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

201–210 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#201

Post by alexejb »

perfunctory wrote: post #196
alexejb wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> because they deal with different aspects of the human condition which haven't changed significantly. they also give a different and valid intepretation / perspective so do the other literary traditions I guess. What's so special about Russian. It seems as if the interest in Russian literature comes at the expense of the others.

absolutelly – I didn't mean to say that other literary traditions don't have their valid perspective on the same issues. my best guess is that russian culture is on the surface understandable / relatable from a western readers point of view but differs in nuances, which makes it "exotic" but not unrelatable. I don't think that this comes at the expense of the others – you're free to read chinese classics after all, but I assume that the threshold of "getting it" will be much higher since most people in the west are not accustomed to the radical different culture which it is based upon.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#202

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

waynecochran wrote: post #24

I have never read a book I hated more than The Brothers Karamazov. I never read a book that depressed me more than Crime and Punishment. No more Dostoevsky for me.

You're doing it wrong. I bumped into this 'Short Guide to Russian literature':

"Russian literature consists of suffering. Either writer suffers, or protagonist, or reader. If all three suffer simultaneously--then it is a masterpiece. In every difficult situation always read Russian classic literature--it is even worse in there."

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#203

Post by rceDia »

Delved into Russian literature during the "pandemic years". Reading "Crime and Punishment" was definitely the latter but used a study guide to assist (read guide after reading the book chapter). Then the "Brothers..." followed by other authors Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" and Tolstoy's "The Resurrection". Many lessons to learn by these brilliant writers.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#204

Post by FergusArgyll »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #112
davidwritesbugs wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. Then I tried to read Brothers karamazov, “ooof”, it literally took 200 pages before I stopped hating the ‘pointless’ book with its plot that went nowhere. Then I got it. Only certain authors can do this I reckon, but how you’d get a doom-scrolling teenager to do it? Goooood luck.

I have tried to break into the brothers K two or three times and it’s just been so difficult for some reason. I know it’s kind of a joke at this point, but keeping track of all of the names is just so dizzying and distracting.

The edition I read had a map of characters at the beginning which was helpful

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#206

Post by Izkata »

nephihaha wrote: post #127
grey-area wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it’s an interesting question and applies to many books chosen for teenagers in school. Technically they can handle the text and it may improve their reading and writing, I assume this is the justification for setting these texts. Emotionally and socially they are nowhere near ready to deal with Dostoyevsky’s nihilism and angst and Austen’s witty social comedy of manners about a situation young girls no longer fin…

Not sure about Shakespeare. We suffered through Shakespeare in both English and Drama classes. I'm not sure that improved my appreciation. Other things did. I had to learn to love Shakespeare otherwise. I watched "Hamnet" last night, which was okay, but I dread to think what that film would have been like if I was made to watch it at school.

I think Shakespeare might just be a badly chosen set of "classics". Romeo and Juliet is so overdone in pop culture there's nothing interesting there, and the one or two others we had to read were just boring. But then I ran across Much Ado About Nothing (while still in school) and remember it being actually good.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#207

Post by [deleted] »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #112
davidwritesbugs wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. Then I tried to read Brothers karamazov, “ooof”, it literally took 200 pages before I stopped hating the ‘pointless’ book with its plot that went nowhere. Then I got it. Only certain authors can do this I reckon, but how you’d get a doom-scrolling teenager to do it? Goooood luck.

I have tried to break into the brothers K two or three times and it’s just been so difficult for some reason. I know it’s kind of a joke at this point, but keeping track of all of the names is just so dizzying and distracting.

[deleted]

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#208

Post by throw0101d »

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.

If you really want a challenge, try the Malazan series:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malazan_Book_of_the_Fallen

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#209

Post by ninalanyon »

nephihaha wrote: post #125
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…

This isn't a specific Russian problem. English speaking school children are forced to read Shakespeare, and I really don't think that works either. (That isn't a condemnation of Shakespeare but of schooling.) I do love literature, but that is in spite of school not because of it. School did a lot to put me off some books. I was lucky to have read Golding's "Lord of the Flies" before our class did, because it gave me…

If your school just had you silently reading Shakespeare they were doing it wrong. It is meant to be performed and watched, his works are plays and poetry not novels. I was lucky, my English Literature teacher in high school was a (very) minor playwright and well aware of how important speaking the lines out loud is, and how watching a play is so very different from reading it.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#210

Post by sigbottle »

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…

I think it takes a very specific kind of person to read Crime and Punishment.

So, as a baseline, I think most people have or can understand internal monologues. That's not what I mean, though that is a prerequisite.

But many real-life people, especially those that have gone through phases in their life where they were Raskilnikov (not criminals, not necessarily egomaniacs, but the whole melodramatic shut in deal) would tell you that they both understand Raskilnikov type people and would tell them to shut up.

For me, it was honestly a bit depressing. Raskilnikov reminded me of me in my worst moments. Honestly, a lot of the characters did. Having these strong, abstract, high and lofty ideals is contrasted against the real, practical characters like Rahmuzkhin. Every single one of the lofty idealists (besides maybe the full commune living guy - what he says is weird, but not his actions) is contrasted with the people on the ground, doing good work. Even Sonya - she's devout, but not so devout as to become a pastor, abstractly preaching about goodness and kindness, but blind to the suffering around her.

And isn't that what the lesson is at the end of the book, anyways? (trying to be vague to avoid spoilers).

Though it's not like just "doing good work" will bring you the sort of the "ultimate" that many of these characters seemed to have wanted. Once you try to formalize it and intellectualize it, you can point to how Crime and Punishment is such an illogical novel. And yet it feels so real.

Ah whatever. Enough armchairing from me :)

Post reply on HN