Talk:Samizdat
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please seeTalk:Censorship for a suggestion of a possible article onGovernment suppression of literature. --Sam
It is assumed that Bulgakov's novel was 'forbidden literature', but that may not necessarily be so. Every publication had to go through the official channels, but a novel or poem for which official publication was not sought, was not forbidden by the censors. It was not allowed by implication, but it canNOT be assumed that all self-published, Samizdat, material was submitted to and forbidden by the censors. It can be compared to today, where only one in a 1000 books written has a chance to be picked up by a publisher and those authors who do not bother to get into that queue, but self-publish instead, are not the authors of rejects. I am very much convinced that just as many of the samizdat authors did not not seek publishing approval for their work as today's authors self-publish because commercial publishing houses take on only miniscule portions of work written.144.139.61.904:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To comment onA rough translation would be something along the lines of "Passing on" or "Giving it amongst yourselves".:
I feel that this is quite wrong. Judging from slavic etymology,Samizdat would be quite directly traslated as "self-released" or "self-published" in a sense thatself refers tosole,him/her-self andindividual. Or to quote from American Heritage Dictionary: "Russian : sam, self; + izdatel'stvo, publishing house (from izdat', to publish,...)" -- Luka
Mikkalai removed category:Memetics as "irrelevant", but I don't see how that is so. A samizdat publication is all about propagating ideas from person to person in a "viral" manner like a chain letter on steroids. I'm putting it back, please elabourate here if anyone wants to remove it again.Bryan15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest.Facius11:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I addedSamizdat to [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]] because of this reference, which talks about organizations and people who predicted the Soviet Union would collapse:
Various essays published in samizdat in the early 1970s were on similar lines, some quite specifically predicting the end of the Soviet empire.
Laqueur, Walter (1996).The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195102827.{{cite book}}:Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors= (help) p. 188
Signed:Travb14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My late father Dr. Walter Gurski was CEO of an Osram company in Plauen, Saxony, in the Soviet Zone of Germany. From War's end to 1948 the factory operated under newly introduced communist rules and since 1948 he was adamant: 'Their system will go bankrupt, it must, no other way'. He was a physicist and mathematician, not an economist.121.209.49.104 (talk)05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please seeTalk:Underground_press#Undeground_press_in_other_contexts.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a mention of this use would fit in the similar phenomena section.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/books/31sali.html?emCarnydog (talk)21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current and growing self-publishing scene is quite similar to the samizdat scene of the late Soviet Union.
In the Soviet Union they wanted to disseminate what they thought and wanted. Samizdat works bypassed the censors and government owned publishers but were not all calling for the Soviets to abdicate. I remember reading that some were just to generate improvements, were full of aggessive humour, or came from the mentality 'I am not one to ask permission'. But some of it, of course, was opposing the system.
Today the publishing industry has really narrow parameters for the authors they publish (young, academics, been on TV, famous or infamous in one way or the other), so writers who are over 40, who haven't had the good fortune of a university education, and haven't been on TV, find their works rejected. I remember reading that someone's book was rejected with the argument that he was not famous or an academic, so they could not publish his book. They did not even want to know what the book was about. Those who are aware of these parameters, don't even bother to apply and bypass the publishing industry through self-publication.
Whether the writer is 'silenced' by the censor or the selection criteria of the publishing business comes out the same.
Samizdat was and is outside the mainstream, uncensored, mostly the true work of that individual.
In the Soviet Union, samizdat was handwritten, typed, or later photocopied; in today's computerized world, samizdat is typeset and available on the internet.
'Self-published' can often sound as if it had not been good enough for a publishing house, when the criteria mentioned above are actually the decisive factors, apart from the fact that a lot more is written, than can find a home in a publishinh house.
I think, the word samizdat should be used in English for the whole self-publishing scene.121.209.49.104 (talk)05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiLeaks reference seems inappropriate, intended to advertize WikiLeaks. I'm going to edit it to standard English, then delete it, then remove the flag I added to this page.KenThomas (talk)21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
\2602:63:C3E6:4400:DCF:952D:5F31:937C (talk)13:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nkrita: What kind of clarification (above the references onOpenwall Project) are you looking for? A google search for "Rabbi Manul Laphroaig" might help:google:Rabbi Manul Laphroaig. Or the file page on commons, I certainly didn't know if that's the title or the photographer (it's the title):c:File:PoC!!GTFO.jpg. Or the flickr album:POC!!GTFO. Or the first line onSolar Designer:"Alexander Peslyak (born 1977), better known as Solar Designer, is a security specialist from Russia. –Be..anyone💩12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sentences of the "Techniques" section is unequivocally false[1]:
"All Soviet-produced typewriters and printing devices were officially registered, with their typographic samples collected right at the factory and stored in the government directory. Because every typewriter has micro features which are individual as much as human fingerprints, it allowed the KGB investigators to promptly identify the device which was used to type or print the text in question, and apprehend its user."
However, I'm not sure what to replace it with. I'm curious if anyone has any ideas of how to clean this article up.
ChilledTonic (talk)18:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
"Our troubles are untranslatable, it is an untranslatable play on words. <...> As writers teach us, life and language go hand in hand. I would even say it's the same. And the untranslatable play on words here is an untranslatable play on deeds. <...> We have learned to understand such things that words have nothing to do with it at all!" (Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian writer-satirist Mikhail Zhvanetsky, 1986).Abbreviations (sometimes ugly and monstrous) were very popular in USSR. And therefore in USSR were popular abbreviated publisher names according to their specialization or geographical location: Politizdat (literally: "Politpub"), Stroyizdat ("Buildpub"), Voenizdat ("Militpub"), Lenizdat (from LENingrad), Rostovizdat (from ROSTOV-on-Don), Gidrometeoizdat ("Hydrometeopub"), Rosagropromizdat ("Rusagrarindustpub"), etc. There were few such publishers, but their books were everywhere. The name Samizdat (my literally translation: "Myselfpub") parodies this naming model. Also, in it I see irony over Soviet realities: a designation that sounds official, but under which you will find things that you cannot find in the official Soviet print.178.187.94.129 (talk)16:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "multiple copies of a single text would be simultaneously made on carbon paper or tissue paper". I understand well how to use carbon paper to make duplicates (not "on" but rather "through"). But how to usetissue paper to make duplicates? (On paper handkerchiefs, really?) Could please anyone who knows enlighten me? —MFH:Talk21:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article seems to read as an unapologetic endorsement of Samizdat literature.
While I personally think that Samizdat was cool I don't think quotes like onvixted for being nothing but a poet" matches the objective recounting of history that Wikipedia should strive forCAunty232 (talk)21:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
