/lit/ - Literature

>>13380919
That is an issue in the translation mostly. Look up some newer versions

>>13380919
That's what you get for reading a translation, dumbo.

>>13380919
>but it's all substance, no style
No, it’s all philosophy, no novel. And he’s a basic bitch Christian moralist. So what is he really worth?
We don’t know what the characters look like because they’re shallow mouthpieces for unconvincing didacticism. We don’t know what the weather is like because it doesn’t matter, this is the land of lukewarm takes and saccharine sentimentalism—the former gray and vaguely putrid, the latter a steaming, bubbling hot pink of nauseating sweetness.

>>13380937
t. hasn't read the book

let me guess, you're reading p & v

>>13380939
Correct. I’ve read half of the Idiot, half of Crime and Punishment and a quarter of Karamazov. I don’t continue reading books that viscerally repulse me. Let me know when you have a response to the critiques I raised.

>>13380937
>We don’t know what the weather is like because it doesn’t matter
But it actually doesn't.

>>13380950
Ok, Mr. "I'm too good for Dostoyevsky."

>>13380950
What critiques? You didn't even read the fucking thing. All you complained about was character descriptions and the weather (which are actually in Dostoyevskys work)

>>13380937
What's your favorite novel?

>>13380953
In philosophy, in fiction such details are necessary for maximum aesthetic impact.
>>13380965
>What critiques? You didn't even read the fucking thing
Probably the critiques I made that you responded to with indignance. Just a guess.
I read enough to make the critiques I made (but of course you can have no idea what I mean by that!) You don’t have to read an entire book to have problems with it. Having problems with it is why you put it down. You’re only harping on this because you mistakenly believe you’re bigbrained for reading them and therefore superior in this convo by default. Sorry, no. You have to express yourself.
>All you complained about was character descriptions and the weather (which are actually in Dostoyevskys work)
The first part isn’t true and the second part is so embarassingly not true that now I doubt you’ve even read him, which explains why you can’t respond to my critiques and why you’re posturing so hard. It’s wellknown that he disdained these things. I mean you’re objectively wrong here. Anyone with his book at hand can open it and see. Yikes!

>>13380973
Anna Karenina

>>13380984
> I mean you’re objectively wrong here
I'm not, Crime and Punishment literally opens with a description of the weather, and then two paragraphs later we get our description of raskolnikov

>>13380989
>Anna Karenina
It had to be.

>>13380937
>we don't know what the characters look like
Fyodor Pavlovich's face and rotting teeth is one of the most shocking descriptions at the start of the novel, and other characters like Zosima also have their features described

>unconvincing didacticism
Sorry this isn't Tolstoy. Read Bakhtin and you'll be able to appreciate TBK for all the views which are never entirely refuted even after the end, the convincing challenge to Christianity, and the layers of philosophical/religious struggle/contradiction starting from inside each character. A didactic work wouldn't make the moral center of the work (Zosima) so close in appearance, lifestyle (indulging in sweets and other worldly things), and philosophy (pagan/orthodox syncretism venerating mother earth and her fruits) to the most loathsome figure ie. Fyodor Pavlovich. You'll find didactic aspects in Dostoevsky's other works maybe, but TBK is a masterpiece because nothing is resolved for good.

>>13381001
?? Oh yeah it “had to be”, yeah the novel widely regarded as the very greatest, wow can you imagine ayone would even bother!
You would have come with a supercilious response literally no matter what I said because you’re not only intellectually dishonest, but, more importantly, intellectually insecure. You’re really posturing like Anna Karenina is embarassing. Cope less obviously.

>>13381000
I’m not saying he doesn’t drop a word or two of detail per book. He does. Correct. But beyond that the majority of his characters exist in a hazy and undefined scene of zero weather. This is the case the vast majority of the time. You successfully listed a couple exceptions out of his hundreds of thousands of words. You’re missing the forest for the trees.
>in a sense Dostoyevsky is much too rational in his crude methods, and his facts are but spiritual facts and his characters mere ideas in the likeness of people
~Nabokov, to close with

>>13380953

>>13381027
Yikes

>>13381045
>Dostoevsky doesn’t mention what the characters look like or the weather
“Here are specific examples of him mentioning what the characters look like and what the weather is”
>NO THOSE DON’T COUNT BECAUSE REASONS

>>13380950
So this is the power of "free thinkers" completely telling on the opinions of others unable to even read a book.

Dosto is less about prose and more about characters and ideas.

>>13381045
>
I’m not saying he doesn’t drop a word or two of detail per book. He does. Correct. But beyond that the majority of his characters exist in a hazy and undefined scene of zero weather.

Are you a fucking weatherman? I’ve never heard of someone wanting to know so much about the weather in book. LOL here are these ideas “yes but was it sunny!?”

>>13381045
Nabokov was a trash writer

>>13380950
Try Notes. It's shorter. Not even being unironically ironic. You might like it.

>>13381027
It’s not widely regarded as the greatest. TBK is.

>>13380919
Because its not a finished work

>>13380937
How is Dostoyevsky writing not dialectic? Read The Grand Inquisitor.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov/Book_V/Chapter_5

>>13380950
t.Mary Ann Williamson

It's OK, girlfriend. I'll just call Dosto and tell him you don't like his work. I gotta get my nails done first. TA!

>>13381287
I think we’re both aware at this point that you’re in over your head. Greentext more, copetard.

>>13380950
>>13380937
Your critiques mean nothing because you were biased against this "basic bitch Christian moralist" from the get-go. And your way of writing is unbearable- try to have something more meaningful to say instead of using flowery words

Think about it like this- if I was an atheist, I'd probably hate the Bible before reading it and even after reading a quarter or a half

>>13380937
Crime and punishment:

>we don't know what the characters look like
Raskolnikov- "He was, by the way, exceptionally handsome, above the average in height, slim, well-built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown hair" (page 2).

What a shame it is to read half of a book and forget the first two pages

>we don't know what the weather looks like
"On an exceptionally hot evening early in July" (page 1)

>>13382391
Not only that. He’s also described in conjunction with his sister.

>reading a translation
>complains about the prose

>>13380950
>>13380984

>critique

You mean when you suddenly personified that annoying creative writing student who does nothing but throw pretty words with empty meaning to impress his teacher?

For fuck's sake, do you really believe calling something "gray and vaguely putrid, the latter a steaming, bubbling hot pink of nauseating sweetness" is worth responding to?

Best dosto translations?

>>13380937
>he’s a basic bitch Christian moralist
I would have liked Dostoevsky if he was a basic bitch moralist. Crime and Punishment was 600 insufferable pages that I couldn't appreciate the moralism in the 10 pages at the end.

>>13381027
I don't get why people think that because this is the literature board everyone needs to speak like a living thesaurus. "Supercilious, intellectually dishonest/insecure"- who speaks like this? And to top it all off, you use "cope." For shame, anon. For shame

>>13380984
>in bk dostoyevsky uses rain as a framing device for dmitri's crazy stunts, with rain and clear skies playing a big part in the drama of the murder
>also the cold and snow are vividly described and play a key part in the later events of the story
>after zosima dies and alyosha has his epiphany, the clearness of the sky and the warmth of the night are key points
Confirmed for not even reading a quarter

>>13380919
>>13381045
Then what the fuck are you saying you mongoloid

In crime and punishment, he literally describes most of st petersburg , the streets, the apartments, the dingy taverns, the barbershop?the neva, the little neva. You get detailed character descriptions. and weather, think of when he kissed ground. or dont because you clearly didn't fucking read it, you should just stop. literally just fucking stop man, how can you claim, its all substance no style? is style fucking describing the fucking weather? Jesus fuck kill yourself this thread is cringe

>>13384217
I think i got OP and weather man confused but my point stands.

>>13380937
>>13380984
This guy seems like a atheist English major, or a major faggot,

>>13381045
What the fuck do you expect, every 3rd or 4th paragraph to be entirely dedicated to every detail of the surroundings, the weather, the character's appearance? That would be just horrid to read through, it reminds me of all the clothing descriptions from "My Immortal".

>>13382669
Can someone answer this? Dostoevsky wrote some of the best novels and it's a shame /lit/ can't come to a consensus. Please answer only if you've actually read the complete book. ALL OF IT.

>>13384811
>What the fuck do you expect, every 3rd or 4th paragraph to be entirely dedicated to every detail of the surroundings, the weather, the character's appearance?
Pay more attention when you read, this how most great literature is written. Find a page of Anna Karenina where not one of details of the setting or the characters’ appearances aren’t mentioned in abundance. One page.

>>13382692
What an embarassing post, you’re actually mad at somebody else for not understand a word they used. You tried to group “intellectually dishonest” in with it as if that’s an uncommon phrase to cover up the fact that “supercilious” befuddled you lmao. I hate people.

>>13384867
Ive read the signet classic's translation, of crime and punishment, I thought it was a good translation.

>>13382519
>For fuck's sake, do you really believe calling something "gray and vaguely putrid, the latter a steaming, bubbling hot pink of nauseating sweetness" is worth responding to?
If that was all I said, no, absolutely not. Fortunately it was the halfironic tailend of a larger post.
Stop with the ad hominem and the semantics wars, either respond to the critiques or stop wasting space.

>>13384893
Thank You.

I'll make a chart if i get enough replies.

>>13382368
>Your critiques mean nothing because you were biased against this "basic bitch Christian moralist" from the get-go.
>Think about it like this- if I was an atheist, I'd probably hate the Bible before reading it and even after reading a quarter or a half
Yeah that’d make things simpler for you, unfortunately for you I’m Catholic.

>>13384902
A chart of C&P translations?

>>13382391
It was already acknowledged that there are exceptions to the rule. You’ve just referenced those exact same exceptions as if you’ve mad a profound point.

>>13384897
what critiques? please enlighten us, your big words dont impress anyone, only cementing you as a pseud who hasn't read Dostoevsky fully and probably don't know the first thing about him, besides the web search, you did before this post. who are you trying to impress? its pathetic.

>>13384911
Thier are tons of examples you retard, in the idiot which you have "read" half of, do you not recall the scene when the prince is being followed by Rogozhin and almost gets fucking killed?

It's almost like the novel isn't actually the best format in which to express complex and nuanced philosophical ideas

>>13384930
K, you tried. More vacuous ad hominem in response to the post calling you out for vacuous ad hominem. Just post a white flag next time.
>>13384938
>Thier are tons of examples you retard
No, no there aren’t. You’re not grasping that there’s a difference between a writer who uses detail extremely sparsely to make room for “philosophy” and the superior writers who use it richly on every page for maximum aesthetic impact. You continue referencing the rare moment that detail is used without grasping the point.

>>13384952
Because your critique is unclear? and only talking about weather descriptions. And character descriptions dont matter that much eather, because in his novels its what the stand for is what important, what ideals they represent, his books arent meant to be a beautiful prose filled book with details at every corner. can you give a example of a author who does this?

>>13384973
*characters stand for

>>13384973
>because in his novels its what the stand for is what important, what ideals they represent, his books arent meant to be a beautiful prose filled book with details at every corner
Correct, that’s my problem with him. And that’s what everyone in this thread is erroneously protesting as if it’s not true. We’re starting to make headway.
>can you give a example of a author who does this?
Any major writer you can think of not named Dostoevsky uses detail to its fullest potential. That’s the point.
An example of a writer that is successfully both philosopher and novelist is de Sade. He doesn’t skimp on detail by any means, yet his philosophy is central. I disagree with his philosophy but it’s an example of what Dostoevsky tried to do and failed.

>>13384993
You might be the only one that thinks he failed, he still uses detail, but its the monologues and charter dialogues that are way more important and are the central ideas of his novels, even then read crime and punishment, and then come back, HE LITERALLY DESCRIBES THE WHOLE FUCKING CITY DUDE. and the faces and drunks he passes, you clearly have a biast here. "Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist, more that guass!" "The only psychologist whom i have anything to learn from" neetche" and virgina woolf said out side of Shakespeare he is the most exciting read.
I dont think he failed at anything dude

>>13384952
>maximum aesthetic impact
Get_a_load_of_this_guy_cam.jpg

>>13385056
?? There’s no other way to put it, if you’re unironically whining about intelligent conversation consider yourself a confirmed fucking retard. Nitpicking bitch.

>>13385045
>You might be the only one that thinks he failed
>and virgina woolf said out side of Shakespeare he is the most exciting read.
Nope, Nabokov did too, among others, if we’re appealing to authority now. And Nabokov’s opinion is more significant than Woolf’s.
>Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist, more that guass!" "The only psychologist whom i have anything to learn from" neetche"
Then he should have been a psychologist.
>HE LITERALLY DESCRIBES THE WHOLE FUCKING CITY DUDE.
Still missing the point, not going to repeat myself a sixth time. Either youvet it or you don’t, at this point.

>>13385073
>look at me i’m so smart because I argue on /lit/ that EVERY FICTION WRITER to deliver on “aesthetic impact”
Hang yourself, you have a shit conception of what a novel should consist of

>>13385105
Should*

Can you make a good argument with out referencing Nabokov? Okay Nabokov isn't even top 10 in the English language. the science quote was from Eisenstein btw. You have read quarters of 3 of his novels what makes you think you have the authority to judge it? and then be hypocritical by calling me out by using authority, then right after "WELL WELL NABOKOV DOESN'T AGREE!!" yet again you crituque is very vague and unclear, and just complaining about MUH DESCRIPTIONS. like what the actual fuck do you want? Maybe he should of been a psychologist, but are you saying they cant write novels? imbecilic with a big vocabulary continues to embarrass himself.

>>13385119
>>13385087
*imbecile

>>13385119
>bubbling steamy hot pink sweetness
Not really a big vocabullary, maybe troll

>>13385119
Not whoever it is you're responding to but discussions of literature on /lit/ usually consist of 2 or 3 MFA students namedropping the same 10-20 19th or 20th century novelists and saying what they thought about each other. It's really not worth getting worked up. This is the only way most people here are capable of dealing with any academic discipline.

>>13385105
>>>look at me i’m so smart because I argue on /lit/ that EVERY FICTION WRITER to deliver on “aesthetic impact”
The fact that you think the words “aesthetic impact” are worth hooting over you says it all. It’s not a phrase that anyone would glance at twice. But you did. And you’re triggered as hell. Because you’re a stupid bitch with nothing to add to this conversation. You came out of nowhere frothingly aggro for literally no good reason. Because you’re out of your league but want to participate and feel smart.

>>13385130
Yah, it just amazed me how someone can claim that he is shit, when they have read maybe 10% of his works. and then just refrence other people opinions. it isnt worth getting worked up, your right but is this kid capable of independent thought? is all academia like this? ive thought of going to uni but im highly re contemplating..

>>13385119
... I referenced Nabokov again in response to you referencing other writers... so you can do it but I can’t? Or is it more of a case of you being wrong and very mad about it?

>>13385119
... I referenced Nabokov again in response to you referencing other writers yourself... in the context of telling me that I was the “only” one who thought Dostoevsky failed. So you can do it but I can’t?

>>13385171
I reference quotes, and you already referenced him. and he notoriously didn't like Dostoevsky, so what a surprise. How am i wrong you haven't provided a correct refutation? where I have provided many.

>>13385130
I’m not a uni student and I’ve already said about that quote that I was being halfironic. Lots of ad hominem from someone who postures like a bona fide intellectual.
>>13385156
>and then just refrence other people opinions. it isnt worth getting worked up, your right but is this kid capable of independent thought? is all academia like this? ive thought of going to uni but im highly re contemplating..
Again, that was literally in response to you doing the same thing, you embarassing pseud.

All you have said is he lacks aethetic impact, and thats just your opinion on what a novel should be. And his novels do? crime and punishment is all about the gritty dirty streets of petersburg, and the poor drunkenness affect on the family, he describes almost every building?

>>13385156
>but is this kid capable of independent thought?
Probably not
>is all academia like this?
No, if any of these kids are in college they post like this here because they know that they would be penalized for talking this way in front of their professors.
>ive thought of going to uni but im highly re contemplating..
Don't let these retards make you give up on trying to become better educated. These people are engaging in a game of one-upsmanship, made necessary by their failure to grasp what actually makes good literary criticism worthwhile.
>>13385187
I'm not posturing like a bona fide intellectual, but I do have a college degree (unlike you apparently).

>>13385187
you aren't making a argument at this point, just defending yourself. Why wouldn't I reference better quotes and multiple authors instead of one?

>>13385194
>I'm not posturing like a bona fide intellectual
You’re doing nothing but posturing. All you’re talking about is how retarded I am and what an MFA student I am, and not even directly, but from a smug distance, all while without contributing anything. You’re just masturbating. I’m actually expressing real opinions in depth, but you’re better than me... why? Because you say so? Shut the fuck up you wannabe.

>>13385204
You haven't done shit in depth, especially read his novels. all you have yet to do is talk about descriptions and aesthetic impact and talk, about Nabokov im still waiting for a actually, argument. also again hypocritical by attacking him and not making genuine conversation.

>>13385218
I’m ignoring you at this point, stay out of it.

>>13385218
sorry that grammar was actually terrible

>>13385220
Laughable, you didn't refute one of my points. actually read the books you fucking goof

>>13385232
I did many times. All you did was blow up about me referencing Nabokov when I only brought him up again in response to you referencing authors yourself. That was where the conversation ended and I’m not interested in picking it back up again, because I was only humoring you in good faith to begin with. Your arguments were as shit as your English.

>>13382692
lol "intellectually dishonest" does not exemplify a living thesaurus xP

>>13384883
I know what supercilious means. Even if I didn't it was just a google search away. However, his posts came off as clumsy and awkward because he was so obviously trying to sound smart (it's not necessarily the word supercilious only, read his previous posts)

>>13385250
You referenced him before I even came into the conversation, then again when i made a point, You only mentioned 3 main argumentative points? wow man that was really funny, you must feel reinvigorated and fulfilled. I didn't just blow up about Nabokov, I made several points on crime and punishment and the atmosphere of the book, you clearly dont know what you are talking about.

>>13384911
And what makes you an authority on these "exceptions" if you haven't even read the books in their entirety. I've read both books and did not find them lacking in character or weather descriptions, as if those are what make a book anyway

>>13384267

>or

>>13385304
*is

>>13385279
he wasn’r using language anymore than intellectual than you did in this post. bro why use “however” instead of “but”? you must be trying to sound smart. see, anyone can do this

>>13385328
>>13385328
>you must be trying to sound smart.
He is. It’s almost always the tryhardest of tryhards that accuse someone else of being a tryhard.

>>13384217
Yeah I'm not sure why he wants to beat his meat so much to weather

>>13385440
probably theres more depth to his criticism than beating his meat to the weather. i dont even agree with him but theres a lot of people in this thread assmad about his opinions but have nothing to offer but brainless bullying. very low quality thread, usualy discussion is better

>>13385204
>I’m actually expressing real opinions in depth
They're boring and they aren't very well thought out. You could write this shit in a notebook if you didn't care about making yourself look smart. You're a midwit at best, probably less. My opinion is that you're retarded and I've just expressed it, sweetie :-)

>>13385151
Christ, the projection in this post

>>13380937
So this is a good of a place as any

I SUMMON ALL OF /LIT/‘S THEISTS

I am an atheist, but have been increasingly convinced there is a God...however I am also convinced Christ was not the promised savior, and that we are still awaiting him

How do I become Jewish?

>>13385546
>They're boring and they aren't very well thought out.
So boring that the entire thread is about them. And they’re objectively well thought out, you can disagree but I’m expressing myself sincerely and in depth.
>You could write this in a notebook if you didn’t care about making yourself look smart.
......... Why would anyone talk about literally anything anywhere, why not just write it in your notebook! What a fucking retard.
>You're a midwit at best, probably less. My opinion is that you're retarded and I've just expressed it, sweetie :-)
Going around calling other people dumb for no reason doesn’t make you smart. You’re trying very hard to convince yourself but we both know the truth. You’re an underachieving failure who compensates by posturing anonymously. You’ve said nothing of substance because you’re incapable of being anything other than a ad hominem lord. Because you’re dumb. And you know it.

>>13385613
>And they’re objectively well thought out
Ooo, it's discovered the concept of objectivity, how quaint.
>......... Why would anyone talk about literally anything anywhere, why not just write it in your notebook! What a fucking retard.
How about you just stop talking? We'd all like that very much.
>Going around calling other people dumb for no reason doesn’t make you smart.
It doesn't make them smart, either, sweetie :-)

>>13385641
Couldn’t be me, that’s all I’ll say.

>>13382669
Oliver Ready for C&P was really good. I enjoyed it immensely.

I read Avsey for TBK. It was a good translation overall. Some sentences were a little clumsy because of the ordering of the words. Also sometimes he would use 'alternative' words/phrases such as 'comely' and 'loose woman' where I think more modern words would be more readable, but it's nothing too serious.

Note from the Underground I read P&V and found it good/readable. Opinion is pretty split on them though r.e. quality vs marketability.

I can't speak russian though so I can't comment on the accuracy of it etc. just on my experience reading it.

>>13381045
this isn't true at all. I just finished white nights, and the weather was key throughout

and in Crime and Punishment, we frequently get weather updates seeing as Raskolnikov spends all fucking day walking around the goddamned city.

you're full of shit. quit wasting our time.

>>13380919

so? what exactly do you think style is? Just because prose isn't written isn't written into every sentence does not mean the subject matter isn't stylistic.

>>13386476
>you're full of shit. quit wasting our time.
it's a commonly expressed criticism against Dostoevsky, he's not "full of shit"" at all, you're just ignorant. "quit wasting our time" with emotional bitch talk.

What the fuck is this shit bait, yбeй ceбя aп cтeнy пидopac лoл

>>13386520
what in the actual fuck did you just say
whose mans is this

>>13380919
A. No shit, stop tripfagging out over it
B. No shit, what do you expect? Are you a preteen girl? It's Dostoevsky, he's engaging and this is his magnum opus. That aside, yeah, substance over style is a good way of putting him. Nabokov (as always) put it better:
>If you examine closely any of his works, say ''The Brothers Karamazov,'' you will note that the natural background and all things relevant to the perception of the senses hardly exist. What landscape there is is a landscape of ideas, a moral landscape. The weather does not exist in his world, so it does not much matter how people dress. Dostoyevsky characterizes his people through situation, through ethical matters, their psychological reactions, their inside ripples. After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance anymore in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist - say Tolstoy - who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment. But there is something more striking still about Dostoyevsky. He seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia's greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels. The novel ''The Brothers Karamazov'' has always seemed to me a straggling play, with just that amount of furniture and other implements needed for the various actors: a round table with the wet, round trace of a glass, a window painted yellow to make it look as if there were sunlight outside, or a shrub hastily brought in and plumped down by a stagehand.

Mнe тoлькo пocлe тpeтьeгo пpoчтeния cтaлo пoнятнo, чтo этo – зaмeчaтeльнaя игpa, пpинцип кoтopoй зaимcтвoвaн Haбoкoвым y Дocтoeвcкoгo – «oт oбpaтнoгo». И кaк в мoнoлoгe Инквизитopa – «шeдeвpe opaтopcкoгo иcкyccтвa» – «oтpицaтeльнaя apгyмeнтaция вдpyг oбopaчивaeтcя пoлoжитeльнoй: oбвинитeльнaя peчь cтaнoвитcя вeличaйшeй в миpoвoй литepaтype тeoдицeeй» (Moчyльcкий, 533), тaк и лeкция B.Haбoкoвa, пpeдcтaвляя вcю нeмыcлимo oтpицaтeльнyю apгyмeнтaцию нeпpиятия миpa Дocтoeвcкoгo, являeтcя хвaлeбным гимнoм вeликoмy pyccкoмy гeнию.

>>13382669
I first tried reading a really old English translation that was on Gutenberg, but found it too cumbersome to get through. Ended up reading a Finnish translation instead as we have quite good Russian translations generally.

>>13384867
It's a great question without a solid answer. I took a semester of Dostoevsky at U of Washington from a Russian Jew named Willis Koenig, who passed away a few years ago I think. We read Notes from Underground, The Devils and The Brothers Karamazov, in that order. Pic is the Notes version we read, translation by Ralph Matlaw, who's obit is https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/28/obituaries/ralph-matlaw-dies-slavics-professor-63.html He did prefer the title 'The Devils' rather than 'Possessed' or 'Demons', don't know why. I can't even remember what translations I read for it or 'Brothers'. He was emphatic that you read and understand 'Notes' as the Dostoevsky intro novel. Man's free will takes center stage. Remember that. Some say Dostoevsky was the first writer of psychology, certainly before Freud. Take it for what you will.

>>13386762
>Bill was born June 29, 1931, in Chaseley, to Henry and Eva (Carl) Koenig, the youngest of four children. He graduated from Bowdon High School in 1949.
Truly Russian lmao

>>13386777
What else did I fuck up? I hope he was Jewish.

>>13385571
Cut your dick up and worship satan.

>>13380919
>tfw you think you're like Ivan
>tfw you want to be like Dimitri
>tfw you know you must be like Alyosha
>tfw you never want to be like Fyodor
>tfw you're like Smerdyakov

>>13380937
N- Nabokov?

>>13380919
>reading a translation
>being in any position to judge the style
pick one

>>13380919
Dostoyevsky is not a great writer, but he is a great thinker

>>13387036
What a stupid post. Please retain yourself from posting on this board ever again.

>>13387036
He’s neither.

Reminder that Nabokov, just like Tolstoy, was coping with never being able to reach the greatness of Dostoevsky. They are two people who think they've mastered the formula of what makes a great writer, and still don't understand why Dostoevsky's writing has more impact than anything they've done, and yet his writing doesn't fit with almost any criteria they have set.

They tried to look a subjective medium under the lens of objectivity, and were dumbfounded why their writing, at first glance fitting every criteria of perfection, couldn't reach as deep inside the human soul as Dostoevsky did, or even Shakespeare in Tolstoy's case. Their criticism feels self-righteous, like a cope of trying to explain to oneself, that objectively they are better. Why else would you write a critic on someone's who's long dead, or had stopped being influential in literature? Sure with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky was still pretty much alive, but even then wasn't considered the most influential writer in Russia.

>>13380962
based

>>13384870
What the fuck do you mean ?
The characters are sufficiently described early on in TBK and any alterations to their appearances are described aswell. The fact that he doesn't spend paragraphs talking about people's clothes and hair like Tolstoy doesn't mean he's all substance and no style. But having not read any of his books completely, you couldn't fucking tell, could you ?

>>13386885
>Like Smerdyakov
You mean killing yourself ?

>>13387171
What a stupid post. Please retain yourself from posting on this board ever again.

>>13387639
It's funny because Dostoevsky destroys Tolstoy when it comes to style. You can just compare some of the similar scenes the they wrote and it becomes clear. Take how they deal with child death for example. In War and Peace you have Petya Rostov getting killed, and everyone in the scene reacts like they've heard a wet fart. The scene feels artificial, done for nothing but shock. Meanwhile you have the final chapter of TBK where every sentence feels like a stab to the heart.

Again, in war and peace you have those descriptions of rivers full of blood and bodies, which feels dissociated with reality, trying too hard to hammer in an atmosphere. Compare that with the description of Petersburg in C&P, where you can feel the heat and humidity clouding the main character's mind, making it hard for him to think straight. And the subtle changes of his state in mind whenever he crosses a bridge, probably due to the refreshing scent of the river. And keep in mind none of this is directly mentioned or hammed in to establish the atmosphere for the sake of establishing it.

That's what style is, it's not some super well written prose that can get your dick hard, or endless descriptions of a scene. So yeah, Tolstoy can take his blood rivers back to some fantasy novel where they belong, like his characters totally remember them in the next scene where there needs to be another artificial shift in the tone.

>>13386527
How am I ignorant if I have the books and seen copious evidence to the contrary?

>>13386777
>Willis Koenig
My mistake. His name was Willis Konick. He was a great Prof. If interested you can read about him here:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/beloved-professor-retires-after-60-years-at-the-uw/

>>13388080
Please vomit into a trash can next time. And never post here again:

>>13387639
how are people still stupid enough to attack by saying that it’s not the case that dosto doesn’t write like that and he wouldn’t know because he hasn’t read the books through
did you see this nabokov quote?>>13386711 do you see that he expresses the exact same sentiments as that anon? or do you reckon Nabokov hasn’t read them?
it’s known that it’s how dosto writes. even people who have read him and like him know that’s how he writes. it’s not controversial. you can argue whether it’s a *good* approach, but you can’t argue that it’s not dosto’s approach.
posts like yours are just embarassing, you’re very keen to wave around the fact that you’ve read all of dosto (wow, big brain!) but you didn’t even comprehend what you read. and there’s a lot of that in this horrendous thread.

>>13389646
C O P E

>>13382692
t. chimpbrain who's been isolated from his troop

>>13380919
Bought this book today, starting it tomorrow

thanks bro