Wow. Nothing has ever moved me as much. This defines literature.

>>7794394
Care to elaborate?

>>7794394
Dislike it intensely.
Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian.

>>7794394
For you.

Why isnt it called the karamazov brothers,?

That says more about you than it does about literature

>>7794571
How can you say that. The grand imquistor is one of the greatest passages written. You should read it again and this time don't focus so much on the plot.

File: babygrinch2.jpg (18KB, 403x370px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 403x370px

>Dostoevsky
>defining literature

>>7794574
This

>>7794394
The same way the Beatles define music

>>7794619
He's quoting Nabokov, who said he strongly disliked Dostoevsky's theism, optimism and conservatism.

>>7794662
No, I don't think so. Dostoevsky possessed enough philosophical depth to impress Nietzsche Kafka cited Dostoevsky as a major inspiration, and referred to him as a literary bother.

>>7794679
Well then, I won't being reading Lolita anytime soon

>>7794710
if you took dosto's cock out of your mouth long enough to realize how plebeian you sound

>>7794710
Lolita has incredible prose though. Just because Nabokov is a philosophical philistine, but he has very good prose. I don't read Joyce for the depth either, but he's worth it just for the cosmetics.

>>7794712
Nabokov is a pleb himself, when it comes to any concern other than the cosmetic, which he is a genius of. He is like an idiot-savant of literature.

>>7794710
Nobody gives a shit what you will or won't be reading.

Dostoevsky can’t think, and he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.

>>7794749
>>7794679
>No, I don't think so. Dostoevsky possessed enough philosophical depth to impress Nietzsche Kafka cited Dostoevsky as a major inspiration, and referred to him as a literary bother.

>>7794577
Doesnt sound as good