Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from The works of Fyodor Mikhailovich (of course, Dostoevsky!).
Offtopic: I do ;) it's an expensive pleasure, of course, but I like it :D Actually, I initially associated the nickname with the French word "divin," and then it just became an association...
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.
The Inspector General? :) No, that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Mysticism is a pretext, I agree, but why does Gogol use something fictional, unreal as a pretext (even if it's drawn from folk legends), while in the case of Fyodor Mikhailovich, it's really easy to believe in the possibility of such a situation? Indeed, why look for emotional experiences in legends when there are so many more in real life: just take a pen and write them down? And in Tolstoy, in my opinion, too much attention is paid to form. And the French language for half the book confirms this. Too much attention is paid to the insignificant. But that's just my opinion.
I hope you understand that The Inspector General is a satirical work with its own specific characteristics. But, as with any satire, the laughter is tinged with sadness: for us, these are things of the past, but for Russia at that time, they were real societal ills.Ment
Mysticism is a pretext, I agree, but why does Gogol use something fictional and unreal as a pretext (even if it is drawn from folk legends), while with Fyodor Mikhailovich, it is really easy to believe in the possibility of such a situation? Indeed, why look for emotional experiences in legends when there are so many more in real life: just take up your pen and write them down?
It's good that they are different. :) Everyone has their own style, and each of them saw the world in their own way. It's like blaming Fyodor Mikhailovich for the fact that the themes of execution and epilepsy appear frequently in his works. But this is also not just like that; the person repeatedly went through and reinterpreted his life experience. And Gogol had his own life experience and his own demons, if you can put it that way. You know, you can't always choose how you will write. It comes from within and is rarely fully controlled by consciousness (otherwise, it would be journalism, not literature). As Bogushevskaya sang, "it is not we who play the music - it is the music that plays us."Ment
And in my opinion, Tolstoy still pays too much attention to form. And the fact that half the book is in French confirms this. Too much attention is paid to the insignificant. But that's just my opinion.
Well, that's how they spoke back then. And there's plenty of it in Pushkin and Lermontov. And, by the way, in Tolstoy, it is precisely those characters that he dislikes who speak French the most - he shows in every possible way that this is a falsehood, a puppet-like, lifeless world, where not only thought is frozen, but even the word. After all, heated arguments and lively thoughts come from the heart and pour out in native speech, as can be seen in the dialogues of Bolkonsky and Bezukhov, Natasha and Sonya, etc. Again, in the Rostov family, everyone speaks in Russian, and they speak quite lively and sincerely. In general, I've gone off on a tangent and am proving obvious things; we learned this in school. :o
Tanya, you make me happy. :) He is my favorite writer, although I love so many that he only slightly surpasses them.
Well, my absolute favorite is Vladislav Krapivin. There are no alternatives here.
Dostoevsky is still only 2nd, but among the classics, he is undoubtedly the first.
But I don't really like Bunin, Chekhov, or Tolstoy – although, of course, I have read them. I liked a lot, but I can't say that it really resonated with me. Apparently, it's just not my thing.
Zamyatin with his "We" really resonated with me, the very psychological Dostoevsky resonated with me, I like Goncharov, and I liked Bulgakov (I really love "The White Guard").
And Dostoevsky – you probably need to read him not just once to understand. What is unclear and unattractive at first becomes special nuances, and you read it with close attention the 2nd, 3rd, or 5th time. I like books and writers that you need to reread to fully understand, to feel.
Если тебе не везёт в жизни, - играй в какую-нибудь другую игру:rolleyes: Лидер клана "Из многих единое" Приключения – это сплошные неприятности, только про них почему-то потом интересно вспоминать...
Wow! Honestly, I never would have guessed... 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:
Oh! You should see my husband:D He's an electrical engineer, but when it comes to literature, I can't even compare to him. (and by the way, I'm not a complete ignoramus in literature, and I even enrolled in journalism at one time, but I didn't continue my studies). Add to that his almost perfect memory... So the combination of "physicist + lyricist" in one person is definitely possible!!
Если тебе не везёт в жизни, - играй в какую-нибудь другую игру:rolleyes: Лидер клана "Из многих единое" Приключения – это сплошные неприятности, только про них почему-то потом интересно вспоминать...
You're lucky! My husband is an engineer by education (something in the field of programming), but his work has always been related to journalism. He always seemed to lack a philological education, especially in terms of writing style. I kept making him read, but... he managed to get through Gogol, but didn't really like it. I tried to entice him with medieval erotic stories ("The Decameron," that is), but no luck. I even tried giving him King to read – and that was a failure too. I gave up)))
By the way, Zamyatin also resonated with me. Yesterday I watched the musical "Starmanya," and I kept thinking about "We"... It's scary, of course.
Well, my absolute favorite is Vladislav Krapivin. There's no question about it.
Krapivin is the one who wrote a lot for children and young adults, right? Oh, he's truly incredible! Of course, it's a completely different genre, but I and my parents' generation were so lucky to grow up reading his stories in "Pioneer"! Did you read "The Outpost on Anchor Bay"? It's such a poignant work.The One...
Zamyatin's "We" really resonated with me, as did the very psychological Dostoevsky, I love Goncharov, and I enjoyed Bulgakov (I especially love "The White Guard").
"We" is a gem! My father is a mathematician, and he was impressed by how the protagonist views life through the prism of mathematics. It's such unusual poetry, but I find it very relatable.
By the way, dystopia is my favorite genre. And the most realistic of all subgenres of science fiction. It's especially interesting to read dystopias from the past (for example, Wells' "When the Sleeper Wakes" or Huxley's "Brave New World") - almost 80% of the "incredible horrors" turn out to be true, so draw your own conclusions.
I think I was the only one in our class who read Goncharov outside of the curriculum; I really like his "O" trilogy, although for some reason, he's not very popular. But he wrote so well! There's nothing to say about Bulgakov; he's a classic.The One...
As for Dostoevsky, you have to read him, apparently, not just once to understand. What is unclear and unappealing at first becomes special nuances, and you read it with close attention on the 2nd, 3rd, or 5th time. I like books and authors that you have to reread to fully understand, to feel.
I've reread Dostoevsky so many times – each time I understand something new. At some point in life, certain concepts are close to you, and that's what's important, but at another stage, you look at life from a different angle. And that's why great works are revealed in a new way each time, and that's their value.
Krapivin is the one who wrote a lot for children and young adults, right? Oh, he's incredible! Of course, it's a completely different genre, but how lucky I and my parents' generation were to grow up reading his stories in "Pioneer"! Have you read "The Outpost at Anchor Bay"? It's such a poignant story.
Yeah... That's him... It's a shame I didn't read him in "Pioneer." A friend gave me one of his books when I was young. I started reading it, but I didn't like it... And it wasn't until I was about 16 that I really appreciated him, if you can call it that. Maybe it's because that particular book was "In the Night of the Great Tide" - not exactly a children's book.... But since then, it's been my favorite. Actually, not all of his books are "for children and young adults." In fact, quite the opposite - his theory about the universe as a "Great Crystal," the connection between almost all of his books (the same characters, events, and places are mentioned), his reflections on God and religion, his thoughts on war and the role of children in military conflicts - these are definitely not children's themes!! But yes, undoubtedly - he writes about children, and a lot for children. I don't know anyone better than him! And yes, I've read "The Outpost..." I've read about 95% of his works. I've almost collected a complete collection of his works at home... My absolute favorite is still "In the Night of the Great Tide." The next one (considered the best by all his fans) is "The Dovecote on the Yellow Meadow." You could say it's the pinnacle of his work... "The Outpost..." - oh yes, it's magnificent. I generally love the whole series - "In the Depths of the Great Crystal."
And if we continue to talk about classics (not just Dostoevsky, but in general) - I don't like Turgenev at all; I couldn't even read his works properly. It's just not my thing. But I liked Sholokhov and his "And Quiet Flows the Don." In general, it's strange, but I love literary works about that period - the beginning of Soviet power, the formation, if you can call it that. I don't understand why it attracts me, but...
And dystopias - yes. The whole point is that you read this when it has already happened, it has come true - and you draw parallels that even the author couldn't have thought of... It's scary - but it's incredibly fascinating. Plus, if you take Zamyatin, there's the same deep symbolism that attracts me in Dostoevsky. Every object, every color, every little detail has its own, hidden, additional meaning... I like to decipher it...
Если тебе не везёт в жизни, - играй в какую-нибудь другую игру:rolleyes: Лидер клана "Из многих единое" Приключения – это сплошные неприятности, только про них почему-то потом интересно вспоминать...
Here, of course, the conversation has gone off-topic, but why not talk about literature while we're gathered together? :) Ta Kotoraya...
"The Outpost..." - oh yes, it's magnificent. I generally love the whole series - "In the Depths of the Great Crystal."
I probably haven't read the entire series, but "The Outpost..." has many references to "The Orange Portrait with Speckles" and "The Shot from the Monitor." I guess these are from the same series? I read "The Portrait" in a magazine, and it had incredibly atmospheric illustrations; I love it very much.
I guess I need to delve deeper into his work. Oh, I remembered something else - "The Shadow of the Caravel." As funny as it sounds, I learned how to make little boats out of walnuts from it. :o Ta Kotoraya...
And if we continue to talk about classics (not just Dostoevsky, but in general) - I don't like Turgenev at all; I couldn't even read his works properly. It's just not for me.
I seem to be hopelessly in love with our classics. :) I love Turgenev, although I clearly feel that I have nothing in common with his worldview, and his characters don't appeal to me at all. But how he writes is what touches my soul! Just don't mention "Fathers and Sons": after we dissected it in school, I can't read the book anymore. Moreover, it's full of bookmarks and profound notes like: "answer to question #12." :D The same is true for "Crime and Punishment" - we analyzed it too much in school. It's the only Dostoevsky work that I don't want to reread. It's not the work itself, but I'm just sick of it. Do you like "The Possessed"? In my opinion, it's his most difficult work; every time I reread it, my heart aches, and I feel very uncomfortable. But it's still a wonderful book, and it's masterfully written. In my opinion, he was the only writer of that time who looked at nihilists not from a social perspective, but from a psychological one.
Perhaps Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy are roughly equal geniuses of Russian literature. And I could not understand why it was specifically Dostoevsky that I found so difficult to perceive.
The first reason is obvious. Nikolai Vasilyevich, in essence, wrote only one novel — "Dead Souls". The rest of his Creation consists of relatively short novellas plus "The Government Inspector". Tolstoy, throughout his long life, wrote three novels (correct me if I'm wrong) — "War and Peace", "Anna Karenina", and "Resurrection". The rest were again novellas and short stories. It is clear that shorter forms are read faster and perceived more easily.
Unlike them, Fyodor Mikhailovich's primary Creation lies in large novels. "The Idiot", "Crime and Punishment", "Demons", "The Adolescent", "Poor Folk", "The Brothers Karamazov", "Humiliated and Insulted", "The Gambler"... They are all heavy social dramas; one must put themselves in the right frame of mind to read such books.
The second reason lies in the social status of the writers during their lifetimes. Lev Nikolayevich was a descendant of two of the most noble Russian families, the Tolstoys and the Volkonskys, and moved in high circles from his youth. Hence the descriptions of balls, the dresses of beauties, etc. He knew high society perfectly. And he could afford to spend 6-7 years writing novels, unhurriedly and thoughtfully, visiting Borodino field and other settings of his novels.
Gogol came from small landowners—not noble, but well-off enough to spend a significant part of his life traveling abroad. And the heroes of his novels are precisely middle-class landowners and petty bourgeois, whose lives he knew well. There are balls and dresses too, but certainly not those of high society.
As for Dostoevsky, his fate was one long drama. From youth in the Peter and Paul Fortress, spoken for execution, standing on the scaffold. Then hard labor, forfeiture of property, service as a soldier. The unexpected death of his brother, his wife. Hence the constant feeling of guilt, the spiritual torment. The heroes of his books are precisely from the lower strata of society and are always unhappy. And while Tolstoy could afford to write novels over many years, Dostoevsky was forced to scribble novels in a year. Undeniable talent is present, but so is a sense of being hunted and despair.
Added after 12 minutes
I kept urging him to read, but... he managed Gogol — didn't particularly like it. I tried to entice him with medieval erotic stories (the "Decameron", that is), also no luck. I even tried slipping in King — and that was a failure too. I've resigned myself)))
2 Divinora As a man, I tell you — give him some Weller to read. "Papanin's Mauser" will break through to him.
Nagan, you know, you reason exactly like my father. :) He also always draws parallels between the writer's personality, his lifestyle, his psyche, his biography as a whole, and the style of his works. All this is, of course, true, but for me, it's like dissecting love with a scalpel. :) It's approximately like if a person in love said: - She has such wonderful light golden hair and blue eyes! And someone replied: - Yes, a lack of melanin is generally characteristic of northern peoples, which was due to small doses of ultraviolet radiation and, consequently, a low need to screen it...
:D
For example, since I learned about Alexander Grin's biography, his books have lost a large part of their magic for me. Now I see in them not bright, colorful dreams, but an opium dream in a corner on a tattered rag, if you understand what I mean.
As for novels, I have always somehow easily tackled large works. In fact, I was even glad that the immersion wouldn't end soon. :)
Nagan, you know, you reason exactly like my father.
He also always draws parallels between the writer's personality, his lifestyle, his psyche, his biography as a whole, and the style of his works. All of this is, of course, true, but for me, it's like dissecting love with a scalpel.
But still... everyone writes better about the subject they know. Tolstoy knew high society better than Gogol and Dostoevsky - that's why he has so many princes, balls, and French in his works. And Gogol's books have more non-titled nobility. And in general, that's great. It's much worse when they write without knowing the subject. In the case of the missing wallet, machine gunners stand in the courtroom, and the druzhina puts its best fighters forward when an enemy approaches... this is all written by modern authors.
P.S. I just read an interesting topic and wanted to figure out for myself why I still haven't read Dostoevsky.
P.S. 2. In general, I'm getting old and callous:smile05: :smile21:
Nagan, you are absolutely right. I just don't think Dostoevsky writes in a more "expansive" way than Tolstoy. From your list, "The Gambler" and "Poor Folk" are actually relatively short works. And Fyodor Mikhailovich doesn't have any books in 4 volumes; the maximum is 1.5 ("The Brothers Karamazov"). But fate does have a big influence, that's true. To better understand the feelings of others, you need to experience them yourself. Fyodor Mikhailovich experienced a lot, which is why he conveys them so well in his works.
P.S. 2. I'm getting old and cynical, :smile05: :smile21:
After a certain (or rather, indefinite) age, a person develops their own system of values, which is natural, isn't it? :rolleyes: "At eighteen, our beliefs are like mountains from which we look down on the world; at forty-five, they are caves in which we hide from the world."
And in general, not all great writers can be universally loved; that's some kind of porcelain perfection of a dead thought, in my opinion.
As for the relationship between being and consciousness, it is difficult to argue with that, but the main value in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky's books lies in the internal experiences, not the external setting. No one is interested in the idea of going to "work for the landowner" and mowing with the peasants until their backs ache anymore, but there are still so many debates around "The Kreutzer Sonata" that it's amazing! An eternal question. :)
Added 14 minutes later Ment
And Dostoevsky doesn't have a single book in 4 volumes; the maximum is 1.5 ("The Brothers Karamazov").
I devoured the first three books of "The Karamazovs" in one go, and I still can't perceive them as a large work. :) As you know, time flies with some people, but drags on with others, and the same goes for books.Ment
But fate has a great influence, that's true. To better understand the feelings of others, you have to experience them yourself. Fyodor Mikhailovich experienced a lot, which is why he conveys them so well in his works.
It's not enough to experience things; you also have to think about them and understand them. He doesn't just constantly retell the death penalty like a parrot - he's saying, "Let me tell you something from my past!" :)
Dostoevsky is gloomy; when you read him, you don't see any light. You don't feel like living. There are mental torments, anguish, and suffering. All of this is complemented by descriptions of dirty alleys, gloomy landscapes, squalid surroundings, and the dregs of society, etc. As a reader, I have a feeling of hopelessness and a dead end. It creates tension... I can't stand such an intense negativity and darkness. I abandon this hopeless endeavor. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel, I ask? :) And even though I know that this light exists, both in "Crime and Punishment" and in "The Idiot," it is still insufficient for me, somehow dim and gray. Overall, it's a constant moral dissatisfaction.
Tolstoy is different. Perhaps different sufferings, different torments. But this resonates with me. It's a kind of bright sadness. There is no feeling of that universal melancholy of Dostoevsky, which gnaws at you from within like a worm. Therefore, it's not that I don't understand Dostoevsky; I simply don't accept him.
But I liked Sholokhov and his "And Quiet Flows the Don." In general, it's strange, but I love literary works about that period – the beginning of Soviet power, the formation, if you can call it that. I don't understand myself what attracts me to it, but...
It's funny, but I don't like that turbulent, chaotic time. Therefore, I also only managed to read "And Quiet Flows the Don" in a retelling by Gerasimov. These are the two works that I couldn't get through – "Crime and Punishment" and "And Quiet Flows the Don." It's funny how it turned out. :) Although, as a genre, I really like such broad, panoramic works (like "War and Peace"). Apparently, it's because I'm a historian. At one time, I devoured "The Forsyte Saga." It's not quite an epic, of course, and not as passionate as Sholokhov's. English pedantry :rolleyes: Another reason I remembered Galsworthy... it all relates to Turgenev. In my opinion, he is one of the two unsurpassed masters of landscape.
And in general, not all great writers can be to the liking of absolutely everyone; this is some kind of porcelain perfection of a dead thought, in my opinion.
"Everyone has their own taste: one likes watermelon, the other likes pork cartilage." :D ;)
Divinora
