The more I read Tolstoy the more I realise how much of a hack Dostoevsky was

Is it true that the only people who say Dostoevsky is better than Tolstoy are the ones who haven't read Tolstoy?

Honestly, they can't even compete. Tolstoy is infinitely superior a writer to Dost. Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Tolstoy never went thru real pain, he was rich as fuck

Not much of an argument about his actual writing, though, is it?

To each his own mi hermano!

Kids and people desperate for attention are the only ones doing stupid shit like that comparison. They were both incredibly talented artists and weak points can be argued for both of them like with almost anyone else.

This

Fuck off. They're both exceptional writers. That's like shitting on Milton because Shakespeare was so much better.

I thought crime and punishment was overly naive and optimistic, what else should I read of Dostoevsky?

You should start by rereading Crime and Punishment

>rodya pays penance and finds redemption through love and god
>not naive and optimistic

I'm so tired of this partisanship.

The book attempts to articulate the idea of an innate morality that gets funneled through the Christian religious tradition. He's not living happily ever after in a prison colony.

The overcoat is literally the greatest story ever told by man and anybody who says otherwise is wrong and also stupid

I realise that, I can't believe in the kind of innate morality Dosto was pushing. It doesn't really have to do with happiness

Dosto was way ahead of his time arguing against the perfectibility of humanity, and the notion that you can act rationally independent of your innate psychology. He's was basically wrecking commies from the grave.

That's my favourite part of the book, the caricatures like the dimwitted communist and pyotr were hilarious

Demons is a great and darkly humorous book. I read the 1915 translation and was still pretty compelled by some of the prose

Objectively this.

the only reason i ever read this was because i found it at a goodwill once, didn't even know who the guy was at the time

so good, i think i found it like a month after i read a bunch of kafka and i could tell immediately that kafka at some point read gogol

i don't know if it's true or not, but it felt so kafkaesque, which means gogolesque is really the correct term people should be using

>omfg I am just obsessed with russian writers haha
Surefire way to detect tastelets

>finding redemption is naive and overly optimistic

maybe read it again when you are older than 16

>arguing against the perfectibility of humanity, and the notion that you can act rationally independent of your innate psychology
Are these necessities for communism? Please explain the connection. Yes I am dumb

For actual communism it's pretty much given, in fantasy commie land everyone has put aside self interest and lives in cooperation and harmony with each other, only the good of the commune in mind

Notes from Underground

That must be why he was such a phenomenal writer. Having never suffered seriously, he was able to keep all of his marbles intact, allowing him see the subtleties in life that mad men like Dostoevsky are oblivious to.

In a fantasy commie land everyone can pursue their self-interest without having to resort to oppression.

Not a commie, but your view on the ideology is childish at best.

The commune comes first, your understanding of it is clearly worse

Yes it fucking does you idiot. The innate morality is expressed through what makes us happy and what makes us unhappy. Distance from that morality is what brought raskolnikov misery and made that other lad kill himself you dense fuck. How could you not get it after the dream sequence prior to the suicide?

Where to start with Tolstoi?

Tolstoy had style, Dosto did not. Tolstoy is definitely the better craftsman.

Dosto was basically shitting out words in a torrent so he could pay back money lenders on time. Then again, his frantic writing really comes out and makes my heart pound when I read him.

Anna Karenina

That innate morality is also total bullshit in that case, happiness is not an indicator of morality

Disagree with the philosophy sure. But it is what is what the text is trying to say.

Although maybe not so much morality as much as acceptance of social systems or something, it's not easy to put into words

I get what you mean, the whole thing gives me a feeling of incompleteness that may only be understood with religion. The meat of the book for me is in raskolnikov's social dealings

>tfw I read Tolstoy first and still haven't read Dosto

Seems I've made the right decision.

I've read both.

Tolstoy is the better writer obviously but Dostoevsky is my personal favorite.

>The more I read Tolstoy the more I realise how much of a hack Dostoevsky was

This. I have been saying this for years. Tolstoi goes far beyond's observations in terms of the human condition. Dostoijewski is the better observer of psychological detail, as in he's the colder and more specific observer, but Tolstoi is just as clear when he doesn't spell out all the mechanisms.

And in terms of spiritual intellect there isn't even a contest for me.

Maybe in the forst stages of socialies, but since you're talking about ideal commie land you have to trat it as a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Also I'm pretty sure that you're still thinking about Stalinism, even though we already live in a post-scarcity society and already have the tools to feed, clothe and educate every person om the Earth.

I'm still not a commie because I don't see any way in wich we as humans can actually coordinate ourself collectively and always make the best, most ethical and rational decision.
To reach utopic fantasy commie land you have to make a big leap in wich no one fucks up and every possible opposer simply surrender.
I don't think that it will ever happen, and I don't see why I should lose my time in promoting such an utopic system.

Yet, at least, I actually studied what I was criticizing, unlike you, you fucking ignorant philistine.

>implying being rich means you can't suffer
>implying depression rates aren't far higher in developed nations
>implying you have to have painful external events produce suffering rather than simply suffering internally in order to be a good writer
in which case anyone who has broken a leg would probably be a better writer than emily dickinson. you're a moron

this is as fucking stupid as the guy you were replying to

Yes, it is necessary for communism. The only reason people strive to do anything is to make the world more unequal in their favor.

But people aren't being oppressed user, ltv is shiet

>The only reason people strive to do anything is to make the world more unequal in their favor.

I agree, but you're being absolutist too. There's a difference between a guy getting wealthy thrpugh art or inventions and a guy who opens sweatshops in Vietnam and then proceed to lobby governments in order to establish monopolies.

The first guy would strive in fantasy commie land (he can be a petit bourgeoise at worst, but he's not being evil in the slightest), the second one would be lynched.

I feel that the problem with most pleb opinions on communism is that most people mistake it woth true egalitarianism. CEOs and managers are still needed under socialism.

Sweatshops in Vietnam are a good thing
Not even memeing
Read Krugman's "In praise of cheap labor"

Also, how the fuck does monetary policy work under communism? If money or it's equivalent doesn't exist then they'll be taking dick after dick

>Sweatshops in Vietnam are a good thing

The fact that work is being brought there may be good, but the complete lack of respect for even the most rudimentary workers right should be denounced, exactly like we should denounce it if it appears in our country.
I don't think that corporations using cheaper labourer is inherently wrong, but that's not the only thing that there is to criticize about what most corporations are doing.

>Also, how the fuck does monetary policy work under communism? If money or it's equivalent doesn't exist then they'll be taking dick after dick

The meme catchfrase for communism is not FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY SPACE COMMUNISM for no reason. It is an ideology that wants to reach a state of post-scarcity and post-labour, in wich everything is automated and everyone can follow their passions and personal pursuits.
Of course if I put it in this way it may seem simplistic, but I'm trying to summarize 170 years of political philosophy's ambitions in a few sentences.

Yep, feel that confirmation bias. Feels good, doesn't it?

So not with Death of Ivan?

But rather than funneling that instinct people have for resource gathering to something that's economically beneficial and will lead to material progress, people will find new and less beneficial means of producing inequality. That's why every socialist regime becomes an oligarchy: people have a need to assert themselves in the world.

Also good. Anna Karenina is his best work imo, War and Peace is a close second.

Death of Ivan is a better start, simply because its so god damn good, but its also basically a leaflet. You could read it in a day

You don't know what you're talking about

It took me a long time to realize that Turgenev and Gogol are better than the both of them. Maybe some day people will realize that themselves. Until then, they'll be jerking it to Kitty's virginal tits, much like Tolstoy did with his serfs. "ius primae noctis" saith Tolstoy as he pulled his jimmy from his pants, hovering over the weeping doe beneath him...

Fuck, is that a painting? That's incredible.

no, it's a photograph.

I didn't know they had photographs in color over 100 years ago.

It's a coloured photograph

it's a photograph taken in color, actually.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky

I can see that. Is this some weird camus absurdity thing you're pulling here?

>posting this person
>not being tasteless

No, it's a real color photograph.
>make three photographs of the same thing through three different color filters
>develop them with the color that you made the photo with
>you now have three transparent photographs in three different colors
>you put them on top of each other
>voila

>Honestly, they can't even compete. Tolstoy is infinitely superior a writer to Dost.

Care to justify or explain this view?

OP here, I was wrong. I'm sorry I'm such a stupid poop head.

This. Dostoyevsky is melodramatic shit.

This is a weak fuck who romanticizes mental illness

>melodrama is somehow bad

It's shallow
>this character A represents atheism, nihilism, the West, and everything I don't like. He's sad.
>this character B represents religion, enlightenment, and Russian nationalism. He's happy

Milton is shit but Shakespeare is great. Get some taste.

an emotional appeal is not shallow in terms of emotion, which is why user upwards from here said he found his heart racing when reading dostoevsky's frantic moments.

it's a matter of what the two are doing. Tolstoy was concerned in a different matter than Dostoevsky. Emotionally Tolstoy is less convincing in conveying frenzy. Something that a lot of people identify with. That emotional connection may seem shallow when analyzed from a perspective of the logical reasons behind them, but most emotions that are experienced seem shallow when getting to the root of them.
Melodrama is not bad at all, I will agree that using it to drive some sort of philosophy forward is shallow, as it does not give the same sort of foundation that reason does, however, to remove emotion and replace it with cold reasoning renders a work somewhat inhumane. somewhat sociopathic. a phantom of genuine emotion doesn't fool anyone. Whether or not that phantom standing in front of reason and plodding realism is preferable to you is the key there.

It's actually the first color photo taken in Russia

So Tolstoy invented color. Go figure.

>reasoning vs emotion
False dichotomy. No one blames Dostoyevsky for being emotional, they blame him for being cliche and unsubtle with his treatment of emotions. Dostoyevsky works in exaggerations and hysteria, and like most "depressing" (as opposed to tragic) art his novels are trying to conceal a lack of real empathy.

and in what way does the exaggeration of emotion give any credence to your implication that Dostoevsky lacked "real empathy"?

and to think that there is no dichotomy between emotion and reason, my, you've never met any real people, have you?

>and in what way does the exaggeration of emotion give any credence to your implication that Dostoevsky lacked "real empathy"?
Dostoyevsky's characters aren't real people, they're symbolic and representative of ideas, and as such Dostoyevsky is not able to truly flesh out their psychologies. He doesn't like in anybody's emotional reality but his own.
>and to think that there is no dichotomy between emotion and reason, my, you've never met any real people, have you?
The best writers have both deep feeling and a strong ability to understand those feelings.

>Dostoyevsky's characters aren't real people, they're symbolic and representative of ideas, and as such Dostoyevsky is not able to truly flesh out their psychologies. He doesn't like in anybody's emotional reality but his own.
I'm not that user, but I think you are pretty on point with this and your post before that. I couldn't have put it that well myself.

i repeat, in what way does the exaggeration of emotion give any credence to your implication that Dostoevsky lacked "real empathy"?

i agree that his characters are symbolic, sure, and that they represent ideas, and even that he is indeed lacking in empathy, however, i do not see the connection of the exaggeration of emotion being the aspect that shows Dostoevsky's lack of empathy.
your second point doesn't even go against anything i said. to think that there is a dichotomy between emotion is to know people quite well, that the two are often contradictory, and even mix in poignant ways, but because they are separate and can give a humane contrast.

in the end, none of this explains why melodrama is bad, nor why tolstoy is a better or worse author than dostoevsky. if you hold them both to the standard of say, realism, then of course tolstoy would win, however, if you hold them both to the standard of say, dramatic theatrics, then dostoevsky easily takes the prize. and before you say tolstoy captures dramatic theatrics better, please direct me to the novel written by him in which he makes your heart pound.

I deeply love both writers, for very different reasons, so don't think i'm just some Dostyfag here.

/thead

Dosto gives me the impression of being a very insecure writer. Someone who's not really sure he fully knows what he's talking about. Tolstoy seem much more confident

Thanks.