"You look at that horse, Fyodor, and you think you know what he's thinking...

the god complex being that he thinks he's god, whereas Dosty knows his place.

...

Evidently I don't, faggot. Wanna fight about it?

but seriously, that does explain the tone of tolstoy to me vs dostoevsky, dosty knowing that he's just a man, a vermin, a nonentity, thus bringing out a fevered mirror of intense emotional characteristics of those around him and a wealth of introspection, and tolstoy being a generally socially adroit man of sufficiently respected family name being fairly solipsistic, moving and crafting characters as pawns, while all the time speaking from an ultimate authority, never being forced to question his activities or reason, he glows with confidence to the point that it's the one thread that connects all his characters, that they don't have access to the range of emotions that a person experiences from a feeling of helplessness and cowardice and self hatred, and thus only seem a bare simulacrum of what a human really is at their depths.

>but seriously, that does explain
(...)

That's because you are not a born artist. You dont have it in you. Sorry.

Did Tolstoy actually say this?

I just sperged out reading this, I devoutly support his form of Christianity but if he is this much of a pleb/rhetorician I can't follow his ways.

Just did some research this quote is bullshit.

fucking underrated

though this causes me much pain, i must simply disagree.

>Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

>4 And when he sowed, some eyebrows fell by the sides of the face, and the razor came and shaved them off:

>5 Some fell upon unclean skin, where they had not much cleanliness: and forthwith they fell out, because they had no deepness of forehead skin:

>6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no moisturizer, they withered away.

>7 And some fell among the fashion of the times; and the tweezers came, and plucked them:

>8 But other fell into good skin, and brought forth bushiness, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

>9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear

>tolstoy being a generally socially adroit man
Why even spend your time writing a 100 word post when you don't know what you're talking about?

Both were complete assholes, weren't they? I know Dostoevsky struggled with gambling addiction and not being a prick to people, at the least:

thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/08/dostoevsky-on-feminism/

>At the parties I gave, Dostoevsky showed himself to be a charming person. He told his stories, and he displayed his wit and humor, as well as his unusual and original way of thinking. As a new person entered the room, however, Dostoevsky became silent for a moment and looked like a snail retreating into its shell, or like a silent and evil-looking pagan idol. And this lasted until the newcomer produced a good impression on him…. If the stranger engaged Dostoevsky in conversation, one generally heard him make some rude remark, or saw a sour look on his face.

sounds like a cool dude desu

You didn't quote the best part!

“So, listen to me. My speech will be much shorter than yours. I want to tell you this: all that you told me now was very stupid and banal. Do you understand me? It was stupid. It would be better to dispense with you, in this matter, but your family, your children and your kitchen cannot survive without a woman … a woman has only one main purpose in life: to be a wife and a mother … there is no, there was no, and there will not be any other ‘social purpose’ of a woman. This is all stupidity, senseless talk, and gibberish. All that you have told me here is nonsense, do you hear me? It was nonsense, and I am not going to say anything else to you.”

It was a different time.

Dosto LITERALLY did nothing wrong.

>tolstoy
>not a partymonster chad who liked to fuck bitches and get wasted
>not considered one of the greatest depictors of popular society amongst russian aristocracy in existence

k bro

Wow he was even more based than I knew.

>Such intricate and not very good impression was produced by Dostoevsky on Anna Grigoryevna Dostoyevskaya (Snitkina) when on October 4, 1866 she first came to him to do some shorthand job. To a twenty-year-old girl Dostoevsky seemed old and sick. He immediately confirmed the impression telling her that he suffered from epilepsy and had had a fit. Besides he was absent-minded and several times asked his future assistant what her name was. "I left Dostoevsky's place feeling very sad. I didn't like him and had a very distressing impression," recollected Anna Grigoryevna her first meeting with her husband many years later.

I guess Dostoevsky wasn't an asshole after all. Not sure where I picked that up from. Sorry guys.

tolstoy vs dostoevsky at their prime, one on one, mano o mano, fist to fist. who wins?

Tolstoy, no contest.

Another 1856 entry: 'Disgusting. Girls. Stupid music, girls, heat, cigarette smoke, girls, girls, girls.' Turgenev, whose house he was then using like a hotel, gives another glimpse of Tolstoy in 1856: 'Drinking bouts, gypsies, cards all night long, and then sleeps like the dead until two in the afternoon.' When Tolstoy was in the country, especially on his own estate, he took his pick of the prettier serf-girls. These occasionally excited more than simple lust on his part. He wrote later of Yasnaya Polyana, I remember the nights I spent there, and Dunyasha's beauty and youth... her strong, womanly body.'

sounds like a chad to me.

To paraphrase Oswald Spengler: When Tolstoy tried to become a Christian he ended up as a socialist, whereas when Dostoevsky explored Christianity he was more like an apostle.

Wasn't Dosty a manlet? I'm not sure why, but i have always had this impression.

>stupid music

wtf music wasnt invented back then?

he heard the russian equivalent of lil yachty while waiting for his samovar (bong) to heat up.

People here should really read Tolstoy's Confession.

Tolstoy would definitely win a fair fistfight but Dosto spent years in prison and the gulag, he'd let Lev get close then shank him in the ribs.

Dosty is way fucking deeper than tolstoy. Tolstoy wrote about posh people and fancy balls while Dosty wrote about the fucking meaning of life and other deep themes where tolstoy was just on about fucking posh people

Why do people here keep talking about things they don't know shit. Don't you feel ashamed even when you're anonymous? Jesus

if this is not bait (which i strongly suspect it is) you should attempt to read Tolstoy's earlier works more critically and look at his later, less read, more religious works which more overtly consider "the fucking meaning of life and other deep themes" that you seem to find absent elsewhere. Resurrection, The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Father Sergius or How Much Land Does a Man Need? would all be good places to start.

it's not that tolstoy didn't approach deep themes, but rather that when the entities he creates need to feel something that signifies genuine frenzy, something that people mistake for melodrama in Dosty, when in reality, people truly do act with melodrama, they yell and fume and even pretend and make a show of their emotions, and act. that's where tolstoy fails, in his utter confidence, he misses the aspect of acting and melodrama in himself, and thus misses it in others.

Kek. This.