Crime and Punishment

[Keynes No.14987155]

wtf this book sucks, this has to be a meme. 90% of it consists of prolix, trite, unimaginative dialogue that repeats itself for long periods while the prose is extremely shallow and stale. I can't stand reading this piece of easy-to-consume unrewarding trash.

[Anonymous No.14987168]

>tripfag

[Anonymous No.14987179]

>>14987155
stop reading garnett translations

[Anonymous No.14987188]

First of all, the translation is shit and second, it must be your first Dosto book. You should have started with Notes instead. Third, you might be dumb.

[Keynes No.14987201]

>>14987179
I have two different translations of Crime and Punishment in english and a recent translation in portuguese. This book is so unbearably boring and stale that I simply cannot continue to drag myself along to actually finish it. It's just that obnoxious; I just can't do it. The majority of it just consists of dialogue which shows the poverty and scarcity of Dostoievski in composing beautiful and interesting prose, with any reminscence of anything that could be called intricated writing. The entire thing is composed primarily of this repeated and over-used mediocrity of cheap dialogue that just makes it absolutely maddening for any imaginative person to enjoy. It is baffling how anyone would consider this good.

[Anonymous No.14987208]

>>14987188
I'm not OP, but what I read after notes?

[Keynes No.14987212]

>>14987188
I have three different translations and they all suck; C&p is unberably boring. There are no witful lines, no intricated prose, no imaginative description of things, in sum, nothing interesting or good about this book. It is terribly and incredibly stultifying to read. No wit in this book whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.14987242]

>>14987208
I think Notes > Idiot > C&P > Brothers K, because you get nice changes in tone. Reading C&P after notes would be a little depressing

[Anonymous No.14987254]

>>14987208
Well, most go after Crime and Pun. or Brothers Karamazov. I'd recommend to read The Gambler, since it is short and deals with something fun as gambling. It also shows how Russians were treated at the time in Germany. Also, bear in mind that Germany was the center for the most important advances of philosophy during that period of time. And you still get a taste of the comfy existential Christian passages.

>>14987212
Maybe it's not your cup of tea, try reading other of his works to find out.

[Keynes No.14987306]

>>14987254
>Maybe it's not your cup of tea, try reading other of his works to find out.
I have fourteen books in total by Dostoyevsky; some are different translations of the same book. Read a ton of him when I was in high school, and this year after finishing my bachelor's and starting my Master's (on Finance), I was feeling like using all of my free time available to catch up on the literature that I wanted to read so I did myself a big favor and bought all the Dostoyevsky books for cheap that I wanted to read on Amazon. Turns out they are really not that good for a mind that has gone through a lot of reading and especially one that has found its way into the works of Nabokov (which is the greatest russian writer). Reading either C&P or The Brothers Karamazov now feels so stultifying to me now that it borders on an insult; Dostoievsky doesn't know how to handle prose or to make a well-balanced story at all. The only reedemable book is Notes From the Underground, and that's because at least the first little half of the book consists of primarily philosophical ramblings and thoughts and I don't have to go through the unfortunate ignominy of having to read thorugh his awful writing and that little puddle of mediocre prose.

[Anonymous No.14987311]

>>14987188
dosto is mid wit core

[Anonymous No.14987343]

>>14987306
>Dosto had bad prose

And so did Cervantes. In the novel there are no rules. I like how you mentioned Nabokov, since one of his favourite authors was Joyce, the man who literally contributed to the innovation of the stream of consciousness. A method of writing which involves the destruction of traditional prose.

[Keynes No.14987383]

>>14987343
>In the novel there are no rules.
Yes there are, if you reject the existence of at least some prelimiary sets of rules that guide the construction of a literary work, we might just as well end up into the complete post-structuralist/post-modernist trap which tries to make sense of the idea that anything can be anything. I do not only absolutely loathe this line of thinking, but to even consider debating and squandering time on this to border on intellectual lunacy. Do not get me started.

>I like how you mentioned Nabokov, since one of his favourite authors was Joyce, the man who literally contributed to the innovation of the stream of consciousness, which destroyed traditional prose.
First of all, Nabokov isn't Joyce; the fact that one enjoyed the other doesn't make it so that the one is the same exact thing as the other. Do not use the strawman argument. Second, Joyce also is one of the great writers (perhaps the second greatest) that I admire; in fact his prose in his books like, for instance, The portrait of The Young Artist are incredibly well-done and exquisitely proportioned. Doesn't matter the fact that he attempted to overthrow the traditional prose of old; he still does have prose in his writing, something which Dostoievsky has a complete scarcity of, and whenever we happen to stumble on it, more often than not it is only a short hiatus composed of shameless mediocrity followed by trite dialogue, which is what Dosti's majority of books consist of.

[Anonymous No.14987387]

>>14987155
dostoyevesky isn't some pretentious author's author writing from the standpoint of literary status-quos he's a disturbed man making near herculean forays into the deepest corners of the heart of man if you can't honestly respect that then maybe you should become a literary critic and leave the actual writing to people moreso inclined...

[Keynes No.14987405]

>>14987387
but if it were just that, he could have written it in prose; but getting through that inacessibly repetitive dialogue just bores me so much, man. Why couldn't he have made something more objective and compact rather than have to have the entirety of his book consist of over-stretched and dragging dialogue, man?

[Anonymous No.14987427]

>>14987405
because a large part of dostoyevesky's setup are his psychological portraits thus embodying the concepts he discusses rather than merely adjudicating them on page anyone can do that...

[Anonymous No.14987476]

>>14987383
If there are rules we might as well stay in the same position in terms of progress. I understand what you say about keeping a rich structure in the prose. But Dosto is not about that, or even the plot, let's say the plot for him is just a bait for the reader. Since the real treasure of Dosto is found in his dialogues as in Shakespeare. That's why people are still talking about Raskolnikov or other characters.

[Anonymous No.14988135]

Anyone posting itt that says the book is boring because it mainly consists of dialogues is outing themselves as a pseud and midwit in the highest degree. You have been filtered for not comprehending the significance of the dialectic process or its use in relation to the message of the novel.

If you want action in your media just watch the Disney Star Wars films or Avengers or some shit.

[Anonymous No.14988179]

>>14987155
>>14987201
It makes for compelling reading when you're 15 years old (median /lit/ age).

[Anonymous No.14988197]

>>14987155
You've been filtered pleb.

[Anonymous No.14988257]

If you think you can read a translation and judge the original authors prose you're retarded. There's no way around it.

[Anonymous No.14988262]

>>14987168
>newfag

[Anonymous No.14988263]

OP is a pleb.

[Anonymous No.14988456]

I must have gotten a decent translation, after the first few chapters it picks up. C&P is the only book to have gotten me to jump out of my seat, fuck Petrovick.