Jag har två sjuka barn (det tredje är på benen än så länge). Jag har smuliga golv. Jag har rentvätt att vika och smutstävtt att göra ren. Jag har ett huvud som dagdrömmer om påhittade ritualer, ceremonier och symboler som skiljer sig åt i olika påhittade kulturer.
Oj oj oj, vad jag har fullt upp.
Som om det inte var nog med det har jag påbörjat Anna Karenina. Ja, ni hörde rätt, jag har börjat läsa Anna Karenina. Jag köpte nyöversättningen i höstas för att kunna ta god tid på mig och inte bry mig om bibliotek. Jag läser och bildar mig en egen uppfattning om ett av litteraturhistoriens viktigaste verk.
Jag har ju bara börjat, men kan säga så här mycket så här långt: boken utgör en magnifik grund för att diskutera det välkända författarpåståendet Show, not tell. Tolstoy kör på en annan linje där än vi gör idag, och ändå är verket fortfarande hyllat och uppskattat.
(And Sean, that fact will of course call for another discussion of whether it is a good thing or not to include too much information about peripheral characthers. Tolstoy is on Tolkien's side in this and it makes me wonder if they had editors at all back then, or if our editors today cut away too much.)
Hur som helst. Anna Karenina är 900 sidor med liten text. 900 sidor rysk roman.
Kontenta: Förlagen kan ta evigheter på sig, jag kommer ha att göra. Jag väntar.
2 kommentarer:
Tolstoy (and more distantly Tolkien) were writing in such a different time than ours. For example, here is the *opening line* from an English novel written in 1830:
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."
A modern editor would rip that apart in so many ways! Even I would, and I love long descriptions (especially that dreadful clichéd opening phrase).
Anyway, I have often wondered if the shortening of everything comes from machines making us impatient, or if it is simply a change in the way we speak and are taught to speak, or who knows what else.
Fascinating topic though.
As we have said before, I am sure that modern "fast entertainment" is one of the reasons writer's are taught by their editors to narrow things down, but that is of course not the single truth.
I'm thinking... It might be an evolvement. Things (love, hate, family, society) have already been said and described in certain ways, and writers try to avoid clichés, try to both phrase and shape their stories in new ways. Books like The Night Circus is true examples of that, creative narrative.
But what strikes me is that this book of Tolstoy (which I have read a little less than 90 pages of so far, 90 pages of 900) is that is it GOOD. It works! I would probably take away some of the opening scenes, but not all of them. The gallery of characters unfolds rather beautifully and as a reader I am already full of opinions! I can see where he is going, how well he shows the doubble standards of his time (since I already know what will happen). And he undoubtedly knew people, both men and women.
Such an interesting discussion! So much to analyse.
As for dreary beginnings - Tolstoy knows better than that. He starts with a sentence he knows will be famous for centruries and only after that one sentence he begins his presentation.
And so far he avoids describing settings. Only people. I like that. =)
Skicka en kommentar