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.
[Dostoevksy] is the man more than any other who has created modern prose, and intensified it to its present-day pitch. It was his explosive power which shattered the Victorian novel with its simpering maidens and ordered commonplaces; books which were without imagination or violence. I know that some people think he was fantastic, mad even, but the motives he employed in his work, violence and desire, are the very breath of literature. Much as we know has been made of his sentence to execution, which was commuted as he was waiting for his turn to be shot, and of his subsequent four years' imprisonment in Siberia. But those events did not form his temperament though they may have intensified it, for he was always enamoured of violence, which makes him so modern. Also it made him distasteful to many of his contemporaries, Turgeniev for instance, who hated violence. Tolstoy admired him but he thought that he had little artistic accomplishment or mind. Yet, as he said, 'he admired his heart', a criticism which contains a great deal of truth, for though his characters do act extravagantly, madly, almost, still their basis is firm enough underneath... The Brothers Karamazov... made a deep impression on me... he created some unforgettable scenes [detail]... Madness you may call it, but therein may be the secret of his genius... I prefer the word exaltation, exaltation which can merge into madness, perhaps. In fact all great men have had that vein in them; it was the source of their greatness; the reasonable man achieves nothing.
Dosto is essentially sadomasochistic, he loves dwelling on characters who revel in how depraved they are, but who also prostrate themselves in the just punishment or humiliation of their depravity. Again, sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes imply the exact situation he adored, all the violence and sexual intrigue he desired so much, but with the approval of his super ego since they ritualistically degrade themselves in a kind of spiritual fetishistic pleasure in confessing, being punished, and then being "redeemed". It's lurid and partakes of a sick kind of gratification in self flagellation.
What difference does it make if the work in question is self-flagellating and sadomasochistic? Is there not potentially something of worth to be found there?
As an aside, what do you think about his novel 'The Idiot?'
11 months ago
Anonymous
Look, if you like pulp fiction schlock that titillates you, have at it, but don't pretend it's "phenomenal literature".
11 months ago
Anonymous
I was hoping for more substance from your reply.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Dosto was a degenerate pulp fiction writer who was paid by the word to fuel his insatiable gambling addiction. If you like his work you are the literary equivalent of a soccer mom picking up a harlequin romance novel in the check out line at the local super market.
what, characters should be morally just and pure and perfect already by the time you start reading then?
yo this guy did not read the new fricking testament
tis not the virtuous who need Jesus but the sinners
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's melodramatic and insincere. It rings hollow to revel in sin knowing you'll also have the sick pleasure of confessing your sin and being humiliated in order to be redeemed, just to fuel another cycle of depravity followed by righteous humiliation and self flagellation. This is what I mean by sadomasochistic, it's essentially suffering porn with a cheesy reconciliation with the father after a due amount of prostration and punishment. It's pathological and twisted. To select such stunted and perverse characters who have Jesus spilled all over them at the conclusion is shallow and cheap, better literature has more complex characters who have more profound and meaningful experiences. This is why Tolstoy is infinitely better than Dosto.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>insincere
Insincere how? Is this sadomasochistic tendency not to be found in the Christian world? Did Augustine not discuss man's love for sin in conflict with his desire for redemption? I doubt even Dostoevsky himself would disagree that there's a masochistic element in his work. I ask again, have you read The Idiot?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Christianity, you mean the religion centered around the brutal torture and execution of a man which is deemed necessary and ultimately a good thing? Yeah, that's a pretty sadomasochistic ideology too. I'm telling you this is a macabre and demented fascination with pain, suffering, and humiliation. As I said before, it's lurid and sick, and if you enjoy it I consider you on the level of creepy anons who enjoy watching gore videos because they titillate dark parts of your psyche. Pain and suffering are things to be grappled with and overcome, not reveled in and desired like a sicko degenerate.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I was hoping for a bit of insight but instead I get juvenile, shallow polemics. I can see you haven't actually put much thought into any of this and may not have even read Dostoevsky's work so I suggest next time you stick to copy-pasting ideas from men like Navokov who have at least put thought into this.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I heard things I don't already agree with and I didn't like that so I reject it
Yep, standard fare here on IQfy. If you are ideologically committed to certain notions so that you can't even entertain the possibility that you are wrong on that, you will never grow, never discover where you may actually be wrong in your thinking, ironically, you will remain juvenile. In future posts, if you "hope for more insight", try not getting so defensive, you won't find any real insight in an echo chamber.
[Dostoevksy] is the man more than any other who has created modern prose, and intensified it to its present-day pitch. It was his explosive power which shattered the Victorian novel with its simpering maidens and ordered commonplaces; books which were without imagination or violence. I know that some people think he was fantastic, mad even, but the motives he employed in his work, violence and desire, are the very breath of literature. Much as we know has been made of his sentence to execution, which was commuted as he was waiting for his turn to be shot, and of his subsequent four years' imprisonment in Siberia. But those events did not form his temperament though they may have intensified it, for he was always enamoured of violence, which makes him so modern. Also it made him distasteful to many of his contemporaries, Turgeniev for instance, who hated violence. Tolstoy admired him but he thought that he had little artistic accomplishment or mind. Yet, as he said, 'he admired his heart', a criticism which contains a great deal of truth, for though his characters do act extravagantly, madly, almost, still their basis is firm enough underneath... The Brothers Karamazov... made a deep impression on me... he created some unforgettable scenes [detail]... Madness you may call it, but therein may be the secret of his genius... I prefer the word exaltation, exaltation which can merge into madness, perhaps. In fact all great men have had that vein in them; it was the source of their greatness; the reasonable man achieves nothing.
Nobody is reading all this shit you pretentious EFL wiener gobbler
A translation i havent seen discourse about is oliver ready's through penguin classics deluxe edition. Idk why they didnt choose mcduff or p&v but has anyone actually read this and given their thoughts?
The one I've got is from 1953, translated by some Russian princess. Has illustrations as well, pretty nice hardcover. 2 dollars at Goodwill.
Just read it, translation probably doesn't matter very much.
It's definitely nothing like the OLD TRANSLATION.
Thanks
very informative
If it's not Garnett it's not worth reading
i read the david mcduff one, what did i miss?
David McDuff translation is good.
P and V is best Dosto. Richards philosophy when translating is unmatched
lol you cant even call him editing his dumb wifes literal goyslop a translation. Remember that stupid boomer doesnt know a lick of russian.
Its not his job to translate the russian its his job to polish the english from the translation his wife produces you mong
>he fell for the gimmick
it's crazy bro
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.
[Dostoevksy] is the man more than any other who has created modern prose, and intensified it to its present-day pitch. It was his explosive power which shattered the Victorian novel with its simpering maidens and ordered commonplaces; books which were without imagination or violence. I know that some people think he was fantastic, mad even, but the motives he employed in his work, violence and desire, are the very breath of literature. Much as we know has been made of his sentence to execution, which was commuted as he was waiting for his turn to be shot, and of his subsequent four years' imprisonment in Siberia. But those events did not form his temperament though they may have intensified it, for he was always enamoured of violence, which makes him so modern. Also it made him distasteful to many of his contemporaries, Turgeniev for instance, who hated violence. Tolstoy admired him but he thought that he had little artistic accomplishment or mind. Yet, as he said, 'he admired his heart', a criticism which contains a great deal of truth, for though his characters do act extravagantly, madly, almost, still their basis is firm enough underneath... The Brothers Karamazov... made a deep impression on me... he created some unforgettable scenes [detail]... Madness you may call it, but therein may be the secret of his genius... I prefer the word exaltation, exaltation which can merge into madness, perhaps. In fact all great men have had that vein in them; it was the source of their greatness; the reasonable man achieves nothing.
Dosto is essentially sadomasochistic, he loves dwelling on characters who revel in how depraved they are, but who also prostrate themselves in the just punishment or humiliation of their depravity. Again, sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes imply the exact situation he adored, all the violence and sexual intrigue he desired so much, but with the approval of his super ego since they ritualistically degrade themselves in a kind of spiritual fetishistic pleasure in confessing, being punished, and then being "redeemed". It's lurid and partakes of a sick kind of gratification in self flagellation.
Sounds like phenomenal literature to me.
You sound like a shallow reader
What difference does it make if the work in question is self-flagellating and sadomasochistic? Is there not potentially something of worth to be found there?
As an aside, what do you think about his novel 'The Idiot?'
Look, if you like pulp fiction schlock that titillates you, have at it, but don't pretend it's "phenomenal literature".
I was hoping for more substance from your reply.
Dosto was a degenerate pulp fiction writer who was paid by the word to fuel his insatiable gambling addiction. If you like his work you are the literary equivalent of a soccer mom picking up a harlequin romance novel in the check out line at the local super market.
what, characters should be morally just and pure and perfect already by the time you start reading then?
yo this guy did not read the new fricking testament
tis not the virtuous who need Jesus but the sinners
It's melodramatic and insincere. It rings hollow to revel in sin knowing you'll also have the sick pleasure of confessing your sin and being humiliated in order to be redeemed, just to fuel another cycle of depravity followed by righteous humiliation and self flagellation. This is what I mean by sadomasochistic, it's essentially suffering porn with a cheesy reconciliation with the father after a due amount of prostration and punishment. It's pathological and twisted. To select such stunted and perverse characters who have Jesus spilled all over them at the conclusion is shallow and cheap, better literature has more complex characters who have more profound and meaningful experiences. This is why Tolstoy is infinitely better than Dosto.
>insincere
Insincere how? Is this sadomasochistic tendency not to be found in the Christian world? Did Augustine not discuss man's love for sin in conflict with his desire for redemption? I doubt even Dostoevsky himself would disagree that there's a masochistic element in his work. I ask again, have you read The Idiot?
Christianity, you mean the religion centered around the brutal torture and execution of a man which is deemed necessary and ultimately a good thing? Yeah, that's a pretty sadomasochistic ideology too. I'm telling you this is a macabre and demented fascination with pain, suffering, and humiliation. As I said before, it's lurid and sick, and if you enjoy it I consider you on the level of creepy anons who enjoy watching gore videos because they titillate dark parts of your psyche. Pain and suffering are things to be grappled with and overcome, not reveled in and desired like a sicko degenerate.
I was hoping for a bit of insight but instead I get juvenile, shallow polemics. I can see you haven't actually put much thought into any of this and may not have even read Dostoevsky's work so I suggest next time you stick to copy-pasting ideas from men like Navokov who have at least put thought into this.
>I heard things I don't already agree with and I didn't like that so I reject it
Yep, standard fare here on IQfy. If you are ideologically committed to certain notions so that you can't even entertain the possibility that you are wrong on that, you will never grow, never discover where you may actually be wrong in your thinking, ironically, you will remain juvenile. In future posts, if you "hope for more insight", try not getting so defensive, you won't find any real insight in an echo chamber.
Nobody is reading all this shit you pretentious EFL wiener gobbler
personally enjoyed Slater's translation. OWC mogging every other publisher as usual
A translation i havent seen discourse about is oliver ready's through penguin classics deluxe edition. Idk why they didnt choose mcduff or p&v but has anyone actually read this and given their thoughts?
Kek. Why does P&V cause so many anons to seethe? So many panties in a bunch
The one I've got is from 1953, translated by some Russian princess. Has illustrations as well, pretty nice hardcover. 2 dollars at Goodwill.
Just read it, translation probably doesn't matter very much.