Like it or not, this is what the greatest writer of all time looks like

Like it or not, this is what the greatest writer of all time looks like

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can you tell me 3 (good) reasons to read his books?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >on a literature board
      >has never even attempted to read Dostoyevsky
      The state of the board

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sure anon.

      1) He spent half a decade in prison and keenly understood the criminal mind. It is rare to find someone with his ability to depict the evil in a human being.

      2) Crime and punishment is the original psychological thriller. Many popular stories would not exist without his example. If you enjoy American psycho, taxi driver, M, etc. you will enjoy Dostoevsky.

      3) Another movie based example: he invented the story structure where the main character is not the focus of the story. Think of No country for old men or Fargo.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You like Seinfeld. Most of Dostoyevsky's works are Seinfeldian in nature.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      His characters are the best (Shakespeare is the only one who comes close).

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you need to be 18 to post here

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I guess you’re one of the people that doesn’t like it; it just means you’re wrong. Simple as

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Christian moment

        >I guess you're just one of those nonbelievers; it just means you're wrong. Simple as

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I follow no organized religion

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So much the worse then, since it's the only reason anyone likes Dostoevsky, and the only remaining reason is purely bad taste.
            Christianity can be cured, bad taste is terminal.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >bad taste is terminal.
              "Whatever is not to my taste is bad taste."
              There cannot be objectively good or bad taste without a divine Good. How do you justify your statement?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"Whatever is not to my taste is bad taste."
                Strawman
                >There cannot be objectively good or bad taste without a divine Good.
                Nonsensical pseudtrap
                Try again and I might care

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Assertions and deflections. I'm mainly curious in seeing what your position is in detail.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not "assertions and deflections", I can't argue with you if your argument is fallacious word salad. There's nothing for me to than point to why it doesn't work and move on. If you explain what your argument with me is I can respond, and I will. But it can't be pseud babble

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you think liking Dostoevsky is in bad taste?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I was mostly memeing, Dostoevsky is a good to great author. But as far as great authors go he's low on the totem pole for a number of reasons (I'll elaborate) so holding him in the highest esteem is indicative of either bad taste or the sort of Christianity that tends to find insipid moral platitudes profound and the only worthwhile function of art. But holding him in esteem at all is fine.
                The reasons he's a second rate GREAT author would require a lot more space than I'll give them here, but there are a few objective qualities that make for truly great literature. The first and most important is immersion, at which Dostoevsky completely fails. All his scenes might as well take place in a cardboard room. And even when he does gesture to a real life setting, like when Roskolnikovichov or whatever in Crime and Punishments walk through the park towards the beginning of the novel, Dost. doesn't "settle" into description, he skates over sketches of detail like he's been writing all day and has no more energy. And the reason he seems like that is because that's how it was, he pushed himself to write as much as possible against harsh deadlines and lived poorly. The second quality he fails at is round characterization, all of his characters read like props constructed to execute a philosophical point. This in conjunction with his failing at the previous quality is enough in itself to be a strong indictment of his work. But there is a third quality he fails at, which is philosophy, when in fact the whole justification of his other failings is: he's a philosopher! This goes deeper than I can get into here since I would obviously need a lot of space, but suffice to say that basic bitch Christianity mixed with Kierkegaard isn't original genius.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Setting aside some disagreements with your "objective qualities," and "Christianity mixed with Kierkegaard" I generally agree with what you are saying. I appreciate Dostoevsky's work purely for the ideas he expresses rather than anything aesthetic, recognizing he can be awkward and slapdash at times. I do not see how he is more of a philosopher than a psychologist. He had an uncanny ability to understand people's motives, patterns of thought, etc. due to the strength of his intuition which is what I appreciate most in his work.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He definitely has some strengths, for instance his narration is top tier and like a better Dickens, which is the main reason I allow that he's great. As far as being a psychologist though I'd strongly prefer Tolstoy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I view Tolstoy more like a mirror reflecting the world around him. He doesn't plumb the depths of the human mind in my view. Though I haven't read as much of his work.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He definitely has some strengths, for instance his narration is top tier and like a better Dickens, which is the main reason I allow that he's great. As far as being a psychologist though I'd strongly prefer Tolstoy

                *plumb the depths of the human mind to the extent of Dostoevsky, I meant.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >objective qualities
                >immersion
                Stopped reading right there

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                your entire argument boils down to "dostoyevsky isn't writing the type of literature i want him to write therefore its bad"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that's every argument on this board

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are anons too young on this board to have seen the evolution of their taste in literature? As you get older you broaden your horizons and appreciate the difference and strengths of different writers. If you pigeonhole yourself and only like one type of book your whole life, you are a boring reader and a terrible critic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                very few people here develop any taste. you rarely get any interesting recs here anymore, people mostly just parrot the canon, the top 100 or various university syllabi on classic literature. it's the same books and writers over and over. this is also why many posters are so angry all the time, their view of literature is set in stone and gassed up by the hivemind. t-there's just no way anyone could dislike dostoevsky, h-he invented the psychological thriller! tolstoy said this and freud said that!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Based and true

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yep. A troubling trend Ive been noticing lately is also writers being judged purely by their personal life, beliefs, themes they wrote about, etc; basically everything except for the books they wrote. I have a feeling a lot of anons skim Wikipedia before giving their opinion on a writer they’ve never read. An atheist can enjoy Dostoyevsky, a conservative can enjoy Hemingway, and so on. But now this board seems to use writers as avatars and Pokémon, to define themselves and battle. Couple this with your post, and you realize that this board is in big trouble

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s LULZ, it’s been shit for several years and was hasn’t been even decent since 2011 at the latest

                LULZ is filled with community college shitheads and directional state university dropouts

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >LULZ is filled with community college shitheads and directional state university dropouts
                if only. it's filled with non-reading assholes

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This. Any type of reader is preferable to the average poster today. It’s obvious that the amount of actual readers on LULZ is at an all time low. It’s now a battleground for “intellectuals”

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                to be fair the overlap between non reader and dropouts is high

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe, but the amount of readers is still at an all time low. Writers and books are mostly posted for ulterior motives nowadays. Sure, the same thing happened in the past, but not as bad. It’s hard to have a discussion now that doesn’t descend into a shitposting argument

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes. early LULZ was good because posters were generally humble

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Kierkegaard isn't original genius.
                Stopped reading right there

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                List your top three authors. I bet anything there’s a woman on there. You make me puke.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The second quality he fails at is round characterization

                Mikhail Bakhtin, one of the most influential literary scholars of the 20th century, put forth an entire theory of form based on Dostoevsky's ability to create autonomous, free characters. You can read about it in "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics."

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >word salad.
                its always funny seeing retards respond to basic information they dont understand with this

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your average intellectual contribution to a thread is to call someone a retard. Relax

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                not really no

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wow nevermind then. You can go now thanks for playing

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I dont think I will

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There's nothing for me to than point to
                It's projection.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "Haha typo means retarded" is truly an intellectual's criticism. Ironic how the projection always comes from the one who accuses it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your average intellectual contribution to a thread is to call someone a retard. Relax

                90% of the posts on this board consist of the pricking of egos and the reactions that are elicited from that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's deep

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Actually Stephanie Meyer is just as good at literature as Tolstoy and you can't prove me wrong haha I am very intelligent
                Babby's first contrarianism

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tolstoy is trash and a charlatan, so yeah, Meyer is at least as good as Tolstoy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If there is no objective standard you could argue that point of view and it would be just as true as anybody else's subjective taste.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Powerful. Tolstoy BTFO

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Powerful.
                Yas quain

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hello? Based department?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your favorite philosopher is Nick Fuentes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Who's yours? Nietzche? Stupid Redditor.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah thought so. Mine is Schopenhauer, retarded philistine.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes, and?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    He actually looks like this

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leo Tolstoy sure looks funny.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >900 pages of fascinating dialogue and plot
    >'Anyways, whatever, let's all link arms and pray to god and we'll all be happy for ever and ever and go to heaven!'
    >fin.

    why?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, this is exactly why I was really disappointed with the end of C&P.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The ride is more important than the ending as you spend more time on it

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Dostoevsky's novels are still great for this reason. The monologues of Marmeladov and Ivan Karamazov are very well-done, but the novels didn't leave as much of a lasting impression on me due to their disappointing endings. It's a shame that Dostoevsky was a Christian.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did not mean to quote

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the ending of Demons was certainly among the best ive ever read, probably tied with anna kerinina for my favourite

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a shame that Dostoevsky was a Christian.

            I’ve been saying this for a long time. Dosto gets so far just to circle back to religion. He could’ve really began the punk movement or even the existential one back in the 19th century.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              He wrote one of the first pieces of existential literature

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              [log in to view media]

              Maybe the telos of true inspiration isn't gay buttsex and pomo navelgazing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no, it's clearly a dead garden gnome on a stick

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                You seem upset.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Kek, gay sex. Reminds me of the priest that molest children.
                Dosto is great and even

                He wrote one of the first pieces of existential literature

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not saying it ruined the rest of the novel for me, but it was a disappointment.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He has better books btw

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its been a while since ive read it but recall it being basically a culmination of the books themes in the form of Alyosha helping all the kids come together be better people both internally and to eachother in order to build a better future for themselves full of good fellowship and meaning. even from a more secular perspective i thought it was great and wholesome

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      surprised that none of the troons here attributed his Christianity to external pressures yet, claiming he was actually a hard materialist atheist all along

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    do you think the shit that happened in notes from the underground happened to him? i wonder if a lot of genius work can be simply , retardedly be explained like that.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Like it or not
    I like it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's your top 5?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In no particular order, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Dante, Shakespeare, and Tolkien (I know)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It'll do. You may pass, if with a limp (Dostoevsky)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ha вкyc и нa цвeт тoвapищeй нeт
            It’s just my favorites. I don’t pretend to have any insight into the objective GOAT conversation, but I do think that Tolkien’s popularity in mass culture has robbed him of the literary stature he deserves. Subjugating one’s appreciation for beauty to the judgements of fashion is a deeply incorrect attitude to take towards art.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Based. This is the list of an honest man.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is the list of a boring man.
            ftfy

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    le sad russian guy

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      More like le Russian schizo

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that's bely

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Not only is he not the greatest, he didn't even get quints.

    Now THESE.... these are repeating digits you can CHECK.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      tommy, tommy, tommy...when will you learn

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Delet

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a shame that Dostoevsky was a Christian.

      I’ve been saying this for a long time. Dosto gets so far just to circle back to religion. He could’ve really began the punk movement or even the existential one back in the 19th century.

      [log in to view media]

      Not only is he not the greatest, he didn't even get quints.

      Now THESE.... these are repeating digits you can CHECK.

      I was mostly memeing, Dostoevsky is a good to great author. But as far as great authors go he's low on the totem pole for a number of reasons (I'll elaborate) so holding him in the highest esteem is indicative of either bad taste or the sort of Christianity that tends to find insipid moral platitudes profound and the only worthwhile function of art. But holding him in esteem at all is fine.
      The reasons he's a second rate GREAT author would require a lot more space than I'll give them here, but there are a few objective qualities that make for truly great literature. The first and most important is immersion, at which Dostoevsky completely fails. All his scenes might as well take place in a cardboard room. And even when he does gesture to a real life setting, like when Roskolnikovichov or whatever in Crime and Punishments walk through the park towards the beginning of the novel, Dost. doesn't "settle" into description, he skates over sketches of detail like he's been writing all day and has no more energy. And the reason he seems like that is because that's how it was, he pushed himself to write as much as possible against harsh deadlines and lived poorly. The second quality he fails at is round characterization, all of his characters read like props constructed to execute a philosophical point. This in conjunction with his failing at the previous quality is enough in itself to be a strong indictment of his work. But there is a third quality he fails at, which is philosophy, when in fact the whole justification of his other failings is: he's a philosopher! This goes deeper than I can get into here since I would obviously need a lot of space, but suffice to say that basic bitch Christianity mixed with Kierkegaard isn't original genius.

      extremely cringe and idiotic posts

      its been a while since ive read it but recall it being basically a culmination of the books themes in the form of Alyosha helping all the kids come together be better people both internally and to eachother in order to build a better future for themselves full of good fellowship and meaning. even from a more secular perspective i thought it was great and wholesome

      based

      https://i.imgur.com/qsgx9EW.jpg

      Like it or not, this is what the greatest writer of all time looks like

      extremely based and max trips

      >Verification not required.
      thanks for agreeing, captcha

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Type of guy to enter a thread on /s/, post a 2 and say "more of my wife?"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >going on smut boards
          >ever
          you're degenerate trash, no wonder you don't like dosty
          htfh

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't le traditional chad, you're a lame fag who hates himself and therefore hates sex from a place of envy. Demonizing the perfectly normal male pasttime of looking at pictures of sexy women is such a Dostotard moment lol, you're a perfect specimen for examination.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              whole lotta cope for a degenerate who jacks off to shit tier porn on a korean basketball board

              It’s called a wife or girlfriend you laughable garden gnome, maybe you’d get one if you didnt have such shit taste

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Haha cope
                >Also uh the quality your porn is shit haha owned
                >Not that I would know because I definitely don't go there by the way haha
                You're not only a neurotic dweeb, you're not even smart

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Coping degenerate garden gnome, enjoy your hand homosexual

                Lmfao

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                thanks for proving his point :^)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’m sure you thought this made sense in your head

                More cope huh, do you think that's some sort of Trump card? garden gnome too again, damn I'm really owned. What if I post my DNA results, want to compare? Or is that cope.
                I promise you're the only incel between us, you have no redeeming qualities at all and your ceiling is clearly a fat dog. I'd be an incel too in that case so I understand it, but don't confuse yourself for me.

                >N-no, ur the incel!
                Fucking laughable, guess you’re an unfunny and unclever retard as well as a garden gnome degenerate, huh lil buddy?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                More cope huh, do you think that's some sort of Trump card? garden gnome too again, damn I'm really owned. What if I post my DNA results, want to compare? Or is that cope.
                I promise you're the only incel between us, you have no redeeming qualities at all and your ceiling is clearly a fat dog. I'd be an incel too in that case so I understand it, but don't confuse yourself for me.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              this may come as a shock to you but it is quite common now and throughout the history of the world to avoid treating sexuality as a vice no different than lighting a cigarette

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    I think not

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wodehouse was certainly among the top two humorists of all time

      but writers of all time? lol.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is it arguable that a mangaka has a greater claim to literary ability than the greatest humorist?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [log in to view media]

          mangaka? more like sussy baka!

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    I rate Dickens higher than Dosto

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    checked and true

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    F Gardner looks like that?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      No he looks like this

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't been able to take Russian artists seriously since I was a teenager. They're far too melodramatic and angsty.
    The whole language never produced a single true genius; it's a massively overrated tradition.

Your email address will not be published.