[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 70 KB, 429x550, 148623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19374436 No.19374436 [Reply] [Original]

Christianity ruined Tolstoy as a writer but improved Dostoevsky. Why?

>> No.19374458

>>19374436
They both suck.

>> No.19374467

>>19374436
Early Tolstoy constantly walks the tightrope between using religion to elevate literature and simply moralizing. His latter works push it too far and thus begin to fail as literature. Anna Karenina wouldn't be anywhere near as good if Anna didn't have her realization right at the end. Same for Ivan Ilyich. Christianity was crucial for Tolstoy as an author and is the biggest thing that sets him apart from his Victorian English counterparts.

>> No.19374482

>>19374467
this and also Tolstoy also took it way too far and actually went into heresy because he thought he was a genius (which he was)

>> No.19374488

>>19374436
Because Tolstoy heretically tried to reconcile enlightenment “Reason” and his Orthdox Christianity.

>> No.19374518

>>19374467
>Christianity was crucial for Tolstoy as an author and is the biggest thing that sets him apart from his Victorian English counterparts.
George Eliot and Thomas Hardy were definitely atheists (albeit with nuance in the latter case) but the Christian moral and spiritual framework is obvious in Dickens, Thackeray, Trollope and countless others. Even Wilkie Collins is full of biblical allusion.

>> No.19375040

>>19374436
Tolstoy's Christianity was insincere.

>> No.19376234

>>19374458
Gove me one good psychological writer with realist influence

>> No.19376249

>>19374482
>went into heresy
How so

>> No.19376940

>>19376234
I'm not that Anon (love Tolstoy and Dosto), but would Roth count? His books are usually have a psychological bent and I consider him a realist of sorts.

>> No.19376968
File: 664 KB, 2160x1310, 0756CB64-8439-4DC0-984E-9700024D0FB9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19376968

>>19376234
George Eliot first and foremost. Middlemarch, yea, but also The Mill On The Floss which is filled with brilliant and beautiful psychological insights. Also John Williams.

>> No.19376975

Oswald Spengler explain that it’s because Tolstoy is cosmopolitan Russia, Dostoevsky peasant Russia.

>> No.19377135

Because Tolstoy was a disingenuous hack.

>> No.19377151

>>19374436
Because Tolstoy had a lot more talent to begin with.

>> No.19377195

>>19374436
Because Dostoyevsky knew misery first hand, so he understood the weight of guilt and redemption. For Tolstoy they were abstract things.

>> No.19377212

>>19376940
I don't get that nigger. By Indignation you would think he's a fedora tier atheist leftist who worships Bertrand Russell, but then American Pastoral is one of the most acid criticism to leftism and rationalism I've ever read.

>> No.19377217

>>19377195
Not true at all. Tolstoy led a much fuller life than Dostoevsky which is why War and Peace paints such a full picture of life. I'm sure Dostoevsky suffered more over the course of his life than Tolstoy but Tolstoy knew war, passionate reciprocal love, family happiness, upper class life, none of which Dostoevsky knew much about.

>> No.19377223

>>19377217
Tolstoy was a rich-fag. Rich-fags are incapable of ever knowing true suffering, just an abstraction of it. They live in their minds, not in their bodies. I still love Tolstoy though.

>> No.19377228

>>19376249
He basically became a Muslim from what I know

>> No.19377230

>>19377217
You basically just reaffirmed his point by painting Tolstoy as an upper class man lacking the profound experiences of Dostoevsky.

>> No.19377257

>>19377223
Rich people get sick and die, and see their loved ones get sick and die too. Everyone knows suffering.

>>19377230
No, I said he led a fuller life than Dostoevsky. That's why Dostoevsky's novels are much more one-note than Tolstoy's. It sounds like you just resent the rich. The greatest novelists aren't the ones who suffered longest. I don't know where you get that idea.

>> No.19377259
File: 39 KB, 300x433, Guenon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19377259

>>19377228
Based and monkepilled

>> No.19377267

>>19377257
>Rich people get sick and die, and see their loved ones get sick and die too. Everyone knows suffering.
t. rich fag

You will never be a Dosto. But don't worry, anon, you can still aspire to be a Tolstoy.

>> No.19377274

>>19374467
>Anna Karenina wouldn't be anywhere near as good if Anna didn't have her realization right at the end.
Thanks for the spoiler warning.

>> No.19377299

>>19377274
Should have spent the time wasted here on reading the book instead.

>> No.19378097

>>19374436
Christianity made Tolstoy better too, but since he was already a legend, people didn't like the change. Just like Salinger, which became much better as he got more spiritual, but people kept wanting another Catcher.

>> No.19378123

>>19374436
Dosto was a degenerate pulp fiction writer who was paid by the word to fuel his insatiable gambling addiction. If you like his work you are the literary equivalent of a soccer mom picking up a harlequin romance novel in the check out line at the local super market.

>> No.19378208

>>19375040
Elaborate please

>> No.19378394

>>19378208
different anon. not sure if this is accurate, but it stuck in my mind: >>/lit/thread/S17593513#p17596442

>> No.19378795

>>19377267
I'm a lower middle class fag but my most miserable friend is a rich fag. And look at the Wittgenstein family. Multiple suicides and they were obscenely rich. The rich know suffering too.

>> No.19378991

>>19374436
Both of them suffered from seeing themselves (and others) as sinners, but Dostoevsky postulated that the answer is believing in God, and then questioned it from countless fronts (all those nervous atheists look quite like the author), while Tolstoy decided to find the definite answer by solving them one by one and excluding the ills from life.

If you think about it, late Tolstoy, late Gogol, etc. condemning, say, theaters and spectacles were not that different from modern day critic of “society of spectacle”.

>> No.19379003

>>19378795
Absolutely. Everyone knows suffering because everyone knows desire. Everyone gets bored of what they have and rich people can pretty much have whatever they want. This can take wind out of one's sails, and leave life feeling pointless.

Everyone must develop philosophy to overcome the endless cycle of suffering.

>> No.19380527

>>19378795
>I'm a lower middle class fag
If you are middle class in a first world country then you're a rich fag. You have no clue how the real world works, nigger.
>The rich know suffering too.
They suffer in their mind. They don't know nor understand true suffering. Poor people don't commit suicide. You have a lot to learn, rich fag.

>> No.19380536
File: 118 KB, 720x520, coom.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19380536

>>19376940
>would Roth count?
OH GOD I'M GONNA

>> No.19380562

>>19377217
>Not true at all
>Tolstoy knew war, passionate reciprocal love, family happiness, upper class life
The OP was talking about misery, guilt, and redemption. Wtf are you going on about? Your gaslighting chaos theory habit of conversation is garbage, fucking kys.

>> No.19380597

>19380527
>19377267
>19377223
Do not reply to breadtube watchers.