>"My position in regard to Dostoevski is a curious and difficult one. In all my courses I approach literature from the only point of view that literature interests me —namely the point of view of enduring art and individual genius. From this point of view Dostoevski is not a great writer, but a rather mediocre one—with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between. In Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov for some reason or other kills an old female pawnbroker and her sister. Justice in the shape of an inexorable police officer closes slowly in on him until in the end he is driven to a public confession, and through the love of a noble prostitute he is brought to a spiritual regeneration that 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. My difficulty, however, is that not all the readers to whom I talk in this or other classes are experienced. A good third, I should say, do not know the difference between real literature and pseudoliterature, and to such readers Dostoevski may seem more important and more artistic than such trash as our American historical novels or things called From Here to Eternity and such like balderdash."
Other than the established fact that he has absolutely no regard for human life, can we have a discussion about Nabokov's ideals with regards to art and literature, I suppose, in this case with reference to Dostoyevsky, being the ? Do you think his criticism is warranted? Why or why not? I've included a snippet from his lectures on Russian literature.
His taste was actually pretty awful and he had a very narrow view of what a novel should be like, dismissing everything that didn't cater specifically to him personally.
Benjamin Reyes
>Dostoevski'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." Just as I have no ear for music, I have to my regret no ear for Dostoevski the Prophet.
And with specific reference to his writing: >In the light of the historical development of artistic vision, Dostoevski is a very fascinating phenomenon. If you examine closely any of his works, say The Brothers Karamazov, you will note that the natural background and all things relevant to the perception of the senses hardly exist. What landscape there is is a landscape of ideas, a moral landscape. The weather does not exist in his world, so it does not much matter how people dress. Dostoevski characterizes his people through situation, through ethical matters, their psychological reactions, their inside ripples. After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance any more in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist, say Tolstoy, who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment.
Can this be attributed to mere stylistic differences, or does it point to Dostoyevsky's failures as an artist?
James Moore
stylistic. dostoevsky was primarily concerned with the internal and how the characters themselves view the world and their own being.
Tolstoy preferred a more balanced approach that tilted towards the external and how characters interact with each other and project their selves to the society around them
Lincoln Kelly
>After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance any more in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist, say Tolstoy, who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment. I really lile this because I don't have a particularly vivid graphical imagination.
Caleb Anderson
So basically, Nabokov is just an angry man who wants to voice an opinion without having any sound arguments other than "I dislike it, so it's bad!"
Lucas Bennett
Yes, none of this is something that's wrong. Lucky for us, literature wasn't catered for him.
Nicholas Williams
>Just as I have no ear for music It shows.
Angel Cook
I think this is in regards to Nabokov's assertion that Dostoyevsky sees his characters more as symbols and ideas rather than fleshed out entities with human depth. Yes, Nabokov stresses letting the characters, rather the author's moral sympathies, dictate the progression of the story.
Ian Cruz
Dostoyevsky was a novelist whereas nabakov was a writer
Brody Adams
I believe his issues boiled down to this: 1) The characters often seem excessive and overly sentimental, and thus feeling forced and contrived, though this can perhaps be explained by their often neurotic personalities and "wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity".
2) Nabokov also felt having so many characters mentally ill in one shape or form was cheating in a way, because it was too simple a plot device to explain away inconsistencies in character actions and personalities (again the idea of characters not acting of their own agency but of the ulterior moral sentiment of the author e.g. Dostoyevsky wanting to illustrate the dangers of the new radical political thinking of the day, but having to invent twelve different motives on top of Raskolnikov's debilitating mental condition to make the cold blooded murder of the old woman consistent with his supposd good nature, the character as idea vs character as human entity thing)
3) The romantic archetypical humiliated noble girl (Dunya, Sonya, etc.)
4) All characters talking the same (long winded philosophical dialogues where all the characters seem to speak like the author)
5) World building and naturalism (the "specific gestures" thing) The charge being that Dostoyevsky has no feel for the world and his novels reading more like plays. (also note the "talking the same" criticism)
6) Cliched writing (a lot of "paling" and "hand-wringing" and "trembling")
Justin Foster
What does Nabokov know about anything? He dismissed Faulkner though Faulkner towered over him.
Jack Barnes
>All characters talking the same I haven't read Dosotevsky in a while but this isn't true is it?
Carson Jackson
Also characters like Svidrigailov who were unrealistically evil with vague motives and characters like Myshkin from The Idiot and Alyosha from The Brothers K that were literal saints and unrealistically good. Of course I'm not saying I agree with these charges but they are interesting to ponder.
Nathan Morales
>literal saints He was religous after all.
Dylan Allen
Regarding your first point, can't this also boil down to culture? Russian culture is kind of excessive when it comes to prose and expressing oneself in general, at least in my experience, and I can only imagine it couldn't have been any less in Dostoyevsky's time?
Bentley Gomez
Defintely not true
Austin Bell
>corncobbers believe this
David Torres
It's been a while since I've read Dostoyevsky as well, but Nabokov might have been a little picky on this point, since it was important in establishing a character's authenticity. I would say Nabokov was very good at perceiving and replicating the nuances of different tones of speech however, from Humbert's eloquent sophistry and the mother's philistine sensibilities, to Lolita's endearing teenage slang.
Jaxson Butler
I actually have to agree with Nabokov's points on religion in Dostoyevsky's work. I can't help but feel Crime and Punishment would have been better if it was detailing a man's descent into psychosis and simply left out the religious ending. It felt so hamfisted.
Blake Young
And literal saints exist.
Leo Williams
It was a parallel to Dostoevsky's own conversation, if anything that's how things unveil in real life.
Henry Murphy
It was a conversation that would have been better of left for an essay.
Liam Cooper
I think Nabokov is referring more to how long-winded and repetitious some characters speaking to themselves or to others. I don't think it's a cultural thing seeing as Nabokov also talks about Turgenev, Gogol, and Tolstoy in his other lectures on Russian literature.
Sebastian King
Agreed, that narrowness and bitchiness does make him fun to read though. Like how he pretends he's a prude in his Joyce lecture and in some others.
Carter Martin
Also poor already dead Henry James...why did everyone need to shit on him.
Landon Powell
He wasn't very good.
Charles Collins
Nabokov was an awful writer, ESPECIALLY as a stylist. It's a shame that he continues to be lauded as a genius both here and in the wider literary community.
John Price
Nabokov's theories in lepidoptery are currently more regarded than his literary ones.
Isaac Harris
>He was a genius and ahead of his time Ftfy
Luke Allen
this. Nabokov wrote with his head so far up his own ass I can smell farts on his every word.
Brayden Nelson
you're thinking of Henry Miller perhaps
Chase Reed
>Alyosha >unrealistic
That says more about you than about Dostoevsky
James Hughes
Dostoevsky was probably the most philosophically deep author ever, that's why Neitzsche loved him. He's probably the most artistically deep as well.
All of you Dosty haters are just atheist newfags from reddit. If you're not convinced Dosty is the greatest, just speak to Constantine, he's like the smartest poster on this board.
Christopher Ross
dosto was a philosopher nabby was a novelist
Matthew Phillips
disagree
Jason Hall
this is by far my least favorite lit meme.
Justin Clark
>Nabokov stresses letting the characters, rather the author's moral sympathies, dictate the progression of the story. but that´s a cliche and a lie.
Christian Bailey
Nabokov disliked moralizing in art. Dostoevsky's aesthetic is disagreeable to him like food that upsets his digestion.
That would completely subvert Dostoevsky's theme. People who simplify Dostoevsky as having a psychological disorder forget that the idea of psychological disorder was the secular usurping of the spiritual disorder. If you read Brothers K or Note from Underground, you can see Dostoevsky's utter contempt for the Freethinker perspective of his time that crime is just a product of people's faculty for rational self-interest being impaired.
Isaiah Williams
i imagine perfectly nabokov in a note to dosto. im sorry, your carachters aren´t real enough. no discernible talent.
Samuel Taylor
no, not really
Jose Fisher
I like the words themselves, but the depth of the novel is equal to the depth of a John Green reading teenager.
Nolan Rogers
Yeah, if one word define Nabokov's writing, it's "cosmetic".
Tyler Rodriguez
I suppose to the more experienced and cynical Nabokov, this was a fair point.
David Richardson
Can someone explain the origin of this meme to me?
Nolan Bell
Too bad Nabokov never spent time with monks
Nabokov used the term "corncobby" in criticizing Faulkner's writing
>Nabokov used the term "corncobby" in criticizing Faulkner's writing
Ah, I see. What did he mean by this?
Asher Walker
Apparently in one of Faulkner's potboilers a girl gets raped with a corncob
Ethan Ortiz
Please no, Cornfather
Adrian Miller
Ah, yeah I just googled it. It's in Sanctuary. Haven't read that one. Thanks for clearing that up- it always baffled me. Nabokov's lack of ability to appreciate Faulkner reflects worse on him than it does on Faulkner. Faulkner is an amazing writer.
Daniel Parker
Depends on the character. Some of the smaller, bit characters do, and on rare occasion a more important character. But the main figures in his work don't. It's easy to distinguish between, for example, Prince Myshkin and Aloysha (despite being similar characters). Fyodor Pavlovich, on the other hand, sounds like no one else in any of D's works.
Tyler Peterson
sounds like good material for another rewrite thread desu
James Johnson
I'm an atheist, and despite that Fyodor is my favorite author. While I don't believe in the actual, literal existence of the persons or events in religious scripture, I do find myself agreeing with and internalization a lot of morals and overall points of scripture. In this sense I often find myself relating to Dostoyevsky's characters more than any other characters in any medium.
Landon Hernandez
You're in good company. Kafka also was very moved by Dostoevsky, more than any other writer.
I haven't even read much Nietzsche and I see that quote over and over again about Dostoevsky being the only "psychologist" he ever learned anything from. I'm surprised you haven't.
Jace Cooper
Sorry, the only letters I read are Joyce's.
I've read 'Human, All Too Human' and 'Beyond Good and Evil', so far.
No mention of Dostoevsky in either.
Brody Bailey
>the only letters I read are Joyce's.
Aaron Perry
You had an arse full of farts that night, darling, and I fucked them out of you, big fat fellows, long windy ones, quick little merry cracks and a lot of tiny little naughty farties ending in a long gush from your hole. It is wonderful to fuck a farting woman when every fuck drives one out of her. I think I would know Nora’s fart anywhere. I think I could pick hers out in a roomful of farting women. It is a rather girlish noise not like the wet windy fart which I imagine fat wives have. It is sudden and dry and dirty like what a bold girl would let off in fun in a school dormitory at night. I hope Nora will let off no end of her farts in my face so that I may know their smell also.
Thomas Russell
are you really this new?
Joseph Garcia
You can read the letters in question in Kaufmann's anthologies
Sebastian Walker
dostoy had a very difficult life didn't he? I remember reading somewhere that he wished he wasn't so rushed in his writing so that he could've focused more on the details and subtleties
Jaxson Mitchell
Did maximum security hard labor for several years for being a communist, had quite a struggle when he got out as well.
>His vision of mankind had been horribly twisted by the time spent in prison, and partially due to the atrocities and the terrible stories he heard, he became convinced that man can live only through suffering. By suffering, man could eventually find hope and love; through God's path, man had a future. This would be Dostoevsky's affirming the same Christian (Romans 5:3-4) philosophy held by Gogol (pic related).
Dostoevsky didn't come up with her perspective on suffering to deal with it, more he finally understood the philosophy of suffering he already subscribed to as an Orthodox Christian youtube.com/watch?v=XP0J2eDPIjU
Anthony Brooks
*his perspective
Zachary Morris
Constantine, are you American? I noticed you posting in the Ellison thread and I have never noticed anyone outside of America reading him. I'm just intrigued to see how keen you seem to be on Eastern Orthodoxy, not that that's a bad thing, just unusual.
Colton Lopez
I'm American and Orthodox, yeah.
Thomas Thomas
Unusual for Americans, that is. I've probably met more Muslims or Buddhists than Eastern Christians. I would like to learn more about the religion but have no idea where to start. Personally, I was baptized Catholic as an infant and I fell away from them. My faith in God is superficial.
Blake Bailey
I see. I was just curious. I posted here Thank you for your posts. It's nice to see some better contributions on Dostoevsky. Since he's so popular, we rarely get posts that delve deeper into his work. Many of us, myself included, were introduced early on to him in our literary education and I have been amazed by how great Dos remains years later. I used to prefer Tolstoy but now I can hardly read him.
Julian Reed
there's no epub/mobi version of this anywhere, is there?
Brandon Jenkins
It's pretty easy to get from a library. Coincidentally I ran into it today while browsing the stacks.
Isaac Allen
Here is an FAQ and reading list I made for people interested in Orthodox Christianity: pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
I dunno about this dude but I always find similar comments to this irl kinda funny. People who've known you a while will ask shit like "why are you suddenly interested orthodox christianity/some part of eastern European culture". I've even known some people tell me one day I'm obsessed and go on about it too much and a couple of days later ask me why I'm suddenly into this as if I've never mentioned it before. And then you've got to go through this whole awkward thing of "it's my culture m8".
I imagine it's better in America but this is more or less the deal around ethnically British people. Even the liberal ones are pretty racist tbqh.
Colton Cox
You Northern or Southern?
Julian Collins
My dutch translator added a note in the back of Demons to state that he felt like he had failed to translate (and i'm quoting) "the great effort Dostoevsky put into making the characters speak according to their background". The translator marked several sayings, specifically by Fedja the convict that Dosto had picked up off actual convicts in his time in Omsk.
So yeah, nah. Fy Nabby.
Connor Peterson
Thank you, Constantine. I've always wanted to learn more about the great star in the east.
I've spent some time in Southern England so I know what you are talking about. Nonetheless, I didn't mean to seem like some sort of gawker when I asked Constantine. There are far more "exotic" people than Eastern Christians here in California, I just haven't met many. I have always wanted to learn more about their faith since they are the oldest followers.
Cooper Cooper
I'm an american living in a non-english speaking country, don't think I'll find a copy of it so easily.
Josiah Flores
Ah, crap. Well, you could try soulseek or #bookz. I think you mentioned you already tried torrenting.
Daniel Edwards
>valuing the sentimentalist and misunderstanding the sensitive
Charles Ward
jesus that haircut >JUST
James Hall
gotta agree with here, it's like these filthy philistines need to be told explicitly what to think instead of developing their own meanings, which, ironically, is the whole tenet of existentialism
if any of you took off your rose tinted christianity glasses for a moment, you will realize that for anyone over 16 years of age who have outgrown their romantic inclinations, the way dostoevski shoves that shit in your face gets overbearing quick
>waaah nabokov doesn't explicitly give me a moral message, therefore his writing has no substance >being this new and shallow of a reader
Nicholas Kelly
>gotta agree with (You) # here I was shitposting but thanks.
Brayden Collins
one man's shitpost is another's treasure is how the saying goes right
Blake King
But Nabokov does make for a shallow read. There is nothing in him to take away from, it doesn't need to be a moral message. Plenty of authors with substance don't have one. Nabokov himself admitted that he has no substance, but he phrased it more nicely
Jaxson King
...
Nathaniel Hall
the fucking embarrassment in this thread jerking off a trip that is not even particularly clever too stupid to read nabokov circlejerking orthodoxy implying dostoevsky is a good writer, not a pernicious journalist
Henry Rivera
Who are a few authors with substance that don't have a moral message?
Robert Sanchez
>again, thinking you need to "take" something away >being this much of a pleb
Henry Brooks
dostoevsky is pretty fucking deep, fuck off to your john green books newfag cuck
I bet your an athiest as well
Ryan Bailey
...
Kevin Martinez
Joyce for example. Or John Williams. Having a theme is different from having a message or something to prove, which Dostoevsky or Tolstoy did. Yes, I need to take something to make the reading experience worthwhile. Reading Nabokov is no more fruitful than masturbation.
Parker Lopez
>Joyce for example. Or John Williams. >Having a theme is different from having a message or something to prove, which Dostoevsky or Tolstoy did.
Gotcha, thanks for the response
Daniel White
>be Russian >pick up saxophone on a whim >holy shit I'm really good at this saxophone >don't really need any training at all >just doodle doot doot on the saxophone, people love me >amazing at this saxophone >people ask how I'm so good >tell them I can smell colors >"I just smell them," I say >"This note is blue" *toot* >"This one is orange" *toot toot* >everyone claps >release one magnum opus after another by tooting the correct color combinations, directly from my soul to your ear >listen to other saxophone players >clearly I am better >listen to some of the ones considered the absolute best in the world >none of them are fucking blue enough >get angry >call them all shit erratically >randomly say certain ones are okay >people ask me to explain >"can't you see? there isn't enough blue in that one! the orange balance is all off!!!!!!!!! this fucking guy doesn't even put reds in his yellows after a green movement!!!!!!!!!" >try to found a new aesthetic theory where the search to understand harmony and beauty and soul and emotion are all retarded horseshit and everyone should just listen to my personal toot toot theories about color combos forever >die a bald russian faggot >unique synesthesia brain rots in ground >burn in hell >no one cares about my aesthetics ever again for eternity >people keep quoting my toot ratings out of context because they're vaguely familiar with my symphony about child-fucking
Michael Gomez
sorry too long didn't read is this one of those funny r9k greentext stories?
Evan Nelson
top kek mate
Dylan Flores
>But Nabokov does make for a shallow read. >There is nothing in him to take away from, it doesn't need to be a moral message.
Not quite. He just explores how art can fail supply people with a lasting, fulfilling sense of transcendence and the sublime, the simultaneous fallacy of, and tendency of people toward, Romanticism and solipcism, and how people view art, love, etc.
I don't really get the "Nabokov has no substance" meme. Just because it's not didactic doesn't mean it doesn't offer meaningful, often cathartic, commentary on the human condition.
Blake Hall
Nothing which you talk about has been dealt with in what I've read from him. Maybe I've read his worst, but these aren't anywhere to be seen, unless you read so much into it you start inserting you own views into him.
