/lit/ - Literature

Dostoevsky can be as hard or as entry level as you want him to be.

There is nothing hard about the literary devices that Dostoevsky uses. The reader is very rarely left to guess what is going on. The narrative structure is very clear.

The difficulty in dostoevsky just lies in the psychology of the characters and extrapolating the psychologization that dostoevsky carries out.

>>15658799
midwits associate popularity with inauthenticity.
big brains know gold when they see it.

What exactly is challenging you in the first two chapters (which is like the first ten pages)?

>>15658814
This. Unironically most of the really smart guys i know who has interest in art never have some obscure pseud niche shit at the top of their list, Even among famous great writers/directors/musicians etc.

>>15658814
pro tip bonus: this also is what fuels consumerist behavior as trends propagate after something's popularity reaches a critical mass; then it becomes "uncool" and the midwits go off and find the next ephemeral object of affection to drag the lessers with the wave (e.g. flavor of the month philosopher shill threads.)

>>15658813
This. OP, what do you mean by difficult?

>>15658799
It's people who have not read him and for some reason think he's a writer associated with edgy right wing people. It has become fashionable to hate on him lately as though he were fucking Julius Evola or something and not one of the most important writers of the late 19th century.

>>15658799
It was the first full Dostoyevsky work I read and was no easier or more difficult than the ones I read after. Once you get the names down and a few titles/locations it should be pretty smooth. I would say the first hundred pages or so, an initial meeting at the monestary, is a big filter.