
Le Rouge et le Noir is a psychological novel in two volumes by Stendhal, published in 1830. It chronicles the attempts of a provincial young man to rise socially beyond his modest upbringing through a combination of talent, hard work, deception, and hypocrisy. He ultimately allows his passions to betray him.
> One is the depiction of desolation and human loneliness before the American continent was developed into a prosperous land.
Of course, classical European literature didn't focus on the American wilderness. Though the most famous book on this theme is probably Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. And I enjoyed T.E. Lawrence' Seven Pillars of Wisdom which most people know through the film; the Arabian desert was a good place for loneliness in the wilderness.
> Another is the pursuit of the American Dream, where people achieve success through relentless struggle.
Like wise, the American Dream is an American myth, which is rarely the focus outside of the USA. But searching success through relentless struggle is a frequent theme. For instance, Stendhal's Le rouge et le noir or Maupassant's Bel-ami. These are from two of the most famous classical French authors, but there are many novels about hard-working people that reach success.
> The third is what this novel expresses: what happens after success? Money and career cannot solve all problems; people need more to fill an entire life.
As you like Russian literature, I suppose you've read Goncharov's Oblomov and Chekov's theater, especially Uncle Vania. That theme is central in one of the most famous French novel, Flaubert's Madame Bovary. The excellent Italian writer Alberto Moravia also has many novels about this, the most famous being Il disprezzo and my favourite being Gli indifferenti. I also like D'Annunzio's Il piacere much more than The Great Gatsby. I would argue that variations of this theme are universal, with old writings like the Bibles's Qohelet and even more Sumer's Gilgamesh.
Gandalf Grey-cloaked whom you betrayed
That I was but am no more
Gandalf White-cloaked from Lethe's shore
That I am and you I'll fade
From the order, old and true
From the council, clearly keeping
Your force away, colour reaping
Saruman, your staff needs glue!
A crack was heard, a crack repeats
Like the Turk in "Gutsy Schwoaba"
Half his staff falls in lava
Half his staff at Gandalf's feet.
[TIL Kalavela (1835) was first published after Stendahl's Le Rouge et le Noir (1830)]Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW68oWV9uE4 (Did Stendahl not have enough spine for the blondes?)
English is English. Not everyobody is a native English speaker. For example, I'm a Greek speaker and very sorry that I've spoken mostly English in the last 15 years of my life while studying, living and working in the UK. I miss Greek. I like English, I speak it fluently (as I speak French fluently and Italian er, not fluently) but my language is Greek and there will never be a language that is mine, other than Greek.
So I want to speak about my work and about my studies and my interests in Greek to my Greek friends and my Greek family, when I go back home for the holidays etc. I hate it that everyone asks me what I do (I study for a PhD) and I have to struggle to translate the things I study from English to Greek, when there are no real Greek terms for what I'm trying to say and when all the translations feel wooden and artificial on my tongue.
While the list in the article is (mostly, apparently) a joke, while translating English terms of trade and science to other languages often yields ridiculous results, it is a slap in the face to be told that "English is a better language for this kind of thing than your languages". My language is mine, dammit. When I speak it, it sounds better than yours. But maybe English sounds better than Greek when you speak it? Well, I wouldn't take either observation as evidence that one language is better than the other- not for describing new concepts concisely, not for anything. That's just a misunderstanding of how human languages work.
And anyway, this bit: "English is concise and prone to imagery" is the hubris of someone who was never, as a child, subjected to the horror of reading Balzac. You want imagery? Try Le Rouge et Le Noir.
Or maybe don't try it. I'm not a fan. But don't say such extremely tone deaf things with such self-assurance, please.
Edit: Or do say them. I'm not trying to tell you what to say. I'm just protesting. Because this is the internets.