I've in the first few chapters of picrelated and it's currently the same old Dostoevsky fare, a bunch of hysterical basedjak-esque ranting characters that are parodies of 1800s Russian liberals. I'm getting nothing from it.

Is there any point in continuing with this? I got nothing from The Brothers Karamazov as well.

>>24545841 (OP)
You have to keep going, it will take a couple hundred pages until you're hooked. If you reach that stage, it's definitely worthwhile. A great book.

>>24545844
>it will take a couple hundred pages until you're hooked

Is this ironic?

>>24545872
No, that was my experience.

>>24545841 (OP)
you will learn nothing from it, don't fall for lit propaganda. it's same hysteria,crimes, atheism bad etc

>>24545841 (OP)
The story is very similar to that of our times, in some ways.

>>24545841 (OP)
I think it's Dosto's best. Very interesting insight into a pre-revolution Russia where you really feel the evil of the modern world being born. The omniscient second/first person narrator means Dosto doesn't have too be autistic and can just let the characters and actions play out without needing to constantly justify it through his writing.
Like the other anon said, it takes a while to get into it as the first hundred and so pages are pretty boring compared to what happens later.

>>24545841 (OP)
>I'm getting nothing from it.
>Is there any point in continuing with this? I got nothing from The Brothers Karamazov as well.
No.
Also: it's bad to be you.

>>24545841 (OP)
Chuds are always concerned about their liberals. His complaints are the same complaints that chuds nowadays make.

He said all that over a hundred years ago and guess what? The world didn't end.

>>24545844
>>24545874
Had the same experience. It takes a while to get going.

>>24545841 (OP)
This book is in my cart (except it was the oxford version) for a while, been thinking of buying it but from what I heard this is unlike his other work is a cautionary tales of le heckin nihilism, wonder if he's going too preachy on that subject in here

>>24547836
It's not really preachy

>>24545841 (OP)
>i got nothing from the brothers karamazov
You didnt enjoy the part where Dmitri throws a big party and pays for a whole cart full of wine and food to impress Grushenka?

>>24547763
Yeah you're right, the world didn't end, just ignore everything that happened in the century and a half between publication and the present

>>24545841 (OP)
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.

>>24545841 (OP)
I have no idea how much of a parody those characters were compared to 19th century russian liberals, but I was shocked how accurate and similar Stavrogin's orbiters were to current day western liberals. Their mindset, their actions, their motivations, their ultimate failure and incompetence, it was a terrifyingly accurate depiction of the pseudo revolutionary mindset we are seeing in today's society.

>>24545841 (OP)
Anon you don't understand it literally predicted [political group I don't like]!

>>24548668
To understand this, one needs to know a little about the political landscape of the Russian Empire. Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky is a reflection of a typical Russian liberal of the post-Pushkin era, 30-40s. Many then gathered in Belinsky's circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vissarion_Belinsky Then Nicholas I, frightened by the revolutions of 1848, introduced strict censorship and a police regime; for about 10 years, the entire opposition fell silent or went underground. When the 60s came and the Great Reforms began, Stepan Trofimovich decided that he could return to the political scene, but a new generation had already grown up there, "nihilists", "new people" who laughed at the old-fashioned liberalism of Verkhovensky Sr. The prototype of Pyotr Verkhovensky was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Nechaev

>>24547763
>He said all that over a hundred years ago and guess what?
State collapsed and international terrorist cult seized power and murdered several million people?
>>24548668
>I was shocked how accurate and similar Stavrogin's orbiters were to current day western liberals
I always laugh when chuds compare modern west to Weimar Germany (with the tone of "yes everything is bad, but just you wait, the Nazis will come and save us"), because it's so much more similar to 1905-1917 Russia, and you guys are about to get Bronstein instead of Hitler.

>>24547763
not that im a chud, but you really dont think that the world has already ended? its just a corpse being puppeteered and raped continuously for perpetuity

>>24547763
The point isn’t that the world is ending, but that modernism psychologically aggravates the average person and inundates them with a sense of meaninglessness.

I wish Stavrogin would treat me roughly

>>24549358
Ok Liza

>>24545841 (OP)
Almost every author, Dostoevsky included, writes the same book over and over in various incarnations. The same underlying theme and subtext is there every time, as a projection of the person's character. So no, you won't enjoy it if you don't like his other work. Most bookworms love to read the same book repeatedly, so they don't often notice.

>>24547763
The world isn't ended so I guess everything is fine then.

>>24548668
As I said on a thread a few days ago, Dosto really predicted Antifa in Demons. That annoying feminist school girl who thought she was smarter than everyone else is a proto-Redditor.

>>24548768
it's just a very well written character study on psychopaths who co-opt political movements and how easily they can influence and radicalize stupid young people who believe a noble, idealistic goal justifies any means. If you don't see any similarities to our current political climate, then you are likely one of those politically captured individuals.

>>24545841 (OP)
>I got nothing from The Brothers Karamazov as well.
If you didn't enjoy that one, you're not going to enjoy this one. Maybe try Gogol instead. Dead Souls.

>>24545841 (OP)
>bro... Bro it's just like he predicted, like... woke...
>Basedtoevsky... bro... he's so heckin' based...

>>24549916
Since when did lefties become so proud of being illiterate buffoons? Weren't you always the ones pretending to be smart intellectuals and shit? What happened?

>>24550016
>To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Basedtoevsky

>>24545841 (OP)
>here's 10 different characters with three different names each (just memorise them or sth)
>here's each of their entire damn life stories
>now here's 69 different scenarios where they make social indiscretions against each other over tea (don't worry, I'll leave in every tangential detail)
>Buttfuckovich made a faux pas, oh no!
>Some bullshit about nihilism
>Viagrakov's wife faints
>self-proclaimed proponents of modernity and progress do bad thing, therefore modernity and progress bad (nothing bad happened before the 19th century or under Tsarism obviously)

I'm kidding, it's a great book. It's just slow for the first couple hundred pages, as another anon pointed out. The bit where Stavrogin visits the

>>24550335
The bit where Stavrogin visits the priest is very moving. It was left out of the original publication i think

stavrogin did nothing wrong

>>24550040
Not at all, Dostoevsky is not a difficult to read author, he writes in clear words and his work has very clearly defined themes and easy to understand messages.
Your complete and utter inability to understand his work even on the most basic level however does mean that you likely have a very low IQ. Either that or your brain is completely rotted by politics and because the group that happens to be heavily mocked and criticized in Demons consists of easily manipulated, radicalized useful idiots, you feel personally attacked because you identify with those types of people.

>>24549916
haha dude imagine if dosto had a podcast.. thatd be so based.fuckin owning the leftoids every week. i'd subsrcibe to that shit in a heartbeat bro like fr tho

>>24551309
dosto wouldn't own shit, just overdose on christ copium "muh humanity must believe in le god!" He said verbatim that he would prefer to remain with Christ than with the truth. Pussy nigga can't stare into the abyss like a man

>>24551309
LIterally every 19th century author (male or female, any race, color and creed) would despise your kind with a passion, including Karl Marx himself.

>>24545841 (OP)
>I'm getting nothing from it.
>Is there any point in continuing with this? I got nothing from The Brothers Karamazov as well.
no

>>24550347
It was, I think without this chapter the ending doesn't make any sense, so I'm glad in modern editions it's included

>>24551668
do they put something in the water nowadays that makes people so debilitatingly autistic that they cant tell when someone is being ironic/sarcastic?

>>24551695
I know you were sarcastic. When I said "your kind" I obviously meant emotionally fragile leftists like yourself and the guy you were replying to. My point simply was that you need to stop crying about Dostoevsky because you think he's got it out for your shit political ideals, when in reality, every single person throughout human history prior to the 21st century would feel the same way about you people, including your own leftist heroes.

>>24551710
i was not even that anon, but are you automatically a leftist for thinking gay faggots grifter retards like joe rogan and lex fridman are annoying and gay fags? every gay cunt nowadays has a podcast. i dont have to like and consume it non-stop like you.

>>24551710
>including your own leftist heroes.
Based and truthpilled. Marx and Castro would despise modern day, race conscious Marxists. Although the same is easily said about the right. Hitler and Mosley wouldn't have any patience for the 21st century fascist.

>>24551710
>guys he's so based
>stop laughing at him
>guysssssss stoppppp stop ittttt
>he's based!! guys stoppp!!
>STOP MAKING FUN OF BASEDTOEVSKY GUYS
>STOP IIIIIIIT

>>24551782
What are you talking about? I personally love this recent anti-intellectualism movement that the left has fallen into. You're absolutely right anon, Dostoevsky is too based for you, 19th century authors are too based for you, in fact classical literature as a whole is too based for you. There is no need for you to be well read and educated in the western canon, leave that stuff to the conservatives.

>>24550016
They’ve always been this way. Intellectualism is a veneer for leftists meant for in-group signaling, but when you question or disagree with their views they won’t engage in intellectual rhetoric. Rather, they’ll engage in reductive mockery or explain their views to you in sarcastic, patronizing small talk. There is a reason people became more right over the past decade.
>>24551529
Again, the point is that people have an irrational function which is tied to their capacity to feel meaning, purpose, and fulfillment. Modernity psychologically aggravates and places truth on a high pedestal, and logic becomes worshipped as an infallible god at the expense of a complete dynamic view of human experience (which includes rationality - but is not limited to it). This isn’t even a point limited to religious people, the author you referenced was an irrationalist influenced by Dosto.

>Dostoyevsky
Worst author I've ever been memed into reading.

>>24551839
>>24552212
>He's So. Heckin'. BASED!!!!!!
>Basedtoevesky!!!! Zomg so based!!!
>Chadtoevesky!!! Based chad ourguy!!!!
>Based based based!!!

>>24552263
Irony will not fill the void in your heart. Just remember God loves you ;^)

>>24552269
>Basedtoevesky!!!!!

>>24551668
bro hear me out:
what if dosto ha d a substack. he could call it "notes from underground" thatd be hella fucking sick! hot fire from the dostostack, straight to your inbox
damn i wish i lived in based 19c russia

>>24552302
God still loves you!

>>24552372
>Heckin' BASED!!!!

>>24547763
Bolsheviks happened anon.
he predicted bolshevism years ago. In devils and the idiot he mentioned how there was a growing pollutants,a sub species of anti state liberals who hate their own kind,nation and culture that they will do anything to destroy it.even if they have to stand in the corpses of 100 million people.

>>24552382
He does!

>>24552212
>Criticizes logic for being valued too highly
>Creates a logical case for this position
Theists never stood a chance

>>24552533
It’s as much a logical case as it is a psychological one. Which is completely in line with everything I said. You’re seeing what you want to see.

>>24552678
My point is that you automatically go about making a case on the lines of logic, thus somewhat undermining your claim that logic is too highly valued. You advocate one thing, but then are terrified of the actual implications of your own position.

what translation of dostoevsky should i read. katz or p&v?

>>24552477
>Le BASED

>>24552727
Again, you’re seeing what you want to see. I claimed that human beings have a rational function as much as they have irrational ones. I’m making a case in favor of psychological well being which goes against logic, which doesn’t mean that the argument cannot be legible or sensible or true. You’re confining yourself within narrow parameters and then projecting that onto me.

>>24552922
You're still automatically formulating your thoughts purely through the logical side. The logical side uses a kind of utilitarian calculation to deduce the most beneficial formulation of values. Since you are using this model as your basis for choosing values, you've already placed it as the primary value through which every other value passes. You cannot use this type of thinking to de-value the basis of that thinking, you merely contradict and undermine yourself. Try actually reading and comprehending what I am saying before you use a knee-jerk response like "but projection".

>>24545841 (OP)
It's a fantastic book. It's very funny. There's so many great moments, like when Stepan Trofimovich publishes his poetry, the narrator tells him there's nothing offensive about it, and Stepan become sulky and offended because he wants to be this provocateur, but he's just this wet noodle of a man who has no cohesive ideology and ultimately stands for nothing but a bunch of worthless platitudes. The way Varvara tries to arrange a marriage for him and tries selling it to the woman by saying she'll rule him because he's a pathetic manchild got me good. I had no idea Dostoevsky could be so funny before reading this.

>>24547763
Yeah remember all that colonisation, genociding natives and Jews, subjugating women and putting homosexuals to death... And guess what? The world didn't end.

>>24545841 (OP)
> same old Dostoevsky fare
Dostoyevsky is inherently political. If you're for some reason (maybe you agree with him, maybe you disagree but want to "pen-test" your philosophical position, etc) interested in his political critique of liberalism/nihilism/egoism - read on. Otherwise you're not gonna get much from it.
Then again I prefer Turgenev, so me and Dosto are coming from diametrically opposed positions.

>>24545844
>it will take a couple hundred pages until you're hooked
Sounds like Dostoyevsky doesn't know how to write.

>>24554443
How can anyone disagree with Dostojevsky's politics in Demons though? I mean, in this book he is depicting a perversion of liberalism that historically has brought about an unfathomable amount of death and suffering. It's not like he's criticising liberalism as a whole so that as a liberal you'd feel obligated to disagree with him.
Liberals would probably get the most out of reading a book like Demons, because in it, he is describing how their ideology and their good intentions can be manipulated and used against them. Demons isn't a critique on liberalism, it's a warning of how liberal ideals can be used as a weapon to destabilize a country and bring about a ruthless, sociopathic communist regime and that's exactly what happened in the end so you can't even dismiss his warning as paranoid and schizo, it actually happened.

>>24554491
> It's not like he's criticising liberalism as a whole
Except, he is. The whole basis of Dostoyevsky's ideology is that liberalism/nihilism is a gateway drug to terror, muder and lawlessness (he got the details of what bolshevism would look like wrong, but I can't blame him for that), and that liberals are "useful idiots" who will secure a foothold for tyrants and dictators to come. This is a general proposition, and it is consistent throughout his writing.
I disagree because I think Dostoyevsky is too focused on his distaste for liberal atheism and arrogance to recognize that the problem is more general. Any time your society is undergoing rapid change, there is a danger for a "strongman" figure to come and take over. Same how when you're operating on someone's body and slicing them open to stitch them up later, the risk for infection is much higher. This doesn't mean that operating on someone is never to be done - whether the infection does occur or not has to do with the specifics of how it was conducted, and whether the surgeons sterilized their equipment properly or not. Revolutions sometimes result in this, and sometimes don't - for example, not every post-soviet country slid back into dictatorship. Similarly, Russia was not condemned to tyranny the moment the first revolutionary movements started brewing. It did pan out this way, though.

>>24545841 (OP)
Greatest passage in the history of literature

>>24547763
That the world hasn't ended is only evidence of how much humanity deserves to continue to suffer.

>>24554711
You know it's meant to be ironic, right? He's not being based, he's being clueless. He celebrates the emancipation of the serfs and other liberal ideals. Stepan is basically the lberal boomer whose ideas gave birth to the next, more radical generation of Pytor and Starvrogin, who actively despise things like literature, art, nationalism, etc.

>>24554730
Read the book again as it's obvious you didn't get it. The Stepan in the beginning of the book is not the same as the one at the end of the book.

>>24548305
That part i likes.

>>24547763
>the world didn't physically end
>therefore accept the way the world turned out because you're alive and be happy about it
This is your brain on liberalism. Any form of materialistic existence is better than none, no matter if the standards of living are lower (oh but we live longer so that must mean quality of life is better!), society is just an empty shell, and no one is genuinely happy because we have become so disconncected from higher ideals.

>>24554734
I get that, he goes through a cycle and at the reading he realises what he's done and finds redemption as he nears death. But he still wasn't le based chud at the begining, he was still a liberal who becomes increasingly absent minded and ideologically possessed with liberal thinking.

>>24554739
You said that part I posted was meant ironically. It wasn't. When Stepan (AKA Dostoevsky in a sense) said that he meant it 100%. Yes, he was a liberal, but in the end he changed his beliefs.
At least that's how I read it.

>>24554741
You may be right, it's been a while since I read it and my only real takeaway from the character of Stepan was that he was the precipe of what's to come ideologically. Of course I saw through the self-insertism but I just assumed it was Dosto apologising for being involved in radical circles when he was younger and accepting his part in the downfall of Russia.

>>24554745
I read it like Stepan became more disillusioned from atheism and liberalism through his son Pjotr, because when he came into the city, he saw what his liberalism led to

>>24554711
>Stepan Trofimovich shrieked
Kek

>>24554736
> we have become so disconncected from higher ideals.
The only thing that has happened is that the default higher ideal that you had, materially, no choice about adopting or not has been dismantled.
If you are too weak to invent your own, or pick out of a million causes that are now available - that is your problem to fix. No one is coming to help you with that.

>>24555269
>you’re too weak minded to invent your own… le meaning
Here we have the midwit’s favorite pithy statement with no semblance in reality or recognition of his own logic. The point isn’t that there are a million higher ideals to “chose” from (you probably don’t even believe you get to chose), but there are none because the standards and parameters of acceptable and justified belief are so narrow now. Any higher ideals is a superstition if you are honest with yourself.

>>24554256
Again, you’re refusing to engage with the point I made a million times and are applying massive rhetorical generalizations I don’t accept.

>>24555316
>Gets undeniably refuted on a fundamental level
>"Umm... Nuh uh"
Now you're engaging your illogical side! Well done!

>>24545872
One hundred pages is not very much.

>>24555470
>Now you're engaging your illogical side! Well done!
Then doesn’t that undeniably refute your claim :^)

>>24555470
Yes, I literally said “nun-uh” as if I didn’t explain multiple times already what I meant. Your argument is such a restrictive parameter of rhetoric that you cannot meaningfully argue against it, so it’s damn near pointless to even argue against or criticize. You keep assuming that there is a contradiction between formulating an argument and necessarily recognizing the limits of logic in relation to human psychology which needs to be acknowledged to live a fulfilled life. When I said that both exist and have validity under certain contexts. But whatever, chalk this up as one of your internet debates you won if it makes you feel better. That’s not a compliment, because a good argument is something you can effectively criticize which scares pedants such as yourself. This is also why I take pride in my argument.

>>24555583
You betray your own position. If you place "living a fulfilled life" as most valuable, and then use logic to meet psychological needs in order to fulfill that value, you cannot then undermine the very tool you have already assessed as necessary for obtaining your stated goal. I have had to repeat this several times but you can't engage with my criticism and simply retreat into the same unexamined position which I have pointed out is inconsistent with itself. Sad.

is demons a good book?

>>24555291
> (you probably don’t even believe you get to chose)
I very much do believe that, actually. I chose for myself and modified what I chose somewhat. I think you have it in you to do it, too.
> the standards and parameters of acceptable and justified belief are so narrow now
Do me and you even live in the same reality, man? I have access to the same internet you do. Sure, now prigs who like performing morality are more visible. I'll even grant you that they influence mainstream culture a lot more than before, although I have doubts about whether that's true. But... does anyone force you to care what's written in the New York Times? Or about the exact flavour of woke in the most recent Disney slop? Or about the fact that students at your nearest Ivy League probably believe you are a nazi and deserve life in prison?
Yes, if you must see a reflection of yourself in culture or have some public figure validate your every action as "acceptable" you will, in 2025, have a bad time. But you don't have to do all that, it only matters if you let it matter.

>>24545841 (OP)
Brainlet

>>24549602
I'm reading Brothers K right now and it's crazy how Reddit Smerdyakov is. That entire moving a mountain with a grain of rice monologue he does is something ripped straight off of r/atheism
CAPTCHA: RVTVR

>>24559127
It is questionable whether one can really discuss the aspects of ''realism'' or of ''human experience'' when considering an author whose gallery of characters consists almost exclusively of neurotics and lunatics. Besides all this, Dostoyevsky's characters have yet another remarkable feature: Throughout the book they do not develop as personalities. We get them all complete at the beginning of the tale, and so they remain without any considerable changes, although their surroundings may alter and the most extraordinary things may happen to them. In the case of Raskolnikov in ''Crime and Punishment,'' for instance, we see a man go from premeditated murder to the promise of an achievement of some kind of harmony with the outer world, but all this happens somehow from without: Innerly even Raskolnikov does not go through any true development of personality, and the other heroes of Dostoyevsky do even less so. The only thing that develops, vacillates, takes unexpected sharp turns, deviates completely to include new people and circumstances, is the plot. Let us always remember that basically Dostoyevsky is a writer of mystery stories where every character, once introduced to us, remains the same to the bitter end, complete with his special features and personal habits, and that they all are treated throughout the book they happen to be in like chessmen in a complicated chess problem. Being an intricate plotter, Dostoyevsky succeeds in holding the reader's attention; he builds up his climaxes and keeps up his suspenses with consummate mastery. But if you reread a book of his you have already read once so that you are familiar with the surprises and complications of the plot, you will at once realize that the suspense you experienced during the first reading is simply not there anymore. The misadventures of human dignity which form Dostoyevsky's favorite theme are as much allied to the farce as to the drama. In indulging his farcical side and being at the same time deprived of any real sense of humor, Dostoyevsky is sometimes dangerously near to sinking into garrulous and vulgar nonsense. (The relationship between a strong-willed hysterical old woman and a weak hysterical old man, the story of which occupies the first hundred pages of ''The Possessed,'' is tedious, being unreal.) The farcical intrigue which is mixed with tragedy is obviously a foreign importation; there is something second-rate French in the structure of his plots.

>>24548305
I like the part where he runs to his friend’s house holding a big bundle of bloody cash and frantically begs him for a place to stash it. He’s completely innocent btw.

>>24545841 (OP)
if you don't like dostoyevsky, no. drop it. i love him and that's my favorite, but i admit that all of his work is the same.

>>24545841 (OP)
Here's every Dostoevsky novel.
>Do I cum on this whore's tits... or do I not! Heh! Heh! Heh! Truly, I am a sick man, to even think of the fact of when I cum on the tits of a whore. Truly that is so. Yes, yes, it is. But to cum is to be divine. For didn't our Savior experience the fiery ecstasy when he was assumed into Heaven? And is that ecstasy, being that as it is, that good feeling, isn't that also itself cumming! Heh! To cum on a whore's tits would be most divine indeed if it were not for the fires of Hell. Oh were it not for Hell I would cum on a whore's tits! I am a disgusting vermin, like a rat, because fire is like flame. Yes, yes, it is, fire is like flame. And flame is hot. And so Hell is hot. But so is my cum when it goes out of my penis! Heh! Heh! To cum on a whore's tits... that is the same thing as going to Hell! And that is divine! Heh! I am such a delirious man... the heat from this summer's day makes me sweat like the day is made of fire... like Hell is made of fire. For even Christ's flesh burned when it was touched by the flame that is like hot fire, did it not? Yes, truly it did, yes. But did Christ cum on a whore's tits? To even think of saying a thing like that is horrible! To even think of saying a thing like that is blasphemous! But I am such a sick man... I am a disgusting creature... to cum! To cum like Hell! For that is a thing that happens to us sinners... Oh us wretched sinners! Oh us horrible, twisted people! Save us, save us Lord, save us from our fiery cum! And the whores! The whores will burn too! Heh! Heh! Heh!
Dostofags will tell you this is great literature.

>>24559547
>Let us always remember that basically Dostoyevsky is a writer of mystery stories where every character, once introduced to us, remains the same to the bitter end
pleb take, doystoy's characters are mature men, already established characters who aren't easily swayed by the empathy on a lunatic criminal or the heartfelt weeps of a christian slut. while reading and especially after seeing raskolnikov changing a little bit toward the end and ultimately committing to sonya's promise of kissing the earth and confessing his sin, i was concerned he'd be easily swayed and feel the guilt of his actions, and to my great satisfaction he wasn't, even after being imprisoned, and that's what makes him interesting. because despite all the preaching from sonya, the only and first person he personally confessed to, his resolve didn't binge and even after being imprisoned he still doesn't understand what's so criminal about his actions. that is a great character. the void in his heart cannot be filled by just a lone girl, it needs time and effort, and that's great writing. so i don't know what you're implying by saying a character doesn't need to change is bad, since that's obviously false and moronic.

>>24559127
He's really 4chan wishing he was Reddit and accepted by normies.

There's now FOUR Dosto threads in the catalogue, Nabby spammer, and you will bump all of them

>>24560022
Wait a minute, THIS is what leftoids who never read a single Dostoevsky novel actually think he's all about? Lmao, this is what all the seething about Dostoevsky stems from?

Anon, Dostoevsky novels aren't written like this at all. Maybe Notes from the Underground can be a bit preachy and pretentious, but that short story is very different from his main novels. His philosophical ideas and christian morals are set in the background as a subtext. In the foreground are crime and family dramas with the main goal being to entertain a readership of serialized publications that wanted exciting twists and mysteries, cliffhangers and page-turners. Dostoevsky is not nearly as high brow, dry and philosophical as you media illiterate lefties think he is. He's in many ways one of the grandfathers of the modern psychological crime thriller.

>>24560498
Kant

>>24560374
It is, as in all Dostoyevsky's novels, a rush and tumble of words with endless repetitions, mutterings aside, a verbal overflow which shocks the reader after, say, Lermontov's transparent and beautifully poised prose. Dostoyevsky as we know is a great seeker after truth, a genius of spiritual morbidity, but as we also know he is not a great writer in the sense Tolstoy, Pushkin and Chekhov are. And, I repeat, not because the world he creates is unreal -all the worlds of writers are unreal - but because it is created too hastily without any sense of that harmony and economy which the most irrational masterpiece is bound to comply with (in order to be a masterpiece). Indeed, in a sense Dostoyevsky is much too rational in his crude methods, and though his facts are but spiritual facts and his characters mere ideas in the likeness of people, their interplay and development are actuated by the mechanical methods of the earthbound and conventional novels of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

>>24560498
It is now when I am needed most

>>24560597
> Claims others are seething over Dostoevsky, as he seethes over a simple joke about Dostoevsky
Average insufferable Dotoesvsky reader

>>24560741
You redditors keep making the same tired "joke". It's lame and it's gay and it's always the exact fucking same. Also, aren't you a Dostoevsky reader as well? Or why would you get so mad at an author whose work you have never even read in the first place?

>>24545841 (OP)
No, sounds like there isn't. Sounds like you're too cool for this shit. I would just buy a Harley Davidson dude.

>>24560498
Actually six. We did it, Dosto bros

I was having so much fun with Maria Timofeyevna and then she disappeared. I'm hoping she'll return later on, I'm about 300 pages in.

>>24560741
What's the joke exactly? Can you explain it?

I prefer the movie

>>24554535
Dostoyevsky was a huge lib, he was just religious so he hated all the atheist libs

OP here, I gave it a further attempt but gave up. What a screed of endless social drama and gibbering. It was so tough to follow because every character rattles off some story or hysterical rambling that supposedly represents some genius facet of a caricature of someone who isn't a fucking disgustingly old bearded religious ascetic. But I get bored by the end of the page and zone out.

Really... I'm supposed to find this character le funny and this one le based... and this is all an allegory for something... Looks like a soap opera to me.

I looked at Goodreads and cringed at the positive reviews.

>>24562416
Ironically your post sounds virtually identical to all the one star reviews posted by women on goodreads

>>24545841 (OP)
Stepan Trofimovich is probably the most humane treatment of a type of character that Dostoevsky probably detested in real life I’ve read in any of his books. Knowing what Dostoevsky got up to in the 40s gave me a much deeper appreciation of how he handled what is on the surface quite a ridiculous character. Dostoevsky makes you laugh at him sure, but also pity him deeply, not a very easy thing to do

>>24563510
This, I was surprised that he portrayed some of the liberal types relatively sympathetically (even if the novel's point is that they enabled the Verkhovenskys and Stavrogins of the next generation). Dostoevsky clearly knew them intimately and not just as caricatures. Hell, even the narrator pities Erkel, the #1 Verkhovensky zealot and makes a point of how he gives half his salary to his sick mom.

>>24555269
>yes yes society as a whole lacking higher ideals is fine it's completely fine that everything modern society represents was established to demoralise you and everyone else yes yes you're just a weak pussy because because because
Unironically, kys.

>>24562179
What film?

>>24562416
>Really... I'm supposed to find this character le funny and this one le based... and this is all an allegory for something...
What happened to you that you became like this? Who told you that you're supposed to do anything of the sort? If you don't find a character funny naturally, why the fuck would you obsess over it and think that you are supposed to find them funny and you not having the reaction you think you are supposed to have reflects negatively on the book you are reading? Everything you are saying is just so idiotic. Is this how you read every book? With a list in your head of things you are supposed to do, characters you are supposed to feel certain ways about, allegories you have to spot?