Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) (Trees And Things)

thefadd: Re: I dunno.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:30:34 EST

I think a lot has to go to the translations but perhaps its the fiction vs. the non-fiction as well. I never read Gulag but found his fictional prose to be exquisite and riveting with no one else but Garcia-Marquez to even compare. Certainly puts the crap

pO157: I dunno.

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:17:26 EST

I only read Gulag Archipelago. It was interesting and informative but not well written or anything. Maybe he won his prize and world acclaim for exposing the horrors and violence inherent in the system rather than the quality/fluidity of his prose?

keta: Making Others Better

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:38:57 EST

It took a quiet talent like Solzhenitsyn to make Bea Arthur truly shine. Thanks for the "golden" moments, AS.

T Slothrop: (Yawn)

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:00:54 EST

I always assumed at least part of it was translational because all the Russian literature I've tried to plow through struck me as dry as Death Valley in mid summer.

Nonetheless, although I don't think anyone ever expected a book with a subject like G

skeptic: Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:03:29 EST
It could be argued that "1984" is the greatest science fiction novel of all time, although it contains very little that is science-fictional in nature (that is, it contains essentially no scientific or technological speculations) and like Solzhenitsyn's bo

skeeter1: Re: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:44:15 EST
The only Solzhenitsyn I've ever read was "Gulag Archipelago". It was somewhat informative, but rather dry reading material. I wasn't terribly impressed. I haven't read Salman Rushdie's diatribe, but I'm guessing it's in the same ballpark.