/lit/ - Literature

>>22938846
read more Dostoevsky and listen to bach's cantatas, maybe it will work out for you. i tried and ALMOST succeeded but it was worth it anyways; anyways: https://youtu.be/ONE0s528hl0?si=DSZU0L5DOvhGeB6T

What are some of your favorite historical novels, /lit/?

>thinking of reading some Dostoevsky
>learn he was a Christcuck
Into the garbage it goes
Any alternatives?

>These are my Notes from The Underground

>>18882286
No.
>Dostoevsky, the only psychologist from whom I've anything to learn.

>>17002109
Nabokov, Vladimir. Dislike him. A cheap nihilist, insipid and foolhardy. A pied piper, pathological narcissist and a cloying moralist. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about writing competently in two languages seriously.
Lolita. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland."
Pale Fire. Dislike it intensely.
Invitation to a Beheading. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

>claims the Catholic church became corrupt because it accepted the Donation of Pepin
>conveniently leaves out the fact that the Byzantine emperors were the de facto heads of the Eastern Church
what did he mean by this?

I was thinking of reading Crime and Punishment, whats the best translation?

My main goal is to be able to read the greats like Dosotevesky, Nabokov, Chekhov in the original language.
I realize this will take at least 10 years.
My native language is English.

This is me. Literally me. No other character can come close to relating to me like this. There is no way you can convince me this is not me. This character could not possibly be anymore me. It's me, and nobody can convince me otherwise. If anyone approached me on the topic of this not possibly being me, then I immediately shut them down with overwhelming evidence that this character is me. This character is me, it is indisputable. Why anyone would try to argue that this character is not me is beyond me. If you held two pictures of me and this character side by side, you'd see no difference. I can safely look at this character every day and say "Yup, that's me". I can practically see this character every time I look at myself in the mirror. I go outside and people stop me to comment how similar I look and act to this character. I chuckle softly as I'm assured everyday this character is me in every way. I can smile each time I get out of bed every morning knowing that I've found my identity with this character and I know my place in this world. It's really quite funny how similar this character is to me, it's almost like we're identical twins. When I first saw this character, I had an existential crisis. What if this character was the real me and I was the fictional being. What if this character actual became aware of my existence? Did this character have the ability to become self aware itself?

Why do people hate on him?

"SINNERS could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this neighborhood before. There could be SINNERS everywhere." The cool wind felt good against his beard. "I HATE SINNERS" he thought. Cherubic Hymn no.7 reverberated his entire heart, making it pulsate even as the 566₽ vodka circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of atheists after dark. "With the power of God, you can go anywhere you want" he said to himself, out loud.

I've just started with The Double
Why is main character literally the same as in Notes from the Underground?

>as I lay there with my rags, I knew what was coming will be Crime and Punishment

Okay, I'm probably what you could call a STEM-fag who's looking to try literature.

For as long as I can remember, maths has been my only intellectual pursuit but I want to try and expand to the humanities. The problem is I really don't know where to begin. I am familiar with a few figures but only have a cursory knowledge of them. No real rigorous understanding.

So, in short, where and how do I begin?

What makes a book literature and what doesn't?

/lit/

What is the best translation of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime & Punishment?

Also is the book deserving of all its literature praise

I love him.

DUDE MOOD SWINGS LMAO

>Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously.
>The Double. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Gogol's "Nose."
>The Brothers Karamazov. Dislike it intensely.
>Crime and Punishment. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.
Agree or Disagree?

Can someone explain the appeal of this guy? For me, he is right up there with Pynchon in terms of being the pseudointellectuals' favoured writer.

I really loved Notes from the underground. But c&p, TBK, and the idiot have all been extremely boring melodramas filled with aimless conversations that are interspersed with half assed attempts at "insights".

I can easily see that, if you are a pseudointellectual who wants to look smart, it would be hard to pick a better author to worship than him. He wrote long books, made (half-assed) references to Christianity and Socialism within the prior 100 years of the Russian Revolution, his books are old. He is foreign in that freakish Russian way where us Westerners see them as their own weirdo civilisation. His books are translated in to English so if his writing is shit then that can be conveniently ignored. In conclusion, if you want to use books as launching pad for inane "literary analyses" that talk about women / Christianity / faith / Socialism in society, you are unlikely to find anything better.

He wrote about contemporary issues in a serialised format. Both of these attributes are more than enough reasons for pseudointellectuals to disregard books today but they give Dostoevsky a pass because he is foreign and over 100 years old.

There is an excruciating feeling I have while reading these types of books where, as I read the book, I am also imagining how the pseudointellectuals could claim that every little aspect is proof of Dostoevsky's "incredible psychological / philosophical / societal insight!".

Another aspect that pseuds abhor is "translating" the societal commentary to the present day. The pseuds make the two contradictory claims: Dostoevsky's books have huge timeless human insights AND any attempt to describe his insights in modern language is automatically wrong because Dostoevsky is so timeless, his characters are literally the platonic form of "humanity". So if I claim that, "Well clearly that female character is a Stacey who gets away with everything" I am assailed by the pseuds. "How DARE you use the genius, timeless insights to say anything about our times!" This is the pseud's disgust with our "vacuous" era.

But I don't want to complicate things. His books are boring.

Can someone explain the appeal of this guy? For me, he is right up there with Pynchon in terms of being the pseudointellectuals' favoured writer.

I really loved Notes from the underground. But c&p, TBK, and the idiot have all been extremely boring melodramas filled with aimless conversations that are interspersed with half assed attempts at "insights".

I can easily see that, if you are a pseudointellectual who wants to look smart, it would be hard to pick a better author to worship than him. He wrote long books, made (half-assed) references to Christianity and Socialism within the prior 100 years of the Russian Revolution, his books are old. He is foreign in that freakish Russian way where us Westerners see them as their own weirdo civilisation. His books are translated in to English so if his writing is shit then that can be conveniently ignored. In conclusion, if you want to use books as launching pad for inane "literary analyses" that talk about women / Christianity / faith / Socialism in society, you are unlikely to find anything better.

He wrote about contemporary issues in a serialised format. Both of these attributes are more than enough reasons for pseudointellectuals to disregard books today but they give Dostoevsky a pass because he is foreign and over 100 years old.

There is an excruciating feeling I have while reading these types of books where, as I read the book, I am also imagining how the pseudointellectuals could claim that every little aspect is proof of Dostoevsky's "incredible psychological / philosophical / societal insight!".

Another aspect that pseuds abhor is "translating" the societal commentary to the present day. The pseuds make the two contradictory claims: Dostoevsky's books have huge timeless human insights AND any attempt to describe his insights in modern language is automatically wrong because Dostoevsky is so timeless, his characters are literally the platonic form of "humanity". So if I claim that, "Well clearly that female character is a Stacey who gets away with everything" I am assailed by the pseuds. "How DARE you use the genius, timeless insights to say anything about our times!" This is the pseud's disgust with our "vacuous" era.

But I don't want to complicate things. His books are boring.

Can someone explain the appeal of this guy? For me, he is right up there with Pynchon in terms of being the pseudointellectuals' favoured writer.

I really loved Notes from the underground. But c&p, TBK, and the idiot have all been extremely boring melodramas filled with aimless conversations that are interspersed with half assed attempts at "insights".

I can easily see that, if you are a pseudointellectual who wants to look smart, it would be hard to pick a better author to worship than him. He wrote long books, made (half-assed) references to Christianity and Socialism within the prior 100 years of the Russian Revolution, his books are old. He is foreign in that freakish Russian way where us Westerners see them as their own weirdo civilisation. His books are translated in to English so if his writing is shit then that can be conveniently ignored. In conclusion, if you want to use books as launching pad for inane "literary analyses" that talk about women / Christianity / faith / Socialism in society, you are unlikely to find anything better.

He wrote about contemporary issues in a serialised format. Both of these attributes are more than enough reasons for pseudointellectuals to disregard books today but they give Dostoevsky a pass because he is foreign and over 100 years old.

There is an excruciating feeling I have while reading these types of books where, as I read the book, I am also imagining how the pseudointellectuals could claim that every little aspect is proof of Dostoevsky's "incredible psychological / philosophical / societal insight!".

Another aspect that pseuds abhor is "translating" the societal commentary to the present day. The pseuds make the two contradictory claims: Dostoevsky's books have huge timeless human insights AND any attempt to describe his insights in modern language is automatically wrong because Dostoevsky is so timeless, his characters are literally the platonic form of "humanity". So if I claim that, "Well clearly that female character is a Stacey who gets away with everything" I am assailed by the pseuds. "How DARE you use the genius, timeless insights to say anything about our times!" This is the pseud's disgust with our "vacuous" era.

But I don't want to complicate things. His books are boring.

In what order should I read through Dostoyevsky? I'm reading Crime and Punishment and have read white nights.