Ivan Turgenev
>"That author has neither common sense nor imagination, he doesn't know how to write or read, he's a barbarian. And yet, people adore him and consider him a genius."
Vladimir Nabokov
>"It is difficult to overestimate the pernicious influence of Dostoyevsky on Russian literature. His work is full of flaws, from mishandling of plot to neglect in character delineation."
Leo Tolstoy
>"Dostoyevsky was not a great writer at all, nor a good writer. His prose is confused and his style lacks clarity. I do not understand why so many people consider him a genius."
Alexander Herzen >"Dostoyevsky is a master of melodrama, but lacks the subtlety and depth expected of a great writer."
Vasily Rozanov
>"Dostoyevsky's work is full of exaggerations and emotional excesses. His worldview is distorted and his literary style is confusing."
Ivan Bunin
>"Dostoyevsky is an overrated author. His novels lack coherence and his prose is overly dramatic."
Nikolai Chernyshevsky >"Dostoyevsky is a moralistic reactionary who glorifies suffering and human misery instead of advocating for progress and social emancipation."
Ivan Goncharov
>"Dostoyevsky is an overrated writer whose novels are filled with cheap melodrama and one-dimensional characters."
Nikolai Nekrasov
>"Dostoyevsky's works are a feast for masochists but lack the true depth and complexity expected of great literature."
>if you see dostoyevsky, tell him I love him.
What the frick was up with Tolstoy? Was he schizo?
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 christianity does to a mf
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.
Late period, post-conversion Tolstoy named Dostoyevsky as one of the few genuine artists in living memory so his tastes must have changed.
I think this was a product of him reading de Sade and seeing himself there but having too much of a father complex to follow him.
When did Tolstoy convert?
Around age 50. He was never a genuine congregational Christian though, his interpretation of scripture was liberalized.
Lol, it's not so fricking highfalutin as you make it sound. He writes about characters struggling with vices and reaching out to their saviour God to receive forgiveness and salvation. That's what Christianity's essence is about. Dumb "highminded" atheists will never understand
It's hard to imagine the lurid and deeply cynical mindset to believe that depicting stories of redemption is somehow the manifestation of sadomasochistic fetishes.
Your mind must be like a giant beam projecting images filled with chains, ball gags and gimp suits onto everything around you.
>Person A: This person's expression of x isn't to my liking.
>Person B: Wow so you must really hate x, huh? You sick frick!
Don't do that.
Envy
where is that tolstoy quote from?
Chatgtp
oh it's another worthless bot thread on IQfy, thanks. what's funny is that some of these authors really do have critiques of dostoevsky
Can we even have a single Dostoevsky thread anymore without fricking homosexuals just spamming copypastas
Sure
Yesterday I finished reading the idiot
What did I think?
>moralistic reactionary
the only bad thing about being a reactionary is that you're making a reaction, i.e you have lost the first strike, you were late to do it yourself and now you're reacting to someone else who took it. But so what? Would it be better to simply not react?
Anyone who uses the term "reactionary" as a pejorative term deserves not to be taken seriously.
That's why it's more logical to be a paleo-conservative, it implies that you reject any progressivism and want to return to the social orders established by dinosaur society during the height of the Cretaceous.
Reading Demons is even funnier now after seeing those quotes by Turgenev and Chernyshevsky.
Is it just me or most of those quotes are fake?
Turgenev was a renowned Dostoevsky hater so it is very possible that his quote is real
jealousy
Most of the russian writers you like don't like Russia and its characteristics. Dosto on the other hand even in his highest moment was already an aпoлoгeт for the Tsarist regime (saying its gotten too liberal even).
I've only ever read Crime and Punishment by Dostoievsky. I just started The Brothers Karamazov. I really liked and enjoyed the first 150-200 pages of C&P (Constance Garnett translation) and could understand why people like Dostoievsky so much. But then it gets so rambly and seems to meander. It didn't feel as tight and felt much more boring. Im not against boring literature that has something to say that requires the boring part but it truly felt like he was just rambling. Sonya was a silly character indeed. Svidrigailov provided the breath of fresh air for me to power through the rest of the book. I think Dostoievsky is capable of great literature but he gets limited by his own autism (for lack of a better word, I'm drunk). I still think Crime and Punishment was a good work overall but suffers a lot from the author himself. What do others think?
Wait until you get to Demons lol
It'll take some time, I read quite slowly tbh. Is it really that good btw? I liked the Theology more in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man more than whatever im reading in TBK rn.
Demons is good, but I was jesting in relation to your comment:
>But then it gets so rambly and seems to meander
Demons takes about 200 pages to get interesting. And it can go from extremely engaging to disjointed and confused from one chapter to the next. Definitely worth reading (very good final Act too), but something to keep in mind before you head into it. Hope you've got a word or two of French at your disposal too btw.
I'm halfway decent at french. I read L'étranger in french, is that enough or?
Oh yeah you'll be fine. One of the main characters just uses a lot of French phrases.
I'll read Demons after I've done with TBK then.
I would have preferred if the detective had been a moron and Rascal's persecution were entirely self-generated.
It is in russian DNA to hate, it is not that they only hate him. First and foremost they hate western authors and foreign authors, but when among themselves they just hate each other.
So was this homosexual the first person to portray wretches as human? Is he responsible for the proliferation of americans glorifying criminals in films such as casino, the sopranos, and the utter depravity of reality television. One wonders whether before him people consumed media that gave attention to vanity and the glorification of what civilized people back then considered rascals and low brow plebs. And if not him, then whom? Who started this trend?
What versions should I buy for the English versions for every book?