Talk:A. H. Tammsaare

Tõde ja õigus

I think the most popular is the first volume of Tõde ja õigus though the second one is popular too. I believe that more people have read the first volume than other volumes, as the first one has been required at school for long time. Besides, Andres and Pearu from the first volume are of archetypical significance for Estonians. Probably the first volume is the best one from the literary viewpoint. Andres 23:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, vol. 2 is the most "popular" in the sense of most "enjoyed" today, probably because it is the most funny and because many Estonians can relate to the school scenes somehow. But I agree that the phrasing as now is somewhat ambiguous; vol. 1 is of course wider read, and that is true internationally as well - partially also because it is the most self-contained novel. As regards the last two sentences, this is precisely what I said in the entry, no? Clossius 05:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you said more or less the same as my two last sentences. As to the "enjoyment", this is hard to say. I am inclined to think that the first volume is the most enjoyed one as well, and this is due to its intrinsic value, in spite of the old rural milieu unfamiliar to most people. In fact, the old school in volume 2 is more or less as unfamiliar, very unlike to the contemporary school. The rest you wrote is fine to me. Thank you!

There is actually a poll about that, as I recall, but I can't place it - I should check with the Eesti Instituut, because it was I think in ELM or some such place. I agree on the school, but I still think vol. 2 is more funny (or at least seen so), and the heaviness of vol. 1 (and the fact that it is read, i.m.o., by far too early in school!) prevents genuine affection, rather than respect. Clossius

I'm not sure about what you meant in the sentence mentioning censorship: what was combined with what? I made an edit but it may be wrong due to my misreading. Andres 07:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, I think this was rather clear; sorry if not so. The matter of fact is, the 1905 segments are on individual suffering, and therefore against - as in: not for! - the 1905 riots (and thus by implication the "Russian revolution"), manor burning, torture of manor owners, etc. It is clear that this is the reason why vols. 2 and 3 were combined, and this was justified with "artistic inferiority" of vol. 3. The problem is that this attitude still goes on, as too many literary scholars copycat earlier work (from Soviet times) - I won't speculate at this point about other literati who also mind this differentiated picture of 1905... Clossius 07:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Journey abroad"

Before 1918, Sochi and Tartu were part of the same country. He crossed no borders, ergo, there was no "journey abroad". --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Digwuren 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Name?

So many as I know, Anton Hansen maintained this name until his death. 'A. H. Tammsaare' (just so spelled! - all other variants as Anton Tammsaare, or Anton Hansen-Tammsaare are incorrect) is his pen-name. Tammsaare is name of his fathers farm. Peter Frisk

His writer's name is/was A. H. Tammsaare, not Anton Hansen Tammsaare - latter is a combination of his birth name and name of the father's farm. However, I cannot find a good source for this. Sander Säde 13:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have seen an Estonian literature textbook that mentioned it. Unfortunately, I've seen hundreds of textbooks on this topic, so this memory doesn't narrow it down enough. Digwuren 02:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked a friend who works at the A.H. Tammsaare museum in Estonia, and she confirmed that Anton Hansen is his name, and A.H. Tammsaare is his pen name. I'll be renaming the Italian article for this very reason.

--Lou Crazy (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

File:A. H. Tamsaare.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A. H. Tamsaare.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)