Dostoevsky

[yaleha]

Anyone interested in psychology at all should read some of his books.

[BigApplePi]

Does he have a theme?

[Beat Mango]

I think The Idiot will be the next book I read.

[Cavallier]

Ah, yes I do like Russian literature but I still can't quite wrap my head around Russian symbolism. I need to study it more.

[kantor1003]

What book of his would you recommend starting with? my father is a big fan, but I have never got around reading it myself.

[Il Nessuno]

I've heard good things about The Brothers Karamazov. Never read it but a friend read a line to me that was particularly profound. Escapes my memory now that I think about it. I remember it being profound though.

[Jill BioSkop]

The Karamazov Brothers is a good read but you have to take your time. He likes to describe things and do little loops around the point. The characters are very consistent, so I'd say it has good psychology. Crime and Punishment is also worth a look but less profound I think. Or at least I didn't like the way he handled the ending, but the book was getting sizeable by that point so I don't know if it's a valid criticism.

[Pants]

People like me couldn't even think of reading Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov.

People like me can hardly hold their focus through Notes From the Underground or House of the Dead.

People like me recommend either/both of these.

[BigApplePi]

Ever heard of the "Classics Illustrated" comic books? They did "Crime and Punishment" but don't know if they did "The Brothers Karamazov." Those were short enuf you could hold your focus and fun too.

[snafupants]

The length of Brothers K or The Idiot might turn some off; the latter might be better than the better publicized and critically accepted Brothers K.

I would start with House of the Dead or Notes from the Underground because they encapsulate Dostoevsky's thought and are relatively half the length, at 300 pages tops. Also, these books were done earlier so the concepts are somewhat less abstruse and literary devices take a backseat to character exposition.

[Red Devil]

Currently reading The Idiot. Seems interesting so far. I've already read Crime and Punishment, Village of Stepanchikovo, The Brothers Karamazov and Notes from Underground. Any suggestions on what I should pick up after I'm done with The Idiot?

[yes]

My first dostoevky book was the idiot so I don't think its a bad book to start with but to you red devil I'd say after you've finished the idiot just move on to tolstoy.

[mishkabunny]

I really think Notes from Underground was worth reading..

[Jaico]

Dostoevsky is great - he creates unique scenarios and memorable characters while managing to touch on (seemingly) unchanging themes. I'd suggest starting with Crime and Punishment - it's got an intriguing plot, but there are also so many undertones to pick up on. Notes from Underground was also quite enjoyable...and as for the Brothers Karamazov - well, there's a reason why The Onion lampooned the book (p.s. it's long).

[emptiminded]

Dostoyevsky is genius. I hooked up on his "Crime and punishment" mainly because I found myself similar to main character Raskolnikov
.
Dostoyevsky creates amazingly deep, realistic psychological portrets, scenes. He is very good at portraying realistic internal reasons WHY character behave in one or other way. He reflects human thoughts and doubt on god, morality, faith, honesty, self-punishment and so on.
.
brothers karamazov - masterpeace
idiot - double masterpeace
notes from the underground - great existencial novel. Constant internal monologue. Kafka loved it. (it's first and probably the greatest existencial novel)
...
don't be afraid of size of his books. They are not 'difficult' to read. They become difficult once you start analysing it


...
some of his characters I'll remember all my life as I had known them personaly..

ps. he's very good at showing people madness (gradual or sudden), self-punishment ('internal God' in his words)

pps. his books has definite structure. i.e. half book is usualy 'buildup' for smthng then it happens and the rest half is 'afteraction' and consequences.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by emptiminded

Dostoyevsky is genius. I hooked up on his "Crime and punishment" mainly because I found myself similar to main character Raskolnikov
.
Dostoyevsky creates amazingly deep, realistic psychological portrets, scenes. He is very good at portraying realistic internal reasons WHY character behave in one or other way. He reflects human thoughts and doubt on god, morality, faith, honesty, self-punishment and so on.
.
brothers karamazov - masterpeace
idiot - double masterpeace
notes from the underground - great existencial novel. Constant internal monologue. Kafka loved it. (it's first and probably the greatest existencial novel)
...
don't be afraid of size of his books. They are not 'difficult' to read. They become difficult once you start analysing it


...
some of his characters I'll remember all my life as I had known them personaly..

ps. he's very good at showing people madness (gradual or sudden), self-punishment ('internal God' in his words)

pps. his books has definite structure. i.e. half book is usualy 'buildup' for smthng then it happens and the rest half is 'afteraction' and consequences.

with crime and punishment, the pivotal part happened really close to the beginning, like before page 100 in a 500 page book. that probably relates to your second postscript. the idiot, as you allude to, should be taken in tandem with brothers k in terms of literary merit. the idiot probably gets less public trumpeting because the themes require some thought - it helps to think of what makes myshkin, the main character, an idiot. this leads into his contrast with other characters and what he, and they, represents. in a way, mark twain took a similar route in huck finn by dismissing public idiocy in favor of private scruples and morality. that notion that millions of people believing a lie doesnt make it truth and vice versa. finally, albert camus' the stranger might have a spot on the winners podium alongside notes from the underground in terms of nihilism and existential thought expounded textually.

[zerocrossing]

I love Dostoevsky. Notes from Underground is a great introduction because it's short and intense. Crime and Punishment is an excellent follow-up.

I'm also a fan of The Brothers Karamazov, but it's definitely not the best place to start with Dostoevsky. However, The Brothers Karamazov did have an impact on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Quite a bit of the content in the World Controller's conversation with John the Savage is lifted almost straight out of the "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor."

[downsowf]

Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors of all time. The Idiot does not get much attention in academia and is overlooked in my opinion. The Brothers Karamazov was interesting, but I'm not going to lie: it was a hard read. Notes from the Underground is one of the most brilliant books I've ever read.

[snafupants]

The salacious section of The Possessed deemed too shocking for original magazine publication was actually not that shocking, and it was sort of good. It was marketed as this Lolita meets Chuck Palahniuk nasty but it actually bears more resemblance to Notes From the Underground than a skin mag. The section/chapter is called "Stavrogin's Confession" and Dostoevsky was adament that it make it into original publication, but it didn't work out that way. It would have at least made Stavrogin's character more dynamic, and drifted him away from Billy Badass territory, and it would have probably helped the theme of all Russian Literature: liberation, or maybe escape, through suffering or calamity, and maybe repentance. What shocked me initially was the idea that this character could indifferently have carnal relations with a preteen girl. That's sort of what eventually happens, but it's mainly a recounting to a priest and basically his shame about what happened. So, told from retrospect. At one point the act is described as a "tender ecstasy" which could grab anyone's attention I guess. Dostoevsky you dog.

[burtstanton]

I plan to. I'm glad to see suggestions.

[Sternschild]

Almost finished with The Idiot. Moving on to Demons afterword. People have slammed him for his lack of realism, but like the protagonist in his own "White Nights" I think he saw Saint Petersburg under a different sun. Those who read him benefit from it, because that light revealed so many interesting qualities of human nature.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by Sternschild

Almost finished with The Idiot. Moving on to Demons afterword. People have slammed him for his lack of realism, but like the protagonist in his own "White Nights" I think he saw Saint Petersburg under a different sun. Those who read him benefit from it, because that light revealed so many interesting qualities of human nature.

Lack of realism? Many people call Dostoevsky a profound, almost depressing, realist; Dostoevsky thought of himself as a realist. Maybe you could qualify your statement to help me understand where you're coming from.

[Sternschild]

Originally Posted by snafupants

Lack of realism? Many people call Dostoevsky a profound, almost depressing, realist; Dostoevsky thought of himself as a realist. Maybe you could qualify your statement to help me understand where you're coming from.

Interesting. Of course my assumption on what most think of Dostoevsky is largely based off word of mouth from a couple small sample sets (high school and college classrooms).

Their reasoning for his lack of realism was mainly the symbolic nature of his characters. Myshkin, Svidrigailov, Stravorgin, Alyosha, etc. Most of them stand to represent certain worldviews. I'm inclined to agree.

For that reason many hated Dostoevsky and viewed their experience with him as improbable. I think that unlike him they were unable to reconcile the reality of the subconscious with the reality of sense experience. That they are complementary worlds, not diametrically opposed.

He understood the inner world of people who didn't realize they have an inner world. He could grasp how things abstract affected those concrete. Which to some (those like you and myself) is realism. But not to the 'haters.' God be praised that I am not one.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by Sternschild

Interesting. Of course my assumption on what most think of Dostoevsky is largely based off word of mouth from a couple small sample sets (high school and college classrooms).

Their reasoning for his lack of realism was mainly the symbolic nature of his characters. Myshkin, Svidrigailov, Stravorgin, Alyosha, etc. Most of them stand to represent certain worldviews. I'm inclined to agree.

For that reason many hated Dostoevsky and viewed their experience with him as improbable. I think that unlike him they were unable to reconcile the reality of the subconscious with the reality of sense experience. That they are complementary worlds, not diametrically opposed.

He understood the inner world of people who didn't realize they have an inner world. He could grasp how things abstract affected those concrete. Which to some (those like you and myself) is realism. But not to the 'haters.' God be praised that I am not one.

Absolutely, that point is well-received. Just looking at Brothers Karamazov, the three brothers represent archetypes across people (intellectual, sensualist, spiritualist) but they also represent acchetypes within people - I certainly have those elements within me, and I'm sure you do too. What I like about that portrayal, is it accepts numerous ways of perceiving the world and navigating it successfully; you could make the case that it does so at the expense of putting down the intellectual or though and valorizing the wisdom traditions and higher aims, but that doesn't do justice to Dostoevsky's panoramic vision of himself and humanity.

It doesn't really bother me when people say they can't abide or flatout don't like Dostoevsky - some great novelists like Nabokov hated the guy. Egos clash, what can you do? This is well put: "I think that unlike him they were unable to reconcile the reality of the subconscious with the reality of sense experience. That they are complementary worlds, not diametrically opposed." Wise people, and indeed "spiritual" people, have a way of distilling humans, and even the larger context of the world, into tangible traits that are embodies by all; thus, great minds can make complex ideas everyday, or disparate folks partners.

Finally, critics and half-read people tend to be distrustful of commercial success. Dostoevsky and Dickens published their stuff in magazines, and serialized it that way. Now, what really irks academics is when Dickens is called the Shakespeare of novels; this doesn't piss them off because Dickens also used archetypcal characters and wordplay character names (even Faulkner did that: see Light In August), but rather because they conflate popularily with schlock, which is normally (but not always!) a correct assumption. Also, academics are secret lovers of subtlety in plot development; however, Saul Bellow was not subtle and neither is life! Sometimes you get kicked in the face unexpectedly and sometimes life is strangely beautiful. Humans are basically incomprehensible; a prescient mind can form patterns with groups though.

[Thales]

Crime & Punishment seems to be an interesting psychological study.

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Crime and Punishment is the only one of his works that I've read (and even then, it was a few years ago and I'm pretty fuzzy when it comes to remembering something past a day or two). I definitely remember liking it and I found Raskolnikov to be an interesting character.

Currently in my possession I have Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and The Karamazov Brothers. I think I'll go ahead and read through those.

[duke of new york]

Originally Posted by Cheeseumpuffs

Crime and Punishment is the only one of his works that I've read (and even then, it was a few years ago and I'm pretty fuzzy when it comes to remembering something past a day or two). I definitely remember liking it and I found Raskolnikov to be an interesting character.

Currently in my possession I have Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and The Karamazov Brothers. I think I'll go ahead and read through those.

I've read Crime and Punishment and The Karamazov Brothers, and I prefer the former. It's one of my top five favorite books. I liked the focus on the mental state of the one character as opposed to the multiple stories going on in Karamazov. I've also read Notes From the Underground, and I thought it was boring as hell.

[snafupants]

Originally Posted by duke of new york

I've read Crime and Punishment and The Karamazov Brothers, and I prefer the former. It's one of my top five favorite books. I liked the focus on the mental state of the one character as opposed to the multiple stories going on in Karamazov. I've also read Notes From the Underground, and I thought it was boring as hell.

Well, if my memory serves me Notes was a pretty revolutionary nihilism meets existentialism text of the nineteenth century, dispelling determinism and all that jazz. Dostoevsky's gulag experience must have informed House of the Dead and Notes pretty heavily, and even more than his later, more remembered stuff. Plus, Notes was only around one hundred pages, so even if it were as trying and daft as Infinite Jest , which was truly painful, it wouldn't be half as root canal kick-in-the-groin excruciating. Sorry I'm still venting over wasting my time on that doggerel, overhyped Wallace garbage.

Some books simply do not age that well; this is especially true for texts that attempt to capture an historical moment. Dostoevsky certainly aimed to capture current news and revolutions and philosophies and dogmas and persons in his writing. His writing is so personal that it, also, creates a timeless chronicle of what being human means. Nietzsche wasn't so completely syphilis-ridden and deranged not to appreciate his Fyodor. The mark of an intelligent, half-sane philosopher. If you're just picking up Dostoevsky - this is more for anyone reading this than one specific person - read House of the Dead and, after that, The Idiot to gauge what you can take away from ol' Fyodor.

[kantor1003]

I really enjoyed notes from underground. Perhaps because it's so dark. It's relatively short which helps if you just want a quick snack as opposed to a 5 course meal like the brothers karamazov. I never got around to finishing the idiot, but I'll make sure to do so eventually, but I want to read crime and punishment first.

Oh, and I saw the film "red beard" (1965) today. If you enjoy Dostoevsky, or 19th century literature in general perhaps, I think you'll like this film (it was almost like reading Dostevksy actually).

I think I've fallen in love with him. Perhaps it's good he is dead as meeting him, or seeing clips of him on youtube could have ruined everything. Didn't he even makes the point himself? Something along the lines that you can meet the greatest man ever, but if you meet him in person and he smells it doesn't matter how intelligent, or enlightened he might be, something is lost.
How easy it is to love man at a distance (through literature, art, films).
At least similar sentiments I think.

[kantor1003]

Oh, and I read a passage yesterday that I think really goes to show how much nietzche was influenced by dostoevsky. It's from the scene where ivan talks with his hallucination after his last visit to smerdyakov. Following said to ivan by his imagined friend: "What's more, even if this period never comes to pass*, since there is anyway no god and no immortality, the new man** may well become the man-god, even if he is the only one in the whole world, and promoted to his new position, he may lightheartedly overstep all the barriers of the old morality of the old slave-man, if necessary. ---"

*man in it's entirety loosing faith in god
**the one who don't believe in god

For me it was almost like reading "thus spoke zarathustra".

[kantor1003]

One more thing. If anyone liked "notes from underground" and feels in the mood for another dark, short read, I'd recommend "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Who_Were_Hanged". It's from a relatively unknown russian writer, Leonid Andreyev, written in 1909. It basically dives into the last few days of 7 people who are destined to be executed. It's not for everyone probably, but to me, there is nothing more fascinating than the minds of a group of people, often accompanied by a special sort of solidarity, comradery and a renewed appreciation of life, facing something terrible, like capital punishment. Sometimes I envy such people. Yes, I know. It's misguided, perhaps. But it* is not sterile! Like so much of ordinary human interrelationships. Well, yes, I'm rambling. I'll stop now.

*the situation and how it effects the people involved and their relation to each other