Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet...

Dumbfuck dipshit

Case in point. Typical Dostofaggot response

youtu.be/Dr5NsTOXAyE

Attached: roberttroll1005.jpg (175x175, 9K)

Calling Dostoevsky reactionary is retarded.

Someone Photoshop a revolver in his hand.

I mean, I like him, too, but he was a reactionary. Objectively speaking. He was a political conservative who supported the Tsar, an opponent of liberalism, socialism, and Westernization, an antisemite and xenophobe, an Orthodox religious fanatic who believed that the Pope (or Benjamin Disraeli, depending on his mood) was the Anti-Christ. Need I go on? Dostoevsky was a great writer but also a fucking lunatic. On that point at least, Nabby is right.

Nab always struck me as a very mean person (not how he writes, rather how he looks). I could envision him in the Neil DeGrasse Tyson meme pasta, except it wouldn't be funny, but horrifying. Just looks like a cruel man.

Not a Dostofag but what the hell are you talking about? How is he a reactionary if he was defending the status quo

Oh boy

Fucking kek

I don't want to quibble over semantics, but generally, a person who opposes progressive social changes/modernization/etc. is classified as a "reactionary", though some might prefer to draw a firm distinction between "reactionaries" and "conservatives".

Attached: lit.png (448x410, 118K)

kek

That's only the voice of some of his characters though and doesn't fully inject his personal belief into any plot. Maybe read the Problem of Dostoevskys poetics. It's dialogical polyphony. He makes his characters self conscious and feeding off each other. Dostos books wouldn't have lasted or even worked in the first place if he was just another reactionary romantic.
Also I guess everything seems reactionary when you're a pedo

>Carroll, Lewis. Have always been fond of him. One would like to have filmed his picnics. The greatest children's story writer of all time.
What did he mean by this? Was he a pedo?

>a person who opposes progressive social changes/modernization/etc. is classified as a "reactionary"
if you're retarded ya

Have people here actually read his longer critique other than the meme snippet? He's pretty spot on.

This isn’t a thread. This is lowlevel bait.

Why do you come to a literature board when you don't even know what the word reactionary means? Why don't you go read first before you come and pretend to discuss literature?

The thing is, Nabokov said that Dostoevsky would be the best Russian dramatic of his generation, but but he ended up writing novels instead.

Continuing: Nabokov has a precise definition of the novel. The novel, for him, must account for all the little details. Dostoevsky doesn’t really do this.

christ for a second i thought it was paulie from the sopranos by the looks of the thumbnail

Whats your age?

and what is your age?

I bet the second user is hardly more than 18

Lolita is a greater work of art than anything written by Dostoievsky.

And if Nabokov was jealous he would be of Tolstoy or Shakespeare, who were his greatest heroes.

OH yes, he was sick in the head old looser, who fucked and is still fucking brains of generations.
All Russian problems are because of this old fuck and his comrades Tolstoy, lermontov etc.

28 faggot

Lol, then you're even more fucked

>There is a famous account, perhaps apocryphal, of a visit made by a student to Vladimir Nabokov’s office at Cornell. The student declares to the writer his great desire to be a writer, too, at which point:
>Nabokov looks up from his reading he points to a tree outside his office window.
>'What kind of tree is that?' he asks the student.
>'What?'
>'What is the name of that tree?' asks Nabokov. 'The one outside my window.'
>'I don't know,'says the student.
>'You'll never be a writer.' says Nabokov.

Attached: Vladimir_Nabokov_1969b.jpg (260x410, 40K)

Wtf I hate Dostoevsky and myself now

He actually asked the whole class, and to his astonishment almost nobody knew that it was an american Elm:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulmus_americana

And since he - as all good writers - knew that details are the life-blood of fiction he was actually scared to see how so many students payed little attention to their surroundings.

Never seen an Elm myself: we dont have them here in Brazil.

And by the way, the info I gave you is on the great biography of Nabokov written by Brian Boyd.

vocaroo.com/i/s1cpNiSQnZlT

Yikes

Dostoevsky's beliefs were well known. Read a biography. He wrote in political journals, and his writing survives (you can read it for yourself if you're going to type yourself in knots to deny the obvious). Read a Writer's Diary. It's not in dispute that he was a right-wing Slavophile. I can't believe that you've actually bothered to read literary criticism of his work but haven't bothered to do basic reading about his background. His polyphonic literary style doesn't change what his politics were, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has read his novels regardless of how ambiguous they are.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pochvennichestvo

I've read plenty of biographies and his books multiple times. Just because some of his political views were published iver the years doesn't change the Outlook of his work yo fucking imbecile. And the book I mentioned isn't even a criticism of Dostoevsky.

More like a weird emotional smug prententious aesthete.

It's a common trait among writers, though most of those who have it are at least somewhat gay.

Based and barkpilled.

The fun thing is even if you don't know what the tree is you can get out of the question creatively, by comparing it to another tree you know for instance.

Just stopping at "I don't know" when your literary idol asks betrays a damning lack of imagination.

You sound like you should stop drinking alcohol.

Holy trunk.

Stop being Italian.

You're in denial. I don't know what to tell you. Yes, I agree with you that his work isn't shallow political propaganda (isn't this true of any great artist?). Yes, I agree with you that his work contains many voices, and strong ones at that, which is why so many consider Ivan Karamazov's prose poem to be the greatest indictment of Christianity ever written regardless of Dostoevsky's own views. None of this changes what he believed, which isn't up for debate. Anyone who supports Tsarist autocracy is a reactionary. Full stop.

>And the book I mentioned isn't even a criticism of Dostoevsky.

The phrase "literary criticism" doesn't necessarily imply criticism in the sense of pointing out flaws.

So we are practically in agreement. Love you

Nabby was a sick man, a spiteful man.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and verbose. A polylinguist, a claptrap novelist and a slapdash custodian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily dull. Nobody takes his inaccessible journalism seriously.
Pale FIre. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Dante's "Inferno."
Ada. Dislike it intensely.
Alita. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly repulsive.

Kek is this the new meme format

if Nabokov it's so good, why I haven't read any of his literary shit?

>Alita.
based

fpbp

The only people who bring up age on Yea Forums are in high school.

>Just ask 'em their age. That'll dismantle any argument they make!

Ignore these comminist bugmen dude, you've just uncovered one of their older language contortions. Its clearly nonsensical, its purposefully dismissive and it leads to this retardation you see in Shut the fuck up you sniveling, word-mincing, newspeak pushing, dishonest jew.

Attached: wittgenstein_4.jpg (902x902, 153K)

>reddit spacing
both of you, out

Lmao

Vá cuidar dos seus filhos, Italo

I hate you

Sometimes it's good to let 'em know that they aren't fooling anyone.

>new

How old is it? Or are you blatantly lying?

I thought it was a meme that stemmed from critics during the 80-90s.

Attached: 2014-10-16.gif (740x250, 136K)

I'm aware the prose is old lmao, I'm talking about that specific text

the new meme format

Attached: 2009.png (611x103, 7K)

This meme format is perhaps the most based I've ever seen in years.

Attached: kek.jpg (842x600, 87K)

>Was he a pedo?
Do you really need to ask this?

Poster, Original. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his greentexts are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his involuntary celibacy seriously.
This thread. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Nabokov
His previous thread. Dislike it intensely.
His next thread. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

kek

Lol

Autism incarnate, I suggest you lay off the vaccines.

What does Nabby mean calling him a prophet?

>but he was a reactionary. Objectively speaking. He was a political conservative who supported the Tsar, an opponent of liberalism, socialism, and Westernization, an antisemite and xenophob
all these are good though

>be Nabokov
>drunk off his wits and didn’t read the student’s paper
>student walks in
>”so professor Nabokov, what’s my grade?”
>oh shit this is bad think of something witty to say
>look around for something to latch onto
>spots tree
>”hey you what’s that tree?”
>student is confused as fuck
>”what?”
>”you’ll never be a writer”
>student walks away, not understanding what just happened
>phew that was a close call

Someone who talks without knowing

Cringe

I agree that Gogol is superior.

kek

Someone who opposes change is a conservative. Someone who wanta to revert change is a reactionary.

The difference is that one defends the status quo while the other wants to return to how things were before the current status quo. They teach you this in school user.

go back

>man only known for writing Twilight: Paedo Edition
>thinks he has the moral authority to call anyone a "cheap sensationalist"

why would someone defend status quo if he opposes change?

>vocaroo.com/i/s1cpNiSQnZlT
BAHAHAHAHA

nice