Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Netochka Nezvanova

I liked it.

He's a very good writer.

so deep

But seriously.

insulted and humiliated is a less known gem

for a guy writing in the 1860s he is surprisingly immediate, the characters feel like human beings

Eh, I like Dosto a lot, but the humanity of his characters is not one of his strengths (Leo takes the cake on that one). I've heard them described as puppet-like and I think that fits. he creates them to illustrate particular ideas and for them to channel emotions. Which works really well, so it's not that they don't feel realistic. They're just not multi-dimensional enough to carry the story by themselves, and again, that wasn't intended either.

>They're just not multi-dimensional enough to carry the story by themselves
But that's what they do, read The Idiot

>reading Dosto translations
Disgusting. I tried once and found it almost unreadable.

>Notes from Underground
>one of Dosto's Big Three

Novels: Demons; The Idiot
Novellas: The Double; The Gambler; Notes from the House of the Dead
Short Stories: 'The Dream of a Ridiculous Man'; 'A Gentle Spirit'; 'A Christmas Tree and a Wedding'

I've read Notes from the Underground, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Brothers Karamazov, The Eternal Husband, and House of the Dead.
Beside Demons, what else is worth reading?

>a gentle spirit
You mean The Meek One?

Yes; both are English titles for 'Кpoткaя'

Take this fwiw but i read somewhere Crime and punishment, the idiot, brothers k, and Devils are the big four if you will

agree

also agree

I have a bone to pick with "A Gentle Spirit" or "A Gentle Creature" because the character is meek, not gentle. There's a big difference. I know this sounds autistic but it's legitimately a bad translation of the title.

The characters are obvious distillations of the philosophies and conditions they represent. But sometimes people are those sorts of distillations. And really, when I look back on my development as a person, those are the conditions which I recognize as the essential part of my identity. These conditions become diluted by some other condition, thereby temporarily causing me to lose a grip on my identity until I recognize the new condition that I'm in. At least that's how my transition away from mid 2000's new atheism has felt. Whatever you think of as your identity is a distillation of some sort. I think multidimensional people are the exception rather than the rule to typical human psychology.

The Idiot is actually up there with the rest.

The Idiot might be his best when detailing the subtle ways of human nature. While The Brothers Karamazov is strong on theological discussions.

you mean the same characters who randomly sperg the fuck out in the middle of conversations for no fucking reason while behaving in an overly dramatic fashion as a reaction to little bits of conversation that oftentimes make no sense at all?

Someone tell me why dosto isn't 100% right in saying that "without God, everything is permitted"

Why would you not murder annoying pawn brokers if you could get away with it?

Because that would be counter-productive to the species. If you could murder whoever annoys you, then anyone can murder you for annoying them. Fewer individuals in the gene pool and a non-cohesive society or something like that.

The Gambler

So instead we should view the world from this darwinian perspective of human societies being ant colonies.

What if a member of the colony is defunct and hinders the progress of the hive? Shouldn't we eliminate them regardless of the established laws than maintain peace and order? Sort of like that utilitarian point of executing an innocent prisoner and allowing the guilty party to go free purely to scare the population and continue the deterrent effects of capital punishment. Sometimes a unlawful murder IS productive for the species. If we executed all homeless people then social workers could be doing more useful things.

Something about that seems unjust, mercenary and cutthroat though. It dehumanises people

look at me, i'm the prince, i'm so innocent yet i have such a deep understanding of the human condition, look at me

>multi-dimensional

>'The Dream of a Ridiculous Man
Is dogshit and about as subtle as Ayn Rand.

Except Dosto never said that in any of his books.

I guess I didn't get crime and punishment then

>counter-productive to the species
If he doesn't give a fuck for the species (which he doesn't if he's doing this), he won't care. You literally go into nothingness when you die, it won't fucking matter.
>then anyone can murder you for annoying them
Retarded implication, because the people that murder are in the minority, but even if did happen, again - why the hell would you care? There are no arguments for any kind of morality or any organized system if you think nothingness comes after death. Dostoevsky was right, everything is permitted without God.

Because without God nothing is permitted. I think Zizek wrote a good piece on this.

We have Constance to thank for translating it as 'gentle'. not sure who first used 'meek', but I can see how 'gentle' isn't strong enough for the character

You are not Russian then. Here he is known as a poor stylist. I read the McDuff translation out of curiosity and it was better than the original.

Dream of a Ridiculous man is his best work desu. It basically sums up his gimmick without filler.

The Dream of a Ridiculous man is his best short story. Better than Notes from Underground and the gambler

zizek.uk/if-there-is-a-god-then-anything-is-permitted/

I guess you mean this one. Makes fair points, but it doesn't exactly solve the problem of life being superficial and pointless without transcendental values. I almost envy the jihadi in that article. At least he has purpose.

He says so at least in Brother Karamazov.

I don't know why critics discard "The Adolescent" (or "A Raw Youth"). I read it at 19 and thought it quite good.
The short story "The Christmas Tree and the Wedding" was the first thing by Dostoevsky I read - truly mesmerizing and brilliant.
There's another story about dead people lying in their graves and quarrelling with each other which was darkly comical - Gogol-esque. Can't remember the title - but it was one word. Bobok or Vobok or something.
"The Crocodile" is a similarly grim-comedic gem.
All the other great works have been listed by the clever anons here.

Only the Constance Garnett translation is good for that short story.

Demons is actually the best book ever written

I agree Dostoyevsky thought that, but he gave the words to the atheist Ivan who was mocking religious people.

That is one theme of Crime and Punishment but not the only one.

AS others have said, the idiot does a great job of breaking this. Also, if you examine his characters carefully enough you'll find more humanity.
Check how actions and words don't always line up.

I think you're trivializing the discussion. In most simple terms, classic philosophy (up to the Enlightment) stated that there is an external universal point of reference to human consciousness (God, or universal objective truths, or an omnipresent observation — it doesn't matter how you name that function), and, by extension, that each thinking human being (thinking in philosophical sense) is a manifestation of that goodness. Modern philosophy found that such “pure” reason is impossible, and there is no such universal goodness to appeal to (Nietzsche finalized that as “God is dead”). It hasn't stopped after that, because philosophical apparatus had to be recreated on a new basis (e. g. collective activity of less than perfect individuals), and new laws (including moral ones) had to be revealed. Bastardization of these developments in secular urban societies is what Dostoyevski reacted to, less like a philosopher that explains the wrongness, and more like an artists that feels it. Obviously, as a devout Christian, he was a man of old classic ideals.

> There are no arguments for any kind of morality or any organized system if you think nothingness comes after death.

Erm, modern and post-modern thought actually uses human finality as one of the main preconditions for morality.

I'm reading it right now, it's very entertaining

Thanks, I am probably going to read the Christmas short story next

Should I read The Idiot next? I've read Bros K and gave up 1/3 in C&P (long story, but I didn't have any time back then) or should I go and get C&P over with before The Idiot?

The statement is absolutely correct for those whose moral center is around faith, religious teachings and fear of God and who lack self awareness. But not everyone is like that. Dosto's understanding of human nature is too shallow, as is of everyone else's that believes this bullshit

Please don't make such a stupid post again

>Dosto's understanding of human nature is too shallow
Jesus.