there's Dante, Ovid, and Seneca.

----------


## JCamilo

Some will argue it was long ago, but Ezra Pound, Pablo Neruda, Garcia Lorca and of course, the endless list of McCarthism... People seem to think liberal form of economy implies in freedom, while freedom is truly also surrounded by boundaries.

----------


## weltanschauung

_"That wasn't quite my contention," he began simply and modestly. "Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so." (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) "The only difference is that I don't contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. 
I simply hinted that an 'extraordinary' man has the right . . . that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep . . . certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn't definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. 
Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to; very well. I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound . . . to /eliminate/ the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all . . . well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed--often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law--were of use to their cause. It's remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals--more or less, of course. Otherwise it's hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. 
The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are /in general/ divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter /a new word/. There are, of course, innumerable sub- divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. 
To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that's their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood--that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. 
It's only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question). 
There's no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. 
But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. 
Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me--and 'vive la guerre éternelle'--till the New Jerusalem, of course!" 
_ (f.d. - crime and punishment)

----------

