/lit/ - Literature

>>22518858
>how can a man write so badly, so unbelievably badly, and make you feel so deeply
But Hemingway, you've never made me feel deeply...

>bad author projects his incompetency onto others
Sad. Many such cases

>>22518858
He sure is uppity for a guy best known for writing a short story about a fishing trip

>>22518861
>>22518858
Papa absolutely btfo’ing all the prose and vocab fags

>>22518858
Nigga probably read him only in English though

>>22518864
Kek

Shouldn't it be "poorly"?

>>22518872
True. He read the Garnett translations. Shame he died long before P&V was available

>he's so good at making you feel bros, even if he's wrote badly, just imagine if he wrote well too haha

>>22518881
Is P&V a lot better or is this something sort of joke? I'm 3/4 the way through the Garnett version. Don't tell me I fucked up this badly.

>Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos.

>Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway

>>22518889
Im pretty sure that guy was bait because contrarians love to hate the lauded thing and this board is full of them.
In truth though P&V is the best English Dostoy, but its not like Garnett is a total fuck up. The only vitals you are missing is some of the satire which comes off as serious in Garnett and she also fuddles up the syntax in dialogues between characters. But as far as dostoys odeas and philosophies you wont lose out by reading Garnett

>Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human English words expressing several, although by no means all, aspects of poshlost are, for instance, ”cheap,” ”sham,” ”smutty,” ”highfalutin,” ”in bad taste.” dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place

>>22518894
>>22518898
Nabokov got absolutely btfo by Dostoyevsky in Demons through the character of the pompous prose writer which is literally him and he never got over it

>>22518889
Garnett is quite terrible and not just because they made every character speak in cockney English

>>22518881
Garnett is actually better stylist than P&V. P&V are too clunky that Hem's comments would probably be harsher lol

>>22518908
Dostoy is notoriously clunky in his original Russian though. If anything Garnett tried to polish him. Not saying Hem is wrong or you are wrong hes be more critical of p&v but dostoys prose is basically anti prose

>>22518901
>P&V is the best English Dosto
They're pretty shit, actually. Feels like Google Translate, not like a proper translation.

>>22518858
Totally agree. Dostoevsky is one of the shittest prose artists I've come across but also one of the greatest dramatists. His books are clunky and awkward but profound and touching. It's a strange paradox but it's also a testament to his sincerity.

>>22518914
P&V are especially bad at colloquial and figurative language and their word choices are worse than Garnett's. Just compare the beginning of their Notes from Underground to Garnett's.

>>22518923
Another Nabokov diss is that Dostoyevsky was born to be Russia's greatest playwright but took a wrong turn and wrote novels instead

>>22518928
No. P&V are better because I said so

>>22518930
Lol this is just proof Nab doesnt understand Dostoyevsky. His stormgest writing is his long dialogues and in depth characterizations.

>>22519024
Yeah you never see long dialogues in theater do you anon?

>>22518979
You're objectively wrong btw

>>22519033
Not like Dostoy where a single vocal point would take half an hour to emphasize and often require long articles or letters to be read within. Ie how would Stavrogin at the monks work in a play, yet its one of the best things Dost ever wrote

>>22518928
i remember reading war & peace at the same time as a friend of mine; i was reading rosemary edmonds and he was reading p&v. at one point he was like "why does this character talk like a fucking retard all the time, they put like a 'gh' (or something similar, i forget exactly what it is) at the start of random words?
and i was confused because in mine he had a speech impediment but because rosemary edmonds is not autistic and fucking stupid, she had rendered his russian speech impediment into an equivalent english one where he can't say Rs and says Ws instead whereas P&V just decided to try and force an impediment that really only works in russian onto a language where it makes zero sense because they are idiots and it just read as nonsense

>>22519055
Your friend cant understand phonetics without some mfa lib holding his hand therefore P&V are retarded? Kwab

Never felt anything from Dostoesvsky. The attempts at emotion are always so transparent; you can always see the wires.
Doesn't feel organic, just Fyodor preaching at you about le inevitable consequences of a character type which only exists in his imagination.
Dickens does the same thing, but at least he's always located in a larger than life fantasy world where you can get away with that sort of Piers Plowman thing

>>22519192
Autistic

>>22518858D
He read a translation. Doesn't count.

>>22518872
>>22518881
>>22518889
>>22518901
>>22518907
>>22518908
>>22518914
>>22518915
>>22518928
>>22518979
>>22519034
>tfw I'm Polish and don't have to care about any of this because this lil' jewish nigga translated it all perfectly for me
I KNEEL

>>22519192
You need to meet and talk with more people if you don’t think the types he writes about exist.

>>22519532
Too bad Poland has less output than even Canada.

sovl

>>22519550
Where did you get that from? And where's that Canadian hatred coming from?

>>22519055
They're autistically literal like that. They don't even translate figurative language that only works in Russian lol they're shitty overrated translators

>>22519550
Not true btw

>>22519576
1. Fuck canadians
2. Name literally one polish author in the canon

>>22519667
Potocki, Gombrowicz

>>22519681
Kek. Idve had more resect if you said Tokarczuk

>>22518904
You're thinking of Ivan Turgenev.

>>22518881
This is incredible bait, have a (you) on the house.

>>22518902
>>22518858
Nabokov and Hemingway hate Dostoevsky because he was a bad stylist, which is true, but a very effeminate criticism. They also hate him because he was not stoic and let his character's emotions be messy and melodramatic, which is fair enough, it can be a lot to take. But then: what are you afraid of?

>>22518871
Dostoevsky is not really celebrated for his prose, most people who think it is great are those that have no clue what prose is and generally reduce prose to some ineffable quality beyond understanding. Dostoevsky is mostly remembered because he changed how literature dealt with character and how the reader relates to character, and he did that part very well.

>>22519971
Kwab

I never liked Hemingway.

>>22519542
Nobody in real life is like a Dostoevsky character, any more than real people are like Scrooge. Yes, there are misers, but Scrooge is a cartoon, just like the Ivan Likesmoney or Father Goodpriest characters you get in Dostoevsky. And the dialogue they're given is equally narrow and didactic. He's closer to Dickens or Rand.
Nobody in his books acts or converses like a real person in the way Shakespeare or Jane Austen manage. Romeo and Juliet swapping couplets, even though the form is utterly contrived, still smacks more of actual life than Dostoevsky's arguments on rails

>>22521645
You ever read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hills_Like_White_Elephants ?

It's his best work imo

>>22521671
>says this
>meanwhile every day of every year someone posts a Notes from the Underground thread saying the underground man is literally them
>and they absolutely mean it
based retard
tell me you've never read Dosto without telling me you've never read Dosto

>>22519971
>I hecking love prose!
Prose and style are nonsense and no one can objectively define good prose

>>22519962
being bored out of my fucking mind by long tedious dialogues

>>22519055
Lol that’s Denisov. Anthony Brigg’s translation has the same R to W impediment. Love that lil nigga.