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

271–280 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#271

Post by Markoff »

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…

same here, I remember it vividly reading while backpacking in my 3USD Bangkok guesthouse 20 years ago

if if would be mandatory school reading I would probably enjoy it much less

from classics I can recommend also 1984, Animal Farm and Catch XXII (if you served in army you will have better appreciation for it, it was exactly describing absurd situations happening when I served)

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#272

Post by pavel_lishin »

somenameforme wrote: post #217
jampekka wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With different transliteration that one at least makes sense. Nikolay = Kolya. But one that'll send most non-Russian speakers for a loop is Alexander = Sasha. It's like Richard = Dick, though there there's at least a rule that makes that one make sense (a rhyme with a shortened name so Richard -> Rick -> Dick, William -> Will -> Bill, etc). I wonder why it didn't just end up as Lexa, which would fit the other pattern…

> I wonder why it didn't just end up as Lexa

One of the potential diminuitives for "Aleksandr" is indeed "Lesha", although I think it's more common as a diminuitive for "Aleksei"?

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#273

Post by pavel_lishin »

LearnYouALisp wrote: post #254
orthoxerox wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "-sha" pattern is relatively consistent: Pavel-Pasha, Mikhail-Misha, Natalya-Natasha, Nikolay-Nikolasha, Alexey-Alyosha, Mariya-Masha, Ilya-Ilyusha. So, Aleksandr-Aleksasha. The dropping of "Alek" is the only inconsistent part, on par with Agrippina-Agrusha-Grusha.

Interesting, never heard 'Nikolasha' once

Ditto.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#274

Post by EddieB »

carabiner wrote: post #13

LMAO he's saying russian lit is readable when using the most bastardized, westernized translations available, Garnet. That was the point of her work and what P&V sought to rectify when they put out their vastly more faithful renditions.

I recently worked my way through (in order) Anna Karenina, Crime & Punishment, The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov. Each time seeking Garnett translations as I found the usual recommendations just not hitting the spot. That said, and for context I'm English, and new to the classics- so not sure if the writing style just clicked more. I did switch half way to McDuff for The Idiot and wasn't too far from Garnett.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#275

Post by lesostep »

jhbadger wrote: post #182
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}.

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)

Sasha and Alexander isn't that obscure thought. Very common example The real obscure diminutive for Alexander is Shura :D

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#276

Post by EddieB »

slackfan wrote: post #169
jallmann wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which translations would you recommend for Crime and Punishment or Dostoyevsky in general? When I'm starting to read a non-English novel, the process of deciding which translation to use is half the fun. The Kent and Berbera (revised Garnett) version of Anna Karenina was mesmerizing.

Garnett (and editions of) are (quelle suprise) just fine.

Agreed on Garnett- but you might also like McDuffs

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#277

Post by Insanity »

Markoff wrote: post #271
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…

same here, I remember it vividly reading while backpacking in my 3USD Bangkok guesthouse 20 years ago if if would be mandatory school reading I would probably enjoy it much less from classics I can recommend also 1984, Animal Farm and Catch XXII (if you served in army you will have better appreciation for it, it was exactly describing absurd situations happening when I served)

I was never in the army, and I still enjoyed and would recommend Catch 22 regardless. It (sadly) applies to the goofiness of companies and bureaucracies more broadly.

That said, being in the army might add an additional level of apprecation but it's a good book regardless.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#278

Post by tropdrop »

jszymborski wrote: post #47
still-learning wrote: post #32

I thoroughly enjoyed Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and White Nights, but I'm finding myself slogging through Karamazov. I'm about 600 pages in and its picking up at least. Banking on it all being worth it in the end. Normally I subscribe to the quote "life's too short to read a bad book", but making an exception for Dostoyevsky.

I started with Karamazov, then C&P, then the Idiot. I loved excerpts of Karamazov (The Grand Inquisitor, Dimitry's troika ride, any passage with Grushenka) but I also found it rough to get through. I really don't think I was ultimately able to appreciate it as a whole. C&P felt much smoother and finally I devoured The Idiot. Those novels felt like night and day compared to Karamazov. With Karamazov, I feel like there…

Check out the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of BK. P&L try to really bridge the contextual gap with a lot of footnotes/endnotes.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#279

Post by projektfu »

dang wrote: post #34
nine_k wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime and Punishment is a bona fide detective story / crime novel, and can be enjoyed as such.

One of my professors, so long ago that I can't remember which*, said it was not a who-dun-it but a why-dun-it. The murder scene is so vivid that it's easy to forget how the long middle of the novel is the cat-and-mouse game between him and the detective whose name I forget. * I think I remembered. Thank you Roman! https://www.dignitymemorial.com/en-ca/obituaries/calgary-ab/...

Porfiry Petrovich

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#280

Post by wincy »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #252
something765478 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I've been reading Tom Clancy recently, and that's basically the Jack Ryan books. Somehow, "Jack" is actually a nickname for "John".

> Somehow, "Jack" is actually a nickname for "John". That has never made one iota of sense to me. The whole "Dick" / "Richard" thing makes more sense than "Jack" / "John" to me (and it's nonsensical, too).

Wow, until this moment I didn’t realize that Lloyd Bentsen was talking about John F. Kennedy when he said “senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” to Dan Quayle! I was born in the mid 80s so it was just a quote I’d heard as a child and never thought of it much but thank you.
Post reply on HN