Talk:Molvanîa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Move the article 2 Molvania tells the truth 3 The truth indeed 4 Lighten up! They're all going to be like this 5 Agreed 6 Taking it too seriously

[edit] Move the article

The book is called Molvania, and always references the country as Molvania - the accent/grave is only used on the title cover. — mæstro ^t/c 11:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What sort of dipshit files a lawsuit when they find out that a fictional nation, which the book they've been reading has described as the closest thing to hell on Earth, really is fictional? I think that bit must be a joke. It out to be cut out. I've been reading the actual book, and I have to tell you that I'm glad there's no place that's actually as bad as it describes, even as I laugh my fool head off.
Wareq

• Agreed - until somebody provides a source for the lawsuit claim, I'm treating it as an urban legend. Captainmax 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Could they have assumed Moldavia? That is how in English the former Soviet republic was known before the way its known today, Moldova. Moldavia-Molvania can look the same on first glance. Celtmist 9-10-05

In English, Moldavia is the Romanian part of Moldova, which has the historical continuity and the nucleas land. Moldova is the now independent republic. In Romanian, the name Moldova is used for both regions. --Candide, or Optimism 12:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The authors of this book try hard to be satirical yet instead, only look stupid. The purpose of writing any travel book is to site observations where-as these authors did nothing but display ignorance. For example: Two types of architecture, ancient ruins from the Roman Empire and Soviet style communist tower blocks complete with their non-reinforced concrete. The joke is, Rome is associated with splendour whilst soviet communism paints a grim picture. Indeed this is how people in the 'West' including myself were systematicly tought to look at Eastern Europe. But whilst it emerges that some eastern European countries did BETTER for themselves under the socialist regime, one can hardly say that life is all beauty in South America and Central Asia in many of the countries which had 'pro-west/anti-Moscow' governments. I first visited Bulgaria in 1986 and was shocked. Shocked at how clean the streets of Sofia were, shocked at the scrict policy towards litter-bugs (people who throw garbage). I was amazed how natural the life was, how people knew how to enjoy themselves and make the most of what they had whilst a few corrupt individuals, anticipating the end of the Socialist rule, are preparing to corrupt the nation and cause the collapse of President Zhivkov. Ask todays Bulgarians how much better 'capitalism' is. I'll say nothing, they'll do the talking here. I do not say that life was great for all countries at all times in socialism. The beauties of Roman architecture. where in the world we still have ruins from a bygone era, can anyone tell me which is ugly? Which works of human cultural achievement are unsightly from before the 20th century? It seems everything is beautiful. At the same time, what 'nice' work is there in the aftermath of World war II? Plain basic, box shaped buildings. Was it only Soviet states which developed a taste for this luxury? I should be a tour guide, showing the authors of Molvania the miles and miles of post-war crumbling, dirty, apocalyptic concrete that composes Londons east-end (and much of the rest of London), but here in Plaistow where I live in particular, or try Tower Hamlets. Please remind me when London was under Soviet rule; atleast in Romania and Poland these buildings were in straight lines, with shops, trade, sport centres, flower shops etc along the bottom rows, with people sitting outside having a beer, or a coffee, or lunch etc. I lived in Brooklyn, new York in the early 80s, what did they have? Torn cinemas, lines of prostitutes, drinking houses desinged for nightly brawls. I returned to visit my cousins in Brooklyn in 2003 and it seems they still love their 'Soviet style buildings'. Even Paris has not escaped post-war concrete, nor Rome, nor Munich. The reason it is more apparent in central (sorry, 'Eastern') Europe is that being the venue for WWII there was so much damage and immediate demand to rehouse millions of people in such a short time. London was the same, hence my flat here on the 18th floor overlooking west Ham Uniteds Upton Park. But I still don't understand why they had to pick on Eastern Europe. Could it not have been a pro-fascist state during WWII with a puppet 'capitalism' regime? One praised by Washington whilst a 'moderate' dictator uses military control to prevent uprisings by the residents who wish to re-nationalize the natural resources and stop the profits lining the pockets of Western Business Giants whilst the poor population sweats to earn next to nothing? For such an 'experienced' group of authors and yet they have never come accross this kind of thing. How good were Portugal and Spain for the first three decades after World War II? The book was promising but so much more could have been done to even the balance, thus ridicule the stereotypes rather than promote them. AlfredG aug'13'2005

What the hell are you talking about? TheOne

[edit] Molvania tells the truth

I lived for two years in Prague, and I did not meet a single person who said things were better in the old days. In 40 years of Communism, the government did not make a single quality women's sanitary product or sheet of decent toilet paper. You couldn't get fresh fruit in the winter, and getting bananas meant traveling across town and waiting in line for half an hour. Apartment buildings would go without hot water for a month every summer. People horded goods because no one knew what there would be a shortage of next. People were jailed for playing rock and roll music [1] or for signing a petition calling on the government to respect its human-rights obligations. Religion was supressed -- the Communists destroyed Bratislava's synagogue. Hundreds of people were shot trying to leave the country.

That's why Czechs and Slovaks are among the most-vocal opponents of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba. Only Westerners who never had to live under Communism can say it wasn't so bad.

Of course, there's a lot of problems with the rest of the world. Crap Towns, a book about the worst places to live in the UK, is a lot of fun, as a similar book about the US would be. But 40 years of Communism undoubtedly left a scar on the former Soviet Bloc that will take decades to heal. Mwalcoff 07:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe all of these losers who wear che guavera tshirts should find out what its like to live in a real 'socialist paradise' Ikfaldu Dod 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me to think people believe now that "Communism wasn't so bad..." but tell me, if it was so good then why:

- did it result in people emigrating from Communist governments? - did it culminate in barbarism unparalelled since WWII in the form of the Khmer Rouge?? Everton4Life

[edit] The truth indeed

It wasn't my purpose to introduce a political theme here but I have to say something in response to the above observation by the user Mwalcoff: I never did for one minute suggest that the period under socialism (for that is what it was, not communism) was by any means a Golden Age for the countries to have experienced it. I know for a fact that many countries today feel that times were a lot worse. The two former republics which composed Czechoslovakia are an example. I don't know about Slovakia so much, their economy deteriorated severely for the next few years after 1993 regardless what Lonely Planet writers and U.S State Department statistics reveal, this is something you have to take from me and believe it; the Czech Republic and Hungary claim that life is now better and that is their choice. I go to Budapest quite often and life doesn't look that lovely to me even now - the fact is that Eastern Europe as a stigma, as it were, predates 20th century socialism. It just happens that the western side of the continent is in fact on the whole more developed than its east. But back to my point, I know Romania and Bulgaria very well now. I can also say that I knew these countries at least towards the end of their socialism period, that is to say that I did visit Romania three times whilst Ciausescu was president and Bulgaria about four times when Todor Zhivkov was in power. Life WAS comfortable for the masses, save for propoganda being spat from hidden corners by their political opponents - I am not praising Zhivkov for his democratic visions. But there can be no question that for most Bulgarians, life was better before and this includes the former Turks (ethnic Turks forced to relinquish their identity and become Slav-Bulgarians). Where-as you could have left your doors unlocked all night, slept on the streets etc, you soon developed a system where there were bandits robbing cars whilst people were driving them and now the Police will pick you up and fine you for sleeping out in the open. And whatever you say, in an age where people are supposed to be now better informed about the realities of life outside their sheltered homes, this book comes along and opens a whole new can of worms. Just as people begin to visit these countries to learn that things were not quite as bad as they have been shown, here comes a book that makes a joke on the principles that it is worse than is humanly possible. Try writing a book about a forgotten Scandinavian kingdom, descended from Vikings, a seafaring nation, an early member of the EEC - the joke wouldn't stretch would it? These former republics in socialism would have been poorer than the rest of Europe (on the whole) whether they had socialist governments or not - it is only a matter of distribution of ownership, the rest of it has nothing to do with the actual system - there are dictatorships around the world in pure capitalist societies where one isn't only shot trying the leave the country, but is shot for hoping to STAY in the country. At the same time, there was Yugoslavia, now although Yugoslavia was rather excluded from Eastern Europe for those 40 or so years (not a memember of Comecon, the the Bloc etc), Josef Broz (Tito) still allined himself to the economical east and the system in Yugoslavia was very similar to the rest of Eastern Europe. Yet the northernmost republic of Slovenia still boasted a standard of living equal to that of neighbouring Austria (by 1989 it was claimed that life had infact emulated Austria and Italy's north). I went to Slovenia as late as this year (May 2005) and I can say that the country is very beautiful as it is far ahead of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, however not better than Austria. Of course, if socialism was the guilty cause of Slovenia not developing even more, perhaps now they'd boast a standard of living better than the Swiss. The Czech Republic has moved forward since independence, but so too have Norway, Canada, Australia and Belgium - all western nations have moved forward and so the position of most of eastern Europe remains what it was in relation to the rest of the world. Two things to top this off, Prague and its people represent a minor elite within the former socialist block, they may have always been opposed to the system - according to people in Slovakia, the Prague residents never did much to try to make the old system work but in any case, try more rural areas of the Czech Republic, they may not have been very sympathetic towards Moscow since the 1968 failed uprisings but they are certainly not throwing parties and rallying around the flag in the country's marvelous achievements since 1993, unemployment as never seen before, crime as neevr seen before, poverty as socialism never permitted. By the way, it might be worth me saying that my wife was born in present day Czech Republic. Finally, we are concentrating on one area whereby the book focuses on all areas of general ignorance, such as the Balkan-7 conference which Molvania is said to have joined: a confederation of landlocked states. Landlocked states indeed, the Balkan is just a peninsula, nowadays used to mean the former Yugoslavia but actually discludes Slovenia and much of northern Croatia but incorporates Albania, Bulgaria and Greece as well as the European part of Turkey. But lets be 'Molvanian stereotypes' and say that the Balkan is all of Eastern Europe. The joke is that since so many countries have broken away, many have no access to the sea. In the Balkan, I count one such example, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Though Serbia does not have sea access, it remains a constituent republic within Serbia & Montenegro, and her sister republic Montenegro does have over 100 kilometres of access to the Adriatic. Bosnia on creation (in post-WWII Yugoslavia) was granted 5km of sea access covering the port town of Neum, little it may be but none-the-less discludes it from being landlocked. So apart from Moldova, the Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary and Belarus, the rest of the Eastern European countries, even the newly formed ones, all have sea access. I guess Molvania would make seven there. But outside of the former Soviet Block we have Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, The Vatican, Luxembourg, Austria and Switzerland - a real 7 without the fictional creation. What do you think about that? I'll leave anyone to get back at me and I'll respond in the near future. user:AlfredG

[edit] Lighten up! They're all going to be like this

This discussion is way off-topic. Granted Molvania is an uncharitable depiction of Eastern Europe, and doubtless Phaic Tan might cause offence to people in Southeast Asia, but judging by the locations of other fictitious countries that the authors have, nowhere (except North America) is going to be immune from ridicule or scorn. 'Pfaffländ' is set in Scandinavia - will we have people indignant about the depiction that part of the world too?

I find both Lonely Planet and Rough Guides written by self-important windbags - it's nice to see someone deflate the likes of them! Quiensabe 2005-08-29 05:41 UTC

I dunno if they'll make Pfaffländ, its just one of those fake books mentioned to make Jetlag Travel Guides more authentic. On they other hand, they've made San Sombrèro (mentioned at the back of Molvania) into the third book.--Greasysteve13 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point of Jetlag travel guides here. They're not meant to ridicule any country or region, but rather ridicule the travel guide genre. It's true that they take probably the worst cliches about the regions concerned (Eastern Europe, South-East Asia, Central America) and greatly exaggerate them- of course the more cynical amongst us will say that everything has a certain element of truth to it. --Everton4Life

[edit] Agreed

All right, you win Quinsabe, but only because I like your last remark. Lonely Planet authors being windbags, that is true. But back to the original topic, the book 'Molvania' - my other main critisizm is that it is generally all the same, all the way through it is a sequence of clauses followed by a punchline as it were. They don't vary in length, it's like 1-2-3-4-Punchline, 1-2-3-4-Punchline, right the way through. User:AlfredG 29-08-05

I think you're taking this way to seriously. It's parody. It's satire. It's ruthless. It's funny. — mæstro ^t/c 14:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taking it too seriously

The comments here are too much! The book is a send up of travel books and their formulaic ways of appearing to provide vague facts and info about the country, trying to describe complex societies in one paragraph and inevitably failing, and dredging up ancient customs and presenting them as if they are still common in the modern world when obviously they wouldn't be. I assumed the name Molvanîa was inspired by Moldavia in Dynasty (TV series). In the Doctor and the Medics video for their cover of Waterloo the country Moldavia (or soemthing very similar) is on the Eurovision Song Contest voting panel. Asa01 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)