Talk:Ostap Bender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Subject vs Citizen

I agree that "subject" is a better word, but English translation says "citizen": [1]. Of course, other translations might say "subject". Not a big deal either way. DR31 _(talk) 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited without checking the talk page. I as well think "subject" is better than "citizen" (not only more accurate, it also covers more ground and implies citizenship; I've read the book in Romanian, and the term is "supus" = "subject"). A question though: is he really "hinting at Jewish Odessa roots"? I mean, he gives two of his names as Turkish or Tatar, and his main name is Bender (Tighina?). Of course, these are not "proofs" (since he is a con man), but my guess is he's not hinting to anything. There is never a reference to such a thing, is there? Dahn 11:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but like with everything in 12 Chairs, there is. In Russian, this reference is explained here: http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/1927/C-VII.html. Basically, it says that in Odessa, many businessmen, mostly Jews, became Turkish subjects, in order for their children to avoid the army, among other things. The commentary points out that it's a hint rather than proof, but it's pretty much accpeted that Bender is a Jew. (As for the name, as you said he is a con artist.) DR31 _(talk) 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was always puzzled by something. Where he crosses the Romanian border, he shouts "Long live Greater Romania!". I always wondered what the slogan was in the Russian edition. I mean, in Romanian it is, well, the same. Was it in Romanian in the Russian edition? Otherwise, how did he expect the guards to understand him? Dahn 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and the phrase is in Romanian. He then repeats in in Russian. DR31 _(talk) 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satire on Soviet society

This phrase seems unneutral. Do we say about any English-language satirical book that it is "satire on American society"? The authors were definitely not anti-Soviet, so portraying them as outlaughing Soviet power would be incorrect. Just the opposite, the books satirizes private interest in opposition to common purpose.--Dojarca 13:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. If was Soviet society OK. And not only Ilf & Petrov made fun of it. Ever heard about Mikhail Zoshchenko? `'mikka 18:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka. On one hand, even kulaks and nepmen (and Caucasian princes) were also part of Soviet society (Stalin himself issued criticism of Soviet society, otherwise the world would have been much less happier); secondly, even if the books may be argued to be targeting the same things as the regime at times, they are not limited to that (and several have argued, right or wrong, that there is criticism of the system as well - one may recall the character who is desperate because he can only dream of Party meetings, agitprop sessions, cadres involved in production work and the like, or Bender handing out his manual of enthusiastic phrases to be used in articles). Dahn 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Should any satirical book be called satire on society? There many things satirized in the book: NEPmen, chirch, bureaucrats, egoists, those who pursue private interest instead of common purpose. It is not right to substitute all that with "satire on Soviet order"? It looks like phrasing of soviet literature criticists who did see in any Western satirical book "satire on capitalist society".--Dojarca 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. It does not say "satire on [the] Soviet order", nor "satire on [the] communist society". In fact, it does not even say "satire on Soviet society", but something even vaguer than that. 2. I just told you that certain parts of it have been argued to be tongue-in-cheek references to the Soviet system itself. Dahn 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)