Whiy is Tolstoy more praised than Dostoevsky here in /lit/?

>>8308107
Because Tolstoy is a better author.

>>8308107
He's definitely not. Brothers K and Crime and Punishment are /lit/core.

>>8308107
because nabokov memers

>>8308114

I think this is the answer.

Both are wonderful, just a little different.

Tolstoy is objectively better, but BK is my all-time favorite novel. Granted, he isn't THAT much better.

>>8308125
>Tolstoy is objectively better

This is the problem

>>8308107
because Tolstoï is a way better author than that shitty pamphleteer which philosophy resumes to "life was shit but then I discovered Christianism"
Dostoïevski only good works are Demons and Brother Karamazov

File: Engels.jpg (48KB, 300x422px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 300x422px

Is this the "best beard" thread?

>>8308129
>Dosto is a shitty pamphleteer but Tolstoy isn't
lmao

>>8308128
Have you read Hadji Murat?

>>8308107
Is he? Well then let me be a countervailing voice: Dosto > Tolsto

>>8308107
His prose was better.
That's it, that's the only reason. Some retards will post Nabokov's shitty opinion on Dosto but that cunt had shitty tastes.

>>8308107
>Tolstoy more praised than Dostoevsky
Did I miss something?

>>8308262
Christian anarchism maybe?

>>8308107
Because of fuckheads who haven't read more than one book from either Tolstoy or Dostoevsky parroting opinions they read online (such as Nabokov's opinion on Tolstoy and Dostoevsky).

>>8308305
>inb4 start with the Greeks
One is not better to start with than the other. You should focus on what book to start with, not with what author.

>>8308329
yea I realised it was a bit of an impulse question.

>>8308176
>His prose was better.
>That's it, that's the only reason
I'm sorry... aren't we talking about weiters ? How isn't that one reason enough ?

Tolstoy is the height of realism. His mastery and control of language, his observations, his divine empathy, and his moral project all make him objectively better than Dosty. Not only could he manipulate more characters, more complex plot lines, more sprawling scenery, he could do so with a precision rivaled only by Modernist painters who would come after him placed into words that sing off the page in their harmonious measure, whereas, while admirable Dosty could only handle a few overly sentimental and emotionally charged characters at a time, and was more interested in his psychological explorations that depicting what actually occurs irl.

Dosty is furious, and has a vitality rivaling the Bard. But his prose is sloppy and his narratives are weak and improbable at times. I see him more as the master of parables and entry level philosophical explorations but with an angst that is brilliant and impressive.

Tolstoy gets everything right and expands upon it with the precision of a true genius. He does not get overly invested into one character, or one spiel, but lays everything out in careful, potent measure so the whole is a more complete, honest picture, rather than the boiling over of unchecked emotion.

Dosty impresses the young, and rightfully so. But you grow out of him much like you grow out of the rantings of Nietzsche at some point. And when you put that away, you can turn to something with measured moral content, something hinting at the eternal, and that would be Tolstoy.

>tl;dr Read Karenina and the Death of Ivan Ilyich.

>>8308486
You're insufferable, you know that?

>>8308107
I remember a year ago when it was contrarian on /lit/ to prefer Tolstoy.

Anyway, just read Hadji Murat. It's the best thing he ever wrote.

>>8308486
t. obnoxious 21 year old who thinks he's well-rounded in literature

>>8308486

I was with you until

>modernist painters

and decided you really suck at

>Dosty impresses the young

Fuck off

>>8308486
>And when you put that away, you can turn to something with measured moral content, something hinting at the eternal, and that would be Tolstoy.

And you don't see this in Dostoevsky somehow?

>>8308108
first best post post

>>8308486
t. P&V reader

>>8308486
I've read Karenina and it's not even close to the quality of bk t b h f a m

I like Dostoevsky more just because I enjoy extreme realism a little bit less than drama. Dostoevsky's characters, frantic as they are, are still realistic enough and put into feasible situations, which is good enough for me. Tolstoy is so down to earth and commonplace that it just seems a bit dull, which is how I felt throughout almost all of Anna Karenina. I think there is more to be experienced/learned/felt when you have extreme characters like Dostoevsky's put into the situations they are put into.

>>8308107
/lit/ has bad taste.

>>8308572
This.

My literature and language teacher came to the conclusion that the difference was, that Tolstoy message is in-between lines of his works, while Dostoevsky builds the message up, just to let it all out for a few pages.

>>8308176
>"His prose was better."
>Probably has only read the books in translation

>>8308572
>le "P&V suck" meme
Nice

>>8308842
Their translations come off as awkward
But they use really nice paper in their prints

>>8308775
That's a good comparison

>>8308131
How is that even possible?

>>8308486

You have a fine taste. Congrats.