How does Yea Forums feel about Tolstoy’s dislike of Shakespeare?

Tolstoy was proficient in English so what the fuck are you on?

god damn he must’ve been really bored

Oh wait so he was expecting muh realism and was disappointed?? kek what a faggot

He read Shakes in English.

Imagine being a man and not liking Macbeth. Cringe.

obviously his english was shit

>But it is not enough that Shakespeare's characters are placed in tragic positions which are impossible, do not flow from the course of events, are inappropriate to time and space—these personages, besides this, act in a way which is out of keeping with their definite character, and is quite arbitrary.

Tolstoy borrowed ideas (likely entirely unwillingly) from Shakespeare, but his hatred is acceptable only due to his own success and reputation.
I would rank Shakespeare above Tolstoy but its not like Tolstoy is some failure insulting the greats out of jealousy, many would even rank him one the same level if not higher than Shakespeare.

Part of it I imagine is that Tolstoy for all of his great skill is and was overshadowed in Drama by Shakespeare. Hadji Murat for example for all of its fantastic tragedy and ability to feel like an Epic in less than 200 pages will never be met with the same respect something like King Lear or Macbeth is, regardless of whether or not Murat is a better story. Any Dramatist has to come to terms with the fact that they will never surpass the Bard, even if they are a better writer. Tolstoy seemingly never could do this.
Add to this Shakespeare's infuriating ability to be a great writer of Comedy, Romance, and Drama and I can picture the anger and resentment that creates.

Does Tolstoy just not understand
how theatre works or something.

Attached: 499F347C-DD99-4FFB-A2C1-5E82802E5436.jpg (401x401, 21K)

he could've benefitted from an annotated edition kek I doubt they were a thing back then though

Attached: GettyImages-488089013.jpg (3528x2449, 1.45M)

he’s just one of those autists obsessed with things being realistic

>noooo its not realistic! Puck wouldn't speak like that!
Did tolstoy just have autism?

I don't know, maybe it's like because of all of Shakespeare's inversions and puns and obvious pessimism and such, because the grammar and vocabulary is solid as fuck

>Any Dramatist has to come to terms with the fact that they will never surpass the Bard, even if they are a better writer.
Pretty much this. Shakes was a fucking god.

He read it in every major European language. It's in his diary/letters or something.

>But in comparing Shakespeare with Homer, as does Gervinus, that infinite distance which separates true poetry from its semblance manifests itself with especial force. However distant Homer is from us, we can, without the slightest effort, transport ourselves into the life he describes, and we can thus transport ourselves because, however alien to us may be the events Homer describes, he believes in what he says and speaks seriously, and therefore he never exaggerates, and the sense of measure never abandons him. This is the reason why, not to speak of the wonderfully distinct, lifelike, and beautiful characters of Achilles, Hector, Priam, Odysseus, and the eternally touching scenes of Hector's leave-taking, of Priam's embassy, of Odysseus's return, and others—the whole of the "Iliad" and still more the "Odyssey" are so humanly near to us that we feel as if we ourselves had lived, and are living, among its gods and heroes. Not so with Shakespeare. From his first words, exaggeration is seen: the exaggeration of events, the exaggeration of emotion, and the exaggeration of effects. One sees at once that he does not believe in what[82] he says, that it is of no necessity to him, that he invents the events he describes, and is indifferent to his characters—that he has conceived them only for the stage and therefore makes them do and say only what may strike his public; and therefore we do not believe either in the events, or in the actions, or in the sufferings of the characters. Nothing demonstrates so clearly the complete absence of esthetic feeling in Shakespeare as comparison between him and Homer. The works which we call the works of Homer are artistic, poetic, original works, lived through by the author or authors; whereas the works of Shakespeare—borrowed as they are, and, externally, like mosaics, artificially fitted together piecemeal from bits invented for the occasion—have nothing whatever in common with art and poetry.

woah...

based

Somebody here once made the argument that Tolstoy criticized Shakespeare because he was jealous and saw him as a "rival".

wow very deep interpretation

>One sees at once that he does not believe in >what[82] he says, that it is of no necessity to him, that he invents the events he describes, and is indifferent to his characters

Yeah but isn't that what makes Shakespeare so great and timeless? He speaks to the disillusioned soul. why would you expect him to believe wholeheartedly in anything?

>He speaks to the disillusioned soul

Doesn't he speak to whatever noble ideal the monarchy is interested in that week? With a true example of the divine right of kings (Henry V) or an example of why James I is descended from badasses (Macbeath)?

Uh, don't all those plays warn against the burden of power? It's all dissimulation.

Can't please all the people all the time thing is what it seems like to me.

Henry V talks about how the French have no idea what they are doing and Henry's huge cock can inspire a nation to mobilise for war.

Macbeath was about how Malcolm was cheated out of his rightful throne by a literal servant of Satan.

Power seems pretty good, it's just other factors that get in the way.

>Macbeath was about how Malcolm was cheated out of his rightful throne by a literal servant of Satan.
what?

>Power seems pretty good, it's just other factors that get in the way.

The effect means nothing without the cause, the factors get in the way because of power.

Tolstoy makes the same criticisms against various institutions in What is Art. You have to remember that for a time he revoked art and felt it to be a worthless medium. In Shakespeare he sees technical genius tied to no spirit, no conviction, nothing of the human soul; his already strained opinion of art's value to benefit mankind had its perfect symbolic representation in Shakespeare's writing. This is even somewhat defensible given we know next to nothing about the bard. We acknowledge his ability, but what do we sense beneath it? For Tolstoy, he sensed nothing beyond the efforts of a talented writer exchanging his gifts for coin versus using said gifts for all of humanity, something to which Tolstoy aspired. I like Shakespeare. I like Tolstoy, too. Knowing his sensibilities, and remaining ignorant with the rest of humanity regarding Shakespeare's origins, I believe his criticisms to be genuine. The popular theory that he was merely jealous is tripe.

I think he's what the children call "based". Shakespeare's fucking boring.

He read it in English.

That is one of the infuriating things about Shakespeare, he had more talent than almost everyone else, but he wasn't an artist for much of his time. He had some fantastic works that were his own totally, but many to most of his great works were whatever was going to be popular, or whatever the Royalty wanted at the time. However to call his works soulless (to borrow a disgusting buzzword) wouldn't fit either as there is a ton of personality and wit and uniqueness to Shakespeare, but that is combined with him working off of commission and doing what was gonna sell.

This guy wrote as a job and worked to appeal to the masses he still is better than you'll ever be. For a more 'honest' artist that has to be just horrible to think about.

Based on and , it sounds like the second best writer of all time being really fucking mad that he's number 2, and making up whatever he can to cope.

This pretty much confirms it. Tolstoy wouldn't have purposefully misinterpreted Shakespeare like this. No one who writes so well would be so stupid as to fail to recognize that the outrageous and audacious is the purpose of Shakespeare, and that there is just as much dishonest, synthetic sentimentalism in the body of art as there is authentic and genuine humanity. These are the impotent criticisms of the runner up saying, "Well, I wasn't really trying that hard..." and hoping no one figures out he was bleeding his soul, just to come up second. This is envy.

>merely jealous
>muh deep complex thoughts fundamentally change emotions meme
I have to imagine that great men have great feelings, and that our greatest passions would be equatable to Tolstoy's indifference. You say "mere" because your envy could only ever be something so small and meaningless. Tolstoy's envy is worth talking about.

It did not come out of envy, but of Tolstoys retarded social utopianism. To accommodate for Tolstoys starry eyed, humble, and nonexistent peasant in that nonexistent christo-anarchist community, most of the canonical works of western art would have to go, not just Shakespeare.

Lmaoing at the asshurt anglos itt

Reminds of an episode of Recess where TJ wants to impress a fellow kid and he tries everything and at the end of the day the other guy just doesn't like him. You can't expect to be liked by EVERYONE no matter how popular you are.

Attached: 5353454534.jpg (400x400, 28K)

I haven't yet finished reading Tolstoy's criticisms, but what I have read shows that he did not regard Shakespeare's art as the summit of "technical genius," as you put it. Read his discussion of King Lear.

>Yet, however hopeless it may seem, I will endeavor to demonstrate in the selected drama—"King Lear"—all those faults equally characteristic also of all the other tragedies and comedies of Shakespeare, on account of which he not only is not representing a model of dramatic art, but does not satisfy the most elementary demands of art recognized by all.

I used merely as an adjective dismissing the literary analysis of Tolstoy's judgment; I was not diminishing Tolstoy's feelings themselves. Never @ me again, you illiterate tripe peddler.

>adjective
I am ruined. Meant adverb.

Based Tolstoy dabbing on anglos

Based

He was coping hard. Tolstoy was good, but he was not great. Those philosophical chapter in W&P really exposed him as a pleb.

>pleb
He spoke 13 languages, descended from aristocracy (iq is heritable), is undoubtedly one of the best writers of all time

I bet you’re French aren’t you
He utterly dabbed on Napoleon

based and recesspilled
time for my yearly rewatch

>but he was not great
kek ...who is great then in your humble opinion?

I can forgive him since English wasn't his native language. He simply didn't know what he was talking about.

lmao 19th century DFW

This, don’t take cunts on here seriously, powerful literature is impenetrable with the advice of those alive today.
>he was a pleb
What an absolutely retarded thing to say

Tolstoy has like what? 2 or 3 great works?

We have Anna Karenina, which is undoubtedly a masterpiece, I won't argue with that.

We have War and Peace, which while great, it was hurt by tacked on philosophy that wasn't saying something original or smart. Also the book felt way too much like a soap opera at times. Anyway, it's a memorable work so we'll count it.

Death of Ivan Ilyich. What do we say about this one? It's great, but it's mostly forgotten.

Resurrection. A great novel, but is it a masterpiece you would expect from the greatest literary genius that ever lived? Doubt it.

There are plenty of other authors who have way larger resume, and in the end that's what matters. Shakespeare is an entire library ahead of Tolstoy. Not to take anything from Tolstoy, but he wasn't in a position to critique Shakespeare

Read Hadji Murat, its built out of Tolstoy attacking his younger works like the Raid, and it feels like an Epic on the scale of the Iliad or Odyssey but in less than 150 pages.
It really one of his greatest works just on the density of it, not a page is wasted.

It actually was a pretty "deep interpretation" but the poster made the argument much better than I. I'd look for the posts on Warosu but it's down right now.

Tolstoy was a based vegetarian anarchist

I've been saying this for so long.

archived.moe/lit/thread/11348173/#11348880

Makes him based, I never understood why people like Shakespeare, its fucking garbage.

>Defending Shakespeare
Disgusting

This reads like a Yea Forums shitpost about "dishonest cinematography."

I think you'd fare better on another board, perhaps one that's cartoon themed.

In criticizing Shakespeare he became what he always wanted to be: a peasant.

Tolstoy was just a jealous egomaniac

>Shakespeare is dramatic
oh no

Thanks, friend, I'll check it out.

Orwell wrote about this a long time ago guys:

orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf

Chekhov - who was one of the wisest and most humane of all writers, and who knew personaly and loved Tolsoty, and who wrote plays himself and enjoyed Shakespeare - knew the real answer to this question:

"I admire him [Tolstoy] greatly. What I admire the most in him is that he despises us all; all writers. Perhaps a more accurate description is that he treats us, other writers, as completely empty space. You could argue that from time to time, he praises Maupassant, or Kuprin, or Semenov, or myself. But why does he praise us? It is simple: it's because he looks at us as if we were children. Our short stories, or even our novels, all are child's play in comparison with his works. However, Shakespeare … For him, the reason is different. Shakespeare irritates him because he is a grown-up writer, and does not write in the way that Tolstoy does."

theguardian.com/books/2011/jul/11/tolstoy-thought-chekhov-worse-than-shakespeare

By the way, Checkhov's short-story "In the Ravine" is one of the gretest works of literature I have ever encountered.

That should teach an honest artist humility. Tolstoy especially could use some.

Not saying I agree with your perspective, but who would you consider great writers? Or just 4-5 examples of serious writing. (Other than Homer)

he's right
anglos worship shakespeare just because their entire body of literature is one big joke

Great essay, thanks

Thanks.