He really was a much better writer than Dostoyevsky.
Intensifiers primarily intensify the speakers retardation.
>>25013112No one really disagrees with that in terms of prose. Russians outright find dosto’s prose to be bad.
I found Tolstoy underwhelming to outright bad (Levin sections in AK). Dostoevsky meanwhile ranges from dogshit (Demons) to brilliant (Grand Inquisitor). I think I prefer Dostoevsky, especially since you don't really feel Dostoevsky's bad prose in translation.
>>25013143Russians are psyoped into hating Russian literature by being forced to read it in school at the age of 14 when noone can be bothered with it.
>Has 200 living descendants 4chniggers could NEVER
>>25013269I imagine most of them are frauds
>>25013112He's the greatest ever
Proto-bolshevik
>>25013112I favor Dostoevsky, but that's just objectively true. He was embarrassingly bad with money (reading his letters is like watching Safdie brothers movie) and never had the time to refine his work.
>>25013118Thanks for the tip Twain.
>>25013754That's Joyce
>>25013143i know russian but i read karamazov bros in a different language because what you said lol
>>25013112He was vastly better. His characters actually feel like real human beings and have some of the most complex characters development I have ever seen. He can do that, while also making his books epic in scope and scale, and he does it so effortlessly, it's amazing. He really is the best novelist of all time, and one of the greatest writers to ever walk the Earth.He's so good, he ruins literature for me. Nothing reaches him, in terms of relatability, other than Schopenhauer.
>>25015623read boris godunov by pushkin
>>25015623His characters have predictable russoid depravity and inner weakness while their "development" is typically just one from a set of variations on finding christianity. Permeated with vacuity, never amounting to genuine soul, walltexted ad nauseum.At least Dosto is self-aware of this pattern to strike the lows with greater force and present the phony redemption as an unavoidable last resort instead of self-righteous pedagogy.
>>25015623>His characters actually feel like real human beingsThe only character in literature that felt like a real human being to me is Leopold Bloom. Everything else reeks of artifice, including Tolstoy's characters.
>>25015657His characters undergo incremental adjustments in their thoughts and behaviors, often faltering between delusion and progress, all in line with the original personalities established. How he's able to so convincingly instill humanity in so many characters in Anna Karenina is unparalleled. And no one's really depraved either, not in the shameless Dosto sense; he presents real struggles that real people deal with. Dosto meanwhile doesn't even attempt any of these subtleties because as an artist he can't. When his characters "change" it doesn't matter when or how, because you know it's coming and you know how it's coming, and it renders most of the preceeding events superfluous. Tolstoy would never stoop so low as to insert a devout Christian prostitute to mop up the mess he made. When you say "no true soul" I can only imagine it means Tolstoy doesn't explicitly break the fourth wall, abandon even the pretense of characterization, and start debating himself or having his characters totally sperg out in the Dostoevskian manner. People confuse this with soul because it's so transparent and sentimental, but the subtleties of a Tolstoy are lost on the undiscerning reader. That's why Dosto has become a trendy zoomer aesthetic
>>25015623schopenhauer being that relatable to you speaks volumes to me and any other sensible anon on this boardnow stop posting
>>25015729>Tolstoy would never stoop so low as to insert a devout Christian prostitute to mop up the mess he made.Lol>When you say "no true soul" I can only imagine it means Tolstoy doesn't explicitly break the fourth wall, abandon even the pretense of characterization, and start debating himself or having his characters totally sperg out in the Dostoevskian manner.It means that his characters are still weak but more pious. Dostoevsky isn‘t my ideal either but he‘s preferable as earnest in what he aims to do.
>>25015762>It means that his characters are still weak but more pious. Dostoevsky isn‘t my ideal either but he‘s preferable as earnest in what he aims to do.More vague nonsense, and a far cry from the original claim now that you've been dispatched
>>25015729Tolstoy characters are a result of determinism, they're shaped by their environment. Dostoevsky attempts to give his characters free will and they're often guided by intuition (perhaps divine intervention). If Tolstoy were to write TBK, Dimitri either would've killed his father or some warm childhood memory would've stopped him, while in Dostoevsky some unknown force held him back, and he himself can't explain why. I find Dostoevsky's characters more true to life, as human behaviour is often illogical and random. Our subconscious guides us to act out of seemingly nowhere in unpredictable ways. Tolstoy's characters are puppets, Dostoevsky's are flesh and blood.
>>25013112is literature a competition?I've never read anything substantial of both but in terms of style, Tolstoy is more refined in descriptions, he embellishes things... Dostoevsky doesn't have this worry, they are both realistic but Dostoevsky have no concerns in descriptive ambience narratives, if you need to be inserted in a scenario, Tolstoy would do this for you, while if you want to be in the Psych of a person with barely to no description of ambiance, you'd think that Dostoevsky is "better".
Hd really was a much better writer than Tolstoy. So was Pushkin
>>25015835Entirely disagree; many of Tolstoy's characters end up with arcs entirely different from what he intended because his characters take on a life of their own. He gives them basic motivations and personalities and lets the story play out. Dosto knows where he wants things to go and the character contradictions result from him trying to reconcile his predetermined outcome with introducing devices to progress the plot. His characters are puppets in the true sense, often representing or straight up monologing his beliefs. I'll grant Dostoy his ability to render emotion, but it's done rather shoddily.
>>25013112dostoyevsky only has the reputation he does in the west because his works repudiate revolutionary socialism the way tolstoy's don't. in fact, every russian author widely read in the west is because of an explicit or implicit anti-soviet bias
>>25015772I almost directly paraphrased my earlier >>25015657
The "thinker" behind Bethink Yourself could hardly have ever written anything above gospelslop.The naivety in that text is so immense you'd think he was retarded
What bothers me personally is that Dostoevsky's characters are cardboard cutouts he keeps moving from scene to scene. If you asked him what any of them is wearing at any point he wouldn't be able to tell. They usually don't even have limbs, only for a moment when they must shoot a gun for him or something, there is no flesh and blood
>>25016727I see where this is going. You want more sex scenes. Well go on and confess you gooner.
>>25016731I didn't mean that at all, sex in Tolstoy's books is usually about half a sentence anyway, or even just implied
>>25016627I don't think to say they're still weak but more pious is accurate, but even if that's the case I'm curious as to why you think that's inherently soulless and what it looks like when a writer achieves "true soul."
>>25013269He had 15 years kids. He was unstoppable
>>25015738Schopenhauer not being relatable to you speaks even more volumes about you than Schopenhauer being relatable to anon. Anyone who actually read him will know what I am talking about. Hehe. And now shut up.
>>25015738Tolstoy’s favorite writer was Schopenhauer
>>25016743The obvious counterexample is Shakespeare whose characters speak and act in a genuine multiplicity of aims and desires, and who engage directly with their circumstances to grow and bring resolution to the given scenario while revealing profound exemplars or inverse cleansing of human character. Various forms of gossip and tripe, differentiated by their cases of church subordination could never compare.
>>25013112The thing with Tolstoy is that I always remember his stories and characters. I never read anything from him where it's in one ear and out the other, it stays with me permanently. I always think about the sexual dilemma of his story The Devil when I think about lust nowadays, I always think of how meek and pathetic Karenin is when he's afraid to confront the fact that his wife is cheating on him. Everything with Tolstoy is like a perfect mirror to our modern society and dilemmas.
>>25017100Lol. Shakespeare's contrived slop is just a rehash of some much more sincere and soulful source. But he layers enough verbal acrobatics and low-hanging dramatic devices like "madness" and death to imitate an artistic impression. Hamlet literally having two different ages might be called depth and complexity by some; others might call it bad writing. But who's to say :)
>>25013112Orthosisters seething
