Hi. Thank you for this list. Dostoyevsky is my favorite author too, but I have more reading to do. Next step will be Demons. The Brothers is an all time favorite book. I’m glad I caught your channel early on.
If I am allowed to express my personal and totally heretical opinion: Dostoevsky is one of the most overestimated writers of all time. What can one say about Alyosha's theological discussions with a 13 year old boy? What can one think about the ending of Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha together with some pre-adolescent children (!) are all together cheerfully happy as they celebrate... what? The coming of the Last Judgement Day!... Seriously? Is this suppose to be good literature? Even a believer reader should have enormous problems with such a bad literary ending and idea as a whole. Is he a writer or catechist? When I read this, I felt like I was being made fun of and that my intelligence was being underestimated. In Dostoevsky we find always the following concept: All "good" guys get to be rewarded and all "bad" guys either commit suicide or go to prison or get crazy. So, how did you find the other unbelievable bad solution Dostoevsky gave to Ivan? Although he was the only one who could save the life of his brother Dmitri in front of the court, one day before that court he got... what?... c r a z y ! Excuse me? But of course, the bad atheist Ivan should be punished for his 'atheism', shouldn't he? And the rotter Dmitri should definitely go to prison in order to become finally a 'useful' man. Is there anything more p r e d i c t a b l e in whole literature? Do we want our literature to be predictable in that silly way? How can a healthy human mind accept these forced and totally kitschy solutions as 'great literature'? And this novel is considered from many, many, many "serious" people that read (do they actually read?) serious literature as "the best novel ever written". H o l y cow! Therefore, all of these points, and of course many others, place Dostoyevsky (at least for me) in the category of a writer of the so-called 'committed literature', who moralizes and preaches and teaches us with his index finger which is the "right" and which is the "wrong" path in life. Absolutely disgusting. After having read Dostoevsky's works again and again I have come to this conclusion: He is the most horrible and kitschy author I've read until now. Not even his language has anything to offer. And although I don't agree with every single critical opinion Nabokov expressed for a number of authors, I totally agree with his opinions on Dostoevsky. There are so many writers out there that are... writers! Dostoevsky, I am sorry to say, is bad author. And please, for all of you reading this comment and thinking that I am crazy: Read Dostoevsky anew. Forget the hype. Don't let yourself repeating "what the world is saying". Shape your own opinion based on arguments.
The point of the story is that an honest nihilist/atheist like Ivan could find no peace in a world full of pain like this one. Ivan represents all of Dostoyevsky's doubts and fears, he is not some "bad guy", whatever Ivan thinks was thought by Dosotyevsky too and is an honest attempt at steelmanning basically the Devil. That's why Ivan is usually the favourite character of most readers. At the end Ivan's future is uncertain and he is presented as a noble character, he goes mad but the woman he loves takes care of him and we do not know if he will wake up, and if he does what his attitude will be. Dostoyevsky does not judge. Also at the end of the Idiot the main character, who is the perfect Christian Prince, ends up exactly like Ivan so you are wrong again. And Dimitri doesn't go to prison, the point is that he is totally innocent and that truth is a complex thing, that "scientific" obvious facts can lead to an innocent man like Dimitri to be convicted. Yet we are told he will be freed and will go to America with his lover. The point of the children is that they represent the future of Russia, the youth. Captured by nihilism and communism, faced with a world full of pain and suffering they are given no alternative. Aliosha is young and lost too hoping for a literal miracle to give sense to his life. Dostoyevsky gives us an answer for how to live, active love the example of Jesus Christ. He does not tell us the rest of Aliosha's life he is free to make his own decisions but we are told the principles by which he will live. Dostoyevsky believes in God, he believes Jesus is the Truth, why would he lie and not tell you what he thinks life is about. The wisdom of men is foolishness compared to the Wisdom of God, Dostoyevsky is an Orthodox Chrisitan, a tradition full of mystics and holy fools that treat human knowledge as inferior to the simple spiritual life. Dostoyevsky would laugh at your pretentious ramblings. The answer is love.
He’s a writer of ideas. The characters represent ideas. Fully fleshed out ideas and superbly dramatized. And his aesthetic innovations in TBK were hugely influential on other writers. As was his psychological penetration. And I’ve read the major works recently. I will say he’s not a polished writer - wrote on a deadline and can be slipshod.
@@Tolstoy111 Every writer of some significance has more or less ideas. And I don’t believe that a writer of “ideas” such as Coelho, is a great writer just because he expresses… ideas. This is no argument at all. That’s exactly my problem with D.: his "ideas" and how he develops them or not. For example I don't see any literary merit at the end of «Demons» where Stepan Trofimovich suddenly decides to spread the... Gospel. Sorry, but that's no literature to me. It destroys the whole novel. That a writer is influential, is no literally argument for me either. I don't shape my opinion based on opinions expressed by others. Every thinker is to be criticised. Do we agree on that? Please read Kazantzakis's «Christ Recrucified» in order to realise what ideas, their development, as well as literary balance is. But I fully agree with you that D. is a slipshod. Have you read Nabokov's criticism on D.? Maybe this review could be also thought-provoking for you: ruclips.net/video/gOsciFgC68s/видео.html
@@Manfred-nj8vz I have read Nabokov’s criticism. He was too European to appreciate Dosty. Also, the qualities Nabokov prized in a writer: precision, control, the vivid image etc. are not really Dostoevsky strong suit. Besides N had very strict aesthetic criteria that I don’t always give with. He hated Faulkner too. And btw Tolstoy also has the preacher in him even in War and Peace and Anna. Karenina.
Great Video. Really excited to read some of these!
Hi. Thank you for this list. Dostoyevsky is my favorite author too, but I have more reading to do. Next step will be Demons. The Brothers is an all time favorite book. I’m glad I caught your channel early on.
thank you for the ranking!!!
If I am allowed to express my personal and totally heretical opinion: Dostoevsky is one of the most overestimated writers of all time.
What can one say about Alyosha's theological discussions with a 13 year old boy? What can one think about the ending of Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha together with some pre-adolescent children (!) are all together cheerfully happy as they celebrate... what? The coming of the Last Judgement Day!... Seriously? Is this suppose to be good literature? Even a believer reader should have enormous problems with such a bad literary ending and idea as a whole. Is he a writer or catechist? When I read this, I felt like I was being made fun of and that my intelligence was being underestimated.
In Dostoevsky we find always the following concept: All "good" guys get to be rewarded and all "bad" guys either commit suicide or go to prison or get crazy. So, how did you find the other unbelievable bad solution Dostoevsky gave to Ivan? Although he was the only one who could save the life of his brother Dmitri in front of the court, one day before that court he got... what?... c r a z y ! Excuse me? But of course, the bad atheist Ivan should be punished for his 'atheism', shouldn't he? And the rotter Dmitri should definitely go to prison in order to become finally a 'useful' man. Is there anything more p r e d i c t a b l e in whole literature? Do we want our literature to be predictable in that silly way? How can a healthy human mind accept these forced and totally kitschy solutions as 'great literature'? And this novel is considered from many, many, many "serious" people that read (do they actually read?) serious literature as "the best novel ever written".
H o l y cow!
Therefore, all of these points, and of course many others, place Dostoyevsky (at least for me) in the category of a writer of the so-called 'committed literature', who moralizes and preaches and teaches us with his index finger which is the "right" and which is the "wrong" path in life. Absolutely disgusting.
After having read Dostoevsky's works again and again I have come to this conclusion: He is the most horrible and kitschy author I've read until now. Not even his language has anything to offer. And although I don't agree with every single critical opinion Nabokov expressed for a number of authors, I totally agree with his opinions on Dostoevsky. There are so many writers out there that are... writers! Dostoevsky, I am sorry to say, is bad author.
And please, for all of you reading this comment and thinking that I am crazy: Read Dostoevsky anew. Forget the hype. Don't let yourself repeating "what the world is saying". Shape your own opinion based on arguments.
The point of the story is that an honest nihilist/atheist like Ivan could find no peace in a world full of pain like this one. Ivan represents all of Dostoyevsky's doubts and fears, he is not some "bad guy", whatever Ivan thinks was thought by Dosotyevsky too and is an honest attempt at steelmanning basically the Devil. That's why Ivan is usually the favourite character of most readers. At the end Ivan's future is uncertain and he is presented as a noble character, he goes mad but the woman he loves takes care of him and we do not know if he will wake up, and if he does what his attitude will be. Dostoyevsky does not judge. Also at the end of the Idiot the main character, who is the perfect Christian Prince, ends up exactly like Ivan so you are wrong again. And Dimitri doesn't go to prison, the point is that he is totally innocent and that truth is a complex thing, that "scientific" obvious facts can lead to an innocent man like Dimitri to be convicted. Yet we are told he will be freed and will go to America with his lover. The point of the children is that they represent the future of Russia, the youth. Captured by nihilism and communism, faced with a world full of pain and suffering they are given no alternative. Aliosha is young and lost too hoping for a literal miracle to give sense to his life. Dostoyevsky gives us an answer for how to live, active love the example of Jesus Christ. He does not tell us the rest of Aliosha's life he is free to make his own decisions but we are told the principles by which he will live. Dostoyevsky believes in God, he believes Jesus is the Truth, why would he lie and not tell you what he thinks life is about. The wisdom of men is foolishness compared to the Wisdom of God, Dostoyevsky is an Orthodox Chrisitan, a tradition full of mystics and holy fools that treat human knowledge as inferior to the simple spiritual life. Dostoyevsky would laugh at your pretentious ramblings. The answer is love.
@@jimcrow2802 Amen!
He’s a writer of ideas. The characters represent ideas. Fully fleshed out ideas and superbly dramatized. And his aesthetic innovations in TBK were hugely influential on other writers. As was his psychological penetration. And I’ve read the major works recently. I will say he’s not a polished writer - wrote on a deadline and can be slipshod.
@@Tolstoy111 Every writer of some significance has more or less ideas. And I don’t believe that a writer of “ideas” such as Coelho, is a great writer just because he expresses… ideas. This is no argument at all.
That’s exactly my problem with D.: his "ideas" and how he develops them or not. For example I don't see any literary merit at the end of «Demons» where Stepan Trofimovich suddenly decides to spread the... Gospel. Sorry, but that's no literature to me. It destroys the whole novel.
That a writer is influential, is no literally argument for me either. I don't shape my opinion based on opinions expressed by others. Every thinker is to be criticised. Do we agree on that?
Please read Kazantzakis's «Christ Recrucified» in order to realise what ideas, their development, as well as literary balance is. But I fully agree with you that D. is a slipshod. Have you read Nabokov's criticism on D.?
Maybe this review could be also thought-provoking for you: ruclips.net/video/gOsciFgC68s/видео.html
@@Manfred-nj8vz I have read Nabokov’s criticism. He was too European to appreciate Dosty. Also, the qualities Nabokov prized in a writer: precision, control, the vivid image etc. are not really Dostoevsky strong suit. Besides N had very strict aesthetic criteria that I don’t always give with. He hated Faulkner too. And btw Tolstoy also has the preacher in him even in War and Peace and Anna. Karenina.