I don’t remember this or even the name. I got into reading heavy at 20 and now at almost 29, when I feel I’ve finally read enough to be moderately satisfied, I find Ive forgotten almost all Ive read in the start of my journey. Im starting to ask myself what’s even the point?
Yeah but thats kinda the point, if I go on to reread all that shit ill be in a continuous cycle of forgetting whatever I read last. I got into it knowing im gonna die anyway and itll be all forgotten but idk now it just feels more real.
If 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.
Why didn't the "wizards" just cast themselves out of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises? Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
a-at least the books were good though
"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
>an axe just spawned in his hands >a red "X" mark appeared on the rich grannies head. below it was written "HIT HERE" >holy shit what did I JUST FRICKING DO?! he thought
>the detective asked him "where were you on that afternoon" >Raskolnikov fainted, he started seeing visions >hey maybe he's innocent, the detective thought to himself.
>Jesus forgives you for having literal brain disease, amen. hope you liked being in the gulag
>an axe just spawned in his hands >a red "X" mark appeared on the rich grannies head. below it was written "HIT HERE" >holy shit what did I JUST FRICKING DO?! he thought
>the detective asked him "where were you on that afternoon" >Raskolnikov fainted, he started seeing visions >hey maybe he's innocent, the detective thought to himself.
>Jesus forgives you for having literal brain disease, amen. hope you liked being in the gulag
I read like 40 pages and to me it was pretty much >Oh no ... ME? Doing a ... doing a ... MURDER >Such awful thoughts! I couldn't! I couldn't! Unless... >But alas! Oh! I must! But how COULD I??? >How ghastly! A heckin murderino! I could not! >Hey look a drunk guy complaining about his wife >But oh! My wife and my life! How ghastly! >Anyway, this murderino tho!
Kek. Towards the end, Dosto realized that the "villain" of the novel, the lawyer moving in on Rasky's sister, has actually been the most decent upstanding character in the whole novel, so Dosto has to contrive the most ridiculous ploy of having the lawyer plant money on someone in full view of a rival who detests the lawyer all in order so that the layer can be exposed as a fraud when he goes to accuse this poor person of stealing from him. I can't for the life of my imagine how people think this is deep or compelling writing!
> lawyer plant money on someone in full view of a rival who detests the lawyer all in order so that the layer can be exposed as a fraud when he goes to accuse this poor person of stealing from him
The point of this part is that the communist character thought he could overcome his protective nature towards woman through mere intellectual theories. It is a problem similar to what Raskolnikov was having.
Is this thread all bait or is IQfy actually infested with zoomers so moronic they don't even understand Crime and Punishment, the simplest and most accessible of Dostoevsky's great 5? Sad if true. On your question OP, it didn't make me tear up (I never to while reading or watching movies or such), but it's a very powerful moment for sure.
No, that whole subplot was tedious as frick.
Svidrigailov was a funny c**t, the part where he raped dunya was golden
>the part where he raped dunya
This is the IQfy's average reading comprehension
Boo hoo b***h I checked out whenever raskolnikov wasn't in the fore idgaf
no, but i was quite disturbed by it
I don’t remember this or even the name. I got into reading heavy at 20 and now at almost 29, when I feel I’ve finally read enough to be moderately satisfied, I find Ive forgotten almost all Ive read in the start of my journey. Im starting to ask myself what’s even the point?
You know you’re supposed to go back and reread things multiple times right
Yeah but thats kinda the point, if I go on to reread all that shit ill be in a continuous cycle of forgetting whatever I read last. I got into it knowing im gonna die anyway and itll be all forgotten but idk now it just feels more real.
Sounds like you just have a memory problem
>Svidrigailo's suicide
USE THE FRICKING SPOILERS TAG HOLY SHIT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE
For a moment I thought you were talking about TBK and by Svidrigailo you meant the based guy who kills the dad just because he could.
yep, he was a cool frick
If 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.
Aww c,mon Vlad. This part had a lusty kid in it. Surely that can bridge the gap of your aesthetics.
Someone should make the "No!" copypasta but doestevsky
>"No!" copypasta
the what pasta?
Why didn't the "wizards" just cast themselves out of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises? Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
a-at least the books were good though
"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
No
>an axe just spawned in his hands
>a red "X" mark appeared on the rich grannies head. below it was written "HIT HERE"
>holy shit what did I JUST FRICKING DO?! he thought
>the detective asked him "where were you on that afternoon"
>Raskolnikov fainted, he started seeing visions
>hey maybe he's innocent, the detective thought to himself.
>Jesus forgives you for having literal brain disease, amen. hope you liked being in the gulag
this is praised as great writing
>Napoleon didn't have a conscience
>But I do have a conscience 🙁
Truly a work of great genius
*farts*
I read like 40 pages and to me it was pretty much
>Oh no ... ME? Doing a ... doing a ... MURDER
>Such awful thoughts! I couldn't! I couldn't! Unless...
>But alas! Oh! I must! But how COULD I???
>How ghastly! A heckin murderino! I could not!
>Hey look a drunk guy complaining about his wife
>But oh! My wife and my life! How ghastly!
>Anyway, this murderino tho!
Dropped.
Kek. Towards the end, Dosto realized that the "villain" of the novel, the lawyer moving in on Rasky's sister, has actually been the most decent upstanding character in the whole novel, so Dosto has to contrive the most ridiculous ploy of having the lawyer plant money on someone in full view of a rival who detests the lawyer all in order so that the layer can be exposed as a fraud when he goes to accuse this poor person of stealing from him. I can't for the life of my imagine how people think this is deep or compelling writing!
> lawyer plant money on someone in full view of a rival who detests the lawyer all in order so that the layer can be exposed as a fraud when he goes to accuse this poor person of stealing from him
The point of this part is that the communist character thought he could overcome his protective nature towards woman through mere intellectual theories. It is a problem similar to what Raskolnikov was having.
Is this thread all bait or is IQfy actually infested with zoomers so moronic they don't even understand Crime and Punishment, the simplest and most accessible of Dostoevsky's great 5? Sad if true. On your question OP, it didn't make me tear up (I never to while reading or watching movies or such), but it's a very powerful moment for sure.