>justifiably kills old greedy roastie and her moronic worthless sister
>she would spent that on her own tombstone or something, meanwhile he needs the money
>ends up regretting it for no reason and confessing it even when he would have gotten away
>willingly marries an actual prostitute and goes to siberian gulag
No sane person would think or act like that. Christcuckery is a mental illness and this always shows in Dostoyevski
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.
moron.
Pseud.
nabokov
nugay
I don't disagree with it but can't endorse the analysis either. Nabokov belabors his point and "admits" to liking Dostoyevsky's strong points like it's being tortured out of him. It's dishonest and Nabokov himself names the source of his dishonesty (cynicism). Is the cynical literary critic any less cliche than a noble prostitute?
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.
the man put his soul on the page. few writers have ever managed the same.
Some people have inner monologues, anon
It's called having a conscience. Either yours is seared or you've never seriously thought about the implications of going against it.
Explain to me why what Raskolnikov did is bad without
>ALL MURDER IS LE BAD...because it just is ok!
>uhmmm have a normal one bro
>touch grass please
His conscience told him what he did was bad. What your conscience says is bad might be different from what your personal thoughts and feelings on the matter is.
Murderers feel remorse because that's the way in which their conscience bites them in the ass after doing something they shouldn't.
You might think it's irrational, but conscience doesn't care about what's reasonable.
Read Montaigne's essay on conscience.
So you agree his actions were unreasonable? He basically overdosed on christian slave morality and cucked himself.
Read Nietzsche on Pale criminal
Being 15 should be considered a form of mental moronation.
Not very nice to call Dostoevsky's biggest fans moronic.
Boy I wish this was either funnier or less obviously untrue, board full of ubermenches today huh
>bragging about being oldtroon without presenting an argument
Did you even read the book or just the wikipedia page? Raskolnikov thought much like you did, that anything, even murder, could be permitted if the ends justified it. But ultimately, he ends up discovering that he was not cut from the same cloth as this mythical higher person who could transcend morality like he thought he was and is tortured by his conscience. I doubt you could murder and go on with a clean conscience, even if you think you could.
Svidrigailov is someone who was able to transcend these common conceptions of morality and he too reveals flaws in this line of thinking. Because as much as he was able to step over these mental and metaphysical boundaries, he isn't able to make everything in the real material world, like Dunya, conform to his will and is thus left unsatisfied.
>or you've never seriously thought about the implications of going against it
Why would you assume that going against it is something unimaginable? Why would everyone need to be irrational like that? Your poor adaptability is not universal.
That's a mental illness or just delusions.
Nietzsche said Dostoevsky was the only psychologist who could teach him anything.
Weird considering FD was not only Christian but an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist.
you forgot to call her a israelite
Face it edgelords, moral intuition is real, moral facts are real, at the very least as real as any scientific realism facts.
What he felt was the presence of a moral fact.
>aztec butcher thousands of young healthy people as sacrifice to their sun god and feel nothing
>a guy kills an old fart and suffers agonizing meltdown
>"moral intuition is real, moral facts are real"
Aztecs were demonically possessed subhumans, what is even the point of comparison here
So are Russians.
>some IQfycel that does not have the guts to talk to a girl explains how someone feeling guilt over a cold-blooded murder is irrational
wew
BASED frick christcucks thread. Dosto was a pseud.
ever murdered anyone you dumb sack of shit? better yet, ever done anything with any impact in the world?
You forgot to turn off your glow, mister.
Teenagers or dissociated IQfy troon posters can't into psychological realism
Dostoyevski was mentally ill chud(average russian) irl.
it's funny how everyone who tried to criticize this novel went mentally insane
>Nietzsche literally reenacts the horse scene before losing his mind
>Conrad goes full schizo while writing a retort
>Tolstoy has a Dostoevsky novel on his deathbed
>Nabakov... well I'm sure there was nothing mentally wrong with the guy that wrote e-girlta
>has a Dostoevsky novel on his deathbed
Truly a sign of mental illness.
yeah, I would say having a novel of the guy you called a fraud by your deathbed two decades after his dead is a sign of mental illness
>Nietzsche literally reenacts the horse scene before losing his mind
That's a myth you fricking moron
You misunderstand. The point is not that Raskolnikov's path is an inevitable, particularly noble, or correct one, just that it is right for him.
He's posited that he can be a Napoleon. He tries it out and absolutely can't fricking hack it. He cares about hurting others, he needs their approval, he just can't do what it takes to be above morals. So he recognizes and accepts that truth. To attempt to be a great man is just not in his nature. He would be miserable like that. He WAS miserable like that. The correct path for him is to lead a humble life of service. He is, despite it all, happier that way.
You don't have to be Raskolnikov, but people are like him, and ultimately he's good hearted. You'd be surprised how many people would be happier like that. Aquisitive thinking can make you prosper, but it's also a recipe for conflict and stress. Living like that all the time, it's not for most people.