Who do you consider to be the greatest 19th century author and what is your favorite work of theirs?
Just finished reading "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoevsky and it was not as enjoyable as I thought it would be. I read this after reading "Crime and Punishment", which was very impactful and entertaining. I just thought "The Idiot" was hard to get through in some parts, and the story progressed too slowly without anything really happening.
As all Dostoevsky's books are layered with symbolism and themes, the first read is bound to be a bit more surface-level than future rereads. I think what would have helped and what I suggest those of you who haven't read the book is to read the analysis of what Dostoevsky is trying to say online first, before reading the book. As I think that way you will have the right mindset and thematic lense to read it in. When I was reading it I was constantly struggling to find the deeper meanings and what he is trying to say about society. This method might not be for everyone though, as some might not want the book spoiled.
Also maybe I am not the strongest in looking past the surface when it comes to great literature.
Did anyone go through a similar experience to me when reading this book?
Dostoevsky is often a heavily celebrated novelist by many contemporary scholars in western academia. I was wondering how he is viewed in is place of origin.
Dostoevsky writes about multiple different philosophical ideas but still some donβt consider him a philosopher, whyβs that?
what the fuck is up w this dude, hes so sick. hes like i wanna be a bug, im a vengeful mouse. like all of his writing has the weight of a clearly very talented man however it has the emotional weight of a 14 year old on tumblr. ill tell you, whether you care to listen or not, why i never managed to become an insect. talk about a guy i wanna get a beer with. i dont really get the point of his writing, he feels like a non writer who uses fiction as a guise to ramble. idk im not a frequent reader so this is my take but :) happy sunday faggots
Read a bit of Tolstoy and now want to try my hand at Dostoevsky⦠Which of his is your favorite? What translation should I read?
What do you consider to be the three best Dostoevsky books written? I am quite new to him as an author so I would like to hear your opinions. My top three: 3. Notes from underground 2. Crime and punishment
- Brothers Karamasov
I just finished reading the book White Nightsπ from Dostoevsky. It's such a nice and short book to read and I could easily connect with the hero, an unknown man and his loneliness. White nights was the first work I read by Dostoevsky. The characterization of the story was so good that I can say that I heard their voices, saw their faces and lived in the story. In some parts of the story, I shed tears because of the feeling of closeness to the character, and in some places, my hands were sweating and breathing hard because of the excitement.
I've had Brothers Karamazov on the shelf for years and even tried to read it once but it never clicked. Probably its size was intimidating so reading it felt like work not pleasure.
To ramp up to this I decided to get a volume of short stories and am reading them shortest to longest.
My God.
I feel like I'm watching a satisfying sensory video of someone cutting candles with a hot knife. Instead of candles we're cutting people from their internal world to the outer one. Does that make sense? Like a bridge from the inner world to the outer that makes an infinite loop against the backdrop of this slightly alien culture of 19th century Russia.
Is this what people talk about when hyping up D as an author?
I cant imagine how in the world could a Man himself write all of his voluminous books Just by his hands, not using a typewriter or something else.
When I too Russian lit, my professor taught us that Dostoevsky hated Nietzsche's Γbermensch concept, and that Raskolnikov's whole reason for committing murder was due to him seeing himself as a superhuman that was qualified to make such decisions for the greater good of society. And of course, the rest of the story plays out very painful regret and torment for the main character as a rebuke to this whole idea from Nietzsche.
However, there was very popular thread last year on this book, and I didn't see that mentioned in the discussion, and was very surprised - is this not a common view of the original motivation of Dostoevsky?
I really wanted the book to end by the time I was starting the third part. But after a couple of chapters in, I really fell in love with the book once again. But the last couple of chapters were really heartbreaking. I didn't realize that the characters had become my friends and it would be this hard to bear. I cried immediately after finishing it. And the sadness hasn't still diminished.
If you had the chance to have a conversation with a character from Dostoevskyβs books, who would it be? Why?
Mark your calendarβs and get ready to dive into some Dostoevsky! And a big thank you to everyone for helping us pick our next book!
Dostoevsky is a very recognizable name in the literary world, and his works are highly acclaimed. For an everyday reader such as myself, taking on a book from such a well known and well regarded author can feel a bit daunting, but Iβm ready if you are. Let us begin.
For non-Russian readers this will mean picking a translation. For English readers there are several options available and a lot of it might come down to personal preference. Would you rather read a free copy of the book, or pay money for a more modern translation? Often times modern translations also come with footnotes which can be helpful story wise, but can also break your immersion in the story.
While there is no perfect translation, these seem to be the five most popular versions translated into English.
The Constance Garnett translation is in the public domain and free of charge from both Project Gutenberg and Standard eBooks. We will link copies from both websites in each discussion thread. The consensus seems to be that this is a very Victorian sounding translation, which some enjoy and some do not. If you want the text to read in an older sounding style, this version might work for you.
These are the more modern translations.
There is the Ignat Avsey translation from Oxford Worldβs Classics.
The David McDuff translation from Penguin Classics.
The Pevear and Volokhonsky translation.
And the Andrew R. MacAndrew translation from Bantam Classics.
Each translation will have its pros and cons, and each its enthusiastβs and naysayers. Each translator might interpret the text in a different way, and the best way to figure out which version works best for you is to sample them. There are samples available online and comparing a few paragraphs or pages of each could help narrow it down. There is no right or wrong answer for a translation, simply what works best for you overall.
Our links will be in English, but as always, readers are free to read in any language they are comfortable with. Those reading in other languages, feel free to share your insights on translations in your chosen language as they might prove helpful to others who speak that language.
Here are the free versions of the book and audiobook if you would like to download them or save the links to read or listen online.
[
... keep reading on reddit β‘https://preview.redd.it/tv7p8ld3fq781.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=724a8845fd71e0a7c72a70933e63b7d644745579
A couple of weeks ago, I posted in search of a βunifying critiqueβ of COTH. It seemed to me that criticisms of COTH often fall into different categories, some of which can feel inconsistent and none of which, on its own, fully expresses the COTH problem. Like the old Indian parable of a group of blind men who touch different parts of an elephant and argue over the creatureβs true essence, we've all experienced COTH in our own unique but limited ways. None of us is necessarily wrong (and in some respect, all are right). But the more narrow and specific to our own individual tastes and beliefs our critique is, the less impact it has. Put another way: if your main criticism of COTH would apply equally to most other denominations or churches other than your preferred version β even if you (as Iβm sure you do!) believe your version is the βbiblicalβ one β then itβs weaker than puppy piss to anyone who isnβt, well, you.
Lately, the tenor around here has been that of a fundamentalist tent revival. I donβt think thatβs a winning approach β not to critiquing COTH or to much of anything else, frankly, not in America 2021, anyway. That said, Iβm not here to censor anyone. Consider this your street corner and thump away.
But for my part, Iβd like to refocus on a more unifying critique. In a comment to my earlier post, u/crawfishpie77 made an insightful observation: in his view, the common thread that binds the various critiques of COTH is the pursuit, claiming and wielding of power.
Embedded in Dostoevskyβs epic novel The Brothers Karamazov is the story of βThe Grand Inquisitor.β Dostoevsky -- himself a devout Christian -- has his atheist character, Ivan, tell his brother, the young monk Alyosha, a fictional βpoemβ he wrote about a Roman Catholic cardinalβs reaction to Christβs return to Seville during the 16th century Spanish Inquisition. (Aside: what makes the Christian Russian writers the GOAT is their insistence on βsteel-manningβ their villains β they make their bad guys as or more charismatic, and the bad guysβ arguments as or more compelling, than the good guys. Thereβs a lesson in there.)
The quick-and-dirty summary: Christ returns and performs some miracles, the people know who He is and worship Him, but the Church has Him arrested and condemned to death immediately before He can be seen by more people. The cardinal (the Grand Inquisitor) visits Christ in prison, explains to Christ that the Chur
... keep reading on reddit β‘
