[ SECRET POST #2979 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2979 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16. [repeat]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 091 secrets from Secret Submission Post #426.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Classic literature thread

[herpymcderp]

I think it's kind of being pedantic at this point, but there's a huge difference between no knowledge and minimal knowledge. Minimal knowledge will get you through MAM with a chuckle or two at the physical comedy, but no knowledge can make even the plot progression seem confusing and as if the story is jumping around incomprehensibly. Like you mentioned, the Pilate sections come off as a separate story at first without a bit of a grasp as to why Biblical history is suddenly figuring into the narrative.

Also, yes, multiple readings are almost necessary. Like with most classic lit, there's a lot you can miss in just a single reading. I'd almost like to say this applies to Russian literature especially just because of what some culture specialists like to call "the dualistic nature of the Russian soul". There's always such personal contrast to be found in any work. You may think it's a strict condemnation at first, but it can never be that simple with Russian writers. There's always a little bit of internal conflict and an extreme opposition of emotions when someone (particularly a writer of those times) tries to express a certain viewpoint.

This is part of what makes Bulgakov and Zamyatin so interesting to study, for me.