|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 5, 2018 23:15:12 GMT
I am very interested in the Slavophile tradition in Russia. From the nineteenth century onwards there was a marked cleavage between those who looked to Europe and socialism (or capitalism) on the one hand and those who looked to Russian nationalism, Orthodoxy and native tradition on the other hand. I am very much more drawn to the Slavophiles, who seem to be in the ascendant today in the regime of Vladimir Putin. I wonder why Russia has managed to preserve a respectable literary and cultural tradition of insularity, in stark contrast to the rest of the world where every creative or imaginative person is presumed to be in favour of cosmopolitanism and progressivism. Is it the sheer size of the country? Perhaps India, Japan and China have similar traditions; I don't know enough about them. Although one imagines that China is enthusiastically Western and future-oriented these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 6, 2018 4:00:39 GMT
I...etc... From the nineteenth century onwards there was a marked cleavage between those who looked to Europe and socialism (or capitalism) on the one hand and those who looked to Russian nationalism, Orthodoxy and native tradition on the other hand.....etc.... I can remember one of Tolstoy's War and Peace characters complaining that, while Russia was fighting Napoléon and the French, many of it's citizens were happy to the speak French language, use French names and many Russian ladies were wearing low-cut gowns (interestingly, one of Joyce's characters in The Dead was identifiable as an anti-Anglo Irishwoman for not following the low-cut fashion also). The interchangeable use in that novel by Tolstoy of French and Russian (and English, in our translation) names for the same persons is actually quite confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 6, 2018 22:35:32 GMT
I was very surprised to learn the Russian communist education system included the classic works of Russian literature especially the 19th century masters.
Stalin had enough sense after the Nazi invasion to realise Russian patriotism ran much deeper than any loyalty to him and eased off his brutal persecution of Orthodoxy. The Russian past was never really erased.
Orthodoxy has suffered immensely throughout history ; after the rise of Islam in the Christian heartland , then after Constantinople's fall and finally its crucifixtion in 1917. There is an element of the miraculous in the current Russian Orthodox revival which we in the west often overlook.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Dec 7, 2018 8:29:42 GMT
Interesting topic. By nature an indigenous culture would unexceptionally be better than a simplified international variety. Still in this particular frame I haven´t got a clue. If Russia had never had its Marxism etc the whole spectacle of world history would of course be totally different (for better or worse, not that I think Communism had anything good in it at all). Everything depends on its inner qualities. A Communist (or other nasty type) school system including 19th century literary classics seems just as evil as one without it. Sinister politics gets no better if they spice in their enemies goodness in the sourdough. Is China today more likeable for grabbing capitalist exploitation techniques or putting Western or Cosmopolitan consumerist modes into their subjects? Slavery is slavery anyway, and modern slavery in some senses even much worse than ancient...
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2018 9:28:50 GMT
Interesting topic. By nature an indigenous culture would unexceptionally be better than a simplified international variety. Still in this particular frame I haven´t got a clue. If Russia had never had its Marxism etc the whole spectacle of world history would of course be totally different (for better or worse, not that I think Communism had anything good in it at all). Everything depends on its inner qualities. A Communist (or other nasty type) school system including 19th century literary classics seems just as evil as one without it. Sinister politics gets no better if they spice in their enemies goodness in the sourdough. Is China today more likeable for grabbing capitalist exploitation techniques or putting Western or Cosmopolitan consumerist modes into their subjects? Slavery is slavery anyway, and modern slavery in some senses even much worse than ancient... I don't actually agree. Although the Soviet Union was undoubtedly evil, it had some good aspects to it (like the teaching of literary classics), and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging this. I'm reminded of a heated debate I got into once, with someone who called me an apologist for terrorism for denying terrorists were cowardly. I see no problem in admitting many terrorists are brave. Evil and bravery are not incompatible as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Dec 7, 2018 10:33:31 GMT
Interesting topic. By nature an indigenous culture would unexceptionally be better than a simplified international variety. Still in this particular frame I haven´t got a clue. If Russia had never had its Marxism etc the whole spectacle of world history would of course be totally different (for better or worse, not that I think Communism had anything good in it at all). Everything depends on its inner qualities. A Communist (or other nasty type) school system including 19th century literary classics seems just as evil as one without it. Sinister politics gets no better if they spice in their enemies goodness in the sourdough. Is China today more likeable for grabbing capitalist exploitation techniques or putting Western or Cosmopolitan consumerist modes into their subjects? Slavery is slavery anyway, and modern slavery in some senses even much worse than ancient... I don't actually agree. Although the Soviet Union was undoubtedly evil, it had some good aspects to it (like the teaching of literary classics), and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging this. I'm reminded of a heated debate I got into once, with someone who called me an apologist for terrorism for denying terrorists were cowardly. I see no problem in admitting many terrorists are brave. Evil and bravery are not incompatible as far as I can see. I can understand both your points. At the same time: there was/is some good in the Communist or Socialist states but nevertheless that good is not coming from themselves but more as results from parasite strategies. (The second point on bravery is obviously true.) What I meant first was just that while kindly acknowledging the good itself it can quite easily creep into our minds a consequential vague falsehood and ultimately lead to more ghastly and subtle forms of blur of good and evil. For example the shaking hands with the Chinese Communist regime will by necessity compromise the "good name" of Holy Mother Church. Regardless of "longterm benefices" the end never justifies the means. There is nothing for a contention the same thing from one second to the next can change from being plain bad to longterm beneficial. Bad is bad even if those politics also may give comfort to some people who really like mixture och experimental blends of various ideologies and truths. Since totalitatarian politics is to be avoided I´d much prefer and admire (albeit be more in theory than practise) a naked socialist regime than one clothed in goodness. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2018 11:15:04 GMT
I don't actually agree. Although the Soviet Union was undoubtedly evil, it had some good aspects to it (like the teaching of literary classics), and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging this. I'm reminded of a heated debate I got into once, with someone who called me an apologist for terrorism for denying terrorists were cowardly. I see no problem in admitting many terrorists are brave. Evil and bravery are not incompatible as far as I can see. I can understand both your points. At the same time: there was/is some good in the Communist or Socialist states but nevertheless that good is not coming from themselves but more as results from parasite strategies. (The second point on bravery is obviously true.) What I meant first was just that while kindly acknowledging the good itself it can quite easily creep into our minds a consequential vague falsehood and ultimately lead to more ghastly and subtle forms of blur of good and evil. For example the shaking hands with the Chinese Communist regime will by necessity compromise the "good name" of Holy Mother Church. Regardless of "longterm benefices" the end never justifies the means. There is nothing for a contention the same thing from one second to the next can change from being plain bad to longterm beneficial. Bad is bad even if those politics also may give comfort to some people who really like mixture och experimental blends of various ideologies and truths. Since totalitatarian politics is to be avoided I´d much prefer and admire (albeit be more in theory than practise) a naked socialist regime than one clothed in goodness. I think the Holy See sometimes has to sup with the devil and I don't condemn it for that. But, as far as I can see, there is nothing good about the deal with China. Faithful Chinese Catholics themselves seem to be entirely against it. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2018 11:23:19 GMT
I don't actually agree. Although the Soviet Union was undoubtedly evil, it had some good aspects to it (like the teaching of literary classics), and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging this. I'm reminded of a heated debate I got into once, with someone who called me an apologist for terrorism for denying terrorists were cowardly. I see no problem in admitting many terrorists are brave. Evil and bravery are not incompatible as far as I can see. I can understand both your points. At the same time: there was/is some good in the Communist or Socialist states but nevertheless that good is not coming from themselves but more as results from parasite strategies. (The second point on bravery is obviously true.) What I meant first was just that while kindly acknowledging the good itself it can quite easily creep into our minds a consequential vague falsehood and ultimately lead to more ghastly and subtle forms of blur of good and evil. For example the shaking hands with the Chinese Communist regime will by necessity compromise the "good name" of Holy Mother Church. Regardless of "longterm benefices" the end never justifies the means. There is nothing for a contention the same thing from one second to the next can change from being plain bad to longterm beneficial. Bad is bad even if those politics also may give comfort to some people who really like mixture och experimental blends of various ideologies and truths. Since totalitatarian politics is to be avoided I´d much prefer and admire (albeit be more in theory than practise) a naked socialist regime than one clothed in goodness. In truth, I am quite fascinated by Soviet Russia and even drawn to it in some respects. I have no hesitation in agreeing that it was an evil empire, that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was an utter catastrophe and that the sooner it came to an end, the better. The most evil thing about it was the official atheism which was at its heart. And yet, I remain interested in it. I am quite fascinated by closed, paternalistic societies, from monasteries to boarding schools to cults to the Soviet Union-- the intense shared experience is very interesting, and IN ITSELF (I think) a good thing-- which does not mean it's justified in any given case. I'm also quite partial to the Soviet aesthetic. I remember one playwright lamenting after the fall of communism: "At least the communists persecuted us. The New Russia just ignores us." I think this is a very profound remark. I've always been a defender of the Playboy riots and book censorship in twentieth century in Ireland, for the very reason that they showed such a serious attitude to culture. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Dec 7, 2018 12:07:23 GMT
I can understand both your points. At the same time: there was/is some good in the Communist or Socialist states but nevertheless that good is not coming from themselves but more as results from parasite strategies. (The second point on bravery is obviously true.) What I meant first was just that while kindly acknowledging the good itself it can quite easily creep into our minds a consequential vague falsehood and ultimately lead to more ghastly and subtle forms of blur of good and evil. For example the shaking hands with the Chinese Communist regime will by necessity compromise the "good name" of Holy Mother Church. Regardless of "longterm benefices" the end never justifies the means. There is nothing for a contention the same thing from one second to the next can change from being plain bad to longterm beneficial. Bad is bad even if those politics also may give comfort to some people who really like mixture och experimental blends of various ideologies and truths. Since totalitatarian politics is to be avoided I´d much prefer and admire (albeit be more in theory than practise) a naked socialist regime than one clothed in goodness. In truth, I am quite fascinated by Soviet Russia and even drawn to it in some respects. I have no hesitation in agreeing that it was an evil empire, that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was an utter catastrophe and that the sooner it came to an end, the better. The most evil thing about it was the official atheism which was at its heart. And yet, I remain interested in it. I am quite fascinated by closed, paternalistic societies, from monasteries to boarding schools to cults to the Soviet Union-- the intense shared experience is very interesting, and IN ITSELF (I think) a good thing-- which does not mean it's justified in any given case. I'm also quite partial to the Soviet aesthetic. I remember one playwright lamenting after the fall of communism: "At least the communists persecuted us. The New Russia just ignores us." I think this is a very profound remark. I've always been a defender of the Playboy riots and book censorship in twentieth century in Ireland, for the very reason that they showed such a serious attitude to culture. Yes, often better to have to face a straight enemy than a bleak legion of chameleon-minded and pc-inclined indifferent false brothers. Glad to find different views to a given subject and not least these semi-nostalgic ideas that sometimes comes up in favor of some aspects of Eastern Europe and Russia. Numerous such thoughts are lingering on. The most interesting country for me is Poland. It has held a fascination not only because of St John Paul II though in no small degree enhanced by his brave and honest personality, and same goes for his friend Lech Walesa. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 8, 2018 9:24:53 GMT
Interesting topic.....etc.... Is China today more likeable for grabbing capitalist exploitation techniques or putting Western or Cosmopolitan consumerist modes into their subjects? Slavery is slavery anyway, and modern slavery in some senses even much worse than ancient... I don't actually agree. Although the Soviet Union was undoubtedly evil, it had some good aspects to it (like the teaching of literary classics), and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging this. I'm reminded of a heated debate I got into once, with someone who called me an apologist for terrorism for denying terrorists were cowardly. I see no problem in admitting many terrorists are brave. Evil and bravery are not incompatible as far as I can see. It's not entirely the same thing, but WILD SWANS, the brutal account of Maoist China by Jung Chang, gave a definite example of a communist country supressing the reading of literary classics. Most of the supressed works were non-Sino, however, making the situation different from U.S.S.R. not destroying it's own great literary tradition. The author mentions how she, at one point as a young Red Guard, had to guard an archive of European classics, which for some strange reason a government department salvaged during decades of destruction- guard from anybody reading them. Reading these herself increased her interest in literature, something she eventually studied in Britain after Mao's death. Interesting that a lite-version of the same cultural revolution can take place in our own society: there's been talk through the years of replacing classic nineteenth century writers in secondary curriculum with pop-culture media. A newspaper cited Spiderman once. Pell gave a statement about this at one stage, saying that young people needed to read the likes of Dickens and the Brontës. And, without claiming to know too much about it, I've heard reports of universities having had(they claim) to cut down on literature courses, University of Queensland once cut some literature courses some years ago just as they were adding a unit on burlesque;I heard a radio interview once of an academic from the same university, speaking a heap of nonsense about the latest reality tv show (what she claimed to be professor of, don't ask me.) An extreme example perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2018 10:21:14 GMT
I can think of a lot of literary classics I would burn and suppress with great enthusiasm. Not all of them modern.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 8, 2018 15:02:58 GMT
I can think of a lot of literary classics I would burn and suppress with great enthusiasm. Not all of them modern. Go on. Start a list..... |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 8, 2018 15:27:36 GMT
I'm also quite partial to the Soviet aesthetic.
I remember one playwright lamenting after the fall of communism: "At least the communists persecuted us. The New Russia just ignores us." I think this is a very profound remark. I've always been a defender of the Playboy riots and book censorship in twentieth century in Ireland, for the very reason that they showed such a serious attitude to culture.[/quote]
I wonder is there an element of the literary ideal versus a more mundane and sometimes disenchanted reality in the Irish literary culture wars of the early/mid 20th centuries? Most post Independence writers tended pretty quickly to fall out of love with the official Irish cultural narrative. Life was hard for most and a brutal civil war crushed much of the revolutionary hope and vision. Certainly there were writers who articulated the traditional vision but they tend to be neglected nowadays. It is striking though how much of the literary classes become disillusioned so quickly.
I do respectfully disagree Maolsheachlann about censorship which really boiled down to some busy body locating a line of what they viewed as smut and then complained so the state would stop other souls getting corrupted. Ancient Greek Penguin classic translations were banned along with the great medieval Italian work Tales of the Decameron. An argument can be made to ban pornography but literary censorship was misguided and foolish. Hibernia contra mundum ended up becoming smug and self righteous.
There is an earlier Irish tradition of respect for literature even when it may not reflect society's current values. Most celtic pagan myths , laws , poetry , genealogies, annals were recorded by Christian monks who transcribed a culture that practicised customs alien to the Gospel. We would know very little about pre christian Ireland without those documents. Similarly it has been argued much of the classical latin pagan texts were recorded and preserved by Irish monks both here and in monasteries on the continent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2018 15:33:27 GMT
Treasure Island (no matter how much Chesterton liked it).
Three Men in a Boat.
A Passage to India.
The His Dark Materials trilogy.
Anything by Flannery "bourgeois-bashing bore" O'Connor.
Really, there's no end to the literary classics I would happily burn!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Dec 8, 2018 18:55:56 GMT
Treasure Island (no matter how much Chesterton liked it). Three Men in a Boat. A Passage to India. The His Dark Materials trilogy. Anything by Flannery "bourgeois-bashing bore" O'Connor. Really, there's no end to the literary classics I would happily burn! Oh My! Must be rushing in hurriedly to drag them back from the fire. Haven´t read much but some of these would be the very opposite. Flannery O´Connor´s A Good Man Is Hard to Find was my best reading experience of a decade (truly so). And Three Men in a Boat is on the list for "hopefully soon". Could you please put in some Communist or Enlightenment pamphlets there instead? It will be lighter to burn and not worth its ink anyway. |
|
