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

291–300 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#291

Post by vkou »

fssys wrote: post #172
nephihaha wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shakespeare is good for kids, its mostly quite light and fun and not very long, theres a linguistic challenge but thats a good learning opportunity

It's a 'good learning opportunity' that distracts you from every other aspect of the work.

You can't learn two difficult things at once well. When you have to put significant amounts of mental energy into parsing the semantics of each sentence, it utterly ruins any enjoyment you might have from the work itself - and makes it much harder to clean any meaning or subtext from it.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#292

Post by roryirvine »

aidenn0 wrote: post #249
bloak wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've not read Dostoevsky, but there is a similar issue in Japanese literature. The same person might be referred to in as many as 4 different ways, and on top of that you are supposed to infer who the speaker is by the mode of address (and other context clues like personal pronouns), so dialog tags are seldom used. I'm bad with names to begin with, so I usually make a chart to keep side characters straight.

The same thing happens in English literature of Dostoevsky's period - upper class characters might be referred to by substantive title (sometimes in two different forms), subsidiary title, courtesy title, surname, first name, job/rank/office, epithet, nickname, or even pet name.

To add confusion, the choice of which to use is usually context-dependent (time period, age, status, situation, relationship between characters) but sometimes the author will switch between, say, title and surname within the same paragraph simply as a matter of style or to avoid repetition.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#293

Post by gregopet »

People here have trouble with names, but for a Slavic language speaker like myself, the names are one of the best parts. Even if I don't speak Russian, names like "Razkolnikov" ooze his indecisiveness. And the characters the author doesn't like, he shows contempt for them by not even giving them a proper name, calling them Mr. C. or something like that.

My problem with Dostoyevsky is that I simply don't like his style.. despite being a voracious reader it was pure torture getting through The Idiot and I gave up 1/3 of the way during Crime and Punishment. Had to re-read parts out loud again to help my son who had to read it for high school and begged me to help him somehow (we share the dislike it seems). He's one of the authors I would really love to like, but it's just not happening

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#294

Post by yurish »

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

It is not common. Usually you say Kolya.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#295

Post by yurish »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #272
somenameforme wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Never heard anyone using "Lesha" for "Aleksandr". It is always "Aleksei".

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#296

Post by chokolad »

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

> Interesting, never heard 'Nikolasha' once

It's archaic, used in Peter I times. Modern one is Kolya

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#297

Post by yurish »

marttt wrote: post #213
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.

Sasha may also refer to Alexandr a , which is a feminine first name. What's more, there's like a ton of diminutive short names for these -- my first ever instagram link on HN, but: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTUeNn7iAit/ (FWIW, it lists: Sasha, Sashka, Sashulya, Sashenka, Sanya, Sanechka, Sancho, San, Shurik, Sashunya, Sanyusha, Sanyok. I myself have heard native Russians use Sash - should be written as Сашь -, a…

> Сашь -, and e.g. Mish - Мишь

Note: these are written without soft sign a the end: Саш, Миш.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#298

Post by aerhardt »

I'm reading Crime and Punishment now. I've previously read Karamazov. I agree that it's not particularly hard reading other than the names. And also, maybe, the characters tend to go on long tirades. And I guess you need to know a little bit of Russian history, too. But they're not that difficult. Otherwise his books wouldn't have been that popular. They sold phenomenally well in his lifetime and continue to do so.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#299

Post by aerhardt »

__rito__ wrote: post #239
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

Actually USSR pushed a lot of soft power and spent real money behind it. Especially the authors whose narratives didn't directly violate the narrative of the Party. Leftist parts of society looked up to USSR a lot, and a lot of humanities professors, teachers all over the world were left-leaning, and promoted these books as Russian culture. This is one factor, and doesn't explain the whole thing, of course. See: http…

Dostoyevsky was massively popular way before the USSR. Nietzsche and Freud were huge admirers. His book sold well in Europe in his lifetime. Same with Tolstoy. Sincerely doubt the USSR soft power moved the needle in any meaningful sense.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#300

Post by aerhardt »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #42
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.

Nabokov didnt like Dostoyevsky either, especially Karamazov https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/magazine/nabokov-on-dosto...

His criticism of characters being laid bare at the beginning of the novel is fair, especially in Karamazov. Unlike Nabokov I don't think it detracts from the work.
Post reply on HN