/lit/ - Literature

His books are really long, but excellent.
I never understood why he's considered to be so important though, I don't understand what was his innovation in literature.

How do you pronounce his name?

Inb4 something

>>2397035
Dos-toy-ev-skie

>>2397034

He wasn't necessarily an innovator, it's more that he was truly excellent at developing characters, I think. As far as I'm concerned, he gives Twain a run for his money in that regard.

Didn't really like Notes from Underground, I mean I did in a way. The narrator just was sought of a idiot, a complete fuck-head. From living on earth for however long he had, you would think he would have had many similar experiences to the ones he had in the book and would have known to not do them. For instance the whole being drunk part and what happened, he was pretty pathetic about the whole thing(the other guys were also pathetic).

I just thought of him, in some ways, as really fucking dumb. I sought of started feeling like I was going insane while reading Notes from Underground. I had a really bad flu, my whole body was aching, so I felt like shit and could relate with the character, somewhat.

I don't know, is all of Dostoyevsky books really depressing and schizophrenic?

>>2397041
His name is written differently in many languages though. For example in Norwegian: Dostojevskij

to OP: When it comes to his characters, they often fits within the clinical diagnosis' of Freud, and he's often considered as one of the fathers of the modern psychoanalysis.

He also has a great sense of humor, if you've read his satirical works.

>>2397035

Tolstoy-ev-ski

His mastery with dialogue, description, pacing and in general terms storytelling surpassed frontiers and placed him above most of his contemporanians. He was a technically devastating writer, that brought up every creation through research and compassion. I enjoyed most of his books.

>>2397083
That's the weirdest spelling of Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov I have ever seen.

>>2397088
It's because it's spelling out Gogol you moron.

>>2397081
Yes but in Russian it is Достоевский the stress is on the e in this word so really it should be read as Do-sta-yev-ski. The really й is translated as y or j in the latin alphabet depending on the language but in English it makes the y sound.

Anyway thoughts on the author is he gets better the more you understand 19th century Russia, you can learn a shit load about his life and his books if you look at some of the analysis that Konstantin Molchulsky in Dostoyevsky or Dostoyevsky's own writer's diary that he published. I'm in the middle of a three hundred level course that teaches him. He is a good author even for us Anglos but for the Russians he is a master.

>>2397087

>contemporarians

>>2397097

Contemporanian applies to a person that belongs to the same historical period/artistic movement.

>>2397106

Surely contemporaries would be the word of choice in that case. I'm not saying your's is invalid, it just seems odd that you'd use it when a much more standard version exists.

>>2397093
>>2397088
>>2397083

>>2397073
I recognized him as the person i was a while ago and it was really interesting to see someone nail that down. He instantly became one of my favorite authors because he is one of the best at getting into peoples heads, noticing their strange psycho mannerisms and internal conflicts.

>>2397108
Not that buy, but wouldn't "contemporaries" refer to works of the same period, but "contemporarians" to their makers?

>>2397111

Contemporaries can refer to either the works or the artists.

>Contemporary: A person or thing living or existing at the same time as another.

So this is /lit/. Its pretty nice here.

>>2397110
This he was one of the first psychological realists out there and still one of the better ones out there. His works greatly influenced early psychology.

>>2397119
Most civilized board on 4chan although that is not saying much.

>>2397122
Is that young Stalin?

>>2397119

I swear it used to be better.

>>2397120
I'm not sure if I would call him a psychological realists, as his characters tends to be twisted enough to break from what I would consider to be "realism", and rather walk into the world of fiction.

>>2397125
> walk into the world of fiction.

What is this, a 1970's sociology class?

>>2397127
Why the 70's?

>>2397125
But while his works may not be as realist as Tolstoy or Gorky and other movements in Russia to come he does abandon Romanticism that Gogol championed in his work. I mean he is sort of unique in what his works overall strive for. With Chernyshevsk rationalism mixed with liberalism and the notion that Russians should break with the tsar was championed and Dostoyevsky was kind of a reactionary. He saw what was on the horizon for Russia and wanted instead the church to replace the state. So most of his characters are affected by this vision in his later novels at least which is what may lead them astray from true realism but his characters reactions to the trivial and scandalous seem down to earth.

Too timid to fight his thoughts in the realm of philosophy. So he worked in fiction. I love Dostoyevsky's work, I really do. Notes From the Underground is so devastating. The narrator/writer could have been considered "mental". But could it have been that he was less of a coward to exactly feel things and not shy away from them? To live his misery because his misery is him.

>>2397024
He is a god. I've read all five of his late-stage novels - C&P-BK, Notes from Underground, Gambler, Double, stories... It's not even so much what he writes about as how he writes it that elevates him above everyone else, it's just his psychological style of characterization, his descriptions, and a million other little details of his prose make it absolutely fuckin incredible.

His influence is huge on people from Ellison to Proust. Ford Madox Ford's history of literature from 1000 bce to the 1950s calls D the only genius of the previous 150 years Dostoevsky.

Nobody here knows that Dostoevsky's translators were amazing but the original Russian was mediocre at best.

>>2397173
I don't see Dostoyevsky as great for his prose even in English (that wasn't the part that blew me away) though he does have a certain way of writing things. It is his substance, the psychological underlinings and the characters he writes. I do know that he wrote most of his works very quickly because of debts so perhaps it has something to do with that.

>>2397073
Spoilers: you are the underground man.

Welcome to existentialism,

I enjoyed "The Idiot" the most. It's remarkable how he shows us the complexity of human soul and the unpredictableness of one's actions. It deals with some very interesting ideas - for example Myshkin's character examines the possibility of pure goodness - I think he may be the Dostoyevsky's understanding of Messiah. The other storylines are also good - I'm personally very interested in Kolya's development during the story and Terentyev's way of coping with his disease. Myshkin has some golden words for Terentyev's question about how he should die: "Pass us by, and forgive us our happiness.". And the part where Lebedev (or was it General Ivolgin? can't remember) visits Myshkin and is sorry for his bad habits, but after the confession he still asks for some money to go drink again. As Dostoyevsky points out, it doesn't mean that he's insincere, it's just that he has two thoughts at the same time and although those thoughts may at first appeal to be controversial, it doesn't make them dishonest. I also like it's ending, which is actually very natural, because Dostoyevsky shows us the logic behind everyone's actions.

>>2397143
I'd like to point out that although he was religious, he had some difficult relationship with religion. He somewhat reminds me of Kierkegaard. It was as if he more of wanted to believe, but always remained some unleaving hesitation. That's what makes possible to put him in the same boat with existentialists, although of course it's a somewhat raw thing to do.

recently read Crime & Punishment...at times it really felt like a chore, I think there's too much lost in the translation from Russian to English

I've got The Idiot in my pile of stuff to read later this year, but beyond that I think I'm steering clear of him until I learn Russian (which I don't see happening)

>>2397160

>Ford Madox Ford's history of literature from 1000 bce to the 1950s

That sounds really interesting, but I couldn't find anything on a history of literature by Ford Madox Ford, pray could you give me more info?

>>2397378

I believe I found it, is it called The March of Literature?

I`m russian and my english is so bad? but i need to say.
I do not read the tread.
In Russia we read Dostoevsky`s books in school.
I think he is horrible nasty person, whom whiten this madness and mental illness. I think no one is need to read this trash.
In the first place he was wrong in this thinking about religion and martyrdom. In his books he teaches the ugliest kind of philosophy(same reason to Tolstoy, he is nasty too).
I hate Dostoevsky.

>>2397386
Yeah the March of Literature. 1000 pages, the last page is an ode to D's genius.

>>2397498
you're wrong and a retarded fetal alcohol syndrome baby. Yes, he's a strange personality, an antisemite, but he's a visionary novelist.

I speak Russian and the original Dostoevsky is achingly beautiful. The translators aren't bad, but they can barely keep up with how good he is.

>>2397498
ahahaha, 5 stars post, I feel you
Another proof that school systems all-around the world force people into hating literature.

>>2397507
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH MY OPINION IS THE RIGHT ONE, "ACHINGLY BEAUTIFUL", BLAH BLAH BLAH

That is my imitation of you

>>2397507
I know that all of russian babes in America has alcohol syndrome. But you wrong, it has only Dostoevsky not me.
Just now I read the tread and see that you marvel in Dostoevsky because of realism. But this the same to marvel in pies of shit realism.

>>2397526
>>2397498
haha poster keeps saying "tread" instead of "thread" mo'fuckah talks like Ivan Drago

I MUST BREAK YOU

>>2397534
yes I am. lol.
How it makes me worse knowing Dostoevsky`s literature?

>>2397526
>But this the same to marvel in pies of shit realism.

The vision you've put in my head, sir. I love you.

>>2397544
doesn't at all friend-o. I welcome your opinion, especially since you share the author's country of birth and language. it's a fresh perspective

>>2397550
:3

reading demons atm, im liking it a lot. only other novel by him ive finished is the idiot. ive tried to read crime and punishment and the brothers karamazov twice a piece, getting halfway each time, but tend to lose interest, even though i managed to get a lot of reading done per sitting.

>>2397555
try once more with cp

People talk about the psychological realism in Dostoevsky's works, which is disputed but I stand on the side of realism for Dostoevsky.

The only issue is that I've never found a writer similar to that psychological realism that Dostoevsky has. Sure, there are these "realist" writers, but they're just boring far away accounts that never dig into the minds of the characters.

>>2397186

>wellcome to existentialism

I'm I the only one who thinks Notes could be, just as easily be talking about nihilism or absurditism in a metaphorical way instead of shitty existentialism.

I really enjoyed the book from that perspective.

Dostoyevsky? Yeah, I hear he's... pretty underground.

*giggles*

'this dream as you call it will come to pass without doubt; it will come but not now for every purpose has its law. It's a spiritual, psychological process. To transform the world, to recreate it afresh, men must turn into another path psychologically. Until you have become really, in actual fact a brother to every one. Brotherhood will not come to pass. No sort of scientific teaching, no kind of common interest will ever teach men to share property and privileges with equal consideration for all. Every one will think his share too small and they will be always envying, complaining and attacking one another. You ask when it will come to pass; it will come to pass, but first we have to go through the period of isolation."

"What do you mean by isolation?" I asked him.

>>2397566
"Why, the isolation that prevails everywhere, above all in our age-it has not fully developed, it has not reached its limit yet. For every one strives to keep his individuality as apart as possible, wishes to secure the greatest possible fulness of life for himself; but meantime all his efforts result not in attaining fulness of life but self destruction, for instead of self-realisation he ends by arriving at complete solitude. All mankind in our age have split up into units, they all keep apart, each in his own groove; each one holds aloof, hides himself and hides what he has, from the rest and he ends by being repelled by others and repelling them. He heaps up riches by himself and thinks, 'how strong I am now and how secure,' and in his madness he does not understand that the more he heaps up, the more he sinks into self-destructive impotence. For he is accustomed to rely upon himself alone and to cut himself from the whole; he has trained himself not to believe in the help of others, in men and in humanity, and only trembles for fear he should lose his money and the privileges that he has won for himself. Everywhere in these days men have, in their mockery, ceased to understand that the true security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated individualism effort. But this terrible individualism must inevitably have an end, and all will understand how unnaturally they are separated from one another. It will be the spirit of the time, and people will marvel that they have sat so long in darkness without seeing the light. But until then we must keep the banner flying. Sometimes even if he has to do it alone, and his conduct seems to be crazy, a man must set an example, and so draw men's souls out of their solitude, and spur them to love, that the great idea may not die.'

There is a perfect portion in The Idiot that well defines hipsters. That's why Dostoevsky is great, he's been attacking hipsters since the 19th century.

>>2397569
my english steel bad.
In Russia we have one movie founded on "Idiot" named "Down house". In the end main characters ate the whore. Sorry for spoiler.

>>2397593
>still
lol. I am idiot.

>>2397596
and i lost articles

Taking the Fyodor dive pretty soon. What editions/translations are the best in your opinion?

>>2397526
>>2397544
This is hilarious. I wish non-English bros would post here more often.

>>2397638
I want to stay here. Our ministry of truth drives me crazy.

>>2397638
Not everyone posting here is an English native. It's just that usually you won't notice it that easily.

"Epilepsy, my friends! Epilepsy!"

>>2397638
We post all the time, you just can't tell the difference.

>>2397632
Pevear & Volokhonsky translations are highly praised. Hell if I know if they are the best, I don't know how to read Russian, but they are praised so that's that.

Also, Constance Garnett is to be avoided at all costs.

>>2397663
get bak to /tv/ faget

>>2397669
They don't cirkce jerk over her anymore, they've found some underage, blonde 'waifu'.

>>2397663
who's that chick?

Don't find his plots particularly interesting, but his books are so goddamned well written that they're entertaining to read none the less.

>>2397724
Constance Glaunet

>>2397724
Summer Glau

Would someone advise against jumping into dostoyevsky without much experience reading fictional literature?

>>2397749
No, he's not like Joyce where you'd want to be well read enough to get what he's referencing. Just maybe don't start with one of the longer books. Notes From The Underground or Crime And Punishment are decent choices to try.

>>2397749
'Crime and Punishment' is eminently readable. It's a little longer than average though, so if you don't trust your attention span maybe you should build up to it first.

>>2397119
I'm also experience the board for the first time and aggregating some new reading material from the wiki. It all seems quite nice.

>>2397781
*experiencing. What a way to start.

I was always wondering how can you judпу Dostoyevsky's language? All of you fafs admiring his descriptions and stuff. Do you speak russian or what?

Also what is all that fuss with Crime And Punishment is about? It's seriously overrated. As for me I love his Idiot the best.

>>2397820
The Idiot is a shitty love triangle novel.

>>2397811
They're just being retarded because they have nothing else to say, even if Dostoevsky is known for being a bit of a shitty writer with strong ideas, people will still praise his prose.

>>2397829
>Dostoevsky is known for being a bit of a shitty writer

way to overstate your case you juvenile contrarian fuckwad.

What do you guys think of Tolstoy in comparison with Dostoyevsky?
I started "Anna Karenina" a few days ago, before that I only read "the death of ivan ilyich", and have to say I find it really tedious and shallow compared to Dostoyevsky. "Madame Bovary", with a similar theme, was much more enjoyable, this just seems to drag for hundreds of pages.

>>2397834
>overstate
But do you disagree?

>>2397836
>herp herp realist literature so more better
Yeah, Tolstoy and other realists are shit because they aren't daring enough to delve deep into the mindset of their characters. Just taking photos from the outside.

I never liked Dostoyevsky's writing but I can't deny his ability as a psychologist..and at any rate i've never *actually* read his writing, just translations by other people (and translators are probably never great writers otherwise they would write their own novels)

>>2397847
>tolstoy
>realist
nah....
also
Sologub>Dostoyevsky

>>2397849
Oh, thanks, it's not like anyone on this board knows that translation aren't the same as the actual language. Thank you for the enlightenment.

>>2397847
No, Tolstoy is a realist because his characters are grounded to the earth. Dostoyevsky tends to be a lovechild with Freud, and can be so extreme that they're not realistic anymore.

>>2397854
Dostoyevsky's characters*

>>2397849
>translators are probably never great writers otherwise they would write their own novels
>implying that's not what translation entails

>>2397844
i disagree that he's a "shitty" writer, although i think it's fair to say his strengths lie elsewhere than his prose.

>>2397854
>so extreme
That's the argument I hear from pampered white boys who have never been driven to insanity

>>2397854
Down to Earth characters are not what makes something ''realist''...Also Dostoyevsky was writing before Freud.
>>2397857
Well maybe they just aren't that creative.

>>2397859
And you know this from what, his translations? HUEHUEHUE

>>2397836
Didn't read Tolstoy in english but in russian he sucks. Not comparing to but Dostoyevsky at large. Not only his language is poor but the plots are generally boring

>>2397836
Tolstoy is not shallow. He just approaches things from a macro perspective as opposed to Dostoevsky's micro perspective. In many ways Tolstoy's writing is actually more illustrative than Dostoevsky's, he's more of a shower than a teller.

Russian literature is not good enough to motivate me to learn Russian..besides foreign works of fiction are only improved when they are rendered into English..
English>>>>>>all other languages

>>2397860
So you wouldn't say "The idiot" is an "extreme" character comapred to real people?

>>2397864
It's realistic because you then can recreate the realism of the character. Something you can't when you create an extreme.

And it doesn't matter who where the first of the two, his characters fits very well with the theories of Freud.

>>2397857
agree

>>2397860
>pampered white boys who have never been driven to insanity.

Please, do tell about your experience with true insanity.

>>2397871
Dostoyevsky might have influenced Freud, but honestly if someone says Dostoyevsky's ideas are like Freud's then I have to assume they have never read Freud...the only idea they really share is the idea of a subconscious which is not an original idea for either of them. I don't think Dostoyevsky's characters are all that extreme..honestly, if you even read the news or look at the world around you you will find many such characters

>>2397860
>using "white boy" as an insult
>probably a white boy himself
>you know who's responsible for this...

>>2397871
How can it be extreme? Are you implying no human being has ever been murdered?

>>2397882
The true Israelites were black people.

>>2397887
Extreme -." Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest"

The main character is often compared to Jesus, in his naive, and almost child-like personality.
This is not by any definition a "normal" character.

>>2397879
What is your point? The reason these people are in the new is because they are among the extremes.

When it comes to his similiarities with Freud, ou should read some of the texts posted on this website:

http://www.fyodordostoevsky.com/essays.php

>>2397906
I really dont respect it when people are disposed to compare writers like they do Freud and Dostoyevsky

>>2397088
Clearly not how you spell Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Read only Humiliated and Insulted, and Crime and Punishment. Any precise order to go from there, or just grab what comes?

>>2397906
>Extreme -." Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest"
Okay, so the characters in Dostoevsky's aren't extreme because they could be more "extreme" than they currently are.
>like Jesus
Certainly, people are compared to figures all the time. Myshkin is forgiving like Jesus, but he has many other flaws as well. I don't believe his naive self was to be compared to Jesus, that kind of defeats who Jesus is.

>>2397975
>Okay, so the characters in Dostoevsky's aren't extreme because they could be more "extreme" than they currently are.

The hell are you talking about?


Anyways, "naive" was perhaps not the best word to use. "Unaffected", or "innocent", is perhaps better.

>>2397870

>English>all other languages

Say what now?

>>2398031

It's true. English is by FAR the best literary language, and has the largest number of literary geniuses.

>>2398041

Maybe... If by best you mean worst.

>>2397990
You're talking about an extreme as being the farthest, therefore these characters of Dostoevsky's are not extreme. Turn Myshkin into pretty much Jesus would be extreme.

>>2398041
>largest number
Yes, you white people eating up eurocentric literature love to believe this.

>>2398041
And who are you to judge? How many languages do you speak as fluent as your native one?

>>2398047

What are you basing this on? English is simultaneously the most euphonious and rich modern language there is. In addition, as I stated, the vast majority of contributors to the Canon have been English-speakers.

>>2398050
You fail to see that a person of such innocence and kindness, and so pure and unaffected(Thus often compared to Jesus, because they share many traits) is, by today's standards, extreme.

>>2398054

I er...

Um...

I SPEAK ALL OF THE LANGWIJUZZ

>>2398056
French literary history > English and American literary legacies combined. Purer language, too.

>>2398052 like there is any other. Descent I mean.
>>2398041
>the largest number
THIS.
Because except chinese etc. it's the most spread language at the time. But it doesn't make it the best

>>2398075

France doesn't have anything close to a Shakespeare. Fuck, they don't even have a Goethe.

And being "purer" actually makes French a worse literary language. English has absorbed almost every nation it colonised into its lexicon.

Lrn2Adventure of English by Melvyn Bragg

>>2398075
true story

>>2398081
just keep saying it

>>2398088

Just keep failing to provide a counter-argument. :)

I do know English grammar is too simple for the sentences Latin derived languages are able to construct.

>>2398110

English is a Latin-derived language you twit.

Also, citation motherfucking needed. English is no simpler than French, Spanish or Italian, and in most aspects it's far more complex.

>>2398081
Rabelais > Shakespeare
Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Proust > Dickens
Voltaire > Swift
Rimbaud > Blake

dealwithit.

We're on the topic of translations, and I've been thinking of this for a while. Which language do you guys most aspire to learn due to the literary opportunity it would grant you? By which I mean, which language would you be fluent in to spare you the trouble of suspending your disbelief for the accuracy of translated texts? For me, it's definitely French. I already know a modest amount of German, and I love the language and many of its past literary figures, but French seems to attract me far more for reasons unknown.

And, more on topic, Dostoevsky is excellent. I like his looser approach to realism, one which advocates keen insight into the psychological idiosyncracies of his characters.

>>2398071
>pure
>unaffected
>innocence
Did you even read the Idiot? Holy shit, you honestly think Myshkin is all of that?

>>2398130
already knowing french, i'm super attracted to russian and not at all to german.

>>2398118

>pits admittedly pretty good French authors against some of the lesser English-speaking ones
>Thinks it constitutes an argument

You're adorable. And by the way, Shakespeare is MILES above Rabelais.

>>2398081
>France doesn't have anything close to a Shakespeare. Fuck, they don't even have a Goethe.

T S Eliot:
"It is a perpetual heresy of English culture to believe that only the first-order mind, the Genius, the Great Man, matters; that he is solitary, and produced best in the least favourable environment, perhaps the Public School; and that it is most likely a sign of inferiority that Paris can show so many minds of the second order."

>>2398071
Isn't MLK Jr. and Ghandi much like the Prince?

>>2398133
Well, obviously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Myshkin

>>2398149
Okay, and how does this prove your point? Says Dostoevsky created a character that is plausible.

>>2398157
Enough with your straw man BS. An extreme is very well plausible when you present him in the right context.

>>2398142
are you retarded?

>>2398182
And yet I say if he's plausible, then he's not extreme. Something that is plausible is something that can be realistic.

>>2398191
well the prince is trusting and forgiving, thus his jesus like status. the same is true for ghandi and mlk

>>2398195
Illustrated plausibility does not imply realism at all.

>>2398195
> I say if he's plausible, then he's not extreme
>extremes are implausible
>extremes don't exist

excuse me wtf r u doing

>>2398197
sure maybe if you get your description of MLK and ghandi from left wing rags

>>2398202
>something that is plausible means it can be real
>plausible doesn't mean real
Pretty much the silliness you've been arguing

>>2398206
If they had any prejudices, then the Prince is the same. He was prejudiced against Catholics. So, we have two examples already that are "jesus-like".

>>2398203
That is true, therefore the argument that Dostoevsky's characters are unrealstic because they are extreme is an illogical statement by itself.

>>2398116

I can't give citations, but I've learned English, Spanish and German, aside from my native language and English is objectively the easiest grammar, even though of course I don't know it all.

>>2398211
Did the prince cheat on his wife every time and viciously beat white prostitutes?

Did the prince murder people for political gain?

Stop living in a goddamn fantasy world.

>>2398214
See, this is where you fail. Psychological realism in literature is not the same as actual realism.

Dostoyevsky isn't a psychological realist because his characters are of the extremes another man can't truly understand.

>>2398220
Yes, MLK Jr. had flaws, so did the Prince

sooooooooooo

>>2398208
Plausible - having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.

This does not mean it's actually real. How can you not see this?

>>2398221
>his characters are of the extremes another man can't truly understand.
How do you assert this? Is there someone who "truly" understands and simply points out those who do not understand? But wait, that means someone understands.

But then you say no one understands, I can make that claim about anything.

>>2398227
So your comparing the two doesn't make any fucking sense, you idiot.
Also being a promiscuous adulterer and woman beater is not considered a "flaw" by blacks.

>>2398230
The argument is that Dostoevsky doesn't write realistic characters. But if his characters are plausible, then that means they are believable.

No shit he's a fiction writer though.

Here is the ultimatum then, accept that Dostoevsky writes realistic characters, or accept that no one writes realistic characters. Let me know where you stand.

>>2398234
It means that a novel about an average man, close to the writer himself, will be much more realistic than a novel describing the thoughts of a crazy person that no one can relate to.

>>2398235
They both have their flaws, but at the same time were largely trusting and forgiving of others. Something people said could not possibly exist, but here we go, it exists with MLK Jr.

>>2398247
I related to his characters, you shouldn't assume because you live a pampered life that no one else can relate.

>>2398246
Again, plausibility does not imply that it's actually realistic. It only means that it appears likely, and can give the writer a lot fictionary freedom because the readers can't identify with such a character anyways.

>>2398253
>but at the same time were largely trusting and forgiving of others.

But they weren't you idiot.

>>2398259
Okay, so your definition is that you don't believe Dostoevsky's characters are realistic because you can't identify with his characters?
>but I am the common average man
Okay, that's fine if you want to believe you're average, but don't imply that no one can relate.

Hell, I can't relate to people who enjoy scat, doesn't mean they don't exist.

>>2398256
Proud of being able to relate to crazy people?
How old are you, 12?

>>2398263
Okay, so the prince and mlk were not trusting and forgiving? Okay

>>2398269
For the love of god. The average man can't identify with a person that is defined as extreme, crazy, out of the ordinary, or however you want to put it.

Unless you of course want to define his characters as completely normal, or "average"?

>>2398276
I'm arguing that, why does the realism of a character have to be based on this vague definition of "average"? You seem to believe that the only realistic characters are the only the one YOU can relate to, which I say is a very closed minded view.

>>2398270

What? You can't relate to raskolnikovs paranoia (even if on a completely different situation and less intense), or with the vanity of the guy from notes.
Dostoevsky describes some very humane feelings.

>>2398289
And now you're telling me what I can and cannot relate to, oh boy. Get out of here kid, learn to accept that people are different from you.

>>2398284
To cut it short, I'm essentialy saying that the highest realism a character can have, will be the one that the writer can relate most to (or best understand), and in most cases, that character will be a fairly sane man.

Dostoyevsky was of course not the most normal guy, but when you write about so "insane" characters, you will never actually understand them, unless you are insane yourself, where you also limit yourself to that specific diagnosis. Which is probably also why he tries to include his epilepsy in several of his characters.

>>2398289
There's no point in refering to solitary examples where you share some of the most basic human feelings with the characters.

>>2398116
English is a Germanic language, not a Latinate one.

>>2398349
like

barely

40~% of it is of romance origin

>>2398116
oh wow, how is it possible to be this uneducated?

>>2398365
i saw ur post and i was ready to disagree with you, but then i saw that other post and i second you.

maybe one gets to be like that by browsing 4chan too often...

>>2398309
So, the only realistic characters are autobiographies?

>>2398364
40% of the lexicon perhaps, but the grammar is straight up Germanic, albeit a bit simplified.

>>2398300

Jesus, I was actually asking whether YOU could relate to said feelings, as they seem rather usual to me.

I love love love him. Read The Grand Inquisator story from within Brothers Karamazov while doing somewhat unrelated research and just fell in love with the premise and writing. I've read a few of his novels and short stories and I've enjoyed them all.

Self-hating, beta protagonists ftw.

Hey guys. Another russian bro here. Highly appreciate Dostoyevsky's work. But there was a dispute during a math.stat. lection in our MSU 'bout who is greater: Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. Professor suggested that Tolsoy is greater 'cos his novels(Anna Karenina, War an Peace, Voskresenie(Resurrection in english? lol. Actually means "resurrection" and "sunday" at the same time) are always actual and are always(if I only can say so) contemporary, when Dostoevsky's ones' are fiction(that's true) and on the first place was to thrill reader. Sorry, guys, for bad grammar, it's kinda english practice for me here.
Also: does anyone know such english writers as russian Dostoevsky, Kuprin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, Ostrovsky, etc. Read Breadburry - sounds shitty after Tolstoy. Tryed "I am legend" - another hero-centred story for underadult. Then was "Deception Point ": "What the fuck am I reading" feeling after more than a half - too much science f(r)iction. Started Hauxly(Brave New World) - looks nice by now but already found a batch of neverseen words - applying to dictionary avery minute. For me looks like I'm digging the wrong way - there must be some readable realists in your Europes/United states.
Maybe I'm wrong and these authors don't seem deep for me only 'cos english is not my first language.

P.S. Correct crude mastakes pls if there are - going to leave motherrussia in 5 years or so, and i hope it's better for me to learn language now.

>>2399163
>Breadburry

Oh my. Bradbury of course. Didn't reread the post.

>>2399163
Haha your English is not great, but it's not bad. Honestly, you should practice english somewhere other than 4chan if you want to get better, though. You should definitely read A Clockwork Orange

>>2399180
>somewhere other than 4chan
But why. I thought here, on /lit/, must be someone, who read much an therefore speak properly. Was I wrong?

>>2399193
>someone
I meaned "here might be only those who ...". In russian it sounds like "here must be someone who...".

>>2399193
http://krautchan.net/int/

this is a good place, many russians there too.

>>2399202
what use of russians for russian. In order to find russians you can visit http://2ch.so/bo/ - heaven for numberless fags, measuring penises with each others by posting photos of books they've read.

>>2399209
The site i linked is an english board.
It's other people around the world speaking english.

>>2399209
You'll find all of that and more at kraut /int/, but everyone there speaks English.

>>2399215
Was it a suggestion to get lost? Can't see reasons to prefer krautchan's /lit/ to 4chan one's.

>>2399227
no no no
only krautchan /int/ is the english board.
Rest are german.

>>2399229
>>2399215
My russian soul forces(not so rude here, but couldn't find equivalent) me to say "thank you, guys", but my mind still doesn't see why you suggested to move to karut. The only way I see is to check it myself. Thank you, guys.

>>2399241
Not suggesting you go there instead of here.

Just that there is a nice place to post too.

Sickest fish tilted on the river.

>>2399163

Really? I thought ressurection was such a bad book. It was boring where was supposed to entertain and the rest just felt like a pretentious apology to a mediocre christian ideology.

What was good about it? (not challenging, actually want to know)

I just finished Demons and went striaght on to Les Miserables. It was a massive, jarring step down from tightly structured, masterfully characterised and balanced work that avoids melodrama in the midst of the most extreme subject matter, all while demonstrating a superb sense of humour, to waffly sanctimony with convienient plot devices thrown in whenever there's a time jump.

And I don't even think Les Miserables is bad - it's just a massive shock how obviously not-as-good it is. I'd have probably reacted the same way if I'd gone to Dickens next. Fyodor was that good.

>>2399548
For me it was an astonishment to find numerous coincidences between prince Nekhludov's(or whatever is english equivalent) thoughts and actions and my ones'. Just got surprised when found myself doing and thinking the same and making such mistakes as prince did in his youth. And the inner battle between two people in him is really fascinating in my opinion. Never know which side wins. For example I never knew that there is need of thinking about anyones' feelings and thoughts except mine. Actually it's hard to explain.

>It was boring where was supposed to entertain
>supposed to entertain
>entertain
Entertainment in books. Lolwut. You have naked boobs and greasy jokes there in your english books or what? Always thought that books is a kind of inner work for soul and mind. In childhood maybe i read comics, but that has no touch with Dostoevsky I suppose.
Dostoevsky boring lol. You didn't read Freud and Kant - they are REALLY boring.

Writes like a motherfucker, no fun to read at all

>>2399727

Wasn't even talking about Dostoevsky, genius.

I love Dostoevsky.

>>2399767
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy - no matter. Both are genious. You can always find PUSSYJUICE LARGEDILDO ANALFUCK on xvideos or gelbooru for entertainment. Or if there is strive for russian classics you can try Nabokov and his little tanned slut.

>>2399783
don't simplify what I said. I meant I didn't like Ressurection on any level. Entertainment was just one of them. I know good books offer much more than that.

>>2399807
Okay. Nothing to argue over.
For me Tolstoy work is something similar to math. So imho it's quite ridiculous to like/dislike it. You can whether understand it or think that it's too boring to be thought over. Exuse me for insulting if my words appeared to be offensive.