The way people are written in this is so cute =w=

Why did you hate it?
I thought Crime and Punishment was okay but TBK is much better. It's as detailed but it doesn't drone on like C&P does, when Dostoyevsky describes Raskolnikov's mental state he does the same in TBK but with many more characters as well as their backgrounds, it's much more interesting and it really has some beautiful moments here and there.

what did he warn about?

the effects of nihilism on the human psyche and culture, and the disturbing reality of the utopian promises made by communism and other leftist ideologies

I'm trying to get through The Idiot right now. It's ok, but it kinda drags on without going anywhere.

I dropped it mid way but I was a high schooler then. My teacher recommended I read Brothers Karamazov instead. Currently reading Demons and am one third of the way but it’s a deluge of characters… I just might be too dumb for Dostoyevsky

Same with Nietzche, who also warned on democracy

You just don't get it, every single person is exactly the same neurotic, jittery, house of cards that Dosto himself was! What's that? Authors are supposed to be able to write characters that aren't just exactly like them? What nonsense is this?

ok

Okay, so instead of seeking to ensure the basic needs of all people are met through responsible governing we should just allow global capital rich elite to slowly soak up greater market shares until they approach monopoly power and can completely disenfranchise the average citizen in his own country? Did Dosto have any warnings about that?

moving the goalpost

Regardless capatalism is still a better alternative to mass murder and absolute government control

eer... where did i say that? you commies are genuinely deranged lmao

you dont understand, its literally impossible to strong arm the rich and maintain a standard quality of life for people without the abolition of private property, religion, the family à la Engles and other cultural Marxists, and the establishment of complete totalitarian control of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will of course inevitably lead to a classless stateless society. read theory.

How are they cute?

Dosto thought the Russian people were beautiful the way they were, even in drunkenness, even in serfdom, even in violent passion. He thought Westernizers and Francophiles (liberals) were going to lead this holy people off of a cliff and tried to warn thinking people in his country about the coming cataclysm of the 20th century. Too bad they were all fellating Parisian dick to listen. But it doesn't seem like you're even talking about Dostoevsky so who cares

>Dosto thought Russian people were beautiful, even as violent drunken slaves. Any attempt to change or better this state of affairs would risk losing Dosto's demeaning romanticizing of needless suffering
That's why Dosto was a retard. Once you elevate suffering, you automatically justify it and open the door to maintaining or increasing levels of suffering. It's the absolute negation of human morality, ethics, progress, and dignity. It is, in a word, Evil.

i've read theory. sure, there are bad things that are a unique consequence of capital, and marx was spot-on about many of his diagnoses, but a totalitarian society has uniquely bad consequences too. the marxist eschatology of dictatorship of the proletariat to classless society doesn't work because it's ignorant of how power functions. how do you suppose we can move beyond the power dynamics that have been present in all complex human societies with The Revolution™? what makes you think class and governments are consequences of capital and not consequences of society as such? you can't shake up the kind of instability and shifting power dynamics that a marxist revolution requires and stick the landing with an egalitarian society. power vacuums will fill, and you're not guaranteed to like how it does

How did centralizing the means of production work out for Russia, didn't it just make it 1000x easier for globohomo businesses to do the exact thing you're talking about?

Listen to what you're saying, fool. Communism leads to situations like modern China where the means of production are easily subsumed by the wealthy because guess what, democracy/government are just organs for the rich. I don't understand how you can whine about monopolies and advocate for a monopoly of government as if that would change anything, lol, listen to what you're saying

The Brother Karamazov is an proto-anime.

>Some governments don't actually decentralize the power therefore all forms of government won't decentralize power
Try again

its the dictatorship of the PROLETARIAT.., it is PUBLIC ownership of the means of production not a monopoly, everyone owns it and it operates in the interests of the working class first and foremost, its the opposite of a monopoly. its literally in the name.

you're trolling at this point aren't you?

5/10 made me reply

not him but I dropped C&P about halfway through, nobody acted like a human being and I didn't care about the main character at all. I do remember that interrogation scene where he gets interrupted by the schizo painter was pretty good though.

Yeah it's not as great as people say it is but it does have some really good parts. I read it thinking it would be a deep, insightful view into nihlism and the mind of a criminal but instead I got a tiny bit of that and I kept reading just to 'find out what happens next', because of memorable parts like the interrogation that were fun to read. It was also way too long for what it was

I will never understand why C&P gets more hype and acclaim than Brothers Karamazov or Demons

Because most people who don't actually read Literature just read C&P. Also, C&P has been part of the Pop Culture/popular imaginary for so long.
Also there has been plenty of C&P inspired and ripoff works in various mediums.

Why would Demons deserve more hype and acclaim than C&P?

its a better book that also happens to be significantly more relevant and timeless in its exploration of the human experience

Dostotards still struggling to answer this.

communism is literally the last thing you want if ensuring the basic needs and quality of life for working people is what you are aiming for

>dosto warned about communism which is much worse than capitalism
>oh no, he didn't warn about muh capitalism as much which is less of a problem
He still warns about secularism, nihilism and materialism which are the philosophies that fuel the rich capitalists greed and power hunger.

Modern readers are too stupid to get this because the book does not explicitly single out CAPITALISM.

>the effects of nihilism on the human psyche and culture, and the disturbing reality of the utopian promises made by communism and other leftist ideologies
I don't think that the Russian revolutions had anything to do with nihilism - Imperial Russia brought down by people who believe in nothing, it was brought down by people who believe in too much. In that way, Dosto's warnings missed their target completely. He never imagined that the opposition to the status quo can develop a powerful ideology of it's own, instead of being a mere reaction.

There's a reason why he was an interesting if subversive author influential among some of the bohemian circles and foreign thinkers under the Imperial government, and then Soviets made him into a pillar of literary canon and part of the mandatory school curriculum. Inadvertently he supported the Communists much more than he criticized them. Which most certainly does make him spin in his grave at Mach 10.

You are correct, but this abandons your original approach from nihilism entirely. You are saying that certain approaches to social organization are highly preferable to others. I don't even need to go "paint the Tsar in red" - you literally DO support the February Revolution that toppled the Tsarist government, while Dosto tried to argue that actions against the social status quo are entirely divorced from any legitimate improvement of the human condition.

>its a better book
Not really, no - the prose and plot are pretty much universally recognized to be subpar to C&P, even by Dosto himself.

>happens to be significantly more relevant and timeless in its exploration of the human experience
In other words - you like it's political implications and that's it.

Why do you even read Dosto?

>He still warns about secularism, nihilism and materialism which are the philosophies that fuel the rich capitalists greed and power hunger.
But Russian revolutionaries were not secular or nihilistic. They were fanatics of an idea, not fanatics of themselves like Stavrogin.

wow appealing to popularity/authority AND wrongly putting words in my mouth at the same time. you sure have a lot to offer this discussion

>wow appealing to popularity/authority
I mean, you need to make some arguments that show that the entire literary canon and Dosto himself were wrong in how they viewed his work first.

>AND wrongly putting words in my mouth at the same time
Show us the part that is wrong, then. Or just keep seething, it will certainly show everyone how Demons truly are an underappreciated gem.

Do you even know what secular or nhilism means? being a passionate communist does not exclude you from being secular or nihilistic

I made my arguments. its a better book that also happens to be significantly more relevant and timeless in its exploration of the human experience.

>Show us the part that is wrong, then
>In other words - you like it's political implications and that's it.
there

>being a passionate communist does not exclude you from being secular
It does if belief in communism and the revolution becomes it's own religion. Which doubtlessly happened.

>or nihilistic
It most certainly does, as Bolshies did not reject the values upheld by Dosto and fundamental to the Russian society, and create a world without rules, morals and values - only changed the leadership and reorganized the hierarchy. They most certainly recognized that there is right and wrong, the issue was with their right and wrong being quite different from that of the acting government.

His characters, as well as Tolstoy's are constantly blushing deeply all over over innocuous things. Dosto takes the cake by having his characters give impossibly long speeches where everyone and everything just freezes in time while the MC talks. Someone made a post about a week ago comparing TBK to an anime, I was reading crime and punishment at that time and it's really fucked me up. Dostoyevsky novels really do have an immense anime vibe to them

Alright, let's go over it again.
>its a better book
Better how? Most people (including, Dosto, Nabby and me) think otherwise, due to stagnant pace (count chapters between any actual developments in Demons, then count those in C&P), and utterly unfocused characters (C&P has Raskolnikov's redemption, Sonya's development and the self-realization of Svidrigailov. List what the Demons have).

>happens to be significantly more relevant
That's exactly what I said - you like it's political implications. That's "relevancy".

>timeless
Something that is relevant to a specific now cannot be timeless.

>in its exploration of the human experience
There is no exploration in Demons. That's the biggest issue of the book.

>Dostoyevsky novels really do have an immense anime vibe to them
that must be why they're so popular with the autists on here

>does if belief in communism and the revolution becomes it's own religion. Which doubtlessly happened.
You HAD to know how fucking stupid this was when you typed it out. dedication to an explicitly materialistic socio-economic ideology =/= religion. this is complete and utter hyperbole on your part.
>It most certainly does,
no it doesn't. fighting for the material interests of your class does not in any way mean you believe in higher objective metaphysical truth or meaning. the creation of a secular moral/legal code does not mean the you believe in higher metaphysical objective truth or meaning

>Dosto takes the cake by having his characters give impossibly long speeches where everyone and everything just freezes in time while the MC talks.
Not really, no. The absolute majority of the monologues in C&P are Rodion's internal musings, he doesn't have an audience for them. Porfiry's long-winded non-sequiturs are close, but everyone around does notice them, the only time they get to run their course is during the interrogation, when Raskolnikov very much IS forzen in place by panic.

A close simile might be Hippolite's speech from the Idiot, but he's ridiculed for it.

It really seems like you take internal monologues of characters for external speech and decry it as unrealistic.

>dedication to an explicitly materialistic socio-economic ideology =/= religion. this is complete and utter hyperbole on your part.
>does not in any way mean you believe in higher objective metaphysical truth or meaning
Goalposts: the movening. You're this close to declaring Dostoyevsky himself to be a secular nihilist.

>the creation of a secular moral/legal code does not mean the you believe in higher metaphysical objective truth or meaning
...you did read Crime and Punishment, right?

the only "problem" with the pacing is the introduction being too long for smooth brains, the reality is that it is not only enjoyable in its self with an excellent pay-off pays off, but also effectively reflect the generational nature of the specific themes that aspect of the book is exploring. once the into sets the stage its literally non-stop character development until; it peaks with an extremely engaging climax. the whole experience is a roller coaster that made me laugh out lout and cry and reflect. the characters were SIGNIFICANTLY more interesting and the book benefits greatly from the selection of individual perspectives and specifically their relationships. kirilov himself, perhaps one of the more stand out characters in literature, and his his relationship with all the different characters and how those relationships differ. exploring shatovs perspective and his falling out with pytor and the disillusionment of his idol-worship of stovrogin . the entire development Stepan, his initial character and the relationship between him and his son and everything that transpires in the book. stovrogins inner-battle with his horrific actions brought on by his nihilism, and ultimately, his inability to cope with the life he finds himself living. Shigalyev casually explaining in detail the horrors of how the soviet union and virtually every communist revolution would play out and completely deconstructing the ideology in ways leftist still to this day havnt figured out how to cope with, all almost half a century in advance. the book is also extremely effective at breaking all this up with hilariously entertaining scenes like the first meeting of the group of 5 and the gala and many of the interactions with the narrator and steppan. the book effectively hits just about every note there is to hit.
>That's "relevancy".
thats one aspect of the book that can be relevant. i dont even understand how you could imply something like this, why do you think only political themes can be relevant? yes I enjoy the political themes, yes they are extremely relevant, there's no problem with that. i also think the social themes we see in stovrogin, shatov, scenes like the young people gawking at the corpse, the student, are all SIGNIFICANTLY more timeless and relevant to modern culture that Raskolnikov's ambitions which reflect a very specific cultural attitude that is basically non existent in the day to day lives of 99.9999% of people

>There is no exploration in Demons. That's the biggest issue of the book

virtually the entire book front to back is all extremely dense sociopolitical explorations of the human experience via differing perspectives that, once again, i think are much more timeless and relevant.

projection much? you literally used hyperbole to move the goal post to cover up the fact that you have no fucking idea what secularism or nihilism means. this is pathetic lmao. have some goddamn dignity

>i dont even understand how you could imply something like this, why do you think only political themes can be relevant? yes I enjoy the political themes, yes they are extremely relevant, there's no problem with that
QED

>Dostoyevsky novels really do have an immense anime vibe to them

That’s why they’re great. They feel like engrossing sagas with tons of characters

dostoyevsky WAS constantly torn by his battle with secular nihilistic feelings and faith in a higher meaning in life, its literally the single biggest driving force of virtually all of his novels. you truly haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about

>You are correct, but this abandons your original approach from nihilism entirely. You are saying that certain approaches to social organization are highly preferable to others. I don't even need to go "paint the Tsar in red" - you literally DO support the February Revolution that toppled the Tsarist government, while Dosto tried to argue that actions against the social status quo are entirely divorced from any legitimate improvement of the human condition.

I'm not the same guy, I just think capitalism vs communism is a silly debate because it implies that the two cannot be combined or intermingled which is false, they will and are combined to suit pragmatic wealthy elites as they see fit. Right under our noses wealth and 'the means of production' have been centralised since the industrial revolution on a global scale by supposedly capitalist people, I just think it's really low IQ when people think that because there isn't an explicitly communist party in power there is nothing communist about a country, this all boils down to semantics anyway