>I love <insert author> because in his novels he explores the psychology of his characters so deeply and shows the depth of human natureYou... you do understand that those are works of fiction where the author literally made up everything everyone said in order to fit the story, right? You do understand that made up dialogues and character behaviors can be realistic and beautiful but if they didn't really happen they hold zero actual value beyond making you feel feelings, right?There are people who unironically say that reading Dostoievskij makes you understand better how humans behave. I personally think these people have serious mental issues and have the same disgenic traits as religious people wrt their holy scriptures
>>25554904Go back to video games, idiot
>>25554904Someone having mental issues doesn't automatically invalidate the authenticity of their claims aka you're just fucking retard LMAO
>>25554906No thanks, I will keep reading my books without being an actual drooling gullible retard>>25554911>makes up things I haven't saidinteresting
>>25554904>zero actual value beyond making you feel feelingsfeels > reals
>>25554912I believe in the holy scriptures and am shredded therefore everything you say is wrong and gay. Kill yourself
>>25554919Cool! :thumbsup:
>>25554904all art is essentially the expression of unknowable raw reality, synthesized by a human into a form of understanding, to be communicated in an interesting and thought-provoking way to another human.In other words, if I can read Dostoevsky and through his own unique telling he can communicate this unique “mode” of understanding a part of reality that he has found, then it doesn’t really matter if the characters are real or not.
>>25554904Most hylic post ever >Dostoyevsky novels have zero value because it didn't actually happen >The Starry Night by Van Gogh has zero value because it didn't actually happen >Ode to joy has zero value because it didn't actually happen >The Godfather has zero value because it didn't actually happen
>>25554953>In other words, if I can read Dostoevsky and through his own unique telling he can communicate this unique “mode” of understanding a part of reality that he has foundWhat if the author can write well but has understood jack shit about life? How can you even tell? Is his understanding of any actual value?>>25554988Their value is that they make you feel things, as I have pointed out. But expecting literacy from /lit/ is a bit too much I guess
>>25554996>Their value is that they make you feel things Let me rephrase my comment Most hylic post ever>Dostoyevsky novels have zero value besides making you feel things because it didn't actually happen>The Starry Night by Van Gogh has zero value besides making you feel things because it didn't actually happen>Ode to joy has zero value besides making you feel things because it didn't actually happen>The Godfather has zero value besides making you feel things because it didn't actually happenAre you happy now? Wait, someone without a soul can't be happy
>>25554904What exactly is 'actual value' to you? Are you saying that rather than reading a novel by Dostoevsky you you should observe real people talk and act in order to learn about psychology? I am not sure what you're trying to say.
>>25554904The only feeling you'll ever arouse in anyone, anon, is secondhand embarrassment at your midwittery. Worst of all, you say this without a hint of irony, when reading (and stories in general) simply aren't for you. Making a reader feel exactly what you intend through the ambiguity of language is a skill that's difficult to do well, let alone master, but you make it sound as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. Words matter for more than the feelings they stir in us because they capture the intricacies of being human, and that precision is exactly what makes us feel something.
>>25554904>what is metaphorI'm sorry OP but if you can't extrapolate from literature to other situations at all, or even put yourself in the shoes of someone who can, you've got the autism. BIG TIME!
>>25554904Anon, I’m sorry but every story even if relayed from memory is filtered through the experience of the writer, and their understandings and misunderstandings skew the truth of what occurred before the reader could ever have a factual accounting of it all.Also on the topic of Dosto, enough people found his material relatable that he has been carried in the canon. So that kind of negates what your original post says.
>>25555009Yes, I am happy because you described the actual reality of things instead of vague schizophrenia!>>25555037>Are you saying that rather than reading a novel by Dostoevsky you you should observe real people talk and act in order to learn about psychology?There are many people who unironically think reading novels with deep characters somehow translates to real world knowledge and wisdom of how people think and behave. These are the people I have an issue with, which is clearly laid out in the post>>25555117>Making a reader feel exactly what you intend through the ambiguity of language is a skill that's difficult to do well, let alone master, but you make it sound as simple as 1 + 1 = 2nobody has ever claimed this, apparently reading so many books has not helped your actual reading comprehension! try again, with a brain this time, hopefully>>25555127>>what is metaphora rethorical device to convince people, not an actual way of showing the reality of things>if you can't extrapolate from literature if something is made up, what is there to extrapolate exactly about the real world apart from the creativity and personal view of the author, which does not constitute reality?
>>25555140>nobody has ever claimed this, apparently reading so many books has not helped your actual reading comprehension! try again, with a brain this time, hopefullyThat's why I said "make it sound" as in strongly imply, not that you claimed it outright. It's the impression I got from the OP. Feel free to explain your actual point instead of continuing to act like a retardd.
>>25554904bad post. teach youeself the word "mimesis"
>>25555368You are unable to form an argument so instead you come with your big boy circlejerky greek words as if they were a substitute for a point.>b-but the greek believed made up stories can transmit real world values and they made up a term for it!!!yep, not an argument
>>25554904Someone post the "here's every dosto novel" screencap /lit/ funny for OP please
>>25554904If 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.
op is the masterdebater
>>25554904A common misconception.You might think the only way to see human nature is to be among real humans. That a person who does nothing but spend time with other people in the real world will see the deepest depths of human nature and come to understand everything. This is obviously naive. Because all people are liars and society is structured in such a way as to obfuscate as much of real human nature as possible.In reality humans are only known through the mind and the depths of the mind can only be explored in art and even then it's only a fragment. But that fragment you see in art is still vastly bigger than what you'll see in the "real" world of humans. In essence yes art's goal is to present a version of reality that is more real than reality itself.
>>25554904Literature is more real than mundane reality.It's hyper-real.
>>25554904You have autism.>not an argu-Yeah I know. Arguing with an autist is like arguing with an animal. It won't understand a single thing you say and it'll just start shitting all over the place until you go away. I'm going away now, enjoy your autism.
>>25555698
babby first discovers death of the author
>>25554904>You... you do understand that those are works of fiction where the author literally made up everything everyone said in order to fit the story, right?I'm not even trying to be condescending, but this is exactly, EXACTLY what I thought when I was 16 or 17 and we had some of the Russian authors hyped up in literature class. Why would I bother with fictional psychology when the cognitive science and neuropsychology books are right there on the shelf, factual and peer reviewed? But after reading both, I've come to change my view...>zero actual value beyond making you feel feelings... and it is this precise point that broke. A character's psychology might trigger feelings, but it's not necessarily related to what people are talking about when they describe Dostoyevsky's exploration of psychology. They are describing the author noticing and re-creating subtle processes and contradictions that the reader, if sufficiently honest and observant, will spot in themselves too. The end product aren't feelings as consumable units, but an insight into things that you couldn't completely grasp or put a label on.>There are people who unironically say that reading Dostoievskij makes you understand better how humans behave.I wouldn't go that far. But it does uncover things and understanding that is difficult to get elsewhere. Science is limited by its methods (especially in psychology), experience is limited by variety and introspection is limited by experience. Reading what generations of people resonated with on a personal level is a valid input. If you read Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy or similar authors and don't walk away with at least one change in your understanding of self and mind, I would consider it bad news. Or maybe literature just isn't a good fit for you, there is no shame in that either.
>>25554904100IQ post
juden peterstein fanbo book club is a jizzstain upon literary criticism/analysis. i hope he dies slowly.
>>25555698Those words mean nothing btw
