Why does this book feel so much more modern and less dated than American literature from the same era?

Why does this book feel so much more modern and less dated than American literature from the same era?

Because Dostoyevsky was one of the major Proto-Existentialists. It is less that Dostoyevsky sounds modern an more that early modern writers were all Dostoyevskyian.

Because what you're reading is a fucking translation and not the real thing. If you have read it in russian you'd think it's just as outdated as American Literature from the same time.

But some of the characters feel so modern. Rashkolnikov and Razumikhin, for instance, could easily be jaded millenial college students. They have this mindset that you don't see in old fashioned American books.

Bullshit, retard. The themes are what make it modern not the language. C&P just as modern in the 1914 translation.

> If you have read it in russian you'd think it's just as outdated as American Literature from the same time.

Heh, no. “Great Russian Literature” style is just two centuries old, it hasn't changed much yet.

because Dostoevsky was a great writer
wrong
waste of dubs

it sounds like you're universalizing experiences solely because of the time period. Take a moment to think about the cultural and intellectual influences on both America (transcendentalism, Western expansionism, regionalized attitudes towards slavery) and Russia (massive restructuring of agriculture and education, freeing of millions of serfs, war in Crimea and the Caucasus) during the time period and the answer might be clearer than you think

The book even has a cuck in it.

Every classic does

im reading it right now

i hope raskolnikov axes his mom in the next act shes so annoying

He confess in the end and goes to jail, razumikhin marries dunya and sonya follows rodya to siberia, his mother dies in the end because of a disease.

wew

Rude

hi your a shitcunt

Cunt.

Didn't read lol

>all these plebs who think spoilers affect enjoyment of good literature

I was always confused about the "cuckhold's horns". What does this mean?

>mfw he even said he'd bring men to her wife to fuck
he was a real bro tho

well I think that if the writer didn't tell you the ending in the preface maybe he meant the book to be read as it is

I don't remember reading that.
Dosto would be a complete /pol/tard if he lived today.

Nope, he was a christian-socialist.

>spoilers for a 150 year old book

>reading classic literature for plot

this

>dostoevskysthegambler.jpg

>Proto-Existentialists

Dostoevsky is different from many writers of his time because of the dialogic structure.

Not russian here, but still a Slav - horns are a symbol for cucks, basically.

That's a stupid argument. The user isn't 150 years old.
Admittedly, spoilers are still completely irrelevant. I had C&P spoiled pretty hard and it was an incredible experience nonetheless. Heck, practically all of my favourite books were spoiled to me before I read them.

I never understood what people mean by calling a piece of art dated. It's a fucking book, not an egg that goes bad or something.

>>reading classic literature for plot

you don't read for plot. you read for narrative. the arrangement of events and the management/creation/subversion of expectation is a rhetorical tool to be used by the author and an important part of the discourse.

But his books were very anti-socialist

>He was a socialist
Pffffftttt in the same way a national socialist is a socialist lmao

They were anti-revolutions, not anti-socialists. Dosto believed in a socialism that can be achieved without a revolution, with the sheer goodness of men.

Dostos on socialism

"The socialists want to regenerate humans, to liberate them, to present them without God and the family. They conclude that having forcibly changed the economic way humans live they will achieve their goals. But humans are transformed not from external reasons but only from moral changes."

So no, to Dostos socialism at all was a purely materialistic doctrine that could not be reconciled with religion

He was clearly refering to the russian socialists of his time, which is not an incorrect description. That phrase only proves that he hated a Godless and revolutionary socialism, that's why I said he was a christian-socialist, because he believed in a good socialism that could walk alongside christianity and would be achieved by the pure goodness in men alone, not with wars, revolutions or arguments, but when all men agree within their hearts that wanting the good to all others is the only way to live correctly in a society.

>Because what you're reading is a fucking translation
The most popular translation is a century old. Are you..retarded?

>mfw Lebezyatnikov the filthy socialist goes on a monologue about the communes.
Wew lad, just like the brainwashed socialists of today.

Nazis were socialists.

>Literally says that socialism is a worthless and materialistic worldview that will not help mankind
>But bruh he is still a socialist
Just neck yourself , he literally says that socialism as an economic practice is not beneficial to mankind at all.

No, Nazis did not give the means of production to the worker so that they could seize their surplus value. That were corporatist command economy that still allowed for private ownership of the means of production

Because Russia has been around for thousands of years, while America was relatively new in the 1800's. It wasn't as developed yet.

>reading the Garnett translation

Garnett is the standard English translator of Dostoevsky.

No she isn't. She is the public domain translation.

mb coz its a translation?

Why do people keep saying this retarded shit|?