/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13957382]

Do you believe an abundance of talent at point turns into a Frankenstein and starts eating its possessor?
Tolstoy called arguably his best work, Anna Karenina, ''an abomination that no longer exists for me'' shortly after writing it.
How could someone who've, you could feel, wrote something with so much emotion, combining all abilities as a writer to create his career's magnum opus, discard it later in a heartbeat as garbage?

[Anonymous No.13957401]

I think you're right. Anna Karenina is peak fiction, a work that if written by anyone would thrust them automatically into the canon. To have written that and then continue to face the prospect of further writing must have been terrifying and deranging.

[Anonymous No.13957433]

Tolstoy was a cuck. After Shakespeare wrote Hamlet he still had King Lear, Othello, Macbeth ahead of him.
But then Shakespeare was a working playwright who needed new material rather than an aristocrat with nothing else to do and no motivation to maintain his efforts. If Tolstoy had needed the money we might have had another six novels of equal quality

[Anonymous No.13957514]

>>13957433
Not necessarily. Writing good novels require peace of mind which he never could have had with worries of feeding family lingering on his mind

[Anonymous No.13957536]

>>13957514
Yet, somehow, people who aren't Russian aristocrats with an estate full of serfs fulfilling their every demand have managed to write a good novel or two. Some of them didn't even have peace of mind

[Anonymous No.13957583]

>>13957536
how do you know they didn't have peace of mind? They atleast had money to get by, not like they were poor. None of them had to go out in the early morning, work their asses off and return at night and write their masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.13957703]

>>13957583
>none of them had to go out in the early morning, work their asses off and return at night and write their masterpiece
literally describing Kafka you dumbass

[Anonymous No.13957711]

>>13957433
>Shakespeare
reddit

[Anonymous No.13957716]

>>13957382
I believe Anna Karenina to be the greatest novel to every be written, but it isn't hard to understand Tolstoy's position. He rejected any art that was art for itself. While I experience the emotion in Anna Karenina, Tolstoy knows his mind more clearly than any of us. If he wrote it with a desire to create a great novel, and not to create a novel that would help people connect or strive for good, he would have to find it bad. He has a strict moralist view of art, and this is one of the reasons he was so critical of Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.13957720]

>>13957583
>None of them had to go out in the early morning, work their asses off and return at night and write their masterpiece
That's real neat anon.

[Anonymous No.13957724]

>>13957716
based

[Anonymous No.13957769]

>>13957716
>a novel that would help people connect or strive for good
he explored religious principles and its importance through Levin, a subject which took up the entirety of his works later his life. So you wouldn't say it is too much disconnected if he intended it to be that kind of novel, right?

[Anonymous No.13957797]

>>13957769
Clearly there is part of Tolstoy's moralism in Anna Karenina (and to a lesser extent War & Peace), but Tolstoy's intent would matter most for him, since he would know it with certainty. If he wrote Anna Karenina to be a great work of fiction, specifically for aristocrats, then he would view his work as immoral. Even if many readers experience emotion and moral value in Anna Karenina, Tolstoy would know his original intention to be immoral in nature.

[Anonymous No.13957976]

>>13957433
Anna Karenina probably has the same word count as Shakes' four great tragedies combined, so it's really a nonsensical comment. Even worse, Tolstoy was writing a lot before and after AK, his complete works encompass 90 fucking tomes, if he had no motivation to write, I don't know who did.

>>13957382
Frankly I don't think we should read into such statements too much. Tolstoy was not a man of principles, in a way, he was constantly questioning himself and desired improvement in every facet of existence. And all good artists have the ability to self-criticise, and sometimes they go overboard.
Every person here that tried writing and reread their own text after a few months or years and cringed at it - our old writing feels like a simplistic path, so well-trodden to the point of turning into mud - precisely because we trod through it with our own pens.

[Anonymous No.13957988]

>>13957976
>Anna Karenina probably has the same word count as Shakes' four great tragedies combined, so it's really a nonsensical comment
How about substance? Have you read AK? I'd say it's 40% great prose and 60% filler

[Anonymous No.13957993]

>>13957988
>he didn't get it

[Anonymous No.13957999]

>>13957976
>his complete works encompass 90 fucking tomes
And most of it shit. He lost motivation and quality control after AK, and rarely hit those heights again.

[Anonymous No.13958062]

>>13957433
>Shakespeare was a working playwright who needed new material rather than an aristocrat with nothing else to do and no motivation to maintain his efforts.
Shakespeare probably made plenty of money from his other investments. He certainly wasn't writing to afford food like Dostoyevsky. I think that by the time he was writing his great tragedies he was writing primarily from passion and not necessity. Although his plays probably also helped keep the King's Men in high regard, so the idea of keeping *that* investment (the company) profitable may have had something to do with it as well.

[Anonymous No.13958094]

>>13957999
Which of his texts have you read?

>>13957988
I have. There is no filler if you're a skilled reader.

>Ecли жe бы я хoтeл cкaзaть cлoвaми вce тo, чтo имeл в видy выpaзить poмaнoм, тo я дoлжeн бы был нaпиcaть poмaн тoт caмый, кoтopый я нaпиcaл, cнaчaлa. И ecли близopyкиe кpитики дyмaют, чтo я хoтeл oпиcывaть тoлькo тo, чтo мнe нpaвитcя, кaк oбeдaeт Oблoнcкий и кaкиe плeчи y Кapeнинoй, тo oни oшибaютcя. Bo вceм, пoчти вo вceм, чтo я пиcaл, мнoю pyкoвoдилa пoтpeбнocть coбpaния мыcлeй, cцeплeнных мeждy coбoю, для выpaжeния ceбя, нo кaждaя мыcль, выpaжeннaя cлoвaми ocoбo, тepяeт cвoй cмыcл, cтpaшнo пoнижaeтcя, кoгдa бepeтcя oднa из тoгo cцeплeния, в кoтopoм oнa нaхoдитcя. Caмo жe cцeплeниe cocтaвлeнo нe мыcлью (я дyмaю), a чeм-тo дpyгим, и выpaзить ocнoвy этoгo cцeплeния нeпocpeдcтвeннo cлoвaми никaк нeльзя; a мoжнo тoлькo пocpeдcтвeннo — cлoвaми oпиcывaя oбpaзы, дeйcтвия, пoлoжeния.
>H. H. CTPAХOBУ
>1876 г. Aпpeля 23 и 26. Яcнaя Пoлянa.

[Anonymous No.13958101]

>>13958094
are you russian?

[Anonymous No.13958113]

>>13958101
no

[Anonymous No.13958119]

>>13957993
>muh spanning plot
>muh myriad characters
As it was published serially, Tolstoy wrote it on the fly, just adding and adding subplots as he went along, originally AK had only three significant characters and was supposed to be much shorter. Only the main plot is worthwhile and even it sometimes meanders and goes nowhere. Now tell me that the goal of the novel couldn't have been achieved more concisely, brevity being the soul of wit and all that

[Anonymous No.13958133]

>>13958119
doesn't matter how Tolstoy wrote it or intended to write it, the resulting package turned out to be an all-rounding great novel.

[Anonymous No.13958145]

>>13958119
you can take any novel and reduce its characteristics to 'muh'. That isn't actual criticism.

[Anonymous No.13958172]

>>13958133
That's the thing, I feel like the great parts, that for sure are there, are brought down by the parts that are 'merely' above average. My point is that there are too many characters irrelevant to the main themes, too many setups with no follow through, repeated conflicts, and they muddle up the overall story

[Anonymous No.13958196]

>>13958172
Whether or not written serially, an ideal novel isn't one that moves in one direction in a single plot or theme. A writer can work with different themes and give them flesh through individual subplots.

[Ippolit No.13958216]

>>13957433
Shakespeare was a Pope, he did not need money

[Anonymous No.13958342]

>>13958196
Had the themes been explored well, sure, but in AK so many personal standpoints, so many political issues were merely touched on, merited a single conversation, maybe a single chapter. There's a reason why people say that Tolstoy writes 'horizontally' - it's a wide spanning commentary, just rather superfluous, even the core themes are, at times, re-explored in a slightly different situations but with the same resolution
>an ideal novel isn't one that moves in one direction in a single plot or theme
see maybe it's just taste, I much rather read a book with a strong uniting theme, where all the events are cohesive and to the point, Dostoyevski and Chekhov come to mind

[Anonymous No.13958374]

>>13958342
Which great writers said Anna Karenina was superfluous?

[Anonymous No.13958391]

>>13958374
Shestov and Nabokov off the top of my head

[Anonymous No.13958418]

>>13958391
Nabokov thought Anna Karenina was the greatest piece of literature for the 19th century. He thought the opposite of what your post says, describing Dostoevsky's ideas superfluous with no real writing talent.

I haven't read any Shestov, but I was under the impression his opinion was similar to Nabokov; that War & Peace was as you describe "superfluous", but not Anna Karenina.

[Anonymous No.13958462]

>>13958391
>Nabokov
>Nabokov is at his best in a heartfelt paean to Tolstoy, ''the greatest Russian writer of prose fiction,'' that centers in a virtuosic explication of the fiendish structural problem, ''the synchronization of seven major lives,'' solved so triumphantly in ''Anna Karenina.'' Lavishing minute attention on Tolstoy's uses of foreshadowing, symbolism, characterizing detail (''Tolstoy never misses a gesture''), and much, much more, Nabokov clearly shows precisely how this great novel works - and, for about the hundredth time in my life, I mean to reread it immediately.

[Anonymous No.13958511]

>>13958418
Ok my bad, I misremembered Nabokov's criticisms (although looking at it now he still seemed to have qualms with Tolstoy, and I can't find anyplace where he called AK 'the greatest')
>"What obsessed Tolstoy, what obscured his genius, what now distresses the good reader, was that, somehow, the process of seeking the Truth seemed more important to him than the easy, vivid, brilliant discovery of the illusion of truth through the medium of his artistic genius"

But I stand by Shestov, just finished his "Dostoyevski and Nietzsche: Philosophy of tragedy" and he goes hard on AK there, viewing "War and Peace" as the better work (still far behind Dostoyevski in his opinion)

[Anonymous No.13958527]

>>13957433
>thinking that literary genius comes from necessity and financial goals
do you even exist?

[Anonymous No.13958544]

>>13958527
>muh Romanticist misconception of the Artist

[Anonymous No.13958557]

>>13958342
>Dostoyevski and Chekhov come to mind
anyone else?

[Anonymous No.13958594]

>>13958462
>Tolstoy's uses of foreshadowing, symbolism
I haven't noticed all these during reading and still enjoyed the book. Does that mean I subconsciously caught them, or they're irrelevant to the book's quality?
Also, is there a book/website analyses these?

[Anonymous No.13958601]

>>13958511
see >>13958462
He literally praised what you are critiquing and saying Tolstoy failed to do.

I will take your word on Shestov since I haven't read his work, but that is a single writer who isn't even a novelist. Sounds odd to say "people describe his work as superfluous" when Tolstoy is resoundingly regarded as accomplishing the opposite. Many more writers and critics levy that criticism towards Dostoevsky, not Tolstoy.

[Anonymous No.13958620]

>>13958601
but those that praise Dostoevsky generally regard him as the best writer that came to literature. So opinions about Dostoevsky are basically on two extremes directions.

[Anonymous No.13958630]

>>13958601
but those that praise Dostoevsky generally regard him as the best writer that came to literature. So opinions about Dostoevsky are basically on two extreme directions.

[Anonymous No.13958678]

>>13958630
Those who praise Tolstoy often regard him as the best writer that came to literature? And yet there are so few greater writers that dismiss Tolstoy as average or mediocre, however there exists numerous great writers who would say that of Dostoevsky. Your example of Nabokov, while incorrect about Tolstoy, literally says this about Dostoevsky. Tolstoy also said similar things in his early days, although to the end of his life he was more sympathetic to Dostoevsky's works.
Most of the people who praise Dostoevsky are not great writers, it is those who appreciate his ideas. As a writer Dostoevsky WAS mediocre, however people overlook that because they connect so deeply with his ideas.

[Anonymous No.13958695]

>>13958601
Just to clarify, the 'people say' in my post was about a quote going something like "Tolstoy writes horizontally, while Dostoyevski vertically", I think it was in the preface to War and Peace, and I saw people using the quote here to describe why they preferred the latter author. And superfluousness is just what I felt about a large portion of the book after reading it, I'm not trying to claim it's the consensus

[Anonymous No.13958739]

>>13958678
This is a good summary, more or less what I was aiming at, Tolstoy surely possessed greater writing prowess, his works are intricate and monumental, while Dostoyevski's only stand out because of his philosophy/psychology. Still, a description of either one as 'better' depends on what you're looking for in literature

[Anonymous No.13958809]

>>13958739
Yes, I just wouldn't say Tolstoy lacks that philosophy, it is just much more subtle than Dostoevsky. What Tolstoy does so beautifully, especially in Anna Karenina, is marry his philosophical ideas into his characters and story so it operates as one. Dostoevsky uses his characters and story as a bridge for the reader to enter into a "one-sided" conversation with him, this is particularly evident in Notes and the extensive monologues in Brothers Karamazov. To say one is better than the other is certainly up to the reader, but I do believe Anna Karenina is one of the greatest works of literature.

[Anonymous No.13958846]

>>13958678
Just recently I was feeling unwell and readHouse of the Dead. I had forgotten a good bit, read it over again, and I do not know a better book in all our new literature, including Pushkin. It’s not the tone but the wonderful point of view – genuine, natural, and Christian. A splendid, instructive book. I enjoyed myself the whole day as I have not done for a long time. If you see Dostoevsky, tell him that I love him.

— Leo Tolstoy in alettertoStrakhov, September 26, 1880

[Anonymous No.13958906]

>>13957382
for the same reason your online activities 3-4 years ago seem cringy to you now.

[Anonymous No.13958914]

>>13958846
>and Christian
goddamn why can't he just get over this

[Anonymous No.13958937]

>>13958594
Do maximally close reading the next time you pick it up - it will definitely be worth it.

>>13958809
I recommend you read Bakhtin, if this is your take on Dosto. Not saying that Bakhtin is entirely correct in all regards, but he successfully shows how Dosto is, at least to a very large degree, NOT a monologic writer.
Notes from the Underground are, in fact, the perfect case to show how dialogic D is as a writer, with its eternal self-doubt, questioning, contradictions, and imaginary audience that the narrator is provoking all the time. Even as far as mere authorial intent goes, Notes does not reflect Dosto's ideology (since it is completely missing christianity as the solution to the narrator's problems).

[Anonymous No.13958961]

>>13957514
>Writing good novels require peace of mind
kek

[Anonymous No.13959011]

>>13957382
>>13957401
>Anna Karenina is peak fiction
I am 900 pages in and surely one of the best books i've ever read but i think some scenes are absolutely superfluous and it feels like communist propaganda at times.

But what bugs me the most is why he's kissing England's ass so much?

[Anonymous No.13959019]

>>13958937
>>13958809
>Bakhtin
discard this one

[Anonymous No.13959063]

>>13958846
see >>13958678
>Tolstoy also said similar things in his early days, although to the end of his life he was more sympathetic to Dostoevsky's works.
Tolstoy's shift in what was to be appreciated in art, content and intent opposed to the work as a whole. This led him to appreciate Dostoevsky much more and consequently dislike writers like Shakespeare, which was opposite in his younger years and while writing his most prolific works, AK and War & Peace.

>>13958937
I wouldn't describe Dostoevsky as monologic, but that he interest to much of himself and his ideas in characters rather than the story. Instead of crafting a story and characters to explore his philosophy, he uses characters as fragments of himself and explores it merely through dialogue, be it monologue or not. While Notes doesn't reflect Dostoevsky's personally views, it is still an expression of a view he finds concerning. He uses Notes as essentially a medium to explore an idea that is somewhat popular and in direct conflict. My issue is how heavily he relies on characters as convoys for ideas, and not characters themselves in a world explore these ideas. I would still be interested in reading Bakhtin though, are there works specifically you recommend?

[Anonymous No.13959084]

>>13959019
Why? I'm not particularly familiar with Bakhtin.

[Anonymous No.13959110]

>>13959084
His work on Dostoevsky, especially Brothers Karamazov, is ass backwards. Silly, simplistic and totally wrong. Juvenile even.

[Anonymous No.13959240]

He just got burned out. It has happened with my own projects. Sometimes when you think back to working on a project, you are often reminded of the sleepless nights, doubt, and obsession, rather than the finished product.

[Anonymous No.13959244]

>>13959063
Well, what you describe, characters-ideas, is close to Bakhtin's understanding of Dosto's characterization. However, the degree to which they are submerged in the philosophical ideas opens some new paths of characterization, allowing their constant development and open-endedness (in sharp contrast with the standard realist procedure of describing the character, their physical and psychological attributes, in a supposedly definitive manner).
This can be compared with the old dichotomy of Dosto focusing on the soul, Tolstoy on the body. I would, in fact, say that Tolstoy's view comes closer to how a human being really functions, while Bakhtin comes from a, let's say, more radically "linguistic", "idealistic" perspective, and prefers Dostoyevsky.
"Problems of Dostoyevsky's Poetics" is his central text as far as his reading of Dosto goes.

>>13959110
I'd really like to hear how his radical break with the traditional readings of Dosto as almost a propagandist, instead treating him as a sort of ambivalent proto-postmodernist genologically related to Plato and Rabelais, is backwards, of all things. Call it wrong, sure, but backwards??
Also, hate it or not but he's the single most important theoretician to write on Dosto, and even though his ideas can and have been criticised, his influence cannot be waved off by calling him silly. At least bring up Lunacharsky or something.

[Anonymous No.13959312]

>>13959011
at that time england ruled the world, so why not.

[Anonymous No.13959345]

>>13959063
I think C&P and TBK show that Dostoevsky can perfectly well write a good plot, in which bunch of trivial at first things pay off greatly by the end.

I think people just focus too much on chapters like the Grand Inquisitor, which can be short stories of their own, and dwell that Dosto's entire books are just that. He has plenty of characters that serve no other purpose, but to be literary devices in progressing the plot.

The Gambler for example is just a straightforward plot-driven fun read that has some intense and some really sad parts, and considering Dostoevsky had like a month to finish it, proves he is a great storyteller.

[Anonymous No.13959496]

>>13957703
Kafka never finished anything.

[Anonymous No.13960017]

>>13957797
I think he adopted this strict moralistic view of art later in his life. Wonder what got to him all of a sudden

[Anonymous No.13960953]

>>13958544
>muh struggle is meaning

[Anonymous No.13960978]

>>13959011
>communist propaganda
literally how? I cannot fathom how someone might get this impression out of AK

[Anonymous No.13961040]

>>13957514
>He's never read a brief summary of Dostoevsky's life

[Anonymous No.13961378]

>>13957433
>Tolstoy was a cuck
Only reason you needed to list.

[Anonymous No.13961999]

>>13958809
good analysis

[Anonymous No.13962135]

>>13960978
he's subtle about it

[Anonymous No.13963187]

>>13962135
expand and explain

[Anonymous No.13963502]

>>13960978
The anon is highly exaggerating here. True, he explores some themes like writers of his time and Russian writers specifically about the current debates and new thoughs about serfdom and state of the dispossessed. However, he does this from his from the personal perspective of his own philosophy (which was, by the way, quite novel) of Christianity. Naturally as a writer he reacted to the current times in Russia. To read Tolstoi's writing as communist propaganda is same as saying Sermon on the Mount was a commercial of Fish 'n Chips.

[Anonymous No.13964079]

>>13958119
your the kind of nigger who would say breaking bads slow episodes hold it back

[Anonymous No.13964133]

>>13964079
All Breaking Bad episodes hold it back