>concludes literature Where can you even go from here?
>>24101408>Russia slopTiresome.
>>24101422Interesting how nothing has beaten it in 200 years
It was intended as a prologue for another work which he died before writing
>>24101445Someone should pick up where he left off and write it Who could do it?
>>24101467knausgaard
>>24101427It's not a good book. You just think it's is because you read Russian slop. You might as well read genre fiction.
>>24101490And you might as well kill yourself
>>24101492Dostoevsky himself read mostly English literature in translation, which explains why his prose sucks, as he had no appreciation of good prose.
>>24101467I have considered the task but its a bit egotistical even for me lol
>>24101445thanks god
>>24101422>Russia>slopTiresome.
>>24101408If 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.
>>24102061This is why his earliest works are the best
>>24102061He's teens first "smart" author. The ultimate midwit author. But his books are long, incredibly boring, so reading them seems impressive to idiots. That's why C&P is the "smart book" signal in so many movies, similar to the Golden Notebook for feminists, or Orientalism for people of sand.
>>24101427It's not even Dosto's best book, and he's not even a good novelist.
>>24101408Vladimir Nabokov thought Dostoevsky was garbage and he was correct (as usual)
>>24102156this
>>24102138>>24102148>seriously replying to that stale pasta
>>24102302Its a valid post. I don't see the issue>>24102156That picture of him in boxing gloves is lame
>>24101408What's the appeal of this?
>>24102148Kafka loved it and it was a major influence on The Trial
>>24102302The pasta gets more fun as one retard continues to spam it in every thread even remotely connected with Dostoyevsky
>>24102746He already made his point but thanks for driving it home with evidence
>>24101467I have written it. It should find a publisher this year and should be out next year.
For me I've been filling my time with genre slop.
>>24101467I did but I'm a straight white European male so no one wants to publish it.
>>24101408There. I summed it up in a single jpeg for you
>>24102149Is he a good poet? His novels suck and his philosophy is cringe. I don't speak Russian so I have no ability to assess if he is good at writing, but is there poetry by him and who translates it well? I just don't understand this author, and it seems like Russian speaking authors who are good also seem to dislike him, while 16 year olds are his only defenders, so I am thinking he actually just sucks.
>>24102149So what is he good at?
>>24101427god emperor of dune mogs
>>24102148Don't be so mean you say that as if that's an inhenrently bad thing. I argue the opposite, Dostoevsky's work is extremely jumpy overemotional and erratic with characters constantly breaking into long winded emotional monologues or breakdowns in various instances within all his major works. His characters can come across as overtly neurotic specially in comparison to someone like Tolstoy and his rather slow and more subtle characters. Nabokov is a whiny old cynic, he fails to see the constant flaming passion and ecstasy of Fyodor's work because of his disillusioned worldview. Kafka, Dosto, Pushkin, Byron and early Goethe are authors ideally meant to be experienced by the youthful mind, favorites from age 17-30 but no longer. This is not because they are bad per say, but because anyone without a cluster B disability in our increasingly unemotional and cold modern world is simply incapable of feeling such things past a certain age. And yes I am cluster B
>>24101492Thank you for proving you're an idiot.
This thread is proof you guys don't even read the books.
>>24101467Brando sando
>>24107233Can you please read English literature from the second half of the 19th century, it is public domain, specifically focusing on the realist authors, then Henry James, then the early Modernists, the English language ones (excluding Nabokov when he is writing in English, but including Conrad) but, as odd as this sounds ignore Joyce's work other than Dubliners. Please read these until you understand them. Do the same with poetry. Come back to Russian literature after that and you will understand that it just isn't worth the time. German and Russian literature is overrated and seems to entirely serve as a signal people use to prove they are educated, much like how French Theory does in certain spaces.
>>24107451Can’t someone read something because they want to?
>>24106966Funny that you mention that. I get very similar vibes from Karamazov and god emperor. Its of course very different genres but the themes and perspectives are like literal polar opposites that work really well together. Its quite apparent in my opinion that Herb borrows heavily from Dostoevsky.
>>24107451Odd take. First of all, I can promise you that you wont get everything out of Russian literature if you're not Russian or eastern European or speak very fluent Russian. For German literature it is very true that you need to be really well educated in many different topics to get all the different references which is unnecessarily hard for an average reader. This is perhaps a bit easier today because of internet but still somethings are not part of current sophistication. Also very weird to lift Dubliners and otherwise ignore Joyce when Ulysses is widely considered the greatest piece of English literature.
>>24107464Yeah.>>24107527I am speaking for native English speakers. I think it's harder to understand why authors like Cather, Morris, or Stegner are good than to understand why Joyce is good. Dubliners is more conventional and subtle than Ulysses, and despite not being overtly revolutionary, the magic of English literature is in the subtleness. If your Russian I am sure it's worth focusing on Russian literature, but I do think its curious that Dostoevsky seemed to prefer Shakespeare in translation over his own language's literature. There is a reason why the Gatsby is considered a masterpiece, and it isn't its plot.
>>24107637Norris, not Morris.
>>24107527>>24107637dumbest conversation i've seen in a whilegood literature will appeal to anyone anywhere in the world you cunts
>>24107668The best literature is not possible to be translated because it makes full use of the features of its language and culture.
>>24107673Name an example in english
>>24107637English writers don't write about things that appeal to me so what am I meant to do?
>>24107688ulysses (not that I agree with that statement)
>>24107712So name one you do agree with?
>>24107688As provided above, the Great Gatsby. The merit of Gatsby is in the descriptive passages and specific rhythm of the prose. It has no merit as literature in translation.>>24107691Are you ESL? If so, read in your native language.
>>24107451>Can you please read English literature from the second half of the 19th century, it is public domain, specifically focusing on the realist authors, then Henry James, then the early Modernists, the English language ones (excluding Nabokov when he is writing in English, but including Conrad) but, as odd as this sounds ignore Joyce's work other than Dubliners.Already have even if im far more familiar with the french canon because I love my damn country. English is just a very horrid language and angloid writers tend to be extremely overhyped, specially the DepartmentOfEducationMandatesYouToReadThisInSchool-core books like Poe, Austen, Orwell, Huxley and so on. Anglos spent far too much of their literary effort into pulp slop and this trend started with them far earlier than with other nations, even third world ones like Japan (at the time) Russia and Brazil were not this addicted to pop magazine stuff for the average joe. Im fond of Melville, Woolf, Plath, Conrad and Joyce a lot but other writers such as Henry James and Emily Bronte just never clicked yk. This is coming from a place of already a pretty massive prejudice and spite towards brits and muhricans before reading those works, so Faulkner and Hemmingway just came across as hihihaha anglo try sound smart but he not so smart he act think monkey negroidic haha. I will agree with german literature being over the top and needlessly snobby after the 20th century, but I don't see anything particularly that bad about russian literature other than sensationalism, Nabokov just seems to be diasporacoping.>Worth the timeSubjective concept and I could be doing far worst things when I was 16 a couple years back than dipping my head in russian literature because it felt relatable.>>24107673Agreed but I already regret wasting my time to learn german so im gonna stick to translations for slav shit.>>24107637Gatsby is considered a masterpiece because of incessant anglo shilling
>>24107673>the best literature can't be translated blah blah blah because of language and cultureYou don't need to belong to a culture to understand it enough to appreciate the art it produces; the best literature doesn't just deal with the culture from which it sprung, but all of humanity. You don't have to completely understand every tiny cultural nuance to appreciate something.And pretty much everything can be translated. What does it even mean to "make full use of a language"? Different languages are, well, different, but they all can express the same things. A translated work is undeniably different just by virtue of being translated, but the art, the words, are still there. A frenchman who has read proust does not necessarily understand him better than someone from a different country and who has read him in, say, the revised moncrieff.What "features" are there in a language that cannot possibly be conveyed in another, especially to the extent of losing something significant from the original, so as to be "not possible to be translated"? And how does the best literature "make use of its culture" (?) to such an extent that outsiders can't understand it?
>>24107755Is your native language French?>>24107762If you speak two languages, read a poem in one and its translation in the other.
>>24107814Yes, I am french
>>24107752No I'm not ESL I'm monolingual. I have no interest in Gatsby. Never read Fitzgerald
>>24107755Why are you being so rude when nobody has done anything to you? Geez man I can't do anything about where I was born
>>24107819That makes sense why you don't get the Gatsby. Its merit is in the prose and the specific way it plays with patterns and rhythms of English. Its plot is not the point, even Fitzgerald's letters when he was writing it express this. This is why it is awful when adapted into a movie. I have no idea what the French parallel is, but I am sure your own literary canon has its own modernist work that fills the same space. A weird thing about Ulysses is that to me at least, it sounds awful aloud except in an Irish accent, and I have heard various pieces of American modernism read aloud in an Irish accent and it sounded similarly awful. I think that is one of the appeals of the poet Frank O'Hara to Irish writers, despite being American he sounds nice in an Irish accent.
>>24107847Sorry, I wasn't meaning to man, force of habit. Im just generally very foul mouthed and im sure it probably came off as more aggressive in text than it would with speech. A lot of people in my life share the same problem of using too many swears in their speech so it's a bit of a automatic thing.>>24107853Yeah pretty much, I did read it in it's original language though.
>>24107877Don't apologize jts fine. I'm probably just a thin skinned anglo bitch. I'm not really a fan of English but its all I have and I don't think ill ever have the chance to move to another country
>>24107889>cucking to the fr*nchDisgusting.
>>24107853i don't think i understand what makes a book good
>>24107899I don't get internet jokes.
>>24107889Ey you can suck me off from under my desk while I write my newest dissertation about Balzac, Proust and Cervantes in my university's paper (I don't even study literature im doing International Relationships)
>>24107906Sorry again man. You're better read in English alone than I am. Let alone French and Russian. I don't know whats wrong with me. Sorry for bothering you
>>24107840You should read it and try to appreciate it. It only takes like 3-4 hours to read.>>24107900It is my understanding that Shakespeare is popular in other languages, and that Dostoevsky read him in Russian translation, I personally can't relate to that. Most of the value of Shakespeare, to me, is in the specific meter, the puns and that I speak a language that was heavily shaped by him. Shakespeare is kind of like the KJV bible in that way. I think the reason why certain authors, specifically the 19th century Russians, are so popular in internet spaces is that they are not subtle, and so they are easy to translate. Idk tho.
>>24107916Based
>>24107916Yeah what the fuck is wrong with you dude, is this a sex thing or somethingDon't be so mean to yourself! Fuckwit!
Only midwits who barely started reading hate Dosto. After 1000 books, you realize that he's easily one of the greats. This board has a long way to go, since a lot of you seem very young and fellate mediocre charlatans like John Williams or Pessoa.
>>24107451Henry James is garbage. Genuinely worse than the heaps of genre refuse. English literature as a whole is disappointing.
>>24107995Can't you elaborate on your point instead of stating it boldly, as boldly as the midwits you decry, and then moaning about the state of the board while contributing nothing? I'm genuinely interested what makes Dosto so great.
>>24107995Maybe if those 1,000 books are all YA novels. I have read a few thousand novels and don't find Dostoyevsky good.
>>24102061Why does he hate Dosto so much but love Tolstoy
>>24108039It is, as in all Dostoyevsky's novels, a rush and tumble of words with endless repetitions, mutterings aside, a verbal overflow which shocks the reader after, say, Lermontov's transparent and beautifully poised prose. Dostoyevsky as we know is a great seeker after truth, a genius of spiritual morbidity, but as we also know he is not a great writer in the sense Tolstoy, Pushkin and Chekhov are. And, I repeat, not because the world he creates is unreal -all the worlds of writers are unreal - but because it is created too hastily without any sense of that harmony and economy which the most irrational masterpiece is bound to comply with (in order to be a masterpiece). Indeed, in a sense Dostoyevsky is much too rational in his crude methods, and though his facts are but spiritual facts and his characters mere ideas in the likeness of people, their interplay and development are actuated by the mechanical methods of the earthbound and conventional novels of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
>When Powers asks if Joyce is interested in Dostoyevsky, he replies, ‘Of course.’ Dostoyevsky, in fact, earns a brief but high place of praise in this book, probably higher than most other names mentioned.>He is the man more than any other who has created modern prose, and intensified it to its present-day pitch. It was his explosive power which shattered the Victorian novel with its simpering maidens and ordered commonplaces; books which were without imagination or violence.
>>24107995That very board you accuse of being filled with young, new readers consistently votes Dosto as its favorite writer though. How do you reconcile these?
Im Russian and I found it insanely boring. All the "ebin heckin Russian mysticism and SOVL" if you're ACTUALLY familiar with what the author is actually talking about kek.
>>24110256Wow man you're so esoteric
>>24110262No that's exactly what I'm not. l2r, babby
>>24110270Whatever
>>24101408bro this is like anime bro but like... believable bro
>>24101408Christcuckery nonsense
