>"My position in regard to Dostoevski is a curious and difficult one. In all my courses I approach literature from the only point of view that literature interests me —namely the point of view of enduring art and individual genius. From this point of view Dostoevski is not a great writer, but a rather mediocre one—with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between. In Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov for some reason or other kills an old female pawnbroker and her sister. Justice in the shape of an inexorable police officer closes slowly in on him until in the end he is driven to a public confession, and through the love of a noble prostitute he is brought to a spiritual regeneration that did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. My difficulty, however, is that not all the readers to whom I talk in this or other classes are experienced. A good third, I should say, do not know the difference between real literature and pseudoliterature, and to such readers Dostoevski may seem more important and more artistic than such trash as our American historical novels or things called From Here to Eternity and such like balderdash."
Other than the established fact that he has absolutely no regard for human life, can we have a discussion about Nabokov's ideals with regards to art and literature, I suppose, in this case with reference to Dostoyevsky, being the ? Do you think his criticism is warranted? Why or why not? I've included a snippet from his lectures on Russian literature.
>>8172386
His taste was actually pretty awful and he had a very narrow view of what a novel should be like, dismissing everything that didn't cater specifically to him personally.
>Dostoevski's lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity—all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of "sinning their way to Jesus" or, as a Russian author Ivan Bunin put it more bluntly, "spilling Jesus all over the place." Just as I have no ear for music, I have to my regret no ear for Dostoevski the Prophet.
And with specific reference to his writing:
>In the light of the historical development of artistic vision, Dostoevski is a very fascinating phenomenon. If you examine closely any of his works, say The Brothers Karamazov, you will note that the natural background and all things relevant to the perception of the senses hardly exist. What landscape there is is a landscape of ideas, a moral landscape. The weather does not exist in his world, so it does not much matter how people dress. Dostoevski characterizes his people through situation, through ethical matters, their psychological reactions, their inside ripples. After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance any more in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist, say Tolstoy, who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment.
Can this be attributed to mere stylistic differences, or does it point to Dostoyevsky's failures as an artist?
>>8172447
stylistic. dostoevsky was primarily concerned with the internal and how the characters themselves view the world and their own being.
Tolstoy preferred a more balanced approach that tilted towards the external and how characters interact with each other and project their selves to the society around them
>>8172447
>After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance any more in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist, say Tolstoy, who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment.
I really lile this because I don't have a particularly vivid graphical imagination.
>>8172497
So basically, Nabokov is just an angry man who wants to voice an opinion without having any sound arguments other than "I dislike it, so it's bad!"
>>8172506
Yes, none of this is something that's wrong.
Lucky for us, literature wasn't catered for him.
>>8172447
>Just as I have no ear for music
It shows.
>>8172497
I think this is in regards to Nabokov's assertion that Dostoyevsky sees his characters more as symbols and ideas rather than fleshed out entities with human depth.
>>8172475
Yes, Nabokov stresses letting the characters, rather the author's moral sympathies, dictate the progression of the story.
Dostoyevsky was a novelist whereas nabakov was a writer
>>8172506
I believe his issues boiled down to this:
1) The characters often seem excessive and overly sentimental, and thus feeling forced and contrived, though this can perhaps be explained by their often neurotic personalities and "wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity".
2) Nabokov also felt having so many characters mentally ill in one shape or form was cheating in a way, because it was too simple a plot device to explain away inconsistencies in character actions and personalities (again the idea of characters not acting of their own agency but of the ulterior moral sentiment of the author e.g. Dostoyevsky wanting to illustrate the dangers of the new radical political thinking of the day, but having to invent twelve different motives on top of Raskolnikov's debilitating mental condition to make the cold blooded murder of the old woman consistent with his supposd good nature, the character as idea vs character as human entity thing)
3) The romantic archetypical humiliated noble girl (Dunya, Sonya, etc.)
4) All characters talking the same (long winded philosophical dialogues where all the characters seem to speak like the author)
5) World building and naturalism (the "specific gestures" thing) The charge being that Dostoyevsky has no feel for the world and his novels reading more like plays. (also note the "talking the same" criticism)
6) Cliched writing (a lot of "paling" and "hand-wringing" and "trembling")
What does Nabokov know about anything? He dismissed Faulkner though Faulkner towered over him.
>>8172748
>All characters talking the same
I haven't read Dosotevsky in a while but this isn't true is it?
>>8172748
Also characters like Svidrigailov who were unrealistically evil with vague motives and characters like Myshkin from The Idiot and Alyosha from The Brothers K that were literal saints and unrealistically good.
Of course I'm not saying I agree with these charges but they are interesting to ponder.
>>8172787
>literal saints
He was religous after all.
>>8172748
Regarding your first point, can't this also boil down to culture? Russian culture is kind of excessive when it comes to prose and expressing oneself in general, at least in my experience, and I can only imagine it couldn't have been any less in Dostoyevsky's time?
>>8172778
Defintely not true
>>8172769
>corncobbers believe this
>>8172778
It's been a while since I've read Dostoyevsky as well, but Nabokov might have been a little picky on this point, since it was important in establishing a character's authenticity. I would say Nabokov was very good at perceiving and replicating the nuances of different tones of speech however, from Humbert's eloquent sophistry and the mother's philistine sensibilities, to Lolita's endearing teenage slang.
>>8172796
And literal saints exist.
>>8172849
It was a parallel to Dostoevsky's own conversation, if anything that's how things unveil in real life.
>>8172856
It was a conversation that would have been better of left for an essay.
>>8172799
I think Nabokov is referring more to how long-winded and repetitious some characters speaking to themselves or to others. I don't think it's a cultural thing seeing as Nabokov also talks about Turgenev, Gogol, and Tolstoy in his other lectures on Russian literature.
>>8172403
Agreed, that narrowness and bitchiness does make him fun to read though. Like how he pretends he's a prude in his Joyce lecture and in some others.
>>8172769
Also poor already dead Henry James...why did everyone need to shit on him.
>>8172967
He wasn't very good.
>>8172386
Nabokov was an awful writer, ESPECIALLY as a stylist. It's a shame that he continues to be lauded as a genius both here and in the wider literary community.
>>8172386
Nabokov's theories in lepidoptery are currently more regarded than his literary ones.
>>8174829
>He was a genius and ahead of his time
Ftfy
>>8174862
this. Nabokov wrote with his head so far up his own ass I can smell farts on his every word.
>>8174829
you're thinking of Henry Miller perhaps
>>8172787
>Alyosha
>unrealistic
That says more about you than about Dostoevsky
Dostoevsky was probably the most philosophically deep author ever, that's why Neitzsche loved him. He's probably the most artistically deep as well.
All of you Dosty haters are just atheist newfags from reddit. If you're not convinced Dosty is the greatest, just speak to Constantine, he's like the smartest poster on this board.
>>8172676
dosto was a philosopher
nabby was a novelist
>>8174899
disagree
>>8172810
this is by far my least favorite lit meme.
>>8172567
>Nabokov stresses letting the characters, rather the author's moral sympathies, dictate the progression of the story.
but that´s a cliche and a lie.
Nabokov disliked moralizing in art. Dostoevsky's aesthetic is disagreeable to him like food that upsets his digestion.
>>8172849
That would completely subvert Dostoevsky's theme. People who simplify Dostoevsky as having a psychological disorder forget that the idea of psychological disorder was the secular usurping of the spiritual disorder. If you read Brothers K or Note from Underground, you can see Dostoevsky's utter contempt for the Freethinker perspective of his time that crime is just a product of people's faculty for rational self-interest being impaired.
>>8172447
i imagine perfectly nabokov in a note to
dosto.
im sorry, your carachters aren´t real enough. no discernible talent.
>>8172778
no, not really
>>8174879
I like the words themselves, but the depth of the novel is equal to the depth of a John Green reading teenager.
>>8175635
Yeah, if one word define Nabokov's writing, it's "cosmetic".
>>8174915
I suppose to the more experienced and cynical Nabokov, this was a fair point.
>>8175679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpLmvsz8_AQ
>>8175679
>Nabokov used the term "corncobby" in criticizing Faulkner's writing
Ah, I see. What did he mean by this?
>>8175689
Apparently in one of Faulkner's potboilers a girl gets raped with a corncob
>>8175693
Please no, Cornfather
>>8175693
Ah, yeah I just googled it. It's in Sanctuary. Haven't read that one. Thanks for clearing that up- it always baffled me. Nabokov's lack of ability to appreciate Faulkner reflects worse on him than it does on Faulkner. Faulkner is an amazing writer.
>>8172778
Depends on the character. Some of the smaller, bit characters do, and on rare occasion a more important character. But the main figures in his work don't. It's easy to distinguish between, for example, Prince Myshkin and Aloysha (despite being similar characters). Fyodor Pavlovich, on the other hand, sounds like no one else in any of D's works.
>>8175693
sounds like good material for another rewrite thread desu
>>8175431I'm an atheist, and despite that Fyodor is my favorite author. While I don't believe in the actual, literal existence of the persons or events in religious scripture, I do find myself agreeing with and internalization a lot of morals and overall points of scripture. In this sense I often find myself relating to Dostoyevsky's characters more than any other characters in any medium.
>>8175737
You're in good company. Kafka also was very moved by Dostoevsky, more than any other writer.
>>8175431
>that's why Neitzsche loved him
Can't remember Nietzsche ever mentioning him, desu.
>>8175744
It's in his letters.
>>8175744
I haven't even read much Nietzsche and I see that quote over and over again about Dostoevsky being the only "psychologist" he ever learned anything from. I'm surprised you haven't.
>>8175766
>the only letters I read are Joyce's.
>>8175779
You had an arse full of farts that night, darling, and I fucked them out of you, big fat fellows, long windy ones, quick little merry cracks and a lot of tiny little naughty farties ending in a long gush from your hole. It is wonderful to fuck a farting woman when every fuck drives one out of her. I think I would know Nora’s fart anywhere. I think I could pick hers out in a roomful of farting women. It is a rather girlish noise not like the wet windy fart which I imagine fat wives have. It is sudden and dry and dirty like what a bold girl would let off in fun in a school dormitory at night. I hope Nora will let off no end of her farts in my face so that I may know their smell also.
>>8175786
are you really this new?
>>8175766
You can read the letters in question in Kaufmann's anthologies
dostoy had a very difficult life didn't he? I remember reading somewhere that he wished he wasn't so rushed in his writing so that he could've focused more on the details and subtleties
>>8175835
Did maximum security hard labor for several years for being a communist, had quite a struggle when he got out as well.
>>8175867
>His vision of mankind had been horribly twisted by the time spent in prison, and partially due to the atrocities and the terrible stories he heard, he became convinced that man can live only through suffering. By suffering, man could eventually find hope and love; through God's path, man had a future.
This would be Dostoevsky's affirming the same Christian (Romans 5:3-4) philosophy held by Gogol (pic related).
Dostoevsky didn't come up with her perspective on suffering to deal with it, more he finally understood the philosophy of suffering he already subscribed to as an Orthodox Christian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP0J2eDPIjU
>>8175876
*his perspective
>>8175878
Constantine, are you American? I noticed you posting in the Ellison thread and I have never noticed anyone outside of America reading him. I'm just intrigued to see how keen you seem to be on Eastern Orthodoxy, not that that's a bad thing, just unusual.
>>8175896
I'm American and Orthodox, yeah.
>>8175896
Unusual for Americans, that is. I've probably met more Muslims or Buddhists than Eastern Christians. I would like to learn more about the religion but have no idea where to start. Personally, I was baptized Catholic as an infant and I fell away from them. My faith in God is superficial.
>>8175901
I see. I was just curious. I posted here >>8175905
Thank you for your posts. It's nice to see some better contributions on Dostoevsky. Since he's so popular, we rarely get posts that delve deeper into his work. Many of us, myself included, were introduced early on to him in our literary education and I have been amazed by how great Dos remains years later. I used to prefer Tolstoy but now I can hardly read him.
>>8172386
there's no epub/mobi version of this anywhere, is there?
>>8175914
It's pretty easy to get from a library. Coincidentally I ran into it today while browsing the stacks.
>>8175905
Here is an FAQ and reading list I made for people interested in Orthodox Christianity: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9p---FA48s
>>8175896
>>8175901
I dunno about this dude but I always find similar comments to this irl kinda funny. People who've known you a while will ask shit like "why are you suddenly interested orthodox christianity/some part of eastern European culture". I've even known some people tell me one day I'm obsessed and go on about it too much and a couple of days later ask me why I'm suddenly into this as if I've never mentioned it before. And then you've got to go through this whole awkward thing of "it's my culture m8".
I imagine it's better in America but this is more or less the deal around ethnically British people. Even the liberal ones are pretty racist tbqh.
>>8175950
You Northern or Southern?
>>8172778
My dutch translator added a note in the back of Demons to state that he felt like he had failed to translate (and i'm quoting) "the great effort Dostoevsky put into making the characters speak according to their background".
The translator marked several sayings, specifically by Fedja the convict that Dosto had picked up off actual convicts in his time in Omsk.
So yeah, nah. Fy Nabby.
>>8175935
Thank you, Constantine. I've always wanted to learn more about the great star in the east.
>>8175950
I've spent some time in Southern England so I know what you are talking about. Nonetheless, I didn't mean to seem like some sort of gawker when I asked Constantine. There are far more "exotic" people than Eastern Christians here in California, I just haven't met many. I have always wanted to learn more about their faith since they are the oldest followers.
>>8175923
I'm an american living in a non-english speaking country, don't think I'll find a copy of it so easily.
>>8176057
Ah, crap. Well, you could try soulseek or #bookz. I think you mentioned you already tried torrenting.
>>8175876
jesus that haircut
>JUST
>>8174879
>>8175635
>>8175645
gotta agree with >>8176152 here, it's like these filthy philistines need to be told explicitly what to think instead of developing their own meanings, which, ironically, is the whole tenet of existentialism
if any of you took off your rose tinted christianity glasses for a moment, you will realize that for anyone over 16 years of age who have outgrown their romantic inclinations, the way dostoevski shoves that shit in your face gets overbearing quick
>waaah nabokov doesn't explicitly give me a moral message, therefore his writing has no substance
>being this new and shallow of a reader
>>8176271
one man's shitpost is another's treasure is how the saying goes right
>>8176267
But Nabokov does make for a shallow read.
There is nothing in him to take away from, it doesn't need to be a moral message.
Plenty of authors with substance don't have one.
Nabokov himself admitted that he has no substance, but he phrased it more nicely
>>8175635
the fucking embarrassment in this thread
jerking off a trip that is not even particularly clever
too stupid to read nabokov
circlejerking orthodoxy
implying dostoevsky is a good writer, not a pernicious journalist
>>8176306
Who are a few authors with substance that don't have a moral message?
>>8176306
>again, thinking you need to "take" something away
>being this much of a pleb
>>8176332
dostoevsky is pretty fucking deep, fuck off to your john green books newfag cuck
I bet your an athiest as well
>>8176343
>>8176393
>Joyce for example. Or John Williams.
>Having a theme is different from having a message or something to prove, which Dostoevsky or Tolstoy did.
Gotcha, thanks for the response
>be Russian
>pick up saxophone on a whim
>holy shit I'm really good at this saxophone
>don't really need any training at all
>just doodle doot doot on the saxophone, people love me
>amazing at this saxophone
>people ask how I'm so good
>tell them I can smell colors
>"I just smell them," I say
>"This note is blue" *toot*
>"This one is orange" *toot toot*
>everyone claps
>release one magnum opus after another by tooting the correct color combinations, directly from my soul to your ear
>listen to other saxophone players
>clearly I am better
>listen to some of the ones considered the absolute best in the world
>none of them are fucking blue enough
>get angry
>call them all shit erratically
>randomly say certain ones are okay
>people ask me to explain
>"can't you see? there isn't enough blue in that one! the orange balance is all off!!!!!!!!! this fucking guy doesn't even put reds in his yellows after a green movement!!!!!!!!!"
>try to found a new aesthetic theory where the search to understand harmony and beauty and soul and emotion are all retarded horseshit and everyone should just listen to my personal toot toot theories about color combos forever
>die a bald russian faggot
>unique synesthesia brain rots in ground
>burn in hell
>no one cares about my aesthetics ever again for eternity
>people keep quoting my toot ratings out of context because they're vaguely familiar with my symphony about child-fucking
>>8176415
sorry too long didn't read is this one of those funny r9k greentext stories?
>>8176415
top kek mate
>>8176306
>But Nabokov does make for a shallow read.
>There is nothing in him to take away from, it doesn't need to be a moral message.
Not quite. He just explores how art can fail supply people with a lasting, fulfilling sense of transcendence and the sublime, the simultaneous fallacy of, and tendency of people toward, Romanticism and solipcism, and how people view art, love, etc.
I don't really get the "Nabokov has no substance" meme. Just because it's not didactic doesn't mean it doesn't offer meaningful, often cathartic, commentary on the human condition.
>>8176491
Nothing which you talk about has been dealt with in what I've read from him.
Maybe I've read his worst, but these aren't anywhere to be seen, unless you read so much into it you start inserting you own views into him.
>>8176491
But who cares about any of that?
Dostoevsky writes about things that actually matter, and gives you things you can actually take away from the piece of literature.
What you just wrote about seems to be mere philosophical wankery.
>>8176415
>saxophone
>symphony
it doesn't get more musically illiterate than this folks
also, your allegory is too forced and does not follow simple logic, try again bruh
>>8176393
>again, thinking the relationship between the reader, and the novel, that is, a work of art, is one of practical utility (that you must "obtain" something)
>missing the mark this many times
>>8176505
>a saxophone player couldn't write a symphony
>>8176498
So only what you understand is what matters? Such is the fallacy of the conceited and narrow-minded.
>>8175766
In Twilight of the Idols Dostoevsky is mentioned
>>8176505
There's a difference between utility and teleological approach to life.
Reading has no utility in usefulness, or at least none that it possess specifically.
>>8176496
Even taking something as well-known and commonly read as Lolita, it's pretty hard not to pick up traces of this. You have the entire carefully constructed "pinned butterfly" paradigm with Dolores, and a story revolving around a pedophile--someone whose romantic fixations decay and fade away by their very nature. Then you have Humbert presenting his own narrative in a way that still builds their story up as a grand tragic love tale leading to a poignant "moral apotheosis," which a discerning reader (in Nabokov's own opinion) would be able to dismiss pretty much immediately and see the fallacy of the whole situation.
I don't think I'm just projecting bullshit. You see this in a slightly different (albeit similar) way in Ada, and in Pale Fire. All of these focus on different aspects of fleeting transcendence, be they nostalgia, love, art, whatever, and how people react. Make fun of Nabokov for being really in love with like two specific themes, but saying he's insubstantial seems wrong. His novels just use different, elaborate (often gamey) devices to explore different aspects of similar ones.
>>8176498
Unless your implication is that the only two writers on Earth are Dostoevsky and Nabokov, then why would the alleged superiority of the former's themes factor in at all to a discussion of the latter?
>>8175506
thank you
>>8175779
>everyone posting the inferior 50 gif
Where is Bert?
I think Ada is my personal, subjective favorite novel.
am I a pleb?
>>8174862
>Nabokov was an awful writer, ESPECIALLY as a stylist.
wtf /lit/
>>8176520
So simply put, you fail to find meaning, and thus purpose, in reading Nabokov due to a lack of explicit moralizing, and therefore is incompatible with your "teleological approach to life", for which you must expressly derive purpose. Sounds the same to me desu
>>8176716
As I've said earlier, plenty of authors with value have no moralizing.
>>8172386
I wonder how someone can like Joyce so much and still think the majority of his novelistic output is trash.
He was pedo tho.
>>8178146
So was Socrates? Your point, churl?
>>8178162
He juat pretended because society didn't accept asexuals.
I consider that a good piece of literature has to have both good frame and message. In that sense, I guess I am an ''''anti-egalitarian populist'''' in that I believe that a writing(whether prose or verse) should be first and foremost enjoyable to the masses exoterically, but that a great work should also stimulate the intellectual elite through its esoteric message.
Anyhow, could any of you anons recommend me some literary theory essays/books that could fit my views?
>>8172787
>Also characters like Svidrigailov who were unrealistically evil
He wasn't evil.He kills himself precisely because he isn't.
Too many autistic shitlords can't appreciate the niceties of Dosto, in Nabokov's case at least he is doing it to vie for relevancy.
>tfw tried to read "Demons" but I can't be bothered with all the character names and relations
>>8175497
>Bakhtin was opposed to what he called monologism in the novel, which put it in the same category as the tragedy, comedy and epic forms. In these genres, there was an inherent lack of freedom and equiality, for all attempts at recognizing the existence of other consciousnesses outside that of the author were stifled. That is to say that in the monologic novel, the characters have no autonomy but are merely puppets of the author, scurrying through the preconceived plot according to the author's whims. Reality contains, and our language encompasses, more than one complete value system, more than one complete language, and more than one author. To limit a novel's language to the creative impulses of merely one person (the author) is to do a diservice to the capabilities of language. We can compare it to a totalitarian system of government - all individual voices (the characters) are subordinated to the hegemony of a single ideology and consciousness (the author).
>Writing in Russia in the 1920's, it seems appropriate that the form of novelistic government Bakhtin places on a pedestal is communism. As a preferred alternative to the monologic novel (which reached a pinnacle in Tolstoy), Bakhtin offers us the polyphonic, the multi-voiced. In this development, the authorial consciousness no longer dictates to the characters, but they exist together as a multiplicity of separate consciousnesses, autonomous and interacting. The novel is the site of the interaction of several subjects, as opposed to several objects of the authorial consciousness, and the plot is the result of that dialogue. Bakhtin stresses that the hero's word is just as important as the author's, and that, irrespective of the fact that the author can impose his will upon the characters, he does not because of the respect and autonomy granted them.
>Bakhtin (and Dostoevsky as his prime example) champions the cause of the character in the novel. It is easy to leave Bakhtin at this quasi-Marxist level, but one of themes that motivates him and informs his idea of polyphonia is the dialogic nature of language....
>Bakhtin describes novels developing out of monologic genres:
>>They become more free and flexible, their language renews itself by incorporating extraliterary heteroglossia and the "novelistic" layers of literary langage, they become dialogized, permeated with laughter, irony, humor, elements of self-parody and finally - this is the most important thing - the novel inserts into these other genres an indeterminacy, a certain semantic openendedness, a living contact with unfinished, still-evolving contermporary reality.
>>8180646
but in dostoevskis backwards world view suicide is evil...
>>8180646
Of course it is up to the reader whether they view a character as "unrealistic" or not, but what is important in this case is what dostoy intended. The name svidrigailov had negative connotations even before C&P was published (for whatever historical reasons). He used Svidrigailov basically to show our dear protag (dindu nuffin) the effects of his logical sophisms taken to the extreme (nihilism, hedonism), and as such, was not a fleshed out human entity but an idea that served a specific function, in this case, as the antithesis of dostoy's concept of goodness. So yeah, for all intents and purposes he was evil and killing himself does not change that as >>8180846 alluded to.
At least he was right about Platon.
>>8180846
*tips fedora*
Christianity is the only valid world view. It says so in the Bible.
