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

311–320 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#311

Post by eager_learner »

orthoxerox wrote: post #251
eager_learner wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I felt really sorry the author died an early death. Everyone who knew Lermonotov personally thought Michel was a massive asshole. His biggest hobbies were destroying existing relationships by seducing the women and badmouthing everyone in his vicinity.

Eh... I don't think a man capable of such poetry to be that asshole. He says as much in the second preface. I think he may have used the narrator in the first part of the novel as his own mouthpiece.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#312

Post by eager_learner »

S_Bear wrote: post #309
eager_learner wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm reading Trollope these days. There's a massive difference between the two authors. Trollope is more psychological, focused on relationship dynamics (at least in the books I've read so far, such as "He knew he was right").

A bit dull at the start but it quickly ramps up and escalates to pitch fever excitement. Can't wait to see what Lizzie would do wrt to her diamonds. :)

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#313

Post by gocsjess »

thiht wrote: post #238
jhbadger wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> Jack for John Wow, is this one common?

Somehow nobody knows the ff. are the same:

Hahya Ivan Giovanni Shawn

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#314

Post by generuso »

It is uncontroversial among Dostoyevsky's scholars that his main focus is on Russian mysticism while the stories themselves are merely a setting for presenting author's theology. But that may be flying over the head of a typical Western reader. Even for Russian schoolchildren this requires to be carefully explained.

Dostoyevsky subtly advocates that Western rationalism, materialism, and utopian socialism lead to failure, and only spiritual communion of people bound together by love and Orthodox faith can give hope. This idea of specialness of "messianic Russian soul" and of Orthodoxy is extremely in vogue today in modern Russian ideology. But that is a different subject.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#315

Post by marttt »

yurish wrote: post #297
marttt wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks! I wasn't sure about this one, and guessed wrong. Considering pronunciation, it does feel that there should be a soft sign as well.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#316

Post by gknapp »

I read Crime and Punishment, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I then thought I'd move right over to War and Peace and could not get through the first 5% of the book. I'm sure with diligent effort, you can get over the very lengthy and plotless character interactions to the point where it's engaging, but I just felt like there were other books to read.

Now I'm back reading The Brothers Karamazov and it's instantly captivating! The author of this article describes the same thing... could it be that Tolstoy is just much more of a slog than Dostoyevsky?

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#317

Post by grey-area »

mhink wrote: post #282
grey-area wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s taught well I think it can be very entertaining. There are lots of levels to Shakespeare and lots of very basic comedy. Watchman in Macbeth etc. the motives of characters are also explained well. The only problem is the language.

I haven't read much of Shakespeare, but the lightbulb moment for me personally was the 1996 "Romeo + Juliet" movie with DiCaprio. The modern contextualization makes it so much easier to parse the period dialogue.

Yes I almost commented on that too, I am astonished that someone said ‘nothing of interest’.

That sort of adaptation makes it incredibly accessible and I love that they kept the original words yet somehow it all made perfect sense. I think Shakespeare works best in performance.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#318

Post by mamonster »

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…

>Shurik

This is a "meme" nickname that 95% of people called Alexander will get pissed over. It's a pretty old diminutive, but because of the movie a lot of people really don't like it.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#319

Post by wolfreiser »

childofhedgehog wrote: post #285
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…

Because Lexa is short for Alexei, not Alexander!

Sometimes people also confuse Vlad with Vladimir, but it's actually Vladislav. Vladimir would be Vova.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#320

Post by mamonster »

Barrin92 wrote: post #22

He isn't difficult but I always thought Nabokov (in his fairly incendiary reviews http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations ) was on point that he was sentimental, preachy and mediocre as an artist. I found Dostoyevsky a slog to get through and it might have been made worse because he was sold to me as this 'great psychologist' when psychological realism is often missing from his stories and characters becom…

Nabokov is so snobby. Hating on Céline is one thing, hating on Balzac like come on.

Also lol the guy who wrote Lolita criticizing Death in Venice as obscene.

Post reply on HN