Have you read any good russian books of new authors?
Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik
Kto-nibud' chital novyh russkih avtorov, mozhet skazat'
familii, nazvaniya knig? V kachestve lichnigo vklada ukazyvayu
1) Pelevin - chudesnyj yazyk, surrealisticheskie cyuzhety is rysskoj
zhizni;
2) Yuliya Voznesenskaya, "Zhenskyj dekameron" -yazyk prostoj, pochti
zhurlnalistkij, no struktura namnogo slozhnee , rasskazy v rasskaze-
vostochnyj priem, esli vam takie vechshi nravyatsya. O priayatnom,
gnusnom, romantichnom, bytovom - mnogo vsego. Ne dlya detskogo
chteniay ni v koem sluchae.
S uvazheniem, Maya Botvinnik
--
To answer, remove nospam from my address.
Vlad Orlov
Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik wrote:
>Kto-nibud' chital novyh russkih avtorov, mozhet skazat'
>familii, nazvaniya knig? V kachestve lichnigo vklada ukazyvayu
>1) Pelevin - chudesnyj yazyk, surrealisticheskie cyuzhety is rysskoj
> zhizni;
>2) Yuliya Voznesenskaya, "Zhenskyj dekameron" -yazyk prostoj, pochti
> zhurlnalistkij, no struktura namnogo slozhnee , rasskazy v rasskaze-
> vostochnyj priem, esli vam takie vechshi nravyatsya. O priayatnom,
> gnusnom, romantichnom, bytovom - mnogo vsego. Ne dlya detskogo
> chteniay ni v koem sluchae.
Limonova chitaite. On hot' i styaryi, a horoshiy. O gnusnom on ne
pishet, k sozhaleniyu; tut on vas razocharuet.
Kstati, 55 emu v fevrale budet.
Uzulo
> Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik wrote:
> >Kto-nibud' chital novyh russkih avtorov, mozhet skazat'
> >familii, nazvaniya knig? V kachestve lichnigo vklada ukazyvayu
> >1) Pelevin - chudesnyj yazyk, surrealisticheskie cyuzhety is rysskoj
> > zhizni;
> >2) Yuliya Voznesenskaya, "Zhenskyj dekameron" -yazyk prostoj, pochti
> > zhurlnalistkij, no struktura namnogo slozhnee , rasskazy v rasskaze-
> > vostochnyj priem, esli vam takie vechshi nravyatsya. O priayatnom,
> > gnusnom, romantichnom, bytovom - mnogo vsego. Ne dlya detskogo
> > chteniay ni v koem sluchae.
> Limonova chitaite. On hot' i styaryi, a horoshiy.
S ehtim ne vse soglasjatsja.
> O gnusnom on ne pishet, k sozhaleniyu; tut on vas razocharuet.
On o raznom pishet. O nekotoryh vewah dovolqno vulqgarno. Tak chto
ehto tozhe ne vpolne dlja detskogo chtenija. A nekotorye ego ehsse
nastolqko pahnut velikorusskim nacionalizmom, chto chitatq tjazhelo;
inoj raz zadumyvaeshqsja: a stoit li?..
--
Uzulo <ty...@cile.msk.su>
Vlad Orlov
Uzulo wrote:
> > Limonova chitaite. On hot' i styaryi, a horoshiy.
> S ehtim ne vse soglasjatsja.
Chto zh tut podelaesh', redko kogda vse so vsem soglashayutsya.
> On o raznom pishet. O nekotoryh vewah dovolqno vulqgarno. Tak chto
> ehto tozhe ne vpolne dlja detskogo chtenija. A nekotorye ego ehsse
> nastolqko pahnut velikorusskim nacionalizmom, chto chitatq tjazhelo;
> inoj raz zadumyvaeshqsja: a stoit li?..
Est' otdel'nye nedostatki, konechno. Glavnyi takoi zhe, kak i u
vermontskogo mudily - ne nado emu pisat' politicheskie esse.
Natsionalizm, esli i est', to imenno tam. Stat'i ego frantsuzskie ya
nikogda ne vstrechal; sudya po sluham, on tam valyaet duraka, lyot vodu
na mel'nitsu Le Pena. "Limonov protiv Zhirinovskogo" v osnovnom pahnet
Zhirinovskim, otkrovenno plohogo ya tam nichego ne zametil. Dva ego
politicheskih tvoreniya, ktorye mne nemnogo ne nravyatsya, eto "Ubiystvo
chasovogo", i v pare s nim izdano, ne pomnyu nazvaniya, choto-to naschet
sanatoriev. On ezdil v Bosniyu, katalsya tam po tylam, potom napisal
"Ubiystvo..." s voshvaleniem toi voiny v chastnosti, i vooruzhennyh
konfliktov voobsche. Vse moi znakomye, kotorye voevali, rezko negativno
k etomu otneslis'. Govoryat, chto on pishet o chem ne znaet, i
ubeditel'no durit golovu tem, kto ne znaet. A naschet sanatoriev, tam
slishkom mnogo obobscheniy. Ya kak telek vklyuchu, ili gazetu v ruki
voz'mu, mne uzhe cherez tri minuty hochetsya iz pulemeta burzhuinov
kosit' (vprochem, vsyakiy raz kogda ya zhdu kogo-nibud' v tret'em
terminale JFK, tol'ko odna mysl' v golove vsyo vremya, "Zdes' nado ne
odin, a dva pulemeta, i kosit' etih suk perekrestnym ognem, poka oni v
kuchke i po vsei strane ne razbezhalis'"), no real'nye lyudi daleki ot
togo obraza, kotoryi risuetsya v media. U nego zhe, odnako, vse
obobscheniya na tom postroeny, chto on iz media uznal.
A kasatel'no prozy - tam u nego vsyo prekrasno. "Eto ya - Edichka" tak
i ostaetsya sverhproizvedeniem. I trilogiya "U nas byla velikaya
epoha", "Podrostok Savenko", "Dnevnik neudachnika" - tozhe, znaete li,
zdorovo.
Vo, kstati, esche mogu porekomendovat' Haritonova (ne Marka, konechno).
Opyat' zhe staryi, dazhe umer uzhe, no tozhe horoshiy. Kazhis', ego
dvuhtomnik v Moskve izdali goda tri nazad. U menya tol'ko neskol'ko
kserokopiy est' togo chto ya v mestnoi biblioteke nashel v dissidentskih
sbornikah. Chego ego tuda zapihali? Vrode by chelovek zanimalsya
literaturoi v samom distillirovanom vide...
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <34BE44...@neu.edu>,
vor...@neu.edu wrote:
>
> Uzulo wrote:
> > > Limonova chitaite. On hot' i styaryi, a horoshiy.
> > S ehtim ne vse soglasjatsja.
>
> Chto zh tut podelaesh', redko kogda vse so vsem soglashayutsya.
>
> > On o raznom pishet. O nekotoryh vewah dovolqno vulqgarno. Tak chto
> > ehto tozhe ne vpolne dlja detskogo chtenija. A nekotorye ego ehsse
> > nastolqko pahnut velikorusskim nacionalizmom, chto chitatq tjazhelo;
> > inoj raz zadumyvaeshqsja: a stoit li?..
>
> Est' otdel'nye nedostatki, konechno. Glavnyi takoi zhe, kak i u
> vermontskogo mudily - ne nado emu pisat' politicheskie esse.
> A kasatel'no prozy - tam u nego vsyo prekrasno. "Eto ya - Edichka" tak
> i ostaetsya sverhproizvedeniem. I trilogiya "U nas byla velikaya
> epoha", "Podrostok Savenko", "Dnevnik neudachnika" - tozhe, znaete li,
> zdorovo.
>
Et delo vkusa! Ezheli legko assotsiiruesh' sebia s glavnym geroem - tak
chitaesh', i duh zahvatyvaet. A ezheli net? Limonov v dushe -
huligan-podrostok. On eto, pravda, nazyvaet individualizmom, da tol'ko
delo ot togo ne meniaetsia. I vse-to, sovsem kak v podrostkovoi kompanii,
on okruzhaiushim pytaetsia chto-to dokazat' (vypendrit'sia, inache
govoria), i agressiavnost' ego - junosheskaia, i liubov', uzh izvinite,
tozhe. V obshem, pisatel' dlia toi zhe vozrastnoi kategorii, chto i
avtory beschislennyh diudikov. A takzhe dlia teh, kro iz etoi kategorii
tak i ne vyshel.
Lo
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Vlad Orlov
> Et delo vkusa! Ezheli legko assotsiiruesh' sebia s glavnym geroem -
> tak chitaesh', i duh zahvatyvaet. A ezheli net?
A eto verno po otnosheniyu k lyubomu pisatelyu. Tol'ko
otozhdestvlyaesh' sebya ne s geroem, a s attitude avtora. Dostoevskiy
moy duh zahvatyvaet, no ni s odnim ego geroem ya sebya ne mogu
otozhdestvit'. S tem, chto u Dostoevskogo "lyubov' vsyo pobedit" -
otozhdestvlyayu, navernoe, podsoznatel'no. I s tem, chto u Vonneguta
blagorodstvo vsyo pobedit - tozhe. A Tolstogo ne lyublyu, u nego
risovaya kasha i sopli vsyo pobezhdayut. "Ne veryu". Tolstoi, tem ne
menee, horoshiy pisatel' (mne v shkole govorili), ego horoshest' ot
mneniya otdel'nyh lyudei ne zavisit.
Esli vy utverzhdaete, chto Limonov horoshiy pisatel', no nravitsya
tol'ko tem, kto sebya s nim otozhdestvlyaet, to ya soglasen. A esli
chto on nravitsya tem, kto sebya s nim otozhdestvlyaet, no plohoi, to ya
ne soglasen. On horoshiy.
> V obshem, pisatel' dlia toi zhe vozrastnoi kategorii, chto i
> avtory beschislennyh diudikov. A takzhe dlia teh, kro iz etoi
> kategorii tak i ne vyshel.
"Diudikov"? Chto takoe? A naschet vyhozhdeniya iz vozrastnoi kategorii
- ya v poslednie mesyatsy stal ponimat', chto lyudi, za isklyucheniem
gigantov duha (kotoryh ya zhiv'yem esche ne videl), vyhodyat ottuda, a
snaruzhi nichego ne nahodyat, potom vsyu ostavshuyusya zhizn' nazad
zalezt' pytatyutsya.
Vladimir Svetlov
> > Et delo vkusa! Ezheli legko assotsiiruesh' sebia s glavnym geroem -
> > tak chitaesh', i duh zahvatyvaet. A ezheli net?
>
> A eto verno po otnosheniyu k lyubomu pisatelyu. Tol'ko
> otozhdestvlyaesh' sebya ne s geroem, a s attitude avtora. Dostoevskiy
> moy duh zahvatyvaet, no ni s odnim ego geroem ya sebya ne mogu
> otozhdestvit'. S tem, chto u Dostoevskogo "lyubov' vsyo pobedit" -
> otozhdestvlyayu, navernoe, podsoznatel'no. I s tem, chto u Vonneguta
> blagorodstvo vsyo pobedit - tozhe. A Tolstogo ne lyublyu, u nego
> risovaya kasha i sopli vsyo pobezhdayut. "Ne veryu". Tolstoi, tem ne
> menee, horoshiy pisatel' (mne v shkole govorili), ego horoshest' ot
> mneniya otdel'nyh lyudei ne zavisit.
>
> Esli vy utverzhdaete, chto Limonov horoshiy pisatel', no nravitsya
> tol'ko tem, kto sebya s nim otozhdestvlyaet, to ya soglasen. A esli
> chto on nravitsya tem, kto sebya s nim otozhdestvlyaet, no plohoi, to ya
> ne soglasen. On horoshiy.
Horoshii-nehoroshii... Mamy raznye nuzhny, mamy raznye vazhny. Ot pisatelei
raznye lyudi raznogo ozhidayt, potomu i mnenia raznye. Davaite poprobuem
normalizovat' - poigraem v gruppy i associatsii. Dostoevskii - horoshii
pisatel', i Kuprin - horoshii pisatel'. Vse normal'no poka? Poehali
dal'she. Dostoevskii - horoshii pisatel', i Wilder - horoshii pisatel'.
Tozhe nichego, da? Dal'she. Dostoevskii - horoshii pisatel', i Edichka
Limonov - horoshii pisatel'. Nu vot, vam i samomu smeshno stalo. A ne
stalo, tak i chitaite na zdorovie. A chto kasaetsya Tolstogo Levochki, tak
eto on opisyvatel' horoshii, a pisatel' - dovol'no hrenovii, eto pro nego i
ran'she govorili, ya tol'ko ukorotil.
Privet,
V.
--
Vladimir Svetlov
McArdle Lab for Cancer Research
Dept. Oncology
UW-Madison
1400 University Ave.
Madison, WI 53706
Victor Olevich
Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
> A chto kasaetsya Tolstogo Levochki, tak
> eto on opisyvatel' horoshii, a pisatel' - dovol'no hrenovii, eto pro nego i
> ran'she govorili, ya tol'ko ukorotil.
Oshibaetes', gospodin Svetlov, oshibaetes'.. pro Tolstogo govorili chto
on prekrasny pisatel' i hrenovy filosof (chto yavlyaetsya polnoy
protivopolozhnostyu vami napisannogo), i skazal eto velikiy nemetzkiy
pisatel' Ernst Renan.
Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik
Nda. Hegustoj ulov, odin Limonov, kotoryj u menya uzhe ne poshol, i
kak raz s "Edichkoj". Sil'no uzh mnogo fiziologii. I ne nado mne
govorit'
o tom, chto eto fakty zhizni - ne vsyakij fakt zhini prevrachshaetsya
v fakt literatury. Mirovye shedevry, perezhivshie veka, ne o fiziologii.
Mne, verno, nuzhno bylo o vtoroj knige skazat' ne o gnusnom, a o
grustnom.
U raznyh lyudej raznyj porog vospriyatiya.
Vlad Orlov wrote:
> A naschet vyhozhdeniya iz vozrastnoi kategorii
> - ya v poslednie mesyatsy stal ponimat', chto lyudi, za isklyucheniem
> gigantov duha (kotoryh ya zhiv'yem esche ne videl), vyhodyat ottuda, a
> snaruzhi nichego ne nahodyat, potom vsyu ostavshuyusya zhizn' nazad
> zalezt' pytatyutsya.
A Vy podozhdite eshcho paru let, a luchshe - do 30. Mne moi 35
nravyatsya bol'she, chem 20. Znayu kuda bol'she vozmozhnostej sebya
poradovat', i men'she zavishu ot vneshnix obstoaytel'sv. Hotya,
konechno,
kak zdes' govoryat, "your mileage may vary". Ya, pravda, ne znayu sredi
nashih znakomyh nikogo, toskuyuchshego po ushedshey yunosti. Tol'ko
zhenshchiny perezhivayut o vneshnem starenii.
S uvazheniem, Maya Botvinnik.
Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik wrote:
>
> kak raz s "Edichkoj".
Nu, horosho. Ja, naprimer, do sih por v porosiachem vostorge ot Sokolova
("Shkola..." I "Mezhdu sobakoi i volkom"), no eto dlia vas, verojatno,
tozhe ne novoe imia.
> Sil'no uzh mnogo fiziologii. I ne nado mne
> govorit'
> o tom, chto eto fakty zhizni - ne vsyakij fakt zhini prevrachshaetsya
> v fakt literatury. Mirovye shedevry, perezhivshie veka, ne o fiziologii.
> Mne, verno, nuzhno bylo o vtoroj knige skazat' ne o gnusnom, a o
> grustnom.
> U raznyh lyudej raznyj porog vospriyatiya.
>
> Vlad Orlov wrote:
>
> > A naschet vyhozhdeniya iz vozrastnoi kategorii
> > - ya v poslednie mesyatsy stal ponimat', chto lyudi, za isklyucheniem
> > gigantov duha (kotoryh ya zhiv'yem esche ne videl), vyhodyat ottuda, a
> > snaruzhi nichego ne nahodyat, potom vsyu ostavshuyusya zhizn' nazad
> > zalezt' pytatyutsya.
> A Vy podozhdite eshcho paru let, a luchshe - do 30. Mne moi 35
> nravyatsya bol'she, chem 20. Znayu kuda bol'she vozmozhnostej sebya
> poradovat', i men'she zavishu ot vneshnix obstoaytel'sv. Hotya,
> konechno,
> kak zdes' govoryat, "your mileage may vary". Ya, pravda, ne znayu sredi
> nashih znakomyh nikogo, toskuyuchshego po ushedshey yunosti. Tol'ko
> zhenshchiny perezhivayut o vneshnem starenii.
Est' pogovorka :"S vozrastom nichego ne stanovitsia luchshe". Voobshe-to,
s nei trudno sporit'. Zhalet' ob ushedshei molodosti i stat' etoi
pogovorki oproverzheniem - raznye veshi. No pytat'sia - delo blagorodnoe.
> S uvazheniem, Maya Botvinnik.
>
> --
Lo
Vladimir Svetlov
> Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
>
> > A chto kasaetsya Tolstogo Levochki, tak
> > eto on opisyvatel' horoshii, a pisatel' - dovol'no hrenovii, eto pro nego i
> > ran'she govorili, ya tol'ko ukorotil.
>
> Oshibaetes', gospodin Svetlov, oshibaetes'.. pro Tolstogo govorili chto
> on prekrasny pisatel' i hrenovy filosof (chto yavlyaetsya polnoy
> protivopolozhnostyu vami napisannogo), i skazal eto velikiy nemetzkiy
> pisatel' Ernst Renan.
Eto nado zhe, ne oshibalsya - ne oshibalsya, a tut vdrug nachal... I chto
zhe etot velikii nemetskii pisatel' vash ponapisal? Byl odin takoi Ernst
(Ernest) Renan, 1823-1892, frantsuz, pravda, i napisal on etu, kak eye, La
Vie de Jesus, stalo byt'. Tol'ko pisatel' on byl ne velikii (i nikak ne
nemetskii), a tak sebe, secular filosof s nekotorymi zadatkami k
pisatel'stvu. Malo li chego on pro Tolstogo mog nagovorit' (i gde zh vy etu
tsitatu vydrali, mon ami?). Eto ves' Renan chto ya znayu - velikih
pisatelei, da eshe nemetskih, ne mnogo. Ili vy kogo-to eshe imeli v vidu?
Chto kasaetsya moego vyskazyvania of L.N., tak k Renanu ono nikakogo
otnoshenia i ne imelo (ya b ego i za 7 rublei tsitirovat' by ne stal). Eto
eshe Mechnikov po grafu prohodilsya, i s sobachkoi sravnival (na predmet
togo, chto dar zamechat' (obonianie) est's, a vot dumalka sovsem ne
rabotaet). A tak emu i ot Harmsa dostavalos', i ot drugih, i eshe malo.
Tolstoi otnositsya k tomu tipu hudozhnikov, chto srisovyvayut prekrasno, a
po pamyati i poleno ne narisuiut. A gonoru-to, gonoru - odno slovo, graf.
Vladimir Svetlov
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95.980120...@yellow.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Lena
<yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
>
> > otnoshenia i ne imelo (ya b ego i za 7 rublei tsitirovat' by ne stal). Eto
> > eshe Mechnikov po grafu prohodilsya, i s sobachkoi sravnival (na predmet
> > togo, chto dar zamechat' (obonianie) est's, a vot dumalka sovsem ne
> > rabotaet). A tak emu i ot Harmsa dostavalos', i ot drugih, i eshe malo.
> > Tolstoi otnositsya k tomu tipu hudozhnikov, chto srisovyvayut prekrasno, a
> > po pamyati i poleno ne narisuiut. A gonoru-to, gonoru - odno slovo, graf.
>
> Mechnikov, Harms i Svetlov skazali, chto Tolstoj byl ploxim pisatelem.
> Hmm... Nu raz tak ... Tak eto nepremmenno dolzhno byt' pravdoj!
>
> Yelena.
> (Tyoma, ty vsjo eschjo schitaesh? :)
Odnogo Svetlova dostatochno, poskol'ko, soglasno Kantu, absolyutny vkus ne
nuzhdaetsya v podtverzhdenii izvne (i, stalo byt', v kantah tozhe <G>). Ne
nuzhdaetsya, no priyatno - zdes' Harms, a tam Omletich, kto ne s nami, tomu
i bes v rebro. Vopros, koneshno, ne v pravde - netu ee, pravdy-to...- a v
tom, chto graf byl poryadkom glup. Inbreeding nebos' zael. Tak chto Tolstoi
snachala byl hrenovym pisatelem, a tol'ko potom my eto skazali. Nu,
posudite sami, otkuda by my mogli napered znat', graf-to one vpolne
obnakovenny byli-s.
Victor Olevich
Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
<Vopros, koneshno, ne v pravde - netu ee, pravdy-to...- a v
<tom, chto graf byl poryadkom glup. Inbreeding nebos' zael. Tak chto
<Tolstoi
<snachala byl hrenovym pisatelem, a tol'ko potom my eto skazali. Nu,
<posudite sami, otkuda by my mogli napered znat', graf-to one vpolne
<obnakovenny byli-s.
Odnoznachno- GENIALNO
Bravo, Volodya!
Artem Kazantsev
> Vo, kstati, esche mogu porekomendovat' Haritonova (ne Marka, konechno).
antisemit.
vot iz nego otryvok:
как было дело на 7-ое ноября. В. привел ко мне двух натуралок, Макаку с
Раечкой,
и Валеру сокурсника стройный мальчик не развязный еврей наполовину.
Выпили; я предложил раскраситься всем акварельными красками. В. Раечку
раздел ей на заду нарисовал цветы и Макака помогала. Я Макаке нарисовал
на груди ордена и погоны. У В. по туловищу нарисовали женщину с пиздой
по его пупку. Потом тот приведенный Валера разделся ради чего все и
затевалось я нарисовал ему по груди и на животе два больших лица в
поцелуе и дальше их продолжаю туда в плавки почти до него дошел. Так все
изрисовались ноги изрисовали и мы с этим нерасколотым полуевреем Валерой
пошли к зеркалу посмотреться, он меня чуть обнял, я тут же удержал его
руку, и все, порох вспыхнул. А дальше мы голые все танцевали вместе
перетерлись друг о друга все картины перепачкались у всех друг на друге
и мы с этим новым Валерой ебли Макаку, то есть целовались на ней
прижимались друг к другу и сливали в нее вся любовь наверху а Макака
внизу для слива. Она не понимает рада что ее ебут в два хуя. Простая
такая смешная толстая прокладка. ДанАя. Мы смотрели когда она в темноте
танцевала, и казалось что да, женщины и должны быть толстыми.
A vy govorite - Tolstoj. Da razve on tak napishet? Kstati, vse
osobennosti punktuacii - avtora.
> Opyat' zhe staryi, dazhe umer uzhe, no tozhe horoshiy. Kazhis', ego
> dvuhtomnik v Moskve izdali goda tri nazad. U menya tol'ko neskol'ko
> kserokopiy est' togo chto ya v mestnoi biblioteke nashel v dissidentskih
> sbornikah. Chego ego tuda zapihali? Vrode by chelovek zanimalsya
> literaturoi v samom distillirovanom vide...
rezhisserom on byl, a pisal v stol. kak i mnogie v to vremq.
--
Kazantsev Te...@bigfoot.com pHome(919)933-8527
"You're nothing but a pack of punchcards..."
Artem Kazantsev
Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik wrote:
>
> Nda. Hegustoj ulov, odin Limonov, kotoryj u menya uzhe ne poshol, i
> govorit'
> o tom, chto eto fakty zhizni - ne vsyakij fakt zhini prevrachshaetsya
> v fakt literatury. Mirovye shedevry, perezhivshie veka, ne o fiziologii.
pogode.
Idite i uchite. Prixodite v sled. raz.
> Mne, verno, nuzhno bylo o vtoroj knige skazat' ne o gnusnom, a o
> grustnom.
> U raznyh lyudej raznyj porog vospriyatiya.
mesto Dovlatova, 3-x tomnikami nachal vyxodit'. Tol'ko chto ne
rasklanivaetsq. Eshe vot est' takoj pisatel' Sergej Magomet, rekomenduju
ego knizhku Chelovek-pistolet. Osobenno vtoroj roman, Plan.
A voobshe - sxodite na http://www.russ.ru, tam vpolne prilichnye
recenzii na novye knizhki:
http://www.russ.ru:8083/journal/kniga/index.html
> poradovat', i men'she zavishu ot vneshnix obstoaytel'sv.
> Hotya,
> konechno,
> kak zdes' govoryat, "your mileage may vary". Ya, pravda, ne znayu sredi
> nashih znakomyh nikogo, toskuyuchshego po ushedshey yunosti. Tol'ko
> zhenshchiny perezhivayut o vneshnem starenii.
> To answer, remove nospam from my address.
your head.
Artem Kazantsev
Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.A41.3.95.980120...@yellow.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Lena
> <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
> > > otnoshenia i ne imelo (ya b ego i za 7 rublei tsitirovat' by ne stal). Eto
> > > eshe Mechnikov po grafu prohodilsya, i s sobachkoi sravnival (na predmet
> > > togo, chto dar zamechat' (obonianie) est's, a vot dumalka sovsem ne
> > > rabotaet). A tak emu i ot Harmsa dostavalos', i ot drugih, i eshe malo.
> > > Tolstoi otnositsya k tomu tipu hudozhnikov, chto srisovyvayut prekrasno, a
> > > po pamyati i poleno ne narisuiut. A gonoru-to, gonoru - odno slovo, graf.
> >
> > Mechnikov, Harms i Svetlov skazali, chto Tolstoj byl ploxim pisatelem.
> > Hmm... Nu raz tak ... Tak eto nepremmenno dolzhno byt' pravdoj!
> >
> > Yelena.
> > (Tyoma, ty vsjo eschjo schitaesh? :)
Ugu. no s trudom. u menya IQ nizhe pola, srednego, kuda uzh nam do
zhenskogo-kagalenskogo...
k tomu zhe pal'cy konchayutsya...
>
> Odnogo Svetlova dostatochno, poskol'ko, soglasno Kantu, absolyutny vkus ne
> nuzhdaetsya v podtverzhdenii izvne (i, stalo byt', v kantah tozhe <G>). Ne
> nuzhdaetsya, no priyatno - zdes' Harms, a tam Omletich, kto ne s nami, tomu
>
U menya vopros k milejshemu - vot Vy, milejshij, zaladili - Harms,
Harms. A ya vot
ne pripomnyu chtoby Xapms, Charms ili, dopustim, Shardam pisali
chto-libo o Tolstom.
O Gogole pomnu, o Pushkine, O Gogole, o Pushkine. ...
A vot o Tolstom... Razve chto v pis'max...
> i bes v rebro. Vopros, koneshno, ne v pravde - netu ee, pravdy-to...- a v
> tom, chto graf byl poryadkom glup. Inbreeding nebos' zael. Tak chto Tolstoi
> snachala byl hrenovym pisatelem, a tol'ko potom my eto skazali. Nu,
> posudite sami, otkuda by my mogli napered znat', graf-to one vpolne
> obnakovenny byli-s.
K sozhaleniyu, Vladimiru Svetlovu esli uzh vozrazhat' - to ne mne. Ya
Tolstogo ne lyubil so shkol'noj skam'i za vse ego nudnye tyazhelovestnye
miry i vojny, marazmaticheskie skazki s xristianskoj moral'ju i
voskresen'em. Mne on do six por predstavlyaetsq tem mnogovekovym dubom,
mimo kotorogo shastal knyaz' Andrej i lyubovalsya ego koryavost'yu.
Koryavoe, mnogovekovoe, borodatoe zerkalo revolyucii.
Odnako, eto eshe ne znachit, chto on pisatel' XRENOVY. Mne on ne
nravitsya, Svetlovy tozhe. So what? Get a *ife [(C) sami znaete kogo]
Vot Maya Jur'evna, okazalos', ne lyubit Limonova. A Majonez-Stervinskij
ne lyubit kopchenoj lososiny. (Zrya, kstati, vpolne ne kislo).
O chem bish my govorili?
Kyril Solntsev
Privet
Okazalsya neploh Lukianenko s rasskazom "Fugu v mundire"
Rekommenduyu:
http://kulichki.rambler.ru/sf/lukian/index.htm
--
Kyril Solntsev, Jerusalem
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <34C9B28F...@bigfoot.com>, Artem Kazantsev
<te...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> K sozhaleniyu, Vladimiru Svetlovu esli uzh vozrazhat' - to ne mne. Ya
> Tolstogo ne lyubil so shkol'noj skam'i za vse ego nudnye tyazhelovestnye
> miry i vojny, marazmaticheskie skazki s xristianskoj moral'ju i
> voskresen'em. Mne on do six por predstavlyaetsq tem mnogovekovym dubom,
> mimo kotorogo shastal knyaz' Andrej i lyubovalsya ego koryavost'yu.
> Koryavoe, mnogovekovoe, borodatoe zerkalo revolyucii.
> Odnako, eto eshe ne znachit, chto on pisatel' XRENOVY. Mne on ne
> nravitsya, Svetlovy tozhe. So what? Get a *ife [(C) sami znaete kogo]
Nravitsya - ne nravitsya, eto otdel'nyi vopros, dorogoi, Tolstoi -eto ne
devushka i ne kefir (hotya poslednii ochen' dazhe napominaet). Pisatel'
dolzhen zhe lobom dumat', odnako. I hrenovum Tolstoi okazyvaetsya togda
kogda dumat' nado - kak i bylo skazano, opisyvatel' on dazhe ochen'
nichego. Vmeste poluchaetsya ne razberi-poimesh' chego. Tak chto ya ne
utverzdal chto Tolstoi altogether plohoi pisatel', tol'ko kak pisatel' v
protivopolozhnost'/dopolnenie k opisyvatelyu. Byvayut i takie, chto i etogo
ne mogut. Sami zhe govorite - skuchno, nu kak s tem dubom -
trivial'neishaya metafora, i ves' on takoi. Genii posredstvennosti - kto
zhe teto tak skazal? I ne pripomnyu uzhe.
PVA
mbot...@nospamdarkwing.uoregon.edu says...
< Q on new russ lit. >
Odnako, za literaturu ljubli pogovorit`.
Iz on-line (esli onoe takzhe imelos` v vidu) Rekomenduju URL :
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2261/index.html
Za 1997. god ehto edinstvennoe, chto ne vyzvalo srazu zhe
zevotu i /ili dosadu. Avotrov mnogo raznykh, no u redaktora imo
vkus khoroshii. Vzglyanite, ne pozhaleete.
>Nda. Hegustoj ulov, odin Limonov, kotoryj u menya uzhe ne poshol, i
>kak raz s "Edichkoj". Sil'no uzh mnogo fiziologii.
Vrode, chuzhoe mnenie nado uvazhat`. No inogda nelegko.
V apologetov Limonova khotelos` by kinut` 1 - Y. Mishimoi
(kstati seichas ya v Japonii, i vecherami chitaju essno, Mishimu)
2 - Bukovskim.
Po sravneniju s ehtimi avtorami, Limonov ne sdelal NICHEGO.
No uvy, kritika unylo tyanetsya vsled, daze nekomplementarnaya :
"shokirujushie svoei otkrovennost`ju sceny.." ; "gryaznyi realizm"...
Pochemu - to stavitsya znak ravenstva
mezhdu gryaz`ju i otkrovennost`ju. Kak budto nelzya gryazju zamazat`
do neuznavaemosti. I potom "shokirujushie". Esli ihkh dyrka v zhope
shokiruet svoei otkrovennost`ju, mozhno im tol`ko pozavidovat` :
kak malo nastoyashego zla oni videli. Vprochem, o chem ehto ya ?
> Mne moi 35
>nravyatsya bol'she, chem 20.
Agreed.
" a ne khotel by ty, Pashen`ka, vernutsya vzad godkov na 15 ? "
Ni za chto, voveki vekov. Sramota kakaya.
PVA
PVA
>Pomnitsja v odnom iz pervyx postov Gospodin Svetlov skazal takzhe, chto
>Tostoj byl xoroshij opisyvatel', no ploxoj filosof.
Gospodin Svetlov.. Da uzh. Byl kakoi-to Stepan, familie zabyl tol`ko.
No lobom Stepka dumal izryadno. Kstati, interesno, chto g-n Svetlov
dumaet lobom pro Kazanovu, a zaodno i pro Stendalya.
Na sovonics mozhno ne perevodit`.
PA
user
Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
> Nravitsya - ne nravitsya, eto otdel'nyi vopros, dorogoi, Tolstoi -eto ne
> devushka i ne kefir (hotya poslednii ochen' dazhe napominaet). Pisatel'
> dolzhen zhe lobom dumat', odnako. I hrenovum Tolstoi okazyvaetsya togda
> kogda dumat' nado - kak i bylo skazano, opisyvatel' on dazhe ochen'
> nichego.
Interesno, a kto byl umnym pisatelem v Rossii? Dostoevski? Vrode ne ochen' umen.
Pushkin - ne umen. Bunin tam ili Chehov - toje titanami mysli ne nazovesh'. Umen vot
Victor Erofeev - ochen' umen, tol'ko pishet vse tol'ko o sortirax.
Alex.
Artem Kazantsev
Lena wrote:
> Nu kak zhe.
> (Za pervoe predlozhenie ruchajus', a dal'she v mojom vol'nom izlozhenii):
>
> Lev Tolstoj ochen' ljubil detej. Soberjot ix byvalo, posadit k sebe na
> koleni i gladit po golovke.
>
> Nu i t.d.
> Pravda ja gdeto-to chitala, chto eto Xarmsu pripisyvali.
Вот линк, последуйте
http://www.libfl.ras.ru/lit/rebyata/index.htm
там все эти анекдоты про Толстого есть, да еще и с картинками!
Цитата из предисловия:
Что касается подражания Хармсу - конечно, оно было, самое прямое.
Пятницкий Хармса очень любил и
артистично пересказывал. Однажды ночью, на прогулке, они с Тимашевым
изобразили "о, черт! Обратно об
Гоголя!" - очень красиво падали. Как у Ф. М. засорилась ноздря - чистый
Хармс. Другой источник -
школьно-народные анекдоты про Пушкина (как правило, глупые и
неприличные. Пушкин, где ты? Во мху я!)
Помните, как царь пригласил Пушкина обедать, а стул ему не поставил.
Пушкин пришел, что поделаешь - стал в
сторонке. Тут царя позвали к телефону. Он так с пирогом в руке и пошел.
Пушкин быстренько сел на его место,
ест. Царь вернулся, встал рядом, пирог доедает, а Пушкин как будто не
видит, ест себе. Царь разозлился и
спрашивает: - Пушкин! Чем отличается человек от свиньи? - А Пушкин
отвечает:
- Тем, что человек ест сидя, а свинья стоя.
По-моему, к этому нечего прибавить.
Н.
Доброхотова-Майкова.
> Yelena.
> (uprajamo balansiruja cvetovuju gammu :)
главное правило: в группу S.C.U надо писать попеременно с желтого и
голубого.
шутю.
Vladimir Svetlov
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95.980125...@yellow.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Lena
<yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Pomnitsja v odnom iz pervyx postov Gospodin Svetlov skazal takzhe, chto
> Tostoj byl xoroshij opisyvatel', no ploxoj filosof.
Ne stol'ko skazal, skol'ko soglasylsya s etim tezisom, vyskazannym drugimi.
> Ja lichno ne sovsem
> ponimaju pochemu pisatel' voobsche dolzhen byt' filosofom, a tem bolee
> xoroshim.
horoshim ne dolzhen, a vot esli on plohoi filosof, to eto mozhet dazhe
ochen' meshat'.I galvnym obrazom ne Tolstomu (i tak ponastrochil
dostatochno), a ego chitatelyam, poskol'ku primitivnaya filosofiya (popytka
s negodnymi sredstvami, kak govoril moi drug, prozektor Vasilii) postoyanno
zakorachivaet na vpolne kachestvennoe opisatel'stvo, porozhdaya smes' iz
trivial'nosti i polnoi neestestvennosti.
> Pisatel' pishet o tom, chto est' libo v prirode, libo v ego
> voobrazhenii. To est' on opisyvaet eto. Znachit byt' xoroshim opisyvatelem
> ravnocenno tomu chtoby byt' xoroshim pisatelem.
Podmena opredelenia spora ne reshaet. To chto pered glazami, ot pisatelya
ne ochen' zavisit, a vot to, chto u nego v golove, to ochen' dazhe da. V
etom sobstvenno i raznitsya. Ya dostatchno yasno otdelil opisyvatel'stvo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(vosproizvedenie na bumage sobstvennyh nablyudenii za tem, chto
sushestvuet nezavisimo ot avtora, i prosteishie operacii nad etimi
nablyudeniyami [nablyudaem v prirode storozha Petyu, a vosproizvodim na
bumage pod imenem dvornika Feofana]) i pisatel'skii dar sozdavat' v svoem
voobrazhenii
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to chemu v prirode pryamih analogii net, nahodit' neozhidannie
interpretacii obsheizvestnym yableniyam, rassmatrivat' trivial'nei sobytia
s netrivial'noi tochki zrenia i t.d. Potomu Tolstoi ni Prestuplenia i
nakazania, ni Mastera i Margarity, ni Iudy Iskaryota ne napisal by.
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <34CBFD...@subdomain.domain>, us...@subdomain.domain wrote:
> Interesno, a kto byl umnym pisatelem v Rossii? Dostoevski? Vrode ne
ochen' umen.
> Pushkin - ne umen. Bunin tam ili Chehov - toje titanami mysli ne
nazovesh'. Umen vot
> Victor Erofeev - ochen' umen, tol'ko pishet vse tol'ko o sortirax.
Leonid Andreev. Vprochem, ni na Pushkina, ni na Dostoevskogo c Chehovym ne
zhaluyus' - kak pisateli oni ochen' dazhe umny, osobenno ezheli s Tolstym
sravnit'. Poskol'ku um - ponyatie tyaguchee, ya ogovoryus' chto pod umom v
dannom sluchae ya ponimayu stepen' netrivial'nosti kompozicii, characterov
i t.p., tvorcheskaya vlast' avtora nad materialom i t.p.
A vprochem, davaite prodelaem ultimate test - minut cherez 10 posle
horoshego obeda prochtite Tolstov'skie skazki dlya detei. Vedro tol'ko ne
zabud'te, dlya obeda.
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <6ah3fh$qt5$1...@ripspost.aist.go.jp>,
afa...@catalyse.univ-lyon1.fr (PVA) wrote:
> Gospodin Svetlov.. Da uzh. Byl kakoi-to Stepan, familie zabyl tol`ko.
> No lobom Stepka dumal izryadno. Kstati, interesno, chto g-n Svetlov
> dumaet lobom pro Kazanovu, a zaodno i pro Stendalya.
> Na sovonics mozhno ne perevodit`.
I think nothing of Casanova, and rather favorably of Stendhal, my favorite
french authors, however, were and still are Anouilh and Sartre. Why do you
ask?
BTW, you can make a list of personal questions and email it directly to me
lest we bore the rest of the participants, while you are getting to know me
better. I must warn you though, that I've been out of the dating pool, well
for last 10 years.
Vlad Orlov
> A vprochem, davaite prodelaem ultimate test - minut cherez 10 posle
> horoshego obeda prochtite Tolstov'skie skazki dlya detei. Vedro tol'ko
> ne zabud'te, dlya obeda.
Svyatye slova! Ya vsyo sobiralsya na etu temu raprostranitsya.
Menya v detstve eti skazki dovodili do zamutneniya uma. Ya, kogda
malen'kiy byl, smyshlyonnen'kim byl takim ne po godam. Voz'mu knizhku,
nachinayu chitat'. "Obez'yana na machtu, mal'chik za obez'yanoy, papa
za ruzh'e, mertvenno-blednyi, zakrichal strashnym golosom, prygai, ili
ya tebya ub'yu, litso zakryl, ubezhal v kayutu". Ya ne ponimal nichego,
plyus eti opisatel'nye sposobnosti Tolstogo udachno menya pugali svoimi
mertvenno-blednymi litsami. Vot tut-to menya rassuditel'nost' i
podvodila. Na izdatel'stvo smotryu - Detgiz. Kartinki tsevtnye est'?
Est'. Znachit, dlya detey. Znachit, dlya menya. Raz ne ponyal -
znachit nevnimatel'no chital. Pognali po novoy: "ta, znachit, na
machtu, a on za ney, a tot s mertvenno-blednym litsom za ruzh'e, i
strashnym golosom, potom v kayutu ubezhal. Tak... Detgiz? Detgiz. S
kartinkami? S kartinkami. Da yob zhe tvoyu mat'! Obez'yana na
machtu? Na machtu." i t.p., do sudorog.
Sobachka so l'vom - ya volosyonki na sebe vydiral!..
Plyus eta ego podozritel'naya kar'era paharya ochen' smahivaet na drag
queen mentality. Prosnulsya v imenii, zuby pochistil, portki s laptyami
slugi otdraili? Za sohu. Potom na stantsii oshivat'sya, pyataki
shibat'. Vot i den' proshel.
L.Gordeev
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Vlad Orlov wrote:
> > prochtite Tolstov'skie skazki dlya detei.
>
> Menya v detstve eti skazki dovodili do zamutneniya uma.
I vpryam'.
Ya gde-to chital, chto Tolstoy (c.e.n.) pisal svoi skazki vrode kak
strashniye basni s moral'yu - xot' i dlya detey, no ne dlya
samostoyatel'nogo chteniya, a kak propoved' (ili shokovaya terapiya).
Chto-to na maner biblii u katolikov. Detgiz tuda, kartinki syuda -
detyam chitat' ix ne stoit. Vot roditeli mogut: "smotri ***, polezesh
na machtu - zastrelyu".
L.G
M. Papisov
In article <34CBFD...@subdomain.domain>, us...@subdomain.domain wrote:
> Interesno, a kto byl umnym pisatelem v Rossii? Dostoevski? Vrode
ne ochen' umen.
> Pushkin - ne umen. Bunin tam ili Chehov - toje titanami mysli
ne nazovesh'. Umen vot
> Victor Erofeev - ochen' umen, tol'ko pishet vse tol'ko o sortirax.
Byl, govorjat, takoj sluchaj. Vyzyvaet raz starwina Petrov rjadovogo
Ivanova, stavit po stojke smirno, i proiznosit sledujuschuju rech':
Vot, Ivanov, chto my znaem o mirovoj kul'ture? Vzjat' hot' Pushkina.
Tol'ko i umel, chto po bl**m hodit' - a kakie stihi pisal. Ili vzjat', k
primeru, Chajkovskogo. Tot byl pederast, a muzyka, muzuka kakaq! Nu, pro
Tolstogo i govorit' nechego - tot poslednee vremja voobsche impotent byl,
a chego navorochal, chego navorochal!..
...A ty, rjadovoj Ivanov, s takim h*em, pis'mo materi napisat' ne mozhesh'!
Uspehov™
MP
______________He who rides on a tiger never dismounts________________
Please delete the very first letter in my email address to reply.
Nobody at all, including my past, current and future employers,
is responsible for whatever is written above.
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <mmisha-2601...@misha.mgh.harvard.edu>,
mmi...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu (M. Papisov) wrote:
> A chto, Vova, chitatel' chem-nibud' dumat' dolzhen?
Nu pochemu zhe tol'ko chitatel'? Dumat' lobom eto pochetnaya obyazannost'
kazhnogo saveiskogo grazhdanina. Vot u vas, Misha, po belezni osvobozhdenie
ili bronya s mesta raboty?
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.980126...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Lena <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Nu konechno! Osobenno u Dostoevskogo. V pereryvax mezhdu igroj v karty
> plyol kak userdnyj pauk pautinu
> nepravdopodobno uslozhnjonnyx otnoshenij. Zdes' eto nazyvaetsja "plot
> complexity". Amerikanskaja publika ljubit. Poetomu Dostievskij tut v takom
> pochjote.
P pochete on potomu, chto Amerikanskie professora literatury ob'yasnili
kakoi Fedor byl slozhnyi, a Lev - tolstyi. Chitayut zhe amerikantsy Danielu
Steel i Grishama. Check the bestsellers list. Chto zhe tut podelat', mnogie
lyubyat uslozhnyat' otnoshenia posredstvom shevelenia mozgami, zlaya i
glupaya privychka. I Dostoevskii, i Eco, i Wilder, i etot, Shakespear vse
vsegda uslozhnyali.
> I v ego vremja eto prodavalos' bystree, a sroki vsegda
> podzhimali: proigryvalsja chasto, nu chto podelat'.
Chto, prestuplenie i nakazanie rasprodavalos' bystree chem kakoi-nibud'
sanin? Eto uzh vy hvatili, dorogaya...
> I vsjo-taki ja ne
> otricaju genial'nosti i velichija Dostoevskogo. Kto tut bez nedostatkov?
Ya eshe i vyshivat' umeyu, i na mashinke shit'...
> A Leonid Andreev ... Nu kto ego sejchas chitaet?
Analogichnyi vopros mozhet byt' zadan i o grafe Tolstove. Otvet, kak skazal
by general-leitenant Dolenko, prost kak sem' rublei - Tolstovo chitayut
ugnetennye deti i eshe uzkii krug ogranichennyh lyudei. V spiske chitatelei
Andreeva, kotoryi ya vam vyshlyu po gotovnosti, na pervom meste idu ya.
> > A vprochem, davaite prodelaem ultimate test - minut cherez 10 posle
> > horoshego obeda prochtite Tolstov'skie skazki dlya detei. Vedro tol'ko ne
> > zabud'te, dlya obeda.
>
> U menja est' prekrasnoe izdanie Azbuki Tolstogo. Po-moemu, dlja svoego
> vremeni ejo sozdanie bylo prosto neobyknovennym javleniem.
Po-moemu, rech' shla ne ob azbuke a o skazkah. Chto kasaetsya yavlenia - u
vas drugih azbuk togo perioda ne bylo, nu tak chtoby sravnit'?
S pervyx
> stranic, s prostejshix tekstov (Kate dali myla. Ona myla lico i sheju. :)
> prekrasno adaptirovannyx dlja samyx
> malen'kix chitatelej, k bolee slozhnym, Kotjonok, Ptichka, Pryzhok.
Kto o chem...
> Konechno, v sbornike takogo
> masshtaba ne vse komponenty poluchilis' udachnymi. Opjat' zhe morali
> mnogovato. No tut, kak posmotret'. Deti ljubjat moral'nye skazki
> (ne isporchennye deti, konechno).
To est' deti, kotorye ne lyubyat etu hodul'nost' i moralizatorstvo tupogo
grafa - isporchennye? Ne kipyatites', Lenochka, loyal'nost' vashu k
pokoinomu grafu my vyasnili uzhe. Vot vy mne skazhite, Malen'kii princ -
eto kak moral'naya skazka, ili amoral'naya? A Hobbit?
> Ne vsem roditeljam nravitsja na detskie
> naivnye voprosy otvechat', no eto ve'd' drugoe delo. I ne nado zabyvat',
> chto moral' 19-go veka otlichjalas' ot tepereshnej. I jazyk uzhe nemnogo
> neprivychen. Osobenno rebjonku, kotoryj rodilsja za rubezhom, ne srazu
> ponjatno chto eto znachit: Olja ela uxu. Brat pil kvas. A chto takoe kvas?
Ukatali syvaku krutye gorki... I gde zhe eto moral' XIX veka v takih
otkroveniyah kak "Masha ela kashu"?
> Esli Gospodina Svetlova ot skazok Tolstogo toshnit, eto eschjo ne znachit,
> chto oni ploxie.
Znachit, eshe kak znachit. Ot Tolkien'a vot ne toshnit, of Ekzyuperi tozhe
net, i ot Jansson, i ot C.S. Lewis, i ot Lagerlef, i ot Lingren... dazhe ot
Gaufa ne toshnit. Indukcii vas uchili ili gde? K tomu zhe vy, Lenochka, ne
ob skazkah, a ob azbuke tolkuete. Dyslexi'yu tut podhvatili ili kak? My vot
i bez azbuke oboshlis, i nichego - chitaet rebyenok s 5 let, s 6 - na treh
yazykah, i ne bredni eti mrakobesnye, a vpolne podhodyashuyu dlya vozrasta
(9 let) literaturu, togo zhe Lewis'a s Tolkien'om.
> Odin moj znakomyj, naprimer, vybrosil za okno sbornik
> Chukovskogo, potomu chto tam o zlovrednyx nasekomyx polozhitel'no...
Nu tak ved' eto vash znakomyi, Lenochka, a ne moi. Kto zhe eshe b emu
knizhku dal?
M. Papisov
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>>> Pisatel'
>>> dolzhen zhe lobom dumat', odnako.
I wrote:
>>A chto, Vova, chitatel' chem-nibud' dumat' dolzhen?
(Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> Nu pochemu zhe tol'ko chitatel'?
Potomu chto pro pisatelq uzhe bylo vse ponqtno, a pro chitatelq esche net.
> Dumat' lobom eto pochetnaya obyazannost'
> kazhnogo saveiskogo grazhdanina.
Ja ran'she dumal, byla tol'ko odna pochetnaja objazannost': sluzhba v armii.
> Vot u vas, Misha, po belezni osvobozhdenie
> ili bronya s mesta raboty?
U menja svoboda vybora v etom otnoshenii. Vvidu nesavejskogo haraktera
mesta raboty.
A u vas, Vova, pohozhe, papa rajvoenkom?
(Eto ja ne lobom pridumal - tak, muzyka... pardon me,leksika navejala...)
M. Papisov
In article <6afbeq$gi5$1...@ripspost.aist.go.jp>,
afa...@catalyse.univ-lyon1.fr (PVA) wrote:
> Pochemu - to stavitsya znak ravenstva
> mezhdu gryaz`ju i otkrovennost`ju. Kak budto nelzya gryazju zamazat`
> do neuznavaemosti.
Menja esche takaq problema interesuet: a chto, ne byvaet li negrjaznoj
otkrovennosti?
> Esli ihkh dyrka v zhope
> shokiruet svoei otkrovennost`ju, mozhno im tol`ko pozavidovat` :
> kak malo nastoyashego zla oni videli. Vprochem, o chem ehto ya ?
Vrode, o zle i zhope, Pasha?
M. Papisov
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> sravnit'. Poskol'ku um - ponyatie tyaguchee
S kakih by eto por? Vprochem, eto smotrq kakoj um.
> pod umom v
> dannom sluchae ya ponimayu stepen' netrivial'nosti kompozicii,
characterov
> i t.p., tvorcheskaya vlast' avtora nad materialom i t.p.
Ponjatno. Bez i t.p. bylo tjaguchee, a s i t.p. - srazu netjaguchee.
Uspehov™
M. Papisov
> A Leonid Andreev ... Nu kto ego sejchas chitaet?
Svetlov. Potomu chto Mil'.. pardon me, Andreev - eto golova! Andreev - on
lobom dumal. A Tolstoj - eto ne golova. On lobom ne dumal.
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <mmisha-2701...@misha.mgh.harvard.edu>,
mmi...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu (M. Papisov) wrote:
> Ja ran'she dumal, byla tol'ko odna pochetnaja objazannost': sluzhba v armii.
Ran'she dumal, a teper' brosil? I kak ono, tyazhelo prihodilos', poka ne otvyk?
> > Vot u vas, Misha, po belezni osvobozhdenie
> > ili bronya s mesta raboty?
>
> U menja svoboda vybora v etom otnoshenii. Vvidu nesavejskogo haraktera
> mesta raboty.
A vy dokazhite, Mihail, ispolzuite svoyu svobodu i, hot' na spor, a
podumaite. A to skushno choi-to s vami.
> A u vas, Vova, pohozhe, papa rajvoenkom?
> (Eto ja ne lobom pridumal - tak, muzyka... pardon me,leksika navejala...)
Pisal uzhe - roditelei ne pomnyu, vospitan byl volkami. Bol'shei chast'yu
mordovskimi. Raivoenkoma, s drugoi storony pomnyu. Zdorovyi takoi bugai,
rozha kak sedlo, i cvetom i vyrazitel'nost'yu. A chto kasaetsya naveyanih
etih, to eto opyat' mne za ch'i-to nezamyslovatye associacii dostaetsya.
Pora by uzh i privyknut'...
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
> Lena <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
<snip>
> I menja ot niz ne toshnit. Delo za malen'kim: russkix pisatelej v Vashem
> spiske ne zametno. Ja ponimaju, chto russkaja kul'tura daleko ne vsem
> nravitsja. I jazyk russkij mnogie starajutsja zabyt' kak mozhno skoree.
> Eto delo lichnoe. A tem, kto xochet, chtoby deti xot' nemnogo k russkoj
> kul'ture priobschilis', Tolstogo ne izbezhat'.
Ne pomniu gde, no etot zhe samyi Tolstoi skazal, chto chitat' nuzhno
lish' to, chto serdtse poskazyvaet, i chto net "obyazatel'nogo" dlia
kazhdogo spiska literatury. Tak chto, izbezhat' ili ne izbezhat' - vopros
spornyi. Mnogie knigi, kotorye ja chital v detstve, byli perevodnymi (nu,
perevodchiki, pravda, postaralis'), i ei-bogu, chitaite vy ih vmesto
skazok Tolstogo, i ne budete ne menee utonchennoi, ne menee russkoi, chto
dlia vas, veroiatno, v dannom kontekste osobenno vazhno.
Lo
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.980127...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Lena <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Ja voobsche-to dumaju, chto chtenie xoroshej literatury dolzhno
> otlichat'sja ot raskalyvanija krosvorda. Mne lichno Dostoevskij ne potomu
> ne nravitsja, chto ja ne v sostojanii prosledit' za dejstvijami ego
> mnogochislennyx presonazhej i za ix zaputannymi otnoshenijami. Neprijatno,
> kogda eto stanovirsja samocel'ju.
A s chego vy vzyali, chto u nego eto byla samocel'? Vot u Quilippo'vtsev
ili tam Gumileva (mestami) eto da...
> > Chto, prestuplenie i nakazanie rasprodavalos' bystree chem kakoi-nibud'
> > sanin? Eto uzh vy hvatili, dorogaya...
>
> Mozhet i ne bystree, no vazhno to, chto emu platili pri
> sdache gotovoj knigi v redakciju (minus avans).
Vazhno to, chto tezis vash nakrylsya mednym tazom. Esli ot uslozhneniya
pis'ma Dostoevskii ne vyigryval ni vo vremeni, ni v den'gah, to mozhet on i
ne uslozhnyal special'no, a vam eto tol'ko kazhetsya... A chto za den'gi
pisal, nu tak chto zhe - v Solovki ego za eto chto li? U kogo-to za mzdu
Besy poluchilis', a u koto-to - Adventures of Victorian Lady... Eto graf
vash mog besplatno vseh zatrahat' svoei slovesnoi tyanuchkoi, poskol'ku
satrap.
> > Analogichnyi vopros mozhet byt' zadan i o grafe Tolstove. Otvet, kak skazal
> > by general-leitenant Dolenko, prost kak sem' rublei - Tolstovo chitayut
> > ugnetennye deti i eshe uzkii krug ogranichennyh lyudei. V spiske chitatelei
> > Andreeva, kotoryi ya vam vyshlyu po gotovnosti, na pervom meste idu ya.
>
> Svetlov chitaet Andreeva,
> moja sosedka-- "Bridges of Madison County"... So what?
One thing for sure: vasha sosedka not [Svetlov]. In propositional calculus
it's called modus tollendo tollens.
> > Po-moemu, rech' shla ne ob azbuke a o skazkah. Chto kasaetsya yavlenia - u
> > vas drugih azbuk togo perioda ne bylo, nu tak chtoby sravnit'?
>
> K Vashemu svedeniju, skazki, o kotoryx Vy govorite, vxodjat v Azbuku
> Tolstogo. I eto dejstvitel'no luchshaja azbuka togo vremeni, da i sejchas
> luchshe ne najti. Poprobujte menja oprovergnut'!
Skazki, o kotoryh ya govoryu, vhodyat v sobranie sochinenii, i dlya azbuki
neskol'ko dlinnovaty. Vy dazhe nazvaniem ne pointersovalis', a zateyali
obsuzhdenie moral'nyh dostoinstv vyrazhenii tipa "Mashe dali mylom po
bashke".
Oproverzhenie bezdokazatel'nogo vyskazyvania eto, Lenochka, oxymoron.
> > To est' deti, kotorye ne lyubyat etu hodul'nost' i moralizatorstvo tupogo
> > grafa - isporchennye? Ne kipyatites', Lenochka, loyal'nost' vashu k
> > pokoinomu grafu my vyasnili uzhe. Vot vy mne skazhite, Malen'kii princ -
> > eto kak moral'naya skazka, ili amoral'naya? A Hobbit?
>
> Ja tozhe ljublju Malen'kogo Princa. No eta skazka i skazki Tolstogo
> prinadlezhat raznym kategorijam.
Vot imenno. Pervaya - k categorii literaturnyh proizvedenii, a vtorye - k
kategorii "turnip surprise".
> > Ukatali syvaku krutye gorki... I gde zhe eto moral' XIX veka v takih
> > otkroveniyah kak "Masha ela kashu"?
>
> Nu zachem zhe do absurda dovodit'?
> Hint: ne nado vezde iskat' moral'. (dazhe v tom, chto sam Tolstoj
> napisal:)
Eto vy Lenochka, sovershenno samostoyatel'no do etogo absurda dogovorilis',
ya zhe vas pytaus' obratno k svetu vytashit'. Tol'ko vot hvost u vas
kakoi-to sklizlyi, zahvat vse vremya sryvaetsya. Ili vy tam za chto-to
kogtyami ucepilis'?
> > Znachit, eshe kak znachit. Ot Tolkien'a vot ne toshnit, of Ekzyuperi tozhe
> > net, i ot Jansson, i ot C.S. Lewis, i ot Lagerlef, i ot Lingren... dazhe ot
> > Gaufa ne toshnit. Indukcii vas uchili ili gde? K tomu zhe vy, Lenochka, ne
>
> I menja ot niz ne toshnit. Delo za malen'kim: russkix pisatelej v Vashem
> spiske ne zametno. Ja ponimaju, chto russkaja kul'tura daleko ne vsem
> nravitsja.
Svyataya pravda, Lenochka. Vot Dostoevskii, naprimer, ili Andreev nekotorym
tak prosto poperek gorla.
Chto kasaetsya spiska, tak russkih "skazok" kalibra Hobbita ya ne znayu.
Alen'kii cvetochek, bratsa Ivanushku ili skazku o semeruh kozlyatah nash
chitatel' pereros eshe do togo, kak chitat' nauchilsya, a dlya menya oni
imeyut but sentimental value. Chto kasaetsya detskoi literatury voobshe na
russkom yazyke, to tut vybor gorazdo bogache - i Marshak, i
Garin-Mihailovskii, i Dragunskii, i Zoshenko, i Uspenskii so svoim
Matroskinym vpolne dazhe nichego.
Tak chto pafos vash, Lenochka, tak - tol'ko bescel'noe kolyhanie efira. Nu
eto zhe nado - nezadacha kakaya, i logika podvodit, i pafos...
> I jazyk russkij mnogie starajutsja zabyt' kak mozhno skoree.
A mnogim i zabyvat'-to nechego.
> Eto delo lichnoe. A tem, kto xochet, chtoby deti xot' nemnogo k russkoj
> kul'ture priobschilis', Tolstogo ne izbezhat'. Skazki ego i drugie
> komponenty Azbuki napisany na prekrasnom russkom i podobrany dlja
> chitatelej raznyx urovnej.
Raznyh urovnei, no ne vyshe taburetki. A chto ne izbezhat', to mozhet eto i
pravda, no popytat'sya vse ravno stoit.
> > Nu tak ved' eto vash znakomyi, Lenochka, a ne moi. Kto zhe eshe b emu
> > knizhku dal?
>
> Nu i chto? U Vas, Svetlov, strannaja manera, na lichnosti vsjo perevodit'.
> U nekotoryx tut, naprimer, est' laboratornye krysy znakomye--kakoe eto
> imeet otnoshenie k diskussii?
A kakoe otnoshenie povedenie vashego znakomogo (a imenno akt zlostnogo
entomologichesko-literaturnogo anti-Chukovskogo huliganstva) imelo k moemu
mneniyu o skazkah Tolstogo? I na lichnosti etot razgovor vy sami pereveli,
by implicitly equating literary opinions of your acquiantance and my own.
Ya zhe vas s krysami (na samom dele, s myshami, poskol'ku my iz zverei
tol'ko MAbs i delayem) ne sravnival. A to vdrug oni uznayut...
M. Papisov
(Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> Dumat' lobom eto pochetnaya obyazannost'
> kazhnogo saveiskogo grazhdanina.
I wrote:
> > Ja ran'she dumal, byla tol'ko odna pochetnaja objazannost':
sluzhba v armii.
(Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> Ran'she dumal, a teper' brosil? I kak ono, tyazhelo prihodilos',
poka ne otvyk?
Vov, a Vov. Ja, chestno govorja, za soboj ne sledil v ehtom otnoshenii. Ja
zh ne znal, chto "dumat' lobom" - eto byla "pochetnaja objazannost'", nu i
ne obraschal vnimanija.
> > > Vot u vas, Misha, po belezni osvobozhdenie
> > > ili bronya s mesta raboty?
> >
> > U menja svoboda vybora v etom otnoshenii. Vvidu
nesavejskogo haraktera
> > mesta raboty.
>
> A vy dokazhite, Mihail, ispolzuite svoyu svobodu i, hot' na spor, a
> podumaite.
Len'.
> opyat' mne za ch'i-to nezamyslovatye associacii dostaetsya.
Chtob oni byli zamyslovatymi, pisatel' dolzhen lobom dumat' (V.Svetlov, 1998).
Uspehov™
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
Lena wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Ne pomniu gde, no etot zhe samyi Tolstoi skazal, chto chitat' nuzhno
> > lish' to, chto serdtse poskazyvaet, i chto net "obyazatel'nogo" dlia
>
Ne, Tolstoi, vek voli ne vidat'. Voobshe-to, kakaia raznitsa?
Odin moi znakomyi, naprimer, eshe buduchi shkol'nikom, pisal sochinenie
o Chernyshevskom, i v kachestve epigrafa ispol'zoval:
"Gigant mysli, otets russkoi demokratii". V.I. Lenin.
Nichego, soshlo.
> Nu a esli ser'jozno, to k sozhaleniju, esli doverit'sja serdcu rebjonka v
> vybore litratury, to chitat' on budet Garfilda ili dazhe xudshie komiksy.
> Uvy.
Hmmm, ne hotelos' by sebia privodit' v primer, no s drugoi storony eto
predmet naibolee znakomyi. Tak vot, chitat' "skuchnyh" avtorov ja nachal
let v 10 i bez vsiakih ponukanii so storony roditelei.
>
> > kazhdogo spiska literatury. Tak chto, izbezhat' ili ne izbezhat' - vopros
> > spornyi. Mnogie knigi, kotorye ja chital v detstve, byli perevodnymi (nu,
> > perevodchiki, pravda, postaralis'), i ei-bogu, chitaite vy ih vmesto
> > skazok Tolstogo, i ne budete ne menee utonchennoi, ne menee russkoi, chto
> > dlia vas, veroiatno, v dannom kontekste osobenno vazhno.
>
> Voobsche-to ja uzhe davno skazok ne chitaju--vyrosla :)
>
> Yelena.
Eto znachit, o skazkah sporiat te, kto ih ne chitaet? Neporiadok. :-)
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.980128...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Lena <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
Lenochka, vy ne videli takuyu scenku u Monty Python, "Argument Clinic"
nazyvaetsya? Esli net, to obyazatel'no posmotrite. Sudya po etoi nashei s
vami diskussii, ya by vam uzhe byl dolzhen 50 pounds...
> > One thing for sure: vasha sosedka not [Svetlov]. In propositional calculus
> > it's called modus tollendo tollens.
>
> Nu i chto? U vas, navernoe, tozhe ne Ejnshtejn sosed.
A vot i Einstein. Einstein Bagels. Much easier to digest than STR.
> > > K Vashemu svedeniju, skazki, o kotoryx Vy govorite, vxodjat v Azbuku
> > > Tolstogo. I eto dejstvitel'no luchshaja azbuka togo vremeni, da i sejchas
> > > luchshe ne najti. Poprobujte menja oprovergnut'!
> >
> > Skazki, o kotoryh ya govoryu, vhodyat v sobranie sochinenii, i dlya azbuki
> > neskol'ko dlinnovaty. Vy dazhe nazvaniem ne pointersovalis', a zateyali
> > obsuzhdenie moral'nyh dostoinstv vyrazhenii tipa "Mashe dali mylom po
> > bashke".
> > Oproverzhenie bezdokazatel'nogo vyskazyvania eto, Lenochka, oxymoron.
>
> Otlichno skazano! Tol'ko otnositsja eto k Vashim napadkam na Tolstogo.
Otnosit'sya eto mozhet k chemu ugodno, no ya eto napisal po povodu vashei
manery stroit' argument : predlagaete tezis "Azbuka Tolstogo yavlayetsya
luchshei (neopredelennyi parameter) is neopredelennogo nabora podobnyh
azbuk", i trebuete chto by ya dokazyval obratnoe. V svoih napadkah na
Tolstogo ya po krainei mere privel svidetel'skie pokazaniya, i predlozhil
dokazatel'stvo metodom indukcii.
> A esli Vy s Azbukoj ne znakomy, tak proguljajtes' do blizhajshej xoroshej
> biblioteki. Azbuka eta ne ogranichivaetsja tekstami tipa "Olja ela uxu".
Tem ne menee, eto vsye, chto ve reshili citirovat'. Neskol'ko neumestno.
> A
> esli len' v bibiloteku sxodit', tak sprosite menja. Nazovite skazochku i
> ja posmotrju. Mogu posporit', chto ona budet v Azbuke.
Another 5 pounds.
> > > Ja tozhe ljublju Malen'kogo Princa. No eta skazka i skazki Tolstogo
> > > prinadlezhat raznym kategorijam.
> >
> > Vot imenno. Pervaya - k categorii literaturnyh proizvedenii, a vtorye - k
> > kategorii "turnip surprise".
>
> Net, pervaja--k kategorii apel'sinov, a vtorye--k kategorii jablok.
Esli i jablok, to soglasno narodnomu euphemismu - loshadinyh.
> Ved' eto Vy, a ne ja skazali: "I gde zhe eto moral' XIX veka v takih
> otkroveniyah kak "Masha ela kashu"?" To est' moral' iskali Vy. A ja vizhu
> v etom tol'ko prostejshij tekst dlja samogo malen'kogo chitatelja.
Eto vash text, Lenochka, ili vragi podbrosili :
Opjat' zhe morali
mnogovato. No tut, kak posmotret'. Deti ljubjat moral'nye skazki
(ne isporchennye deti, konechno). Ne vsem roditeljam nravitsja na detskie
naivnye voprosy otvechat', no eto ve'd' drugoe delo. I ne nado zabyvat',
chto moral' 19-go veka otlichjalas' ot tepereshnej. I jazyk uzhe nemnogo
neprivychen. Osobenno rebjonku, kotoryj rodilsja za rubezhom, ne srazu
ponjatno chto eto znachit: Olja ela uxu. Brat pil kvas. A chto takoe kvas?
Nachali s morali, a zakonchili kvasom. Toch v toch kak graf.
> > Svyataya pravda, Lenochka. Vot Dostoevskii, naprimer, ili Andreev nekotorym
> > tak prosto poperek gorla.
>
> Esli Vy eto obo mne, to mne dazhe Vy ne "poperjok gorla".
Chto znachit "esli"?
> > Chto kasaetsya spiska, tak russkih "skazok" kalibra Hobbita ya ne znayu.
> > Alen'kii cvetochek, bratsa Ivanushku ili skazku o semeruh kozlyatah nash
> > chitatel' pereros eshe do togo, kak chitat' nauchilsya, a dlya menya oni
> > imeyut but sentimental value.
>
> Tak my tut o skazkax Tolstogo ili o russkix narodnyx skazkax?
Hren red'ki, Lenochka... Nazovite skazku Tolstogo, kotoruyu vy stavite
naravne s Hobbitom.
> Chto kasaetsya detskoi literatury voobshe na
> > russkom yazyke, to tut vybor gorazdo bogache - i Marshak, i
> > Garin-Mihailovskii, i Dragunskii, i Zoshenko, i Uspenskii so svoim
> > Matroskinym vpolne dazhe nichego.
>
> Nichego ne imeju protiv. No Dragunskij i prochie dlja chitatelej bolee
> starshego vozrasta. Uchit'sja zhe chitat' prosche po Tolstomu. Ego skazki
> i rasskazy chitajutsja legko. I dumat' zastavljajut. I dobru uchat.
Tolstogo samogo dumat' ne zastavit' bylo. Nu a naschet togo, kak luchshe
chitat' uchitsya, to eto my po rezul'tatam razberemsya.
> > Tak chto pafos vash, Lenochka, tak - tol'ko bescel'noe kolyhanie efira. Nu
> > eto zhe nado - nezadacha kakaya, i logika podvodit, i pafos...
>
> A net pafosa. Vy ego sebe voobrazili.
A k chemu vy eto pripleli - pro nelyubov' k russkoi kul'ture i stremlenie
zabyt' russkii yazyk? Poskol'ku logicheskoi svyazi s argumentami osobennoi
ne nablyudaetsya, ya i prinyal eto za pafos peremeshennogo velikorossa...
> I s logikoj u Vas ne men'she
> problem chem u menja.
I gde zhe vy eto poimali menya na logicheskih oshibkah?
> Poka chto krome goloslovnyx utverzhdenij tipa:
> Tolstoj--durak, Svetlov--umnyj, ja nichego ne vizhu.
Vy mnogo chego vidite, dazhe to, chego tam net. O svoih sposobnostyah ya ne
rasprostranyalsya, tol'ko o svoih vpechatleniah. Ladno, razgovor etot, kak
Midgardov worm, sam sebya za hvost uzhe kotoryi raz kusaet. Chitaite vy
svoego Tolstogo na zdorov'e, nikto zhe u vas ego ne otnimaet...
Vladimir Svetlov
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95.980129...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Lena
<yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> > Lenochka, vy ne videli takuyu scenku u Monty Python, "Argument Clinic"
> > nazyvaetsya? Esli net, to obyazatel'no posmotrite. Sudya po etoi nashei s
> > vami diskussii, ya by vam uzhe byl dolzhen 50 pounds...
>
>
> Terpenie konchaetsja, da?
Ne videli, stalo byt'. Da i chto eto ya, v samom-to dele - pro Montia-to
Pythonova, chai, v azbuke ne propisano...
> > Otnosit'sya eto mozhet k chemu ugodno, no ya eto napisal po povodu
vashei> > manery stroit' argument : predlagaete tezis "Azbuka Tolstogo
yavlayetsya
> > luchshei (neopredelennyi parameter) is neopredelennogo nabora podobnyh
> > azbuk", i trebuete chto by ya dokazyval obratnoe. V svoih napadkah na
> > Tolstogo ya po krainei mere privel svidetel'skie pokazaniya, i predlozhil
> > dokazatel'stvo metodom indukcii.
> >
>
> Svidetel'skie pokazanija?? Hmm...
U vas i etogo net, dorogusha.
> A imenno: Mechnikov chto-to tam skazal o Tolstom. Chto? Gde? Kogda?
> Interesnaja ssylka...
Chto skazal, ya po pamyati vosproizvel - pro sobachku tam eshe bylo,
pomnite? A vot gde i kogda, uzhe ne pripomnyu, davno delo bylo.
> Xarms? Kogda i kak on otzyvalsja o Tolstom tozhe ostalos' zagadkoj.
I pro tren'-bren' ne pomnite? Nu kakaya vy, pravo. I to govoryat, pamyat'
devichia chto Alzheimer....
> Ostajotsja odin Svetlov... Ne ubeditel'no.
Vo-pervyh, tut eshe tovarishi vystupali, kotorym eti skazki na peristaltiku
diestvuyut, tak chto u vas i s arifmetikoi tozhe ne ahti. Vo-vtoryh, dlya
ad hominem dovodov stil' nado razvivat', u vas on kak u tolstogo truism na
truisme.
> A po povodu Azbuki. Ja znaju eschjo odnu izdannuju Tixomirovymi v 1914
> godu. Pravda eto nazyvaetsja Bukvarjom. Tolstovskoj ona tochno ustupaet. A
> byli by luchshe, oni by do nas doshli.
Doshli by? Do vas to i Dostoevskii ne ahti kak dohodit - "nepravdopodobno
uslozhnennye otnoshenia", eto zhe nado. Kafku ne chitali? Tosltoi vot
dohodit, a luchshee tak pohozhe i net. Vot eto ad hominem for 2 points.
OK, to est' eta azbuka luchshaya is 2? I s chego zhe ona luchshaya? Ne s
togo li, chto eto ta samaya azbuka, po kotoroi vy so svoim rebenkom
zanimaetes'? Nu konechno, mama staraetsya, tykaet pal'tsem posle raboty v
etu Mashu, kotoraya ela mylo u grafa Tolstogo, a tut kakaya-to svoloch'
zayavlayet, chto skazki, mol, fignya, i sam graf ne semi pyadei byl. Nu kak
zhe tut ne zakrichat' i ne zatopat' nogami, obyazatel'no nado zatopat' -
raz'yarennaya ne to tigritsa, ne to ustritsa zashishaet svoe roditel'skoe
samomnenie.
> Ja eschjo upomjanula Ptichku, Kotjonka i Pryzhok. Chitajte vnimatel'nee!
> Kstati, ne potrudites' li i Vy skazat' ot kakix imenno skazok Tolstogo Vas
> toshnit?
Ot vseh. No vot odna v dushu zapala svoim sukonnym yazykom - pro mal'chika,
kotoromu papasha s yarmarki kalachik privez. Prochitaesh' i zadumaesh'sya -
nu ot chego by vam, graf, pal'chik sebe kosoi tam ne namozolit', glyadish'
i proneslo by, obneslo by blagodarnyh potomkov takim vot tvorchestvom.
> A to poluchaetsja mne, chtoby dokazat' chto-to, nuzhno stranicy za
> stranicej perepechatyvat' sjuda, a gospodinu Svetlovu dostatochno skazat':
> Lev Tolstoj--durak.
Tak vy zhe nichego i ne perepechatyvali. Nechego i kipyatit'sya.
Nu, a chtoby ubedit'sya, chto graf byl neumen dostatochno i beglogo
vzglayda na ego proizvedenia.
> > Nachali s morali, a zakonchili kvasom. Toch v toch kak graf.
> >
>
> Nizhesledujuschee prochitajte, pozhalujsta, medlenno i vslux:
>
> Pered upominaniem uxi i kvasa ja skazala: "I jazyk uzhe nemnogo
> neprivychen". A dal'she pojasnila kakie imenno teksty iz Azbuki
> Tolstogo mogut pokazat'sja neponjatnymi malyshu, rodivshemusja za
> rubezhom.
A kakoe, izvinite, otnoshenie trudnosti s russkim yazykom u etogo malysha,
zhivushego za rubezhom, imeyut k predmetu diskussii? Nikakogo, prosto vam
zahotelos' podelitsya svoimi myslyami po nabolevshemu voprosu.
> Estestvenno dlja illjustracii ja vybrala teksty pokoroche,
> nadejas', chto Vy budete v sostojanii ponjat' takuju prostuju mysl'.
Sami po sebe vashi mysli prosty nu pryamo do zubovnogo skrezheta, a vot
postroenie argumenta tak sovsem naoborot: skazki Tolstogo plohi (A), skazki
Tolstogo vhodyat v azbuku, azbuku chitaet rebenok za rubezhom, za rubezhom
net kvasa, bednomu malyshu prihoditsya ploho, no Tolstoi so skazkami tut ne
prichem, a vinovat proklyatuy zarubezh s otsutstviem v em kvasa. Eto ya
eshe vash argument zakonchil, u vas on prosto prervalsya na konstatacii
pereboev s kvasom v kovarnom zarubezhe. Chitaesh' etakuyu vot mumu, i
dumaesh': esli buzina po-prezhnemu v ogorode, to dyadyu uzh tochno is Kieva
v Ulan-Bator pereveli.
> Stalo ponjatnee? Esli net, to prochitajte eto eschjo raz.
> Nashli chto-nibud' o morali? Ja ne naxozhu.
> O morali bylo ran'she. Izvinite, ja ne dumala, chto Vam budet tak trudno
> otdelit' dve raznye mysli v odnom paragrafe. V sledujschij raz ja etu
> Vashu osobennost' postarajus' uchest'.
> otdelit' dve raznye mysli v odnom paragrafe. - Da-a-a-a... Vy uzh obo mne
ne bespokoites' tak-to, postaraites' hotya by uchityvat' osobennosti
russkogo yazyka...
> > Vy mnogo chego vidite, dazhe to, chego tam net. O svoih sposobnostyah ya ne
> > rasprostranyalsya, tol'ko o svoih vpechatleniah. Ladno, razgovor etot, kak
> > Midgardov worm, sam sebya za hvost uzhe kotoryi raz kusaet. Chitaite vy
> > svoego Tolstogo na zdorov'e, nikto zhe u vas ego ne otnimaet...
>
> Zabavno to, chto ja dazhe nikogda i ne skazala, chto ja lichno ochen'
> ljublju Tolstogo.
Da vy nichego po suti i ne skazali, tak, podelilis' ne osobenno k mestu
svoimi problemami s obucheniem rebenka rodnomu yazyku gde-to na Aiovshine.
> Ja tol'ko uspela zadumat'sja ... i dazhe, chestno
> govorja, zhdala, kogda zhe gospodin Svetlov ubedit menja, chto Tolstoj byl
> dejstvitel'no ploxoj pisatel', da i durak pri etom. A poluchilos' sovsem
> naoborot ...
Eto eshe Diogen govoril (gde? V Afinah. kodga? Uzh posle togo, kak ego iz
Sinopa poperli) - esli by ya mog tebya ubedit', ty by uzhe ... 10 bonus
points esli znaete prodolzhenie.
Esli vy Tolstogo chitaete i sami etogo ne vidite, to i ne nado vam ob etom
zadumyvat'sya. Tosltoi - velikii russkii pisatel', loshadi kushayut oves i
seno, a Volga po-prezhnemu vpadaet v Kaspiiskoe more. I nechego tut
uslozhnyat'.
Panikovsky
Lena wrote:
> :-)
no, panikovsky can't take sides in this scholarly debate. even though
the thread crystallizes how imperative it is to quantify the genius of
a writer, all panikovsky can do is to apply his genius rule for
composers
to the writers:
"the genius of a writer can also be measured by how many people have
failed to understand him"
Now, let's look at Count Leo in this new twilight. According to a
notable
literary authority of Diane Chambers, "War and Peace"**: "War and Peace
is the most analyzed book in the history of literature!". And lower:
" do you know what the difference between you and a baboon is? no? a
baboon WOULD".
So already we can dismiss Tosltoy if only for being popular. This
despite
the thickness of his books. Talk about the overcomplication of plot and
human interactions! Two thirds of War and Peace can be easily tossed
without any loss of substance. And there's no need to read Anna
Karenina,
because a better writer, a more philosphical one, would have the heroine
jump under trolleybus. This would have been more inventive and less
descriptive. It would show some thinking, for heaven's sakes! A better
writer, say Jules Verne, would have and did foresee the advent of mass
transport.
And who, other than a handful of russian academic types even knows who
Jules Verne is? Nobody! Seven out of ten UofW/Madison students
identified
Jules as "that chick who sang the national anthem before the superbowl"
The other two ended up in River Falls by mistake in their drunken
stupor,
and the last one is undecided.
So, Jules Verne is a better writer on all accounts. But what about Fedq?
He matters only to underline the need to quantify. Let's look at how
another
genius, Daniil Xarms measured it sixty years ago:
[Nov. 14, 1937]
To Humanity To my heart
1. Gogol 69 69
2. Prutkov 42 69
3. Mejrink 42 69
4 Gamsun 55 62
5. Edward Lear 42 59
6. Lewis Carrol 45 59
Several items are apparents. No, Zimogorov, other than Daniil's penchant
for the number 69. Half of his list consists of the writers nobody has
even heard of! I think we can safely add
7. Daniil Xarms and assign some numbers to him.
I don't see why Gogol should have 27 points on Prutkov, after all, if
you consider the three authors and then assign points equally (you note
that Prutkov's score is divisible by three, much like Carrol's and
Gogol's,
implying that the latter two didn't act alone either!), - that' less
than
15 points a pop!
I think we can easily argue that the "Idiot" alone warrants Dostoevsky a
ten.
But this isn's about him. It's about democracy. In America, no matter
how
much Iatskovsky spits on it, matters should be settled by popular
aclaim.
Let's have a pole decide who is the bigger genius. I bet Bulgakov wins
hands down in both Iowa and Wisconsin. I bet Bulgakov sweeps the Big 10
this
year.
** Obviously the literary English translation from the original should
read:
"War and not So Much War", rather the currently wide-spread
misconception.
"War and Pisces" is also acceptable
Ezechiely
Who're you, my invisible friend? Oh, frech air of lonely spirit... Your
ideas are being stolen by me in order to feed few starving on the msnnews,
oh invisivle friend. Don't hesitate to see us there, your immortal name will
shine out there as it shines even in this hole....
Ezechiely
Panikovsky a Ęcrit dans le message <34D41F...@idt.net>...
Ezechiely
Dear monsieur Panikowsky, this is how your appearance chez nous was served.
Sorry for the absence of the orchestra
*************
I've stolen the following sparks of spirit on the wild side... Ezechiely.
P.S. Author, someone called Panikowsky had been properly warned. I can take
care of re-transferring your messages of gratitude to the author's forum
where he wastes his brilliant gift. Ladies and Gentlemen, The Doors! No, no,
no, no! :o) Ladies and Gentlemen, Thus Taught Someone Called Panikowsky....
** Obviously the literary English translation from the original should
read: "War and not So Much War", rather the currently wide-spread
misconception.
"War and Pisces" is also acceptable.>>
Ezechiely
By the way, as soon as you seemingly have an msn address, why wouldn't you
join us one day on the msnnews.russia? We'll prepare your ways there, cher
Mr.Panikovsky.... and Mme Zosya Panikovsky?
Panikovsky a Ęcrit dans le message <34D41F...@idt.net>...
>Lena wrote:
>
>> :-)
>
Vladimir Svetlov
> So already we can dismiss Tosltoy if only for being popular.
Popular among critics, you mean? Who grabs War and Peace to pass time on
the flight or at service station? Who'd want this mental analogue of tooth
extraction (sometimes using gastroscope) over a cup of coffee or a steiner
of good beer? Maybe, termites... On the other hand, literary critics seem
to enjoy analyzing this stuff, mainly because it's so trivial. That helped
me through school a lot, since there were like three essays assigned on
Tolstoy. First two I wrote according to Stanislavsky's system - pulled out
a lot of reviews (from the university textbooks and monographs) and tried
to imagine myself one of those traitors to the literary taste... I even
invented some quotes, that just were not there. [The same approached worked
well all the way through Moscow State with its polit/ec, history of CPSU
etc.] However, the third time I let myself go (inspired by the graf himself
- Ne mogu molchat', deskat', i vse tut). And got 5, odin v ume, as we used
to say. Meaning, that my teacher, who, otherwise a very cool lady, liked
Tolstoy very much, told me that such an insolence was not permissible
towards a great national writer (my text looked so red, as though an
elelphant was butchered on it) Consequently, I got a "1". Apart from that,
however, there were nothing in my essay to justify such a low grade. So I
was told to write a substitute essay on Chekhov. Which shows to prove, that
Tolstoy's admirers are not altogether corrupted by the Evil One, but merely
suffer from the lapses in some aesthetic and mental aspects. In the
community they can even exhibit acts of kindness, although not of
understanding, towards us, humans. Let's keep them.
Regards,
Ezechiely
Neumen, neumen... Pomnite, Pierre o Natashe Rostovoy: ey nezachem byt'
umnoy, u nee est' kahestvo, kotoroe bol'she uma...
Chto um - tlen, utechitel'ny priz dlya smertnyh... Nu pust' by i neumen byl
graf, zachem by emu bylo byt' umnym?
Lena a écrit dans le message ...
>
>V. Svetlov:
>
>"Nu, a chtoby ubedit'sya, chto graf byl neumen dostatochno i beglogo
>vzglayda na ego proizvedenia."
>
>Beglogo vzgljada govorite? Prosto genial'no. A glavnoe ubeditel'no.
>
>A o blestjaschix deduktivno-induktivnyx sposobnostjax Svetlova i govorit'
>nechego. Uvidel slovo "kvas" i nemedlenno sdelal vyvod, chto u menja est'
>deti i bolee togo, chto oni (moi to-est' deti) ne umejut govorit'
>po-russki. Sherlok Xolms da i tol'ko. Pomnitsja tut nekto ob'javil, chto
>ja nepremenno korova--raz ja zhivu v Ajove. Do chego tol'ko mozhno
>dodumat'sja, kogda po-suschestvu skazat' nechego.
>
>A ja vot tozhe reshila mozgami poshevelit' (i IQ 45 podnaprjach) i
>dodumalas' do istinnyx prichin takoj iz rjada von vyxodjaschej neprijazni
>k Tolstomu. Nu podumajte sami, Tolstoj byl kak-nikak graf (titul ego
>trudno osparivat'), a Svetlov--prostoj derevenskij mal'chishka
>probivshijsja v seni nauki. Trudit'sja prixoditsja, myshinyj pomjot iz
>kletok vychischat'. A merzkij grafishko, tupoj kak probka, o kuske xleba
>ne zabotjas', grafomanstvoval sebe na zdorov'e. Obidno.
>
>A Vy by, Svetlov, zaveli by sebe popugaja, da nauchili ego govorit'
>"Tolstoj--durak" ili "Graf--durak". I Vam men'she povtorjat'sja i na
>serdce otljazhet nemnogo.
>
>Uspexov,
>
>Lena.
>
lo...@compuserve.com
>
> > :-)
>
> no, panikovsky can't take sides in this scholarly debate. even though
> the thread crystallizes how imperative it is to quantify the genius of
> a writer, all panikovsky can do is to apply his genius rule for
> composers
> to the writers:
>
> "the genius of a writer can also be measured by how many people have
> failed to understand him"
>
>
> ** Obviously the literary English translation from the original should
> read:
> "War and not So Much War", rather the currently wide-spread
> misconception.
> "War and Pisces" is also acceptable
No, Panikovsky, true to his eagle (or was it goose?) heritage soars high
above scr, coming down to earh with the sole purpose (if at all) of
pranking and clowning. And come to think of it, his witticisms easily win
over multiple cheerless and equally meaningless discussions a la "Russkii
i Ukrainets, kto bolee materi istorii tsenen?"
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.980201...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Lena <yper...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> A o blestjaschix deduktivno-induktivnyx sposobnostjax Svetlova i govorit'
> nechego. Uvidel slovo "kvas" i nemedlenno sdelal vyvod, chto u menja est'
> deti i bolee togo, chto oni (moi to-est' deti) ne umejut govorit'
> po-russki.
Kvas - eto tak, imya prilagatel'noe, a vot "rebenok, rodivshiisya za
rubezhom" - eto po-sushestvitel'nee budet. I s chego by nu skol'ko-nibud'
trezvyi chelovek etogo rebenka priplel sovershenno ni k mestu? Tak eto
ishodya iz prepolozhenia, chto trezvyi i, nu hot' ponaslyshke, a s logikoi
znakom. O nesposobnosti govorit' po-russki mnoyu skazano nichego ne bylo,
simpatichneishaya Elena Ofigelovna, eto vam prigrezilos'...
> Sherlok Xolms da i tol'ko. Pomnitsja tut nekto ob'javil, chto
> ja nepremenno korova--raz ja zhivu v Ajove. Do chego tol'ko mozhno
> dodumat'sja, kogda po-suschestvu skazat' nechego.
Elena Epistrofeevna, a vy-to chego po sushestvu skazali? A chto kto-to vas
korovoi nazval, tak eto nehorosho, hot' i v perenosnom smysle. Korovy - oni
poleznye, dayut moloko i ne lezut k prohozhim so svoimi korov'imi
razsuzhdeniami.
> A ja vot tozhe reshila mozgami poshevelit' (i IQ 45 podnaprjach) i
> dodumalas' do istinnyx prichin takoj iz rjada von vyxodjaschej neprijazni
> k Tolstomu.
I ne nado bylo eto shevelit', lezhalo sebe i ladno. A to von duh kakoi
poshel, prosti gospodi, rovno i ne mozgi vovse, a gemorroi.
> Nu podumajte sami, Tolstoj byl kak-nikak graf (titul ego
> trudno osparivat'), a Svetlov--prostoj derevenskij mal'chishka
> probivshijsja v seni nauki.
Moskva konesho bol'shaya derevnya, no v osnovnom blagodarya takim laptyam,
kak Elena Cerberovna. Nu a chto my iz meshan, tak eto i ladno, zato chto
tvoi arap, v dvoryanskuyu sem'yu zhenilsya. Da takuyu, chto grafa Tolstova
dal'she kuhni ne pustili by. Vprochem, koneshno, pustili by -
liberal'nichat' lyubili i krest'an osvobozhdat' napravo i nalevo.
Chto zhe kasaetsya "senei nauki", to eto nam ochen' dazhe obidno -
UW-Madison eto vam, Elena Hikudimyshna, ne U of Iowa, i McArdle eto ne Iowa
Testing Programs. Tak chto eto vy, dorogaya, dazhe i ne v senyah, a v
dvornitskoi nauki, i v smysle nauki, i v smysle vashego v nei polozhenia -
vy kotoryi god v graduate school-to sidite?
> Trudit'sja prixoditsja, myshinyj pomjot iz
> kletok vychischat'.
Nu, koneshno, otkuda vam pro nauku-to znat'. Ladno, ya ob'yasnyu, poskol'ku
eto uzhe vtoroi raz mne eti kletki myshinye v rylo tychut (do vas,
Lenochka, kakoi-to Ukrainskii ultra-patriot is mestnyh, takoi zhe hodyachii
diffusnyi pleksus, kak i vy). Tak vot, pomjot iz kletok metut raznocintsy v
vivarii, anti-tela iz etih myshei techs (eto zver' navrode starshego
laboranta) dobyvayut, a postdoki (my stalo byt') belki dlya etih anti-tel
klonirovayut, mutirovayut i vedelayut, s anti-telami vsyaki Westerny
delayut i polymerazy imi ornamentiruyut, dlya rentgenostructury stalo byt'.
Kazhdyi dolzhon svoim delom zanimat'sya. Tak chto pomjot myshinyi mne ne po
chinu. Vot za homyakami eto da, ubirat' prihoditsya, tak eto one (MOPS i
Tris, eto familii u nih takie) vmeste s kotom u nas zamesto rogatogo skota.
Nu tak homyaki-to malen'kie, man'chzhurskie, i ne uborka poluchaetsya, a
balovstvo odno - vrode kak travu kosit'.
> A merzkij grafishko, tupoj kak probka, o kuske xleba
> ne zabotjas', grafomanstvoval sebe na zdorov'e. Obidno.
Trudimsya my, Elena Astrolyab'evna, ne za kusok hleba (a to b ya u vikingov
na firme ostalsi). A potomu kak interesno. A graf - nu chto tam graf, ne
markiz vse-taki. Vot voz'mite Pliniya, da hot' mladshen'kogo -
rabovladelets, i dazhe dlya vida travy v zhizni ne kosil, a ot menya
plohogo slova ne slyshal.
> A Vy by, Svetlov, zaveli by sebe popugaja, da nauchili ego govorit'
> "Tolstoj--durak" ili "Graf--durak".
U menya, dorogusha, uzhe est' kot, homyaki, ryby vsyakoi, da eshe okrestnye
belki na kukuruzno-orehovom dovolstvii. Eto dlya udovol'stvia dushi. Ha
hren mne kakogo-to popugaya eshe zavodit', esli mne ih Usenet ispravno
postavlyaet?
Panikovsky
At the outset of this unnecessarily long reply, it would be appropriate
to point out that unwittingly panikovsky has already de facto swayed
the immovable object of Vladimir Svetlov's affections into the
genuis corner of Count Leo Tolstoy. An astute reader will no doubt
(god, don't you just dig gwen?) note VS (hereafter refered to as VS)
elected to traverse, as they say in the patent law, and embraced the
premise that Tolstoy was a genius because he was not and is not widely
read. In fact Vladimir Svetlov spends the rest of the post crafting
arguments that Tolstoy is not at all popular and can not be read under
any circumstances, thus implicitely deifying the count.
Panikovsky wishes to apologize for that. I didn't mean to do that,
as stated in the first post, panikovsky will not choose sides. Any
agruments employed were done so solely for the sake of simple series
of contradictions. I was arguing on my own time. Since this seems
to no longer apply, i suggest we proceed to the spam skit.
...
- spam, spam, cottage cheese and spam
-- excuse me, but do you have anything without quite so much spam in it?
Vladimir Svetlov wrote:
>
> In article <34D41F...@idt.net>, Panikovsky <pani...@idt.net> wrote:
>
> > So already we can dismiss Tosltoy if only for being popular.
>
> Popular among critics, you mean? Who grabs War and Peace to pass time on
> the flight or at service station? Who'd want this mental analogue of tooth
> extraction (sometimes using gastroscope) over a cup of coffee or a steiner
> of good beer? Maybe, termites... On the other hand, literary critics seem
ёр онар, ай абджект! спекъюлатив!
зе дефенс из лидинг зе уитлес!
screw it, this way is too hard to type.
The point, your honor, is that this is irrelevant. Oh, you and
your objections! Yes, the original point was mine to start with,
but who here expects panikovsky to be relevant? Or even consistent?
So stop your bitching already.
Meanwhile, back on the plane: [already in progress]
...the flight being, as John Cleese, would say, right out. With the
stricter carry-on luggage regulations limiting even the first
class domestic passengers to one peace, war AND peace is right out,
being two en toto, each oversized. But of all the books on cd rom
read in flight, war and peace remains a strong indicator. 'nough said.
And at a service station? who can afford to have somebody else
pump the gas? OK, OK, panikovksy can. But this is..this is.. pizhonstvo,
for the lack of a better word. And if you are talking quantum mechanics
of autorepair, zimogorov fixes my car in his garage in the philippines
pro bono, but all the only thing he subscribes to is Penthouse
Letters...
So, you see, these two locales are not at all representative. A better
choice, I will submit to you, is the latrine. Bathroom inspiration is
the perpetuum mobile of inspiring the russian intellect akin to my
honda.
honda being the perpetuum mobile, not the inspiration for the intellect,
that is. It does nothing for the intellect. Other than the occasional...
but we digress yet again.
So, what is the bathroom read of choice? Well, this my friend,
is yet another irrelevant question, but if you insist:
I have it on good authority that a good friend and neighbor of
Lena and another friend of your fellow rat slayer in Boston serving his
time at the nmr equivalent of the Sharper Image, actually keeps an
Aldrich catalogue in his place of business, if you will forgive the
euphemism. Has so ever since his undergrad days.
Sure, every lesbian and her sister will start keeping it there too,
now that C&E News chose Aldrich/Sigma CEO to headline its list of the
most notable scientists of the century. (Notice, that this year,
and the century even, this committee overlooked both panikovsky
and Dr. Mazin yet again!).
This is a piss poor test, if I may venture into the vernacular.
Because nobody can read war and peace in one sitting.
But enough bad puns. Oops, another one.
So where does this leave your average leophile? Panikovsky doesn't
know anyone who reads over a beer; most of the fermented beverage
consumers in this neck of the woods start singing the chicken song
after a few and contemplating the liberation of Poland. I mean
Ukraine. Poland has always been ours. Oh, hell, what's the difference.
>...[ a heartwarming MGU story omitted]
Who amongst us has not enjoyed steamed brains with peas?
No, wait, that's Gogol. I mean who amongst us has not been forced to
read a Tolstoy novel overnight to compose a college book report for
a loved one because she was too busy shopping Newbury Street?
Tolstoy is best read out of love. There. He is a far more
romantic writer than Dostoyevsky; this is why the chicks dig
him. There. He is best read as foreplay. Read two of these
and call me in the morning.
> however, there were nothing in my essay to justify such a low grade. So I
> was told to write a substitute essay on Chekhov. Which shows to prove, that
Chehov, on the other hand, is easier to swallow for the people with a
short attention span. In fact, I just installed a built-in shelf in
my bathrooms to accommodate all 29 volumes.
> Tolstoy's admirers are not altogether corrupted by the Evil One, but merely
> suffer from the lapses in some aesthetic and mental aspects. In the
> community they can even exhibit acts of kindness, although not of
> understanding, towards us, humans. Let's keep them.
Look, being verbose is not evil per se. I can not blame a guy for
rambling.
Sure he can go on for pages without getting to the point, but who
among
us can do that these days? No, I can't blame him there at all. Getting
there is half the fun. Hey! This is why the chicks dig him.
And imagine the pressures the man was under. Apart from the lack of
sex.
Mr. T. would come home after a long day microtoming the rats and there
is Mrs. T. all ready to rewrite any of his drafts. Imagine the
pressure?
I mean Zosq is just like that. I come home and there it is: all
these scr posts with the attribute symbols in front of every line.
I can't work like that; I feel like there's a gun to my head to spend
more time on the net. But Tolstoy COULD!
And this, after downing a whole barrel of caviar using nothing but a
simple table spoon! You, as a student of medicine must have some idea
of the cholesterol involved. You know what happens to those simple fatty
chain/fused saturated ring alcohols.
Who short of a genius could even come up with a work schedule like that:
8:50 start abstaining from sex
9 am - 9:15 morning calesthetics while start abstaining from sex
9:15 - 9:45 commute to work while start abstaining from sex
rest of the morning - write proposals while start abstaining from sex
lunch (perhaps a quickie at lunch, you think, but no!)
1:00 - 3:00 ponder about the role of a woman in the society (while...)
3:00 - 3:20 slice a frozen rodent brain section to get the management
off
the back
3:20 - 3:30 start thinking again abstaining from sex
3:30 - flexible depart for home while abstaining from sex
flexible - 6:00 barrel of caviar while abstaining from sex
6:00 - 9:00 write war and peace (still abstaining from sex)
9:00 - suppress all thoughts about lesbians and go to bed.
-- PMS (Americas' Leading Authority on Russian Women)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6615/dating.html - your
comprehensive guide on dating and buying Russian women
(last updated 5/24/97 with a supplemental guide on loving
ex-military officers)
spea...@netcom.ca
Panikovsky wrote:
(volume of text deleted)
> Who short of a genius could even come up with a work schedule like that:
>
> 8:50 start abstaining from sex
> 9 am - 9:15 morning calesthetics while start abstaining from sex
> 9:15 - 9:45 commute to work while start abstaining from sex
> rest of the morning - write proposals while start abstaining from sex
> lunch (perhaps a quickie at lunch, you think, but no!)
> 1:00 - 3:00 ponder about the role of a woman in the society (while...)
> 3:00 - 3:20 slice a frozen rodent brain section to get the management
> off
> the back
> 3:20 - 3:30 start thinking again abstaining from sex
> 3:30 - flexible depart for home while abstaining from sex
> flexible - 6:00 barrel of caviar while abstaining from sex
> 6:00 - 9:00 write war and peace (still abstaining from sex)
> 9:00 - suppress all thoughts about lesbians and go to bed.
>
> -- PMS (Americas' Leading Authority on Russian Women)
If you would spend less time with Chehov and Tolstoy in the
mensroom, then you would not only crave less roe and become
proficient at decapitating laboratory rats and submitting
successful research proposals but probably would require less
abstaining from that what appears to be your favorite occupation...
GHC
Vladimir Svetlov
> At the outset of this unnecessarily long reply, it would be appropriate
> to point out that unwittingly panikovsky has already de facto swayed
> the immovable object of Vladimir Svetlov's affections into the
> genuis corner of Count Leo Tolstoy.
It would be nice of you, Loretta, if you place your replies to my postings
in the proximity of the latter, a-a-a-a, like, in the same thread or
something. And please, take it easy, OK? Semantics ain't your biggest enemy
to be molested in such a disturbing fashion.
> An astute reader will no doubt
> (god, don't you just dig gwen?) note VS (hereafter refered to as VS)
> elected to traverse, as they say in the patent law, and embraced the
> premise that Tolstoy was a genius because he was not and is not widely
> read.
Bullshit. I always maintained that the author of the War und Peace was a
dickhead. My objections were directed at your asinine assertion that the
writings of the late count are popular. Coming from a respectable citizen,
such a statement, assigning any positive opinions about Tolstoy to me,
would be a malicious slander. However, I am inclined to believe the rumours
that Panikovski us one of those sudden lapses in chromosomal segregation,
that can count to 20 in summer and to 10 in winter. Therefore, no duel for
you, preciousss.
> In fact Vladimir Svetlov spends the rest of the post crafting
> arguments that Tolstoy is not at all popular and can not be read under
> any circumstances, thus implicitely deifying the count.
Nonsense. My agruments were to assert that the works of the late count are
not being read voluntarily by anybody for intellectual pleasure or
entertainment.
> Panikovsky wishes to apologize for that. I didn't mean to do that,
> as stated in the first post, panikovsky will not choose sides. Any
> agruments employed were done so solely for the sake of simple series
> of contradictions.
Could not you wait till we visit you at the clinic?
> I was arguing on my own time. Since this seems
> to no longer apply, i suggest we proceed to the spam skit.
For gratuitous allusions to MP in a Usenet posting you are sentenced to the
stoning.
> The point, your honor, is that this is irrelevant. Oh, you and
> your objections! Yes, the original point was mine to start with,
> but who here expects panikovsky to be relevant? Or even consistent?
> So stop your bitching already.
Relevancy is hard to come by, but I expect you to be at least
comprehensible. Alas. We'll skip the last word then.
<> Skipped. The bullshit (low grade in the vaseline base) that followed was
not even intended as a reply, was it? Come out now, I've seen worse
deviants from decency and plausible reasoning. In fact, it was intended as
a verbose lubricant for this act of virtual sado-masturbation, was it not?
I'd rather have you do it privately, but what the hell, s.c.r. should by
now get used to this. Sorry for disturbing ya, please, carry on.
Regards,
Panikovsky
> >
> > 8:50 start abstaining from sex
> > 9:15 - 9:45 commute to work while abstaining from sex
> > rest of the morning - write proposals while abstaining from sex
> > lunch (perhaps a quickie at lunch, you think, but no! abstain from sex)
> > 1:00 - 3:00 ponder about the role of a woman in the society (while...)
> > 3:00 - 3:20 slice a frozen rodent brain section to get the management
> > off the back
> > 3:30 - flexible depart for home while abstaining from sex
> > flexible - 6:00 barrel of caviar while abstaining from sex
> > 6:00 - 9:00 write war and peace (still abstaining from sex)
> > 9:00 - suppress all thoughts about lesbians and go to bed.
> >
> > -- PMS (Americas' Leading Authority on Russian Women)
>
>
> mensroom, then you would not only crave less roe and become
> proficient at decapitating laboratory rats and submitting
> successful research proposals but probably would require less
> abstaining from that what appears to be your favorite occupation...
>
> GHC
Sperman!
It seems only yesterday you were asking the genius that is Panikovksy
about love, and now you are all grown up and dispensing wisdom
of your own, be it only in small spurts. How gratifying to see
sperman engage in the written intercourse of his own! How
refreshing to see sperman not foaming the mouth! How seminal
of sperman to erect this grand of a proposition on his very
own! How delightful to see sperman get by with minimal
spelling and grammatical faux pas!
But, back, as you request, to the men's room. I feel there
you struck a nerve, a real nerve there, that might actually
evolve into a genuine imitation literary debate. You feel
that sexual tension provided by the abstinence from sex is
incidental and tangential to the fermenting and festering
literary product. This stance is counter to everything
Panikovksy learned as a child.
Sexual tension is germane, it is, if you will, again,
seminal to the literary creative process. Hockey
players know this. For weeks they can go without
sex to improve their literary skills before an
important match. All three Tolstoys knew it.
And now, even now, in this all permissive age
of femme on femme relationships, sexual tension
element remains a must. Sex and death; what
else is there? Power, money - that's all an
illusion, an allegory for sex.
So, i beg you, allow Count Tolstoy his caviar.
Yes, fish eggs. Yes, roe. Roe, roe, roe; your abode,
gentile, downstream you might realize from the grizzled
old age, what an aphrodisiac you've missed in caviar,
partaking of your Taylor Sparkling Beverage without
a cold appetizer.
Roe was used by the count to heighten his sexual
tension to produce what he thought would be a better,
though more verbose masterpiece.
Do not begrudge the Count his caviar. He laid
his health, youth and beauty at the cholesterol-hungry
altar of great literature.
As to the research proposals and rat dissection,
let me just say that he died a wealthier man, a
greater contributor to the body of literature
than you or i will ever be.
Best of luck with your endeavors; do not feel
anticlimactic when you get only a few sporadic squirts.
Sperman, all things take time.
Panikovsky
> > to point out that unwittingly panikovsky has already de facto swayed
> > the immovable object of Vladimir Svetlov's affections into the
> > genuis corner of Count Leo Tolstoy.
>
> in the proximity of the latter, a-a-a-a, like, in the same thread or
> something. And please, take it easy, OK? Semantics ain't your biggest enemy
> to be molested in such a disturbing fashion.
Au contrair, mon frere! Semantics is my only ally in this battle, which
is
as hypochritical as it is quixotic. And while we are off-topic, is it
too much
to ask for you to thread your messages according to topic? I know that
nutsgrape
might not be accessible to one and all, but surely McArdle?
> > An astute reader will no doubt
> > (god, don't you just dig gwen?) note VS (hereafter refered to as VS)
> > elected to traverse, as they say in the patent law, and embraced the
> > premise that Tolstoy was a genius because he was not and is not widely
> > read.
>
> Bullshit. I always maintained that the author of the War und Peace was a
> dickhead. My objections were directed at your asinine assertion that the
> writings of the late count are popular. Coming from a respectable citizen,
> such a statement, assigning any positive opinions about Tolstoy to me,
> would be a malicious slander. However, I am inclined to believe the rumours
> that Panikovski us one of those sudden lapses in chromosomal segregation,
> that can count to 20 in summer and to 10 in winter. Therefore, no duel for
> you, preciousss.
hey, watch it! are you calling me a homochromosomic homosapiens? This is
not
your typical Loretta here. It is in as equally bad taste to count other
peoples chromosomes as it is to loose face in fact of logical arguments.
ad hominem attacks are effective solely against the aforementioned
hominem.
> > In fact Vladimir Svetlov spends the rest of the post crafting
> > arguments that Tolstoy is not at all popular and can not be read under
> > any circumstances, thus implicitely deifying the count.
>
> Nonsense. My agruments were to assert that the works of the late count are
> not being read voluntarily by anybody for intellectual pleasure or
> entertainment.
AND (and here's that crucial logical argument AND) AND they were
permeated
with the implicit and tacit agreement with the sole basic premise of
pms:
and that is that the genius of the writer is inversely proportional to
his
acceptance by the masses. By not negating the premise and by arguing to
prove
that the late count was, is and always has been an antithesis of pop
culture,
you have summarily proved the opposite. For which, mind you, i don't
blame you,
but myself, and for which i promptly apologized. I am man enough to
apologize
yet a second time, unlike...i'm at a loss for words here, perhaps for
the very
first time in my rather extended life.
> > Panikovsky wishes to apologize for that. I didn't mean to do that,
> > as stated in the first post, panikovsky will not choose sides. Any
> > agruments employed were done so solely for the sake of simple series
> > of contradictions.
>
> Could not you wait till we visit you at the clinic?
This parrot is no more. it siezed to be. it is pining for the fjords.
> > I was arguing on my own time. Since this seems
> > to no longer apply, i suggest we proceed to the spam skit.
>
> For gratuitous allusions to MP in a Usenet posting you are sentenced to the
> stoning.
what? let he whose initials are not MP cast the first stein! If
panikovsky
is restricted in his own initials, then what is, then to become of, say,
misha ponamarev?
[irrelevant relevance]
> <> Skipped. The bullshit (low grade in the vaseline base) that followed was
> not even intended as a reply, was it? Come out now, I've seen worse
> deviants from decency and plausible reasoning. In fact, it was intended as
> a verbose lubricant for this act of virtual sado-masturbation, was it not?
> I'd rather have you do it privately, but what the hell, s.c.r. should by
> now get used to this. Sorry for disturbing ya, please, carry on.
now that sounds downright bitter. and i don't mean that in german. gone
is the
typical wit and sarcasm. this paragraph is devoid of any redeeming
social value.
the bare venim is exposed through the half-digested carcus of the
previous post.
this is sub-par, maestro. please, please, put your gloves on, and
refrain
from casting vernaculars at a troll. it is declasse for the lack of a
better
non-french sounding euphemism.
M. Papisov
In article <svetlov-ya0240800...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
sve...@oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
> Nu a chto my iz meshan, tak eto i ladno, zato chto
> tvoi arap, v dvoryanskuyu sem'yu zhenilsya. Da takuyu, chto
grafa Tolstova
> dal'she kuhni ne pustili by.
...A Svetlova, smotri-ka, - pustili.
Gniet, gniet za rubezhom russkoe dvorjanstvo.
Artem Kazantsev
ЭпиГрафъ- <<нехотя, камланье длилось за полночь..> (М.Щербаков)
Молитва-Уснета (читать перед усном)
Линда Гад, встань передо мной, как LISТ перед Травой!
Pavel Afanas'eff-san, zastupis'!
o
<^> -san, изыди!
|\
(это иероглиф)
Ша по нарам, тролля-ля и true-лю-лю
спасибо за внимание, Panikovsky;Zimmograph & @Home
яйцековские->killfile
all mail>/dev/null
Ну, что еще? А, толстой.
Да... Заметки постороннего- Лена, откуда Вы знаете, что дети любят
моральные сказки?
Да и потом - учиться читать можно по вывескам. Я начинал с этикеток,
плодовощпром и сахар-рафинад, фабрика имени Мантулина. А вот пишу в
Уснет. На IQ правда давно не проверялся. Мораль для чтения только
помеха. Скажем, учиться английскому хорошо по детективам, особенно
Агаtha Кристи, почему?- действие захватывающее, а мораль только одна-
хорошо будешь думать - отгадаешь, кто убил, а плохо - будешь как дурак
на красной, в смысле-
Пуаро за тебя все раскрутит. Как стыдно. (пожелоти ручку, все будущее
раскрою, красавица)
А с другой стороны - возьмем например, Светлова. Не Светлого, я тёмное
больше люблю. Нет, Свелова возьмем. Он хату, если вы помните, покинул,
пошел, так сказать, воевать. Паниковский, я не слишком в Вашем амплуа?
Так вот, Светлов. Умница, светлая голова, тела с антителами
аннигилирует, домашних белков кукурозой подкармливает, мертвыми
попугаями стучит и питонов отпугивает, чего забыл? а, хармса читал,
(правда трень-брень у Веселых ребят отнял и хармсам отдал, но это
простим). Так чего ж в жизни не хватает?
Воспитания? Романтизьма, эдакого
сорви-всадника-безцаря-в-голове-однова-нога-там-живьем? Визбора ему не
пели в детстве?
Роста маленького? Что заставляет умного человека спорить до
транслитераций с (безусловно)
женщиной и потерять при этом все остатки лакировки, так, что аж
незаживающие царапины нелегкого детства кровоточат? Специалисты по
сексопаталогии, (я к Вам обращаюсь, братья Стервинские), поставьте ему,
на конец диагноз, а то мается человек, на жен-чин бросается..
И ещё. Вот пишет Владимир бен-Светлов, что писатель должен быть умным,
как
Leonid Andreev. Vprochem, ni na Pushkina, ni na Dostoevskogo c Chehovym
ne
zhaluyus' - kak pisateli oni ochen' dazhe umny, osobenno ezheli s
Tolstym
sravnit'. Poskol'ku um - ponyatie tyaguchee, ya ogovoryus' chto pod umom
v
dannom sluchae ya ponimayu stepen' netrivial'nosti kompozicii,
characterov
i t.p., tvorcheskaya vlast' avtora nad materialom i t.p.
И вот, товарищ Хьюстон, такая у меня проблема- неувязочка у Вас.
Выходит, что ум-то и не при чем. То, что Вы умом назвали поначалу, а
далее расшифровали, в простонародье называется талантом. А ет такая
вещчь, которую на пяльцах не докажешь, индукция дедукция бабакция - все
бессильны. Был тут один Zimogor-богатырь, всё пытался на пальцах
довязать - "коза и семеро
козлят"- да и тот в крутизне уступил фигуре лиссажу высшего пилотажа в
речи, которую открутил в темноте подъезда Паниковский.[69]
Да, так вот, подмена одного понятия другим своего рода фрейдическая
оговорка.
Сдается мне, мил человек, что ты - стукачок, дурилка картонная. Может,
высокие каблуки помогут? А вот еще способ- вакуумное вытягивание,
говорят, удлинняет сантиметров на 5.
А если у Паниковского(**) жидкого вакуума попросить, то и на 6-7см!
Кстати: а некоторые и мышей едят.
Примечания и коментарии в порядке их появления
(**) - см примечание 69
69- инь и ян - символ гармонии мира, мужского и женского начала.
Оральный секс тут не причем, уж тем более - лесбиян Паниковский.(**)
Паниковский- отец-основатель группы alt.genius.panikovsky,
распространитель SPAMa и
других продуктов полураспада. Существует только в Сети и подписях.
Вульгаризм, научный термин - Zimogorov. SCRлогическое значение явления
не установлено.
--
Artem Kazantsev te...@bigfoot.com ph:(919)544-8220 fx:(919)544-9808
..., а наш театр- просто вешалка.
Ivan Zimogorov
Vova Svetlov,
A nu otvechaj: tebya satanisty -- deti Trofim Danilycha -- otyskali
togda v Memphise ili ne otyskali ?
Ivan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ivan Zimogorov kucher muzykant lakej povar
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
spea...@netcom.ca
Panikovsky wrote:
(quoted text deleted)
> Sperman!
> It seems only yesterday you were asking the genius that is Panikovksy
> about love,
Mr. PMS (Peri-Menopausal [male climacteric] Syndrome?),
To beg the question,
can you say when that was reputed to occur?
> and now you are all grown up and dispensing wisdom
> of your own, be it only in small spurts.
As they say, all good things come in small packages...
> How gratifying to see
> sperman engage in the written intercourse of his own! How
> refreshing to see sperman not foaming the mouth!
???
> How seminal
> of sperman to erect this grand of a proposition on his very
> own! How delightful to see sperman get by with minimal
> spelling and grammatical faux pas!
What can I say?
I am glad that you are, once again, delighting your endogenous
opioid receptors with yet another ejaculation of endorphins...
Who needs recreational drugs, if one reads Tolstoy or Chehov?
>
> But, back, as you request, to the men's room. I feel there
> you struck a nerve, a real nerve there, that might actually
> evolve into a genuine imitation literary debate. You feel
> that sexual tension provided by the abstinence from sex is
> incidental and tangential to the fermenting and festering
> literary product. This stance is counter to everything
> Panikovksy learned as a child.
Please..., you have evidently drawn an erroneous conclusion.
In a rush to say a lot, you averred little.
This only reinforces the old anxiom that haste makes waste...
If you study my statement again, you may find that I, in fact,
agreed with what you have so adeptly learned, as a child.
I hate to paraphrase it, however I must...
In plain words, what I said was this: If you were not exciting
your senses, so much, by reading Tolstoy and Chehov with your
pants about your ankles, then maybe you would be able to redirect
this energy into more constructive endeavours.
>
> Sexual tension is germane, it is, if you will, again,
> seminal to the literary creative process. Hockey
> players know this. For weeks they can go without
> sex to improve their literary skills before an
> important match. All three Tolstoys knew it.
> And now, even now, in this all permissive age
> of femme on femme relationships, sexual tension
> element remains a must. Sex and death; what
> else is there?
Why is it that I am getting a distinct impression that you are
an agnostic?
Is there life after death..., or maybe I should say, after sex,
or better still..., after AIDS?
> Power, money - that's all an
> illusion, an allegory for sex.
Hmmm... As in Sex do We Trust...?
>
> So, i beg you, allow Count Tolstoy his caviar.
> Yes, fish eggs. Yes, roe. Roe, roe, roe; your abode,
> gentile,
Tread Gently..., Mr. Panikovsky!
Maybe you are not an agnostic after all...
> downstream you might realize from the grizzled
> old age, what an aphrodisiac you've missed in caviar,
> partaking of your Taylor Sparkling Beverage without
> a cold appetizer.
O.K., I will grant you that caviar may be interesting
to eat.
>
> Roe was used by the count to heighten his sexual
> tension to produce what he thought would be a better,
> though more verbose masterpiece.
Milt would have been more appropriate...
>
> Do not begrudge the Count his caviar. He laid
> his health, youth and beauty at the cholesterol-hungry
> altar of great literature.
Let us salute him with a glass of cod-liver oil...
>
> As to the research proposals and rat dissection,
> let me just say that he died a wealthier man, a
> greater contributor to the body of literature
> than you or i will ever be.
Agreed. I detect a note of modesty in your voice
and I respect that.
>
> Best of luck with your endeavors; do not feel
> anticlimactic when you get only a few sporadic squirts.
> Sperman, all things take time.
My dear sir, climactic experiences are treasured
partly because they do not last forever...
What would be a climax without a climacteric?
A monotonously perpetual orgasmic plateau...?
I thank you for your sympathy and reciprocate in turn.
GHC
Panikovsky
spe...@netcom.ca wrote:
>
> Panikovsky wrote:
>
> (quoted text deleted)
>
> > Sperman!
> > It seems only yesterday you were asking the genius that is Panikovksy
> > about love,
>
> Mr. PMS (Peri-Menopausal [male climacteric] Syndrome?),
>
> To beg the question,
> can you say when that was reputed to occur?
Sperman, if this is your real name, - sperman!!
I understand that as busy of a social butterfly as you are, you
can not afford to read posts carefully enough to penetrate beneath
the surface tension, underpinning this newsgroup. please, say no more.
there is no need to explain or to apologize any further.
As for the rest of the young nubile zimogorovas in search of their
first homoerotic experience, you should be ashamed of yourselves!
I see that you are repentant. Good. Notice how it says "it *seems*
like only yesterday..." [emphasis mine]. Seems. Now, would you care
to rephrase your answer in a form of a question?
[...]
>
> As they say, all good things come in small packages...
noted
> > How gratifying to see
> > sperman engage in the written intercourse of his own! How
> > refreshing to see sperman not foaming the mouth!
>
> ???
do not take the foam in question orally in the literal sense.
the foam is the figurative foam, a metaphor. It's like a simile
[...]
> Who needs recreational drugs, if one reads Tolstoy or Chehov?
not pms.
> >
> > But, back, as you request, to the men's room. I feel there
> > you struck a nerve, a real nerve there, that might actually
> > evolve into a genuine imitation literary debate. You feel
> > that sexual tension provided by the abstinence from sex is
> > incidental and tangential to the fermenting and festering
> > literary product. This stance is counter to everything
> > Panikovksy learned as a child.
>
> Please..., you have evidently drawn an erroneous conclusion.
> In a rush to say a lot, you averred little.
> This only reinforces the old anxiom that haste makes waste...
sperman, you seem rather fond of the wisdom of the ancients,
so eloquently trapped in the mirage of proverbs, sayings and other
idiots. i am gratified to see that. it's a small step then from
the cliches to the classics. watch your step.
> If you study my statement again, you may find that I, in fact,
> agreed with what you have so adeptly learned, as a child.
>
> I hate to paraphrase it, however I must...
>
> In plain words, what I said was this: If you were not exciting
> your senses, so much, by reading Tolstoy and Chehov with your
> pants about your ankles, then maybe you would be able to redirect
> this energy into more constructive endeavours.
are you somehow implying that reading the Masters is not constructive?
sure, you could wire your bathroom with an ISTN line and post usenet
from your bidet, but who has enough money to install a bidet in every
bathroom or enough discipline to use one thereafter? sperman, you
are a puzzle, wrapped in an enigma.
meanwhile for the commoner amongst us, what better to help complete
the digestive cycle, than a bookmarked tome or two?
> Is there life after death..., or maybe I should say, after sex,
> or better still..., after AIDS?
why are you asking me, when the answer lies in the classics you
so carefully abhor and eschew.
> Hmmm... As in Sex do We Trust...?
sperman, even for a person with a name like yours,
this fixation on sex is inexcusable.
> > Roe was used by the count to heighten his sexual
> > tension to produce what he thought would be a better,
> > though more verbose masterpiece.
>
> Milt would have been more appropriate...
Wilt? Wilt the stilt? Let's leave his book out of it.
Mr. Chamberlin's (sp?) theories and memoirs have been
largely mathematically debunked.
> GHC
where is much anticipated "s" for sperman?
AHetzer
Lena wrote:
>
>
snip
> Da, xot' i ne k mestu, perechityvaja tut Doktora Zhivago na dosuge, ja
> zametila, chto Pasternak detej sovsem ne ljubil. Oni prisutstvujut v
> romane, no postol'ku-poskol'ku, pochti neodushevljonnye. I voobsche, ja
> tak i ne reshila xoroshij eto roman ili tak sebe. Nekotorye mesta
> pokazalis' prosto genial'nymi, a nekotorye sovsem slabymi. Est' li tut
> poklonniki Doktora Zhivago? Mozhet podelites' vpechatlenijami.
>
> Yelena
Interesnoe zamechanie, chto Pasternak ne ljubil detej. I'll think it
over. Moja zhena v proshlom godu chitala roman Doktor Zhivago pervyj raz
- a ej sovsem ne nravilsja. Voobsche ja esche ne slyshal, chto kakoj-to
"sovok" v poslednee vremja otozvalsja polozhitel'no ob etom romane.
Zagadochno, a na zapade ego obozhali, osobenno posle fil'ma ...
Privet
--
Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen
Dr. Armin Hetzer, Referat Handschriften/Rara
http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~iaas/hetzer.htm
Vlad Orlov
AHetzer wrote:
> Voobsche ja esche ne slyshal, chto kakoj-to
> "sovok" v poslednee vremja otozvalsja polozhitel'no ob etom romane.
> Zagadochno, a na zapade ego obozhali, osobenno posle fil'ma ...
Da, u menya shef taschitsya ot fil'ma. Govorit, chto u nego imenno
takoy obraz Rossii - edet parovoz, a vokrug ni hrena.
Ya na fil'm kak-to narvalsya pereklyuchayas' mezhdu kanalami, i pervaya
reaktsiya byla: "Vo, sovetskoe kino pokazyvayut!" Ochen' pohozhe na
sovetskie fil'my. Esche odna dostoprimechatel'nost' - absolyutno
sovetskaya morda Omara Sharifa. Edinstvennyi vidennyi mnoyu ego fil'm,
gde on ne igraet pleyboya v vostochnym proishozhdeniem.
Biana Brukman
> > Da, xot' i ne k mestu, perechityvaja tut Doktora Zhivago na dosuge, ja
> > zametila, chto Pasternak detej sovsem ne ljubil. Oni prisutstvujut v
> > romane, no postol'ku-poskol'ku, pochti neodushevljonnye. I voobsche, ja
> > tak i ne reshila xoroshij eto roman ili tak sebe. Nekotorye mesta
> > pokazalis' prosto genial'nymi, a nekotorye sovsem slabymi. Est' li tut
> > poklonniki Doktora Zhivago? Mozhet podelites' vpechatlenijami.
> >
> > Yelena
>
> Interesnoe zamechanie, chto Pasternak ne ljubil detej. I'll think it
> over. Moja zhena v proshlom godu chitala roman Doktor Zhivago pervyj raz
> "sovok" v poslednee vremja otozvalsja polozhitel'no ob etom romane.
> Zagadochno, a na zapade ego obozhali, osobenno posle fil'ma ...
I didn't like the movie that much, and mostly because of the music in it.
I assume we are talking about the American movie. The music was fine the
first couple of times I heard it, but then it was just too much of the
same melody. They played it every 2 minutes, and, since the movie was
long, I heard it many more times than I would have liked to.
The book was better, but I am not sure if I can call it a masterpiece. I
think I will need to re-read it to form a solid opinion, though.
Biana
---------
http://www.csuglab.cornell.edu/home/bbrukman/
ROLO15
I am not aware of the fine lliterature presently published in Russia. However,
I do read contemporary Russian books to maintain my knowledge of contemporary
Russian. Some of considerable current interest are Gorkaja Chasha by A.N.
Jakovlev, the adveser to Gorbachev. The other one Chronika Chechenskoy Boini,
by I. Bunich. I found the contents interesting, but depressing. I also notice
that the Russian manner of writing is very different from the American. In the
US, the standard of literary writing is Himigway. He writes in very simple,
short sentences, to the point, not a word can be omitted without the loss of
meaning. Each paragraph is devoted to only one idea. The subject may be
complex, but the language is very simple. Russians write with many different
ideas in a single sentence and paragraphs are not devoted to a single idea. In
technical papaers in Russian, there is normally no summary at the beginning or
statement of what the paper presents. Consequently, there is no way to decide
at the beginning whether I want to read the paper,or briefly find out what it
is about without reading all of it untill the conclusion.
Alexandr Stepanov
AHetzer wrote:
>
> Interesnoe zamechanie, chto Pasternak ne ljubil detej. I'll think it
> over. Moja zhena v proshlom godu chitala roman Doktor Zhivago pervyj raz
> - a ej sovsem ne nravilsja. Voobsche ja esche ne slyshal, chto kakoj-to
> "sovok" v poslednee vremja otozvalsja polozhitel'no ob etom romane.
> Zagadochno, a na zapade ego obozhali, osobenno posle fil'ma ...
> Privet
Men'a vsegda porajalo chto oni pogolovno Pasternaka obojajut, no pri
etom ochen' udivl'ajuts'a kogda im govorish chto Pasternak poet.
Sozdaets'a vpechatlenie chto oni ego ne sami obojajut, a po chjej to
ukazke.
No kto v zdravom ume budet Pasternaka vpered "Jivagoj" sovat'? Da eshe v
vide fil'ma! Ne v Jivage tut delo, a v tom chto Pasternak - rejimom
obijennij. Podsunuli publike ne chto poluchshe, a chto po
avtobiografichnee. "Mi govorim Jivago - podrazumevaem Pasternak" I tut
uj nikogo ne volnuet chto publika chitaja ot zevoti chel'usti vivihnet.
A chtobi legche bilo etu pil'ul'u proglotit' - fil'm sn'ali. Pust'
poskuchajut, no Pasternaka i ego obijennost' zapomn'at, a skuku na schet
togo samogo rejima sval'at.
Konan Dojlu vot fil'm ne pomog. Kak do fil'ma ego ne znali tak i posle
ne uznajut. Sprosil ja tut nedavno odnogo amerikana pro fil'm
"Zater'annij mir" uj ne po Konan Doyl'u li, a on v otvet: "Chavo????" A
vse pochemu? Da potomu chto nikomu Konan Doyl ne nujen. Ego
"kommunisticheskij rejim" ne obijal a potomu im'a ego vpolne opuskaemo.
Tut dinozavri glavnoe, nayka tobish "Allow yourself some intellectual
fun today".
Alex.
Tom Fritz
Sorry about this...
In small towns in America, we have a joke. When someone from outside
the town come in, the first thing they ask of someone (gas station / hotel /
motel person) is "Is there any good places to eat?".
The normal response is "No, we only like bad food around here".
Most books are good books to the authors, but may not be to the taste of
the reader or the work.
--tlf
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave =-
-= them" (George Mason, 1788) =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= Thomas Fritz -=*=- Sr. UNIX System Admin. =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ezechiely
J'ai trouve chez cet Anglais toute l'erudition de son pays, toute la
politesse du notre. Je n'ai jamais entendu parler notre langue avec plus
d'energie et de justesse... Voltaire.
Dear Mr. Panikovsky, your ways are kept prepared day and night on the
msn.forums.friendsofeurope.russia. Ya podmetayu ih daily... We're patient
and gostepriimny and chaleureux....
Hyys_Dmytry
Uzulo wrote:
> > Maya Jur'evna Botvinnik wrote:
> > >Kto-nibud' chital novyh russkih avtorov, mozhet skazat'
> > >familii, nazvaniya knig? V kachestve lichnigo vklada ukazyvayu
> > >1) Pelevin - chudesnyj yazyk, surrealisticheskie cyuzhety is rysskoj
> > > zhizni;
> > >2) Yuliya Voznesenskaya, "Zhenskyj dekameron" -yazyk prostoj, pochti
> > > zhurlnalistkij, no struktura namnogo slozhnee , rasskazy v rasskaze-
> > > vostochnyj priem, esli vam takie vechshi nravyatsya. O priayatnom,
> > > gnusnom, romantichnom, bytovom - mnogo vsego. Ne dlya detskogo
> > > chteniay ni v koem sluchae.
>
> > Limonova chitaite. On hot' i styaryi, a horoshiy.
>
> S ehtim ne vse soglasjatsja.
>
> > O gnusnom on ne pishet, k sozhaleniyu; tut on vas razocharuet.
>
> On o raznom pishet. O nekotoryh vewah dovolqno vulqgarno. Tak chto
> ehto tozhe ne vpolne dlja detskogo chtenija. A nekotorye ego ehsse
> nastolqko pahnut velikorusskim nacionalizmom, chto chitatq tjazhelo;
> inoj raz zadumyvaeshqsja: a stoit li?..
>
>
> Uzulo <ty...@cile.msk.su>
Po moim lichnum nabludeniyam , stoit elsi ne chitat` , to po krainei mere
prismotret`sya k pisatelyam , izdavavshinsya za rubegom.
You can try also Nicolay Leonov - detektivu . Chem poslednee - tem luchshe .
Vsego xoroshego.
Dima.
Alfred Wallace
Poprobuyte zdes':
http://www.art.spb.ru/konkurs/
ili
Tam Vy naydete mnogo zabavnogo (v samom luchshem smysle etogo slova) i
sslylki na pochti vse bol'shie russkie literaturnye events na Internet. Kak
kazhetsya, literatura poluchila ubezhische imeno zdes': sebestoimost'
internetovskih izdaniy pozvolyaet ignorirovat' interesy massovogo litrynka,
pod kotorym uzhe pogrebeny "tolstye" moskovskie, piterskie i provincial'nye
zhurnaly.