Does this book prove that Tolstoy was low-key more based than Dostoevsky?
>>23903197Yes. Feminism is based.
I just think that all XIX russian writers are the same person, which is a good and based thing.Can't distinguish from one to another prose.
>>23903253>May's study also critiqued [Constance] Garnett for her tendency of "stylistic homogenizing" that "eras[ed] those idiosyncrasies of narrative voice and dialogue that different authors possessed" and for making prudish word choices that "tamed [the Russian classics] further." May also analyzed how for decades, Garnett's translations were unquestioningly acclaimed by critics because "she suited the needs of her time so well, that no one knew what questions to ask."Of course I'd still prefer her to the Penis and Vagina translations.
>>23903197What do you mean low-key? One was a deluded christcucked simp, the other a redpilled schopenhauerian gigabrain. One wrote kind pious whores, the other selfish histrionic sluts.
>>23903260Maude for Tolstoy
>>23903282can you expand on this im genuinely so intrigued
>yet another book about women and infidelityhah, no thanks.
>>23903282Tolstoy underwent a spiritual crisis in his fifties, couldn’t get a grip on how the world works, the point of it all. Eventually he found the truth in Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation, calling the author a genius. Even before the crisis, he was already very critical of women, considered them immoral to the core and advised to avoid them as much as possible. Dosto’s midwitted simping for whores needs no elaboration I believe.
>>23903341Meant for >>23903313
>>23903282/thread
>>23903197He was high-key more based than Dostoevsky
>>23903197>>23903282If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.
Ive recently begun to read the russians. So tolstoy has his two big novels but he also wrote a lot of short stories and novellas. Are they all generally good? I dont think I have really seen tolstoy's and dostoevsky's short stories metioned.
>>23903197> Does this book prove that Tolstoy was low-key more based>B мyжчин я oчeнь чacтo влюблялcя, пepвoй любoвью были двa Пyшкинa*, пoтoм 2-й – Caбypoв, пoтoм 3-eй – Зыбин и Дьякoв, 4 – Oбoлeнcкий, Блocфeльд, Иcлaвин, eщe Гoтьe и мнoгиe дpyгиe. Из вceх этих людeй я пpoдoлжaю любитьI am sorry anon, but Tolstoy was bi-curioushttps://traumlibrary.ru/book/tolstoy-ln-ss22-21/tolstoy-ln-ss22-21.html#s003
>>23903731You forget Resurrection. His semi-autobiography can be counted as a novel too. So that makes 4 in total.
>>23903731Read A Hero of our Time by Lermontov first, it's better and more based.
>>23903731many of his short works are masterpieces so yes they're worth reading. hadji murat, ivan ilyich, master and man, all great.
>>23903842>>23903848>>23903886Thanks for the advice and recs.
>>23903260Garnett is great. If you're read her translations once and you wanna re-read the books try some other translations for noveltys sake but she's great nontheless.
>>23903731Dostoys "A Nasty Story" is top tier comedy.
>>23903731>>23903842Seconding Resurrection, it's at least on par with his big 2, and I personally liked it better than AK
For people who have actually read this book, how do you interpret it? I have been dumbfounded by it ever since I read it. When people talk about The Kreutzer Sonata they usually talk about the first half where the narrator just shits on marriage, sex, doctors and reproduction because it’s verbatim Tolstoy’s views. But very little attention is given to the actual plot of the narrator killing his wife. Putting your personal opinions in the mouth of an evil, reprehensible character seems baffling and that’s all people ever say about the book. But I think there’s more to it. There must be a reason why Tolstoy did this and why the final version of the book includes a line at the very end showing the narrator crack and beg for forgiveness to the stranger he’s confessing to. If all that Tolstoy wanted us to take from the book is that we should aspire towards celibacy, then he wouldn’t have written a story about murder and music to convey this idea, especially in such a disjointed way where the first half is a first-person polemic and the second half is more narrative and art. There’s a deeper meaning to the book that I haven’t yet parsed and I think most literary critics for the past century have ignored it too.
>>23904493My interpretation is that the story is an argument against how men and women are paired together in society. Women are taught by men to feed their lust and they voluntarily comply with their wishes given their penchant for seduction and promiscuity in the modern world. Men in turn view women as nothing but husks of flesh for reproduction and sexual pleasure. Once this sexuality and fertility is stripped from women, men no longer have a need for them hence why the character kills his wife after she begins contraception. Tolstoy just really wanted to shove it down people's throats that they should try avoiding this state of affairs entirely as Christians by becoming celibate, so that's why he made the book one guy's monologue. It harms the story overall but the central narrative is really compelling and important.
>>23904493The narrator is far from reprehensible. His wife was unfaithful, he killed her. Sound based desu
>>23904839There’s no evidence she actually cheated on him, he suspected it and believed it in his head. Also this whole story was based on a real incident with Tolstoy’s wife and a musician who taught her piano. She didn’t even realize it was based on her until years later
>>23903197Tolstoy is objectively better than Dosto in every conceivable wayTolstoy is the greatest author to ever live
