Posts from The works of Fyodor Mikhailovich (of course, Dostoevsky!).

Which books by this great writer do you like the most, and why?
I really love this writer. His most interesting book for me at the moment is "The Brothers Karamazov." Although, that might change over time, as I haven't read all his books yet.
Recently, I read "The Gambler," which I found very interesting, and it's now in second place. In third place is "The Idiot." Among the others, I can mention "Demons," which is less emotionally powerful but somewhat amusing, as well as "The Village of Stepanchikovo and Its Inhabitants," and "Poor Folk," which, although sad, is also somewhat comical.
He has several powerful short stories, such as "The Meek One" and "The Boy at Christ's Christmas Tree."
"Notes from the House of the Dead" is an interesting work from the perspective of understanding the world at that time; it is essentially autobiographical (well, almost).
His "Diary of a Writer" is also worth noting. In it, he reflects on what interesting things were happening in the world at that time. The "Diary" contains many interesting thoughts, historical events that you won't easily find in history textbooks, and subtle humor of that era.
I would also add that Dostoevsky is the only writer I know whose "Introduction" to all his books is actually worth reading

I read "Crime and Punishment" as part of the school curriculum. Surprisingly, I liked it very much. Unfortunately, I don't remember the work very well, but it seemed quite interesting and captivating to me.
I doubt I'll be able to read any of his other works, at least not in the near future.

My feelings about him are complicated :) In school, I have to admit, I never fully managed to get through "Crime and Punishment" (but I honestly tried). Almost immediately afterward, I made another attempt and started reading "The Adolescent," but I gave up again. I watched modern adaptations of "The Idiot" and "Crime and Punishment." The first one I really liked, largely because of the brilliant cast. The second one... again, it didn't resonate with me. I'm still puzzled as to why I can't connect with this work.
In university, I read "Notes from Underground" about the "difficult" thoughts and the existence of the Russian intelligentsia. It's interesting; much of it is still typical for them today. This, by the way, is what makes his work so appealing. Dostoevsky's philosophy remains relevant; the "Russian idea" is periodically actively discussed (especially when it's convenient). Right now, it seems like there's no interest in it... another shift towards the West.

P.S. I've been planning to read "The Brothers Karamazov" for a long time, but I just haven't gotten around to it. Thanks to the author; I've noted it down.

I simply devoured Gogol in school; his writing style is pleasant and easy to read. Tolstoy is a bit heavier, but if you don't read his French passages in his letters, it's also tolerable – (War and Peace, Resurrection). Dostoevsky and Chernyshevsky – I just couldn't get into them. All these dreams, all these students struggling with each other, all this emotional turmoil – it's not for me; I'm an optimist by nature. I didn't even finish reading any of their books, not even halfway through.

Yes, his books strongly convey emotional experiences and torments. But that's exactly what I like about them, precisely because so much attention is paid to the soul. Gogol was more interested in either comical situations or mysticism. Tolstoy was most concerned with form, who was dancing with whom at the ball and in what dress. Although I liked his "War and Peace," I didn't finish reading a few chapters (in them, he got completely carried away, proving the same idea throughout a very large part of the narrative, using the same arguments and even the same examples; it's clear that he was very afraid that people wouldn't agree with him :)). But Fyodor Mikhailovich went in the right direction and made great progress in that direction. But indeed, if it's difficult to read his large works, you can read his short stories (they all take up just a few pages, but the author's style is fully evident in them). I've already mentioned two, and I can add "The Peasant Marey" to that list; the latter is very kind and uplifting, so I think it would suit Nagana

Dostoevsky's work can be briefly characterized as the psychology of extreme situations. Psychology, like any science, seems boring, tedious, and abstruse if you are not genuinely interested in it.
Therefore, I recommend Dostoevsky's books to those who are interested in delving into the human soul, exploring the darkness with a flashlight, so to speak.

Dostoevsky is my favorite writer among classic authors.
My favorite work is "Crime and Punishment." I've read it about 10 times, and in school, I even wrote a research paper on the topic of "Symbolism in F.M. Dostoevsky's novel 'Crime and Punishment'." The novel is analyzed in detail, and I like that nothing is accidental. Every detail has meaning – starting from the place where Raskolnikov lives, his name, the number of steps, and ending with the sun in the novel; even the shape of the rooms is important. It's amazing!
And, of course, it's hard to imagine a greater connoisseur of human souls than Fyodor Mikhailovich!

Regarding other works, I really like "The Insulted and Humiliated." But I couldn't get through "The Idiot" the first time. Perhaps I started reading it too early – in the 10th grade. The second time, I picked it up after my second year of university – only then was I able to read it. But I didn't enjoy it... I think I need to reread it – for fresh impressions. Maybe I'll discover it in a new light.

Crime and Punishment is a harsh psychological thriller.

Crime and Punishment - a harsh psychological thriller

Well, for some it's harsh, for others it's mild. A surgeon doesn't find the patient's body to be harsh.
Science is a set of tools. Some will take them, turn them over in their hands, shrug, and put them back on the shelf. Others, armed with them, will be able to create something. At the very least, they will draw some conclusions for themselves.
The example of Raskolnikov clearly shows the psychology of a murderer. After all, we know from childhood what is good and what is bad. In order to cross the line, a person beforehand seeks justification for himself: "Who am I? A trembling creature, or do I have the right?" If the justification is invented after the fact, the psyche cannot withstand it, and the person breaks down.

As a student nearing graduation from the Faculty of Philology (by the way, at the university named after F.M. Dostoevsky), I was supposed to read most (if not all) of the works listed in the topic. But frankly, I only managed to read "Crime and Punishment." Dostoevsky's work didn't interest me. Undoubtedly, he is a very insightful psychologist, but as a person whose specialty is not "Philology" but "Journalism," this is of little interest to me. Moreover, it is very difficult for me. I prefer masters of the word to a connoisseur of the soul – Chekhov and Bunin. I would also add Dovlatov and, to some extent, Astafiev. As for Dostoevsky... well, not everyone is capable of understanding him. At least, I am not. Ment, are you, by any chance, a philologist?

As a nearly-graduated student of the Faculty of Philology (by the way, from the university named after F.M. Dostoevsky)

Interesting...

Ment, are you, by any chance, a philologist?

The irony is that I'm a physics student, Divinora :D

The irony is that I'm a physics student, Divinora :D

Oh wow! I wouldn't have guessed, to be honest... At the very least, it's nice to know that there are physicists who can formulate and express their thoughts almost perfectly, and who are also interested in classic literature :smile20:

He is undoubtedly a very astute psychologist, but as a person whose specialty is not "Philology" but "Journalism," I find this less interesting. Moreover, it is very difficult for me. I prefer masters of the word to connoisseurs of the soul – Chekhov and Bunin.

In my opinion, writer-psychologists are primarily interesting to people with a psyche, and not to representatives of any particular profession. :) By understanding someone else's soul, you can understand a lot about your own. And yes, Chekhov and Bunin are also psychologists, especially Bunin.
And as for mastery of the word, it's unlikely that anyone would consider Dostoevsky weak.

Added 1 minute ago

Dostoevsky is my favorite writer from classical literature.

Tanya, you make me happy. :) He is my absolute favorite writer, although I love so many that he only surpasses them by a hair's breadth.

Added 16 minutes ago

Gogol was more fond of either comical situations or mysticism.

Gogol's works are much more painful and agonizing than Dostoevsky's. He doesn't have a single work without some kind of dark episode.
Mysticism is just a pretext there; the main thing is the person's experiences. Even in the most "mystical" "Nose" or "Portrait," the surreal component can be calmly discarded and replaced in the first case with madness, and in the second with a nightmarish dream, which it probably was.

Tolstoy was most concerned with form, who danced with whom at the ball, and in what dress.

This is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. Dostoevsky also describes the outfits of his characters, but since there are no balls in his works, they don't strike the imagination as much.
Yes, all Russian classics describe women's dresses very colorfully; this is irrelevant.
Tolstoy is a very serious philosopher, but since his philosophical ideas are not acceptable to me personally, I don't like him. Although I read and continue to read him; it is always a pleasure to read great writers.

Yes, his books strongly convey emotional experiences, torments.

Mainly experiences. Torments are simply a logical development, because the plot must have a climax that leads the reader to catharsis (in theory).

But Chekhov, Bunin, Tolstoy, and Turgenev all have them – they don't write about birds and flowers.

Dostoevsky delves deeper into human psychology, and that is what, in my opinion, distinguishes him.

Slonysh, the issue here isn't specifically about the profession, but rather the perspective from which you look at it. What does it mean to have a certain kind of psychology? Isn't it inherent in everyone? But nevertheless, not everyone is captivated by Dostoevsky. I am more interested in the form than the content (this, of course, doesn't mean that content can be absent). So, Dostoevsky brings the content to the forefront. And writers like Dovlatov or Chekhov focus on the form. In reality, this approach, in my opinion, is closer to journalism (and to me). Dostoevsky's approach is purely literary. Fyodor Mikhailovich is undoubtedly a genius, but it's not my cup of tea. By the way, my beloved Dovlatov perceived Dostoevsky as a shock, but not as a model to emulate. I agree with every word.

What does it mean, people with a psyche? Isn't it inherent in everyone?

Hmm, that's what I was talking about. Wasn't it obvious? :confused:

But nevertheless, not everyone is captivated by Dostoevsky.

Well, that's a matter of individuality; love doesn't obey the laws of genre.

Fyodor Mikhailovich is undoubtedly a genius, but it's not for me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Dostoevsky (or any writer) HAS to be loved.

Offtopic: Divinora, do you like Guerlain? ;)