Talk:Russian Symbolism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

I'll go down some of the changes I made:

1) I changed the divisions in the article on Symbolist literature because it is usually described as being composed of two generations (decadents inspired by French literature and German philosopy, mystics inspired by the writings of Solovyov) rather than three waves.

What may seem "usual" to you may not be "usual" for others. It is your personal point of view, nothing more, nor less. Please consider that the previous version survived unaltered for a year and thousands who read this page before did not rush to bulldoze it the way you did. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

2) I deleted the analytical section on Blok's poetry for two reasons. First of all, it was written with a lack of clarity. Secondly, an analysis of Blok's poetry belongs in the article on Blok, not the article on Symbolism.

If you are unhappy with something, please propose your ideas here. Tacit deletions are never good. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

3) The same goes for the analysis of Bely's works.

Ditto. When you delete stuff which is not repeated in other articles, it's not good. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

4) I deleted certain areas that appeared to be biased in favor of one Symbolist writer over another. As big of a name as Zinaida Gippius should not be described as a second-rate poet (especially when interest in her works is very much rising at the moment),

I don't know where the interest in this third-rate "poetess" is rising, but again it's your POV. I don't see her "name" as "big" at all. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

and Annensky should not be described as the only Symbolist writer from the first generation to preserve his reputation, considering that his works are considerably harder to find than those of, say, Sologub, Merezhkovsky and Voloshin.

Once again, I can't see your meaning. In what country are they hard to find? They are much harder to translate. Another fault of Annensky is that he didn't dabble in radical politics and cheap esotericism, hence he will never be as popular abroad as, say, Gorky or Merezhkovsky. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the huge focus on Blok and Bely (which should be kept in their own pages) stressed their importance in the movement a little too much. I tried to preserve an accurate and unbiased portrait of Russian Symbolism as a whole. Though Petersburg is an important prose work, so are The Petty Demon and The Fiery Angel.

Sorry, this assertion is so silly that I will not bother to reply. To compare the most complex Russian novel of the century with some universally forgotten Stanisław Przybyszewski stuff... Please read up and then return here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And I think that the current, slimmer, section on Blok portrays his fame as a Symbolist (and, in general, Russian) poet even better than before, though perhaps some attention should be paid to his dramas as well.

I agree that Балаганчик is important, so please add more data without suppressing things you don't like or don't understand. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

5) Other than that, I edited anything that was unclear or seemed to be not quite correct (for example, Moscow being the center of the movement and Bely and Blok being Muscovite poets). I added more on Bryusov and Sologub, whom I thought were underrepresented.

Indeed, Bely and Blok epitomized the Muscovite tradition in Russian poetry, although some of their best known works are about St. Petersburg. It's instructive that real St. Petersburgers disliked their perception of the Northern capital intensely. Read what Joseph Brodsky writes about both. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope that helps.

-Jason

[edit] Update

I have attempted to consolidate the two versions of the article. Hopefully this will bring us closer to something that we can both be happy with.

As far as my response to your comments goes:

1) I have read quite a bit about Symbolism, and when it is separated into groups at all, it is always separated into two "generations," either described as "first" and "second" or "older" and "younger." To back up this claim, since I thought it would only be fair to you, I looked up первое поколение символистов on yandex.ru and found 1,099 sites. I then looked up второе поколение символистов on the same page and found 1,310 sites. Try it yourself, if you wish. If that isn't convincing enough, perhaps you could explain why you chose to separate the movement into "waves," which I have never seen before. Maybe your argument (which you didn't back up earlier, simply accusing me of sharing my presumably fallible "point of view") is a good one. If so, I'd very much like to hear it.

2) Since I still don't believe that such a lengthy discussion of Blok's symbology is appropriate in the article on Symbolism, I will add it to the article on the poet himself. I'm not certain how to make it read better (I don't know who the author is, but it's written in very poor English, and therefore difficult to understand), but perhaps those working on the Blok article will be able to help with that.

3) I have restored much information on Bely, since it wasn't quite as specific and the language of that section was easier to correct.

4) Please consider that your dislike of the work of Gippius and Merezhkovsky may be your own point of view. I included the neutral statement "a major poet in the early days of the Symbolist movement" to describe Gippius because it makes it clear that her importance has waned, while still allowing for the importance of her role in early Symbolist literature.

b) Annensky is an excellent poet, but to say that he is the only Symbolist of the first generation whose reputation has not waned is excessive.

c) I actually know quite a bit about Przybyszewski, but I'm not certain why you have compared him to Sologub and Bryusov. The Petty Demon especially is still read quite often. Of course, neither The Petty Demon nor The Fiery Angel is quite as popular or as "important" as Petersburg, but this does not mean they should be ignored.

5) I have always heard Blok described as being very much a St. Petersburg poet. I am, of course, familiar with Brodsky's works, but not with any instance in which he states that Blok's poetry is primarily Muscovite in nature. You may be right, but I find this idea highly controversial, and would like to see a quote of some sort before being convinced.

I apologize for deleting sections of the article without consulting anyone. I was a new user at the time and did not know better. But please, in the future, follow your own advice and try not to delete any significant sections of the article without discussing them here first. I (no longer a new user) will do the same. Please mention here anything that you are unhappy with in the current version, so we can work it out on the forum before we do so on the page.

---kmblacksquare