First day of lit class

>first day of lit class
>theres a lot of qts
>they read potter, hunger games, twilight
halp

That'll change once you get into higher level courses. They drop like flies when they have to read actual books. That's when you get the Dostoevsky qts.
This one is in my Hamlet course.

no wait send her memes

>dostoyevsky
>higher level
>taking a college course on Hamlet
American education I presume?

there's no separate course on Hamlet just the course where they were dealing with it

It's a senior level course my man, but yeah.

What, are you yuros to intelligent for Dostoevsky or Shakespeare?

I wouldn't pay money for lectures on books most people should read in High School, is all.

wait is Hamlet in the course title?

If you mean Hamlet, this is a professor that specializes in Shakespeare. I don't know if he teaches anything that isn't a Shakespeare course and he's written books on the subject. Fairly sure everyone in the class has already read it before.

If you mean Dostoevsky, you can go back to getting hit by trucks if you think high school students read Dostoevsky.

no one reads them in high school and you do not pay so you're allowed to read in the comfort of your home that argument is completely ill-formulated

Go to a decent High School. I'd read both in sophomore year, and I wasn't alone in that respect.

>that argument is completely ill-formulated

his trip 7s disagree.

>a girl in a lit class is reading dosty

isn't this to be expected? is this really so amazing?

Hamlet in high school, yes. Dostoevsky no. I would say most students who read Shakespeare in high school don't "get it," they certainly wouldn't "get" Dostoevsky.

Understand the literal events of the plot sure but trying to get them to understand anything further really doesn't work on high school students.

reading some retard's translation surely helped you a lot
oh! I... I meant the original "wouldn't pay money" etc argument like the rest of my comment should have made it very obvious : ( the truly valuable contributions are, like, how they are meant to be read, getting as an approximate context to comprehend those literary works on an ideally similar level to reach the written texts potentials as possible, I'm not sure what else would anyone pay good money for, unless prostitues of course because they are great fun!

I think a word is missing from my last sentence sorry

Revised Garnett imo.

>typing the words "least bad" before reading multiple translations
>please guys respond

of course walks into your trap
>not using "an encounter" instead of "meeting" right in the second example sentence of the translated works

>Hamlet in high school, yes. Dostoevsky no. I would say most students who read Shakespeare in high school don't "get it," they certainly wouldn't "get" Dostoevsky.
You can say what you like, I've experience/evidence that disagrees with you. I distinctly recall discussing how impressed I was that Dostoevsky basically predicted the soviet menace in his time and arguing with a friend on the validity of 'becoming a Napoleon'. He was a real Nietzsche faggot and was grieved by the epilogue, thought Raskolkinov was simply unfit to overcome and an object of special pity falling in between the spectrum of over and under-man like some liminal creature who retreated into slave morality.

And to preempt you, we weren't outliers either. On more than one occasion my pal was accused of being a Nazi by the girl who sat at our table, she seemed familiar enough with the material. Our class finished the state curriculum early too and we even voted on class wide readings near summer, the suggestions were suggestive, even though we ended up reading Camus.

I think you underestimate functional schools and students based on the mediocrity of the ever falling average.

>I wouldn't pay money for lectures on books most people should read in High School, is all.
Impressive, most impressive.

>basically predicted
do you seriously believe his literary work had no effect on the soviet menace itself? why do you assume Nabokov never held a particularly high opinion on him? since I apparently have literally zero credit allow me to copypaste LOL EX DEE nytimes.com/1981/08/23/magazine/nabokov-on-dostoyevsky.html?pagewanted=all

call her a pleb and tell her to read nabokov instead.

Dostoevsky sucks. Stephen King is better.

I can almost taste the sour grapes in this article.

Critique her translation if its P&V.

ignore her completely and get back to work.

P&V translations are the closest to the original Russian, although perhaps that might not be such a good thing considering it might make the English sound a bit awkward.

t. Russian speaker.

yes we call that irony over here hehe

no one asked you, commie. dostojewskii is ours now.

do you think
user is objectively stating a valid point about the article I linked, knowing context and the language etc? I'm really curious

>Innerly even Raskolnikov does not go through any true development of personality, and the other heroes of Dostoyevsky do even less so.
People give this rubbish the time of day?

> moshi moshi
> bait-o desu

I'm not sure if

w-what's the context?

>I'm not sure if
I don't know why it's so unthinkable that smart and properly educated kids read these books. They simply aren't difficult and if they have a reputation otherwise it's simply because reading itself has that reputation among the commonality.

>w-what's the context?
The Nabokov article above. He's basically saying Dosto sucks since none of his characters develop, that you know the totality of who they are right away and that it serves a limited purpose in the book that is consistent in its limitation, essentially that they aren't characters but simply plot devices. Ironic considering how inorganic Nabokov's critique feels, I got the feeling he branched outward from the middle, from the better written parts of it which he obviously wanted to publish, and that the rest (the bulk bulk) is idle pretext.

oh really is it the Nabokov article above? :) I wouldn't have thought so myself! just in case it avoided your attention, I did not ask to rephrase the context with your words, but much rather figure out which part of the interview you found sufficient to quote only one sentence from in order to illustrate the authors intentions, because, judging from just one sentence might lead to slightly quick conclusions! :))

you fucking retard he meant that you argument, namely "I wouldn't pay money for lectures on books most people should read in High School, is all." is too simplistic to sound honest, it has nothing to do with kids reading books or not

If you know it's from the article you can immediately ctrl+f where it's from. If you're pretending to be retarded, it's extremely convincing.

>is too simplistic to sound hones
what the fuck does that even mean

if a 15 year old kid can understand the material paying thousands of dollars for a class on it is idiocy, unless you ARE an idiot I suppose

I'm not sure if you're the user I just offended, but I asked for context which, according to , seemed to illustrate why that one sentence seemed sufficient to represent the alleged rubbish quality of the whole paragraph, or whatever entity user decided to label with "rubbish"; it's an extremely irritating attempt to derail the discussion without any constructive intention, user sounded like a fat kindergartener and I much rather lashed out than to label him and point out why that label is well-grounded, because it's not nice, I guess

I never argued I am not an idiot, and that's supposed to be irrelevant as long as you're using sound logic and well-formulated arguments

I don't know much about kids I guess either

If you can't tell why it's rubbish I'd guess you've never read C&P. The whole point of Raskolnikov and his story, down to the etymology of his fucking name, is that he undergoes an arc of change, growth, and reconciliation. It's such an absurd statement that Nabokov hopes to get away with by powdering it with highfalutin nonsense.

anyway the original argument is "Besides all this, Dostoyevsky's characters have yet another remarkable feature: Throughout the book they do not develop as personalities. We get them all complete at the beginning of the tale, and so they remain without any considerable changes, although their surroundings may alter and the most extraordinary things may happen to them."

how about giving examples from the original text to illustrate where he was wrong about this statment thus confirming he wrote rubbish, instead of, like, just saying it's rubbish? :)

read Crime & Punishment then talk

lol no

it's very long and that would take a lot of time, and I'm not even interested, why would I read it

why would I want to talk to you about after I read it, which I also do not want, if you can't refute your ungrounded counter-attacks? so it will turn out that it is indeed not worth reading? what the fuck

I can readily see why people are taking refuge in the discord and/or generally leaving this shit board.

I read several of Nabokov's novels and they were pretty entertaining, on the other hand I have started the Idiot and it took a great deal of perseverance to get to around the 100th page and it didn't get any better. I have seen a stage adaptation of it too which was slightly uncomfortable to suffer at the best moments, if I recall correctly, how would be a rational decision to read the novel you suggested, and out of all the people I could discuss it with, talk to you about it? I mean it's funny so counts as effective trolling?

lel it has a different logic behind it

I know right? Tripcodes should be mandatory.

>if you've read/studied something before you won't gain anything by studying it at a higher level
Wut. Have you even been to university, user? If a professor publishes a study of Macbeth do you say 'pfffft, I read that when I was FIFTEEN'?

But first spend all your money on new clothes (if you don't have enough take out a loan), you don't want her to think you are a pleb.

While it's true that the Twilight "bookworm pixie girl" sluts drop out before or right after BA-level, the girls who are left, who actually read, look about as ugly as Harold Bloom

what school did you go to?
Can you name some others like it?

Nietzche was only 22 years old and still in school when C&P was published

>Nietzche was only 22 years old and still in school when C&P was published

>tfw I'm 22 years old and still in school just like he was
>nothing of note is being published by anyone

Maybe I'm just not meant for bigger things but time and time again it's depressing to see how young some were when they achieved greatness

Wow, didn't expect an actual solid advice

>counting x's and y's instead of just licking every chair

idiotic.