Why Was This Published?

[AGBF]

Why was this published? I attempted to read it and actually got through to the last two paragraphs, where I gave up. Since I knew that I was not going to be taking out a lot of reference books and doing serious work on understanding this article, I didn't know why I was punishing myself by forcing myself to read each sentence as if I would ever understand it.

At least one person posted about studying Russian literature, which I did not. I am sure that having a sound understanding of the subject matter would help one to understand the article. But should one have to know the Russian authors well in order to understand an article in "The New York Times"? Shouldn't a glancing knowledge of their work be enough to introduce one to an essay, or no knowledge at all, but a willingness to look up their work? I found myself straining to understand every sentence of this piece, even though I had some familiarity with the historical period about which it was written. It was as if the author tried to use every large word she could in every sentence so as to force the reader to think circuitously instead of simply. Is that intellectual or just bad writing? Why did "The New York Times" publish it?

Did anyone find this enjoyable or enlightening? I think I am going to pull a "ksinger' and send it to my husband to see if he can understand it. I mean, he will understand it, but will he find it utter baloney?

The Revolutionary Specters of Russian Letters... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0


AGBF

 

[Karl_K]

bunch of bull wrapped up in big words is my opinion of it.

 

[AGBF]

bunch of bull wrapped up in big words is my opinion of it.

Thanks, Karl.

Deb

 

[kenny]

Something for everyone.

NYT doesn't strike me as a pub that caters to the LCD with Namby Pamby topics and people who know only small words ... that would be USA Today (is that still in business?).
Readers just vary.

I would't whine or criticize when an article is over my head.
I'm not all butthurt that some people somehow DO know more than I do about some subjects.
Instead of shooting the messenger, or taking it as some insult, I'd just scroll down, or turn the paper page.
Maybe the next article is a better fit for my level.
I might even research and learn about a new subject, and look up new words to expand my vocabulary.

 

[AGBF]

Something for everyone.

NYT doesn't strike me as a pub for the LCD ... that would be USA Today (is that still in business?)
Readers just vary.

I would't whine or criticize. when an article is over my head.
I'm not all butthurt that some people somehow DO know more than I do about some subjects.
Instead of shooting the messenger, or taking it as some insult, I'd just scroll down, or turn the page, to the next article.

Thank you for your opinion.

Deb

 

[kenny]

Oh Noes!
You mean what I posted is merely an opinion?
I feel so small now.

I'm crushed, I tell you, crushed.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

It was written and published because the anniversary of the Russian Revolution is coming up.
This is a paper on three literary giants and how their philosophy fit into the Russian psychic.

Dost felt change could occur immediately. Tolstoy thought you could effect change by habits, slowly over time.
The other literary plays she speaks about are examples of these philosophies and their incorporation in the Russian mind. I have not read them, but I think that is what she writes about.

She speaks about apocalyptic( good vs evil) Dost., and Nihilism, (destruction) Tolstoy. I have not read the third author.

I think there are people who do understand it. And they read the New York times. These were great writers and great books.

Annette

 

[AGBF]

Oh Noes!
You mean what I posted is merely an opinion?
I feel so small now.

I'm crushed, I tell you, crushed.

Haha! I just read your revised response! (Your first one was in some foreign language I couldn't decipher.) I am sorry to crush you, but the problem really is that you are so fragile, kenny.

 

[Karl_K]

The biggest issue is like most things that try and put people into baskets is the concept falls apart at more than a casual look.

 

[cmd2014]

I understood it, but didn't enjoy it (my understanding was the same as Annette's). It felt completely disconnected from the given reason for talking about it now (i.e., Putin's described reluctance to celebrate the revolution in 1917 that killed the royal family and launched what would eventually become modern Russia, and his preference instead to see the end of WWII as the start of what would become modern Russia), and read like a bad book review of Berdyaev's "The Russian Idea.”

I actually had to give it more attention than it deserved to figure out why the author was bringing these ideas up and what it was supposed to be connected to. It would have been more effective had the thesis been described up front rather than being buried 6 paragraphs from the end.

 

[lambskin]

I am waiting for the movie version.

 

[AGBF]

I am waiting for the movie version.

I didn't think I had a smile in me, but I did. Thank you, lambskin. I wonder how it will do at the box office competing with "The Avengers".