Can someone please explain the appeal of dostoyevesky...

Interesting. I totally agree with you. I was struggling through Brothers K and I started googling it to find what I was supposed to be getting out of it. All of the people praising it would talk about how Dosty was SO GREAT at analyzing people and their behavior and showing different parts of the spectrum of humanity.

However, I have not been able to find anything particularly insightful or different about these characters and the way that they're written.

what books do you like?

>Dostoyevsky's characters don't feel human at all, they're neurotic and damaged.
Probably because Dostoevsky was neurotic and damaged.

>Dostoyevsky's characters don't feel human at all, they're neurotic and damaged
How does that make them inhuman

Bad ones

fag

I was genuinely curious since I love Dostoevsky and wonder what kinda books someone who doesn't like him would read.

Didnt Neitzsche call Dostoyevsky the greatest psychologist he ever learned anything from? Ive only read Crime and Punishment and I felt that Raskoinikolv felt surprisingly real to me. I related a lot to his though lt processes when he was in the midst of commiting the act, its the same feeling and thoughts I experience when I do something bad that i try to rationalize and betray my emotions

>though lt
Thought*

The psychological motivations of the characters are very realistic, the reason his dialouge sounds akward is because the characters speak much more philosophically than people do in real life, on top of the fact its translated from Russian.

Try a different translation OP

You're not fully wrong here. I find all the women in his books to be loud, bombastic, immature, and unabashed. I'm not sure if he is trying to lay down a form of criticism on Russian Aristocratic society by creating such unbelievable characters, or I'm being presentist by trying to draw a line to 19th century behavior with 21 century behavior. I'm simply not sure.

Either way, his characters are often long winded and robust; filled with hidden agendas. I may not be fully a fan, but I certainly do appreciate the few books I have read of his.

Perhaps people in this thread will be so kind as to explain in more detail Dostoevsky's purpose, style, and themes for us laymen. I would appreciate it very much.

I'm not this guy ^ So he's the fag. Not me.

I like Moby Dick, Lolita, the stories of Raymond Carver, Confessions of a Mask, Hawaii by James Michener, James Clavell's Asia saga, Ask the Dust by John Fante, the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard, Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy, Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry, From Hell by Alan Moore, among many others. Those were just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

He called Dostoevsky the only psychologist he ever learned from

>Really they like this aspect of him, this pseudo-profound analysis of the human condition, that's full of errors of causation

Examples?

im him:
also, what do you like about Dostoevsky, if you don't mind me asking?

>post quickly begins blathering about people the poster doesn't like
Typical.

Smerdyakov murdering his father because Ivan said God don't real is a prime example. There is literally not a single person alive who only didn't murder because they believed in God.

Tolstoy is better.

Hi Constantine.

The Death of Ivan Ilyich is much better than anything Dostoevsky ever wrote.

>There is literally not a single person alive who only didn't murder because they believed in God.
What a grand assumption. You'd be surprised how consumed people become by their ideas.

Thats not saying much since Tolstoy is one of the single greatest writers to ever grace our Earth and is literally a gift to humanity. Dostoyevsky is still an amazing author

Still, it's implausible and stupid, and perpetuates the retarded "Christianity is necessary for morals" myth.

I am in the midst of reading this delightful book.

Both Tolstoy and Dos were great artists, in their differing ways (which Steiner explores beautifully) and it is foolish to dismiss either one.

>perpetuates the retarded "Christianity is necessary for morals" myth.
No it doesnt. In Dostoyevskys place and time, Christianity really was the foundation of morals and with the introduction of atheism, people really were commiting acts like in C&P. Even though its insane today in western civilization to think that the absence of god permits murder, that was really happening in Russia at the time.

>that was really happening in Russia at the time.
Not the person you just replied to, but... REALLY?
Can you give me some kind of source on this. I'm a fan of history of ideas, and this kind of thing plays right into my wheel house.

This is from the footnotes of the newest edition of C&P. Crime rates among the lower and UPPER CLASS were shooting up at the time. Dostoyevsky blamed the ideas of the youth for these crimes.

I personally dont believe atheism was the direct cause of said crimes, but I believe the shock that atheism had on the culture caused certained individuals to radicalize (such as Raskoinikolv)

>reading Dostoyevsky as Existential Literature

He has cool courtroom scenes where people scream at each other as well as cool murder plots. What other reason should you read him for?

In seriousness though, the power comes more from the way the dialogues mesh together rather than their content. An example would be how Ivan's Grand Inquisitor Speech is immediately contrasted with Father Zossima's, and then after Zossima dies, the whole deal regarding his corpse's stench causes him to be made fun of. P&V talked about the polyphony of voices in their Introduction to Karamazov. No voice is exactly given full stature. Even Alyosha, who is usually seen as the 'voice of reason' - Dostoyevsky had planned it so that he would become the greatest terrorist in the later volumes that he never wrote.

Furthermore, even if the dialogue itself is purposely bombastic, the personality types at their core are well made. Pavlovich Karamazov, for example, decides to 'play the fool' to the furthest extent even though he knows that he's just making a joke of himself. That kind of personality type, you see everywhere in the world. People who give themselves up to self-deprecation and decide to go all the way. Dostoyevsky was just making his dialogue more entertaining by taking it to such a manic extent.

But that's why I like reading him. Dostoyevsky is fun. It's that simple. If you want hyper-realism, try reading the short stories of Irwin Shaw.

/thread

>picks an author that predates Dostoyevsky by 200 years

Are you brazilian?

That's a very interesting footnote. However, I am still wonder if any historian has done quantitative research on this topic; The rise of crime during this period and if it correlates with any "idea", "economics", or "event" in particular.

Would be very interesting.

...

Sorry for late reply was watching Inherent Vice. I study philosophy (and film, heh) so seeing characters juggle back and fourth with questions of ideology all while watching how they handle situations is right up my alley. From the first chapter of C&P I was hooked. I'm really excited to read Brothers K soon but gotta get that readers comprehension up first.

I'll probably read Blood Meridian soon truthfully. I am new to Veeky Forums and have not read much before about a month ago (save for the schoolwork and occasional philosophy) any words of advice beforehand?

Holy shit, this reductionism. I know the "pleb" thing is overplayed on here but if that's all you got out of it (assuming you actually read BK), I am inclined to call you one.

Just because you don't take the time to think about what you're reading, rather than simply analyzing at a surface level, doesn't mean everyone else is wrong, you contrarian faggot. Like there are youtube videos (free uni lectures) that are 30 mins long that can explain this shit (and most of the underlying themes within the whole novel), yet you can't be bothered so you come onto Veeky Forums and shitpost.

Your criticisms of Dosto are equivalent to atheist arguments of "sky man xD and muh contradictions".

Take note that Veeky Forums darling David Foster Wallace empathized the most with Smerdyakov. He wrote it in his Joseph Frank essay.

>Like there are youtube videos (free uni lectures) that are 30 mins long that can explain this shit

not him, but link please?

The appeal of Dostoevsky for me is the drama and psychological insights he puts into his books. The characters speak for themselves and you're exposed to a myriad views that are all realistic enough to make you believe that there was, and maybe is, someone out there that's in such a frenzied state; there is someone like Ivan, obsessed with existential questions and harried by his inability to find concrete answers and embrace faith; there is someone like Raskolnikov who wanted to test himself and his idea to the point of being willing to murder someone and following through, and his subsequent fear and trembling at, ostensibly, being caught, but more importantly being wrong about an idea he so cherishes.
Much of his work is dealing with people clinging to a single idea like this and Dostoevsky pulls that belief to its limit to show us what is at the very core of our being when we act in a way that overrides our normal temperance.
The drama of his works is just incredible, and I think Crime and Punishment is the most exemplary of all his corpus in this regard. His novels, and especially Crime and Punishment, have a certain rhythm to them that captures you and doesn't let you go, and forces you to give yourself up to it. Schiller wrote that the tragic poet's goal is to rob us of our emotional freedom, and to direct all our spiritual and intellectual powers in one direction, and Dostoevsky achieves this.

This. I think that his character's dialogue is unrealistic but it is all to show the depth of the character underneath that is very profound and emphasize that it is the passions of a man that drive him, not reason

>asking some guy on Veeky Forums instead of using google
The absolute state of Veeky Forums

searching "brothers karamazov lecture" on youtube gives me tons, but i am asking so i could see what user would recommend.

I haven't considered that the dialogues are unrealistic. I actually think they're pretty realistic when you consider that many of the dialogues involve one person who's highly passionate, like Myshkin, Raskolnikov, and Ivan. I can't really imagine dialogues with any of these people being normal in the way two perfectly healthy people would be normal. What do you think?

>I can't really imagine dialogues with any of these people being normal in the way two perfectly healthy people would be normal.
That is true. I should have said the characters are so passionate that it seems unrealistic but in reality, all men have the such passions that drive him. I cannot say I have met a Myshkin-like person in my life but I see elements of the character in myself and others. Thats why I think critics deride his characters, they exemplify the passions of mankind that are covered of with well-mannered logic and reasoning. Sorry if this is weird, I have been drinking.

true.

not everyone is a boring normie. some people are like dosto characters, some are not. people who claim dosto's characters are unrealistic are very closeminded, as in my opinion, they're incredibly human.

Or maybe he wrote fictional stories in fictional situations you fucking turbosperg.

>he cant talk about an author/book/thing without making projections which put IMAX to shame

Jesus christ the autism in this thread is weapons-grade.

>any words of advice beforehand?

it's not as difficult as some people make it out to be. since i'd already read The Road, I was sort of used to McCarthy's writing style and creative punctuating. I would say just pretend you're sitting by a campfire, listening to an old man telling a story. Don't try to overanalyze anything, don't get frustrated if something seems confusing, or if it's hard to tell who's talking, or if there's too much spanish. Just kind of let it wash over you and listen to the words and let yourself be immersed in the story.

at the end of the day it's just a western.

Why you say that?

#triggered

I would possibly post a longer reply if 99% of the reactions on here weren't mass impotent rage

You are entitled to your opinion but holy crap is this a dumb opinion.

> His fans are always people who don't understand people at all, but are obsessed with creating models that "explain behavior".

You treat Dosto like he's some kind of Pavlovian/Freudian who's always focused on causation. Seriously, In all the Dosto novels I've read this has never crossed my mind. Dosto (especially in later years) was a fundamentally religious person and it makes a lot more sense to analyze him along those lines.

> Really they like this aspect of him, this pseudo-profound analysis of the human condition

Ignoring the "pseudo-profound" part of this, yes a lot of people empathize with his characters and what they say about the human condition. I do too, and I think Dosto has written some of the most compelling characters I've read. Father Zossima's love of Christ and man is powerful. Raskolnikov's struggle with guilt and his feelings of anger are powerful. A lot of characters are fundamentally broken people who you see sow seeds of destruction in their own lives, just like real people.

Besides, that's not the only reason to like Dosto. He has clear, informative prose that can paint amazing scenes (think "The Grand Inquisitor"). Often his plots are compelling in and of themselves--who killed father K? Will Raskolnikov get a way with it, etc? He is a good writer even ignoring his deep characterization.

> More advanced thinkers see right through his bullshit

Please point me to these "more advanced thinkers," as I would love to hear what examples they provide for this thesis and what alternative, superior authors they champion.

>You treat Dosto like he's some kind of Pavlovian/Freudian who's always focused on causation. Seriously, In all the Dosto novels I've read this has never crossed my mind. Dosto (especially in later years) was a fundamentally religious person and it makes a lot more sense to analyze him along those lines.
You just implicitly contradicted yourself.

Dostoevky’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.

>Often his plots are compelling in and of themselves--who killed father K?
If you didn't see it was Smerdyakov coming from ten miles away, then you're fucking retarded.

This, monotone is a great way to describe it. I read TBK, and it was insanely long and weepy for how monotone it was. It was worth the read, but it was not worth gushing over. I see why he's worth reading but he doesn't transcend, unlike the seeming opinion of half of his fans.

That's exactly my point. Claiming my favorite authors idolize him is stupid.

Or maybe you're just autismo and believe weird things about yourself and thus Dostoevsky's fucking weird-ass characters appeal to your sensibilities.

Absorbing as Crime and Punishment is, it cannot be absolved of tendentiousness, which is Dostoevsky's invariable flaw. He is a partisan, whose fierce perspective is always explicit in what he writes. His design upon us is to raise us, like Lazarus, from our own nihilism and skepticism, and then convert us to Orthodoxy. Writers as eminent as Chekhov and Nabokov have been unable to abide him; to them he was scarcely an artist, but a shrill would-be prophet. I myself, with each rereading, find Crime and Punishment an ordeal, dreadfully powerful but somewhat pernicious, almost as though it were Macbeth composed by Macbeth himself.
-Harold Bloom

And he's exactly right. Dostoevsky could write a good character but when you really get down to it, it's just Christian propagandizing.

>Alyosha going terrorist
Holy shit what, gimme a source

>Pavlovich Karamazov, for example, decides to 'play the fool' to the furthest extent even though he knows that he's just making a joke of himself. That kind of personality type, you see everywhere in the world. People who give themselves up to self-deprecation and decide to go all the way
Are you really claiming the father was a buffoon as some sort of response to existential angst? That he's choosing to act that way? Fuck free will, most class clown types I know feel absolutely impelled to be the way they are, it's no real "choice"

>Dostoyevsky is fun.
You're joking, right? His novels are tediously long and are filled with nothing but gloomy weeping, huge passion and sadness. He's the exact opposite of a "fun read".

I've never felt bored reading Brothers K at all.

"Not bored" and "fun" are different emotions.

user pulled it out of his asshole

Because he's good at depicting the process of thinking.

Whats an example of a writer that does understand people?

>inb4 Tolstoy

Are all of Dostoevsky's books just temper tantrums about morality relativism?

Me desu

The plot of demons was based on a true murder of someone Dostoevsky knew.

>implying Dostoevsky ISN'T fun
>implying some of his over the top, neurotic characters aren't some of the best and well written
/reddit/ is that way>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Maybe you should read some genre shite, perhaps maybe some sci-fi? Seems more of your taste, pleb.

Because apart from this brazilian poster I have never seen someone express that much respect for Tolstoy, what is wrong, since for me your post is 100% correct. There is a guy from brazil who ussualy says Tolstoy is the greatest writer of all time, together with Shakespeare, and I thought you might be him.

You're a talentless fucking hack who obviously wants special snowflake status. Leave Veeky Forums and never come back.

No you dumb fuck. Theyre about what motivates humans and what happens when we betray our emotions for some stupid ideological concept.

>It says nothing of humanity

Wrong. He portrays the type of person who has been rattled by life and experienced suffering. It is not unrealistic at all. I would say anyone who has read his books and experienced suffering in their own lives can resonate with his characters. He obviously will not appeal to the sheltered middle-upper middle class kids who have never had their feelings stretched to the boundaries of human emotion but the high number of people who have can certainly relate to the bitter, depressed, angry characters in his novels. Please never post again.

I think you might be wrong about why Smerdyakov did the things he did.
He hated Dimitri, was afraid of him. This plan of his was to blame Dimitri for it and tried to put some of the blame on the other brother.
When he (the other brother) said he would tell the truth, he (Smerdyakov) killed himself.

>it's just Christian propagandizing.
No its really not. I know people with all different view points and beliefs (none of them christian) who all love dostoyevsky. What he writes about is basically universal, because hes really writing about psychology, not god

It was based on nechayev not someone who Dostoyevsky personally knew. He was politically motivated. So atheism didn't make him murder

You do realize that the characters in his novel dont simply commit crimes "cause atheism" right? They have ulterior motovations and use their atheism to rationalize these motivations. Its pretty basic, a 5th grader could understand it. Its sad i even have to explain it

>------sky bridge
>------y street
>------sky river
What did he mean by this?

That's what I just said you cretin

Probably best post in the thread

Oh, I mistook you for one of these mongoloids who are claiming that Dostoyevskys books were christian propaganda about how if you become atheist you just start murdering people. Dostoyevsky is much smarter and more subtle than that. He recgonized atheism as a convient excuse for bad people or damaged people to carry out their vile acts

Of course but we all know atheism is stupid as shit, just like Christianity. The best option is really agnosticism, perhaps followed by deism. Atheism is too closely associated with anti theism nowadays and quite frankly I can't stand them. Just look at this shit, look at it, it's fucking embarrassing. youtube.com/watch?v=13puH63HxmQ

Oh, so they're about what motivates Dostoevsky to write ideological Orthodox propaganda?

Yes.

Reddit fucking loves Dostoevsky, he's as pleb tier as they are.

>triggered

The Christian mindset has infected and still has a grip on western society.

>all this reductionism

Chill your autism and stop acting like such a retard because someone doesn't like what you like.

>Oh, so they're about what motivates Dostoevsky to write ideological Orthodox propaganda?
Please give some examples of how what he writes is "propaganda"

Ok? And?

Wow great argument. You really dismantled all of my points and proved how wrong I am. How convincing

Explain. The super orthodox/ ideological christians are the shrinking minority in America. Gay marriage is legal, god isnt taught in public schools, you dont have to say god in the pledge. What more do you want?

Forgot to add, abortion is legal, as well as birth control

Most people still believe in things like free will, we love assigning guilt, our justice system is inspired by such Christian concepts.

>Please give some examples of how what he writes is "propaganda"
Alyosha is literally the hero of TBK, literally every atheist/nonpracticing character is a fuckup