/lit/ - Literature

Just finished this and would love to have a discussion. Still chewing on it so would love input.
What do you think Dostoevsky was trying to communicate about consciousness? It seems to me that the protagonist is so quick to label everyone with mistrust that he doesn't realize how much of people mistreating him is entirely his own fault. He is so concerned with his theory of what consciousness is and what it truly means "to have advantage" that he misses every opportunity to solve his own issues. Obviously he's very lonely and the deeper he digs into himself the more he finds justification for his own brutishness which consequentially makes him even more brutish. The character is hard to pin down because of how full of contradictions he is. Its worth noting that on the very first page he notes that he needs a doctor but refuses to see one out of spite, literally harming himself even though he knows the spite won't do any good. He is so quick to convince himself that hes a terrible person that he ruins numerous chances where he could prove himself honorable by making others see him as awful.
What do you guys think though?

Whaddaya think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AodBQ2ElXxs

I know this is discussed frequently here, but I have no acquaintances that have read it and I'm curious about what /lit/ thinks of Part I. More specifically, what do you make of his differentiation between l'homme de la nature et de la vérité and men that are like mice? This discussion of the seeking of revenge was one of the most salient points for me. I was also intrigued by the idea that the conscious man can still seek pleasure in anything despite his overwhelming suffering. Furthermore, I enjoyed the anti-utilitarian/utopian remarks that man will still seek free will even if he has essentially a perfect life determined by scientific advancement and "tables." This thought also concerns the unclassifiable profits that the underground man proposes; profits aren't always rational and for the benefit of one's self; they can be irrational and seemingly futile but they can exist solely for the sake of free will and undermining the system. Sorry for this synopsis of sorts, I'm just trying to generate some discussion about the philosophical arguments of Part I. I just read this last night and found it very compelling.

So, is Notes from Underground the depressed beta male's bible?

>tfw a girl crawls out of bed to suck your dick on the floor after you've just buttfucked her, while you're sipping on a big mug of tea.

I finished Notes From the Underground, I loved it. It made me laugh and cry and cringe, and now I don't know what to do. What next?

Almost forgot I had an itunes copy of Notes from the Underground.

http://www.mediafire.com/?0eaarqaass9fyd2

Gotta dash off to work, but when I get home I'll start uploading The Brothers Karamazov piece by piece. It's fucking massive so it'll take a while. Hope you all enjoy these three in the meantime.

www.aldaily.com

Enjoy

I've read what I'm going to become. I now need a book to stop that happening.

So was he an aspie? is that the twist?

How hard is Dostoevsky to read?

This, I think.

>>1118748

Post your favorite depressing book.

This.
This fucking book.
In the EIGHTH GRADE.

Who assigns a thirteen year old this shit? I didn't even know what Existentialism was for fuck's sake. Think I made it about half way through before just giving up and taking the D (bs'd my way through report).
Looking back I now know it's because the teacher had a doctorate in lit but was stuck teaching Jr. High. Glad I moved the next year or might have gotten Don Quixote or some shit.

2+2=5

/lit/ what is the saddest or most emotionally vigorous book you've read? Pic related is mine, quite painfully emotional

All these threads suck.
Lets post what we are reading right now OK?
pic related.
It's really good.

I don't know of an author, dead or alive, who comes even close to as good as Dostoyevsky at examining human psychology from every angle; from the view of outsiders and from the self-portrayal. He really was one of a kind in creating pathetic characters that you love and despise at the same time.

What does /lit/ think of this book?

Just bought Notes from the Underground and The Brothers Karamazov. Which should I read first?

>First of all, with a name like "Fyodor Dostoyevsky" how in the world can a guy get published? Perhaps he shouldn't be. That is my opinion. Maybe Crime and Punishment was good, but Notes from the Underground is absolutely awful. To be completely honest, I haven't even gotten to Part 2 yet, but the book is like Johnny Got His Gun and Walden on speed (quoted directly from my English teacher). The main character in this book, the Underground Man, is no more than a coward who has time to write books on how he is much too intelligent to act in life. The first seventeen pages leave the reader with a migraine, and after that, it all goes downhill. By the end of the book, I'm almost positive that one will be half insane and screaming, "Twice two is four, but twice two equals five is charming." Do not waste your time reading this so-called "classic."