/lit/ - Literature

>>23150482
the house of the dead

Notes from Underground

>>23150486
This because it‘s the shortest

>>23150482
Notes from the Underground might be the best novel ever written.
At least it is the best I have ever read.

>>23150482
crime and punishment

>>23150482
Nietoschka Nezvanova, it's a shame he stopped writing it

i guess the idiot

>>23150482
The Brothers Karamazov because that's his greatest novel. I suppose the Idiot is second. Crime and Punishment seems kind of copey to me.

House of the Dead. It's a shame it's so obscure, it is very compelling.

>>23150482
White Nights

The idiot

>>23151341
Ghastly rigmarole

>>23150482
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. 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 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." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. 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. Dostoyevsky 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 possessed is the only readable one.
The francophile retard boomer who ruins everything is one of my favorite characters in anything. Ever.

C+P, because it's the only one I have read and will ever read.

>>23150486
best NfU translation?

>>23152137
Penguin or Norton editions (Wilks / Katz)

Crime and Punishment, followed by
The Brothers Karamazov, followed by
Demons
I have moments when Demons edges into second, but Crime and Punishment reigns supreme regardless.

>>23151668
Tolstoy claimed it was his best novel and the best art of the 19th century.

>>23152027
For me it's his sociopathic son

>>23150482
the double

>>23150482
I've only read Notes and Crime so uh.. Crime. I like when Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov spoke to each other and Svidrigailov talked about seeing ghosts that was very cinematic and anime.

>>23152252
seconding this

>>23152025
>>23152252
>>23152328
nabokov pls

>>23152243
For me it's the one who leads people by the nose

>>23152333
I think his criticism is absolutely devastating to Dosto. If you read Dosto's novels, they are chock full of a grotesque macabre fascination with suffering and shame, with murder and sex and the subsequent groveling misery of those who find themselves in such situations. This type of tripe is 100% on the level of a typical harlequin romance novel, but because it's some old Russian who added Christian Orthodox themes as an accent to the sadomasochism, /lit/ eats it up. It's perverse.

>>23152525
you could literally apply this logic to nabokov, guy wrote an entire book about fucking a 12 year old, at least dostovsky tells us something profound about the dark side oh humanity. What does nabokov tell us?

>>23152533
What is profound in Dosto? That you'll be a fever addled lunatic until you confess and prostrate yourself before a judgemental authority? That tilts towards being trite far more than it does towards profundity. Dosto is at odds with himself, for he feels guilt over the mere examination of the darker parts of the human psyche. Nabokov realizes that there is no guilt in this, since these dark aspects are part of being human, they ARE human. THIS is profound, it is courageous, and it is honest. All things Dosto is not.

>>23152542
Where exactly does dostovsky say these dark aspects are not part of being human? I think it is quite the opposite as you have said his books are "chock full" of dark stuff. Nabokov simply doesn't address these in a human way as dostevsky does. Feeling guilt, remorse for very human things is also quite human. Handwaiving that part away whilst claiming to understand humanity is pure hypocricy. Now I'll ask again, what is profound about Nabokov? Or is just the flowery prose you love?

>>23152525
true. I think he is the necessary evil, someone had to say the things he did about dostoevsky. it's really interesting how no one had the balls or the intelligence enough to shed a light to dostoevsky in the way he did. whether you agree with him or not it's true how vulgar his methods are.

it's pretty eye opening to read such criticism. first I've read that stuff I was angry then felt like a retard for not realizing it myself. art really is disruptive because once you fall into the magic of the language or story telling you can be fascinated by the essentially retarded ideas of a zealot of backwards ideas. dostoevsky is the exact opposite of my worldview yet I've held him in high regard for years.

>>23152027
i love that one too but calling it his only readable one is insane. i don't think i'm alone in thinking it was his most punishing.

is there anyone who considers the adolescent his best?

>>23152546
Dosto can only view these aspects as worthy of condemnation, of pure guilt and of nothing else. He totally fails to comprehend that these aspects need to be integrated into your being in a healthy and controlled way, but instead Dosto is caught between feeling the urge to indulge in these impulses while consciously condemning them and this contradiction is the source of the guilt, but, the hypocrite that he is, he would rather weave in a mechanism to assuage this guilt and allow the continued indulgence itself, creating a cycle of shameful overindulgence followed by self flagellation and prostration before the judgement of a superior (and in a further sick twist, he manages to extract a perverse pleasure in the second act as well as the first). Nabokov takes an honest look at a man as he is, the experiences that formed him, the choices he makes, and the consequences that follow. If you can't appreciate the sublime beauty and simplicity in the sheer honesty of that, then maybe literature isn't for you.

>>23150488
NTA but no, I prefer crime and punishment to the gambler, even though the gambler is short as fuck
Notes just resonates to some people on this website on a deep level, it's dotso's most "intimate" work for a lot of us.

>>23152542
>since these dark aspects are part of being human, they ARE human.
Dotso doesn't reject this, the whole point about his stories is how human his characters are, how they can be very relatable and that's what makes them sad.

>>23152555
It really is amazing how certain people can have a kind of a cult of opinion around them which, when actually compared with what they stand for, is totally divorced from reality. It's almost a cliche to say something like "the magnificent The Brothers Karamazov" or some such tripe without the slightest circumspection or insight into the motivating ideology behind the work. Even on /lit/ this unthinking praise is parroted over and over by midwits who seem incapable of forming an independent opinion of their own, let alone to entertain a controversial opinion that might be contrary to what they've already internalized.

>>23152621
How does Dosto purport to redeem these aspects of humanity? Is it to integrate them? To accept that they are rightful parts of the human experience and to work with them to self actualize; to transcend and include? No. His worldview firmly states that they must be brought before a higher power, judged as sinful, and repressed forever. As I said before, this enterprise is utterly futile, since its objective is to destroy what is human, to snuff out the very spark that is humanity. Thus the cycle of indulgence (the inescapable humanity) and self flagellation (the divine judgement that such things are sinful and abhorrent). There is nothing profound, nothing transcendent here. Just shallow fetishistic pleasure taking of the lowest tier followed by the harshest condemnation and repentance. Both sides of this coin forever restrict the other to its worst form, forever traps the victim of this ideology to a lifetime of misery and self hatred. It's vile in the extreme.

>>23152555
>>23152626
The assumption that using sad scenery to create an emotion in the reader is "vulgar" and thus lessens the work is an absurd one.
Maybe it is simple, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Nabokov states some objective things about his work but then completely fails to argumentate why those things are bad.
>He puts good people in bad situations...
>americans like him more than russians....
All worthless """criticism"""
He reiterates about the concept of a soulful prostitute because all he can say is that it is not very realistic, that's the height of his criticism and I don't know how people can take it seriously after 0 points were made. Even this only point is pretty handily refuted by his prostitute in Notes being completely different personality wise, trying to trick a (medic it was? anyways someone semi reputable) into marrying her. Or the degenerate noblewoman in the gambler fucking and sucking anyone with money. If you think about Sonya's situation it's not even that unrealistic, we know she ended up in that line of work, we know it's not her fault and its not hard to imagine such situations happened IRL too 200 years ago.
>B-BUT I DON'T LIKE SAD MISERABLE STORIES
Then don't read them, this is not some objective "gotcha" that owns dotso.

>>23152633
>just keep being evil bro, accept it and start doing evil it's just human nature!
Absolute midwittery at it's finest,pathetic nihilism, you are not even a human, you are a walking stereotype.

Anyways, if you read Notes, you quickly find out the human character HAS ALL THE POWER to stop evildoing, he merely chooses to keep being evil out of spite. At no point is jesus mentioned in that story, and it's clear that the problem doesn't lie with atheism but with the underground man himself. He almost redeems himself not trough god, but by helping another, and then relapses into evil because of his spite.

Your interpretation of dotso is completely incorrect, if you think his work amounts to "just be christian bro" you are genuinely retarded. Crime shows us the desperation of raskolnikov to prove himself, where his philosophy leads to, we get to see his good side (admitting that natural dark instincts are human, something that you seemed to claim Dotso wasn't aware of). His redemption is not just god, it's a good hearted girl. God is tangential to his redemption, he didn't find a bible on the ground, he found one good person in a world of evil. It's a tale of hope in spite of our natural dark instincts. It's a wake up call at those like raskolnikov that are consumed by insecurity and never feel good about their accomplishments, constantly tormented by wanting to prove themselves.

I could go on until bump limit, it's a book thick with concepts, characters, and messages, you just seem to have missed all of them and have just read "god is good, that's the novel goodbye guys" and forgot there are houndreds of pages before that point.

>>23152637
See>>23152633
Dosto uses hackneyed contrivances and unconvincing cliches to artificially pull the heart strings all in service of an ideology which is fundamentally misanthropic. "Sad miserable stories" are intriguing when they are poignant, when they have meaning. Dosto, unfortunately, serves the same purpose a harlequin romance novel does, to titillate the unthinking reader while keeping them secure in an experience that caters to their perverse personal proclivities. Shall I reiterate the sadomasochistic paradigm so evident in Dosto's work yet again?

>>23152650
You have utterly failed to engage with anything I wrote. In fact, you seem not to have even actually read what I wrote if your take away was "just keep being evil bro, accept it and start doing evil it's just human nature!". Your reading comprehension is nonexistent.

>>23152614
sounds like your some sort of libtard who thinks everybody needs to be "cured" of negative mental states, kill yoursef

>>23152614
You're literally just spouting words. You're a pure sophist. There is literally no place to start refuting you because you obviously haven't read either Dostovsky or Nabokov

>>23152633
so essentialy you disagree with his religious conclusions? what about all those atheists who love dostovsky? clearly there is more to him than you are claiming

>>23152650
>People are just evil and what they need to do is to decide not to be evil any more
Instantly outting yourself as an unsophisticated thinker here. You can't even engage on the most basic concepts being discussed in this thread. The point is that people have impulses which can either be expressed directly and cause major harm, or directed in ways which can express them without causing harm. This seems to have completely flown over your head which is a shame since you seem to want to put the effort in to participate in the thread.

>>23152659
>>23152660
>>23152662
/lit/ can't even comprehend a valid criticism of their cult favorite. Shocker.

>>23152657
>>23152667
you got BTFO'd hard because you haven't read dostoevsky but read rather a wikipedia article that said there were christian themes in dostoevsky, which likely being some kind of libtard athiest made you hate him

>>23152668
No one has yet engaged with my criticisms in the slightest. You don't BTFO someone by just claiming they are wrong and you are right, you actually have to say something intelligent against their point, something which has not yet happened.

>>23152662
Is my analysis incorrect in any way as I have stated it in the post you replied to? Dosto essentially perpetuates a kind of Samsara, a constant cycle of animal impulse outbursts followed by shame, guilt, and regret, but since these mechanisms are woefully insufficient to actually affect a better way of expressing these impulses, it simply fuels a further cycle.

>>23152659
one of the most retarded posts I've ever seen on /lit/ and that's saying something. "negative mental states don't need to be "cured", LIBTARD, but you should kill yourself". you might actually have been funny if you had a little more self awareness.

>>23152674
>waaaaah you didn't engage waaaaaah

cope harder, all you've done all thread is thrown around faggy terms and big words, and huge generalisations of plots likely gleaned from a Wikipedia article. When people brought up specifics of Dostoevskys novels you just resorted to the above because you haven't read him and don't actually know anything about his books.

>>23152650
raskolnikov is a trite character all around and i'm tired of pretending otherwise

>>23150482
The idiot. Although the dream about the horse in Crime and Punishment is one of the most moving passages written I really feel like total shit reading that.. haha.

>>23152657
I attacked the assumption your criticism is based on. Once that assumption is destroyed, your criticism is null.
To engage with the rest of your "criticism" would be to admit that your false assumption is correct, something that I will not do no matter how hard you try to force me to.
You are just, indeed, fucking wrong.

>>23152688
Ah, I see I'm dealing with an anon with the characteristics of a small child. Allow me to spell it out in the most basic and simple way possible. If you have violent impulses, to simply deny the impulse and never enact violence is a surefire way to build towards an inappropriate violent outburst. Instead, the healthy thing to do is to find an appropriate outlet (culturally this has been sporting endeavors with rules and codes for the expression of the violence). The denial and repression of the impulse is bad, the healthy integration and regulation of the expression of the impulse is good. There, spoonfeeding time is over, now you'll actually have to start doing some thinking on your own.

>>23152665
>You missed this unrelated point that I didn't claim was wrong or tried to dirsprove
?
I don't disagree with you, what makes you think I do? The underground man is outward very often with his spite, so he does take out his evil in a harmful manner. Once again, a pathetic attempt at a "gotcha" with a completely erong assumption.

>>23152704
If you think being consumed by the obsessive thought of murder is the same as what every other person takes out with sport you are not "spoonfeeding" anyone, you are just revealing yourself for what you truly are. Not everyone is a psycho like you

Besides, raskolnikov can't be fixed by sports because the murder has one specific purpose: to prove to himself he can do it if he chooses to.
This cannot be "fixed with an outlet like sports"

>>23152704
Nigga this is not your outlet for whatever the fuck philosophical straw man you're arguing against is. The fact this is your insight into Dostoevsky is Franky embarrassing and proof you haven't read him. I mean you have quite clearly not read him at all and it's only your shear ignorance of how little you know about him that makes you argue against such laughable strongman so smugly. You literally will not engage about Dostoevsky but rather some straw man you have devised about him.

>>23152626
dostoevsky's fame definitely affirms the narrative that his novels must be the answers to many riddles in human soul. and I definitely among all dostoevsky fans was convinced of this fact. it takes asking the right questions and reflecting on the novels to realize maybe you have been duped. I never walked away with more information about myself or humanity after I was done with any of his novels yet I was sure it was the case. it's like any psychology or philosophy book where you are made to believe now you understand more but that's an illusion most of the time.

>>23152637
>It is questionable whether one can really discuss the aspects of "realism" or of "human experience" when considering an author whose gallery of characters consists almost exclusively of neurotics and lunatics."
do you really consider stuff like this worthless criticism, to me it's a very sensible way to approach his novels.

>>23152614
You’re a wanker dude - straight up sound like some liberal democrat with that spiel.

>>23152745
>like this worthless criticism
Yes, because as someone who was literally the underground man, who has an alcoholic mother, two abusive grandfathers that beat her constantly to near death, etc etc, I guarantee you the "neurotics and lunatics" exist. They very much fucking exist and for some of us they are sadly part of the realistic human experience, of our everyday life.

Maybe his novels don't resonate with you personally, but I and millions of others find them very true to many parts of the human experience, in a way no other author never really managed to emulate at all.
Just because (you) didn't see some parts of the human experience doesn't mean that dotso is making shit up. You will find houndreds of anons on this website telling you how Notes put a mirror in front of them and saved them from self destructive behavior, me included.
Crime and punishment likewise has a passionate cult following of people who relate with Raskolnikov's struggle to find meaning in life, which is why you see people vehemently defending it.

Also "almost exclusively" is unfair, apart from Raskolnikov, the crazy mother, and Svirigradlov or whatever the fuck his name was, everyone is completely grounded and I wouldn't call them lunatics.
Svidrilagdov is there just to express the idea of raskolnikov's man of action put to practice, I always found him the most unrealistic character of the novel, and while I see why he is put in the story I would have welcomed a criticism about him, which didn't come up because none of the people making criticism about crime and punishment here has read the damn fucking thing.

The Brothers Karamazov is the best novel ever written.
If you aggree with Nabokov you're either underaged or you like underaged girls.

>>23152704
Embarrassing post and if you read Dostoevsky at all(which i doubt), then you display an embarrassing level of reading comprehension as well.

>>23152766
I think you are missing the point. a book that claims or claimed by its fans to has explanation of life or human experience is supposed to be relatable to everyone not a cult of undergrounders. if you accept the fact that it belongs to such people then it no longer has universal truth.

if you can relate with it fine, I couldn't. it is written by an insane man for insane people.

Injured and Insulted. I think I read him a lot different than other people because I just love Nellie, perfect little half gypsy loli. I also like how it goes about his usual conventions of trying to make the mind, intellect look petty and ugly in people through the failings of the others characters, the intelligent people always wanting someone to control and being incapable of forgiveness. And it’s funny how Dosto’s self insert Vanya has the most savvy taste and is the most reasonable out of everyone through being the most selfless

>>23152809
You can't explain everything about the human experience even in a thousand books, you can only tackle certain topics of it
>I couldn't. it is written by an insane man for insane people.
Wow, what a great argument, "everyone that disagrees with me is insane therefore I am right"
I guess you are the only sane man in a world that generally loves dotso then.

>>23152809
"Sane" people are simply in denial about their insanity because it didn't have the right circumstances to shine and come to light. You project whatever first world comfy existence you have onto 19th century russia and think it's unreal to have a society like theirs. Either you lack life experience or you're in denial about it for whatever personal reason you have.

>>23152824
my argument is backed by the fact that dostoevsky's characters are mostly insane. and it's something you accept too that his characters are abnormal I think. it's not for everyone. it's certainly not for me. I was in it for the universal truths, something that would broaden my horizon. turns out listening to the life story of the bum under the bridge is not very illuminating for my own life.

>>23152826
>"Sane" people are simply in denial about their insanity
baseless argument. there are plenty of opportunities to go 19th century russia in the modern world and it gets proven daily by a lot of videos you see even on twitter.

I might be wrong about this one. I think if someone wants to believe everyone is evil that's because they are evil. they want to bring everyone down to their level. I am not specifically calling "you", but if you think only thing holding back everyone from committing murder left and right you have to consider the fact that maybe you have the murderer's mind projecting your illness to whole humanity.

>>23152830
I used to think like that when I was young and righteous. Saying some people are evil means not understanding what made them the way they are. When you truly empathize with them, you stop seeing evil in people, only in acts. Saying everyone has to capacity to commit evil doesn't mean I bring everyone down to "the level" of criminally insane/evil/morally wrong, it means acknowledgement of the circumstances which can destroy a person. Dostoevsky is life-affirming and hopeful for me because he outlines a path to heal those destroyed, through Love, which is what first and foremost makes him a Christian.

>>23152830
>my argument is backed by the fact that dostoevsky's characters are mostly insane
Which is wrong, as already pointed out, only 3 characters in crime are mentally unsable, and only 1 in notes.
> turns out listening to the life story of the bum under the bridge is not very illuminating for my own life
That's clearly a (you) problem, you lack the empathy required to learn from people with different experiences than yours, tons of first world sheltered people love Dotso because he is an empathetic writer, who can put you in the shoes of unusual people and make you understand them. If this is lost on you, it's not his fault. You may argue that only insane people "get" him but he is beloved by millions, and held up as one of the literary greats with very scarce opposition so you might as well be claiming to be the only sane person on the planet.
>it's certainly not for me
That's fine, I personally don't like Shakespeare but I don't go on tangents about how awful he is because he isn't awful, he just isn't for me. I am able to distinguish between my personal preference and my objective criticism. I have no objective criticism against Hamlet, I just never cared to reread it in my life. It would be folly to claim he only wrote screenplays for insane people because the main character of Hamlet is unwell, and act as if this is an objective, provable argument.

>>23152823
Nellie isn't a gypsy, she was just one of those tan southern Russians. But yes she was perfect
>“Take my powders,” came from under the quilt with a little nervous laugh that tinkled like a bell, and was broken by sobs — a laugh I knew very well.
I really wonder why those intellectuals never got it and kept thinking their dumb little monkey brains were going to save them. It must've just been bad taste

>>23152830
>if someone wants to believe everyone is evil that's because they are evil
I didn't reply to this, but this is absurd, Dotso has TONS of good hearted characters. IN Crime Raskolnikov is helped by Sonya and razumikhin, two good characters that act as a contrast to Raskolnikov attempt to become intentionally evil, and slowly set him on the right path with their interal brightness, bringing hope to someone who has lost all hope. This doesn't look like the "EVERYONE IS EVIL" narrative you are strawmanning Dotso with

Your attempt to claim that dotso is "by an evil man for evil people" must be a result of just skimming wikipedia, because I refuse to believe someone can be so stupid as to read Crime and come to this asinine conclusion about what the book means.

>>23152847
that's just something I completely disagree with. you are trying to destroy the barrier between good and bad. there are good people and bad people. there are psychopaths and there are good souls.not every crime is a result of unfortunate state of affairs. some people are fucked up, others are not.

>>23152853
insane person in notes from underground happens to be the protagonist that dostoevsky gets his message across through though.

>only 3 characters in crime are mentally unsable
do I need to comment on this.

>>23152864
I am not making the argument everyone is evil it's the person that I responded to making it. I think you are responding to the wrong person.

>>23152864
I kind of believe he did read Dostoevsky because i had the similar reactions to it in high school. I couldn't take Raskolnikov's guilt and him not intellectualising it away. I found his reasons logical, found no point in ruining your life over something that's done, even if wrong, couldn't empathize with him doing something "stupid" when he'd otherwise obviously get away woth his deed freely. Mostly, i couldn't take his guilt because i couldn't take mine. I suspect that anon has an aversion to his own "bad" feelings and is taking that at face value as an aversion to Dostoevsky.

how can you conflate two different posts that took the exact two different positions in an argument and answer to the wrong person with the wrong accusation and then proceed to think you can be in place to decide anyone is stupid? on 4chan you can.

talk about fucking asinine.

>>23152868
>insane person in notes from underground happens to be the protagonist that dostoevsky gets his message across through though.
Yeah, his message being that spiteful isolated insanity is a bad thing.
Your point? That writing your POV to be trouble makes something objectively bad?
>do I need to comment on this.
Yes, and I would also like you to expand on the narrative that Dotso tries to bring everyone down to evil when he clearly writes objectively good characters too like Sonya and Razumikhin
In general, I am not sure what your point is, that putting evil in your story makes it bad? What would you write about then? What's a good book that doesn't explore conflicted characters at all? Moby Dick? Nah that clearly has over the top characters driven by obsession. The fucking Iliad has characters committing horrible deeds, has everyone always been insane while you are the one good sane man in all of human history?

>>23152873
>it's the person that I responded to making it
In the context of our argument where you already claimed dotso is insane and writes for insane people here >>23152809 ?
Maybe it's not you, but then it's your fault for not reading the post chain before joining in the discussion.
Yes, you accused dotso and all of his readers of being insane, so it's a completely logical takeaway when you ramble about evil that this also applies to dotso and his stories.
>>23152882
Read above, stop being an intellectual coward and stand for your ideas instead of pretending they were never mentioned.

>>23152868
You vastly overestimate the amount of psychopaths around while also underestimating them. Most of them are not committing crimes, save for financial malversation and the like. A psychopath doesnt kill people in a fit of rage, out of jealousy and so on and so on. You just like labels too much and need to reflect on what is it you're hiding behind those labels within yourself.

>>23152880
sounds like you are making up a flimsy situation I have never been in to justify your idea. not to brag but I am more well read on dostoevsky than probably anyone here. I considered crime and punishment to be a didactic book. it's intended as a book for course in morals. I find it pointless to talk about what raskolnikov was going through psychologically. dostoevsky's depiction of a man in his position and of his temperament is probably very accurate. I don't doubt his genius in psychology. the key word here is though a man in his temperament, not you or me.

I know I will get a backlash for this comment but I don't care anymore because most of the posts are so fucking retarded I take them only half serious from now on. so here it goes. I really doubt any of you really managed to relate with raskolnikov or anyone in these novels. I think you have went through witnessing these characters burning with hatred, crushed by guilt and other extreme feelings that echoes in everyone else and sustain this illusion of understanding them. but again that's my guess.

>>23152886
I think you definitely misunderstand the message. there are more things in underground man's mind. one striking one is the one that's against human rationality, he is making the argument that people despite knowing best for them refuse to do it, for the sake of their spite alone sometimes. you can definitely sense it's actually dostoevsky talking there.

>Dotso tries to bring everyone down to evil
I said that to the guy who openly claimed everyone is insane. look,

>"Sane" people are simply in denial about their insanity
I responded to this post. I never said it's what dostoevsky says.

>>23152891
I never made the argument that I think everyone is evil. it's literally the other person that responded to me, in which I responded to him that I disagree.

however I did make the argument that if you can completely relate with dostoevsky's characters that you must be insane, because his characters are. these two are different arguments.

>>23152897
>You vastly overestimate the amount of psychopaths around while also underestimating them.
I think you are right I agree.

>A psychopath doesnt kill people in a fit of rage, out of jealousy and so on and so on.
okay sure but that does not mean everyone is secretly a psychopath waiting to find out their true nature. I mean do you really believe everyone is just a ticking time bomb?

>>23152905
>I never made the argument that I think everyone is evil.
I didn't claim you did, I just pointed out in this context the implication is that you think dotso thinks that
You will say you never claimed this, but insanity is clearly a negative trait, a trait you handily accused dotso and all his readers have, so the logical conclusion of Dotso and all his readers = evil is implied in this conversation on your part
You can't weasel out of this, I expect you to actually prove this position.
>because his characters are
An asinine argument, as I pointed out when I showed the great majority of important literary works have conflicted characters with evil/obsessive/insane traits
The logical conclusion of this shitty argument is that everyone is evil and insane but you, something you reject but is clearly implied by your arguments when you think about them for more than 10 seconds.

There is also the fact that having some evil in you doesn't make you quintessentially evil. The udnerground man is the most despicable Dotso creates but he never kills anyone. On the other hand Raskolnikov is a murder but has a good side much easier to reach than the underground man
There is nuance, it's not "everyone is just insane lol", we are presented with personalities and archetypes we can reflect upon in different ways.
In "the gambler" dotso tricks the reader making him think Polina is despicably evil and deranged and then reveals that she is actually worried about the main protagonist's mental health and secretly loves him. There is good and sanity in the world of dotso, he just focuses on internal conflict because that's what ALL literature worth anything does.
From Hamlet to Moby Dick, to the Iliad and Dante's inferno. You can discredit all of those by saying "it's for insane people" and it would be indeed worthless fucking criticism.

>>23152905
You fundamentally fail to understand a man when you say
>man of his temperament
To understand is to know why is he like that, not what he is like. If you knew why, you'd know how you, me or anyone else could become like that(or could have become).
>>23152909
The point is that it doesn't take a psychopath to commit a crime. So why'd you even bring psychopathy into this when it accounts for a small percentage of crimes at best?

>>23150482
Which ever book Max Lawton will eventually translate

>>23152915
>You will say you never claimed this, but insanity is clearly a negative trait, a trait you handily accused dotso and all his readers have, so the logical conclusion of Dotso and all his readers = evil is implied in this conversation on your part
pure retardation. it's very easy to make the argument that if you can completely relate with an insane character you are insane. this does not concern all dostoevsky readers, you conflated the two. and why would an insane person be evil? even if you put words in my mouth with your false logic and claim that I said every dostoevsky reader is insane, that still does not mean I said all dostoevsky readers are evil because I never claimed insane people are evil.

your intention is ill and mind is dull, refrain from talking to me.

>>23152916
in my opinion raskolnikov is the way he is because he is mentally ill. but there is obviously more to it, I don't want to reduce the character to a very two dimentional one and claim that he is insane just because he killed an old woman.

the other part is that his illusion of grandeur made the ethical lines blurry for him and that's why he committed the murder. I do think that's the case in the novel. when I say I think raskolnikov is crazy it's because of his almost mystic behavior like aiming for absolution by getting blessed by a prostitute you know.

as for the psychopathy point that was an example I initially gave to make the distinction between good people and evil ones. I thought it would be a good one because it's a physiological reality that some people really are evil and others are not that fucked. your argument that even a normal person can be tempted to murder is correct but that does not happen all the time does it. those are extreme cases. and like even in raskolnikov's case, a lot of people wouldn't murder the woman.

>>23152905
Tolstoy is really more your thing with your Western intellectual Jungian psychology and focus on individual transcendence or whatever. Dosto would have a field day making fun of all that stuff. He was a trickster character, his moral sentiments and arguments come from taste, not 'morality' or 'wrong and right', Dosto makes fun of those big high minded ideas and usually puts them in the mouth of characters that are later humiliated for not really getting it. The things he likes and what he defends all come from taste and the mixtures of sentiments and symbols of coziness written for cleverness, not ‘goodness’, it’s for someone thats read all the banned books because the strength or force of life is in those fun clever things, and then using actual intellectual symbols to make the correct judgements out of that. Not something focused on arguing for ‘intellectual goodness’. That whole Western intellectualism and individual transcendence would be bad taste to a type of real savvy intellectual. Tolstoy would be Nalvany and Dosto would be Putin. Dosto was a materialist and pointed out how that type of idealism is silly and just makes you crazy. Like you said Dosto argues for repentance to a superior being, but he never gets metaphysical like that, the superior being in Dosto's case would just be the people around in him in Russia that he loves, superior because they're more full of life like the Yevgeny Pavlovitch type and he's like Myshkin still trying to figure it out according to his actually real taste and sentiments. Thats why he argues for repentance, out of the commitment to the people literally around him instead of some sort of high minded individual transcendence or whatever, that Jungian stuff is retarded and makes someone totally impotent, it’s the complete opposite of developing control of your life because you want to do bad and call it ‘intellectual goodness’ instead of just being clever and childish about it like people that are actually in control of their destiny, and the irony is they can still claim to be innocent even while being successful but under you’ll never be able to under that schema. The clever win the palm. But let man be good if he cannot be clever

>>23152940
>written by an insane man for insane people
>B-BUT ACTIALLY I DIDN'T MEAN IT
Cowardice, to then have the gall to claim my intention is ill
>you can completely relate with an insane character you are insane
This is an argument brought up because you were explained why people like dotso and you then argued we are all insane, something you are now backpedalling from in a spectacular fashion
"Completely" is not something anyone said, but we did say we can relate to some of his characters, which is normal if you ever struggled in life or had an internal conflict.

Anyway you still argued Dotso is insane, "written by an insane man"
Therefore, if you write evil, insane, or conflicted characters you must be one yourself, the logical conclusion to your point that you STILL not dare acknowledge is that all literature is by insane people for insane people.
You say "but I never meant this!" but I am taking your literal words and bringing them to their only possible conclusion. You could just admit you may have been hyperbolic and exaggerated when you said that, but no, you want so desperately to be right that you will pretend you never said or meant anything by it.

>>23152025
GUYS PLEASE RUSSIANS DONT EVEN LIKE DOSTOYEVSKY THAT MUCH THEY LIKE OTHER RUSSIAN WRITERS MORE (like me)

>>23152614
You’re literally saying nabakovs shit is more human for not feeling guilt about guilt because its human? That makes no fucking sense, the human thing would be to express guilt while discussing these things, not flowerly colorful pages about wanting to fuck children

>>23152949
you depicted a pretty picture, an intelligent guy playing the moral relativist game. until he became a spokesperson for the church and purveyor of cheap nationalism. it's "clever" that you choose to see this not as a contradiction but instead life philosophy dostoevsky being the pragmatic nietzschean. but I have to ask, if you are a jester that contradicts himself to nothing, why would I take you seriously? what's left of this man but a bunch of weird novels that preach orthodox christianity(but not really) and russian nationalism(not really but also maybe)? when you are a jester you must take the possibility into account that people have the natural right to not take you seriously at all.

you are right that I like tolstoy more. he is a more sensible man and a better novelist. until he also became a religious nut. but he at least had the decency to admit that he realized that it's all nonsense but he had to do it or he would've killed himself.

>>23152633
Hedonistic as hell my dude.

>>23152987
Well this is always funny to me because unlike most people that talk about Dosto I don’t care about orthodoxy or nationalism or any of that, that seems to be more stuff he’s famous for covering in Writers Diary and the way people have used that book politically after his death. I always hated him before I read him because that Jordan Peterson stuff annoyed me. I found Dosto in practice to be way more committed to art than trying to sneak in ideological ‘meaning’. It wasn’t until I read Gentle Creature that I really got it. The ‘Dostoyevsky girl’ is all that matters, the intellectualisms don’t even make sense to me anymore because it just seems like cope compared to the creation of Nellie, Vavara Dobreslovna in Poor Folk, Nastasya, Zinaida in Uncle’s Dream. Those sentiments and symbols are a more creative and fun use of the intellect than arguing for 'intellectual goodness', like when he gives the girls Greek names, it all just has more meaning and power and force of life than the petty intellectualisms. I follow my heart, not my head. Im a slave to these superior beings with their real force of life. Nietzsche and all the high minded Jungian intellectuals seem like jesters in comparison. I just love those Dostoyevsky girls. The intellectualisms and the things ‘intelligent people’ argue about just seem silly and not grounded in anything to me now. They don't seem savvy or in control of their destiny like the Volga bandits Murin and Svidrigalov, and the clever thing is the Volga bandit going about it in an honest way like they feel themselves innocent, it's not in an intellectualized way like Nietzsche who didn't understand that he was always going to be in the gentleman class and was never going to be like the criminals in Dead House that he idealized.

>>23152940
>>23152950
the difference in these two posts is lol. one has actual good-faith discussion of the author's work in question, the other is flailing around trying to insult the other user with half-baked insults like saying the book is the equivalent of talking to homeless (which is nonsensical to any reader of russian literature, serfs were hardly ever the sole focus of these writers)

>>23152698
>the dream about the horse

I couldn't help thinking he stole that from Nietzsche

>>23152784
It's good but don't see how it's really better than Demons/Possessed

>>23152745
>dostoevsky's fame definitely affirms the narrative that his novels must be the answers to many riddles in human soul
On this logic, Fifty Shades of Grey must be some awe-inspiring tome of philosophical wisdom. Allow me to enlighten you: there is a much stronger case to be made that the more popular a thing is, the more vapid and shallow it is.

>>23153620
>Fifty Shades of Grey must be some awe-inspiring tome
It is actually, because it gets to the heart of what women want, which is a jacked billionaire.

>>23152719
Like most anons in this thread, you seem hurt that your cult favorite is being exposed for the hack fraud he was. You frantically grasp around for any explanation for my devastating criticisms "N-no he... he must not have read it! Yes, that's it! Now I can safely dismiss this criticisms which is such a danger to my blind love for such a demented author!". It's cringe and childish, anon. Let me pose something new and specific. Rasky's article praising Napoleon is an interesting part of C&P which shows Rasky's desire to affect change in a major way and elevate himself to this venerated status as "A Great Man" himself. But think critically for a moment: in the final analysis of the book, what is the difference between Rasky and Napoleon? Napoleon was willing to murder with reckless abandon for his goals, to forge ahead without compromise or mercy, and this did allow him to become A Great Man of history. And Rasky? He attempts the same path, but Dosto centers THE ENTIRE NOVEL on the fact that Rasky's guilty conscience hounds him and prevents him from moving on from the murders. That's the difference Dosto focuses on. Crime and Punishment literally boils down to "don't try to be a great man unless you're a sociopath, because only without a conscience can you become a historical legend, but with a conscience you'll become a nervous pathetic wreck." Sorry, this is not profound, and Dosto doesn't even seem to be self aware enough to realize that this is the central conceit of his whole novel!

>>23152719
Like most anons in this thread, you seem hurt that your cult favorite is being exposed for the hack fraud he was. You frantically grasp around for any explanation for my devastating criticisms "N-no he... he must not have read it! Yes, that's it! Now I can safely dismiss these criticisms which are such a danger to my blind love for a clearly demented author!". It's cringe and childish, anon. Let me pose something new and specific. Rasky's article praising Napoleon is an interesting part of C&P which shows Rasky's desire to affect change in a major way and elevate himself to this venerated status as "A Great Man" himself. But think critically for a moment: in the final analysis of the book, what is the difference between Rasky and Napoleon? Napoleon was willing to murder with reckless abandon for his goals, to forge ahead without compromise or mercy, and this did allow him to become A Great Man of history. And Rasky? He attempts the same path, but Dosto centers THE ENTIRE NOVEL on the fact that Rasky's guilty conscience hounds him and prevents him from moving on from the murders. That's the difference Dosto focuses on. Crime and Punishment literally boils down to "don't try to be a great man unless you're a sociopath, because only without a conscience can you become a historical legend, but with a conscience you'll become a nervous pathetic wreck." Sorry, this is not profound, and Dosto doesn't even seem to be self aware enough to realize that this is the central conceit of his whole novel!

>>23153645
Wow, that's a lot of words to say you're seething kek.
>Sorry, this is not profound
Oh, according to who? Mike Fart? Who else had written on this besides Carlyle?

>>23153647
>deletes post
Wow, that's a lot of words to say you're seething kek.
>Sorry, this is not profound
Oh, according to who? Mike Fart? Who else had written on this besides Carlyle?

1. The idiot
2. C&P
3. The gambler
4. Demons
5. Notes

havent read the others

>>23153648
>>23153654
>"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
My fruits are devastating criticisms. Yours are shitty memes and the most basic generic insults. Says a lot!

>>23153667
>doesn't even know quent
Hi newfriend!
Well, it seems like you can't answer a basic question on literary history but have opinions on memes. Got any cool memes to show?

>>23153010
If you bifurcate the world into Life-Denying and Life-Affirming, I would consider myself Life-Affirming, if that's what you mean.

>>23153654
Quentin doesn‘t waste time on toys anon

>>23153724
what? he started on /v/

>>23150482
Dream of The RIdiculous Man from his short stories and C+P or Demons from major

>>23153075
church and russians is a persistent theme in all of his novels. you mention his girls, it's easy to see how they are part of his politics. they are not some figure of speech creatures without identities, they are simply the idealized version of russian women. the criminals in the haunted house is a counterpart to this. his women sacrifice everything and forgive everything, they work hard and take care of their alcoholic husbands. on the other hand the german women in his novels are dumb and stingy, french are unfaithful. not only in the political sense but they are also used as props to justify dostoevsky's philosophy of forgiveness. nellie is an object of guilt, it's the old man's punishment coming back to haunt him in material form for not forgiving his daughter. compare that to the other daughter whom name I forgot that was forgiven and that family who found peace.

so I fail to see how you think any of this adds up to his faithfulness to artistry. way it seems to me it's the opposite. he exaggerated everything to get his point across even at the cost of creating incoherent stories, most famous example being raskolnikov butchering old women in crime and punishment for no apparent reason. writer's diary is not a fictional work so he is more overt with his politics there. but all of his novels are clear representations of his worldview. karamazov, underground man, humiliated are all examples of this.

sure call me an autist because I am for individualism and I don't believe in dostoevsky's evils of materialism and utopia of russian soil which will be made possible by the right concoction blood of christ and russian soul. if you find that stuff tasteful good for you I suppose. to me it's laughable in the way you look at ethics or morality. I grew tired of dostoevsky's characters that fight the evil of life with nonsense and poverty. it definitely was more exciting when I was younger.

>>23150482
The new testament

>>23153932
Raskolnikov was a poor NEET who was irritated as fuck at the old crone for being a rude bitch. It's been done for less.

>>23153987
yeah but those instances are not considered deep revelations of human soul don't become novels do they.

>>23154001
Patric Bateman, for one. Are you Slav

>>23153932
No that’s all completely wrong. His women are dominating and sharp, that’s what’s different about him and something he gets through Walter Scott. Vavara abandons Makar, she abandons literature. In what way does he actually argue for the soul of the Russian woman? Katerina is possessed by Murin through guilt, not duty. Its a contradiction to say he portrays German women as dumb but Russian women as dutiful and serving in the same way he makes fun of that type of ‘Noble German self sacrifice’ for the family in The Gambler, his most political novel. And those geopolitical exaggerations in his characters are spoofs on portrayals and goings on in whatever with the news being written and more directly considered apart of literature at the time, especially the magazine environment. The Gambler is his most political and it’s not as simple as Russia good everyone else bad. Dosto loves Mlle Blanche. And the English guy ends up being not that bad too despite being a Reddit cuck, at least for taking care of Polina in a noble way. It’s supposed to be a farce against all of them, even the soulful old wise Russian lady that loses everything. Yes Nellie is an object, that’s why Dosto turned her into a sacrifice, but it’s a guilt we’re all supposed to feel. The old man never forgives her, that happens to us. How could all your vail intellectualisms and individualisms compare to that? It’s not even worth one single toe on her little foot. The women don’t sacrifice everything and forgive everything based on Russian duty, Sonia becomes attached to Raskolnikov because he’s ‘the most unhappiest man in the world’ it’s that type of personal moral taste that makes his mother characters silly and sometimes judgmental and unforgiving, Nastasya and the Underground Man have that same type of moral obsession, it’s a literary thing. Nastasya believed all those stories of chivalry. The way this actually connects to Russia is more specific than nationalism. Everyone knows Ukrainian women are the most attractive, but what actually makes a person handsome in that way? It’s something more Abrahamic with his ‘old believers’ and soulful pastoral noblemen. Crime and Punishment is a pastoral book not one of ‘good morals’, that’s why he has Sonia because the pastoralists used to always argue if it’s better for a young male servant or a young female servant to follow you into pastoral wild. Sonia is Dosto’s answer to that, that’s why her name is Greek. He’s attaching those sensual Greek symbols that create the rmorality to the Abrahamic strength and ‘individualism’ of his Volga bandit characters. It’s an actual materialistic individualism not an ‘intellectual’ one. It’s supposed to be Abrahamic like the vision that Raskolnikov has at the end. The vision of freedom outside of Russian or any civilization and that causes him to finally love Sonia, not any sort of goodness through duty and political correctness.

>>23153932
>>23154155
You never got Dosto because you’re obsessed with all this stupid anachronistic stuff. Katerina pimps out Marmeladov’s daughter. There’s your soulful dutiful Russian woman for you. And she’s supposed to be the goofy sitcom mom type. She’s a totally doomed character. The Epanchin’s representing Russia’s middle class crippled and doomed their daughter. Nastasya gives in to her guilt, completely unchanging from Vavara or Katerina. And the Russians hated The Landlady, they don’t want Murin. Because Murin isn’t Dosto arguing for ‘Russia’ but for Abrahamism through Russia and depicting it as like a ‘soulful’ Aryan Middle East.

>>23153932
>>23154158
And it seems like Dosto’s really doing that to win over his own Russian youth intellectual audience. If you had to compare the philosophies between Westernization and Russian Abrahamism with sensual Greek characteristics I think we all know which is better for a young Aryan male versed in all the ancient Aryan sex and marriage laws. Russian Abrahamism is way better than the western Jungian psychologically of ‘individual transcendence’, that’s cope escapism

>>23154206
I honestly take this post 100% seriously at this point, bait is dead we are in a new age of 100% deadly serious posts like this

>>23154416
A big part of Dosto’s work is that provincial Russian and German guy and Frenchman all being the same people. They should just be ruled with Byzantine Greek mysticism instead of Latinized paganism because it’s more Abrahamic and so more coherent and less schizophrenic

>>23154155
varvara's abandonment of makar is not really a one about literature. my interpretation is different, I don’t want to steer the conversation away by getting into poor folk. instead I will only give the simple detail why yours is wrong, makar was a literarily incompetent character, if you use your symbol detectors that you seem to pride yourself for you’d see running away from that implies the opposite.

it's interesting how you bring forward details like “but he liked this french thing” as a retort to the general hatred he himself professed towards the french. there is a very funny bit from him in winter notes about it. I am sure he liked an english novelist, it doesn't change the fact that he thought crystal palace rose from hell. I think you are not looking at facts but instead what do you want to feel about him. we can get into a fist fight by digging up various details that contradict each other until one of us passes out or simply accept the obvious fact that he was a chauvinist and hated the west.

>How could all your vail intellectualisms and individualisms compare to that?
it's just a subjective evaluation. you are the one who said you use your heart not your brain. how am I supposed to defend my stance that favors a somewhat rational ethical guideline against someone who sees truth only in melodramatic? your defense for the humiliated and insulted is pathetic. it's a book that's directly and only interested in shoving "mercy" down your throat. message is fucking forgive that whore, or you will turn into that ghoul in the first part of my novel.

listen man you don't need to get angry at me because I don't like respect his esoteric system of symbols as a moral compass or at least your interpretation of it, better than good old using your brain to reject retardation. you are trying really hard to prove that he has discovered something but I only hear arbitrary and emotionally charged justifications over what he did to his characters from you(have to admit it's really disappointing to see this because you understood dostoevsky apparently, unlike me). you are trying to even misrepresent him in different light. it's like trying to get chatgpt to agree you on something so obvious but it never will and keep answering you with "actually it's multifaceted" I think you are being dishonest with your way of arguing through completely looking over my argument that sonya's prime role in there was to be the forgiving russian woman. there are different elements to her creation sure, how does that falsify what I said? you said her attraction's core was because raskolnikov was the saddest man on earth. I mean come on, doesn't that prove what I just said?

>>23154158
you are right that I made a mistake by saying "every" character of his good, it's obviously untrue. I was thinking of the protagonists when I wrote that. it's been a long time I have read these novels. I don't agree with the rest.

this thread is just 2 guys arguing

>>23154548
we're in a dosto novel

>>23152243
>>23152410
Both based answers. Petrusha is hands down Dostoyevskys best villain and Stavrogin is his most complex character

>>23150482
notes from underground is quite good

>>23154514
I’m not getting angry. You’re the one getting angry and beginning to swear at me when confronted with the reality of forgiveness. The point of Injured and Insulted is Vanya’s selflessness. Natalya is his adopted sister that he grew up together with and shared all those noble literary sentiments of childhood romance and they were supposed to end up together right, but instead those same intellectual feelings in her created the need to have a childish partner in Alyosha that she could have control over and bleed those sentiments out of on a whim. It’s that type of selfishness that explored throughout the novel and Vanya’s complete acceptance of it and his striving to stay above it to keep his moral sentiments pure. Even Nellie becomes closer to the old German doctor in her sickness…. Because life and truth is melodramatic and emotional like that. It’s not two rational intelligent people forming a ‘partnership’, the intelligent person wants someone to exert their sentiments on. That should tell you everything about your worldview being wrong and impotent… it’s all wrong and it will never help any young man. It will only confuse him and turn him into a real Underground Man. Only my way of Russian Abrahamism and esoteric sensual Greek mysticisms is of any psychological, moral, intellectual value and advantage to anyone. Your Jungian symbolism and Latinized intellectual paganism is failing young men. We need real Western Greek foundations. We need Sonia (Sophia) and her pastoralism, her personal moral feelings, not any duty to any civilization. Plutarch said that Rome was started by bandits and thieves. We want Greek freedom and youth
> hatred he himself professed towards the french
Yeah that’s why he puts French in all of his novels and constantly styles it as the epitome of all high culture.

>>23154624
>We want Greek freedom and youth
you will find that in the church?

>>23154645
The church finds itself in us

>>23154653
Yes, yes, we've all heard the priest scandal, no need to keep referencing it.

>>23153647
I like how you obviously had to go off for several hours and read the details of the novel, but seriously what do you consider profound if not that? A young misguided kid who dreams himself to be a great man and commits a horrible act only to find he is in fact just a man, as flawed and emotional as everyone else. Racked with guilt he must reconcile and attempt to redeem himself. How is this not a profound story about misguided youth and the dangers of egoism? What the fuck do you expect people to write about to make something profound? What in writing a story about fucking a 12 year old is more profound that this?

>>23155182
Death? Egoism? Man's place in the world. No thanks - I prefer My Little Pony fanfics.

>>23155182
Kek, your reply to mine is just as long as mine was to yours, are you admitting that you had to go and research the subject to counter my post? "Obviously had to go off for several hours and read the details of the novel", are you for real? Again, even the way you've framed the story is PAINFULLY trite. "I'm going to be a great man like Napoleon and kill someone! Oh no, I feel guilt, how could this be happening to me! I will now wander around town for several days in a feverish delirium". Cringe. Also, the whole thing is contrived, the detective assigned to the case basically does nothing and just assumes Rasky will confess, which he does. With criminals like Rasky who needs police?

>>23155306
What the fuck are you talking about schizo? Anyhow just give an example of something as profound as C&P, theres plenty of examples yet you can't give anything. Seems to be your just some juevenile midwit who likes to mock everything to feel smart, likely you haven't read and mock it to sooth yourself for the guilt of not reading.

>>23155311
Reading it was one of the most boring yawnfests of my life. Literally ANY book is better than that piece of crap, and I'm done giving examples as it seems YOU haven't even read it. You've just glomed onto an author popular with people you want to emulate so you parrot praise for him without any critical thought or originality. You're probably a Peterson fan and because stand-in daddy figure said it's one of the greatest novels of all time you have to defend it like some kind of fetishized talisman. Absolutely embarrassing, anon.

>>23155320
>ad hominem
>strawman
>strawman

and yet you still can't give a simple example! sad and pathetic

>>23155323
Ah, a little sensitive on this one, eh? It seems I've found you out! Shall I venture a further guess that you lacked an actual father in your life? It would explain a lot!

>>23155330
Damn dude where is this coming from? This is a serious case of projection and red herring. Please just give an example as I asked you can sort out mental neuroses another time. The more you refuse to the more painfully obvious it is you don't have one.

>>23155333
The anon doth protest too much, methinks. I referenced the detective and you totally ignored it, likely because you haven't read it and have been going off what other people have said about it. It's okay, anon, it's not your fault daddy wasn't around, but it's time to grow up now.

>>23155339
nigga are you fucking kidding me? the detective by thorp? 100% some deranged libtard who just hates dosto because he had different political opinions to you. No wonder you found it boring because you read the literary equivalent of capeshit

>>23155343
Okay, do you need a mental wellness check? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you completely missed what I was referencing? The detective in C&P, anon, the one who Rasky has multiple conversations with, which you would know if you had actually read the book.

>>23155352
I think its you who needs reading comprehension because I asked you directly to give an example until you can and instead you referenced some point multiple posts back, I arguing in good faith assumed you were responding finally. Of course I was wrong you still can't peform perform something so simply. I wonder why that might be?

>>23155361
You're clearly shook, anon, maybe take some time away, go and research the novel, and then rejoin the conversation, because, as it stands, you're embarrassing yourself right now.

>>23155361
you are arguing with a schizophrenic

>>23155367
you are arguing with a schizophrenic

>>23155367
I enjoyed how you avoided giving a book, but instead insulted the other anon about mental health and parenting. Truly high iq stuff. Did I see you at Cambridge?

>>23155373
Ah, not big on reading, huh? I very clearly stated "ANY book", but I guess it's asking too much for you to have caught that!

>>23155376
Very vague anon. I'll have to give you a D- at best. See me after class.

>>23155378
So you literally admit you aren't reading my posts or comprehending them? What are you arguing against, then, if I may ask? The voices in your head?

>>23155367
>red herring
>red herring
>ad hominem
>ad hominem

I know you're obviously just trying to save face but you'd be better off just closing the thread than continutlly embarrassing yourself with the fact you literally cannot give an example of a profound book. It shows you for what you are, shitting on Dosto for ulterior motives, however deranged they may be.

>>23155380
We ask for clarity, anon -- something your primary school masters ought to have taught you, but you seemed to have forgotten. A pity - you're so playful and energetic! But as it is, vagueness is simply a poor show, so D- is your note.

>>23155381
You accuse me red herrings, but are so utterly defeated by my criticism that you want to shift the conversation to a different book? Telling! Someone in this thread is embarrassing themselves, that's for sure!

>>23155387
>You accuse me red herrings
ESL

>>23155387
You're criticism was mockingly repeating the plot and saying "this isn't profound". So again give me an example of something profound this should be so simple for such a bright tyke like you!

>>23155388
>Can't stay on topic
>Goes after a typo
>Can't even conjure an original insult
>Uses the current /lit/ buzzword of "ESL"
Poor showing, anon, you had a real chance to show me what for due to an omitted word, yet this is all you can do with such a glorious opportunity? How disappointing!

>>23155389
Refer to >>23152633
Read carefully!

Demons also translated as The Possessed also translated as The Devils.

>>23155392
>buzzword of "ESL"
Fauci ouchie! ESL Detected! Where you from lil' guy?

>>23155399
I see you're doing everything you can to avoid the actual topic of Dosto because of how you have been BTFO. Are you the anon who was going on about "ad hominens" earlier? If so, that's doubly embarrassing.

>>23155396
>dragging up a point from yesterday that was already done over (and lead us to the current point) because you can't worm your way out of the issue at hand

Weak as fuck anon. I'm not going to stop asking for an example as much as you want to distract from the point.

>>23155402
Why so sensitive, lil' man? I only want to get to know my fellow posters, maybe help your English!

>>23155405
>"Quit trying to distract from the topic by sticking to the topic and ignoring my attempts to shift the conversation to another topic!"
Are you for real, anon?

>>23155408
Give an example or admit you can't

>>23155407
>Ad hom
>Ad hom
This is how you responded, right?

>>23155413
that's a different anon you fucking retard

>>23155411
You're basically admitting defeat, you can't defend Dosto so you want to shift the conversation to something else. I'll take that as a concession.

>>23155398
I’ve read all 4 of his big novels. Honestly liked all of them, but the only one I actively enjoyed and plan on revisiting is Demons.

>>23155413
>ESL is a buzzword
>accuse me red herrings
Is it good morning, sir where you're at - Please advise.

>>23155414
Ah, now you'll answer that it wasn't you! Perhaps you are simply skipping reading my posts so you can repeat a tired insult again? Poor showing, anon, very poor.

>>23155416
Cope. Give an example anon. What's wrong can't do it?

>>23155421
meds

>>23155422
>Ignore, obfuscate, deflect
Coping indeed!

>>23155421
>Poor showing
I like how my grading rattled you so much that you started copying it, kek. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ;)

>>23155425
You're slowing fading away. The pain of humilation is making you weaker and weaker all because you can't give one simple example. Sad!

>>23155426
Even you must realize what a stretch that is. Your ego is getting the better of you, my insecure friend, but since it will soothe you so much, I will imitate you in this ;)

>>23155428
>Being this desperate to avoid having to defend your own position
Keep going on the offense, anon, I'm sure we'll all forget how weak Dosto is if you keep insisting we talk about another author!

>>23155429
You truly flatter me!

>>23155434
I live to bring joy and happiness to the world ;)

>>23155435
Word up, coolio.

>>23155431
You're breaking anon. Just give an example so you can surrender your pride. You know you want to.

>if you keep insisting we talk about another author

ironic because you can't even name one!

>>23155436
Anything for you home boy.

>>23155440

>>23155439
Admit you can't defend Dosto and need me to name an author for you to attack first, then I'll entertain your request

>>23155442
>Admit you can't defend Dosto
I like how you treat art like a contest, kek. Very plebeian, frankly. Did you never attend university? What's with the pent up rage and desire to measure things? Very prole.

>>23155442
You already got thrashed all thread and resorted to doing nothing but mockingly repeating the plot as cringe and claimed it was not profound. So now that we are at this stage of the debate I ask for something that is profound. You can't do that. And you're bluffing that you'll do so.

>>23155446
Hmm, this is dangerously close to the admission I was looking for. I merely stated my criticisms of Dosto and other anons literally contested them. If you have nothing to urge against my criticism, then you must accept they have merit. That is the matter at hand, my good fellow!

>>23153747
The Dream of a Ridiculous Man is pretty awesome

>>23155449
>If you have nothing to urge against my criticism, then you must accept they have merit.
Holy ESL. That's not how you use urge. GOOOOD MORNING SIR!

>>23155447
Anons in this thread have nothing to say against my actual criticisms, but instead hurl the most basic level of insults because I dared to say a negative word against their sacred cow. This does not amount to getting "thrashed all thread". I've already directed you to posts where I meticulously lay out my exact problems with Dosto's construction of his plot and central themes. The fact that you can't engage with those criticisms and instead seek only to dismiss them speaks volumes about YOU.

>>23155456
Hahaha, read more anon, you're embarrassing yourself. That is absolutely an accepted use of the word "urge".

>>23155460
I urge sir, you must have nothing to urge against my criticism. Good Morning!

>>23155464
Ah, of course! Projection! You literally don't know English, so that is your default insult against others! Hilarious, anon!

>>23155466
Sir, do not be upset! You must have nothing to urge against my criticism, sir. Good morning.

>>23155456
bro, that's actually a correct sentence, now's not the time to use ESL

>>23155470
I urge you to consult a dictionary. You're even quadrupling down on your own error in comprehending English! Hysterical!

>>23155473
Nothing to urge is a classic PooJeetism.

>>23155457
Cry more bitch boy you got criticism and this is where you devolved to defend against them. And now you're stuck because you can't give an example and can only try and loop back around. Sorry but that's not how it works. You don't get to "do over" your points in a debate because it lead you to a deadend. You're not a baby and nobody is going to child you like that especially considering how obnoxious you've been. Be a big boy and defend your point as it stands and as it stands now you can't give an example.

>>23155476
Auntie, I will do the needful and repeat, I have nothing to urge! Nothing to urge!

>>23155478
Don't worry, anon, that phrase is often used in a setting of higher education, so I'm not completely surprised you've never encountered it.

>>23155482
>Seething this hard just in order to change the subject after getting BTFO
You seem upset!

>>23155485
SARS PLEASE I OFTEN HAVE OFTEN EDUCATION IN NOTHING TO URGE

>>23155485
Uncle, it will be done today sir. There is nothing to urge against...

>>23155488
I'll take that as your concession

>>23155490
Here, allow me to literally spoonfeed you a quote directly from Darwin's On the Origin of Species: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Glad I could educate you on the English language!

>>23155494
And I'll see this as yours, IF you have nothing to urge, sir.

>>23155017
>Reddit swearing and Jon Stewart jokes
How poor

>>23155494
Keep seething and coping, anon, anything to avoid having to talk about Dosto anymore, huh?

>>23155496
>no u

sad! I'm sure getting the last reply will sooth your beaten ego a little anon!

>>23155503
kek, that's obviously the other anon who doesn't understand English and is stuck on his "ESL" loop, even after getting BTFO by a direct example of the correct usage of that word.

>>23155495
Yes, thank you for educating us on how Poojeets still use Victorian era language, Sanuup. Will you explain next how "to do the needful" is simply forgotten English?

>>23155456
>>23155464
>>23155470
>>23155483
>>23155493
Okay this is actually kek. This whole time the Dosto whiner was just a seething Hindu

>>23155503
>>23155504
I'm thinking samefag, but ironic
>sad! I'm sure getting the last reply will sooth your beaten ego a little anon!
while replying yourself!

>>23155505
>Deflection
This sure is a common defense mechanism in this thread? Kek, just admit you literally didn't know that was a correct usage of the word, and this whole time you were accusing others of having a poor grasp of English while being in the wrong about English! Laughable!

>>23155511
Try again, my misguided friend!

>>23155513
Sir... you must understand. To do the needful and nothing to urge are Victorian colonial sayings sir! VERY VERY OUTDATED SIR! DO NOT REDEEM!

>>23155509
Are you referencing the anon who literally couldn't understand the correct usage of an English word while calling someone else ESL?

>>23155509
Yeah I’ve heard a lot about these kids usually they start swearing and telling Jon Stewart jokes and talking about India’s technological growth. I imagine he’s mad that his sister converted to Christianity and the cultural output of Christianity through literary figures like Dostoyevsky in general. It’s a big point of contention over there, at least that’s what I hear through my friends on whatsapp

>>23155516
>"O-okay, actually it is correct English, b-but It's uhhh... it's old... so, uh yeah"
Absolutely annihilated.

>>23155518
I mean yeah he sounds Indian, arrogant, and when confronted with hard facts they just start swearing because they’re so used to buying their way out of the problems their big mouth puts them in.

>>23155521
>to do the needful is correct English
No way you're THIS FUCKING POOJEET.

>>23155456
>Holy ESL. That's not how you use urge
>>23155516
>nothing to urge is a Victorian colonial saying
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH At least try to stay consistent, otherwise you totally embarrass yourself, anon. Wow.

this schizo pajeet is literally trying to "debunk" a guy ESL shitposting lmao

>>23155527
Sir, whatever your Dalit parents paid for English lessons, it was too much sir. There is EVERYTHING to urge against.

>>23155526
Are you mentally ill? You brought up that phrase and I never used it. I'm talking about the word "urge". Concentrate, anon, I'm sure even you can follow this.

>>23155529
I'm laughing my ass off that an anon tried to ESL-post while misunderstanding English. That's absolutely hysterical!

>>23155531
Sir, you have nothing to urge against. The very brahmin Charles Gentleman urge.

>>23155533
You (if you were white)

>>23155535
>Being this insecure about race
This is how I know you're an American Mutt. Actual White people don't need to constantly obsess over race, that's a sure sign of nigger blood or some other shit skin race. I see you, anon, you've been found out.

>>23155537
You will never, ever be truly accepted as British, ever. Hope that fucking helps.

>>23155539
I'm not from some shithole country like India or the USA, so I don't care.

> what's your favorite Dosto novel?
I don’t like any of his silly melodramatic novels, and I read them all as a young student after teaching myself English. I found many things to urge against while reading his silly emotional screeches. It will never help us develop new plumbing systems and better Internet in the rural part of my country that I live in

>>23155543
Nonresponsive, Sanjay. You will never EVER be English. You are brown.

>>23155545
Again, you are obsessed with race because you aren't pure, and are likely a high percentage of some dark skinned ethnicity. Sucks to be you!

>>23155553
Sanoop is sad :(
you will never, not in a billion years, be English. Post hand with timestamp, Turd.

>>23155556
>Requests hand pic
I already know you're a dirty mixed American Mutt, you don't need to keep demonstrating it.

>>23155456
Now, the ESL insult is already pretty tired, but to claim ESL when it's you that doesn't understand English is pretty funny

>>23155557
You, no matter what anyone says, will always be a Indian, Sanoop. sorry.

>>23155560
GOOD MORNING SER!

>>23155561
Indians really live rent free in your head, don't they? Could it be that their blood also flows in your veins?

>>23155544
exactly. he wrote for people who enjoyed waddling in mud the mud. it is heartening to see a fellow third wolder who is immune to nonsense.

>>23155568
Please, sir, do not be waddling in mud the mud, sir! Very bad, sir!

>>23155569
I actually left it intentionally to get this reply.

>>23155567
Auntie- there is everything to urge against. Do NOT redeem sir! Do NOT laugh sir!

>>23154624
The last quality post of this thread and the only reply was some guy whining about how that’s not how it is at church, completely abandoning any pretense of caring about the text. Wow these people are really not worth anyone’s time and just seething that someone came up with a cultural output that the world has respect for because it clashes against their beliefs. How poor could you get it

>>23155580
I am curious why you consider it a quality post, can you elaborate?

>>23155583
Not that guy, but it actually contains some knowledge of characters in the book, beyond a wikipedia line. The conclusions are off, though. A Writer's Diary is filled with diatribes towards the French, and Dostoevsky thought they were soft.

mein gott, this thread...

>>23155586
You realize someone can just punch in a basic question to ChatGPT and get enough details to appear to have read the novels, right? Lazy anons who don't actually read have long since moved on from "Wikipedia lines".