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

251–260 of 324 posts

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#251

Post by orthoxerox »

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.

> 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.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#252

Post by EvanAnderson »

something765478 wrote: post #245
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.

> 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).

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#253

Post by eapriv »

gaiagraphia wrote: post #28

Lol, remember being in my early 20s on a train and trying to read Crime and Punishhment, and just kept skipping random 5 pages here and there, before going back to playing Durak with some random Tajiks (who got kicked off the train in some random place...). The huge pages of French didn't help. Prefered Demons, personally. Probably becuase I read it when more mature.

Are there any pages of French in “Crime and Punishment”?

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#254

Post by LearnYouALisp »

orthoxerox wrote: post #246
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…

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

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#255

Post by LearnYouALisp »

Oreb wrote: post #106
dub4u wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name problem totally disappears when you use any e-reader's built-in search on the highlighted name

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…

That sounds like a decision for the translator and editor, honestly

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#256

Post by nephihaha »

ninalanyon wrote: post #209
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…

If your school just had you silently reading Shakespeare they were doing it wrong. It is meant to be performed and watched, his works are plays and poetry not novels. I was lucky, my English Literature teacher in high school was a (very) minor playwright and well aware of how important speaking the lines out loud is, and how watching a play is so very different from reading it.

No, we weren't reading Shakespeare silently. We read him out in class, probably with the least amount of enthusiasm possible.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#257

Post by smallmancontrov »

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).

It's nonsensical unless we are seeing the "John (projectname)" meme in real life. "John" gets used as a placeholder, it gets Ctrl+F replaced in the final draft but Ctrl+F misses the spot with the formal variation, somebody pretends it was intentional, and now contradicting it is a loss of face so the name sticks. The process has given birth to another accidental John.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#258

Post by scrame »

postalcoder wrote: post #64

I became motivated to read Russian literature after Norm Macdonald died, knowing how much influence it had on him and chasing more of his voice. Reading Brothers Karamazov in Norm's voice made it so much more entertaining. Ironically, Norm viewed Dostoyevsky as one of the inferior Russian writers. Here's some of Norm's thoughts about Russian literature and how to read it: Norm Macdonald @normmacdonald · Feb 9, 2016 T…

Oh, yes, he was doing a "book club" on twitter for a little while. I remember him doing an interesting thread on an Updike book where he was making a point that the author was a great writer because he could make a character that was simply a good writer, with the larger point that people can't write convincing characters that are smarter than they are.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#259

Post by dghf »

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?

Traditionally, yes; these days, perhaps not so much.

The author Jack London was originally John London. John F. Kennedy was familiarly known as Jack ("Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"). The British racing driver John Stewart is far more commonly known as Jackie Stewart. In Patrick O'Brian's naval fiction, Captain John Aubrey is almost always referred to as Jack.

Re: Dostoyevsky isn't difficult

#260

Post by SoftTalker »

davidwritesbugs wrote: post #107
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. Then I tried to read Brothers karamazov, “ooof”, it literally took 200 pages before I stopped hating the ‘pointless’ book with its plot that went nowhere. Then I got it. Only certain authors can do this I reckon, but how you’d get a doom-scrolling teenager to do it? Goooood luck.

Any teenager IMO. I sometimes wonder how I got through high school English. Whether it was The Great Gatsby or Candide or King Lear or The Crucible or Moby Dick it was all so tedious and utterly, utterly boring. And this was well before the internet; home computers were just starting to become popular but almost nobody was online yet.

I did find Vonnegut and a small handful of others to be more engaging.

Post reply on HN