/lit/ - Literature

notes from the underground desu

>>7343057
>

>>7343057
I honestly was just about done with a decent response in the context that OP was asking about Dostoevsky because of this post, god damn you.

I started with the Death of Ivan Ilyich then AK. I've yet to read W&P though so not sure how good my order is.

>>7343095
could you do a decent response for Tolstoy senpai?

>>7343053
Anna Karenina

>>7343053
read his short stories esp death of ivan illyich

Well I mean it might be best to go chronologically, but you don't need to. AK is easier and would be a good warm-up to W&P, so you could try that.

I read War and Peace first mainly because I was reluctant to read a book about a woman. I just finished Anna Karenina this year and was pleased that there are plenty of male parts to the book as well. Ultimately they're both worth reading and his style is very readable.
Check out some of his shorter novels too,
Hadji Murat; The Cossacks; Sebastopal Sketches; The Death of Ivan Illych

>>7343505

>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman

>>7343252
>>7343101
start with Ivan Illych and his short stories

>>7343505
> I was reluctant to read a book about a woman

Then a bit of advice for you: stay away from novels, particularly nineteenth century novels, particularly realists novels.

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman
What the fuck anon

>>7343505
I was reluctant to read a book about a woman

Is the P&V translation the best for War and Peace?

I was reluctant to read a post by a samefag

>>7343905
Garnett only, final destination

>>7343905

I read the Maude translation and it was top notch.
I haven't read any others but I once tried to look up a quote in an ebook version and the translator had left out the entire ending of the scene which I had found particularly moving.

>>7343905
Maudes are the best

Brothers Karamazov-McDuff
Crime and Punishment-P&V
Notes from the Underground-P&V
All Tolstoy-P&V
Hamsun-any published by FSG
Camus-Matthew Ward
Flaubert-Lydia Davis
Journey to the End of the Night-Ralph Manheim
Proust-Lydia Davis
Chekhov-Robert Payne

>>7343928
P&V are shite laddo

K A R E N I N A
A
R
E
N
I
N
A

>>7343505

>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman.

This board is a toilet but you are still too shit of a reader to be posting here.

That is how bad you are at reading.

>>7343932
This. constance garnet is the best.

>>7344015
care to offer an substance to this or are you just interested in shitposting while assuming superiority?

>>7343053
Learn Russian first.

>>7344015
I honestly believe that anon was just mistaken. Too often books about women are bad, yet he hasn't consciously made the connection between 'the book is about women' to 'the author is 95% of the time a women' to 'women are 99% of the time terrible authors'. Just because the vast majority of books written by women are awful, doesn't mean that a book written about women by a man doesn't do it better than any women can. And it definitely does.

Just start with the first one like you would with any other author.

>>7344065
If you think being male is more significant than being human, I have some philosophy/anthropology/biology that you should probably learn.

>>7344022
if by best you mean worst, sure.

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman.
Friendly reminder that these people are among us.

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about women

>>>/r9k/ is that way

>>7344126
>among us
they run the place, buddy

>>7343510
>>7343516
>>7343866
>>7343876
>>7343881
>>7343904
>>7344015
>>7344126
>>7344392
I thought the parts with Levin hunting ducks with his dog were more interesting than any of the woman parts desu

>>7343053
The Kingdom of God is Within You

>>7344523
Don't worry its one guy same fagging desu.

Books about women are okay if its written by a man though

>>7344550
>Don't worry its one guy same fagging desu.
Damn, I thought I really started a shitstorm. Oh well. internet.

>>7344539
Yeah his christian anarchist works are def the best.

>>7343905
>Is the P&V translation the best for War and Peace?
P&V aren't the best translation for anything. I won't go so far as to say that they are completely without merit, but they're marketing darlings and their methodology is seriously flawed.

>>7343928

>Brothers Karamazov-McDuff
this, or Avsey, or Matlaw's revision of Garnett

but then
>Crime and Punishment-P&V
>Notes from the Underground-P&V
and especially
>All Tolstoy-P&V
holy cow anon No

>>7343505
get out

>>7344719
I'm sure some people enjoy books about women. Lesbians mostly, I'm guessing. I'm just not one of those people.

i was gonna make a thread asking about dostoyevskis stuff bc i just read notes from underground and liked it a lot but since we're already talking russian lit n that ones been mentioned, can anybody here rec what i should read next?? im looking at the idiot and crime and punishment but i feel like those are both a big jump from a novella n dont want to overload myself if theres a better middle step(s) between notes and his bigger works

>>7345075
Shorter Dostoevsky?
White Nights
The Gambler
The House of the Dead

>>7343053
just started ak, I'm in love with anna already is this typical?

>>7343505
>>>/trash/

>>7345091
thanks!!

>>7345099
His short works suck compared to his doorstoppers. Stop being a pussy and read Crime and Punishment.

>>7345104
i plan to, i dled it along with the idiot and brothers karamazov and a few of the shorter works recommended to me. the only reason im starting with shorter works is because i havent been reading much for a handful of years and im out of the habit and trying to get back into it and dont want to just dive in too deep and be overwhelmed by something too huge. ill finish these shorter works as quickly as possible and then crime and punishment will be next. any suggestions as to whether i read karamazov after that or maybe the idiot or something else prior??

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a man

>>7345123
I would find it quite normal if a woman said that. Many women do in fact only read books about women.

>>7345117
Length aside, Dostoevsky is very accessible in general and all of his novels are entertaining and require no prior knowledge of his other work. Social context will be provided by the introductions and endnotes included in most editions.

>>7344719
>not replying by quoting him

ya dun goofed

>>7343510
>>7343516
>>7343866
>>7343876
>>7343881
>>7343904
>>7344015
>>7344098
>>7344126
>>7344719
>>7345123
Because historically women have done just as many interesting things right? You already know half of a novel before reading it if its focused on a woman

>this one ass blasted faggot/woman trying to pretend women are as interesting as men

stop, its just not true.

>>7345123
>>I was reluctant to read a book about a man
I really underestimated how important what I read is to you.
You really overestimated how important what you read is to me.

>>7345097
>/thrash/ is a board now
>it's just a /b/ clone
Why is Hiroshimoot making so many new boards?

>reading The Gambler
>tfw i read this line

>>7343932

They're really rather fine for Gogol matey

>>7345156
What? Appeal to tradition is not only a logical fallacy it also isn't even necessarily related to fiction

>>7345184
kek
there are parts of Notes from Underground that sound like /r9k/

>>7345185
Maguire is better.

>>7343915
>I read the Maude translation and it was top notch.
>the Maude translation
>translation

nice pleb

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEl59biItfY

>>7345156
>people half to do interesting things for the novel to be of note

GOLD

>>7343505
Well-written women are usually better characters than well-written men senpai

>>7346000
>Well-written women are usually better characters than well-written men senpai
>said some anon on the internet
must be true
even if it's true, who cares?
what would it get me reading about people I don't care about?
a gold star?
a pat on the head?
a blowie?

>>7343505

>>7346105

the issue here is that you don't care about women from the outset. your confirmation bias is some r9k addled loser bullshit.

you should stop posting here 2bh you are no reader.

>>7346123
>the issue here is that you don't care about women from the outset
again, so what? plenty of readers and writers don't care about women.
>you should stop posting here 2bh you are no reader.
nothing about being a reader requires being interested in books about women.

>>7346161

you have a subpar sensibility.

i'm not baiting when i say that you are no reader.

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman
>>>/lgbt/

>>7346121

>>7346206
>you have a subpar sensibility.
>i'm not baiting when i say that you are no reader.
I just don't want to jump through hoops for you.
Not pleasing you pleases me.

>>7345156
Yeah, but Anna Karenina was way more of an interesting character than Levin. Levin was boring as shit 90% of the time.

I'd rather read 800 pages of Anna than 400 of her and 400 of some boring ass Russian farmer who doesn't do jack shit and gets lucky finding a mega babe for a wife.

>>7346329

don't try to save face.

just mature as a reader.

>>7346279
I'd much rather read about gays than women.

>>7346331
What the fuck are you on about. Levine is the greatest male character. No bs good guy. Ana is smart but she fucked up.

>>7346355
You're the one who sounds immature.

>>7343053
tolstoy should be read always chronologically

>>7343505
>being such a shut-in that even reading about a woman triggers you

congratulations. out of all the failures on this website, you just outed yourself as the biggest one.

also, op. just read the book chronologically and watch the writer mature as you read.

>>7343053
Start with Hadji Murat. It's like War and Peace in minature and either it or Anna Karenina is the best thing he ever wrote.

>>7343510
>>7343516
>>7343866
>>7343876
>>7343881
>>7343904
>>7344015
>>7344098
>>7344126
>>7344392
>>7344719
>>7345097
>>7345123
>>7346000
>>7346121
>>7346123
>>7346206
>>7346279
>>7346355
>>7347601

some of my favorite porn stars are women if that's any consolation

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman
>these are the people I discuss literature with

>>7343505
Why did this post get so much attention? There are stupider posts on /lit/ right now.

>>7346331
>disliking everybody's favorite autismo

>>7349383
>some of my favorite porn stars are women
>of my favorite porn stars are women
>my favorite porn stars are women
>favorite porn stars are women
>porn stars are women
>porn stars are
>porn stars
>porn

>>>/trash/

>>7345156
>historically

This isn't a historical novel you dumb swine. Don't read any Tolstoy he will just fly over your head.

>>7349742
Kudos to you for contributing

>>7344072
Я yчycь. Этo тpyднo.

I started with Anna Karenina and was pretty much hooked from the beginning. There's just something about the way Tolstoy writes his characters.