Talk:The Kreutzer Sonata

non-person?

Doesn't the wife have a name in the novel? Or is she a non-person only in this article? 4.249.63.30 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Additions

I added the info box to bring this article's formatting in like with Tolstoy's other pages and also added categories. In addition I moved a few pictures and added some images from the 1906 Broadway adaptation. I plan to add additional info about the British Library's discovery of the Clandestine editions of the novella in the next few days as well as better references. I just wanted to give a heads up on the talk page. Feel free to contact me with any notes/concerns.ÇaCestCharabia (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mimeographed version in Russia

I have just put down the British Penguin Classics edition of the novella (translated and introduced by David Duff) and it seemed to come a long way away from the sentence here that reads: "After the work had been forbidden in Russia by the censors, a mimeographed version was widely circulated."
The introduction to David Duff's edition goes into pages of detail of how the penultimate version of the novella was leaked without Tolstoy's knowledge and it was this version of the book which was read widely across Russia and beyond before Tolstoy's final version was even finished. The final (ninth) version was initially banned, but it got its first semi-official publication only, with the Tsar's direct permission, if it was printed as a part of Tolstoy's complete works...
The whole story's there in this Penguin Classics edition for anyone who wants to correct this part of the Wikipedia page... 2.27.99.187 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Authorities

Roosevelt had nothing to do with literary criticism, so I don't see why his opinion is notable. And I think that to the straw man by Chesterton other arguments by other writers & critics ought to be added, to keep balance. Though I assume that difference of approaches to literature in Russia and in Anglo-Saxon countries prevents mutual understanding, especially understanding by Anglo-Saxon critiques of Russian literature (because they have lesser incentive to be versed in it), still I think that adding more commentary is both useful for keeping spectre of opinions and more in line with principles of Wikipedia. - 92.100.164.235 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)