r/dostoevsky

1866: Dostoevsky had signed a predatory contract: deliver a new novel by November 1st, or lose the rights to EVERYTHING he'd ever written — and everything he'd ever write — for nine years, for free. He had one month. He hired a 20-year-old stenographer, dictated the whole book in 26 days, and made the deadline.

The book was The Gambler. About a man addicted to roulette who can't stop betting everything he has.

The stenographer became his wife. And he kept gambling in real life until he'd nearly ruined them both.

He literally wrote a book about addiction while gambling his entire career against a deadline. Is that irony or prophecy?

..

Dmitri considered himself guilty. He believed that everyone in his country was guilty in some way, and that's why he wanted to suffer and go through this process of atonement. This is also why he was having such an intense internal moral conflict when Ivan proposed the escape plan.

But I keep wondering: wouldn't it have been better if Dmitri had thought about doing something to improve whatever he could in his country, rather than simply punishing himself?

If he truly believed that everyone was responsible for the suffering around them, then shouldn't that responsibility have led him toward action rather than self-punishment? Maybe taking responsibility doesn't necessarily mean accepting suffering; perhaps it can also mean trying to change whatever is within your power to change.

I read White nights at the very beginning and then I read crime and punishment. Now, I'm about to finish Brothers Karamazov and I want to keep going with Dostoevsky,so which book should I pick after finishing the Brothers Karamazov?

How long it took you to read all of Dostoevsky's works? What have you learned from his books? How many passages you memorized by the heart? Which translation is the best? Is it possible to finish reading all the works in a span of 2-3 months? Life is short.

Sick of Kindle locking everything into its own ecosystem, and Google Books with that interface that looks like it's from 2012. Anyone using something different to read the Russians on their phone? Drop recommendations before I go back to reading crooked PDFs in the browser.

Every time someone quotes the opening — "I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man" — it comes with this solemn prophet-announcing-the-void energy. And I think that's exactly why most people miss the whole chapter.

The guy's liver hurts and he refuses to see a doctor. Out of spite. And he can't even explain who the spite is aimed at. Then he adds that he knows nothing about medicine but is superstitious enough to respect it anyway. That's a joke. That's joke architecture — setup and punchline.

Then he tells us he was an unbearable civil servant who took pleasure in tormenting people at the counter. Builds the whole scene. Proud of it. Two pages later: lie, never happened, I was just amusing myself. He gives you the information and withdraws it in the same breath. That's not tragedy, that's clowning — in the best possible sense.

And the peak: he says he failed to become anything. Not spiteful, not kind. Not a scoundrel, not an honest man. Not a hero, not even an insect. The man can't even manage insect. Read that with a straight face and you're looking at an oracle. Read it the way Dostoevsky wrote it — a forty-year-old alone in a basement, lecturing an audience of "gentlemen" who don't exist — and you're looking at a drunk at the end of the bar that nobody had the heart to shut up.

Here's the kicker: it's more devastating that way. Tragedy grants the man dignity. Comedy grants him nothing. What's frightening about the Underground Man isn't that he's a cursed prophet — it's that he's ridiculous and right at the same time.

So: the first time you read Chapter 1, did you laugh or did you go quiet? And rereading it now, do you laugh in the same places?

Old translations where Raskolnikov turns into 'Rodion' halfway through the book and 'Rascolnicoff' in the other half, no warning at all. Weird covers, print so small it hurts your eyes, pirated copy missing a page right in the middle of the climax. Anyone else read a bizarre edition like this of a Russian classic? Send me the horrors.

"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man". These were the famous opening lines of Dostoyevsky's brilliant Notes from Underground. Contrary to what most internet folks believe- they think Dostoyevsky is some very serious Russian writer, but in reality, he is a very humorous novelist. Notes from Underground is a perfect example of it; it is about a pathetic man who is fully aware of how vile and depraved he is. Throughout the book, we explore the events that reveal how deep his spite and contempt for mankind run; he has been living underground (isolated from society) for 20-something years.

To give some context for why such a book was written, it was written primarily as a rebuttal to the ideas of rational egoism and utilitarianism that ravaged the intellects of Europe and were slowly creeping their way towards Russia. Their ideas were simple- they believed that human beings can be predicted and moulded as per what they think is logical and rational. Novelists such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote the utopian novel 'What is to be done?' (1863). Chernyshevsky championed the idea of rational egoism: the idea that human beings are fundamentally logical and good; they do crimes and behave irrationally only because they are not aware of their true self-interest. Once we educate them enough, they'll realise what their true self-interest is, and they will cease to inflict pain, and a good society will be created.

This was completely against Dostoyevsky's own understanding of human nature. The fact that society was slowly moving towards creating a society based on reason and logic haunted Dostoyevsky, who had visited the Crystal Palace in London. It is a real palace modeled after the glass-and-iron structure built for London's 1851 Great Exhibition. The Western world established it as a triumph of reason, science, and rationality.

So, Dostoyevsky created the underground man, whom he saw as a mirror of how people actually behave (at least in a lot of instances, if not all). Throughout the novel, the underground man acted against his self-interest (behaved badly with his friends, degraded the character of his girlfriend who left him, even though he was fully aware that she was the only person who'd accept him, etc), completely aware of what he is throwing away at the given moment. The underground man shows the core philosophy Dostoyevsky is trying to show:-

\*\*Human beings are not fundamentally rational; they are fundamentally creatures of free will ('Independent volition' as per the underground man). Humans will do anything to feel that they are free; if you bind them in rules, they will break those rules not because of some grand plans but because they want to feel free.\*\*

Underground man went as far as to conclude:-

\*\*If someday we humans are given a machine that will fix all our problems and will make our lives perfect, we will gladly destroy that machine because where is our free will in that?\*\*

I personally think that Dostoyevsky's analysis is very spot on. It explains why a lot of people behave in such a despicable manner even when they have no reason to; on the contrary, behaving like that will harm them ultimately. E.g., I was really curious why the insanely successful men in the Epstein client list would do something like that, even though that could completely shatter the public image a lot of them, like Bill Gates, spent their entire lives building. The answer seems evident to me: the 'independent volition'.

Imagine a person like Prince Andrew; he had his whole life perfectly set for him. Son of Queen Elizabeth, had royal status in the family, one of the richest Brits, immense social respect for being a war hero, won several other titles, owned the most luxurious homes around the world, etc.

If human beings were really fundamentally rational, then such a person would have become a symbol of heroism, kindness, etc. Yet he was one of the worst child predators on the planet.

He is emblematic of the idea that if humans are given a perfect life ahead of them, they'll destroy all of it to assert to themselves that they are free.

In the end, the underground man mocks the reader, saying that he is truly free and he is everything that we as readers don't dare to do. Of course, I think he is full of horseshit. I genuinely enjoyed reading this novel, and many instances, such as the underground man cussing at himself or insulting his friends, were genuinely funny. Most of the time in our lives, we are not as spiteful as the underground man, but can we really ignore the fact that we have underground men all around us who will always prove that independent volition will triumph over reason and goodness?

Hi all!

I'm looking to buy a paperback copy of the village of stepanchikovo,

I was wondering what people's experience was with reading the Ignat Avsey translation and/or the "new translation" by Rodger Cockrell?

I've skimmed through online to try and compare information but there really isn't much to go off of on Google.

Thank you!

Ive picked up CNP around 3 days ago and ive read around 1/5 of the book and I love Dostoyevskys writing style and humor, I could read it faster but I am analysing parts of the book while reading it, hes very philosophical with it and watching Raskolnikovs mental decline is perfectly eery. I plan to pick up notes from underground afterwards but its only around 100 pages so I think ill finish it relatively quickly. Many people say that TBK is the magnum opus of Dostoyevsky but I am still trying to understand parts of Dostoyevskys writing and people also tell me that TBK is hard to read. Additionally, I am also told that there are heavy Christian themes, Im not a Christian so i'm afraid I wont be able to understand these themes and it may spoil important parts in the books lore.

Edit: I expected this post to not gain any traction but yall can understand my surprise when I came back just to see FIFTY SIX MESSAGES! Its not like I dont want to read it but I'm asking yall why I should read it instead of War and Peace or Don Quixote which are also on my reading lists. To anyone saying Im too naive and havent touched a book in my life, well, I have! I asked the count of monte cristo subrerddit the exact same question before starting to read that book, asked my friends about Thus Spoke Zarathustra before reading that book and now I ask this subreddit why should I read the Brothers Karamazov. Proof down below

To all the fanatics over here, I dont say that the book is overrated, instead I ask why should I read it and also
added my personal concern of whether the Christian themes will overbear me, I dont think thats a crime is it?

My analysis of C&P So far :
https://share.note.sx/dxdqq15f#TEqK1dMAoDn+0LNeXP9qMQ
https://share.note.sx/wpu1nk3i#dV6G7sb/dV7e3jTSz/2RLQ

(for all the people who say I wont understand TBK)

Forming a reading group on Discord for The Idiot

Trying to start from the beginning but anyone is welcome to join, even if you’ve already ready the book, just no spoilers!

Just comment and I’ll send you a dm.

"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man". These were the famous opening lines of Dostoyevsky's brilliant Notes from Underground. Contrary to what most internet folks believe- they think Dostoyevsky is some very serious Russian writer, but in reality, he is a very humorous novelist. Notes from Underground is a perfect example of it; it is about a pathetic man who is fully aware of how vile and depraved he is. Throughout the book, we explore the events that reveal how deep his spite and contempt for mankind run; he has been living underground (isolated from society) for 20-something years.

To give some context for why such a book was written, it was written primarily as a rebuttal to the ideas of rational egoism and utilitarianism that ravaged the intellects of Europe and were slowly creeping their way towards Russia. Their ideas were simple- they believed that human beings can be predicted and moulded as per what they think is logical and rational. Novelists such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote the utopian novel 'What is to be done?' (1863). Chernyshevsky championed the idea of rational egoism: the idea that human beings are fundamentally logical and good; they do crimes and behave irrationally only because they are not aware of their true self-interest. Once we educate them enough, they'll realise what their true self-interest is, and they will cease to inflict pain, and a good society will be created.

This was completely against Dostoyevsky's own understanding of human nature. The fact that society was slowly moving towards creating a society based on reason and logic haunted Dostoyevsky, who had visited the Crystal Palace in London. It is a real palace modeled after the glass-and-iron structure built for London's 1851 Great Exhibition. The Western world established it as a triumph of reason, science, and rationality.

So, Dostoyevsky created the underground man, whom he saw as a mirror of how people actually behave (at least in a lot of instances, if not all). Throughout the novel, the underground man acted against his self-interest (behaved badly with his friends, degraded the character of his girlfriend who left him, even though he was fully aware that she was the only person who'd accept him, etc), completely aware of what he is throwing away at the given moment. The underground man shows the core philosophy Dostoyevsky is trying to show:-

\*\*Human beings are not fundamentally rational; they are fundamentally creatures of free will ('Independent volition' as per the underground man). Humans will do anything to feel that they are free; if you bind them in rules, they will break those rules not because of some grand plans but because they want to feel free.\*\*

Underground man went as far as to conclude:-

\*\*If someday we humans are given a machine that will fix all our problems and will make our lives perfect, we will gladly destroy that machine because where is our free will in that?\*\*

I personally think that Dostoyevsky's analysis is very spot on. It explains why a lot of people behave in such a despicable manner even when they have no reason to; on the contrary, behaving like that will harm them ultimately. E.g., I was really curious why the insanely successful men in the Epstein client list would do something like that, even though that could completely shatter the public image a lot of them, like Bill Gates, spent their entire lives building. The answer seems evident to me: the 'independent volition'.

Imagine a person like Prince Andrew; he had his whole life perfectly set for him. Son of Queen Elizabeth, had royal status in the family, one of the richest Brits, immense social respect for being a war hero, won several other titles, owned the most luxurious homes around the world, etc.

If human beings were really fundamentally rational, then such a person would have become a symbol of heroism, kindness, etc. Yet he was one of the worst child predators on the planet.

He is emblematic of the idea that if humans are given a perfect life ahead of them, they'll destroy all of it to assert to themselves that they are free.

In the end, the underground man mocks the reader, saying that he is truly free and he is everything that we as readers don't dare to do. Of course, I think he is full of horseshit. I genuinely enjoyed reading this novel, and many instances, such as the underground man cussing at himself or insulting his friends, were genuinely funny. Most of the time in our lives, we are not as spiteful as the underground man, but can we really ignore the fact that we have underground men all around us who will always prove that independent volition will triumph over reason and goodness?