For those who reads Russian this is the best her verse as rated at [1].
Утреннее солнце восходит утром –
Столько соблазнительных вероятий!
Что же ты, девка, ходишь по квартире,
Тапками стуча, пятки печатая?
Что тебе, голубка моя лебёдка?
Поворотись-ка, сними последнее,
В золотое зеркало полюбуйся,
Это и то вперёд выдвигая.
И чу! Я слышу глухое биенье.
Тепло бокам и шея удлинилась.
Ноги не радуют, но белым перьям
Многие подруги позавидуют.
Достаточно сделать движенье крылом –
В животе ухает; паркет остался
Далеко внизу; родные, простите,
Пишите мне до востребования.
– Бессмертная, навеки бессмертна я,
Стиксу не быть для меня преградою!
If she is the best living Russian poet and this is the best her verse, then the whole Russian poetry is in very poor quality. I find nothing fascinating here at all. Even rythm is broken but not in a good way. Just broken.
I've never heard of Maria (though can't say I'm an expert in poetry). That's why I decided to do some research and found this.
Hm, I had to read the lines three times, slowly, to reconstruct the image the author tried to convey. And this was the first layer. Apparently there is another one inside, but I presume this second layer resembles a Rorschach test: everybody is welcome to see what ever she/he wants to see. That's quite an achievement for those who care about pumping up readers' self-esteem. Especially if the readers see poetry as gymnastics for brain.
A poet once said, 'The whole universe is in a glass of wine.' We will probably never know in what sense he meant it, for poets do not write to be understood.
It's true. Poets don't write to be understood. They write to be felt.
A single sentence like that is rarely good poetry, and it doesn't make me feel all that much. But it wouldn't be any more interesting rewritten as "All of the laws of physics are expressed in a glass of wine just as much as in the rest of the universe", if that's what was "meant". It's just vapid.
But if it stuck in Feynman's mind, and yours, it means the poet was on to something. That's the important part. The poet said a thing and it connected, just as Feynman's nude drawings connected with him. They don't need to "mean" anything more than exactly what they are.
That's the whole point though: it's a puzzle for the brain. If it were explicitly spelled out the fun would be lost.
Personally I think of art as programming using symbols that have been previously uploaded into the audience. Incidentally, this is why sometimes it is easy for art to cross language and culture boundaries, and sometimes very hard: it just depends on whether the symbols are something universal for all humanity or specific to a particular culture.
In Russia in particular there is a common view that poetry should:
- rhyme
- have a flowing rhythm
- be very literal/descriptive
and there is certainly a lot of good poetry like that. But sometimes artists break rules for fun. Stepanova to Pushkin is what Aphex Twin is to Mozart. Just have some fun with it and don't worry if it fits into preconceived notions of what is good poetry.
In the spirit of fun: have you noticed that there are two sets of sentence breaks in the poem, one on the line breaks and one at the punctuation? This actually changes word association and the imagery. Think this was an accident?
Having dissected probably hundreds of literary works in school, including "notice how the sentence breaks", I have very high tolerance against questions like "do you think it's a coincidence"? 25 years ago I could write a four-page essay on this poem alone without breaking a sweat (4 pages was a requirement to pass graduation exams).
So yes, this style actually could be a coincidence: anything from subconsciously or consciously emulating a style to just stumbling into this form to being a bad poet to having too much fun with punctuation to...
Also, in this particular case there are literally only two sentences that don't break at punctuation point, and I do think this is not entirely intentional. Call this a feeling :)
> In Russia in particular there is a common view that poetry should: - rhyme - have a flowing rhythm - be very literal/descriptive
This is definitely true. Free verse is a relatively rare beast. Here's an example from Alexander Blok [1]. And look, it also has break at both punctuation and in the middle of a sentence hmmmm ;)
It reminds me of English poetry. I never understood the point of it. Blamed by bad English skills for that. But this verse looks just like English poetry just in Russian. Russian text written in a way to make it difficult to read, to hide the fact that the author had nothing to say, but had said nonetheless.
Or, maybe, not "to hide"? If it is an attempt to hide, then it would be a failed attempt. Maybe she had some other goals in her mind when wrote this?
Not all English poetry is like that. For example there is definitely music an rhythm in Longfellow's "The Song of Hiawatha" or William Blake's "The tiger" although I would dare to say that their versions translated to Russian are "better" sounding. This obviously could be just because of the English not being my native tongue.
i am no expert in contemporary poetry, however on the TV station "дождь"/rain they used to read modern poems right before the evening news program, and these poems make much more sense. However I didn't find a collection of these poems.
Apart from the guidelines wrt "intellectual curiosity" pointed to you elsewhere, perhaps you can grant her admission for discussion as:
She is the founder of Colta, the only independent crowd-funded source of information in Russia. The high-traffic online publication has been called a Russian Huffington Post in format and style, and has also been compared to The New York Review of Books for the scope and depth of its long essays.
I agree, it seems unlikely to be the only independent source. But the point is that on narrow technical/business criteria, she qualifies for HN, in addition to the guidelines supporting those of us with wider interests.
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
when I went to school in Russia the great writers were those whos portraits we had on the wall in literature class. I'm sure she was not among them )))
I've tried reading her book "in memory of memories" got stuck, but not in an unpleasant way, maybe will give it a try later;
this was meant ironically of course. What I wanted to say is: all those stars and badges are bullshit, just read what you like.
I've hated books that were on various "best of all time" lists, and enjoyed unknown stuff from the internet with typos and broken grammar. And vice versa.
I'll add to your point that 'stars and badges' (from a source I trust) on something I don't like can be a signal that there is something more there, outside my understanding, and that's often the most fruitful thing to read.
Looked at her poetry. Obviously I am not an expert in the area but being well read I think I am sane enough to see that calling her "the greatest" is based on anything but value of her writings. To me her style could be summarized by the following verse:
Most of art seems to have gone this way. Contemporary art museums are full of random nonsense few people find any pleasure in, anything to be curious about, or anything to become excited by. So much architecture is just ugly, like some kind of experiments gone bad. It's pretty depressing that people accept that there's something there, while they themselves can't see it. They trust the experts, be it experts in architecture, art, or poetry. The result is crap that can't hold up to stuff created 300 years ago, but that still gets recognized as work if genius. Example: Beeple's art has sold for more than any Rafael.
I really misread this at first and thought it said Maria Sharapova, and was curious if the tennis star had gotten into poetry (and why not, she has her own candy line). Was all set to read poems about aces and faults and volleys.
Before opening the link I made a guess: "99.9% probability that she's in opposition to Russian government and that is the real reason for calling her "best Russian poet".
Opened the article, wasn't disappointed. My guess was 100% correct.
I also laughed at mention of "independent TV channel Dozhd". Independent, really? It's funded by British government to disseminate anti-Russian propaganda and create a dissent among population of Russia.
I've never heard about Maria, but now I'm pretty sure that's her only literary achievement is critics of Russia present and past. It's the only thing that interests the West now and sells well on the West.
A fairly substantial portion of the big names in Russian literature--going back to Pushkin, no?--have found themselves crossways with the government of their days. Judging poetry in translation I leave to the bolder, and I do not know Russian. But what you have said gives me no reason to suppose that she is not a good poet.
There are lots of great artists but popularity is somewhat controlled by a handful of gatekeepers. I'd tend to agree with anticodon's point that people that are elevated tend to be in line with the agenda of those gatekeepers.
As a russian speaker I wish to add that " the big names in Russian literature--going back to Pushkin" are highly overrated in my opinion. So I am not surprised about this one too. And usually I can spot good quality of a person by a few minutes of listening just to find out later that I was correct. It has happened many times already to be sure about it. I am using this all the time. I listen to a person for some time and if mhy intuitions says it's good then I digg more. Works like magic.
as an English speaker I should note there is some ambiguity about the phrase 'going back to', it can be used inclusively or exclusively but most commonly is used inclusively so what you said strongly implies that you also think Pushkin is highly overrated?
But even if you were using exclusively it would mean you thought that everyone after Pushkin was highly overrated. Are the people who were averagely rated to be rated poorly then? It seems unlikely to me that so much of a vast nation's literature, for so long, can be so overrated.
As you can see I was using the phrase of the parent comment which starts with 'A fairly substantial portion of the big names'... So I was referring to this "fairly substantial portion" while eexpressing my opinion that they are highly overrated.
>so what you said strongly implies that you also think Pushkin is highly overrated?
Yes. I think this one is especially highly overrated. When you read the poem of someone you willingly or unwillingly trying to read his mind and vision of the world. When I read this one I am simply disgusted. I have the feeling that he is just cold and cynical to the level that I can't stand it! And the general feeling of fakeness in his writings is to the level of realising that this human being simply doesn't understand a few concepts about this life. The same feeling you have when you are listening to some primitive music and you feel that author simply 'doesn't get it' in the first place.
I also can't help but notice some cheap/dirty tricks in his poetry when rhythm doesn't work. Even when I write some 'poetry' as a joke to entertain my friends even I manage to avoid such cheap tricks and then I think that surely some great poet must be able to do it too? Isn't it? I mean small kids when they are missing words to express their thoughts use those tricks to make some rhythm to work. In the poem 'Evgeny Onegin' I've counted a few of those and then I had to stop counting in order to somehow finish the poem.
Surely like any author he has something in his poems but I do have a feeling that this author is highly overrated.
>It seems unlikely to me that so much of a vast nation's literature, for so long, can be so overrated.
Sure, it seemed unlikely for me too in the beginning. But the more you read and explore the more likely it becomes. Especially when you explore nation's history. You discover a lot of fake there and then you realise that each and every Russian author has to deal with those lies somehow. And if such author wish to preserve some level of sincerely in this writings he has has very painful dilemma. Unresolvable for most of them if you ask me as long as they keep calling themselves 'Russians'. Because if you dig into the history enough you discover that the very term , well , has some ambiguity in it to say the least. One basic thing to notice: How 'Russians' end up being in Moscow while 'Rus' was known to be in Kiev? Thus they are culturally as related to the 'Rus' as 'Saw (some one)' related to 'Saw (as a tool)'. Thus I would also say that the whole 'culture' in my opinion is highly overrated because it is based on primitive fakes, lies, violence and very poor moral standards. Moral standards represent certain understanding of life and Rissian moral standards are not well developed to this very day because they lie and lie and lie. If you ask me 'why?' I would suggest that the enormous efforts to create "much of a vast nation's literature, for so long" were mostly wasted so far because most of the authors simply failed to understand or deliver certain basic concepts and I can't point out even one modern author that does! I wish that someone would show me this one because I would be happy to be wrong and surprised but I doubt it.
I'm very curious about this since I do not speak Russian, yet I have read many Russian authors in translation and generally think highly of their literary culture. Are names like Pushkin, Tolstoy, Chekhov considered overrated in Russia?
They are required reading at school. So many people are turned away from them just because all soul is sucked from them by school curriculum demanding you dissect their works and write non-sensical, highly formulaic essays like "Author's position and means of expressing of said position in the novel 'Crime and Punishment'" [1]
I tend to think that it is almost impossible to translate anything from one language to another. For this, translator have to be native speaker of both languages and live in both cultures simultaneously all the time.
There're many books that become much better or much worse after translation.
As of me: I've heard several times that Pushkin is overrated, but I always liked his poems and prose. I like Chekhov. I somewhat like Tolstoy. Never understood Dostoyevsky, but I think I've tried to read his books too early, maybe it's time to read them again.
“Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway.”
–Vladimir Nabokov. But of course he's being his usual contrarian self here; make of it what you will.
Considered by whom? Different people have different opinions. I find Dostoevsky's language, for example, quite difficult to read taking some time to get used to. And I don't like this soule digging kind of prose, but other people may love this.
This is of course my personal taste and I could care less what is the official POV on the subject. I do not like Tolstoy at all. Pushkin - I think he is a genius. Calling him overrated I think is not very sincere.
I think this one is especially highly overrated. When you read the poem of someone you willingly or unwillingly trying to read his mind and vision of the world. When I read this one I am simply disgusted. I have the feeling that he is just cold and cynical to the level that I can't stand it! And the general feeling of fakeness in his writings is to the level of realising that this human being simply doesn't understand a few concepts about this life. The same feeling you have when you are listening to some primitive music and you feel that author simply 'doesn't get it' in the first place.
I also can't help but notice some cheap/dirty tricks in his poetry when rhythm doesn't work. Even when I write some 'poetry' as a joke to entertain my friends even I manage to avoid such cheap tricks and then I think that surely some great poet must be able to do it too? Isn't it? I mean small kids when they are missing words to express their thoughts use those tricks to make some rhythm to work. In the poem 'Evgeny Onegin' I've counted a few of those and then I had to stop counting in order to somehow finish the poem.
Surely like any author he has something in his poems but I do have a feeling that this author is highly overrated.
> And usually I can spot good quality of a person by a few minutes of listening just to find out later that I was correct. It has happened many times already to be sure about it.
How do you know it's "correct"? Another hypothesis that fits is that you don't change your opinion when you get more information, you stick with your first instinct. Do others ever disagree with your assessments? What makes you right and them wrong?
For instance this way I have discovered: Marvin Minsky,Richard Feynman, Ray Kurzweil, Alan Kay and so on You can argue that I was incorrect but then I would not argue.
>What makes you right and them wrong?
Nothing makes me right. I am just satisfied with the results of this experimental technique so far .
Pasternak was given Nobel prize for "Doctor Zhivago". When reading the book I was disappointed a bit: why give such a high prize for such a boring book. Only about 15-20 years later I understood that Nobel Prize is mostly about politics, not literature.
I don't know if Maria is a good poet. I'm not a big fan of poetry. Opened a couple of her old poems (on stihi.ru) and wasn't impressed.
But since almost half of the article is devoted to how it is important to be in opposition to the current Russian government and how it's a good thing to vilify Russian past (especially Soviet past), I tend to assume that she's an ordinary poet (maybe not bad but definitely not exceptional like the article claims) that is just being used as an ideological weapon against Russia.
> Pasternak was given Nobel prize for "Doctor Zhivago". When reading the book I was disappointed a bit: why give such a high prize for such a boring book.
> Maybe other people liked it, even if you didn't?
Never saw anyone who liked it. Everybody I asked about Doctor Zhivago, said it is graphomania (I don't know if it is customary to call bad books by this name in English, but we usually use this word).
> graphomania (I don't know if it is customary to call bad books by this name in English, but we usually use this word)
Great word! And as someone who knows a bit about English literature, I've never heard it before.
It's a common trope about widely respected, intellectual works, 'nobody really likes them'. (The following is not about you; I don't know you at all, of course:) Frankly, I think people can find them difficult, naturally, and an anti-intellectual response is an easy cover story that they know will be socially accepted. Lots of people like these works, including Dr Zhivago and Maria Stepanova. As I've grown older I've learned that if I don't like it then usually there's something I'm missing, which an opportunity for me to learn. As I've grown more sophisticated, I've learned why they are so admired - I just lacked the background to grasp it before. Certainly, reading these works in school was often impractical. Now, I'm sorry I don't have the time to read them all.
It's hard to make money if you're a poet. I guess it's hard to make money now if you are any kind of writer. People don't read anymore. And I guess poets never made enough money.
But if you're a Russian poet/writer and you write about how you hate current and past Russian government, how it "oppresses" everyone around, you have a non-zero chance to receive awards and grants from western funds. Your works would be also promoted worldwide for free. I guess it is the main source of motivation for such authors.
When I saw this link here I've made special effort to find her words condemning occupation of Ukraine including Crimea and didn't find it anywhere. So perhaps she is not too much of "crossways with the government". If I've missed it somehow, please share the link.
TIL about Stepanova, presumably one of our greatest living poets. I took a look at her works, and like most modern poetry, they lack fluidity. I want the verse to glide off the tongue and into the ear and off the tongue again.
And it's not just rhyme or rhythm that I am talking about, Stepanova herself is criticised for following the traditions of Russian poetry. Dulce et Decorum est by Wilfred Owen has a stumbling rhythm, the lines desperately trying to catch up to the expected rhyme. And yet it's a pleasure to read, while Stepanova's poetry is a chore.
I think rules in art, once established well enough will always begin to be broken consistently. Once that breaking of the rules becomes completely consistent again you will start to get back your fluidity from newly minted rule-breakers.
I think that's fair, but would like to add the concept that 99.9% of the 'new' art is shite. Over time, the court of public opinion will winnow out the few things worth keeping.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't hack out new territory, it's just that very little of it is of lasting value.
I think that's kind of the point- to try new techniques and find out what will stick.
When I go to art museums and see an abstract piece that looks like garbage and I can't pull any meaning out of it, I try to see if there's something technical behind it (technique or material used, usually) that would explain its significance.
I didn't get Andy Warhol's soup cans for the longest time til I realized that was how screen printing became popularized.
