Why does everyone think Russian literature only consists of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy?

Why does everyone think Russian literature only consists of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy?

Because it does
>inb4 Pushkin
a meme national poet on the same level as Mickiewicz
>inb4 Gogol, Chekhov, etc
They're just ok

I had never consdiered the question.

I doubt anyone thinks it only consists of these two.

Its all non-slavs are taught. Plus lack of decent translations

Those are the big 2, an average reader doesn't dive in so much to foreign lit so only knows them

>because I said so

>assessing poet's work in translations
How can one man be this pleb?

Pushkin didn't influence anybody except Ruskies. Nobody cares.

>Shakespeare didn't influence anybody except Anglos. Nobody cares.

>who is Turgenev

>Pushkin is as influential as Shakespeare

Pushkin is quite literally the Shakespeare of Russian literature.

God this discussion is moving so slow. Yes, Pushkin is genius, national poet level of quality, the Shakespeare/Racine/Dante of Russia. But what non-Russians were influenced by him? Goethe was inspired by Shakes-da-spear. Latin American writers are indebted to the Bard. They are simply on another level.

>muh russian ;;;literature;;;
>ignore greatest works by chechoslovak, polish, or hungarian writers

>gogol & chekhov r juss ewk

you god damned pleb.

he's indirectly influential, pushkin influenced tolstoy and dosty, obviously their influence can be charted fairly easily.

No he isn't, aside from being considered the national poet or bard.

Stylistically and thematically, he's the Byron or Shelley of Russian literature.

You're correct, but the other user's proposition, that "Puskin didn't influence anybody except Ruskies," remains true because such a proposition obviously refers solely to direct influence.

But who cares? The point of my post was to end the circles going on in this thread, and I don't want to be sucked back into it.

>what non-Russians were influenced by him
What kind of retarded metric is this? He's the progenitor of all the Russian literature. It's only logical that he would be less of an international influence considering the learning difficulty disparity between English/German and Russian and the fact that poetry is essentially untranslatable. Shakespeare was indeed a higher caliber historical figure due to his influence on dramaturgy, so was Goethe with his philosophical and naturalistic writings and all around being an archetypical Enlightenment master. But their pure literary merit is very much on par and denying it is pretty stupid.

>be a russian
>never read Tolstoy
>found Crime and Punishment to be obnoxious and boring
Bulgakov shits on both tbqfh phams

Who said anything about literary merit? I was only trying to end a stupid debate where neither anons were even wrong, just speaking past each other.

oh no worries, this is a horse that has long since decayed, and the fossilized stick is used for nothing but bludgeoning idiots who ask about the horse at this point.

>tfw a retarded anglo tries to teach you about your national literature
He was to Russian language exactly was Shakesbeer was to English. His place in Russian literature exactly that of Shakespeare in English. We were talking about influence and not style, you dense fuck.

>tfw тeбe 16 и ты пocтишь лягyшeк

and both gogol and turgenev shit directly into bulgakov's rosy lips desu famalam

The whole point of the debate was that Pushkin is "meme national poet not worth reading".

>tfw pycня пиздит c pycнeй нa aнглийcкoм в тpeдe o pyccкoй литepaтype

feels bretty gud tbqh

Boris Akounine is fucking cool

Baлитe нaхyй c мoeгo чepвepaчa

I prefer B.akunin

How many americans can quote Shakespeare beyond "DUDE 2B OR NOT 2B"?
You can take any unwashed, drunk, retarded, wife beating slav and he could still produce you a good dozen Pushkin's stanzas from memory