Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It's amazing how comfortable the feeling of simple everyday Nazism should be, that even after a seemingly well-learned historical experience, people continue to reach out to it.
Rather than, I do not know, learn languages, read poems.
There are no criteria for the top quality of poetry. Even worse, if they existed, and it was possible to deduce a certain calculable parameter of poetry, all subsequent poetic efforts would be directed solely at optimizing the algorithm, and poets would cease to differ significantly from marketers, economists, or stockbrokers — after which predictive neural networks would save us from the need for human poetry in principle.
That's the first thing. Secondly, it would mean that the next generation of poets will send these criteria to hell and write what they want.
This is exactly what happened in the process of the formation of modernism. And yes, Russian poetry has made a significant contribution to this process — but if we divide it into cultural primacy, then Russian poetry is seven hundred years behind European poetics in colloquial language (Chaucer and Dante), five hundred years behind in secular psychologism (Shakespeare), its metric system is entirely borrowed from languages that cope with it better than Russian (Latin, Italian, French), and Russian poetry spent the last century (Gumilyov, Stenich, Yurkun, Lifshits) or died at the stage (Vvedensky, Mandelstam).
If the pinnacle of poetry existed, it would not be shining down on us in any way. Fortunately, the vertex doesn't exist. Like any culturally dependent discipline, poetry is saved from the race for the algorithm precisely by the power of its uncertainty — which, in turn, is unbearable for chauvinists.
But the good news is that you can just read poetry. Value the voices of authors, not the voices of nations. To study cultures as they are-layered, to learn languages-changeable. World poetry is a colossal sum of completely diverse practices, so the idea of the superiority of any of them based on the ethnic composition of the authors looks stupid. Ugly. It should be a shame to express it — but nevertheless, here.
Absolutely not. But to answer this question in detail , you need to know the languages. As soon as you understand German, English, or Chinese perfectly (I repeat, perfectly), the answer will come by itself.
You will never be able to fully convey in Russian that
Mensch, verspotte nicht den Teufel,
Kurz ist ja die Lebensbahn,
Und das ewige Verdammnis ist
Kein bloser Pöbelwahn,
You can't, that's all. And vice versa – it won't work either. And the raven screams “Never more”, not “Never!”. In general, you give up this case. Russian cheek puffing. Eat Ukrainian borscht, for the second – Belarusian draniki with English omelette, wash down with Chinese compote. And you live perfectly in a country that is very cool, but not cooler than all the others. Because all people are brothers. And all the countries are sisters.
I wish you this revelation.
Telegram about literature: https://t.me/smertavtora
No. Many people in the world don't even know about it. Poetry is multi-faceted; each piece has its own fans and critics .( See K Bars) .. Someone likes Brodsky, someone likes Barkov. And for some, cognac with herring.