Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* WhatDoYouMeanItsNotSymbolic: ''Internal'' example: Griboyedov arrives in Tehran on the beginning of the Islamic month Muharram, the first ten days of which are associated in Shi'a Islam with mourning the martyrdom of Imam Husayn ibn Ali. The man responsible for Ali's death, Umar ibn Sa'ad, infamously rode into Karbala on a black horse. Then: [[ChekhovsGun "Vazir-Mukhtar entered the city on a black horse."]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* UnintentionallySympathetic: Tynyanov's psychological writing style and the [[GreyAndGreyMorality gray morality]] of the novel lend themselves to fairly sympathetic interpretations of characters who initially seem like they might be simple strawmen and/or are traditionally treated rather negatively by historical memory and historiographical tradition. Bulgarin (traditionally vilified in Russian literary history courtesy of Pushkin) might be this, though he is clearly somewhat sympathetic from Griboyedov's point of view as well. General Paskevich might just be the ultimate example of this though, as despite initially seeming like an idiot and a GeneralFailure, he is later revealed to be a competent, intelligent (if not BookSmart) commander who was thrust into a position of authority and then routinely mocked and slandered by everyone for not being a genius (and despite still being objectively much more successful than Yermolov, "a great general who never had a single victory", and clearly not just because of his supposedly [[HypercompetentSidekick hypercompetent subordinates]] - it is mentioned that being an admittedly lousy strategist actually made him a master of the IndyPloy, and beside that he ''is'' good with things like tactics and organisation). In fact, his seeming PlagueOfGoodFortune makes things even worse, as no matter what he achieves, people just call him incredibly lucky rather than talented in any way. Who wouldn't become a resenter?
to:
* OneSceneWonder: As mentioned, there are plenty of interesting, well-written characters like Senkovsky or Yermolov who only appear once or twice in the book (though Yermolov has a slightly bigger role in another one of Tynyanov's historical novels).
* UnintentionallySympathetic: Tynyanov's psychological writing style and the [[GreyAndGreyMorality gray morality]] of the novel lend themselves to fairly sympathetic interpretations of characters who initially seem like they might be simple strawmen and/or are traditionally treated rather negatively by historical memory and historiographical tradition. Bulgarin (traditionally vilified in Russian literary history courtesy of Pushkin) might be this, though he is clearly somewhat sympathetic from Griboyedov's point of view as well. General Paskevich might just be the ultimate example of this though, as despite initially seeming like an idiot and a GeneralFailure, he is later revealed to be a competent, intelligent (if not BookSmart) commander who was thrust into a position of authority and then routinely mocked and slandered by everyone for not being a genius (and despite still being objectively much more successful than Yermolov, "a great general who never had a single victory", and clearly not just because of his supposedly [[HypercompetentSidekick hypercompetent subordinates]] - it is mentioned that being an admittedly lousy strategist actually made him a master of the IndyPloy, and beside that he ''is'' good with things like tactics andorganisation).organization). In fact, his seeming PlagueOfGoodFortune makes things even worse, as no matter what he achieves, people just call him incredibly lucky rather than talented in any way. Who wouldn't become a resenter?
* UnintentionallySympathetic: Tynyanov's psychological writing style and the [[GreyAndGreyMorality gray morality]] of the novel lend themselves to fairly sympathetic interpretations of characters who initially seem like they might be simple strawmen and/or are traditionally treated rather negatively by historical memory and historiographical tradition. Bulgarin (traditionally vilified in Russian literary history courtesy of Pushkin) might be this, though he is clearly somewhat sympathetic from Griboyedov's point of view as well. General Paskevich might just be the ultimate example of this though, as despite initially seeming like an idiot and a GeneralFailure, he is later revealed to be a competent, intelligent (if not BookSmart) commander who was thrust into a position of authority and then routinely mocked and slandered by everyone for not being a genius (and despite still being objectively much more successful than Yermolov, "a great general who never had a single victory", and clearly not just because of his supposedly [[HypercompetentSidekick hypercompetent subordinates]] - it is mentioned that being an admittedly lousy strategist actually made him a master of the IndyPloy, and beside that he ''is'' good with things like tactics and
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* UnintentionallySympathetic: Tynyanov's psychological writing style and the [[GreyAndGreyMorality gray morality]] of the novel lend themselves to fairly sympathetic interpretations of characters who initially seem like they might be simple strawmen and/or are traditionally treated rather negatively by historical memory and historiographical tradition. Bulgarin (traditionally vilified in Russian literary history courtesy of Pushkin) might be this, though he is clearly somewhat sympathetic from Griboyedov's point of view as well. General Paskevich might just be the ultimate example of this though, as despite initially seeming like an idiot and a GeneralFailure, he is later revealed to be a competent, intelligent (if not BookSmart) commander who was thrust into a position of authority and then routinely mocked and slandered by everyone for not being a genius (and despite still being objectively much more successful than Yermolov, "a great general who never had a single victory", and clearly not just because of his supposedly [[HypercompetentSidekick hypercompetent subordinates]] - it is mentioned that being an admittedly lousy strategist actually made him a master of the IndyPloy, and beside that he ''is'' good with things like tactics and organisation). In fact, his seeming PlagueOfGoodFortune makes things even worse, as no matter what he achieves, people just call him incredibly lucky rather than talented in any way. Who wouldn't become a resenter?
