Sometimes Chekhov would tell me about Tolstoy: “I admire him greatly...

Me. I believe his criticism is completely honestly and that he genuinely did not have the capacity to understand Shakespeare. I also believe I know why this is so.

people who write like this should be shot

go on

>Tolstoy the best Russian writer
>according to Tolstoy
>Chekhov completely sees through his bullshit and reads him like a fucking /highschooltierliterature/ book
>doesn't even acknowledge that he himself is a twenty times better writer than Tolstoy
The Dunning-Kruger effect, lads

Basically, a few months ago I hated Shakespeare too. Then I somehow unlocked the ability to understand poetry (along with a bunch of other mental changes), which altered the way I thought on a fundamental level. I then found that I enjoyed everything I hated about his writing before, the weird grammar, the seemingly unnecessary repetition and the abrasive sound contrasts and such that made trying to enjoy him absolutely dreadful. All this transformed into emotional effect and structural direction of meaning and metaphor. Prior to this, poetry held no aesthetic value for me and provided nothing that wouldn't be done better in prose.

I believe that Tolstoy either never managed to discover how to activate this modality of thought (I'm unaware of him placing much importance on poetry) or otherwise lost it at some point (similar to how Ravel lost his ability to appreciate musical structure). But I believe that this could explain a huge number of people's inability to grapple with this kind of writing.

>he himself is a twenty times better writer than Tolstoy
Negr, pozhaluista.

I really don't think you understand poetry better than Tolstoy did.
A while ago I read an article I think that mentioned an Orwell essay on Tolstoy's dislike of Shakespeare and if I remember correctly it was more of a Christian moralist vs Human determinist disagreement philosophically between the two, must remember how Christian Tolstoy went at the end of his life.

>I really don't think you understand poetry better than Tolstoy did.

Well I don't know how well he did, and I can't rule out the possibility that he might have understood it poorly in spite of his literary prowess. I can't read him in Russian, but I don't get the sense that his works rely significantly on the kinds of poetic qualities that I'm talking about, his writing is seemingly very easy going and straightforward, with most of the complexity in following the interwoven plots and tapestry of characters, the psychology of whom he focuses on intently.

If you wish to assume that Tolstoy did understand poetry to a high degree, but that Shakespeare just happened to particularly irk him, then be my guest. I just believe that I might have a meaningful alternate hypothesis that you can give or take for what it is. To assume arrogance on my part by simply having the gall to compare my own abilities to a figure like Tolstoy, regardless of what information there is on his actual regard for poetry proper. He had no qualms with dissing anything he deemed pretentious if he himself simply could not understand it.

To add to this, I've read Orwell's essay and I cannot agree with it. It assumes too much about Tolstoy's motives, when Tolstoy was quite plain that he simply and flatly found no joy in experiencing Shakespeare in any form, not matter how hard or how many times he tried, and so could only assume that the bard's reputation was an actual meme. The Christian moralist motivation is entirely conjecture on Orwell's part.

speak english you fucking retard tolstoycuck

Tolstoy learned Ancient Greek so he could read the Odyssey. Did you read the Odyssey in Ancient Greek, user?

No, I don't, but then Tolstoy didn't learn Japanese in order to more deeply appreciate haiku. I understand why you are skeptical of my claims, as I have only so far explained myself in a very basic way and without the nuance needed to make the nuance of my claims clear.

When I speak of the aesthetic effect of poetry, I am speaking of very particular aspects of particular kinds of poetry that I perceive as having certain qualities. Making this distinction is difficult and subtle, and I wish to take great pains to properly make it clear when I can collect my thoughts better and provide sufficient examples, but for now I can only ask you to believe me when I say that Shakespeare is, particularly dense and dependent on the particular kinds of poetic effects that I'm taking about, in ways that most other poets are not. Certain kinds of poetry are much easier to understand, but Shakespeare's poetry is extremely dependent on the construction of poetic, metaphorical imagery that demands this particular modality of appreciation in order for it to have any emotional or aesthetic value at all. The Greek epics are, from my personal experience, not as heavily dependent on these highly abstract constructs to the degree Shakespeare is, you can get much more out of Homer lacking this poetic modality than you can Shakespeare.

You have mastered the art of talking without saying anything.

Like I said, I'll have to explain in much greater detail to get my point across, but I will still say that the assumption that you and Orwell make that Tolstoy's issue must be fundamentally with his inability to deal with other worldviews outside his own morality, as opposed to being aesthetic and structural, to be every bit as absurd as you must assume my point is.

I haven't made any assumptions. That was my first post in this thread. I'm just here to point out that you are a pseud who posts long winded, rambling nonsense. Nothing you have said has any substance. It reads like a Trump speech: "Believe me."

hows reddit for you kid

It's useful for certain topics

I prefer Toy Story

But I understand why you wouldn't believe me. The point I'm making is that there are specific qualities of poetry, such as the ability to intuitively perceive metre in blank verse, without which a play like Hamlet will be incomprehensible, but which it may be entirely possible for an otherwise highly educated and literary person to simply lack, and though no real fault of their own. I say this from my own personal experience of lacking this, and finding that no amount of effort could make me appreciate Shakespeare or see why his sentences were structured the way they were (while otherwise most prose and certain other forms of poetry were still understandable), then developing this intuitive sense which allowed me to grok poetic forms that I otherwise could not. I must stress that that I did not simply learn about the style of poetry and then comprehend it because of this, rather, the intuition was a radical transformation of the way I experienced and processed language that happened suddenly, and after that point everything just made sense intuitively without additional analysis.

Is way this because, when lacking this sense, my revulsion of Shakespeare was very much like Tolstoy described, even though I could understand perfectly well the solid construction of a play by Ibsen or Sophocles without trouble. It simply makes more sense to me because of this to just trust that Tolstoy was being honest about what he felt and experienced, as is seems there could be a reasonable explanation for this, rather than make ideological assumptions about why he must have otherwise despised him and project imagined motives for this.

i understand, agree, and like you, user

you're very intelligent and grok is a new word for me

>grok
Oh christ, this retard used 'grok' in his ramblings? What a dweeby little shit.

Also, dweeby user, tell me how to start learning Japanese?

RTK

>Basically, a few months ago I hated Shakespeare too. Then I somehow unlocked the ability to understand poetry (along with a bunch of other mental changes), which altered the way I thought on a fundamental level.

Can you tell me more about that?

>When I speak of the aesthetic effect of poetry, I am speaking of very particular aspects of particular kinds of poetry that I perceive as having certain qualities. Making this distinction is difficult and subtle, and I wish to take great pains to properly make it clear when I can collect my thoughts better and provide sufficient examples, but for now I can only ask you to believe me when I say that Shakespeare is, particularly dense and dependent on the particular kinds of poetic effects that I'm taking about, in ways that most other poets are not. Certain kinds of poetry are much easier to understand, but Shakespeare's poetry is extremely dependent on the construction of poetic, metaphorical imagery that demands this particular modality of appreciation in order for it to have any emotional or aesthetic value at all. The Greek epics are, from my personal experience, not as heavily dependent on these highly abstract constructs to the degree Shakespeare is, you can get much more out of Homer lacking this poetic modality than you can Shakespeare.

Very well said: that is actually quite an intelligent perception. It is obvious that different styles of poetry read differently, and that poetic works that use a more pure, direct and natural phrasing might appeal much more to Tolstoy’s taste than works of great metaphorical exuberance. That is an obvious fact, yet it is remarkable that so few people perceive this. Well done.

>The point I'm making is that there are specific qualities of poetry, such as the ability to intuitively perceive metre in blank verse, without which a play like Hamlet will be incomprehensible, but which it may be entirely possible for an otherwise highly educated and literary person to simply lack, and though no real fault of their own. I say this from my own personal experience of lacking this, and finding that no amount of effort could make me appreciate Shakespeare or see why his sentences were structured the way they were (while otherwise most prose and certain other forms of poetry were still understandable), then developing this intuitive sense which allowed me to grok poetic forms that I otherwise could not. I must stress that that I did not simply learn about the style of poetry and then comprehend it because of this, rather, the intuition was a radical transformation of the way I experienced and processed language that happened suddenly, and after that point everything just made sense intuitively without additional analysis.

Please, speak in detail about this mental transformation. What happened; what motivated this new perception of literature?

I liked your posts. You are a valuable user in Veeky Forums

Also, I have a copy pasta I made about the relation between Shakespeare and Tolstoy, and I would like to share it with you:

On Tolstoy x Shakespeare

The problem with Tolstoy and Shakespeare is the huge difference between these two writers. Shakespeare excelled in language, and did not mind sacrificing the verisimilitude and reality in favor of the verbal beauty. If an idea grabbed his mind in the middle of a speech and scene, he was determinate to use that idea, to exhibit that metaphor, even if it was not relevant to the plot or faithful to the character that was speaking, and only for the pleasure and pride of modeling beauty in verses. No one ever spoke like Shakespeare's characters: the human race that he modeled is artificial in this respect: they are as human beings who had took steroids for the mind, who had the brain areas related to language and verbal thinking augmented by some divine touch. Shakespeare makes all humans (even mediocre ones) speak as Gods, as D. H. Lawrence said:

“When I read Shakespeare I am struck with wonder
That such trivial people should muse and thunder
In such lovely language.”

It even seems that some kind of strange metaphorical-parasite have invaded Shakespeare’s brain, laid a multitude of eggs on his crumbs and usurped the synapses of his neurons, in a way that he only could think thorough images, trough metaphor and similes: every fiber and streamer of thought at birth is already mounted by an image, that rides it. In his plays one metaphor tread on the heels of another who has just broke out of its shell, one simile breaths on the neck of another simile that has just been born.

Moreover, Shakespeare accepted any plots, no matter how fantastical and bizarre, provided they were interesting. He did not care to kill important characters without any scruple, and sure he did not bother to set his stories anywhere in the world and at any time in history, without even analyzing the customs of other peoples or epochs: the important thing was to captivate the attention of public (and finding nice opportunities to forge brilliant metaphors and similes)

Tolstoy, however, was a fanatic for realism. He fought hard to make his characters speak realistically, not with an bookish breath and rhetorical exhalation. He also studied deeply the history of the periods and places depicted in his works; in reality, most of the things he portrayed were taken from his own life-experience. It is common to see Tolstoy, when he praises the art of someone, using the words: "very true, very real" - to be close to truth was one of the greatest virtues of an artist in his view.

Also, Shakespeare did not have any particular philosophy or religion: he changed his views and beliefs according to the play he was writing. Tolstoy, however, as he grew older, started to increasingly assert his doctrines, even in his art.

And finally, we cannot forget the literary envy. Tolstoy was a very proud and egocentric men (when he was a teenage student and got bad grades he was so furious with the boldness of the teachers in affronting him, a count, that he look inside his room and cried of rage for some days; he was always calling any man who said something against him for a duel when he was young; he said in his diary that he liked more to read bad books because they made he feel better with himself because good books made him angry and desperate, and for him to hear praises to Shakespeare all the time by everyone’s mouth was something deeply irritating.

kekked tbqhwufam

Negger please

hey hows u

not an argument, try better next time

Don't take everything at face value, you fucking retard. Writers love to criticize other writers even when they admire them. Tolstoy undoubtedly idolized Shakespeare.

no u

Hm, did anyone ever consider ... that Tolstoy ... didn't ... hm ... well ... read Shakespeare in English? And that was the problem? hm...

I dunno.

Damn. This might be the stupidest post all day. Well done.

Is that you flowerposter?

Thanks, I try.

>Is that you flowerposter?
Who's flowerposter?

And certain porn

he did though, had you read his criticism of shakespeare you would know that.