Talk:Гоголь

Gogol was Russian like Joyce, Wilde, and Shaw were English?

Michael, that's arguable and you know it. Gogol wrote mainly in Russian but also in Ukrainian. Ukraine belonged to the Russian empire. It's a sensitive issue. Should we mix politics here? Mentioning both Russian and Ukrainian would be fair. His impact on the Russian literature and culture was great. --Anatoli 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the best analogy I could come up with. These Irish authors wrote in English, lived in the British Empire and also lived in England and elsewhere. But Wikipedia calls them Irish writers, not British writers, and God forbid English writers. So I left his identity out of it and identified him with his larger state, the Russian Empire. —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 06:14 z

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gogol doesn't have any writings in Ukrainian. And the analogy with Ireland and the British Empire is not actually correct, for there was no such territory with the official status as “Ukraine” in the Russian Empire. — Gleb Borisov 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Gogol had little choice, working when Ukrainian was actively suppressed in the Empire, and Ukrainian artists could be imprisoned, exiled, and banned from writing or drawing (cf. w:Taras Shevchenko 1814–61, #Exile). Did Joyce and Shaw write in Irish?

The main part of Ukrainian lands colonized by the Russians were first organized as the autonomous w:Cossack Hetmanate, later the w:Little Russian Governorate, still later subdivided into smaller administrative regions. They were recognized as ethnic Ukrainian lands, but the notion that the “w:Little Russians” were an independent people was not tolerated. —Michael Z. 2010-03-27 15:29 z

Please, don't turn this talk page into a political forum. In Gogol's lifetime nothing of that could happen just because of writing in Ukrainian. Ševčenko was exiled because of a poem, where he had rudely abused the Empress (the one who ransomed him from Engelhardt), not because he wrote in Ukrainian.

My intention was just to note some facts. Concerning the article, maybe it would be more correct to change “Russian and Ukrainian writer” to “Russian writer of Ukrainian origin”? — Gleb Borisov 18:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right; it was political parody that Shevchenko was sentenced for, and it was only in the 1860–70s when Ukrainian was systematically suppressed.

Back to the point: we don't call Joyce an “English writer of Irish origin,” or Gandhi a “British leader of Indian Origin.” Your suggested formula perpetuates a Russocentric point of view. It is inherently political. Sadly, such a POV is status quo, and I won't oppose putting that in this entry. —Michael Z. 2010-03-28 15:03 z

Yes, my version better depicts the current situation in encyclopedias:

• Encyclopedia of World Biography: “Russian author Nikolai Gogol [..] Nikolai Gogol was born on March 20, 1809, in the little Ukrainian town of Sorochincy.”
• The Columbia Encyclopedia: “Russian short-story writer, novelist, and playwright, sometimes considered the father of Russian realism. Of Ukrainian origin”
• World Encyclopedia: “Russian novelist and dramatist”

So, if you don't oppose, I'm changing to my version. I don't think that Joyce and Gandhi are good comparisons, because, as far as I know, Irishmen and Indians have never been considered as a part of the English people. But anyway I don't see a reason to continue the political debate. — Gleb Borisov 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Britannica puts nationality first, perhaps making Russian more clearly a politiconym: “Ukrainian-born Russian humorist, dramatist, and novelist [...].” —Michael Z. 2010-03-28 17:09 z

I have deleted the encyclopedic sense altogether per the rfd discussion for English Gogol. See Talk:Gogol. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)