How do I into Dostoyevsky?

>>8464934
By reading books written by him.

>>8464934
Just spread his bumcheeks and ram it in.

>>8464934
Notes from the Underground or Crime and Punishment are good books to introduce yourself to his work

start with the greeks

or just pick a book or his, it's just novels, not fucking Hegel. You can probably read The Gambler in a few hours if you want.

Character names are hard to remember. Usually characters have first, middle, and last names, in addition to sometimes nicknames, all of which are used to refer to said character. Not to mention that there's -15-30 such characters in each novel

I suggest plotting a character chart early on to keep track of it all

The Idiot is my favorite but crime and punishment is objectively the best

>>8464971
>plotting a character chart

Want me to tell you how I know you're American?

>>8464971
....what... It's really not difficult

>>8464934
Dude looks like my friend's roommate

>>8464971
It's not that difficult. I'm absolutely garbage at remembering names and even I managed perfectly fine. I do admit that I got a bit confused when they started referring to Razumikhin as Dmitri Prokofych but that's all part of the fun. Character charts aren't really required in my opinion.

>>8464934

Short Stories:
His stories tend to get overlooked, but he wrote some rather good ones. Maybe find some and start with them. Some that I recommend are 'The Christmas Tree and a Wedding', 'A Gentle Spirit', 'The Uncle's Dream', 'White Nights', 'The Crocodile', 'Bobok', and 'The Eternal Husband'. The best one is 'The Dream of a Ridiculous Man', but save that one for a little later.

Novellas:
Much of his medium-length fiction is well worthwhile. I recommend The Double and The Gambler especially; other good ones include Notes from the House of the Dead and (the unfinished) Netochka Nezvanovna. Poor Folk, his first published work, doesn't really stand up, nor does Novel in Nine Letters, another early work.

Novels:
Crime and Punishment is a good first novel, as is The Idiot. Demons would be a difficult first choice but is very good. Karamazov is his magnum opus, but save it too for later (it and Ridiculous Man were his last two published works). The Adolescent is firmly in last place.

Read Crime and Punishment.

/thread

Goddamn this board is moronic.

File: Лев_Шестов.jpg (538KB, 1188x2244px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1188x2244px

Read his books. If you want to get into his "philosophy" you need to just understand that he had a "break" from his past some time his penal servitude. You see glimpse of his break with humanism in novels like Humiliated and Insulted but he doesn't go full Dostoyevsky till Notes from Underground. The later novel is a good place to start, but keep in mind the main character is not Dostoyevsky. From there read his major works, C&P, Idiot, Demons and Brothers. The early and middle stuff is good to but depending on how much you want to read you might want to do that after you got to his big shit.

Also after you read him try and find and read some Lev Shestov. He gives good insight into philosophy going on in Dostoevsky's works.

>>8464934
Read Dream of A Ridiculous Man, then Crime and Punishment. that should be enough for you to decide whether you think he's just a meme or a great author. Hell, just read Crime and Punishment. Notes is a bit too ridiculous for a lot of people, they don't seem to be able to get through those first few livid moments. Anyway, Just C&P. if you don't like that, you won't like Dostoevsky. simple as that.

>>8466283
This guy pretty much sums it up.

>>8466209
I remember the murmurs of him I saw reading Poor Folk, and House of the Dead. You're right though, the man who wrote Notes and Poor Folk are not the same.

I recently read one of the few I hadn't by Dosty, The Gambler. After all the time it had been since I had read any of his works, it still felt like that old shoe you first learned how to ride your bike in, that you ran through the creek in, just fits. There really isn't another writer out there like him, maybe better ones, maybe more intelligent, more thoughtful, whatever, but Dostojewskii will always be my favorite.

If you want to see something funny read / get a grasp of Stirner before reading crime and punishment.

>>8464971
Not a problem if you read Constance Garnett translations.

>>8466056
Not him, but I'm interested.

>>8466897
They don't really fit, is it the contrast between the two that's supposed to be funny? Raskolnikov would be pretty "spooked" according to Stirner, he's more of a Nietzschean (even though Nietzsche wasn't even writing philosophy at this time yet) with his idea of an obligation to transgress "moral boundaries" since he is a superior ubermensch.

A Stirnerian hero would probably just kill the old lady without any qualms for money, or, more realistically, not kill the old lady because it offends his own conscience too much to do so and he doesn't feel the need to transgress moral boundaries, this purposeful trangressivism being as much of a spook as morality itself.

>>8466056
>tfw my ap lit class required to write down all of the names and nicknames of various characters
This was for american novels btw
We had to write 'becky = Rebecca'

>>8466056
>6056▶>>8466988 >>8466997
>>>8464971
>>plotting a character chart
>Want me to tell you how I know you're American?
>>8466068
>>8466121
>>8466985
Jesus you guys are vicious

>>8466996
The humor in it lies in the fact that were Rask to acquaint himself with his ideas he could have solved or prevented this issue rather quickly and without the need for the exploration of religious issues.

>A Stirnerian hero would probably just kill the old lady without any qualms for money, or, more realistically, not kill the old lady because it offends his own conscience too much to do so and he doesn't feel the need to transgress moral boundaries, this purposeful trangressivism being as much of a spook as morality itself.

This is where it gets interesting and provides a great example of uniqueness of his philosophy and a great case study to refute the whole Egoism means being a ruggerd individual or a psychopath

>Dosto and Tolstoy threads every day.

Can you just read them and be done with it?