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

301–310 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#301

Post by sumeno »

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…

If I hadn't grown up hearing those nicknames I would find them confusing as well. It's not natural for a non-native speaker to figure out Dunya, Dunechka, and Avdotya are the same person.

Similarly, Dmitri Prokofych Razumikhin is referred to as Razumikhin 95% of the time, then suddenly people are referring to Dimitry Prokofych and I've got to look up who that is.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#302

Post by sumeno »

orthoxerox wrote: post #135
Oreb wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The problem with the names in Dostoyevsky (and Russian literature more generally) isn’t that the names on their own are difficult to remember, it is that all names also have familiar forms, which are sometimes very different from the formal name. On page you get introduced to a character named Alexander, a few pages later the text talks about Sasha. For non-native speakers, it’s hard to guess that it’s th…

> For non-native speakers, it’s hard to guess that it’s the same person. Like "Mrs. Thatcher", "Margaret" and "Peg"?

I mean, yeah, if I wasn't a native speaker I'd find those confusing, especially Margaret and Peg

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#303

Post by sumeno »

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…

Funny, I'm rereading Crime and Punishment for the first time since high school and I can't get over how much Raskolnikov comes off as an angsty teenager. I probably understand him better now but related to him more as a teen

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#304

Post by cambaceres »

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…

[dead]

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#305

Post by selicos »

__rito__ wrote: post #222
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. I think that's an exciting part. When I am bored with names of similar kind, the names make the characters somewhat exotic. I don't know about you, but the name "Grushenka" adds to everything that is going on with that woman.

In my experience it's more the Russian diminutives across the language that cause issues. If you're familiar with the nickname variations then it's easy to follow. If you aren't you'll be taking notes and looking up why Vladimir is called Vova or Volodya, or why Anna becomes Anya or Ayn.

It takes an adjustment or familiarity.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#306

Post by selicos »

jampekka wrote: post #183
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.

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

Russian diminutives, making nicknames much harder to track for those not familiar with the culture and language. Vladimir is Vova is Volodya, same person. Then other parts of their full name may have variations depending on use.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#307

Post by jszymborski »

tropdrop wrote: post #278
jszymborski wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks!!

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#308

Post by Cpoll »

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…

Reading Crime and Punishment gave me anxiety, I had to put it down.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#309

Post by S_Bear »

eager_learner wrote: post #235
UncleOxidant wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Crime and Punishment ~25 years ago, the Idiot ~20 years ago. I read Karamazov last year and Demons early this year. I still think C&P is the best of his books with Karamazov a close 2nd. Demons is very dark, but also it seems prophetic - it's like he foresaw some of what would happen in 1917 way back in 1870. He's even got a character in there that's short and bald and likes to wave his arms around wildly as he'…

have you tried 'A hero of our time' by Lermontov. Upon reading it, I felt really sorry the author died an early death. I have not felt like that about any other European author.

One of my all-time favorites. Still reads like a 'modern' book.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#310

Post by Yizahi »

throw0101d wrote: post #208
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

Heh, I find the downvotes for the above comment amusing. 100% expected, but amusing. It would be pretty interesting to hear someone rationalize precisely why for example Deadhouse Gates is a worse book than Crime and Punishment :) .

At a guess, I would expect descriptors like non-serious (unlike serious C&P), a lowly fiction fantasy (unlike a documentary C&P, heh), suffering used as a vulgar shock content (unlike being a masterful depiction of a soul's torment in C&P), banal themes of isolation used as a dumb plot device (unlike Raskolnikov's isolation being a brilliant metaphor for an agonizing human psyche), a chaotic cacophony of disjointed narratives and different points of view (unlike a beautiful orchestrated suite of intertwining and supporting themes in C&P), a mindless pulp suitable for teenagers (and an intellectual feast for a curious mind hungry for a proper stimulation in a sea of drivel, in C&P).

Post reply on HN