Because if I can't put it in a box, the world explodes.
March 13, 2008 2:42 PM Subscribe
What can I do in the short and medium term to improve my ability to evaluate Russian poetry?
I speak Russian fluently but, over time, my mastery of the language has eroded. One of the things I struggle most with is poetry. When I read a poem in Russian, I find it almost impossible to evaluate it. I have no idea whether it is good or bad, and I end up relying on other people’s opinions or on the poet’s reputation. This makes me feel stupid and anxious. I realize that the long-term solution to this is reading a lot of Russian poetry until my understanding of it coalesces into something useful, but that will take time.
What I have tried so far: I have tried reading more Russian poetry, which has made it clear to me that if that ever works, it won’t work soon. I have tried googling for some sort of list of Russian clichés, but I have not succeeded.
I realize that this brings up a lot of tricky issues relating to what is “good” and what is “bad” and can we ever know, etc. To be clear, by good I mean poetry that most people agree is good, interesting, important, or particularly skillful. By bad, I mean poetry that most people would agree is cliché-ridden, sappy, or unskillful. In other words, there are outliers, but I am just focusing on the fatty middle of the bell-curve of opinion for now (baby steps).
I hope I have asked this question in an answerable manner. I admit I had some difficulty putting this problem into words. Also, I’m embarrassed by it.
I speak Russian fluently but, over time, my mastery of the language has eroded. One of the things I struggle most with is poetry. When I read a poem in Russian, I find it almost impossible to evaluate it. I have no idea whether it is good or bad, and I end up relying on other people’s opinions or on the poet’s reputation. This makes me feel stupid and anxious. I realize that the long-term solution to this is reading a lot of Russian poetry until my understanding of it coalesces into something useful, but that will take time.
What I have tried so far: I have tried reading more Russian poetry, which has made it clear to me that if that ever works, it won’t work soon. I have tried googling for some sort of list of Russian clichés, but I have not succeeded.
I realize that this brings up a lot of tricky issues relating to what is “good” and what is “bad” and can we ever know, etc. To be clear, by good I mean poetry that most people agree is good, interesting, important, or particularly skillful. By bad, I mean poetry that most people would agree is cliché-ridden, sappy, or unskillful. In other words, there are outliers, but I am just focusing on the fatty middle of the bell-curve of opinion for now (baby steps).
I hope I have asked this question in an answerable manner. I admit I had some difficulty putting this problem into words. Also, I’m embarrassed by it.
Best answer: How about extending the obvious solution (read more) that you've already tried in a new direction: try reading some bad poems alongside the good ones, or even alternating. "Bad" doesn't have to mean purely amateurish – try looking for some clunky sentimental nineteenth-century verse, or something like that. Texts that are lamely predictable in meter and subject matter (which you can easily assess without a perfect-pitch-level ear for meaning) will tend to be lamely predictable in word choice and other aspects of their language. Alternate reading some doggerel with reading some Pushkin or Tsvetayeva or whatever, and the differences should begin to emerge.
posted by RogerB at 3:08 PM on March 13, 2008
posted by RogerB at 3:08 PM on March 13, 2008
Find some books or journals that analyze Russian poems. Read the poem before you read other people's analyses. Write down your own impressions. Then, write down your own analysis. (There are some prompt questions at the NIU Basic Guide to Textual Analysis. Look for possible allusions and symbols, and write them down, even if you aren't sure whether they're allusions or not. Look for some of the typical poetic techniques - alliteration, structure - and write down your opinion about whether they seem to serve this particular poem.
After you've done your own analysis, read someone else's analysis of the poem (or better yet, two or three analyses). Notice what they saw that you didn't - and remember that you can learn from them and argue with them. Note places where you think they're wrong.
This way, you strengthen your own analysis skills while also giving yourself opportunities to learn from people who've studied more Russian poetry and literature than you have.
posted by kristi at 3:26 PM on March 13, 2008
After you've done your own analysis, read someone else's analysis of the poem (or better yet, two or three analyses). Notice what they saw that you didn't - and remember that you can learn from them and argue with them. Note places where you think they're wrong.
This way, you strengthen your own analysis skills while also giving yourself opportunities to learn from people who've studied more Russian poetry and literature than you have.
posted by kristi at 3:26 PM on March 13, 2008
To be clear, by good I mean poetry that most people agree is good, interesting, important, or particularly skillful. By bad, I mean poetry that most people would agree is cliché-ridden, sappy, or unskillful.
Russian literary culture makes this really easy, actually. Tyutchev? Good. Anyone who was openly in support of communism after 1963? Bad. As long as you can recognize the name as being canonical (anyone from the Silver Age automatically counts as canonical), you're not allowed to think the poetry is bad. If you need a whipping boy, any poetry with signs of Western influence written after perestroika will work. (Except Yevtushenko, who remains popular despite sucking profoundly).
I struggle with this sometimes too, but reading and listening to the contemporary Russian intelligentsia suggests that we're not alone--it's all a giant sham.
posted by nasreddin at 3:41 PM on March 13, 2008
Russian literary culture makes this really easy, actually. Tyutchev? Good. Anyone who was openly in support of communism after 1963? Bad. As long as you can recognize the name as being canonical (anyone from the Silver Age automatically counts as canonical), you're not allowed to think the poetry is bad. If you need a whipping boy, any poetry with signs of Western influence written after perestroika will work. (Except Yevtushenko, who remains popular despite sucking profoundly).
I struggle with this sometimes too, but reading and listening to the contemporary Russian intelligentsia suggests that we're not alone--it's all a giant sham.
posted by nasreddin at 3:41 PM on March 13, 2008
Response by poster: Thanks, everyone, for your good ideas. I will try them out!
posted by prefpara at 7:34 AM on March 14, 2008
posted by prefpara at 7:34 AM on March 14, 2008
How the hell did I miss this question? (They're right, AskMe does scroll by too fast!) Good thing I happened to check your profile page and see the "Russian" tag. Anyway: I would suggest concentrating on a couple of really good poets for whom there is a lot of critical commentary that will help your appreciation; I'd recommend Pushkin for the 19th century and Mandelstam for the 20th—you really can't go wrong with either. Once you've got them "under your belt," so to speak, you'll have a base from which you can measure others. If you're interested, write me and I can give you some recommendations for books on Mandelstam, who isn't always easy to understand; I can also recommend other poets and/or discuss poetry till the cows come home.
posted by languagehat at 8:45 AM on March 17, 2008
posted by languagehat at 8:45 AM on March 17, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by pamccf at 3:07 PM on March 13, 2008