/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18160665]

Ok, we all know that "its boring" is not valid criticism. But what to say when something is just.. too boring? Unimaginably so? The most boring thing in the world? Imagine that.

Tolstoy is 1000x more boring than the most boring thing you just imagined. Thats what Tolstoy is for me.

I just cant grasp how some people seem to like him. How do they power through this snorefest?

Actually, I think that "its boring" is VALID criticism. Picture 2 works of art that contain equivalent value, but 1 work of art delivers that value while keeping your attention, while the other work of art delivers that value but longer, without keeping your attention, sluggier.

Would it not be valid judgment to discard the other work of art as worse than the former?
Case in point: these folks were paid by the word.

[Anonymous No.18160700]

immediate bump

[Anonymous No.18160705]

Why care if it's valid lol? In a debate club? I believe you on tolstoy but I still may try, people said moby dick was boring but I loved it

[Anonymous No.18160714]

>>18160705
Yeah I like several objectively boring books

[Anonymous No.18160824]

bump

[Anonymous No.18160852]

>>18160665
I also couldn't finish this book
So boring

[Anonymous No.18160895]

>>18160665
is it a valid criticism to not like giant paperback books? I find holding them open distracting and couldn't read this book for this reason. not bait

[Anonymous No.18160902]

>>18160665
>I just cant grasp how some people seem to like him. How do they power through this snorefest?
Because the characters immediately draw me in and over the course of the novel Tolstoy fleshes them out and develops them in a way that holds my attention. There are likeable and unlikeable characters, though most fluctuate in between. I'm also blown away by the fine little details of behavior. feelings and thoughts that one experiences in specific situations, which Tolstoy explores through his characters. He must've been a very keen observer of the human condition to be able to paint such a vivid picture of social interactions and relationships. In addition, there's a lot of subtext going on, like the commentary on the Russian society of the period which I personally found interesting to mull over.

Now it's your turn to flesh out your criticism of why you consider it boring.

[Anonymous No.18160912]

>>18160895
I read digital but old yellowed paperbacks gross me out and smell bad. Even before I made the switch I hated them.
The Mass Markets from school aren’t so bad because their so small but a real Trade Paperback is a lot of surface area of gross.
It never effects what I think of the content though

[Anonymous No.18160935]

>>18160665
>But what to say when something is just.. too boring
You were just filtered
Go back to your netflix and video games pleb, reading doesn't have to be for everyone

[Anonymous No.18160936]

I tried to read Anna Karenina once and stopped about 75 pages in. However this was at a time when I was burned out from reading so much and was struggling pushing myself to read anymore in general. I bought a cheap paperback version at a used bookstore and I'll eventually try again. I've seen reading a lot lately again for the first time in years and am enjoying it

[Anonymous No.18161000]

>>18160936
Love to read posts like this. Keep it up, anon.

[Anonymous No.18161015]

>>18160665
Currently around page 300. If you don’t find Levin and Karenin’s internal monologues intriguing, maybe reading isn’t for you.

[Anonymous No.18161016]

>>18160902
>because the characters
Great Minds Discuss Ideas. Average Minds Discuss Events. Small Minds Discuss People.

[Anonymous No.18161078]

I have tried twice and stop like 400 pages in.

I will try again now that I have more free time. But it has so many characters you need to read it non stop which is why I cant resume.

[Anonymous No.18161083]

>>18161016
The ideas are conveyed through the characters and the events they experience. This is the essence of fiction, anon.

[Anonymous No.18161089]

>>18161083
>The ideas are conveyed through the characters and the events they experience
Name 5 ideas.

[Anonymous No.18161127]

>>18161089
I haven't read Anna Karenina. :)

[Anonymous No.18161180]

>>18161089
Off the top of my head Anna Karenina explores the following themes near exclusively or exclusively through characters:
>Marriage as a social institution (Anna/Karenin/Vronsky)
>Different forms and changing nature of love (Anna/Karenin/Vronsky)
>Marriage in the orthodox christian faith (all main characters)
>Impact of progress/modernization/urbanization on lifestyles and family values (all main characters)
>The role of husband and father in a family (Karenin/Levin)

t. different anon

[Anonymous No.18161211]

>>18161016
The quote is terribly misunderstood

[Anonymous No.18161229]

>>18161180
I asked about ideas, not themes. Anyone can incorporate themes in their work, the question is how well they do it. But there also might be the problem of the themes themselves simply sucking. That is the OTHER problem (not even the primary problem, but yes, its one of the problems) here - the themes themselves suck. Marriage as a social institution? zzzzzzzz
Different forms and changing nature of love? zzzzzzzzz
Marriage in the orthodox christian faith? I couldnt care less, its the same as marriage in the Aromanian gypsy folk worship faith - who the fuck cares?
impact of progress. . . on lifestyles and family values - thats an interesting one, but i didnt see it expounded properly in anna karenina
the role of husband and father in a family
again, good theme, not properly expounded. the fucking Greeks tackled this theme better 3000 years before, in the myth of Icarus

[Anonymous No.18161257]

>>18161229
Themes and ideas are basically the same thing you fucking troglodyte. And of course the quality of an idea/theme lies in its execution. Please kill yourself

[Anonymous No.18161312]

>>18161229
I disagree with you. I urge you to read literature which discusses ideas, themes and everything else that you might be interested in, instead of posting on a Tibetan basket weaving forum, since this discussion is unlikely to advance from exchanging posts that amount to "that sucks" and "no it doesn't".

[Anonymous No.18161320]

>>18161016
and retards post quotes they didn't come up with and didn't even understand to begin with

[Anonymous No.18161321]

>Anna Karenina
>Boring
You have been filtered and filtered hard

[Anonymous No.18161324]

"It's boring" is a valid criticism, it's just not one with much depth.

[Anonymous No.18161371]

>>18161016

[Anonymous No.18161426]

>>18161016
Yeah character studies are well known to be the lowest type of story.

[Anonymous No.18161436]

>>18160902
>tfw no Levin-Kitty relationship
It made my heart ache

[Anonymous No.18161461]

>>18161078

[Anonymous No.18161464]

>>18160665
Boring books are bad. But Anna Karenina is only boring if you're an absolute tard.

[Anonymous No.18161469]

>>18161016
>t.

[Anonymous No.18161487]

I read Anna Karenina in 2019 and remember not being able to get enough of it. I read 300 pages in one sitting on a flight to St. Petersburg

[Anonymous No.18161959]

How could you read scenes like the Vronsky horse race, Levin mowing with the peasants, Levin hunting snipe with Scherbatsky...all these scenes and a hundred more which are some of the most thrilling in all of literature and come away bored? Stick with your genre fiction you troglodytes

[Anonymous No.18162085]

>>18161016
Tolstoy is the greatest psychologist, better than Dostoevsky, more subtle, less didactic, and at the same time actually details the mind of a character. It's funny because all the people in this thread are discussing ideas right now, the same people who are defending Tolstoy. Anyway, this is what Joyce thought of Tolstoy, not to appeal to authority, although it kind of is but whatever.
>As for Tolstoy I disagree with you altogether. Tolstoy is a magnificent writer. He is never dull, never stupid, never tired, never pedantic, never theatrical! He is head and shoulders over the others.
So I take it you think that Joyce was a small mind. We can infer that the characters that Tolstoy creates are a reason that Joyce liked Tolstoy. Like most people.
>A [poster] on [4chan] sneers at Tolstoy for [being boring and not talking about "ideas"]. ‘Boring man!’ he says. Now, damn it, I’m rather good-tempered but this is a little bit too much. Did you ever hear such impudence? Do they think the author of Resurrection and Anna Karénin is a fool? Does this impudent, dishonourable [poster] think he is the equal of Tolstoy, physically, intellectually, artistically or morally? The thing is absurd. But when you think of it, it’s cursedly annoying also. Perhaps that [poster] will undertake to revise Tolstoy more fully – novels, stories, plays and all.

[Anonymous No.18162092]

>>18161257
>Themes and ideas are basically the same thing
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.18162102]

>>18161487
>flight to St. Petersburg
why would you fly to Nigeria with snow?

[Anonymous No.18162107]

>>18162085
Great post but I think comparing Dostoevsky and Tolstoy as psychologist is like comparing apples to oranges. Tolstoy deals with the minds of the average person whereas dostoevsky deals with those of the depraved

[Anonymous No.18162114]

>>18161959
>How could you read scenes like the Vronsky horse race, Levin mowing with the peasants, Levin hunting snipe with Scherbatsky...all these scenes and a hundred more which are some of the most thrilling in all of literature and come away bored? Stick with your genre fiction you troglodytes
shit english and bad syntax. I presume you're Russian and deeply hurt because I attacked your beloved national idol. Remember - nationalism is the worst form of collectivism :)

[Anonymous No.18162116]

>>18162092
Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.18162125]

>>18162116
No, you are.

Ideas are answers. Themes are questions. Apples and oranges, you dont discern because your cognitive modules are impaired.

[Anonymous No.18162129]

>>18162107
>>18162085
>psychologist
worthless. again, focusing on characters is what fucking soap operas and gossipers do. it's the lowest of forms of human expression

[Anonymous No.18162136]

>>18162125
>ideas are answers
HOLY FUCK HE'S AN ACTUAL RETARD

[Anonymous No.18162145]

>>18162129
Wanna back that up? Or do you just base you're entire self image on a random quote your friend posted on his Facebook status?

[Anonymous No.18162157]

>>18162102
I counted 7 black people while I was there

[Anonymous No.18162170]

>>18162129
Holy shit its almost as if there's ways you can explore characters badly and ways you can explore characters properly!
You're so dumb it hurts

[Anonymous No.18162171]

>>18162136
Ideas:
>atheism
Themes:
>atheism in the middle ages
you get it now, retard? did i seriously have to lay it out to you like to a 5 year old?

HOLY FUCK HE'S AN ACTUAL RETARD

[Anonymous No.18162175]

>>18162107
Yes, you have articulated the difference well and I agree. But for some reason, I still prefer Tolstoy as a psychologist. Whenever I read Tolstoy I feel like I understand the characters completely, whereas with Dostoevsky I'm always left scratching my head. It's just autism on my behalf I think. Dostoevsky requires more intelligence probably, you have to read between the lines more. In the sense that I still don't know who Katerina Ivanovna loved (both, Dmitri deep down? Ivan at the end? but Dmitri and Katerina embrace each other at the end?). I'm too autistic to understand it. But when Dostoevsky just spends a page offering a psychological insight it is always brilliant.

[Anonymous No.18162177]

>>18162157
You didn't answer the question.
inb4
>business
no one does business with russia, it's sanctioned and isolated like iran.

explain yourself
oh wait
oh god
was it "tourism?" was it "interest in russian culture?"
OHNONONO LMAOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.18162183]

>>18161016
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.18162190]

>>18162170
>Holy shit its almost as if there's ways you can explore characters badly and ways you can explore characters properly!
you can shit harshly or smoothly. doesn't matter. it's still shit

[Anonymous No.18162192]

>>18162177
You sound like a fag

[Anonymous No.18162196]

>>18162114
Tranny hands typed this

[Anonymous No.18162205]

>>18161016
This literally makes no sense. All are interlinked.

[Anonymous No.18162204]

>>18162129
Jung, worthless, small mind, gossiper.
Freud? again small mind.
Nietzsche? Thought himself a psychologist? what a worthless small mind.
Lacan? Don't make me laugh
Oh? Does your favorite writer have characters in his book? But why would he focus on something so worthless and trivial? Small mind.

[Anonymous No.18162208]

>>18162177
Brainlet detected

[Anonymous No.18162218]

>>18162175
Well I think the difference there is that Tolstoy is really more of a tell don't show guy, he really gets into his characters heads and gives them so many realistic quirks that it really just brings them to life. Imo dostoevsky tackles the more interesting subjects but Tolstoy is just the King of producing people so real you feel like you actually recognise them.

[Anonymous No.18162240]

>>18162190
You literally have not explained why focusing on characters is a bad thing. You just quoted someone who wasn't even referring to literature and then pretended like you made an actual case, then you tried to say "because shitty soap operas focus on characters then that means focusing on characters as a whole must be dumb! " which is a fucking dumb argument.
Hey anon, Joe Rogan and other psuedo intellectuals love talking about ideas, that must mean talking about ideas is dumb!!!
Dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.18162248]

>>18162204
Lol, neither of these focused on individual people, they were trying to nail a more universal picture.

Tolstoy is more in the soap opera ballpark. Look what a monster Mark is!! How could he!! Or in the anime ballpark - OH MY GOD, WAKIZASHI HIROSHIMA HAD SUCH A COMPLEX CHARACTER ARC!!!

[Anonymous No.18162280]

>>18162240
Because making realistic characters is easier and less profound than delivering enlightening/informative/transformative and/or moving messages

The former requires social skill and being observant, the latter requires intellect and creativity.

[Anonymous No.18162286]

>>18161016
You shouldn't be reading fictional books for 'ideas'. You should be reading fictional books for aesthetic pleasure.

[Anonymous No.18162373]

I have never actually cringed so hard at a thread on /lit/. And I've been here for 10 years.

>>18160665
>>18161016
>>18161229
>>18162248

This shows a severe lack of complacency and understanding of what fiction is for. The idea that discussing people is for small minds is one of the stupidest arguments you can make.
You cannot correlate reading Tolstoy's characters to gossip-drones who tune in to reality tv and YouTube drama every night.
Great novelists are not only exceedingly talented at creating lifelike characters but are also extraordinarily talented at 'world-building' (see Tolstoy, Joyce, Flaubert, Kafka, Dickens). They achieve this through stylistic choices of prose and being able to extrapolate an image in the mind and transcribe to the page. I'm sure everyone has had the sensation of after finishing a great novel that feeling that everything they read had truly existed and happened. This is what fiction is for. It is exceptionally hard to pull off. Fiction gives you the opportunity to experience life in ways you never would in reality.
You cannot start a novel with the expectation that 'ideas' are going to be discussed like you would read a treatise or an essay. The novel is not meant for that and never will be.

[Anonymous No.18162483]

>>18162373
Good post and it's the same with poetry, even more so. Making the implicit, explicit. Rendering in poetry what is already known to the reader. It's often why you feel as if you could write what a poet has written because you have already thought it (subconsciously). Making the sublime manifest.
>>18162248
>Lol, neither of these focused on individual people, they were trying to nail a more universal picture.
This is so incredibly stupid that it's not even worth engaging with. Just face it you were filtered, you were bored. By Tolstoy of all writers. A writer who is nothing but a pleasure to read, whose 1300 page novels feel as if they were only a 100. And what are some novels that you like btw?

[Anonymous No.18162502]

>>18162280
Yeah no.
You have to be autistic to think that realistic characters and their stories can't be just as moving as any message. Literally autistic; completely unable of empathising.
Tolstoy doesn't just make realistic characters, he explores different world views and ways of living. Learning through those characters to discover how you can better yourself is just as, if not more, transformative and profound than bloviating about some fringe philosophical concept you won't use in the day to day.

[Anonymous No.18162721]

>>18162218
And almost as if his showing is so good that it seems like telling. Dostoevsky is more a philosopher and psychologist than he is a writer, a writer in the sense that Tolstoy is a writer. You can almost count the times on both hands when Dostoevsky writes prosaically in any number of his books. But that is nothing to fault him for. Instead, it's actually impressive in an "oblique" (one of Dostos favorite ways to describe the sun's rays which he makes ample use of) way, that he essentially transcends the need for prose, and that readers are drawn to him despite his lack of it.

[Anonymous No.18162818]

>>18162175
>Dostoevsky requires more intelligence probably
not really. dostoyevsky is for people who read to 'improve' and 'gain a better understanding of the human disposition' and shit like that; arguably the lowest form of reader. peterson-core

[Anonymous No.18162855]

>>18162175
dostoevsky is a vastly inferior writer to tolstoy

[Anonymous No.18162874]

>>18160665
You aren't actually describing anything about the book or the author.

"It's boring" says more about you, like:
"I'm not capable of the patience rigor and consistent effort needed for this book"
Or
"I lack the perspective to see why this book would be so dense"
Or
"Herpaderp let me get back to masturbating my existence away while pretending anyone could ever treat me like an equal"

[Anonymous No.18163102]

>>18162818
I said intelligence but I meant the ability to understand others.
>>18162855
yeah, I agree. But I don't think that's such a bad thing. Ultimately if he were a better writer I would probably have less trouble understanding his characters. I've never had trouble understanding why characters act and think in the way they do for any other writer, be it Joyce or Woolf or whoever. See >>18162721

[Anonymous No.18163153]

jesus /lit/ is worse everytime I come here.

[Anonymous No.18163245]

>>18162373
Unbelievably based posf

[Anonymous No.18163326]

>>18162129
Tolstoy and Doestoesvky were both soap opera artists, yes. However, genre doesn't matter, any genre could be literary and great art.

[Anonymous No.18163344]

>>18162218
hoesntly, this is my issue with Tolstoy 9altough im still a fan). I said this in another thread but Tolstoys characters are so realistic that I feel like im not learning anything, like every psychological insight Tolstoy makes is something I could've already expressed (although less eloquently). Whereas doestoesvky for example makes more transcendental characters that still feel relatable, making them feel alot fresher to me. His insights feel less ordinary

[Anonymous No.18163353]

https://youtu.be/uIHjo4s1fT4

[Anonymous No.18163358]

>>18162205
Interlinked.

[Anonymous No.18163360]

>>18163353
watch it i dont care about this boring dosteyeyevsky crap!

[Anonymous No.18163430]

>>18162373
The fact that this anon had to very explicitly spell out what a novel is even for shows how you can't even expect dummies on /lit/ to be at square 1. They're at step negative 10

[Anonymous No.18163449]

>>18160665
Did you read any of the P&V translations? For some reason they're so popular but to me they come across as clunky compared to others

[Anonymous No.18163470]

>>18163449
Do you speak fluent Russian? If not why would you pass judgement on how a translation "come[s] across"? Do you have any idea of the syntax of Russian? The vernacular? The figures of speech? How working-class Russians talk in comparison to Aristocratic-Russians? Do you have any idea at all? Or are you thoughtlessly passing judgement on something you know little of, if anything?

[Anonymous No.18163643]

>>18163470
I just think they're uncomfy to read after having compared several translations from both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky novels, that's it. If Tolstoy is repeatedly described as elegant in Russian it doesn't really seem that way through P&V

[Anonymous No.18163697]

>>18163470
I didn't know Pevear & Volokhonsky posted on /lit/
Hi

[Anonymous No.18164046]

>>18161016
Absolutely pathetic and brainless poster

[Anonymous No.18164069]

>>18162280
You've never done either. How do you know? Aaaargh thermodynamics seems easier than electrical sciences, man. You're just observing these themal systems. That's how you sound.

[Anonymous No.18164756]

so this is the power of /lit/ when they actually talk about books

[Anonymous No.18165046]

>>18160665
I guess you and I are polar opposites because Tolstoy is one of maybe five writers who never bore me.

[Anonymous No.18165409]

>>18163449
For what it’s worth my Brother took Russian for several years in high school and college and P&V are highly regarded at universities

[Anonymous No.18165412]

>>18163470
Based

[Anonymous No.18166074]

>>18162114
good bait
get curb stomped

[Anonymous No.18166093]

>>18161016
Based

[Anonymous No.18166126]

>>18161016
kek

[Anonymous No.18166167]

>>18163102
If you think Joyce or Woolf are better writers than Dostoevsky, holy shit, you‘re dumber as I thought. And the other anons, I won‘t even respond to claiming self improoooovers only read Dosto, which is simply not true. But you already got your stupid opinions, it doesn’t make any sense arguing with you.

[Anonymous No.18166171]

>>18160665
I've always loved Tolstoy because its boring. So many books have to conform to the 300 pages that the publisher sets out, and never flesh out the characters. Anna Karenina may be like 700 pages, but it goes at an acceptably slow pace for me.

[Anonymous No.18166187]

>>18160665
I haven't read that one, but Tolstoj is not boring, usually. Have you tried Kreutzer Sonata?

[Anonymous No.18166193]

>>18161180
I have two more:
> The divide between urban and rural lifestyles (Vronsky and Levin)
> The life of the serf/peasant vs. the aristocracy (minor peasant characters/Levin vs. the Oblonksys)

[Anonymous No.18166198]

>>18161016
This applies for philosophy though.

[Anonymous No.18166206]

>>18162102
That's what communism will do to you. Russia in 1900 was a modernizing, western nation, and now its a shit-hole.

[Anonymous No.18166230]

>>18162102
>why would you fly to Nigeria with snow?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrS5EtO3WMM

>no one does business with russia, it's sanctioned and isolated like iran.
Americans...

[Anonymous No.18166327]

>>18166206
>Russia in 1900 was a modernizing, western nation
LMAO
They literally rejected anything that was "western" in any way shape or form.

[Anonymous No.18166452]

>>18161229
Ur just retarded. So fucking dumb. 19 years old. Same with the rest of this board

[Anonymous No.18166456]

>>18160665
>Ok, we all know that "its boring" is not valid criticism
It absolutely is.

[Anonymous No.18166500]

>>18166206
Modernizing western nations don't have communist revolutions.

[Anonymous No.18166554]

>>18160665
Boring is in the eye of the beholder anon. I'm reading Les Mis, and while I think there are several parts that could easily have been left out, I can also acknowledge that there would be some people who really love the minutea of it all.

[Anonymous No.18167432]

>>18166327
Dude have you ever heard of the Romanovs? St. Petersburg was created specifically to mimic Paris in every possible way. Catherine the Great tried to dress up like the Austrian Emperors at every opportunity. French was basically the second language for most middle class Russians. They brought in multiple German and French railroad companies to build theirs, and laid thousands of miles of telegraph lines, bought from France.

[Anonymous No.18168045]

>>18166500
YET

[Anonymous No.18168078]

>>18160665
>Ok, we all know that "its boring" is not valid criticism
Sorry, but I don't get your point. It's a perfect valid criticism.

[Anonymous No.18168320]

>>18168045
no western nations get gay social democracy

[Anonymous No.18168694]

>>18161016
This has to be bait, no one is this dumb.

[Anonymous No.18168824]

>>18167432
>Dude have you ever heard of the Romanovs?
Yes
>St. Petersburg was created specifically to mimic Paris in every possible way.
>The city was founded by Tsar Peter the Great on 27 May 1703
>Catherine the Great tried to dress up like the Austrian Emperors at every opportunity
The way the Tsarina dressed is not really relevant when discussing a country's culture as a whole. Anyway
>Catherine was born in Stettin, Pomerania, Kingdom of Prussia (now Szczecin, Poland) as Princess Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg. Her father, Christian August, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst, belonged to the ruling German family of Anhalt. 2 May 1729 – 17 November 1796
>French was basically the second language for most middle class Russians.
Not sure for middle class, aristocracy for sure.
>They brought in multiple German and French railroad companies to build theirs, and laid thousands of miles of telegraph lines, bought from France.
Even the Papal States had a small railroad, does that make the Papal States "western and modernizing"?

I shall stress that I was answering to
>>18166206
>Russia in 1900 was a modernizing, western nation
>In 1900
>modernizing, western
It simply wasn't. The ruling intelligentsia saw Western liberalism, democracy, communism etc as harmful, godless ideas, radically alien to the Orthodox Russian people and their faith in the Tsar.

[Anonymous No.18169340]

>>18161016
what a brainlet

[Anonymous No.18169438]

>>18161436
>tfw you will never experience the love of a sweet young lady in 19th century Russia
>why even live
bros...

[Anonymous No.18169452]

>>18168824
Its not like Catherine was Russian..

[Anonymous No.18169540]

>>18166167
I was referring to their ability to write prose. Are you seriously suggesting that Dostoyevsky's "prose" can compare to Woolf's let alone Joyce's?

[Anonymous No.18169626]

>>18160912
>old yellowed paperbacks gross me out and smell bad

[Anonymous No.18170277]

>>18165412
What's based about flying into histrionics about one opinion of one russian to english translation out of dozens?

[Anonymous No.18170344]

>>18162136
You are spazzing like a retard without explaining yourself, sir.

[Anonymous No.18170457]

>>18160935
Seconded. AK is great but I prefer W&P.

[Anonymous No.18170777]

>>18160665
Only extroverts feel bored. If you are ever bored you are just dumb. People who feel bored having nothing going on in their heads and they need external stimuli like the extroverted faggots that they are. Kill all extroverts.

[Anonymous No.18170815]

Tolstoy is boring as shit. Every story is a long dreg through Christcuck moralizing bullshit. It's like anon's grandmother took up writing fiction.

[Anonymous No.18170834]

>>18160665
Try liking it

[Anonymous No.18172214]

>>18162171
He calls me a retard yet he didn't even address what I was calling him out for.
You are still a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.18172363]

>>18162286
>aesthetic pleasure
so value to you is just = it looks good?

what a tard poseur lmfao

[Anonymous No.18172373]

>>18162373
>I'm sure everyone has had the sensation of after finishing a great novel that feeling that everything they read had truly existed and happened. This is what fiction is for.
I have felt this way after watching good TV shows. If this is what the kind of fiction you like is for, then you like shit, extremely limited fiction that is on the level of (arguably, well-made) TV shows.

kys.

[Anonymous No.18172395]

>>18162874
>"I lack the perspective to see why this book would be so dense"
Why is it so dense? Why the rants about farm equipment? Ultimately, its inefficient prose.

[Anonymous No.18172708]

>>18170815
Which authors or novels do you prefer?

[Anonymous No.18172943]

>>18160665
War & Peace broke me. It's just so long-winded and too full of tropes. If it was your only source of etertainment, it'd be great, but it's not.