One can scarcely help clarifying him: on the Brothers Karamazov(laphamsquarterly.org)
laphamsquarterly.org
One can scarcely help clarifying him: on the Brothers Karamazov
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/one-can-scarcely-help-clarifying-him
89 comments
About 25 years ago, after being absolutely blown away by Crime and Punishment, I gave The Brothers Karmazov a try, and was disappointed to find it was very soap-operaish. I really couldn't care less who was sleeping with whom or about the other petty melodrama in the book.
I also recently came back to Crime and Punishment, and found that while it has some of the greatest passages I've ever read in any book, passages that are full of keen psychological penetration and empathy for deeply flawed people, there's also a lot of corny, cliche material in it: the murderer with a heart of gold, the prostitute with a heart of gold, the consumption poor mother sacrifices everything for her chldren, etc...
These sorts of characters might not have been cliche in the 19th Century, but they certainly are today.
I also recently came back to Crime and Punishment, and found that while it has some of the greatest passages I've ever read in any book, passages that are full of keen psychological penetration and empathy for deeply flawed people, there's also a lot of corny, cliche material in it: the murderer with a heart of gold, the prostitute with a heart of gold, the consumption poor mother sacrifices everything for her chldren, etc...
These sorts of characters might not have been cliche in the 19th Century, but they certainly are today.
Well-known older influential works tend to be where things that have become cliché came from.
This is why I have trouble watching Seinfeld. So many works have copied or been inspired by it that I've seen every trope or plot in other media beforehand.
Why can't Elon Musk come up with a new gag?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFIZleBSPI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFIZleBSPI
Murderer with a heart of gold? The protagonist is a wretched coward from start to finish.
Cowards can have heart of gold too
The point of the book is that he does not have a heart of gold, and must find redemption outside of himself. The book as a whole is a window into this wretched soul and the devastation he wreaks on himself by his own actions, led by his blackened worldview.
I disagree
> These sorts of characters might not have been cliche in the 19th Century, but they certainly are today.
It's interesting how older works that were new and special at the time start looking generic and derivative decades later after inspiring a bunch of now-common tropes. Lord of the Rings if published today would be generic derivative fantasy because it has elves, dwarves (with a 'v'), halflings etc. and generally is just imitating Lord of the Rings.
It's interesting how older works that were new and special at the time start looking generic and derivative decades later after inspiring a bunch of now-common tropes. Lord of the Rings if published today would be generic derivative fantasy because it has elves, dwarves (with a 'v'), halflings etc. and generally is just imitating Lord of the Rings.
You ever read Borge's "Pierre Menard Author of the Quixote"? If not you really should, short and sweet (approx 15 pages IIRC)
Quite a lot of the plot depends on Raskolnikov being sickly and fainting at inopportune moments. In modern fiction, this would be considered contrived. It's also not just a case of modern expectations being shaped by influential novels from the past because older literature avoids the same problem.
I get that it's not really 'the point' and not why people love Crime and Punishment but it is a barrier to appreciating it.
I preferred & loved The Brothers Karamazov but it suffers from a similar, more justified problem: critiques on the Russian Orthodox church and prophet worship don't have much relevancy to a modern, western, atheistic audience.
I get that it's not really 'the point' and not why people love Crime and Punishment but it is a barrier to appreciating it.
I preferred & loved The Brothers Karamazov but it suffers from a similar, more justified problem: critiques on the Russian Orthodox church and prophet worship don't have much relevancy to a modern, western, atheistic audience.
I recommend the 1979 BBC dramatization of Crime & Punishment, starring John Hurt as Raskolnikov.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0078590/
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0078590/
Brothers Karamazov is supposedly really good, but it remains basically the only book I've started but never finished.
The beginning is sooo boring. It takes over a hundred pages for them to even get to be at the same place at the same time where something even could happen. I gave up right at that point, which supposedly is when it gets good.
The beginning is sooo boring. It takes over a hundred pages for them to even get to be at the same place at the same time where something even could happen. I gave up right at that point, which supposedly is when it gets good.
The book is a slog, and frankly I think I'd have appreciated it much more if I read a heavily annotated edition.
That said, excerpts from the book stand so incredibly alone. The Grand Inquisitor speech, the Father Zosima passage, Mitya's troika ride, Ilusha's funeral...
I found The Idiot a far more approachable book.
That said, excerpts from the book stand so incredibly alone. The Grand Inquisitor speech, the Father Zosima passage, Mitya's troika ride, Ilusha's funeral...
I found The Idiot a far more approachable book.
I think you mean "a heavily abridged edition", unless you think a lot of background info is what's missing from your experience.
No, I think what I was missing was some insight into the symbology or themes.
My copy of Master and Margarita has such incredible endnotes, without which I really dont think I would have appreciated it.
My Penguin Classics copy of Karamazov just has very short translation clarifications and didn't really improve my experience.
I understand why you might think i meant abridged though, since I was saying that the book is a slog but that it had great passages. I personally didnt mind the length as much as I felt I wasn't getting the most out of the "boring" parts.
My copy of Master and Margarita has such incredible endnotes, without which I really dont think I would have appreciated it.
My Penguin Classics copy of Karamazov just has very short translation clarifications and didn't really improve my experience.
I understand why you might think i meant abridged though, since I was saying that the book is a slog but that it had great passages. I personally didnt mind the length as much as I felt I wasn't getting the most out of the "boring" parts.
I've tried 3 times. Haven't made it through yet.
Tolstoy on the other hand, Anna Karenina I binged and had done in like a week (on vacation, reading a good portion of my time)
Tolstoy on the other hand, Anna Karenina I binged and had done in like a week (on vacation, reading a good portion of my time)
Get a good audio book version; I find that someone properly pronouncing the names helps with things like War and Peace or the Silmarillion.
Audiobooks are also great for slogs. You just keep walking, and the boring part of the book just keeps happening at you. No getting distracted and putting the book down etc.
If you liked war and peace, you should check out grossman’s life and fate, it’s WWII’s version, fantastic. And blacklisted by the soviet government because critical of it.
I don’t understand how people don’t like War and Peace, aside from its size and the weird discursive turns he takes in the appendices. I’ve read it three times and every time it’s a page-turner. So good. But Tolstoy was an infinitely better literary artist than Dostoevsky could ever hope to be. (Tolstoy’s novella, Hadji Murad, is 100 pages of literary crystal, cleverly concealing itself from you as you look on through the transparent glass of words into the world Tolstoy points out to you, until you realize the whole thing is just Tolstoy and his astonishing talent).
But Dostoevsky had the real big heart, and I love him for it.
But Dostoevsky had the real big heart, and I love him for it.
I don’t understand how people don’t like War and Peace
Easy, try mandatory-reading it in the summer when you’re around 15. I told my teacher that I will not do it and I don’t care what comes with it.
Easy, try mandatory-reading it in the summer when you’re around 15. I told my teacher that I will not do it and I don’t care what comes with it.
I don’t think you can objectively say Tolstoy was a worse literary artist than Dostoyevsky.
For me it’s absolutely the other way around. Dostoyevsky saw into men’s souls in a way no other writer perhaps barring Shakespeare could. Tolstoy for me is more mechanically or technically good, but Dostoyevsky was a true artist and saw through life and humanity at another level.
For me it’s absolutely the other way around. Dostoyevsky saw into men’s souls in a way no other writer perhaps barring Shakespeare could. Tolstoy for me is more mechanically or technically good, but Dostoyevsky was a true artist and saw through life and humanity at another level.
That's what they said
> But Tolstoy was an infinitely better literary artist than Dostoevsky could ever hope to be.
> But Tolstoy was an infinitely better literary artist than Dostoevsky could ever hope to be.
Right. Dostoevsky was perfect on the human element. Tolstoy on the writing.
War and Peace starts pretty slow. It took me a long time to get through the first 100 pages or so. Once I was into it, I couldn't put it down, but it took a while to get there.
Definitely looking forward to reading this soon. Thanks for recommending it, friend!
It would have been so helpful and on topic if this and every other comment on Russian literature had stated which translation they used, or if they read the original.
I was always partial to Demons (a.k.a. The Possessed) and The Idiot.
its hard to equate “quintessential Russian novel,” with the book Crime and Punishment, here... much closer to Kafka or Camus. Crime and Punishment is worthy literature for certain, but “quintessential Russian novel,” doesn't fit..
This article seems to end abruptly - it's written by the translator of a new edition, talks a bit about the history of the book, goes into alleged issues with two popular translations and then stops before ever explaining anything about the new translation or how and why it addresses those issues. Did I miss something?
I got the same feeling and the author being the translator of such exhaustive literary pieces, one wouldn't expect this to end so quickly and unfulfilling.
> "The reader will have to read the novel and decide the case as they see fit."
> "The reader will have to read the novel and decide the case as they see fit."
It feels like a very truncated version of the translator's preface. Maybe someone will post a review.
I am partial to Pevear and Volonkhonsky. I find the English fine, despite everyone complaining it is too close to the Russian. I don't read Russian, so the closer the translator can get me, the better.
I am partial to Pevear and Volonkhonsky. I find the English fine, despite everyone complaining it is too close to the Russian. I don't read Russian, so the closer the translator can get me, the better.
[deleted]
I never understood fascination with his books, especially on the west. I was forced through "Crime and Punishment" by our school system and tried (for the 3rd time) reading The Brothers Karamazov in my mid 30s - its all so boring and pointless and I was only driven by my curiosity to find what other people are finding there (and failing). So, a genuine question for the people that found "Brothers Karamazov" good - what was good about it? The linked article just sings pointless accolades.
It's his personal study on human nature fictionalized as a mundane story. The meat of the work isn't the plot, but the interactions between the characters, which each are supposed to represent various personality archetypes and world-views they subscribe to.
It's also interesting to consider each character (disregarding minor characters) all of as an orthogonal dimension of a single person (by no means scientific): the inner-monkey (Dmitri), hyper-intellect (Ivan), spiritual/altruistic (Alyosha). From this perspective, the work is a solipsistic study on how inner-conflict manifests outwardly into the world.
It's also interesting to consider each character (disregarding minor characters) all of as an orthogonal dimension of a single person (by no means scientific): the inner-monkey (Dmitri), hyper-intellect (Ivan), spiritual/altruistic (Alyosha). From this perspective, the work is a solipsistic study on how inner-conflict manifests outwardly into the world.
Writers and readers of literature trend as either character-oriented or plot-oriented. Literary critics, showing a traditional prejudice, call stories of the first type "literary fiction" and the second type "genre fiction". Dostoevsky’s works are definitely character studies, so looking for a well-structured plot is missing his aims. My own preference is for plot-based stories, so I find most of the great "literary" novelists, like D. H. Lawrence, rather unengaging.
Try reading just the Grand Inquisitor chapter and see what you think.
I was always told re C&P in school: "The crime was to assign it, the punishment was to read it".
Karamazov was much harder for me to read than C&P or The Idiot, and I liked the other two best.
That said, it's well worth it to read the famous passages, they are incredible prose
Karamazov was much harder for me to read than C&P or The Idiot, and I liked the other two best.
That said, it's well worth it to read the famous passages, they are incredible prose
Super interesting to read everyone's opinions about C&P. I too was force-fed lots of classics in school, and practically always resorted to CliffsNotes. For whatever reason, C&P struck such a chord with me, I "couldn't put it down", won a scholarship writing about it, and got to skip a bunch of Lit classes in college :)
There were many classic novels forced via English class that I actively disliked. Most of Melville gives me an eye twitch to this day. But C&P clicked with me and my friend group. We all loved the weeks we spent on it, discussing in class, and it remains a book I re-read every few years.
This is heresy, but if you skip the chapters in Moby Dick of asides, it's a pretty gripping story. There's a reason why Star Trek keeps stealing Ahab's best lines. I like some of the chapters of asides, but they're really not what makes the book a classic.
Interesting point about the west. Apparently Dostoevsky wrote the novels in a western style, altering the Russian style to be more like his western contemporaries like Dickens and other readable novelists. (He still wrote in the russian language of course)
I don't think the intention was to appeal to the west but I think it does make it easier for westerners today to approach and appreciate his work.
I don't think the intention was to appeal to the west but I think it does make it easier for westerners today to approach and appreciate his work.
[deleted]
The book (Karamazov) essentially deals with very fundamental moral and spiritual issues like pain, suffering, the problem of evil etc. You'd have a better time appreciating it if you put yourself within the context of when the book was written, and the religious sensibilities common at that time.
Maybe it's harder to appreciate it now, I can definitely understand why it would be.
Maybe it's harder to appreciate it now, I can definitely understand why it would be.
There is a point in suffering where you feel you're losing your mind. There is a point in finding grace that is equally delirious. The novel swings from one end to the other and maybe best of all, leaves so many questions about life seeded in you to grow.
Someone on /lit/ called Brothers Karamazov a "ghoulish rigmarole." I struggle to see the enduring value of the work. I got 100 pages into it on a 9-hr flight without wifi. There's nothing quotable or apparently salient. Kindle version had no popular highlights, unlike Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. I just hear vague proclamations about how great it is but no specific insights, passages, or takeaways. I can think of tons of quotes, characters in AK that resonated but nothing seemed to ever happen in BK.
Dostoevsky was a prominent antisemite of his time which was very trendy and cool in the late Russian Empire.
Western scholars love him for some reason (as the study of the constantly ongoing brutality of Russian culture, perhaps?)
Western scholars love him for some reason (as the study of the constantly ongoing brutality of Russian culture, perhaps?)
Crime and punishment was riveting. “Brothers” was a slog. Maybe I didn’t make it far enough through. This comes from someone who lived in Russia and enjoys Russian culture.
Looking at other comments here and elsewhere, I believe with Dostoevsky's work, it's binary -- you either love him to death, or you are bored of him to death. Glad to be in the former camp.
I really love how Dostoevsky's novels seem so simple on the surface, yet as you keep reading, they keep getting better, and deeper, and more profound, without losing the simplicity or authenticity. Looking back, The Brother's Karamazov is the best book I've ever read. I was just recently thinking of giving it a re-read, will probably be great to do it in a different translation.
It has happened to me before that a book that I greatly admired felt not so great when re-reading it later (The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts, I still feel it's good, but having internalized the core concepts, it seemed way too repetitive on second read). Hope that doesn't happen when I re-read Dostoevsky's novels, I have a feeling I would like them even better, but who knows.
I really love how Dostoevsky's novels seem so simple on the surface, yet as you keep reading, they keep getting better, and deeper, and more profound, without losing the simplicity or authenticity. Looking back, The Brother's Karamazov is the best book I've ever read. I was just recently thinking of giving it a re-read, will probably be great to do it in a different translation.
It has happened to me before that a book that I greatly admired felt not so great when re-reading it later (The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts, I still feel it's good, but having internalized the core concepts, it seemed way too repetitive on second read). Hope that doesn't happen when I re-read Dostoevsky's novels, I have a feeling I would like them even better, but who knows.
Not necessarily true. I don't find his books boring, but I activelly don't like them. Dostoevsky to me is a reactionary, a regressive religious ideologue to the core - despite all the psychoanalysis.
No, not binary. I love the House of the Dead and the Gambler, but Brothers is a soap opera with a few great chapters and passages hiding inside. They don't make the overall experience worth it though.
I read The Brothers Karamazov in my early 20s and after the first 100 / 150 pages or so, which as other have mentioned felt like quite a slog, I was blown away by it. I tried to read it again around 20 years later and it felt wildly overdone. As Borges said, if you get bored reading a book then it wasn't written for you, but I think that needs an addendum that it wasn't written for you at that point in your life. Perhaps I'll enjoy it again later on - the pressures of work and a family do mean that I find myself having very little time or patience for melodramatic people in my life, and I wonder if that has spilled over into my appreciation of novels!
I nearly lost my habit of reading novels, and it's been quite some time since I indulged in fiction. Recently, I decided to try Dostoevsky. I'm currently engrossed in Crime and Punishment, and I'm going to finish it today. absolutely addicting. my next read will be Notes from Underground.
House of the Dead and The Gambler are both highly underrated in my opinion.
House of the Dead was Tolstoy's favorite and it it was on his bedside table when he died.
The Gambler has a hell of a backstory - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21152240. The book itself was one enormous real-life gamble, which he won by a hair. Since gambling was Dostoevsky's own addiction, the intensity in the book has a personal quality.
Also fabulous is The Double, which was the second thing he published, and still one of his best.
The Gambler has a hell of a backstory - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21152240. The book itself was one enormous real-life gamble, which he won by a hair. Since gambling was Dostoevsky's own addiction, the intensity in the book has a personal quality.
Also fabulous is The Double, which was the second thing he published, and still one of his best.
>House of the Dead was Tolstoy's favorite and it it was on his bedside table when he died.
Very interesting, never heard that, but I'm not surprised! Incredibly raw depiction of human nature. Much less verbiage than his other works but very profound.
>Also fabulous is The Double, which was the second thing he published, and still one of his best.
Flabbergasted I haven't read this yet. Got a copy on they way, thanks for the heads up!
Very interesting, never heard that, but I'm not surprised! Incredibly raw depiction of human nature. Much less verbiage than his other works but very profound.
>Also fabulous is The Double, which was the second thing he published, and still one of his best.
Flabbergasted I haven't read this yet. Got a copy on they way, thanks for the heads up!
Oh wow, I convinced someone to read The Double! or at least to order it.
Since you like his other novels I should warn you that it's unlike those - it's a cross between later Dostoevsky and Gogol, as well as a late variation on the doppelganger trope. It's tragicomic but hilarious. It shows its influences but it also shows D's unmistakeable qualities.
The social-literary critics of the time threw D into the literary doghouse for it. But it was the one book of his that Nabokov loved. I know whose good opinion I'd rather have!
Since you like his other novels I should warn you that it's unlike those - it's a cross between later Dostoevsky and Gogol, as well as a late variation on the doppelganger trope. It's tragicomic but hilarious. It shows its influences but it also shows D's unmistakeable qualities.
The social-literary critics of the time threw D into the literary doghouse for it. But it was the one book of his that Nabokov loved. I know whose good opinion I'd rather have!
Anyone else has 403 Forbidden on this domain?
I did not care for Crime and Punishment. It takes forever getting in; you spend like six and a half hours... You know, I can't get through, I've never even finished the book.
The thing I hate about most "great" fiction is it's rarely made better by the theatrics of it. I'd much rather read the author's anecdotal opinion instead of an overdrawn lie that's subtextually getting to that same point, except taking more time and little entertainment along the way.
The thing I hate about most "great" fiction is it's rarely made better by the theatrics of it. I'd much rather read the author's anecdotal opinion instead of an overdrawn lie that's subtextually getting to that same point, except taking more time and little entertainment along the way.
Maybe it's just a personal thing; maybe it's partly about the translation you pick. But I remember reading Crime & Punishment back in my 20s (without any expectations or background knowledge), and I found it absolutely gripping.
[eta:] On the other hand, some years later I got totally bogged down in Brothers Karamazov, and (rarely, for me) didn't finish the book.
[eta:] On the other hand, some years later I got totally bogged down in Brothers Karamazov, and (rarely, for me) didn't finish the book.
I read Notes from The Underground and his other short stories first in High School, never read more verbose prose with so few insights. I had searing hate for having spent the little money I had on that collection and that probably colored my opinion of Crime and Punishment.
I don't get literature culture in general. I love art. In my view art is aesthetics denouncing intention and information through symbology.
What I don't get is why something like In Search of Lost Time from Proust, which I love, is THAT much better than Diary of a Wimpy Kid, when it sometimes explores a lot of similar ideas except using a different aesthetic.
Is the value in art to be judged by how prestigious the aesthetics imply said art to be? Some SpongeBob SquarePants episodes have the same depth as a great Azimov short story except that's really far from how they're categorized.
I don't get literature culture in general. I love art. In my view art is aesthetics denouncing intention and information through symbology.
What I don't get is why something like In Search of Lost Time from Proust, which I love, is THAT much better than Diary of a Wimpy Kid, when it sometimes explores a lot of similar ideas except using a different aesthetic.
Is the value in art to be judged by how prestigious the aesthetics imply said art to be? Some SpongeBob SquarePants episodes have the same depth as a great Azimov short story except that's really far from how they're categorized.
Professional critics and their opinions is the worst thing that could've happen to art (edit: in modern times, to be fair I've no idea about the past and its nuances). People like Tarantino killed some of that pompous nonsense, but world is super inertial (and critics had simply adjusted) so we're still there, with "high" and "lowly" arts.
Being a native Russian speaker, I've been forced to read Crime and Punishment in high school, and for me (personally, subjectively) it was very difficult to read. Obviously, I had no clue what the heck the fuss was about (because I utterly lacked the historical context - history and philosophy courses weren't there yet, a badly designed school program to be blamed), but three key points I still remember are weird original premise (in retrospect, I see how it was possibly constructed - a Frankenstein's monster of utterly exaggerated Western ideas perverted into a faux killer agenda), a sludge of random ravings beating around the bush of expected outcome until some arbitrary breaking point, and a catharsis and ensuing "enlightening" of sorts, where Dostoevsky had "won" his shower debate and reiterated his views. The language was good, but I had issues with the rest. Purely subjective opinion, of course.
Being a native Russian speaker, I've been forced to read Crime and Punishment in high school, and for me (personally, subjectively) it was very difficult to read. Obviously, I had no clue what the heck the fuss was about (because I utterly lacked the historical context - history and philosophy courses weren't there yet, a badly designed school program to be blamed), but three key points I still remember are weird original premise (in retrospect, I see how it was possibly constructed - a Frankenstein's monster of utterly exaggerated Western ideas perverted into a faux killer agenda), a sludge of random ravings beating around the bush of expected outcome until some arbitrary breaking point, and a catharsis and ensuing "enlightening" of sorts, where Dostoevsky had "won" his shower debate and reiterated his views. The language was good, but I had issues with the rest. Purely subjective opinion, of course.
>a sludge of random ravings beating around the bush of expected outcome
I thought this exact thing while trying to read it. "Is he a coward and can't just state his thoughts? They don't seem so assblasting genius he needs so many pages to get there."
I'm from Brazil and most of our classic literature boils down to a cranky rich old man complaining a lot and strawmanning the kinds of people he doesn't like.
If he's a leftist it'd be rich people, if he's conservative it's the degenerate decadent youths.
>Professional critics and their opinions is the worst thing that could've happen to art (edit: in modern times, to be fair I've no idea about the past and its nuances). People like Tarantino killed some of that pompous nonsense, but world is super inertial (and critics had simply adjusted) so we're still there, with "high" and "lowly" arts.
I didn't know it was because of professional critics. A lot of people seem to repeat the same judgement so I just assumed it were organic popular opinions.
I don't know how others engage with books though. With a lot of "real serious" prosaic author's I'll just have no idea what they're exactly describing so I'll just imagine my own version of it. Whenever the language gets too obtuse I literally cannot get everything the author is talking about.
It's weird for instance that there was even a serious critic's discussion about videogames being art.
"But it's interactive"
living is interactive, our train of thought while reading a book is interactive, our train of thought while watching a movie is interactive, our interpretation of anything in a museum displaying contemporary art is very interactive. You'll see two sticks and a bucket and the artist will claim that's his wife.
Why are some mediums (books, sculptures) given much more inherent credit than videogames or movies or hacker news comments? Isn't it all just the meme of prestige?
I feel most comments here, certainly yours, have more thought and ideas behind them in a shorter format than a lot of important books.
Why is the behaviour of analyzing art, for all it's endless self deconstructions, still limited by the museum space or the book/movie/game format and more importantly it's social expectation to do so?
There's a quote from a Netflix series called Sense8 that I love:
"Art is like religion. For the believers, it's everything. For anyone else, it's just a pile of bullshit".
I thought this exact thing while trying to read it. "Is he a coward and can't just state his thoughts? They don't seem so assblasting genius he needs so many pages to get there."
I'm from Brazil and most of our classic literature boils down to a cranky rich old man complaining a lot and strawmanning the kinds of people he doesn't like.
If he's a leftist it'd be rich people, if he's conservative it's the degenerate decadent youths.
>Professional critics and their opinions is the worst thing that could've happen to art (edit: in modern times, to be fair I've no idea about the past and its nuances). People like Tarantino killed some of that pompous nonsense, but world is super inertial (and critics had simply adjusted) so we're still there, with "high" and "lowly" arts.
I didn't know it was because of professional critics. A lot of people seem to repeat the same judgement so I just assumed it were organic popular opinions.
I don't know how others engage with books though. With a lot of "real serious" prosaic author's I'll just have no idea what they're exactly describing so I'll just imagine my own version of it. Whenever the language gets too obtuse I literally cannot get everything the author is talking about.
It's weird for instance that there was even a serious critic's discussion about videogames being art.
"But it's interactive"
living is interactive, our train of thought while reading a book is interactive, our train of thought while watching a movie is interactive, our interpretation of anything in a museum displaying contemporary art is very interactive. You'll see two sticks and a bucket and the artist will claim that's his wife.
Why are some mediums (books, sculptures) given much more inherent credit than videogames or movies or hacker news comments? Isn't it all just the meme of prestige?
I feel most comments here, certainly yours, have more thought and ideas behind them in a shorter format than a lot of important books.
Why is the behaviour of analyzing art, for all it's endless self deconstructions, still limited by the museum space or the book/movie/game format and more importantly it's social expectation to do so?
There's a quote from a Netflix series called Sense8 that I love:
"Art is like religion. For the believers, it's everything. For anyone else, it's just a pile of bullshit".
Video games aren't considered art yet (by most people) for a few reasons.
1. We're used to art being created by individual artists, not a team of people.
2. Video games are often mindless and commercially motivated.
3. Video games didn't emerge from high society.
I think number 2 was valid for the longest. But all of them are slowly crumbling. They'll be increasingly seen as an art form, because they are.
1. We're used to art being created by individual artists, not a team of people.
2. Video games are often mindless and commercially motivated.
3. Video games didn't emerge from high society.
I think number 2 was valid for the longest. But all of them are slowly crumbling. They'll be increasingly seen as an art form, because they are.
The second half of Swann's Way is an eloquent portrait of an obsessive love affair. If Diary of a Wimpy Kid has an eloquent portrait of an obsessive love affair, perhaps I have misjudged it.
Something I find fascinating is just how often that people will think, when they discover that other people have different opinions from them, that they can't really mean it. They must be lying, or be making some sort of mistake, or (in your case) they are incapable of thinking clearly. The truth is that it's crazy, unpredictable world. Sometimes people sincerely like Notes from the Underground and don't like Sponge Bob Square Pants.
Something I find fascinating is just how often that people will think, when they discover that other people have different opinions from them, that they can't really mean it. They must be lying, or be making some sort of mistake, or (in your case) they are incapable of thinking clearly. The truth is that it's crazy, unpredictable world. Sometimes people sincerely like Notes from the Underground and don't like Sponge Bob Square Pants.
I think the buildup in Crime and Punishment is what makes the resolution so good. I distinctly remember a point where the book delivered the most intense literature derived frisson I had ever experienced.
It was a bit of a slog and I’ve never been tempted to pick it back up, but it was worth it.
It was a bit of a slog and I’ve never been tempted to pick it back up, but it was worth it.
Tale of Dad Victory:
Teenagers had to read "non-western" novel for class.
Child's friend picked Crime and Punishment.
I steered child to Siddhartha by Hesse.
Teenagers had to read "non-western" novel for class.
Child's friend picked Crime and Punishment.
I steered child to Siddhartha by Hesse.
I can see how one may reason non-westerness of Dostoyevski, but - Hesse as non-western!? Isn't he Swiss?
I guess the subject matter is eastern/Buddhist in nature? Not sure what GP meant.
I liked that book when I was young but a recent reading didn't leave me super impressed.
My absolute favorite book by Hesse is Narcissus and Goldmund, it's beautiful. The Glass Bead game is pretty amazing too.
I liked that book when I was young but a recent reading didn't leave me super impressed.
My absolute favorite book by Hesse is Narcissus and Goldmund, it's beautiful. The Glass Bead game is pretty amazing too.
Siddhartha being about Buddha was enough to qualify. I hadn't read it since college, but remembered how short it was ...
> I can see how one may reason non-westerness of Dostoyevski
I can’t. Dostoyevski’s Russia is still very much European. It’s culturally a lot closer to what was produced in my own Western European country at the time than anything written in the USA at the same period. But the very idea of the western civilisation is dubious anyway.
I can’t. Dostoyevski’s Russia is still very much European. It’s culturally a lot closer to what was produced in my own Western European country at the time than anything written in the USA at the same period. But the very idea of the western civilisation is dubious anyway.
toinbis(1)
wellanyway(2)
With HN’s fascination for fascist artists, I’m surprised Leni Riefenstahl isn’t featured more prominently on the front page. But it’s only Dostoyevsky.
Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar hell. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've been breaking the site guidelines a lot lately. That's not ok. I appreciate that you have deep reasons to feel strongly about the war, but you've been breaking HN's guidelines in plenty of other contexts too. If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to do that, so if you'd please take the intended spirit of the site more to heart and comment within that, we'd appreciate it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've been breaking the site guidelines a lot lately. That's not ok. I appreciate that you have deep reasons to feel strongly about the war, but you've been breaking HN's guidelines in plenty of other contexts too. If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to do that, so if you'd please take the intended spirit of the site more to heart and comment within that, we'd appreciate it.
My last comment before this one was 56 days ago. You are not exactly making a case for your argument.
As to the ban - I asked you to delete my account years ago and you refused. So it's not something you can credibly threaten with, if I don't care. What I do care is you retaining my personal data against my will. But if I need a ban for you to purge it - please go ahead.
Maybe some helpful feedback for you: I would be more inclined to pay attention to the guidelines if those were not used to reinforce the site's obvious political biases. Yeah, you *say* HN is neutral, but for some reason only a certain kind of opinion gets promoted. I've read this site for 12 years in one account or another and the groupthink has only gotten worse. How are you going to solve this?
As to the ban - I asked you to delete my account years ago and you refused. So it's not something you can credibly threaten with, if I don't care. What I do care is you retaining my personal data against my will. But if I need a ban for you to purge it - please go ahead.
Maybe some helpful feedback for you: I would be more inclined to pay attention to the guidelines if those were not used to reinforce the site's obvious political biases. Yeah, you *say* HN is neutral, but for some reason only a certain kind of opinion gets promoted. I've read this site for 12 years in one account or another and the groupthink has only gotten worse. How are you going to solve this?
> I would be more inclined to pay attention to the guidelines if those were not used to reinforce the site's obvious political biases
This is an illusion. Everyone with strong political passions feels like the site is "obviously" biased against them. Your counterparts on the opposing side of any battle are equally certain of this. This is a reliable phenomenon and seems to be a function of how political passions work. It's not an accurate reflection of either the community or the moderation, no matter how obvious it feels.
> My last comment before this one was 56 days ago.
I'm responding to the preponderance of guideline-breaking comments in your HN comment feed.
Re deletion: it looks like you emailed us 7 years ago. Since then a lot has changed; we still don't delete entire account histories but we can randomize the username and/or do other things.
This is an illusion. Everyone with strong political passions feels like the site is "obviously" biased against them. Your counterparts on the opposing side of any battle are equally certain of this. This is a reliable phenomenon and seems to be a function of how political passions work. It's not an accurate reflection of either the community or the moderation, no matter how obvious it feels.
> My last comment before this one was 56 days ago.
I'm responding to the preponderance of guideline-breaking comments in your HN comment feed.
Re deletion: it looks like you emailed us 7 years ago. Since then a lot has changed; we still don't delete entire account histories but we can randomize the username and/or do other things.
> This is an illusion.
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Qunanbaiuly” (major Kazakh author) yields no results.
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Shevchenko” (major Ukrainian author) yields no results.
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Gogol” (major Ukrainian author that russia tries to appropriate) yields 1 article about russian theater!
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Taamsaare” (major Estonian author) yield no results.
But the search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Dostoevsky” yields 5 results.
5 > 0. Not an illusion.
Russia is known for using Russification as a method of oppression and genocide [1]. Dostoyevsky’s views are also pretty well known and their existence is not a matter of partisan opinion. If you are talking about Dostoyevsky, you are talking about core beliefs of russian fascist thought [2].
By preventing criticism of this, you are not neutral. This is not a political or ideological issue. It is a moral, humanist issue. And you know that.
> ... but we can randomize the username and/or do other things.
Please do those things in my case.
----
[1] - https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/the-forcible-transfer-an...
[2] - https://war.ukraine.ua/articles/origins-of-rashism-ideology-...
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Qunanbaiuly” (major Kazakh author) yields no results.
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Shevchenko” (major Ukrainian author) yields no results.
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Gogol” (major Ukrainian author that russia tries to appropriate) yields 1 article about russian theater!
The search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Taamsaare” (major Estonian author) yield no results.
But the search “site:https://news.ycombinator.com/front Dostoevsky” yields 5 results.
5 > 0. Not an illusion.
Russia is known for using Russification as a method of oppression and genocide [1]. Dostoyevsky’s views are also pretty well known and their existence is not a matter of partisan opinion. If you are talking about Dostoyevsky, you are talking about core beliefs of russian fascist thought [2].
By preventing criticism of this, you are not neutral. This is not a political or ideological issue. It is a moral, humanist issue. And you know that.
> ... but we can randomize the username and/or do other things.
Please do those things in my case.
----
[1] - https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/the-forcible-transfer-an...
[2] - https://war.ukraine.ua/articles/origins-of-rashism-ideology-...
Ok, I've randomized the username and closed the account.
I have to agree. It's unparalleled. Notes from Underground is really good too.
Speaking of Russian literature, I finally managed to finish rereading War and Peace recently after a decade+. It was long and slow, but easier this time around. I listened to The Cossacks on audiobook as well, and liked it quite a bit.