Why do Westerners have such shit taste in Russian literature?

Dostoevsky is fricking Westoid fanservice, Tolstoy is pseud garbage, Nabokov is boring. Why can't you into Lermontov, Bunin, Kuprin, Soviet Sci-Fi, Pelevin, at least try Chekhov?

Dostoevsky is the worst Russian author and every self-respecting Russkie author considered him garbage cause he was inauthentic shit for Westerners to jerk over. The same way you picked TATU as the popular Russian Pop. You cherry-picked Russia according to your vision and it has nothing to do with quality.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Soviet Sci-Fi
    Name some apart from Strugatzkis that's at least as good as Western scifi

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Strugatsky is boring shit also, I would go with Gromov, Tyurin, Chumanov, Kalugin (Get Out Of My Dreams is so kino), Korepanov, Sviridov, Shvedov

      All the big names are shit, Strugatsky is fricking boring, Zamiatin is generic. You have to get the stuff from the 80s and onwards.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Get Out Of My Dreams is so kino
        Thanks, I've just read it. Very nice. Reminds one of PK Dick but can stand on its own.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is this translated? Didn't find it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Is this translated?
            Not that I know of but maybe you can run it through some AI translator:
            http://alekseykalugin.ru/index.php?togive=stories&st_mode=read&st_id=10

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can I get the full names? I can't find shit about some of them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Dostoevsky is the worst Russian author and every self-respecting Russkie author considered him garbage cause he was inauthentic shit for Westerners to jerk over.
        >All the big names are shit, Strugatsky is fricking boring, Zamiatin is generic. You have to get the stuff from the 80s and onwards.

        A knower for once. Lermontov deserves wider recognition. Chekov's relatively well known and regarded, Pelevin as well.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Its crazy how near all worthwhile genre/imaginative/speculative fiction is written in English.
        Shelly, Coleridge, Poe,Dunsany, McDonald,Blackwood,Bierce, Machen, James, London, Stevenson, Stoker, Wells, Lovecraft, Smith, Howard, Eddison, Peake, Chesterton, Leiber, Tolkein, Bradbury, Vance, Herbert, Clark, Asimov, Aickman, Ligotti, Wolfe, ect ect...

        The list is endless. The only truly major non English figure is Verne.
        Are the non English speaking countries totally incapable of imagination?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's crazy how stupid your post is.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its crazy that you couldn't even list a non English writer as a counter point.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gautier, Borel, Villiers de l'Isle-Adam, Maupassant, Allain and Souvestre, Leblanc, Ewers

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no Rosny, Cyrano, Barjavel, etc
            Still based. Hope you can get the encyclopedia of it in the belles lettres.
            >https://www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre/9782251448510/retrofictions

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but Hoffmann, Gogol, Kafka, Kubin, Borges, Grabinski, de Lautréamont, to name a few

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not here to argue against you, stupid.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The 95% of your list wouldn't exist if it weren't for the GOAT of E.T.A. Hoffmann.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's completely moronic lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its crazy that you couldn't even list a counter point.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A counter point to an absurd claim? Gothic fiction in English literature started before Hoffmann was born. The whole tradition is also quite different from how he wrote. Lovecraft, in his essay on supernatural horror, assigned a rather minor place to him in terms of influence, rightly so. Doesn't mean he was a bad writer. But the writers that anon listed took very little from him. His influence was stronger in France and Russia.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Kalugin (Get Out Of My Dreams
        Whats the russian title?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    @23381338
    Cyberiad is fine

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's Polish sci-fi, returd

      https://i.imgur.com/hT7HFCF.jpeg

      Dostoevsky is fricking Westoid fanservice, Tolstoy is pseud garbage, Nabokov is boring. Why can't you into Lermontov, Bunin, Kuprin, Soviet Sci-Fi, Pelevin, at least try Chekhov?

      Dostoevsky is the worst Russian author and every self-respecting Russkie author considered him garbage cause he was inauthentic shit for Westerners to jerk over. The same way you picked TATU as the popular Russian Pop. You cherry-picked Russia according to your vision and it has nothing to do with quality.

      Dumb coping russoid. Nobody cares about you. Now go cry

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've tried writing out a comprehensive list of Russian novelists I'm going to read next year, so please tell me if it's okay and what I should add or take out. I've omitted Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nabokov as you don't like them. Arranged chronologically
    >Pushkin
    >Gogol
    >Goncharov
    >Lermontov
    >Turgenev
    >Saltykov-Shchedrin
    >Leskov
    >Chekhov
    >Sologub
    >Gorky
    >Kuprin
    >Bunin
    >Andreyev
    >Bely
    >Zamyatin
    >Krzhizhanovsky
    >Pasternak
    >Bulgakov
    >Babel
    >Ilf and Petrov
    >Platonov
    >Olesha
    >Grossman
    >Sholokhov
    >Shalamov
    >Solzhenitsyn
    >Strugatsky
    >Aitmatov
    >Rasputin
    >Yerofeyev
    >Dovlatov
    >Limonov
    >Sorokin
    >Pelevin
    >Vodolazkin
    >Petrosyan

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I forgot to read this post

      Strugatsky is boring shit also, I would go with Gromov, Tyurin, Chumanov, Kalugin (Get Out Of My Dreams is so kino), Korepanov, Sviridov, Shvedov

      All the big names are shit, Strugatsky is fricking boring, Zamiatin is generic. You have to get the stuff from the 80s and onwards.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why do you Black folk do this shit? you are obviously not going to read all of this in one year, just pick one author and read their library. much more fun and worthwhile

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do what shit? READ? I have my own system which works, and I'm nearing the end of my French novels list with twice as many authors. What is your problem?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          errm what is the system then

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I pick a country (Russia) and form (novel) and then I make a comprehensive list of authors and works arranged chronologically which I also read in the same way, but I'm constantly rearranging it depending on new information and how much I like what I'm reading so far. I write comments about what I read and give it a rating, and some of the highest rated works I revisit later. I'm now reading every day for the first time in my life so it seems to be working.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do what shit? READ? I have my own system which works, and I'm nearing the end of my French novels list with twice as many authors. What is your problem?

        Oh and I meant that I was going to start reading that list next year, not that I was going to finish it. It will obviously take longer.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Post like these are the best

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Pushkin
      overrated and I find him boring but historically important so at least he means more to the culture.
      >Gogol
      Pretty based, recommended although he can be hit or miss sometimes.
      >Goncharov
      Snoozefest
      >Lermontov
      Absolutley based, I would start with him tbh
      >Turgenev
      Really good
      >Schedrin
      Also really good
      >Leskov
      need to read more to form an opinion
      >Checkhov
      Good but don´t start with his popular plays, go for the short stories.
      >Sologub
      based department
      >Gorky
      Every Russian girl I met seemed to like this guy, I personally don't.
      >Kuprin
      Based Department, highly recommended
      >Bunin
      Another based one, he was also great at dissing all the other authors.
      >Andreyev
      worth a read
      >Bely
      worth a read
      >Zamyatin
      boring af but "muh he predicted 1984" posters will simp over him.
      >Krzhizhanovsky
      based, based
      >Pasternak
      fooking shite
      >Bulgakov
      Overrated but he makes communists seethe so worth a read
      >Ilf and Petrov
      ABSOLUTLEY BASED
      >Platonov
      Shit
      >Babel
      >Olesha
      Another based one since they belonged to the Odessa School of writers like Ilf and Krzhizhanovsky. That was peak Soviet literature.
      >Grossman
      did not read
      >Sholokhov
      one hit wonder and there is a rumor that he didn't even write his most famous work
      >Shalamov
      Based department
      >Solzhenitsyn
      Fake opposition for Westerners, absolute cringe
      >Strugatsky
      try not to fall asleep while reading challenge
      >Aitmatov
      That is some Kyrgyz stuff right? Did not read yet
      >Yerofeyev
      meh
      >Dovlatov
      meh
      >Limonov
      meh
      >Sorokin
      did not read
      >Pelevin
      Based department and do not listen to the pseud haters. Best modern Russian author and totally deserves the praise. Start with Generation P.
      >Vodolazkin
      did not read
      >Petrosyan
      The comedian writes books?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why is dr. zhivago bad

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Another based one, he was also great at dissing all the other authors.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can you rank order the authors?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'd add Vaginov and Mamleyev

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Vaginov
        >VAGINOV
        No fricking way

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          lmao. doesn't seem like a notable philanderer but would be funny, he got married at 27 and died at 34 from TB.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Vaginov
            Lel

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            he's so hot

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            he qt

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I liked Golgol Dead Souls. not sure I've read anything quite like it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sorokin
      My favorite author. What are You starting with?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Incredibly, the greatest of them all, Alexander Zinoviev, is not mentioned.
      Get a copy of The Yawning Heights today, reader, and stand in awe.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is what happens with classical music too, I presume. That's why instead of listening to Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, I listen to Medtner and Scriabin.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much

      russian is hard to read if you don't pick it up at an early age learning it later in life is too difficult for most people. so only translations that are widely distributed are typically read.

      > Gromov, Tyurin, Chumanov, Kalugin (Get Out Of My Dreams is so kino), Korepanov, Sviridov, Shvedov

      nobody in russia has heard of these people and definitely nobody outside.

      but have you read
      CL Moore, EE Smith, Jack Vance, Ray Bradbury, Algis Budrys, Brian Aldiss, Kurt Vonnegut, JG Ballard, Thomas M Disch, Philip Jose Farmer, Fritz Leiber, Bob Shaw, Tanith Lee, James Tiptree Jr?

      because stuff like Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Herbert is hot garbage SF.

      see anyone can play this dumb game.

      homie asked about who I like, not my problem they are unknown. Either way, as I said in my OP, there is enough mainstream stuff to read that is better. Bunin should be available in all languages.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >When contrarianism becomes euphoric

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Im lish bu ne zapadnoe chitat', zabei. Eto teje samie kotorie sidyat' i drochat kak v Rossii horosho, a mi v amerike zagnivaem

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Nabokov is boring.
    Not an actual criticism, more like you got filtered.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    russian is hard to read if you don't pick it up at an early age learning it later in life is too difficult for most people. so only translations that are widely distributed are typically read.

    > Gromov, Tyurin, Chumanov, Kalugin (Get Out Of My Dreams is so kino), Korepanov, Sviridov, Shvedov

    nobody in russia has heard of these people and definitely nobody outside.

    but have you read
    CL Moore, EE Smith, Jack Vance, Ray Bradbury, Algis Budrys, Brian Aldiss, Kurt Vonnegut, JG Ballard, Thomas M Disch, Philip Jose Farmer, Fritz Leiber, Bob Shaw, Tanith Lee, James Tiptree Jr?

    because stuff like Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Herbert is hot garbage SF.

    see anyone can play this dumb game.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >pffff, Dostoevski and Tolstoy are too mainstream, I read the REAL rashan writers with Blyadovski and Pizdarov.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, while I was younger I thought people do that only with music and movies. But it actually happens in every single aspect of their lives.
      >Who uses toilet paper to wipe their ass lmaooo?? I only use dried leafs from my herbariums
      It's a really weird syndrome. Where instead of naturally being different from the masses, you start doing it intentionally, making yourself a tryhard pseud

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, can you even read Russian?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Who's "we"?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What's with the hard on for Lermontov? I've read A Hero of Our Time and enjoyed it, but didn't what see the fuss is about. Is there some other work of his I need to read?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lame pasta

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think his criticism is absolutely devastating to Dosto. If you read Dosto's novels, they are chock full of a grotesque macabre fascination with suffering and shame, with murder and sex and the subsequent groveling misery of those who find themselves in such situations. This type of tripe is 100% on the level of a typical harlequin romance novel, but because it's some old Russian who added Christian Orthodox themes as an accent to the sadomasochism, IQfy eats it up. It's perverse.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          When George Eliot or Charlotte Bronte or Christina Rossetti wear their faith on their sleeves, its cringe 19th century blather. But when Dostoevksy does some christian moralising and indulges in cheap Jesus symbolism it's actually really deep and meaningful and you just don't get it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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.
            Where does Raskolnikov do this in the book? He turns himself in and is clearly guilt ridden but I don't see where the self flagellation comes in?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He torments himself through most of the book. He is obsessed with his own wickedness, his thought processes continually castigate himself, heaping up the desired excruciating suffering in himself which he feels he deserves. Then he confesses to a male authority figure so that the weight of The Lord's Justice can rightly fall upon him so that he can be "redeemed" through his sentence. Dosto paints each step with an overabundance of relish, clearly reveling in the self-inflicted degradation and the yearning for a father figure's punish. It's grotesque.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay so he feels guilt and turns himself in, got it. Thats never happened before, thats a farcical row.

            If you have striking insights into the human condition, it is likely to be a good book, if you are a melodramatic hack who relies on contrivances and tropes, you are likely to produce bad books. Also, Svidrigailov is another example of Dosto's corrupt thinking, he is a wicked character who doesn't seek redemption through a father figure's hard punishment, and instead kills himself. Everything in the novel is in service of this perverse and twisted mode of thinking and it poisons every aspect of the novel.

            You use a lot of words to say nothing (much like nabakov). Dostoyevsky understands the human condition more than nabakov ever could. You simply detest his work because its Christian, even though while still in jail raskolnikov has not accepted jesus or god. He turned himself to soothe his conscious and for sonia. If you read the book without bias you would see this. If you think a human being hating themself and feeling guilt and anger towards themself for doing a terrible thing and wanting to redeem themself for it is perverse and twisted you’re wrong. If there was no religious angle to the book and it was just about the physical/mental punishment you would have no criticism, your criticism is for the religion and not the art.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ironic, you are biased against me and have made up your mind my criticisms only stem from my views of Christianity, thus you do not actually grasp how devastating my criticism is to the core of Dosto's tepid works. The author imbues the events with his own perverse mindset on morality and thus, it is a very one dimensional examination of "the human condition". Dosto is never able to transcend the weakest aspects of his religion, nor is he able to look past the weakness of the flesh which he vainly attempts to justify by an appeal to that religion. His manifest failures in both realms forever restrict the other realm to it's worst form. Just an atrociously bad author.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The author imbues the events with his own perverse mindset on morality
            >literally saying he disagrees with the authors view of morality
            Point proven, it was cringe when nabakov said it and its even worse when you do because you have no leg to stand on. Tolstoy and dosto were and are loved by russians, what nabakov said was cope.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tolstoy deserves his legendary status. He wrote authentic and compelling characters. But you've already decided which authors I like and don't like, right?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don’t think Dostoyevskys characters are authentic or compelling? Tolstoy seemed to think so but thats besides the point

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dosto's characters are blatantly melodramatic and overwrought. Even his defenders will admit this, it's so obvious. Tolstoy was personally a very conflicted person who went from admiring his own work, to despising it, to reading it and asking who wrote it since it was so good. I'm sure at different times in his life he would have felt many things about Dosto, that doesn't change the fact that Dosto's characters are very poorly constructed. Tolstoy's weakest work stands leagues above Dosto's greatest, there is simply no comparison between them. I shall state again for your benefit, Dosto is viewed more as a kind of prophet or mystic rather than an artist. He deals in woo woo more than artistic integrity. Americans simply lack the sense to understand this and get enthralled by nonsense and malarkey. His work degrades the human spirit and makes a mockery of what it is to be human. He had no idea how to deal tactfully with the darker elements of man. How does Dosto purport to redeem these aspects of humanity? Is it to integrate them? To accept that they are rightful parts of the human experience and to work with them to self actualize; to transcend and include? No. His worldview firmly states that they must be brought before a higher power, judged as sinful, and repressed forever. As I said before, this enterprise is utterly futile, since its objective is to destroy what is human, to snuff out the very spark that is humanity. Thus the cycle of indulgence (the inescapable humanity) and self flagellation (the divine judgement that such things are sinful and abhorrent). There is nothing profound, nothing transcendent here, just shallow fetishistic pleasure taking of the lowest tier followed by the harshest condemnation and repentance. Both sides of this coin forever restrict the other to its worst form, forever traps the victim of this ideology to a lifetime of misery and self hatred. It's vile in the extreme.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >To accept that they are rightful parts of the human experience and to work with them to self actualize; to transcend and include? No. His worldview firmly states that they must be brought before a higher power, judged as sinful, and repressed forever.
            Again, you just disagree with his worldview. Writing a needlessly wordy paragraph when this is your only complaint is embarrassing, especially since you’re trying to parrot nabakov. I can tell you’re an amateur writer much like nabakov because you value how you say something more than what is actually said.

            To me his characters come across as lunatics and caricatures, but maybe that's how people were in 19th century Russia

            If you’ve ever been around someone who is mentally ill or having an episode you’ll know that dosto’s depiction is even a bit subtle. Raskolnikov for all his inner ramblings is quite firm on the outiside unless hes around a direct factor in his descent (his mom, his sister, the police). As for sonia and her mother I don’t have experience with people like that in real life but seeing as how accurate raskolnikov is to real life I wouldn’t doubt there are people like that in real life, especially in a shit hole town

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I can tell you’re much like nabakov
            I'll take that as a compliment and the rest of your post as an admission that you have nothing to add to the conversation

            >Is it to integrate them? To accept that they are rightful parts of the human experience and to work with them to self actualize; to transcend and include?
            What would this even entail? how do you transcend and include acts like child rape and murdering people for money and your own ego into the human experience? What the frick are you talking about?

            You should explore the concept of actually trying to understand what a person is saying, it isn't that difficult. I was referring to the impulses themselves which are fully and ineradicably part of the human condition. Thus, we must ask, how does one include aggression in a healthy way of ones life? Having formulated it this way, the answer becomes clear, it must be directed in productive and healthy ways, used to defend boundaries, to push through adversity, tempered with care and consideration. Or, as has naturally been built up, turned to sporting endeavors with rules to safeguard the participants while focusing on skill, athleticism, and a manly type of sportsmanship. The ego itself is not something to be annihilated, for such an effort will almost invariably end in failure and more harm than good. There must be a shift to honoring the ego of people who make contributions to the wider good, there must be a shift to pursuing virtue and building a respectable reputation. If we take the pursuit of money as an example of what has gone wrong in our society, it becomes clear that there is a very pathological obsession with money which is pushed by a consumerist culture. Money itself becomes all important, and symbols of one's money become seemingly vital. These are unhealthy illusions. Money is purely a means to an end, and that end should be one which dignifies the human spirit and elevates the one utilizing it. Thus, there are many clear and direct paths to true redemption for the darkness in man which do not involve total condemnation and abnegation while seeking sadomasochistic punishment and shaming of these aspects of oneself. Compassion and understanding are far superior to authoritative judgement and disapprobation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The ego itself is not something to be annihilated
            Where in crime and punishment does it say the ego should be annihilated?
            >These are unhealthy illusions. Money is purely a means to an end, and that end should be one which dignifies the human spirit and elevates the one utilizing it.
            Raskolnikov wanted to use his money to help his mother and his sister, and he used it to help a family who just lost their breadwinner and these are portrayed as noble and heroic desires, you’re making it seem like dostoyevsky just condemns the desire to obtain money entirely. Its about selling your principles and values for at the cost of your own soul, not about how money made raskolnikov evil.
            >There must be a shift to honoring the ego of people who make contributions to the wider good, there must be a shift to pursuing virtue and building a respectable reputation.
            >it must be directed in productive and healthy ways, used to defend boundaries, to push through adversity, tempered with care and consideration. Or, as has naturally been built up, turned to sporting endeavors with rules to safeguard the participants while focusing on skill, athleticism, and a manly type of sportsmanship
            If you actually read the book and didn’t just assume the themes of it it based on nabakovs statement, the fact that its depressing and the fact that dosto is christian, you would be aware of a character named Razumikhin who, while never portrayed as christian, is almost exactly what you described to a T and he is rewarded for it. He is aggressive and even somewhat violent but only when hes defending a friend or attacking a bad idea, he is lustful, but is respectful and caring to every woman in his life. Hes jealous and a drunk, but never lets his behaviour hurt those around him. He is a foil to raskolnikov and the other villains in the book, and all his negative traits are positive because he is simply a good man. Read a book before you critique it or you just sound moronic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The whole point of the character of Raskolnikov is that he wishes to glorify his own ego and become "A Great Man" like Napoleon, whom he wrote an essay praising. This inflated sense of ego is literally central to his downfall, or did you miss that part of the book? He ends as a contrite prisoner after confessing and having the power and authority of judgement crush his ego. You are so wrapped up in your own preconceptions that you can't even interact with a contrary opinion, thus it is you who comes off sounding moronic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think dosto is saying he needed to repent from having an ego? His ego isn’t whats being crushed by the end, its crushed as soon as he commits the act and he realizes he isnt a napoleon, he’s struggling with the weight of his own actions. Shit even razumihin and that libtard cuck are portrayed as having an ego, Why don’t they have to reject their “humanity” moron. Its because of what they choose to do with their ego at the end of the day that counts. Your thought process is like this, rodion wants money for his family and has an ego, he commits a terrible act and repents for it, therefore dosto is saying if you want to make money for your family or have an ego you need to repent?? When there are other characters that are prideful but use their pride for good and there are characters that are sinful but still have good within them that the sin drowns out. Its called crime and punishment not thought and crime, to repent is to regret an action, not a feeling or impulse. Thats why when razumihin beats himself up over his jealousy and desire, it’s comically and cutely juxtaposed with raskolnikov because razumihin has not DONE anything to warrant such a reaction. Next time you skim through an article on a book, read about other characters and not just the main one

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have an unbelievably shallow reading of the work. Not to mention your thought process is invalid. In the novel, repentance isn't enough, merely learning the lesson isn't enough, even when Raskolnikov repents, he is required to confess to a patriarchal authority figure and receive the just punishment for his wickedness, all the while supplicating himself willingly to receive it. Also, you dance away from the fact that his character is defined by a desire to embody the ego of Napoleon, but by a mere failing of his nerves he cannot do it, thus the whole novel hinges on whether one has the nerves to fit a large ego (in which care you actually do become a great man) or one is of a weak disposition and falls to the slave morality of Christianity. That is the whole arc of the main character. You desperately try to deflect from what is the central purpose of the whole book. The work is one of sadomasochism, delving into depravity both in the manner of inflicting pain but also of surrendering to an authority with the power to inflict pain on oneself and feeling that one deserves such a punishment. Again, this is the central story line of the main character. The other characters hardly warrant much attention as they are horribly contrived and trite, and your own post seems to allude to the fact that they are overdone for "juxtaposition". Weak tricks from a hack writer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >defined by a desire to embody the ego of Napoleon
            Anon, Napoleon was a war general, you’re implying that if Raskolnikov merely had the stomach to bear with the fact that he killed two innocent people that that would make him a great man or make what he did right in some way, thats what raskolnikovs twisted sense of morality is, its a rebuttal of the might is right bullshit, not what the book is actually fricking suggesting. The point isn’t that because napoleon had the nerves to kill and raskolnikov doesn’t and that makes raskolnikov a slave, that whole napoleon shit is raskolnikovs way of having a higher “reason” to commit the act, its a delusion and simply a part of the reason why he did it. Raskolnikov killed a fricking grandma and her daughter for money, because she was a landchad AND because of his ego, but no amount of ego will make him anything like napoleon and implying thats the only reason he did it is how I know you read this shit on sparknotes
            > The other characters hardly warrant much attention as they are horribly contrived and trite, and your own post seems to allude to the fact that they are overdone
            >the other characters dont matter
            >seems to allude to the fact that they are overdone
            You really didn’t read this shit lol. Literally talking about “oh the book should reward virtue not writhe in sadomasochism” I give you examples of other characters being virtuous and being uplifted for it and you’re like THAT DOESNT HECKING COUNT. They clearly aren’t overdone juxtaposing because even though you read this shit on spark notes you didn’t fricking realize it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Literally nothing you typed changes the fact that, if Rasky had been a sociopath or psychopath, he would have gotten away scot free and even bettered his position. He would have never been caught, gained financially, and shaped the world slightly more in his own design. The point is that a psychopathic will to power actually will result in a man who enacts change and gains power, and it's only weak slave minded men who don't have the stomach to do it. An actually interesting exploration would be the idea of what would happen if too many men became like this and how it would destabilize society, but that is asking too much of Dosto, so he just has Rasky breakdown into a fevered state for most of the book and act like this is some great moral examination. I say again, if Rasky had no conscience, the book doesn't have a plot, because he would have murdered them, gotten away without a trace, and never thought twice about it. He literally would have taken a step towards the greatness of Napoleon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he is required to confess to a patriarchal authority figure and receive the just punishment for his wickedness, all the while supplicating himself willingly to receive it
            Are you implying that the right course of action after killing two innocent people is to not turn yourself in?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The right course of action is not to take a sick pleasure in a murderous exercise of power over other people and then immediately swing to the other extreme to take yet another kind of twisted pleasure in being dominated by a stand-in daddy figure who will give you what you deserve. Dosto is a deeply perverse author for the reasons I've detailed at length in this thread, and his readers are simple thrill seekers wanting titillation, like soccer moms dabbling in Fifty Shades of Grey. If you like his work, you are basically the equivalent of a reader of harlequin romance novels, which is fine, but don't pretend it's high literature.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >in being dominated by a stand-in daddy figure who will give you what you deserve
            You heard it here folks, if you turn yourself in from the guilt of your own actions you actually just want to get daddy dominated. moron.
            >if Rasky had been a sociopath or psychopath, he would have gotten away scot free and even bettered his position.
            “If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be his punishment”. Psychopaths find no joy in life, they are subhuman. The existence of being a human being who cannot feel emotion is a bigger punishment than any jail cell. Jail is such a punishment, removing time and life from someones life, making a portion of their life literally pointless as punishment, sociopaths entire lives are pointless.
            >bro just sacrifice your consciousness and soul and morals for money and you’ll be good
            No.
            >The point is that a psychopathic will to power actually will result in a man who enacts change and gains power
            There are 2 characters in crime and punishment who have traits like this. One of which is a pedophile who is likely a sociopath as seemingly the onlu thing that brings him any joy in life is pretending he cares for young girls by giving their parents and them money and fricking them, hell this is even an example of a character who destabilizes society in a sense because he preys on the disenfranchised. He ends up killing himself because his psychopathy leads him to dunya not wanting anything to do with him. You speak of some character that simultaneously is psychopathic but also desires some change or has any true desire, they do not. Psychopaths want money and power and sex not because they actually enjoy those things on any level that could be considered human, they enjoy them because they’re the only things their brain can register as a gain. Also on top of exploring these themes through the suitors throughout the novel, they’re also explores through historical figures like napoleon, who you’re literally bringing up and saying the book doesn’t explore them.
            >He literally would have taken a step towards the greatness of Napoleon.
            Yeah and patrick bateman is actually a cool and confident guy. You’re literally a might is right moron going back and forth with a guy on a Lithuanian weaving website. If you think being a sociopath will get you further in life then just be one moron.
            >book should promote virtue
            It does
            >book should explore people who actually go through with their sociopathic actions and dont succumb to hecking christianity slave morality
            It does. And you literally talk about napoleon in comparison with rodion so you know it does, you just won’t give it credit for it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >whats the right course of action after killing two innocent people?
            >erm don’t kill people and if you do don’t turn yourself in because thats daddy 50 shades of gray shit
            You don’t have an actual practical answer for this that resembles anything normal or right because you are neither

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Is it to integrate them? To accept that they are rightful parts of the human experience and to work with them to self actualize; to transcend and include?
            What would this even entail? how do you transcend and include acts like child rape and murdering people for money and your own ego into the human experience? What the frick are you talking about?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To me his characters come across as lunatics and caricatures, but maybe that's how people were in 19th century Russia

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes I read Dostoyevsky when I was young. He's an author for women and young people.
          The older I get the more melodramatic and annoying he seems.
          Nabokov and Gogol are much better Russian writers

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's so weird, people like Jordan Peterson revere him as some kind of guru who has deep profound knowledge, but I have the same impression as you, a really rather gaudy, tasteless author who panders to people's desire for salacious details of local gossip. Hardly the material for any philosophical pondering.

            Anyone can namedrop a bunch of authors that they've never read. This board is utter garbage; we should kill all the worthless posters, such as op, if we're meant to have any wortwhile literaly discussion.

            OP was crass in his formulations and overboard in his contrarianism, but there has been plenty of decent discussion in this thread. Try not to succumb to cynicism completely, find the diamonds in the rough.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's so weird, people like Jordan Peterson revere him as some kind of guru who has deep profound knowledge
            He and his ilk are in love with the idea of ennobling suffering, as far as I remember Peterson literally cries when talking about it. And not coincidentally he also loves Soishenizyn, almost a 20th century reincarnation of Dosto, they even look the same.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We've read what Nabokov had to say about Dostoyevsky; everyone has. You're not being unique or clever by parroting the same opinions over and over again.
            >b-but that's not my opinion as well.
            It isn't. If anything, I'd assume you barely read anything being discussed in this thread.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am making direct and explicit references to dominant themes in Dosto's works. If you can't pick up on that, you are unfamiliar with anything being discussed in this thread

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if you have pedophilia shit but there's Christian themes its bad but if you just have pedophilia shit then its good
          The final chapter with svidrigailov is better than anything nabakov could ever write

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you have striking insights into the human condition, it is likely to be a good book, if you are a melodramatic hack who relies on contrivances and tropes, you are likely to produce bad books. Also, Svidrigailov is another example of Dosto's corrupt thinking, he is a wicked character who doesn't seek redemption through a father figure's hard punishment, and instead kills himself. Everything in the novel is in service of this perverse and twisted mode of thinking and it poisons every aspect of the novel.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    is Pikul any good?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nabakov are... le bad!
    The state of IQfy

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Nabokov is boring
    Literature isn't for you. Even Nabokov's harshest critics would never describe him as "boring"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Despair is a boring novel. The conceit never really lifts off. The central character is too thinly sketched. It's such a rehash of better works

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I only read them in French translations and don't know the "confidential" ones, but among the famous Gogol and Lermontov are certainly much higher than Tolsgoy and Dostoievskringe.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What are your (and other anons) opinions on Aleksey Tolstoy?
    I have Vampires: Stories of the Supernatural that I'm planning on reading soon, which has 4 stories including Upyr and The Family of the Vourdalak, and I was wondering what others think of him/his work.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's a minor author, but he's much better than most contemporary authors.
      >"Vampires: Stories of the Supernatural"
      I read three of the stories from that book, and I found them entertaining.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah nice, thanks!

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I made this chart some time ago

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What can i expect from gogol?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        3 page tangents about how slavs are the most beautiful master race capable of purely unique emotion

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why was 19th russia so based? In music as well you had Tchaikovsky and The Five. What the frick happened?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/Pd3R4JP.jpeg

        I made this chart some time ago

        19th century*

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What the frick happened?
        Judeo-Bolshevism

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We like Dostoevsky because he was the most Greek of all Russians, the reverence comes from his playful Schillerism, not his le human psychology, that’s what makes him even more Greek in that he essentially reads like a visual novel. I feel bad for people that read him as le Russian monk with le soul, idk how you guys swallow that Western/Joseph Frank interpretation so easily when I think real underground readers see him more like a gypsy trickster with a childlike girl follower. That’s what’s actually fun and Greek about his writings

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Russians are the least Greek of all peoples.
      Where is that from?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Weininger's collected remarks and aphorisms

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks.

          That's Polish sci-fi, returd
          [...]
          Dumb coping russoid. Nobody cares about you. Now go cry

          >Nobody cares about you
          This entire thread proves otherwise.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What does 'Greek' even mean in this context?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Greeks were supposed to be the most reverent people that never had a religious prophet or any true religion. Russia represents the most religious people without true reverence. Russians represent the type of people that naturally accept a religion without really understanding why, while the Greek represents a person that constantly tries to recreate it and give it life again and again. It fits in with Spengler's whole thing about the next '1000 years' belonging to 'Dostoevsky Christianity'

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Interesting, is this why the Greeks are often praised as the height of human intellectualism? Because they weren't "chained" to any religion as to their morality and logic?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because they weren't "chained" to any religion as to their morality and logic?
            What do you mean?
            The Greeks were religious and believed that their gods affected their lives. It's true that they weren't monotheistic, but they were far from being atheists

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I thought that's what the other anon meant by
            >Greeks were supposed to be the most reverent people that never had a religious prophet or any true religion.
            To which I was actually going to argue using the point you just mentioned, but I decided not to.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being contrarian and vaguely obscure and under-the-radar is a pretty lame way to go about literature. Just saying.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bigger question is why do you care?

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why do midwits only praise those midwits authors
    I wonder

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >basement dweller who can't come up with anything clever or witty to say is calling authors like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky "midwits"

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anon discovers that angloburgers have shit taste.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are people so contrarian when it comes to Dostoevsky and Tolstoy?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you say that you like thing that a lot of other people like then anonymous thirdworlders on the Udmurt lapti weaving forum won't think that you are cool.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because they’re simply the 2 greatest modern authors and it makes people seethe that they’re both Russian

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >he can't into Chadstoyevsky
    What is Russian for "filtered"?

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who are the authors that I don't even know the name of currently but who I will likely spend a lot of time reading in my Russian language learning journey?
    Basically authors that non-Russians don't care that much about, maybe there was a translation done in the 90s that went out of print, but are essential language learning material?

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a Huysmans of Russia? Specifically someone who has written something like his Durtal novels

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is there a Huysmans of X-country? Maybe try out the symbolists like Sologub, Brysov, Remizov, or Andreyev.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you Russian or can you read Russian?

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bump

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have decided to learn Russian

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't need to learn Russian because I already speak a Slavic language, right? I can just read the books in that language because almost nothing will get lost in translations.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what language do you speak?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Serbo-Croatian

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Crnjo ne seri, nije ti to mim na Telegramu, razumećeš kurac.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jebem ti mater nikad nisam dobio pohvalu što radim tu ko crnac

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nabokov is one of the only good Russian writers of the 20th century and moronic ruskies hate him lmao this is why I can take you people seriously

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Odessa school mogs his boring ass to sleep but a RSL wouldn't know.

      Anyone can namedrop a bunch of authors that they've never read. This board is utter garbage; we should kill all the worthless posters, such as op, if we're meant to have any wortwhile literaly discussion.

      But I read them homosexual, not that difficult.
      >Literaly
      ESL

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Odessa school mogs his boring ass to sleep but a RSL wouldn't know.
        Prove it. Also, ass constructions are gay btw

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone can namedrop a bunch of authors that they've never read. This board is utter garbage; we should kill all the worthless posters, such as op, if we're meant to have any wortwhile literaly discussion.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just bought Dead Souls, what am I in for?

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who are the easiest Russian authors to read?
    Dmitry Glukhovsky?

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How is A Hero of Our Time?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One of my favourites. Short, fun, witty with a grim edge, doesn't drag for a moment.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Soviet Sci-Fi,
    All of it is literal trash compared to western sci-fi.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      false

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any authors who paint a vivid picture of the orthodox church?
    I have a feeling Dostoevsky is more interested in ideas than minutiae

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They probably just aren't as cool and as deep as you are

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Nabokov is boring
    Opinion immediately thrown into the trash

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Go suck pynyas wiener

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Westerners outclass SlavBlack folk on every level, so the fanservice is all we care about.
    Why would we read what Slavs are writing when we've already done it better?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only the French have sometimes reach the level of the Russians. Any other "Westerner" is below them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        All that Russians ever did was imitating western cultural forms, with delay, playing and safe and churning out popular slop while westerners were experimenting with new forms. The kitschy romantic music is a case in point, and so is Dosto, a neurotic, indulgent version of Dickens.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *playing it safe

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All that Russians ever did was imitating western cultural forms, with delay, playing and safe and churning out popular slop while westerners were experimenting with new forms. The kitschy romantic music is a case in point, and so is Dosto, a neurotic, indulgent version of Dickens.

      yawn

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the best textbook for Russian?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *