Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

autodidacts.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#181

Post by kgeist »

kelnos wrote: post #137
orthoxerox wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main difficulty is the names. The names make it so hard. What's wrong with the names? I find Chinese novels much harder to read because everyone's named C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou} C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou}C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou}.

I haven't read any Dostoyevsky since high school, and don't remember it at all, but I'd imagine it has to do with nicknames. A non-Russian speaker is going to be confused when the same character is referred to as both Alexander and Sasha, for example, and will think they're different people.

I think it's the translators' fault. I think they could've added some footnotes like *Sasha - diminutive of Alexander.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#182

Post by jhbadger »

orthoxerox wrote: post #133
SugarReflex wrote: post #63

I was blown away by Crime and Punishment. I truly felt like I was the main character, and I read it with feverish sweat and dread for my impending doom. I cringed and felt terrible sadness at the poor little lives of certain individuals. So much woe and tragedy. I was glad to see how it turned out though. I'm currently reading Karamazov and it's good to have something a bit more jovial and dry witted. The main diffic…

> The main difficulty is the names. The names make it so hard. What's wrong with the names? I find Chinese novels much harder to read because everyone's named C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou} C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou}C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou}.

The obscure Russian nicknames! How is anybody supposed to know without being told that Sasha and Alexander are the same guy? (I do realize that while some English nicknames like Johnny for John are pretty self-explanatory, other like Jack for John or Dick for Richard are as opaque to foreigners as Alexander/Sasha)

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#183

Post by jampekka »

bloak wrote: post #175
orthoxerox wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main difficulty is the names. The names make it so hard. What's wrong with the names? I find Chinese novels much harder to read because everyone's named C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou} C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou}C{V[n[g]]|ei|ao|ou}.

I think the problem with Russian names in particular is that a Russian name has three parts (e.g. Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky) and different parts get used in different contexts, depending on who's speaking, level of familiarity and so on. So it's like in an English novel where someone might be referred to as Smith by the narrator but John in dialogue, but with an extra 50%, at least, of confusion.

There are also the "canonical" nicknames that are not obvious to non-Russian speakers. E.g. Nikolai is Kolja.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#184

Post by alexejb »

perfunctory wrote: post #174

I am genuinely curious why Russian literature is so popular in non-Russian speaking world. How do you wake up one day and decide to read Crime and Punishment? How do you find out about Russian literature in the first place? Recommendation from a friend, marketing in your favorite book store, school? Could somebody shed some light

those books are considered as classics because they deal with different aspects of the human condition which haven't changed significantly. they also give a different and valid intepretation / perspective on these "eternal topics", which are unique and discernible enough from their counterparts from other countries and cultures.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#185

Post by vkazanov »

frogulis wrote: post #57
gaiagraphia wrote: post #28

Lol, remember being in my early 20s on a train and trying to read Crime and Punishhment, and just kept skipping random 5 pages here and there, before going back to playing Durak with some random Tajiks (who got kicked off the train in some random place...). The huge pages of French didn't help. Prefered Demons, personally. Probably becuase I read it when more mature.

Wonderful to see Durak mentioned. I learned it in its Vietnamese form (Tấn) and introduced it to friends in Australia where it was a big hit. We eventually settled on calling it "Dickhead" or "Dumbarse" which seems like an appropriately Australian interpretation of the source material :thinking:

Oh, this weird little game!

In my little hometown back in Lithuania we played the game as teens so much that everybody knew the optimal strategy, and it was more about either sheer luck, or who misremembers other people hands.

A bit like checkers after a certain level.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#186

Post by notpushkin »

fleebee wrote: post #164
hk__2 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read War and Peace recently, is it the same amount of characters? At some point I almost started a genealogical tree of the characters.

Regarding Brothers, I don't think it's that much more than the average novel of that length. What I think trips foreign readers up the most is the constant use of Russian diminutive names e.g. substituting Alyosha for Alexei or Mitenka for Dmitri.

I wonder if replacing those with more modern/“western” diminutives would help with that and whether it would hurt the writing style too much. It will definitely lack the vibe, but if you can’t read it otherwise, maybe it’s better than nothing?

E.g. Dima (widely used in modern Russian, and it’s clear that it’s short for Dmitry) instead of Mitenka or Alex instead of Alyosha (Lyosha is commonly used in Russian, but Alex would be easier to make a mental connection... until you have an Alexander and have to shorten that to Sasha; that one is probably a more widely known diminutive though)

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#187

Post by vkazanov »

olvy0 wrote: post #3

Funny, I'm just reading War and Peace myself (the Anthony Briggs translation) and having the same reaction, gushing occasionally to people I know how approachable it is, and how darkly funny and modern it feels. Well, at least after passing through the first ~200 pages which are a slog. I didn't find even Tolstoy's historical musings boring, although he tends to repeat himself. And I usually suck at names, but the ma…

[dead]

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#188

Post by timka »

nephihaha wrote: post #142
kelnos wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read any Dostoyevsky since high school, and don't remember it at all, but I'd imagine it has to do with nicknames. A non-Russian speaker is going to be confused when the same character is referred to as both Alexander and Sasha, for example, and will think they're different people.

I've never understood this particular issue. My mother had it too with Russian literature. Many Russian books have a "cast list" at the beginning to get round this. I don't find it any stranger than William being called Will, Wullie, Bill or Billy; or Robert turning into Rob, Robbie, Rab, Bert, Bob or Bobby; or Elizabeth being turned into Liz, Lizzy, Beth, Betty, Liza, Lilbet etc. I found most Russian diminutives are…

Yeah, Dick for Richard is my favorite!

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#189

Post by simiones »

usrnm wrote: post #94
ventana wrote: post #81

As a Russian native speaker who graduated from the high school in Russia many years ago, one thing that I don't really understand is why these great works of Russian literature are included in the school must read list. An average teenager, myself included, always has some better things to do than reading a huge novel, barely understanding characters' motivations, because neither of these books were ever intended for…

Are kids "ready" to deal with organic chemistry? Or integrals? Do you think that more people will need the knowledge of the reproductive system of plants than the skill of reading and uderstanding large texts? Not simply understanding the words, but actually analyzing and comprehending what's being said

There's a huge difference between purely intellectual subjects, like organic chemistry and integrals, and the mix of emotional and intellectual depth of a novel. A lot of the meaning of literary works is built on top of shared human experiences, just like the meaning of integrals is built on top of more foundational math. However, we don't have any good way (and certainly make no effort in school) to teach this shared human experience to pre-teens and teens.

A good part of the value of some of these works basically comes from recalling similar feelings you felt in situations similar to the characters, maybe comparing your actions at such times to theirs, or the reactions of other people you knew, etc. It's simply not possible to experience this part of the work as a teen. Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this limitation is in Lolita - the nature of the relationship described, the power and life experience differential, the contrast with the reader's normal interactions with children - are impossible to be conveyed to or truly empathized with by teens.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#190

Post by lemonberry »

perfunctory wrote: post #174

I am genuinely curious why Russian literature is so popular in non-Russian speaking world. How do you wake up one day and decide to read Crime and Punishment? How do you find out about Russian literature in the first place? Recommendation from a friend, marketing in your favorite book store, school? Could somebody shed some light

I was a precocious teen - reading philosophy and history in addition to fantasy and science fiction - and came across Crime & Punishment in a local bookstore that I purchased paperbacks and Dungeons & Dragons books. The back sounded interesting and the book looked deep and philosophical so I purchased it. Despite it not being a great translation I found the book and topics covered really interesting and went on to read most of Dostoyevsky works.
Post reply on HN