[HN Gopher] What made Dostoevsky's work immortal
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       What made Dostoevsky's work immortal
        
       Author : simplegeek
       Score  : 96 points
       Date   : 2024-11-22 14:59 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (thoughts.wyounas.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (thoughts.wyounas.com)
        
       | greenie_beans wrote:
       | a writer's financial situation does not make art immortal.
       | 
       | it cites faulkner, too, and he famously wrote "as i lay dying"
       | while he was broke and working at the university electric plant.
        
         | brodouevencode wrote:
         | > a writer's financial situation does not make art immortal.
         | 
         | That was not the point of the article. The point was that the
         | narrowness of circumstance - living between riches and poverty
         | and what type of person can handle that (not to mention the
         | unique problems that might come up with that) - requires
         | someone that can balance that sort of situation.
        
           | greenie_beans wrote:
           | how is that not "a writer's financial situation"?
        
             | brodouevencode wrote:
             | Because that's a manifestation of the struggle, not the
             | struggle itself.
        
               | greenie_beans wrote:
               | so am i struggling with my art or my financial situation?
               | genuinely trying to understand what you're saying.
        
               | sexyman48 wrote:
               | Like most literary analysis, GP's remarks ("narrowness of
               | circumstance") are bullshit. The title "What Made His
               | Work Immortal" was completely off-topic.
        
       | kristjankalm wrote:
       | "Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all
       | Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most
       | of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an
       | artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash
       | comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous
       | farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive
       | murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one
       | moment--by this reader anyway." V. Nabokov, [0]
       | 
       | I really recommend Nabokov's full lecture on Dostoyevsky [1],
       | plus obvs all the of the lectures in the series are brilliant.
       | 
       | [0] https://lithub.com/on-dostoevskys-199th-birthday-heres-
       | nabok...
       | 
       | [1] Lectures on Russian Literature, Vladimir Nabokov,
       | https://www.londonreviewbookshop.co.uk/stock/lectures-on-rus...
        
         | agys wrote:
         | A dissing with two of my favourite authors as protagonists,
         | thank you!
         | 
         | A small extract of "Transparent Things" by Nabokov that I love
         | so much: how a Caran d'Ache pencil is built. An incredible
         | travel through space and time!
         | 
         | https://thenabokovian.org/node/53398
        
         | twelve40 wrote:
         | > slapdash comedian
         | 
         | > extraordinarily amusing
         | 
         | Nabokov is a genius but not once did i get this vibe ever, much
         | darker, almost hopeless.
        
           | usrnm wrote:
           | Dostoevsky is funny, but his humour is very subtle and can be
           | easily lost in translation. And being funny and dark are not
           | mutually exclusive things, there is a whole genre of
           | tragicomedies, after all
        
         | GeoAtreides wrote:
         | Nabokov is the proof that being a genius writer doesn't always
         | imply having good taste. For example, see his opinion on Henry
         | James, Faulkner or Camus.
         | 
         | The man wrote what he wanted to read and hated everything else.
        
         | bmacho wrote:
         | > Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all
         | Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do,
         | 
         | This is _probably_ true. But Russians ' opinion shouldn't
         | matter the slightest about him for the rest of us.
        
           | yatopifo wrote:
           | Of course. But it's worth recognizing that you like a
           | translation of D, not his original works.
        
             | buffalobuffalo wrote:
             | This criticism is all the more poignant given that it comes
             | from Nabokov. He is one of the few authors for whose works
             | the Russian and English versions are almost equivalent; he
             | was bilingual and did the translation himself.
        
             | bmacho wrote:
             | > But it's worth recognizing that you like a translation of
             | D
             | 
             | Probably he just lucked out, and all his translators are
             | geniuses. Tho this would be a more remarkable skill, than
             | just being a literary genius..
             | 
             | BTW I usually like derivative works, in every arts.
             | 
             | If a translator makes changes, and she is only _right_ 60%
             | of the time, that 's still a net positive. I encourage
             | every translator to make changes, if they think they can
             | make the text better.
        
         | yatopifo wrote:
         | Dostoyevsky wrote the most boring unpalatable stuff i had the
         | misfortunate to read in school. Nabokov's assessment was 100%
         | correct.
        
           | zdragnar wrote:
           | Not by a long shot. War and peace is the classic long read,
           | but outside of Russian literature you also get authors like
           | Victor Hugo and Les Miserables.
           | 
           | Also, depending on your tastes, Charlotte Bronte and other
           | similar period writers were equally bland or significant.
        
             | throwup238 wrote:
             | Or Proust's seven volumes.
        
           | whythre wrote:
           | I read Crime and Punishment as a teenager and I enjoyed it
           | quite a bit. Raskolnikov's misadventures are not 'fun' but as
           | a psychological exploration of guilt (or lack thereof), it
           | was very interesting.
           | 
           | I like Notes from the Underground and his other short stories
           | (like the Double) even more.
        
           | greenie_beans wrote:
           | i disagree. i'm reading the brothers karamazov right now and
           | i find it so entertaining. such rich drama and conflict.
        
         | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
         | He is highly worshipped in the nationalistic/antisemitic
         | circles.
        
       | beoberha wrote:
       | My favorite course I took in college was a Russian Literature
       | elective my first semester. I fell in love with Dostoevsky when
       | we read Crime and Punishment and I ended up writing my 25 page
       | term paper on him and his role in the proto-existentialist vs
       | nihilism movement in Russia in the 1860s. There will always be a
       | part of me that wishes I had taken my career in that direction
       | instead of computers :)
        
         | mdp2021 wrote:
         | Please consider an advice: try using some of your spare time on
         | that interest. You never know.
        
         | jffhn wrote:
         | Reminds me of an interview with Fields Medalist Laurent
         | Lafforgue, where he mentioned that at one point, he had only
         | been interested in literature, particularly Dostoevsky, and
         | couldn't understand how anyone could bother with mathematics,
         | but that he later realized that mathematics could also convey
         | profound truths.
        
       | SeattleAltruist wrote:
       | @kristjankaim is correct - this sure isn't Nabokov. Example:
       | "Immortality of Dostoevsky's art is unquestionable; his art will
       | likely continue to live on."
       | 
       | Wait... which is it?
        
       | fumeux_fume wrote:
       | Sounds good but doesn't add up. I think his writing's legacy is
       | due more to the time it was published, it's translations into
       | other languages and boosters like Freud who thought BK what the
       | greatest novel ever written. That opinion gets echoed a lot, but
       | thinking about literature in a ordinal sense is a little absurd.
       | For me, the ruble ammouts in BK were almost meaningless. I just
       | assumed 3,000 or 5,000 rubles was a shit ton of money, but def
       | less than a million dollars today.
        
       | totaldude87 wrote:
       | His works will live on regardless of the culture or the time it
       | was written. As long as there is Poverty, Guilt consciousness,
       | Morality his works would be relevent.
       | 
       | I did not bow down to you, I bowed down to all the suffering of
       | humanity.
       | 
       | This cannot be put an expiry at..
        
       | ruthmarx wrote:
       | I think his idea in Crime and Punishment of there being a class
       | of 'special' humans is pretty interesting and enduring.
        
       | rrherr wrote:
       | This Substack post is a summary of an essay by Joseph Brodsky
       | about Dostoevsky -- but the post does not link or name the essay.
       | 
       | The essay is named "The Power of the Elements" and it can be read
       | here on Google Books:
       | 
       | https://www.google.com/books/edition/Less_Than_One/N5Nzm2uih...
        
         | nsatirini wrote:
         | The author mentioned the name of the book in the very first
         | paragraph.
         | 
         | Yes, it seems the essay inspired the post and it quotes
         | excerpts from the essay but also has also some nice additional
         | commentary.
        
           | scandox wrote:
           | The book in which they read the essay but not it seems the
           | essay itself.
        
       | alangou wrote:
       | Dostoyevsky was truly great and could see the true and important
       | things about the world, while Nabokov's contribution to
       | literature will not be remembered past this century. One foresaw
       | what the death of absolute good would do to the world--the casual
       | mass murders of millions in places such as Germany, Cambodia,
       | Stalinist Russia. The other is famous for Lolita.
       | 
       | "Don't be afraid of anything, ever. And do not grieve. As long as
       | your repentance does not weaken, God will forgive everything.
       | There is not--there cannot be--a sin on earth that God will not
       | forgive the truly repentant. Why, a man cannot commit a sin so
       | great as to exhaust the infinite love of God. How could there be
       | a sin that would surpass the love of God?
       | 
       | Think only of repentance, all the time, and drive away all fear.
       | Have faith that God loves you more than you can ever imagine. He
       | loves you, sinful as you are and, indeed, because of your sin. It
       | was said long ago that there is more joy in heaven over one
       | repentant sinner than over ten righteous men. Go now, and fear
       | nothing. Do not be offended if people treat you badly. Do not
       | hold it against them. And forgive your departed husband all the
       | harm he did you. Become truly reconciled with him. For if you
       | repent, you love, and if you love, you are with God. Love redeems
       | and saves everything.
       | 
       | If I, a sinner like yourself, am moved and feel compassion for
       | you, how infinitely much more will God! Love is such an infinite
       | treasure it can buy the whole world and can redeem not only your
       | sins, but the sins of all people. So go and fear no more."
       | 
       | Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov (pp. 64-65). Random
       | House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
        
         | bowsamic wrote:
         | If you think the point of your work is what you end up being
         | famous for, then you have no moral ground to stand on
        
           | alangou wrote:
           | How should one decide what to read?
        
           | nkmskdmfodf wrote:
           | Huh?
           | 
           | If you're going to write a book, for other people to read,
           | you ultimately want people to understand and recognize your
           | ideas/the point of your work. It has nothing to do with
           | morality.
        
             | bowsamic wrote:
             | I'm talking of the poster, judging the Lolita author for
             | being famous for Lolita. Thinking that judgement is through
             | fame is a morally depraved, evil outlook
        
               | alangou wrote:
               | How should one judge a writer if not by the body of their
               | work?
        
               | bowsamic wrote:
               | You didn't judge the writer by their body of work. You
               | judged the author by which works are famous.
        
               | michaelt wrote:
               | If I write a cautionary tale about the seductive evils of
               | fascism,
               | 
               | with an unreliable narrator who's a cog in the evil
               | machine, and obviously deluded about it,
               | 
               | and deeply unpleasant detailed descriptions of the awful
               | cruelty perpetuated by the nazi regime,
               | 
               | and some fascists really like my book, because detailed
               | descriptions of awful nazi cruelty are their jam, and
               | they really identify with my evil, unreliable, deluded
               | narrator
               | 
               | and a lot of people haven't read my book, but they know
               | the _kind_ of person who like my book - fascists
               | 
               | should I be judged by the popular reception of my work?
        
               | nkmskdmfodf wrote:
               | Oh I see. I don't disagree with you point then, but the
               | context here is 'immortal works' and that's definitely
               | strongly correlated with the popularity of the work.
               | 'Immortal work' ~= 'still popular long in the future'
        
         | jibbers wrote:
         | Wow. Your quote was the first time I've read any Dostoyevsky
         | and it had tears welling in my eyes. I will absolutely find
         | more to read. Thank you.
        
         | giraffe_lady wrote:
         | It's a good quote for orthodox christians, I'm not sure it
         | would make anyone else want to read dostoevsky though. I'm a
         | dostoevsky liker and orthodox christian myself so this isn't an
         | issue for me but in this venue I feel like you could have made
         | a better choice for representing him.
        
           | alangou wrote:
           | What would you have chosen to represent him?
           | 
           | I think it's important you choose what affects you most. I
           | was deeply moved reading this when I was atheist, so who am I
           | to say what will and will not move others?
        
             | giraffe_lady wrote:
             | I'm not sure, I think the strength of his writing isn't
             | well captured in quotes. But it seems like this one
             | resonates with more people than I expected so I concede I
             | was wrong about this.
        
           | boothby wrote:
           | It's interesting what people take from this passage. I was
           | primed by alangau's statement that Dostoevsky predicted the
           | death of absolute good, and the mass slaughter of millions,
           | when I read
           | 
           | > There is not--there cannot be--a sin on earth that God will
           | not forgive the truly repentant.
           | 
           | To me, this sends a horrifying message. A self-righteous
           | individual can kill millions, wake up to the terrible reality
           | of their act, repent, and be bathed in the joy of a loving
           | god's forgiveness. They need suffer only a moment's guilt,
           | before proceeding fearlessly back into the world.
           | 
           | And yet, according to alangau's sibling comment, the passage
           | was deeply moving to him. Perhaps my horrified response _is_
           | a deep motion of sorts, but that isn 't a typical usage of
           | the phrase "deeply moved."
        
             | giraffe_lady wrote:
             | That is an interesting view of it. I mentioned this
             | elsewhere but I happen to share a religion with dostoevsky
             | so this idea is familiar to me and no longer jarring. It
             | does violate a certain idea of fairness or consequence that
             | most people subscribe to, and that contradiction is all
             | over the gospels so it really is one of the original ideas
             | of christianity.
             | 
             | And ultimately this view of repentance is kind of unhelpful
             | in a practical way when dealing with incredibly damaging
             | behavior. We can't really judge the sincerity of someone's
             | repentance, ultimately it is between them and god. We can
             | restrain them from being in a situation where they could
             | commit that act again though, just in case.
             | 
             | Something I think about often is an event that occurred in
             | my home town when I was a young adult. A child, 12 or 13,
             | old enough to know better, was playing with the stove and
             | set the house on fire. One of their siblings died in the
             | fire.
             | 
             | How do you react to that as a parent? You love the child,
             | have to go on raising them. No punishment even makes sense,
             | the idea of taking away the nintendo or whatever is simply
             | grotesque, and what could be accomplished by anything
             | proportional to the consequence? The only thing left is
             | forgiveness. I think this is how it is with god and your
             | hypothetical monster.
        
             | sateesh wrote:
             | * They need suffer only a moment's guilt, before proceeding
             | fearlessly back into the world.
             | 
             | It is not a true repentance if one can wash off their guilt
             | in a moment. True repentance is eternal burn.
        
             | michaelsbradley wrote:
             | > They need suffer only a moment's guilt, before proceeding
             | fearlessly back into the world.
             | 
             | Well, maybe not. Dostoevsky was Orthodox, so I don't know
             | how he would think about this...
             | 
             | From a Catholic perspective sin has both temporal and
             | eternal consequences. God can forgive a truly repentant
             | person any sin, ordinarily through the ministry of the
             | Church by the power and authority of Christ, establishing
             | or returning a person to the life of divine grace in their
             | soul, but the temporal consequences of their sin/s may
             | remain to be repaired.
             | 
             | By analogy, suppose my neighbor became unreasonably angry
             | with me, becoming so incensed that he threw a rock at one
             | of my windows causing it to shatter. Then, after a day of
             | cooling off, he apologized and asked forgiveness. Now
             | suppose I granted him forgiveness, moved by his sincerity
             | and a mutual desire to repair the relationship. The
             | shattered window remains -- the glass needs to be cleaned
             | up, and a new window must be purchased and installed. Maybe
             | my neighbor has the resources and skill to do the repair
             | himself; or maybe he can pay directly or reimburse me for
             | contract labor; or maybe he can't afford the repair but
             | promises to pay me back; or maybe one of his family members
             | pays me instead. One way or another, the window will be
             | repaired and my neighbor bears responsibility for it.
             | 
             | So sin, generally, is like this, from the Catholic POV. If
             | the forgiven sinner is not able to make repair before their
             | life ends, then they will suffer in purgatory after death
             | before enjoying the beatific vision. The purification will
             | be more severe depending on the number and gravity of sins.
             | Some mystics claim to have been informed about souls that
             | will suffer in purgatory flames hotter than those of
             | damnation until the last moment before the general
             | judgment, so terrible were their sins and unrepaired
             | consequences of the same.
        
         | neffy wrote:
         | There was no shortage of casual mass murder before the 20th
         | century, not infrequently perpetrated by religious orders. The
         | Mongol invasions in the 13th century, An Lushan rebellion in
         | China in 750, Albigensian Crusade in the 12th century... it's a
         | long list I'm afraid - we are not a tame species.
        
         | drdaeman wrote:
         | The quote is truly the quintessence of Dostoevsky's works. A
         | classic orthodox christian hodgepodge base, served with
         | heaviest spicing of obligatory suffering of all kinds - both
         | physical and mental, all perversely portrayed as a virtue.
         | 
         | It's kinda like alcohol, and if we go with this comparison -
         | Dostoevsky promotes drowning in it as a salvation. Put bluntly,
         | that shit ruins lives, not mends them. But Dostoevsky does not
         | just write about it, he carefully designs the whole narrative
         | to make it _look_ like the only logical choice and
         | wholeheartedly promotes it. And that 's why I just can't stand
         | his works, despite all their psychological, artistic and
         | linguistic/literary merits. This insane cultural gap is simply
         | too big to cross for me.
         | 
         | It all makes sense in historical and cultural context, of
         | course, but that's exactly what puts an expiration date on
         | Dostoevsky's works. They're a product or a very specific
         | culture, and thus will no longer be relevant when their parent
         | culture will finally wither away (and, personally, I sincerely
         | hope it naturally does, for I see it as way more harmful than
         | positive).
         | 
         | There are literature works that would remain relevant for a
         | long while, but Dostoevsky is not one of those.
         | 
         | Just my own personal opinion.
        
       | bowsamic wrote:
       | I don't find his work to be immortal, in fact I find his writing
       | full of all the worst late 19th century writing cliches, and thus
       | extremely dated.
        
       | sctb wrote:
       | > "[...] Reading him simply makes one realize that stream of
       | consciousness springs not from consciousness but from a word
       | which alters or redirects one's consciousness."
       | 
       | This has a slight ring of Derrida and/but I find it a very
       | interesting point. The "stream of consciousness" really does seem
       | like a stream of the words themselves, each one in reflection of
       | the previous and anticipation of the next. The flowing is not
       | just in the writer's mind but the reader's as well.
        
         | drdaeman wrote:
         | Dostoevsky is one of those authors whose works absolutely
         | require deconstructive double reading. :-)
        
       | vishkk wrote:
       | Nabokov's recommendations: http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-
       | recommendations
       | 
       | I love Dostoevsky too much and am quite happy in my bias and echo
       | chamber of that--he was one of the writers that I read in my
       | early days, and to date, I feel that he changed a lot in me or
       | resonated so much that I can't explain.
       | 
       | I believe Nietzche said this about him "the only psychologist
       | from whom I had something to learn."
       | 
       | And one of my favorite quotes by him:
       | 
       | For, after all, you do grow up, you do outgrow your ideals, which
       | turn to dust and ashes, which are shattered into fragments; and
       | if you have no other life, you just have to build one up out of
       | these fragments. And all the time your soul is craving and
       | longing for something else. And in vain does the dreamer rummage
       | about in his old dreams, raking them over as though they were a
       | heap of cinders, looking in these cinders for some spark, however
       | tiny, to fan it into a flame so as to warm his chilled blood by
       | it and revive in it all that he held so dear before, all that
       | touched his heart, that made his blood course through his veins,
       | that drew tears from his eyes, and that so splendidly deceived
       | him!"
        
         | readthenotes1 wrote:
         | And in song:
         | 
         | https://youtu.be/eKfvXBDSiU4?feature=shared
        
           | vishkk wrote:
           | hahah love it, thank you for sharing!
        
           | 5- wrote:
           | to point out what you probably intended, this is
           | appropriately an english version of an early twentieth
           | century russian song.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Were_the_Days_%28song%29
        
         | 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
         | So he was a computer enthusiast?
        
           | bell-cot wrote:
           | Obviously a Hemingway fan.
        
       | sexyman48 wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
         | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
         | Not only English translations :) And the man was a real nazi.
         | Hated Poles, Jews, French, Germans - anyone not Russian. This
         | is where Dugin, Putin and other modern vampires draw
         | inspiration from.
        
           | aguaviva wrote:
           | _Hated Poles, Jews, French, Germans - anyone not Russian._
           | 
           | But that does not make one a Nazi.
           | 
           | Thinking that it does dilutes the discussion.
        
       | shkurski_ wrote:
       | I perceive this thread in the same way as the praise of Hanns
       | Johst.
       | 
       | With the perceived potential of separating work from its author
       | being inversely proportional to the amount of attention devoted
       | to both (Raskolnikov attitude towards Poles as something on the
       | surface, though it's infiltrated with Russian chauvinism at a
       | much deeper level).
       | 
       | With overlooking the fact that it is being used as a weapon
       | (together with the unified Russian language created by Pushkin)
       | for erasure of entire cultures. I'd stress this out: this is not
       | a weapon in a museum. We are talking active phase. And the more
       | obscure the relations above are, the higher the penetration rate.
       | 
       | Disappointing.
        
       | danbolt wrote:
       | If you're a young man in your twenties looking for structure and
       | morality in a setting of first-world postmodernity, TBK is an
       | incredible opiate. Much better than alcohol or Call of Duty.
       | 
       | That said, I'm skeptical its wisdom will help us carve out a new
       | future that's better for everyone. I think Cloud Strife's journey
       | in the original release of Final Fantasy VII is better-suited to
       | that.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-11-22 23:00 UTC)