The great debate

Based.

Tolstoy was more cohesive in his plots, the stories felt really packaged-up. That said, Dosto 1000% beats him in terms of capturing the anguish and struggle he sees as caused by atheism and nihilism. Technically speaking, I would say Tolstoy is better, but in raw emotive power Dosto blows him out of the water.

Who would win in a 3 round boxing match of 3 minute rounds?

Tolstoy was a physical specimen that worked the fields with the peasants into his 80s and Dostoevsky was a sickly weakling. Who do you think?

How old is this pasta?

>Ghastly rigmarole.

Every time.

The prose is better with Tolsty but thematically speaking Dostoevsky can be much more interesting

Not at all lmao, it’s Tolstoy and it isn’t close. Dostoevsky had a veneer of “philosophy” that was nothing more than basic bitch Christian moralism, but it’s enough to induce brainlets into thinking he’s somehow getting at something deeper than Tolstoy did. So they’ll have bigbrained takes like, “Tolstoy was technically superior, but Dostoevsky was like, more important bro, somehow. He had like, more soul dude.”
Here we see the IQ of the Dostotard.

Using your same brainlet reasoning, how do you feel about the fact that Dostoevsky called him the greatest living writer?

Hilarious. There is a vast chasm between Tolstoy and all other novelists, in terms of quality. He’s far and away the prose GOAT. And it’s not like Dostoevsky is even in second place. I’d say he’s not even close to second place, let alone fucking Tolstoy lmao

such a cheap and weak way to overcome it

this was never a debate
dostoevsky > tolstoy. end of story

Tolstoy's Beard > Dostoevsky's Beard

He is right that the only interesting Dostoevsky is when he imitating Gogol. So why not just read Gogol?

I like Dostoevsky, but I have to wonder at people who put him above Tolstoy. Dostoevsky may have been very sincere and passionate, but he was a shoddy craftsman. You may like his psychology or his faith or his politics, but that doesn’t mean he was a great artist; as an artist he was clearly third-rate. Tolstoy did everything better than Dostoevsky except comedy. He was even a better psychologist. He was one of the great masters of literature, next to which Dostoevsky was a raving scribbler.

Dosto was weaker healthwise but I bet he had insane retard strength when worst came to worst and probably got into more fights, so I pick him.

It's actually not a great debate, it's a retarded debate. Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy never had any enmity towards each others work. Dostoyevsky once made a comment about wishing he could have the luxury of time that was afforded to those of betting standing (Turgenev and Tolstoy) but it was a bitter remark fueled by gambling debts, grief and the pressure of surviving that he utilised so effectively to write.
Tolstoy has great respect for the House of the Dead when he read it, (having not known who Dosto was since his appearance on the literary scene was during Dosto's exile and military service). And I don't know if it's true but I have heard that the last book Tolstoy read was The Brother's Karamazov, which he praised as a masterpiece.
And speaking of TBK, in the scene with the Ivan and the Devil, during his delirium tremens, Dosto says that his hallucination and it's small talk is not something even a writer as good as a Tolstoy could imagine. An odd scene and humourous bur definitely a compliment.
Why can't we have two different styles, why the dichotomoy and tendency towards ranking?

Dosto does owe a lot to Gogol, but Gogol's masterpiece remained unfinished, and as brilliant as he was, he did not write in the depth and variety in which Dostoyevsky did. At least not concerning the larger themes that people read Dostoyevsky for. Gogol died in 1952, things like the emancipation of the serfs hadn't happened yet, the socialism and atheism and liberal ideas that come to a head in works like Demons would have been near impossible to conceive of from Gogol's perspective.

Dude it’s from nabakov. Is it your first day here? His hilarious memey reviews are around often

Chekhov hands down

theres nothing to debate when there's a superior choice

Attached: Nietzsche187a.jpg (1464x1986, 1.21M)

Why do people have to interject unrelated edginess into every conversation?

Attached: A0E9146F-0A46-49D0-A6FD-D5EF4A9FBBB7.jpg (367x500, 26K)

This. This 100%

Based Pyccкaя дyшa

Oh enlighten us meister ubermensch shall I make a large and impotent display of my absurdist Dionysian affirmation of life! That is until my body inevitably fails and I will be left to rot? There is nothing more impotent than an atheist

Gosh Nietzsche is boring.

Exactly.

i think that we have a motive

De Sade is what Dostoevsky wished he could be, e.g. equal parts philosopher and great novelist. No one has been more successful and more impactful in that respect. Also, de Sade actually has something new to say, even if you disagree with it (as I do), whereas Dostoevsky’s philosophy is basically just Christian commonplaces—while his writing itself leaves much to be desired. And I wouldn’t rank de Sade particularly close to Tolstoy.
People like to compare Tolstoy and Dostoevsky because they’re both giants of Russian literature who wrote giant novels around the same time, but if Dostoevsky were from elsewhere, say America, nobody would be deluded enough to think he’s on Tolstoy’s level. The common nationality combined with the same medium (novel) and Christianity is conducive to the delusion that they were comparable in terms of talent, because it’s difficult for brainlets to think dimensionally. If something looks comparable on the surface it must be comparable in effect.

Sure is.

Attached: asylum.jpg (264x191, 6K)

>thinks coбopнocть is commonplace Christianity
>doesn't understand the Pyccкaя дyшa, nor why Dostoevsky is the perfect writer of it
>"if dostoevsky were American"

I think you're approaching this incorrectly, no offense

In technical terms, Tolstoi is better, he's an artisan, everything is done at the correct moment and the correct place and there aren't missing details. Dostoievski feels rawer, there isn't a general fluidity in the plot and the set and characters are forcibly put at the stage. The holes are evident. However, there are punctual moments where Dostoievski manages to masterfuly see at the abysm of human condition. You can imagine him at night in his dark poor room with just a candlelight ilumating it, stressed by the debts, writing the The Grand Inquisitor or At Tikhon's.

Well put user. Definitely agree-- Tolstoy the artist, dostoevsky the deep thinker

Yea Forums enjoys Nabokov, until he appears in the real world and chastises them for their bad taste.

Just assume he's edgy because of the 16 year old's that read him why don't you?
You clearly haven't read his work and you're as bad as the retard neckbeards you mock.