After reading the piece by Solzhenitsyn, I have a mixture of feelings. The entire work itself seems scattered, and even contradictory of itself. Solzhenitsyn opens in the idea world literature was once linked seamlessly, yet i question this. Some countries began to write before others which would give their literature, and the opinions of literature, a different edge. However perhaps he considers positive reception in all of Europe to be the equalivalent of world literature. Solzhenitsyn moves on to analyze the lack of unity among literature in the world. He has a strong argument to support the fact that world literature is different from country to country. In his home country of Russia, his works were not well received. He was even expelled from the Writers Union, an expulsion that forbade him from living in Moscow. Yet at this same time, he received praise from Norwegian writers and artists, later even being nominated for a Nobel Prize by a French novelist. I agree with the fact their is some differentiation in what is praised form one country to the next. The political views of one country may differ form that of the next, causing a piece highlighting the negatives of communism may be ill advised, even deadly, to publish in North Korea, yet in the US it could become a best seller. Issues in translation and basic education of the public may also cause their to be discrepancies in what is award worthy and what is not.
As he advances, his pace changes and he begins to encourage everyone to use world literature as a link to end violence. The way he talks is almost as if world literature has already been unified, despite him saying a paragraph above that Russia and France had different opinions. Whilst I agree that common appreciation of literature would serve as a solid common link between countries, I also think that world literature extends beyond all countries agreeing that a book is "good." I think getting more people involved in writing would serve as a distraction from violence.
His perception of violence is not equivalent to mine. He says that violence starts off strong, but then weakens unless fueled by lies, I however do not find lies to be the cause behind all violence. For example the Sunni and Shia in the Middle East are in constant conflict over their beliefs, yet if they both believe what they are stating it is not lying. While lying can definitely fuel the fire, i can think of countless other issues to arouse violence. Beyond that I do not think that literature could solve put a stop to lies,
I had equal parts that I agreed and disagreed with, however the writing style itself was engaging. It was fast paced, and at times the connections did not seem appropriate I thought the way it transitions was similar to poetry.
Your thoughts are very mature, Elizabeth. I am especially impressed by the fact that you did some research before offering an opinion. I also admire your willingness to disagree with some of Solzhenitsyn's ideas. Though there are a few minor mechanical errors, the commentary is also well-written.
ReplyDelete