03-30-2019, 08:25 AM
and yet iit still receives critical acclaim with a myriad of stage actors lining up to play in it. tolstoy was one of a few with a completely different mindset than the man in the street. he saw in lear too much of a comparison to his own life. he didn't like how HE was portrayed. i think we can agree that in literature, specially the english type, orwell is just as able to comment on lear as tolstoy is.
you said yourself that;
Tolstoy was reading the plays translated, so he could not form a full opinion on their literary merit, only how they stood up as plays.
how could he by your own volition form an opinion as to how it stood up as a play [what the plot was like] if he could not form a full opinion as to their literary merit? you can't have the cake and eat it. basically if he's failing at the literary level of translation all he know is the with any certainty is the plays format. act1 scene# etc a fomat universally used. lets also remember as orwell so graciously stated they came from diverse backgrounds. one writing for the mainstream and 1 for the uppercases of europe. many of which didn't bother to read him. sorry but i have to stand with orwell on this one. we can only measure the fame of a piece of art by how well it stands the test of time. it seem if we look at the numbers tolstoy comes in a slow 2nd. on that basis alone i would question tolstoys liquidity as shakespeares main critic of abhorrence and vitriol.
you said yourself that;
Tolstoy was reading the plays translated, so he could not form a full opinion on their literary merit, only how they stood up as plays.
how could he by your own volition form an opinion as to how it stood up as a play [what the plot was like] if he could not form a full opinion as to their literary merit? you can't have the cake and eat it. basically if he's failing at the literary level of translation all he know is the with any certainty is the plays format. act1 scene# etc a fomat universally used. lets also remember as orwell so graciously stated they came from diverse backgrounds. one writing for the mainstream and 1 for the uppercases of europe. many of which didn't bother to read him. sorry but i have to stand with orwell on this one. we can only measure the fame of a piece of art by how well it stands the test of time. it seem if we look at the numbers tolstoy comes in a slow 2nd. on that basis alone i would question tolstoys liquidity as shakespeares main critic of abhorrence and vitriol.