Talk:Miroslav Krleža/Archive 1

intro observation/opinion

 * Krleža has remained generally unknown despite his literary achievements, which surpass many Nobel winners in the category of literature. Croatian critics consider that this can be attributed to Krleža being Croatian, with Croatia being small and insignificant in more than just the geographical sense in the eyes of some, and, in part, to his political views which were often at odds with the authorities.

I don't think this is quite appropriate for the top of the page. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I second that. And by the way: what about the volume of Krleža's work translated into major European languages? Is it possible to become "known" without the translations? GregorB 19:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence
Striked out in the following paragraph:


 * The most notable collection of Krleža's short stories is anti-war book «Hrvatski bog Mars» («Croatian god Mars»), on the fates of Croatian soldiers sent to the slaughterhouse of World War I battlefields. However, modern readers will probably find more attractive other novellas and short stories, depicting turbulent relationships and blase boredom gnawing at upper classes of Croatian society before and after World War 1.

Removed on two counts: first, someone's opinion on what works will or will not be "found attractive" my modern readers does not belong to an encyclopedia. Second, I am a modern reader and I would choose "Croatian god Mars" over reading about "boredom gnawing at upper classes of Croatian society before and after World War 1" without a millisecond of thought &mdash; but that's precisely because I am a "modern reader". Anti-war prose never goes out of style, especially if it's as good as "Croatian god Mars" is. GregorB 19:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree and therefore I have deleted this sentence. Martin 10:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatian and Yugoslav
Just like we would say Karl Kraus was one of the greatest Austro-Hungarian writers, Krleza is both Croatian and Yugoslav. In fact, he defined himself as both a Croat and a Yugoslav.


 * Krleža was a Croat who wrote in Croatian. Yugoslav is a political term that can refer to at least 5 distinct political entities spanning for more than a century with vastly varied ethnical and language constitution. There is no Yugoslav "nation", "ethnicity" or "literature", inasmuch as there is no Soviet, Austro-Hungarian or Czecho-Slovak ethnicity, nationality or literature. Good luck editing the Karl Kraus article pushing the claim that he is "Austro-Hungarian" writer just because he lived in A-H empire. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bit from Columbia Encyclopedia - http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101279141. I am a Croat, but this is silly. After all, Krleza considered himself a Yugoslav as well as a Croat, surely that stands for something? Besides, the statement I'm proposing does not theorise whether he was a part of Yugoslav literature or whether Yugoslav literature exists, it only states that he *was* proclaimed as the "biggest Yugoslav literary figure"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.129.225 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yugoslav as an affiliation is a political invention, not national or ethnical. The concept of "Yugoslav literature" is holpelessly outdated, and I can only pity misguided fools still living in that fairy tale, put in the same basket Marulić, Držić, Belostenec, Krleža...and Dositej Obradović, Desanka Maksimović and Dobrica Ćosić. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. After only, anyone who knows anything about "nations" knows they are also modern political inventions. However, wikipedia does not operate on opinions, but on a more-or-less established practice and factual evidence. Columbia Encyclopedia is a highly acclaimed project. Besides, I'm stating again, the statement I'm proposing does not theorise whether he was a part of Yugoslav literature or whether Yugoslav literature exists, it only states that he *was* proclaimed as the "biggest Yugoslav literary figure". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.15.158 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The concept of "Yugoslav literature" is anachronistic, as that state doesn't exist anymore (actually, the 5 states that were called "Yugoslavias"). There are many antologies published in the period of Communist Yugoslavia that list various Slovenian, Macedonian, Croatian, Serbian etc. writers as belonging to "Yugoslav literature" (not just those that wrote during the Communist Yugoslavia, but also centuries before, being "retroactively" integrated under the Yugoslav umbrella), but that doesn't mean that the same classification is valid today. Yugoslavia did not have one literature, or one literary language, it had 4 of them. Look at the bibliography of that article: See A. Barac, A History of Yugoslav Literature (tr. 1955); S. Lukić, Contemporary Yugoslav Literature (1968, tr. 1972);  - all obsolete. What you are implying in your edit, putting "Yugoslav" next to "Croatian", is that that the term Yugoslav exists in some ethnic/national/linguistic sense in the same line with Croatian, which is utter nonsense. The article you cite writes: the Croatian poet and dramatist Miroslav Krleža - which obviously classifies him as Croatian (by nationality and language). He could be classified as Yugoslav in a sense "writing when the Communist Yugoslavia existed" and by extension be included in the Yugoslav literature umbrella together with Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian writers, but as I said 1) that classification is anachronistic 2) your edit aditionally implies ethno-linguistical connotations. Krleža was the greatest Croatian literary figure of the 20th century (and more); the fact that it was greater than some literary figures in other states writing in other languages with which Krleža happened to share the same "federation" for a part of his life is completely orthogonal and irrelevant. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia article is from 2004. Besides, whether it is or isn't wrong (and, for instance, the literature of Asia Minor - even by those who weren't Greek colonizers - during the Hellenistic period is still classified as "Greek literature"), I am simply MENTIONING ONE INTERPRETATION, and it is factually correct that some (many) have said he was the greatest Yugoslav writer. Whether he was or wasn't is completely irrelevant in this context. Let's not judge this edit along nationalist lines (according to which any link between Croatia and yugoslavia is somehow insulting and better to be swept under the carpet).


 * If it's classified as Greek literature because it's written in Greek language, whereas there's no such thing as "Yugoslav language". Article is indeed from 2004, but it's references are from Yugoslav Communist time, plus it also mentions Krleža as a Croatian writer (in both ethnical and language sense). The "interpretation" that you're mentioning is anachronistic, please accept that; grouping literatures of Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and Macedonian writers is completely arbitrary and politically-enforced grouping, that used to enjoy support from Communist regime and was thus accepted and used by outsiders, but is today completely deprecated, and moreover considered insultive by some. There is no need to resurrects relicts of the past just because some ex-Yugoslav diaspora can't come to terms that their beloved Yugoslavia is no more, having lived under in the balloon for the last 20 years.
 * However, classifying Krleža as "greatest Yugoslav writer" in a sense "the greatest writer of all ex-SFRJ literatures" is entirely different thing; if that classification is indeed endorsed by some, it should be sourced and placed somewhere in the text, not in the lead in form of "and indeed Yugoslav" because it falsely and misleadingly leads into interpretation of the term Yugoslav being understood in linguistic or national sense. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavism
Again Krleža's "Yugoslavism" is being put forth. Has Krleža ever self-declared himself as Yugoslav, and not as Croat? With respect to his literary work and cultural provenience, he can be called Croatian writer only. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Krleža i nacionalno pitanje, from Krležijana, by Z. Kravar, the most renowned Croatian literary theorist. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From one of Krleža's essays: O, koliko sam puta čuo i čitao o svojoj malenkosti da sam internacionalistički odrod i da mrzim hrvatstvo, premda ne poznajem među hrvatskim poetima ni jednoga koji bi bio »narodniji« od mene i nijednog koji je više od mene varirao temu o potisnutoj svijesti hrvatskog narodnog osjećaja. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation
Krleža was a prototype of Yugoslav writer, and all of the three modern-day Serbo-Croatian standards (or "languages", as nationalists prefer to term them) have identical phonology, so it's better to have all-encompassing sh classifier instead for the IPA transcription rather than hr. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are contradicting with the opinions that you said in above sections. You said he was a Croatian writer, who wrote in Croatian, even if he wrote some ekavian, that doesn't make him a Serbo-Croat writer.
 * To you it maybe better, but you very well know that he was identified as Yugoslav by the "West" simply because of their perception of "nationality" by passport and country name. The designation Serbo-Croat is simmilarly controversial because it places the author as not just Croat writer but as a Serb author as well. It is simply making confusions and should be replaced by the most neutral way of sorting the issue.
 * Or we should remove the IPA transcription as the most viable way of making a compromise.


 * Bugoslav (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He is "Croatian writer" by ethnical sense only - the language he wrote in is Serbo-Croatian. He himself said several times that what nationalist perceive as "two languages" is underlying one and the same linguistic entity. He used many words what would modern-day Croatian nationalists perceive as "Serbianisms" (words like uslov or historija), and even wrote in Ekavian Štokavian for a brief period. By self-proclaimed orientation, practical impact as well as official Yugoslav politics, he was de facto Yugoslav state writer (using the term Yugoslav in a broader cultural sense).
 * When you say that he was identified by Yugoslav by the West because of his passport you're either 1) playing dumb 2) are completely ignorant of his work. Krleža openly embraced Yugoslavism and Titoism and view it as the only historical option in which Croatian entity can flourish. Yugoslavism was by no means some "perception" imagined by the West - it was the official state doctrine that was by and large embraced by almost all of the Yugoslav population.
 * The designation Serbo-Croatian is purely linguistic and not ethnic. There is no such thing as Serbo-Croatian "nation" or Serbo-Croatian "ethnicity". In fact, if you click on the IPA transcription you'll be take to the help page for Serbo-Croatian phonology. Serbs and Croats (as well as Bosniaks and Montenegrins) have the same language as their literary, national, standard idiom. The most common name for such entity in English language is Serbo-Croatian, and it has yet to be ousted by awkward abbreviations such as BCS(M).
 * I see no reason why remove IPA transcription. It's very useful and lots of Wikipedia articles have them, esp. on foreign-language onomastics, in order to provide English-speaking users clues for native pronunciations (which usually becomes bastardized in various ways when guess-pronounced by English speakers on the basis of their written form only, and without the knowledge of the respective language orthography). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)