Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Here it is necessary to start from what literary direction was in classical Russian literature. These were: a bit of sentimentalism (Karamzin), REALISM (just kapsom), a bit of Art Nouveau (Mayakovsky) and Socialist realism. And REALISM is a genre that describes, just the same, suffering. Read a realist from other countries, they are also no different.�
But, again, not all Russian literature is riddled with suffering. Read the same modernism; but in postmodernism in general, you will find little of this: in “Moscow-Petushki” in general, it's all a drunken rush.�
Conclusion: there is a lot of suffering not in classical Russian literature, but in REALISM.
As a rule, the creativity of a writer is a state of his soul. In the fate of absolutely any person, there are “not the best” periods of life that are stored in memory .By nature ,the “creator” will put all his emotions on a blank sheet of his work in order to convey all that he feels now ,as well as share his sadness with the reader, veiling it in his own way .
I think we are talking about the cult of suffering, to which most of the Russian classics were inclined. Suffering is perceived as the most acute and therefore “real” phase of consciousness (“Suffering is the only cause of consciousness” F. M. Dostoevsky), it is through suffering that a person can comprehend the surrounding world ( obviously unpleasant) and purify himself, atone for his sins. Basically, it's sadism, but sadism is talented, when you take a sympathetic hero, who is good in fact, and is able to drag himself through all the circles of hell. It is still good if in the end he still “redeems” everything and the author leaves him alone, and so he can also die with the light hand of the “demiurge” (Anna Karenina, Andrey Bolkonsky, Bazarov, Taras Bulba, poor Mu-mu, finally). In addition, suffering is the central theme of all the religions of redemption, the first of which is Christianity, and Russian philosophy, to which our classical authors were also susceptible.
I respect Germans from school
For cars, for Nietzsche,for dark sadism
But we are not Germans,and we are definitely not Germans
Germans do things – we fuck up the tragedy
(C) Krovostok
To quote Huxley's Brave New World: “In its natural form, happiness always looks shabby next to the flowery embellishments of misery. And, of course, stability is much less colorful than instability. And contentment is completely devoid of the romance of battles with evil fate, there is no colorful struggle with temptation, there is no halo of fatal doubts and passions. Happiness is devoid of grandiose effects.”
“And here they don't sing about such people.” The book necessarily contains the fall of some and the moral rise, the fulfillment of others. The description of Cinderella after the wedding is not interesting. Stability is interesting to citizens only in politics, and those same citizens, but already as readers, are interested in the ups and downs of heroes.
“While heroes clean the world of dirt, fools pile up new piles of manure” (C). ” Don't be fools. there would be no hero.”