Bridges we built... Ex-Yugoslavian literature

[Kobayashi Maru]

I did not understand it that way, I think it implies that women are supposed to be the way men want them to be.

But I really do not want to argue over that. :)

That wasn't what he said.It says all trouble is either cause men want women to be something they are not (which is men fault and their mistake,or cause they are men and they are flawed themselves) It was about misguided expectations of men. Read it again thinking about what I wrote. And it's not arguing if I tell you you misread something,that's pointing out a mistake. I just think you shouldn't let something so minor like interpreting one line wrongly (and one line that was translation and not original) to come between you and one of the greatest writers and his work.

If you don't believe me,trust Mladen. Do you think one of the biggest defender of women here in this forum would ever quote as example of good writing something that says women are supposed to be what men expect of them? His favorite character is Sansa.

[Mladen]

I did not understand it that way, I think it implies that women are supposed to be the way men want them to be.

Buck, I think you are really misinterpreting the quote. It speaks about male/female relationships in a bit funny, probably even cynical way. It speaks about women refusing to accommodate men in every way. Andric cynically jokes that man wants women to be something they are not, and thus mocking a patriarchy. To oppose that, he speaks about women suffering because men are that way, perhaps unchangeable and accustomed to be always right. The quote is not pro or against women, it is a simple state of mind of patriarchy. Look at Robert/Cersei example. Robert suffers because he wants another wife, an obedient wife who will do as he commands (to be what he wants her to be) and she suffers because of who he is. The quote certainly can't be interpreted as Andric being anti-feminist in any way. For, in that quote, the idea of equality exists to teach us that we are all the same and that sufferings of both genders are in core very same.

Excellent choice Malden and great idea for the thread :) I will try to contribute as much as I can.

...

Njegos' Mountain wreath is hard to read to some people but it's worth it. Some people see book written in verse and they give up. Too soon if you ask me. I cry every time I read sister's lament for a brother (part of which Mladen has as his signature).

Thanks Koba...

Now, since many have wondered about my signature, allow me to explain. The lament of Batric sister is one of the most tragic moments in Njegos' opus. It is about a sister's lament for a brother who was betrayed and killed by Turks in Travnik (a city in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Now, the lament is inspired by the folk song of Batric Perovic, who was according to some, a great young warrior. He was imprisoned, tortured and later killed by beheading by a Turk, Osman Corovic. The lament in Mountain wreath is heartbreaking because not only that Batric sister mourns the loss of her brother, the great hero, but also curses the lords of the country for their cowardice. She represents the voice of women of Montenegro, all those mothers, sisters and wives of those who died under Turks, and who now are braver than the lords who don't know what to do.

Forgiveness o’er thy deadly wounds,

Batritch bolov’d!

The whelming woes of our whole race -

Not parrdon’d these!

Our land falls under Islam’s yoke!

Oh, judgment-stroke!

Our chiefs have now all heart of stone, -

Let death come to their home!

I thought that the quote nicely parallels Sansa's unspoken sorrow for Robb, for both sisters share the sentiment of heroism in their brothers.

[Buckwheat]

That wasn't what he said.It says all trouble is either cause men want women to be something they are not (which is men fault and their mistake,or cause they are men and they are flawed themselves) It was about misguided expectations of men. Read it again thinking about what I wrote. And it's not arguing if I tell you you misread something,that's pointing out a mistake. I just think you shouldn't let something so minor like interpreting one line wrongly (and one line that was translation and not original) to come between you and one of the greatest writers and his work.

If you don't believe me,trust Mladen. Do you think one of the biggest defender of women here in this forum would ever quote as example of good writing something that says women are supposed to be what men expect of them? His favorite character is Sansa.

Well, I will respectfully disagree with your reading of that line. The "men want women to be something they are not" sounds judgy to me, regardless if it implies that men are flawed or not. I actually agree that it implies that men are flawed, but to me it implies even more strongly that women are more flawed.

And yes, I am aware that I should read more context of the line and I definitely do not want that to stop me from reading that novel - I absolutely plan to do so in the future. :)

I also know that Mladen is a devoted defender of Sansa, and I do really not think he would write something hateful towards women or anything. We happen to have differing opinions of one line from a novel, and my opinion is by no means informed on that. But I still think my reading is as valid as yours or his.

[Kobayashi Maru]

Well, I will respectfully disagree with your reading of that line. The "men want women to be something they are not" sounds judgy to me, regardless if it implies that men are flawed or not. I actually agree that it implies that men are flawed, but to me it implies even more strongly that women are more flawed.

And yes, I am aware that I should read more context of the line and I definitely do not want that to stop me from reading that novel - I absolutely plan to do so in the future. :)

I also know that Mladen is a devoted defender of Sansa, and I do really not think he would write something hateful towards women or anything. We happen to have differing opinions of one line from a novel, and my opinion is by no means informed on that. But I still think my reading is as valid as yours or his.

How is that judgy? It says nothing about women. It only says men have misguided expectations. It doesn't say men want women to be something they are not good enough to be. It says men want everyting and everybody to be the way they want it to be.

It's not about being more or less valid it's about misreading stuff. Read Mladen's post he explained it better than me. If you keep reading supplies as surprise it's misreading.

[Buckwheat]

*sigh*

Mladen, let me quote that line again.

In this society we all suffer, men and women alike, but the roles are divided in this way: When we suffer because of women, it is always because women are not the way we want them to be. When women suffer because of us, it is always because we are the way we are. But most importantly, we all suffer and torture ourselves very often, for a very long time, very cruelly and meaninglessly.

So

1. Men suffer because women are not the way men want them to be.

2. Women suffer because men are the way they are.

To me, this implies that men are just the way they are and they cannot and would not change, whereas women should change because men want them to be different.

Buck, I think you are really misinterpreting the quote. It speaks about male/female relationships in a bit funny, probably even cynical way. It speaks about women refusing to accommodate men in every way. Andric cynically jokes that man wants women to be something they are not, and thus mocking a patriarchy. To oppose that, he speaks about women suffering because men are that way, perhaps unchangeable and accustomed to be always right. The quote is not pro or against women, it is a simple state of mind of patriarchy. Look at Robert/Cersei example. Robert suffers because he wants another wife, an obedient wife who will do as he commands (to be what he wants her to be) and she suffers because of who he is. The quote certainly can't be interpreted as Andric being anti-feminist in any way. For, in that quote, the idea of equality exists to teach us that we are all the same and that sufferings of both genders are in core very same.

1. Nope, I am not misreading anything. There is no such thing as misreading while interpreting literature, as long as one can supply valid arguments for one's reading. And I think my reading is valid here.

2. Yes, I agree it is cynical. And agree that women refuse to accomodate men in every way, but the whole quote kind of puts women in a passive position: men are, men want. Women just suffer.

3. Nope, I do not think the quote is about equality at all. The sufferings of both are different. Even the grammatical form speaks of inequality here: the line about men is what they are, affirmative. The line about women is what they are not, negative.

So to both Mladen and Koba - agree to disagree? I acknowledge that your reading and interpretation are valid and see your point and know that your opinion is more informed than mine since you have read the whole novel. I maintain that my reading is also valid (and can be subject to change if I manage to read the whole novel and see the bigger context).

:read:

[Kobayashi Maru]

*sigh*

Mladen, let me quote that line again.

So

1. Men suffer because women are not the way men want them to be.

2. Women suffer because men are the way they are.

To me, this implies that men are just the way they are and they cannot and would not change, whereas women should change because men want them to be different.

Where does he say woman should change? He talks about why people suffer and he doesn't say in any part : "and they must now all do this"...That's just putting words in his mouth. You also keep ignoring the part where he says that both sexes suffer equally . You point out to the grammar of the English version even though that's not the original language and you keep telling us that you validate our opinion even though with every post you are doing opposite. Have you red something he wrote?

[Buckwheat]

Where does he say woman should change? He talks about why people suffer and he doesn't say in any part : "and they must now all do this"...That's just putting words in his mouth. You also keep ignoring the part where he says that both sexes suffer equally . You point out to the grammar of the English version even though that's not the original language and you keep telling us that you validate our opinion even though with every post you are doing opposite. Have you red something he wrote?

Can we not stop talking about this?

No, he does not say explicitly women should change. I think this is implied in the formulation that "women are not the way we want them to". If you do not see this implication, that is completely fine. For me, it is there. And, no he does not say that both sexes suffer equally - in fact, he clearly states "roles are divided in this way" - that is the opposite of equally.

I think those are valid arguments. If you do not think my interpretation is valid, that is okay, but it does not make it wrong.

And no, I have already stated I have not read it and that my opinion can change if I do and have more context.

[honeyed chicken]

Pardon me for intruding . . .

I just heard a little story about a Balkan music project that some of you may have heard of or if not, be interested in. It just aired here on American Public Radio: http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2014/04/20/304538384/honey-blood-and-harmony-jordi-savalls-balkan-journey

[Candre]

Looking at this from an Germanic-Hungarian perspective, I would like to write something, that might offend a lot of you folks. I apologize in advance, but I think it is a valid point.

Mladen you are writing " For, the six ex-Yugoslav republics have so much to offer in terms of literary works created throughout the centuries of our past"

What kind of shared history are you talking about? The "Southern slavic" region was politically and culturally seperated for centuries and is still seperated nowadays.

Are there really similar patterns in Southern slavic literature or culture itself? I might recognize similar patterns in works from catholic countries, that once belonged to the Austrian-Hungarian empire. I also might recognize similar patterns in the serbian, macedonian or greek orthodox art. But are they really connected?

Of course there might be a panslavic influence, but from my outside point of view the whole matter is like comparing the German and Dutch culture.

Once again, please do not be offended.

[Mladen]

Looking at this from an Germanic-Hungarian perspective, I would like to write something, that might offend a lot of you folks. I apologize in advance, but I think it is a valid point.

Mladen you are writing " For, the six ex-Yugoslav republics have so much to offer in terms of literary works created throughout the centuries of our past"

What kind of shared history are you talking about? The "Southern slavic" region was politically and culturally seperated for centuries and is still seperated nowadays.

Are there really similar patterns in Southern slavic literature or culture itself? I might recognize similar patterns in works from catholic countries, that once belonged to the Austrian-Hungarian empire. I also might recognize similar patterns in the serbian, macedonian or greek orthodox art. But are they really connected?

Of course there might be a panslavic influence, but from my outside point of view the whole matter is like comparing the German and Dutch culture.

Once again, please do not be offended.

Oh, no offenses taken. First, when we discuss Yugoslavia's inner connections we certainly can talk about half of it being under Austo-Hungarian, and half of it under Ottoman empires. That doesn't mean that the people on such small place hadn't connected and influenced each other. You ask about what similar patterns there are in Yugoslavian literature, or at least patterns in each of the respective republic's literature?

So, let we begin:

1. The language. Given the fact that people from Ex-Yugoslavia speak one language, with Slovene and Macedonian being relatively different, but completely understandable in other 4 republics, language as literature's most important thing is truly something that should be noted. And we don't just happen to speak the same language. The history of our languages - Serbian and Croatian as representatives of the two sides being occupied under different empires is relatively the same, with modern Serbian and Croatian sharing the same history since 19th century, with parallel battles for reforming and standardizing languages in their respective countries.

2. Common history. It seems that there is a misconception among Western countries that Ex-Yugoslav republics were brought up close together after WWI. Today's Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia have centuries long relationships, some of which dates from early 13th and 14th centuries, and even before. The same with Croatia and other republics. Simply, we haven't lived separate lives at any point even though we had separate ruling families etc. The marriages, the connections between nations are outstanding and can't easily be debunked. More than half of Montenegrin cultural heritage is connected with Serbia. Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia also share a lot of history.

As for other patterns:

1. The traditional music, costumes and dances are relatively same with some local differentiation

2. As language is the same, there was always huge impact from one country to another, especially in terms of literary works, which in modern times, parallel each other.

3. All countries were under the same two boots: Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, in different times of course. It should also be noted that cultural impact both empires had shaped a lot of our culture. Lastly, we together fought against them.

4. The food, the customs, the tradition is strikingly similar and rich in every corner. Naturally, they vary from region to region, but that speaks more about richness than it speaks about some separate livings.

Make no mistake, there were times, just like nowadays perhaps, that we have been separated by many things, from politics to the fact who had been occupying us, but the connections between people were and still are truly strong. And that counts a lot when we discuss Ex-Yu region.

So, it's not like Dutch and German, but something like Scotland and England, or even USA. There is certainly a lot of differences, but there are also many things we share.

And lastly, the Ex-Yu literature is a title given to this thread to gather the work of all 6 republics. Normally, you can expect some differences and yes, sometimes even separate influences focused on one part, but that doesn't mean we don't share a lot.

[Kobayashi Maru]

I remember my spanish teacher being confused about why we call our languages differently. She said that there are more difference between spanish spoken in Argentina and spanish spoken in Spain than there is between serbian, bosnian and croatian.

[DormeDwayne]

And lastly, the Ex-Yu literature is a title given to this thread to gather the work of all 6 republics. Normally, you can expect some differences and yes, sometimes even separate influences focused on one part, but that doesn't mean we don't share a lot.

And let's be honest, what could I write under a thread titled 'Slovene literature' seeing as only about 20 works have been translated into English :D It's true Slovene literature differs quite considerably from, say, Macedonian or Bosnian, but at least if we put them all together we can give a solid list of reading materials ;)

[sologdin]

unified in a single state is a fairly important commonality. for hrvati i srbi, the language is basically identical, which is a big deal.

[Buckwheat]

Mladen,

I think you might be overestimating the similarities between languages. Personally, I cannot differentiate between Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, - I know some people who can - but there are instances when I cannot even understand it. The differences between Slovene, Macedonian and Cro/Serb/Bosn are clearly there. The older generation mostly understands and speaks Serbo-Croatian fluently, but that is no longer the case for the younger one. To say that they all "speak one language" is incorrect and in my opinion takes away from the value of each separate one as a product of its own development and as the means to produce literary texts in each one of them.

I am no historian, so I cannot comment on the historical connections that much, but it might be that you overestimate that too - but of course that might be the bias I accepted through my post-separation/let-us-severe-ties-with-Bratstvo&jedinstvo-and-stress-the-Western-European-connections education. I was taught way more about the connections to other regions of the AO empire than the Ex-Yu countries and the ties with that literature were stressed more. So that is how I grew to see it. Of course I agree that there are ties that connect those literatures, but the history of all the regions was very different and it probably shows in the differences in the literatures too.

[Mladen]

Mladen,

I think you might be overestimating the similarities between languages. Personally, I cannot differentiate between Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, - I know some people who can - but there are instances when I cannot even understand it. The differences between Slovene, Macedonian and Cro/Serb/Bosn are clearly there. The older generation mostly understands and speaks Serbo-Croatian fluently, but that is no longer the case for the younger one. To say that they all "speak one language" is incorrect and in my opinion takes away from the value of each separate one as a product of its own development and as the means to produce literary texts in each one of them.

Slovene and Macedonian are different, there is no debate in that. I can perfectly understand Macedonian, as any native Serb/Cro/Bosnian speaker. The differences between these three languages are on the level of dialects of the same language. That is why every international organization actually uses the common derivative for all three of them: BCS. So, while there are differences between the three languages, they were never enough, far from that, not to be understandable to each other. Slovene is more special, given that it indeed was separate language for quite some time, but that is not the case between Serbian and Bosnian, or even Serbian and Croatian. The reformist efforts in 19th century both in Serbia and Croatia, with Montenegro and Bosnia being influenced by them, were done parallel and even experts from both sides helped each other. The idea of Serbo-Croatian didn't came with Tito and post-WWII communism, and ideas of "Bratstvo i jedinstvo".

Serbo-Croatian is indeed a political structure, and many today (on the wings of nationalism) try to diminish its importance. But, regardless of that, the literary work created in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian is simply perfectly understood in every of the mentioned countries. In Serbia, no one needs the translations of the Croatian literature as they don't need translation of ours (although there was idiotic practice on national broadcaster in Croatia - HRT to subtitle Serbian movies. The idea was welcomed with ridicule, but also with approval of some nationalistic circles)

Lastly, yes, it is incorrect to say that entire Ex-Yu spoke one language during its history, but we are far from having 6 different languages for something that easily can be taken under two or three very similar umbrellas. Also, I do acknowledge the differences between the terms "Croatian", "Slovene", "Serbian" etc literature. The Ex-Yu literature was more geographical term than something that should have united several literature.

I am no historian, so I cannot comment on the historical connections that much, but it might be that you overestimate that too - but of course that might be the bias I accepted through my post-separation/let-us-severe-ties-with-Bratstvo&jedinstvo-and-stress-the-Western-European-connections education. I was taught way more about the connections to other regions of the AO empire than the Ex-Yu countries and the ties with that literature were stressed more. So that is how I grew to see it. Of course I agree that there are ties that connect those literatures, but the history of all the regions was very different and it probably shows in the differences in the literatures too.

Well, Slovenia was indeed always separate entity and even in Yugoslavia was considered to be the least involved in "Bratstvo i jedinstvo". But, we do share a lot of history. Serbia and Montenegro are so intertwined, that speaking about one will inevitably lead to another. Same with Bosnia who was also part of common history. The biggest division was that we were all under different boots and thus each had troubles of their own, but we share a lot. It's not the same history, true, but the connections are undoubted. The level of those connections vary, Slovenia and Serbia hadn't the same connection as Serbia and Montenegro, for instance, but the last century also counts for something.

So, for the end, as I said, the "Ex-Yugoslavian literature" is just geographical nominator for we here indeed speak about several literature and their works.

[Kobayashi Maru]

I have no problem understanding and speaking Croatian,Bosnian and Serbian (not to mention Montenegrian which they claim is separate language),writing and reading included and I can very well understand Macedoninan and to some extent Slovenian. Same goes for people from Bosnia,Montenegro and Croatia or I'm pretty sure my grandmother and my cousins wouldn't understand me which is not the case :) I've only found that Slovenian of younger generation have problem understanding others,older people (friend of my mother's I've visited in Maribor and Ljubljana were speaking it fluently,no accent or anything) When I was asking for directions to a post office in Maribor I was speaking in Serbian and two young people who helped me were speaking in Slovenian and we understood each other perfectly. I guess as long as the sentences are simple enough and people talk slowly I'm fine. My friend is married to young man from Macedonia and they speak Both in home,or should I say combination of the two (he adds to on every word :lol: ) I remember reading Presern as a part of high school reading and I understood it. To me to say no one will understand me if I go to Bosnia is biggest lol moment ever. Only thing I change is accent and that kind of happens when I spend time longer in one country or another.

[Buckwheat]

<rest of the thoughtful post that I cannot add anything important to>

Oh, I know that those ideas existed even before - there were some Slovene writers/theorists/linguists etc. that thought the languages should gradually "melt" into one another too. I did not know how it was done in other regions though. :)

I imagine there need to be no translations between Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian indeed.

So, for the end, as I said, the "Ex-Yugoslavian literature" is just geographical nominator for we here indeed speak about several literature and their works.

:agree:

I've only found that Slovenian of younger generation have problem understanding others,older people (friend of my mother's I've visited in Maribor and Ljubljana were speaking it fluently,no accent or anything) When I was asking for directions to a post office in Maribor I was speaking in Serbian and two young people who helped me were speaking in Slovenian and we understood each other perfectly. I guess as long as the sentences are simple enough and people talk slowly I'm fine.

Yep, that goes for the majority, I would imagine - everyday conversations work, but more complicated texts, particularly literature, that is where it gets complicated ... if you read Prešeren in original, you need to be congratulated very much! :)

[Lummel]

...I promise I will mention it in your eulogy...

and here you are, so confident that I will die before you! :laugh:

...Autumn Blossoms is so saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad ... makes me depressed. :crying: But yes, it defnitely is more typical - farm environment of upper Carniola, descriptions of farming, village festival ... obviously. (I am personally not a fan of it.)...

Where is all this melancholic rural Slovene literature on the Thomas Hardy scale of rural despair where 1 is the Woodlanders (skipping lovers narrowly avoid the mantraps in the wooded dells but the coming of the church organ signals the end of the tradition of church singing and 5 is Tess of D'urbervilles inevitability of the destruction of the victim by a judgemental and virtually pagan social hierarchy that economically and socially crushes the life out of the people who serve a mechanising culture that they themselves can not partake in? ;)

Slovene and Macedonian are different, there is no debate in that. I can perfectly understand Macedonian, as any native Serb/Cro/Bosnian speaker. The differences between these three languages are on the level of dialects of the same language...

The old joke is that the difference between a dialect and a language is an army.

Mutual comprehensibility is subjective, there are varieties of Scots (like Doric for instance) that I couldn't understand without translation. The grammatical and lexical difference to my southern English is too great, while I should think that a German from say the Emsland and a Netherlander from Friesland wouldn't have trouble in understanding each other.

I wouldn't be surprised if currently many people in the former Yugoslavia would find each other's speech comprehensible - there was a long period of exposure to it. In the first half the 20th century when people weren't getting around so much, limited exposure to people from other areas, not much radio mutual comprehensibility was probably more limited to near neighbouring areas, although on the other hand around the western Mediterranean from southern Spain through to Sicily you could walk gradient by gradient from one mutually comprehensible language (say from Catalan to Provençal) to another while the further extremes wouldn't understand each other at all, or so I've heard (or daydreamt). Systems of national education are the world round are relatively modern and tend to impose (or try to) hard edges on what folk actually say, teach writing with standard spellings of words, punish non-standard grammar and all that kind of stuff. The time you all spent together in the 20th century would I'm sure have brought the language that you use closer together while maybe moving some in the south further away from Bulgarian :dunno: I imagine likewise that the literary histories of the region look out to a variety of different literary influences, yet the shared 20th century state and experiences perhaps has led to some common themes and toposes (topai? more than one topos in any case) in your literature?

[Kobayashi Maru]

The closest I could come to explain it (the way it is to me) is that the difference between Bosnian,Montenegrian,Croatian and Serbian are like differences between american and UK English (or Argentinian Spanish and Mexican Spanish ) . Grammar is the same and there is difference in accent and some words that you can pretty much understand (flat/apartment,lift/elevator etc) .To be honest I can better understand people from Croatia,Montenegro and Bosnia than people from south of Serbia...that is like listening to klingon. They speak very fast,accent is coo coo and they use words I've never heard before. When I went to school we were studying Croatian-Serbian as one language. My grandmother is Croatian and she talks with that accent and uses some words differently but it's the same language IMHO. For example. My name is Koba is Moje ime je Koba in Bosnian,Croatian,Montenegrian and Serbian.

@Lummel...

I find Bulgarian comprehensible and when I was there I was speaking Serbian and everyone understood me and vice versa :dunno: (again it was simple every day conversation like ordering in restaurants,asking for direction or price etc) because Serbian and Bulgarian share the same root. B/S/C/M I don't find just comprehensible I find them the same.

[Kobayashi Maru]

Now I'm currently in Serbia on vacation and I find myself drawn to the bookstores looking at books. Mladen I blame you :) I want to buy every single book I see from Andric to Pavic :)