Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

fhur.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 219 posts

Re: Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

#111

Post by noSyncCloud »

bazoom42 wrote: post #68
kieckerjan wrote: post #21

I met a young and apparently highly intelligent AI researcher the other week who confessed to me that he thought fiction (books but also movies etc) was a waste of his time: there was nothing to be gained there. Being a lover of fiction myself, I huffed and puffed and he challenged me to name him a book that would change his mind. Usually when people ask me where to start in literature, I advise them to start at the…

Perhaps the Harry Potter books? Don’t throw Tolstoy at someone who havent read fiction before.

Would you really recommend YA to an adult?

Re: Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

#112

Post by ashika »

np_tedious wrote: post #71
user3939382 wrote: post #31

I’ve had a hard time trying to read both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy because of the names. I guess because I don’t speak Russian, the names are long and complicated and in most cases, compounding the problem, there are too many characters. It makes it very difficult to read “in my head” and keep track of what’s going on.

Wonder if "translating" names could help?

the best translations will usually have a brief explanation of the function various forms of patronymic & affectionate name forms which carry meaning in russian. translating every instance of an affectionate name to "hun" or "buster" or whatever modern english uses would be a bit too much, i think. some of the more formal honorific aliases may have no real english equivalent but once explained its not hard to follow along with the author's intent. "oh this weasel is laying it on thick..." etc.

Re: Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

#113

Post by Bakary »

armitron wrote: post #44

Besides Dostoevsky, there is abundant wisdom and deep truths to be found in the classics of Christianity. The apologetics of C.S. Lewis (Screwtape Letters, The Problem with Pain, The Great Divorce), Augustine's Confessions and City of God, Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton and G.K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man. These are seldom read (or known) by young people today and I see that as a tragedy. Western spirituali…

I have delved into the very literature you describe, and it's not simply an issue of 'kids these days'. What all these works have in common is that they are replete with thoughtful insights about human nature, but fail to convincingly present Christianity as the solution. They tend to simply drop it on the reader without explaining the logical leap or why similar but competing belief systems couldn't also play the same role.

Re: Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

#115

Post by Bakary »

kuramitropolis wrote: post #100

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT read Dostoevsky. It's full of harmful memes which are very likely to impair your subsequent functioning, and spread out into your surroundings, by way of contaminating your intentional actions with paradox (not the fun kind, either.) I would generally suggest avoiding Russian literature entirely, especially if you're a programmer. Unless you've somehow made yourself basilisk-proof (and note t…

Could you give some examples of these harmful memes you have found in Dostoevsky's works? Although I suppose by definition you might not be willing to do that...

Re: Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

#116

Post by bckr »

oneoff786 wrote: post #88
mikrl wrote: post #80

The classics are important because they are typically ‘classic’ due to their applicability over space and time. The authors managed to distil ever-recurring human drama and pathos (and the happy stuff too) into something timeless, though of course in the context of where and when they lived. Every generation when it comes up will think they’re the first and best ones to experience anything, it’s just normal and alway…

I find a lot of classics to be foreign in their understanding of the human condition and generally just archaic, or deeply specific to their time and place.

Can you give an example? I would love to read a blog post about this perspective

Re: Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

#117

Post by killerstorm »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #94
throwaway74829 wrote: post #53

Having read about 1 to 2/3rds through most of Dostoyevsky's books: I really believe they're over-hyped. Same with Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, and so on -- with the only exception of Solzhenitsyn. I think the difference is I'm Slavic, speak a few of the languages, and come from the cultures that succeeded those authors; so they read mostly as sentimental, overly-emotional, and superstitious, i.e. what I feel are the w…

It's odd that you regard those 19th/early 20th century authors as overly-emotional. In my experience, these works were much more blunt in their self-examinations of the human condition than the other European and American authors I've read. As for questions: What do you think of Russian-American writers like Ayn Rand and Nabokov? In your view, what philosophical fiction provides a "deeper" and less antiquated underst…

If you're looking to understand today's "Russian soul" and you're good at understanding metaphors, I'd recommend to just read the lyrics of "The Russian Field of Experiments" by Egor Letov, the most famous Russian punk poet:

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/russkoe-pole-eksperimentov-ru... (translation #1 seems to be the most accurate although not perfect)

Or you can read the lyrics while listening to the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCLuW7jDnM8

Re: Why read Dostoevsky? A programmer's perspective

#120

Post by Bakary »

throwaway74829 wrote: post #53

Having read about 1 to 2/3rds through most of Dostoyevsky's books: I really believe they're over-hyped. Same with Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, and so on -- with the only exception of Solzhenitsyn. I think the difference is I'm Slavic, speak a few of the languages, and come from the cultures that succeeded those authors; so they read mostly as sentimental, overly-emotional, and superstitious, i.e. what I feel are the w…

What I've noticed is that Russian authors are disproportionately mentioned among anglos, and Dostoevsky is himself disproportionately mentioned among those authors.

My hypothesis is that it's not just the orientalist appeal of the "Russian soul" you mentioned but its combination with Christian themes which means it is still familiar and easy to understand for Westerners. A bit like the equivalent of a rockstar: titillating but not deeply challenging.

Post reply on HN