ITT: We post traits of a psued.
>his favorite writer is Dostoevsky
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
ITT: We post traits of a psued. >his favorite writer is Dostoevsky
ITT: We post traits of a psued.
>his favorite writer is Dostoevsky
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
No, kys
Goddamn Dostoyevsky fans out here malding
Yes, live yourself
He know leas than 3 languages
He makes shitty bait thread on a bangladeshi basket weaving forum
Notes from Underground is my favorite sub-two hundred page book though.
For pseuderies, I’d say pretending as though you enjoy one of Shakespeare’s lesser known plays like The Merry Wives of Windsor or King John.
Congrats, you just got diagnosed as a pseud.
Oh well, what can you do.
Merry Wives is funny at times, though. What a weird bone to pick.
If you don't like Dostoevsky you're a pussy
You are a successful person
only legitimate answer
Let me fix OP
>His favorite writher is Dostoevsky, but has never read him in Russian
Not enjoying Dostoevsky is a sure sign of poor taste, a cosmopolitan emptiness that is bereft of spirit. Dostoevsky is the most soulful writer in human history. He could not be more soulful unless God Himself inspired his words. Of course, if you're not Christpilled, you will never enjoy the true Dostoevsky.
So based, he has become a beacon of hope in my life, despite his plots being typically dreary there is such a human spark of optimism and love for your fellow man that permeates his writing, or at least what I have read so far. He just does a great job at breaking down all the barriers and representing life as an eternal struggle, or search, and there's definitely something to be found in that. The exception to what I said is notes from the underground, that more explores mans cowardice, shame and self righteousness, and its multiplicitious manifestations. Thinking about starting the idiot as my next instalment to my dosto-boner, gotta take a break from petersburg homies for a while though
>the most soulful
Christians have NO souls
Someone post the don quixote rage comic
moron.
Bugs btfo
ok, now this is based. we are all going to make it, bros
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.
>g-guys Russians totally don't even like Dostoyevsky guys, they like tolstoy more (and me)
>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.
I can assure you that Dostoevsky is the face of classic russian literature, he's the most read and praised author. Even brain rotten zoomers talk about his works after they already finished with it in school.
Thats a Nabakov quote. Man was seething because everyone knows Dostoyevsky is better than his pedo ass
sure if you like ideology shaping your story. *god forbid* something unfolds organically.
Ideology shapes all stories. That is what art is, not just flowery language for the sake of it.
there's a difference between having a character who struggles with being a good husband, who keeps an eye on the news, who forms opinions and tries to live out his ideas but fails in small ways as we all do; having that character fail, try, fail again, worked over by life, pick up and test out new ways to live; and have that character nevertheless be submerged in the history and culture of his time, doomed to live through it, and only dimly aware of when he does not act in himself but merely serves as a conduit through which history travels; holding on to the illusion of individuality in a vast and buffeting world... there's a difference between all that and naming a character fricking "SCHISMATIC" who jumps up on a table to rant about how unorthodox his ideas are at every opportunity and only "changes" when the writer remembers he's not making art but a conversion narrative
Russian literature is pretty heavy handed pre Chekhov. You would definitely hate Fathers and Sons. I’ve always felt Dostoyevsky’s character’s added a surreal atmosphere
original responder...just finished fathers and sons. was bored.. Dostoy apparently loved this book, was inspired by it, so of course it feels like a D rough draft. The ideological battle--nihilism vs aristocracy--is an instrument in a hypocritical insecure narcissistic power struggle for superiority. Not inaccurate, but a shallow exploration of both ideologies and mindsets. The constant sense of artifice was suffocating. The freeborn translation gave it a catcher in the rye feel. for about 80 pages it was a nice little nostalgia trip remembering my teen years. The Odintsov infatuation, the disdain for sycophants, the repressed sentimentality trying to claw it's way out of his belly. Like thumbing through old pokemon cards before throwing them out.
you feel the formula like a stomachache. you feel the dna of the saved scoundrel everywhere. It's just instantiations of some platonic adjacent form over and over. the inauthenticity is revolting if you're not trying to discover your original sin and redeem yourself. I loved him from ages 13-16 till I was past my existential/epistemic/moral crisis, then got tired of the current always going in one direction.
The complexity is facile. the current is always the same.
>the personality of the artist, at first a cry or a cadence or a mood and then a fluid, and lambent narrative, finally refines itself out of existence, impersonalises itself, so to speak. The aesthetic image in the dramatic form is life purified in and reprojected from the human imagination. The mystery of aesthetic like that of material creation is accomplished. The artist, like the God of the creation, remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails.
yes better write of the flowering c**ts of nymphettes
Nabokov's fiction has the issue of lacking sincerity. Even in Dosto's most fumbling and erratic ramblings there persists a feeling that it's emerging from an urgency in his soul to get those ideas to the page. The exploration of the interiority of Nabokov's characters begins and ends at the apogee of a character's scandalous and ironic premise: I.E, "what if a pedophile was...erudite XD".
Preferring Dost to Tolstoy is the sign of poor taste. 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.
I can see aspects of that in his writing. The idiot especially has a contrived soap opera feeling to it, but they contain themes which expand beyond an archetypical love triangle plot
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. 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.
this captures how I feel about Dostoevsky, and it's why I've never been able to get into him. his novels, to me, feel like the greatest pulp work ever written. a lurid obsession with sex and violence, a perverse pleasure in filth. everyone likes to talk about how "real" his characters feel, or how "deep" their psychology goes, but they've never felt like real, flesh-and-blood people to me -- more one-dimensional screeching mouthpieces who spew whatever idea dosty happens to want to discuss. everything feels contrived, everything feels rigid, everything feels forced. Tolstoy, on the other hand... sheer, titanic genius. never understood why people prefer Dostoevsky. it's the mark of a mind trapped in adolescent angst.
I got one; he's sharply dismissive of thinkers/writers he's never read or attempted to study
Same, Dosto seems ideological and warped whereas Tolstoy seems genuine and authentic.
Tolstoy is too preachy. At least Dostoyevsky feels like a man battling with himself. I’ve always related Dosto to Kierkegaard’s leap of faith. Ivan’s grand inquisitor tale and the story of the children is not something that would be thought up by someone blindly religious. He argued hard for the other side and put one of the most convincing arguments out there. I believe it is in Hamsun’s Mysteries where Nagel goes off on Tolstoy and i agree with him. Tolstoy is the man who lived it up, debauched and caroused in his youth. As soon as he was old, he grew bitter and then became preachy
tolstoy does lapse into preacher mode, especially in his post W&P work; at least with dosty you get the sense that his insights into human nature are hard-won, tolstoy just kinda drifted onto his. I'll give dosty that. but tolstoy is to my mind the superior artist in every aspect
Like what aspects? Dostoyevsky has depth that Tolstoy doesn’t approach. If Tolstoy was an American, he would have wrote something like Gone With The Wind. Plus he absolutely botched the Sonya storyline, and the ending of W&P was a complete record scratching sound. He would have been better if he didn’t become religious and buy into himself being some type of guru. The best things he wrote were the horse race with Vronsky, and Svestapool Tales or whatever it’s called. His latter work, both short and long, telegraphs his preachy attitude to any reader, and they will know where the story is heading
In my mind, Tolstoy's superior in sheer artistry. The way he introduces characters, the way he delineates personality while still leaving room for organic change, how he navigates a scene, his soft, deft handling of chronology, and his gentle understanding of the thousand slow and intersecting plots that form each life -- Dostoevsky can't compare. Dostoevsky slams two characters into a room and has them rant at each other. He seems to have no interest in literature as art. It's also funny to call Tolstoy preachy but not apply the same adjective to Dostoevsky, whose novels, for all their dense, quasi-philosophical meandering, all boil down to "convert to Christianity." I'll agree that Tolstoy's later work doesn't hold up with the exception of The Death of Ivan and Hadji Murad, two near-perfect novellas.
I guess we just look for different things in books. Dostoyevsky has given me way more to think about and many parts of his books I think about often and their implications: Zosima’s story, Ivan’s grand inquisitor, Ivan’s talk with the devil, Smerdykov, TBK epilogue, the Napoleon lie in The Idiot, the ending of The Idiot, the grotto scene in Demons, etc. He gives me much more food for thought and I just can’t shake off Tolstoy’s preachiness
>Dostoevsky slams two characters into a room and has them rant at each other
based
Dosto is as shallow as a puddle. C&P's whole basis is just a dude convincing himself to murder, and then having bad feelings after because of his conscience. That's it, spread over hundreds upon hundreds of pages because Dosto had to squeeze every last kopeck out of it to fund his next gambling spree.
you can make any story sound simple when you dumb it down like this
Here's the order from worst to best for late 19th cent R:
>Dosto
>Tolsto
>Check
>Turgen
You replied with this exact response when I had a conversation with you about Dostoevsky, which indicates to me that these words are either from Nabokov or that you have recorded these words and set them aside for future arguments so as to avoid committing yourself to any real, spontaneous discourse. Embarrassing.
People repeat this but its only true for some characters. Raskolnikov is a dickhead for most of the novel, he doesn't even necessarily become religious at the end of the book
Tolstoy is a massive gay
Based beyond belief
Agree Dostoyevsky is overrated.
His characters are all thin, extreme caricatures. Every single Dosto novel I read is the same: some sickly nihilist revolutionary with tuberculosis ranting about how he's God or an atheist ranting about how he hates God, a humble christ figure, a le prostitute who will be redeemed, a clueless moderate liberal caricature who is snooty, etc etc.
It all has this cheap, hackneyed, and overly melodramatic feel to it.
Also considering how Dosto in real life frequented female patients in mental wards, the scenes with prostitutes seem semi-pornographic like he's writing out some personal sexual fantasy.
I think he romanticizes poverty and degredation, he gets a hard on fantasizing about saving degraded prostitutes.
I'm not the biggest fan of Tolstoy either, but Death of Ivan Illyich was a wonderful story.
you have no idea how full and intense it feels to live like this without doing much at all. ohhhh christ save me, and then you jerk off on disgusting anime girls, sometimes you're trying to pray and you feel lust so you're like oh no please stop the sinful thoughts, but then you're like, I can't keep praying while I feel horny, so I'll jerk off, and then you write the filthiest smut and jerk off to it, and say wicked shit on IQfy while you're at it, calling people Black folk and telling them to kill themselves, then you clutch your cross and go ohhhh I am such a sinner and you whip yourself, I'm a stupid pig, ohh I'm such a filthy pig, and then you see someone asking for charity and go euughh frick off Black person but then you're like oh ohhhh the world is so corrupt and hateful, and I'm the most hateful swine, shameful and unclean, SAVE ME LORD, and you whip yourself again, but it's sort of a turn-on, then you drink and shitpost, and then you despise yourself because you are a slave to vice, ohhh christ have mercy while I have another glass.
You know how Gollum has constant conversations with Smeagol? It's like that, you never get bored. Truly a high IQ way to live.
I hate you morons so much I hate that this is the first thing I think of when I hear the word "Dostoevsky"
based but I must say one does not have to be Christ-pilled to enjoy the true beauties of Dostoevsky's works
Why are Dosto fans like this?
I picture some nerd histrionically making theatrical gestures as he talks about the soul of the great Dostoevsky and saying alas and shit, he seems to me like a writer that people who are lacking in true artistic sensibilities but want to posture as a sensitive and tortured soul cling to for whatever reason
Based. Dosto makes a fricking circus out of everything, a developed mind delights in the implicit whereas the dosto fan delights in the artificial and ridiculous clown robot show.
The Gambler is one of the best books I've read in my life
ITT; traits of a homosexual
>is OP
>posts threads about 'psued'
wtf is going on here? i wonder...
I thought Dostoevsky was the GOAT when I was 17 and I first read C&P. Now I'm 29, have read at least a thousand books since then, and I still think he's the best.
>he posts on IQfy
>he has a goodread account
>he is a virgin
>he doesn't read poetry
>he only reads in his native language
>3/5
That's it then, isn't it?
If I'm a pseud do I get headpats like in that pic?
yes
>pats head
i’m 5/5
This unironically. I simply cannot belive y'all homies genuinely enjoy 800 page melodramatic slogfests about 19th century Russian nihilism and Christianity
I unironically do.
He thinks he is never wrong or can’t learn more
And to add, they are concerned about how they are perceived
I don't care if it makes me a pseud, he IS my favorite writer.
is there any anything in between being a normie that hasn't read a single book in 5 years or being a giga intelectual reading 80 books a year that doesn't get the pejorative label "pseud"?
Yes, just read what you enjoy or are genuinely interested in and don't pretend that your tastes are more sophisticated
but they kinda are? at least in regards to the majority of people, who are totally brain dead, being more sophisticated is not hard in this case.
well a pseud is still brighter than the average normie, but it's like bragging about being 110 IQ. I've been reading theology and church history for years and aside from basic stuff I still don't have the balls to act like I know what I'm talking about or talk as someone with authority over a subject so important. Also, if you're reading stuff like philosophy or political theory, you can't escape being a pseud, because you are reading literal career pseuds.
"At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones." Matthew 11:25 DRV
Do people really read and talk about books solely to feel smart and don't actually enjoy reading them?
No other author does it for me like Dostoevsky does. The feeling his books invoke is ultimately what I'm looking for when I sit down to read a book, but I'll read other books by other authors as well, it's just not the same. Unless you can recommend me an author that does what Dostoevsky does but better, I'll keep liking him without shame.
thomas mann
>thomas mann
Nah
And what does he do?
He approaches people with an amazing sense of empathy. It’s like he was able to read everyone like an open book and see them for what they were behind the facade they showed to the world. He’ll introduce a character no matter how minor or major it is to the story and in one paragraph dissect their whole mind to the point where it feels like a real person and not just a mannequin. But more than that he’s brutally honest towards himself and others. He pulls no punches and he’ll call out your faults whether you want to accept them or not. No matter what book of his you read, I’m certain you’ll find someone you can relate to in a scarily accurate manner that you feel ashamed. Reading him is like looking into a mirror.
>No matter what book of his you read, I’m certain you’ll find someone you can relate to in a scarily accurate manner that you feel ashamed.
I haven't because I'm not a teenager anymore
You're acting like one though.
>You're acting like one though.
I certainly think Dostoevski is the better author, but the only other that was comparable in making his world breathe in your neck was Faulkner.
While fiodor is more about seeing through the eyes of humans, faulkner is more about taking a walk and seing people walk around you and feeling the soul of a city or a countryside, he can make you feel an era.
He takes recommendations from IQfy.
This. I was looking for something to read so I was browsing the archive for top ten lists. Good grief there’s no personality on this board. Everyone loves the same twenty classics. If Stoner is in your favorite books of all time list you’re an absolute idiot.
A lot of newish readers here so of course too 10 lists will be bland. The trick is to look out for anon’s lists who look like they’ve developed some taste. The consensus will always be vanilla
Stoner was quite popular well before IQfy
If argentinian he likes Alejandro Dolina.
Dostoevsky does give off a very pseud aura doesn't he
>I am le sad because of le god
This thread officially proves that Dostoevsky = pseud
I would like to thank OP, as I have truly learned something today. I also firmly believe that this valuable piece of knowledge should be spread, as it is very enlightening
Anyone who listens to peoples opinions on lit. Also anyone who posts on lit
>I am a sick man... I am a wicked man.
Am I actually expected to continue reading after this?
You are a pseud if you think Russian literature is better than British or American literature
>he posts on IQfy more than reading any books
>he has never read the King James Bible, the most influential book in the English language and influential for other literature
>christ thy lord and savior praise be in his name gaygity gay gay
see this everybody. This is what you sound like when you go gay for Dosto
I guarantee you every single post here criticising Dostoyevsky is non-white or a woman, or both. Even the prose in the posts outs them as such. They have that kind of bipolar, histrionic intonation in their replies.
>Histrionic good when Dostoevsky does if (every novel)
>Histrionic bad when imaginary brown people do it
You mean the histrionic women in his novels who are cartoonishly devout christians? Its a joke
Is that dog supposed to be you? It might be if it was obese, had no chin and was hairless.
if you have sex, you will never be a real intellectual