who do you think he's way too much credit from people? for me it's Dostoyevsky. he has a strange cohort of 18-22 year old zoomers who obsess over his work and treat him like the next coming of literary Christ. meanwhile, i rarely see older, well-read people discuss him beyond a favorable mention or comment.
Karl Marx
>>24696977dosto probably takes the cake
>>24696977Never cared about Salinger, Roth, Bellow or Updike personally
>>24696977Joyce
All the canon is bullshit I don't care about desu
Bertolt Brecht
Kraszhanorkai, and Naipaul is the underrated
it bothers me that this dude is treated as the god of contemporary fantasy>bro nothing is real and nothing matters>unreliable narrator, unreliable plot, unreliable setting, unreliable timeline, unreliable side characters>just invent your own meaning bro, in fact just don't read the book at all since that way you can invent 100% of it
>>24696977where are these 18-22 zoomers? are they on tik tok? if so I wouldn't attribute much meaning to them. either way, as a massive dostoyfag who'd suck his grey russian nuts til I die of dehydration, I welcome literally anyone to the dostoy fanclub. His work is about getting off your high horse and loving your fellow man. Dostoy also knew this was a nigh impossible task. I feel no cognitive dissonance loving humanity and hating it at the same time. I just being aware of this moral dilemma is an ointment for the soul. I realize I may appear like some wanna be gnostic all loving born again mystic, appearing more humble and benevolent than I am, I am only 25 after all. But you seem bitter enough to appreciate my sentiment, I dont think anything I could say to you would change your already perceived notions of superiority because young people like an old author who is also generally accepted in academia as a fundamental actor in literature. I think you're a hipster. Get out in the world and realize that people number one, don't read books, and if they do then it aint dostoyevsky and two, that people online don't behave as in real life. dostoyevsky couldn't exist today he'd be too busy waifuposting on /mlp/
>>24696977How many threads like that do you want to make?
>>24697428>I feel no cognitive dissonance loving humanity and hating it at the same time.this is why dosto and his fans aren't taken seriously. because humanity is an empty mystical generality to you, not many many concrete particular people which without actually meeting you can't judge. same for all the other mystical concepts. its a larp.
>>24697428>edgy misanthrope>25Ngmi
>>24696977How would things be different if Dickens had caught on as much as Dosto?
Mark is overrated as hell. Easily the worst of the gospel writers.
>>24697546This board would end up hating dickens
>>24697553Thats no good.
>>24697550Lol wrong. The aridness of style, the strange, almost eerie doings and sayings of Jesus, the mysterious ending (if you remove the added fanfiction). It’s the most underrated gospel. John is theologically interesting, Luke-Acts is excellent by virtue of somewhat elevated style and obvious Hellenic education of its writer, Matthew is the worst which just copies Mark, completely shifting its original mood and adds a bunch of nonsense like the flight to Egypt and all the tedious Jewish stuff.
>>24696977Hemingway. I’ve never read anything from him that impressed me. His personal life only adds icing to that cake. And after reading most of him and Faulkner, I’ve always thought he was truly retarded to put himself anywhere near Faulkner. He wasn’t a quarter the writer Faulkner was.
>most overrated authorsMary ShelleyJane AustenCharlotte BronteEmily BronteGeorge EliotElizabeth GaskellVirginia WoolfSally Rooney
>>24697525Yeah it is a larp but what philosophy isn't? dosto knew this but went on larping anyway. it is the natural order of things. you're larping as offended because I like an author. >>24697540why do you say Im an edgy misanthrope?
>>24697611most based list of all time
>>24697611You forgot Flannery O'Connor.
>>24697428they're primarily on reddit and even here. and it's not about having a preconceived notions, it's just that Dostoyevsky seemed to have attracted a lot of readers who read him in a performative manner and gush over him because they haven't been exposed to other literature. it's similar to how some dudebros in their 20s get obsessed over DFW or Pynchon or McCarthy. this doesn't mean those authors and Dosto are bad or undeserving of high praise, just that a significant amount of people overestimate the quality of their work due to how narrowly they've read. or because they want to seem enlightened or smart.
>>24697765Don't you dare badmouth Flannery. This is an O'Connor board.
>>24697705>Yeah it is a larp but what philosophy isn't?its a larp because its "philosophy". you hate your neighbours and love Your Neighbour. are you truly trying to be less judgemental, more helpful, less materialistic (and should you really even be all those things in EVERY situation), or are you posting on 4chan, lost in the drama of big empty concepts.
>>24697765>>24697865Carson McCullers mogs her but okay
>>24696977>Most overrated authors?Your favorite one :DD
>>24697873reads very Underground Man
>>24697428If 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.
>>24698159Can I get a recipe for pencil-pineapple cake?
>>24696977Dosto is low hanging fruit because of his obnoxious Christcuck and nihilist fans (both like him for diff reasons and are equally obnoxious) as well as the Nabokov copypasta. I’ll do you one better than Dosto- Tolstoy. I am reading Anna Karenina and finished part 1 and it’s a bit of a bore so far.
>>24696977stop disparaging dosto you tolstoy fag
>>24698297Tolstoy: the writer's writerDosto: the booktok writer
>>24698173It is questionable whether one can really discuss the aspects of ''realism'' or of ''human experience'' when considering an author whose gallery of characters consists almost exclusively of neurotics and lunatics. Besides all this, Dostoyevsky's characters have yet another remarkable feature: Throughout the book they do not develop as personalities. We get them all complete at the beginning of the tale, and so they remain without any considerable changes, although their surroundings may alter and the most extraordinary things may happen to them. In the case of Raskolnikov in ''Crime and Punishment,'' for instance, we see a man go from premeditated murder to the promise of an achievement of some kind of harmony with the outer world, but all this happens somehow from without: Innerly even Raskolnikov does not go through any true development of personality, and the other heroes of Dostoyevsky do even less so. The only thing that develops, vacillates, takes unexpected sharp turns, deviates completely to include new people and circumstances, is the plot. Let us always remember that basically Dostoyevsky is a writer of mystery stories where every character, once introduced to us, remains the same to the bitter end, complete with his special features and personal habits, and that they all are treated throughout the book they happen to be in like chessmen in a complicated chess problem. Being an intricate plotter, Dostoyevsky succeeds in holding the reader's attention; he builds up his climaxes and keeps up his suspenses with consummate mastery. But if you reread a book of his you have already read once so that you are familiar with the surprises and complications of the plot, you will at once realize that the suspense you experienced during the first reading is simply not there anymore. The misadventures of human dignity which form Dostoyevsky's favorite theme are as much allied to the farce as to the drama. In indulging his farcical side and being at the same time deprived of any real sense of humor, Dostoyevsky is sometimes dangerously near to sinking into garrulous and vulgar nonsense. (The relationship between a strong-willed hysterical old woman and a weak hysterical old man, the story of which occupies the first hundred pages of ''The Possessed,'' is tedious, being unreal.) The farcical intrigue which is mixed with tragedy is obviously a foreign importation; there is something second-rate French in the structure of his plots.
>>24698333
>>24698333both eclipsed by Dickens
>>24698488shut up
>>24697382lmao, is he really like that
>>24696977Easily Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. They aren't life-changing, but everyone makes it sound like those two are the greatest, most profound authors in the entirety of literature since Shakespeare.Fuck off.
>>24697596> Fellow Hemingway haterBased. Hemingway wrote with all the cavemannish simplicity of an 8th grader. His works sicken me, and are irredeemably boring
>>24698784Which authors do you think deserve the place that Dosto and Tolstoy hold?
>>24696977what's up with you trannies hating on big D? It's not his fault that Juden Peterstein overhyped him, his books are still great meditations on the human condition (some more than others)
>>24696977>judging an author based on people who read their worksDon't we already have 50 threads in the catalog for this purpose?
>>24698812My point is, there is no "place" that Dostoevsky and Tolstoy factually hold. If you aren't Shakespeare, you aren't a "must-read, most legendary" author or on a "greatest of all time" 100% accurate list. Outside of Shakespeare, it's all entirely subjective- yet Dostoevsky/Tolstoy fans make it sound like if you aren't immediately enthralled by their long, rambling, dense works about 19th century peasants or Russian nobility you're an uncultured plebian.It's all snobbish bullshit that is ultimately meaningless and performative in an attempt to look cultured and sophisticated.
>>24698938>just read shakespearefine, i will, thats all you had to say
>>24698938For example: I love Kafka and Orwell. Where is the TikTok crowd and /r/Books subr*ddit cult of personality around them, exactly?
>>24698938>It's all snobbish bullshit that is ultimately meaningless and performative in an attempt to look cultured and sophisticated.But enough about the Shakespeare cult (the actual most overrated writer of all time)
>>24698954A list of some words invented by Shakespeare: AlligatorBedroomCriticDownstairsEyeballFashionableGossipHurryInaudibleJadedKissingLonelyManagerObscenePuppy dogQuestioningRantSkim milkTraditionalUndressVariedWorthlessYelpingZanyIT'S HIS WORLD, AND YOU'RE JUST LIVING IN IT. ALL HAIL THE GREAT BARD
>>24698992He also invented the human. A fat guy told me that. I think it was Will Sasso.
>>24696977any "theory" person from the frankfurt school or beyond. It's all unintelligible garbage or, when they are actually making a point, weak tea. Marx and Freud and people like that could think clearly, however wrong they might have been. Lacan gets a pass bc his ideas are interesting, once you finish understanding them. And he was very, very widely read, in a zany, interesting, 70s Europe kind of way. He's like a terribly deliberate fake sound effect in a white satin suit. Fantasy Island. But porkheimer and Adorno and Deleuze etc. are so fucking boring. And Felix and Guattarri have no actual ideas, no insight to speak of. And Foucault is just a fucking dicksucking AIDs faggot who is obsessed with power.Also, I have never enjoyed Shakespeare. It's too old; language and thought have changed too much.>>24697186Yes>>24697034They get a pass because they're american or Jews and appealed to a very interested cohort of wasps or jews that failed to reproduce. No external appeal>>24697428don't be so defensive... if you like something, if you defend it too much, it's like you feel like your love isn't legitimate. Just say what you like it and why. You don't need to help them fight you.>>24698992So he was lucky enough to write at a time that the language was more malleable. Do you really think the staying power of his words is attributable to some inner genius? Says nothing as to his actual merits. By that logic black people and their patois are 100x Shakespeare. I will own that, given how fluid the language was, he managed to settle into the contours of their thought like an old shoe. So you have plenty of good turns of phrase. But a list of new words is pedantic coin collecting nonsense.
>>24699138Hey- I noticed that your retarded, particularly unhinged response, you rant about: Americans, jews, and black people in no particular order. You're on the wrong board, pal./pol/ is a few doors down, fuck off back to it.:))
>>24699189You passive aggressive pussy! Didn't you notice I ranted about gays too? I like to think I was very hurtful. Surely that counts for something anymore.
>>24696977Dosto for his idea that if you don't worship his Jewish God you're evil.Flaubert because Madame Bovary is absolute garbage, Mallory as well because La Morte d'Arthur is equally bad, and most if not all Arthurian lit until a Connecticut Yankee.I dont read much fiction though, because I have higher values.
>>24697901TRVKE
Dosto aside, Stoner is the single most overhyped novel I've ever read.How people decided to tout possibly the most mid classic as a top 10 novel of all time will forever be beyond me.
>>24697596>>24698805i like Hemingway because i am a retarded caveman. how do i into Faulkner? i'm assuming i can't just pick up one of his books and think my way into grasping more than surface level themes.
>>24699509just dive into a Faulkner book without overthinking it. you can always consult reviews or lit guides or essays on a reread. no need for self-inflicted pressure.
>>24699509Try as I lay dying. I understood it and I'm a complete midwit compared to most of you guys. I am catching up, though. Slowly.
Trying to wrap my head around you guys complaining about booktok and reddit. Just don't go to those places? I don't respect their opinions at all, it has nothing to do with actual reading, it doesn't affect me. If you are mad at somebody doing something performative it's because you think it reflects on you as a reader, are you also reading performatively?
>>24700228I don't think their reading preferences or the way they read lit affects me. They're just annoying as shit and I'd like to beat them to death with a brick
>>24700228> Unironically defending r*dditorsYou need to go back.
