Memes aside, is this worth the read?

Anything that will allow you to put memes aside for a while is worth it.

>>8719654
>Widely seen as one of the best books in the world
>is this worth the read
You tell me, dumbass. Nevermind that what you're asking is very subjective.

>>8719654
I have read it but I forgot what it was about.
There was war and some russian family life.
What I remember is that a cannot ball falls just beside the main characters and it spuns like a ball before stopping and exploding.
That was niiice.

>>8719654
Anna karenina is much MUCH better.

>>8719665
>>Widely seen as one of the best books in the world

So are the novels of Austen and Dickens but that doesn't stop them from being boring shit.

File: 1465099105486.jpg (44KB, 387x573px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 387x573px

>>8719665
>Widely seen as one of the best books in the world

He said putting the memes aside

>>8719704
Why is that?

>>8719654
Just boring russian soap opera. Skip this crap and read some Dosto.

>>8719712
>So are the novels of Austen and Dickens but that doesn't stop them from being boring shit.

You still have to read them to make up your own opinion. I don't understand why people ask is something is worth reading, especially when the question is just that without any exact details.

>>8719704
ah, well anna karenina sucked so it's a worthless book. shame that tolstoy was such a poor author. no discernible talent.

>>8719760
Is this a meme?

>>8719667
I also read it and can't remember very much about it.
Perhaps it really is too long for human comprehension.
What I mainly recall is that there were far too many characters who had several names each.

>>8719654
No. Anything too big isn't worth reading - especially when it was produced by Tolstoj. If you want to read great russian literature read Turgenev. He achieves far better what Tolstoj strives to do.

>>8719728
This

The original title to this book was "War. What is it good for?"

>>8720695
t. elaine

>>8719880
nah, it really was boring as fuck. oh she gets upset her affairs don't work in her favor and she kills herself. who gives a fuck. i still haven't found a convincing argument to place tolstoy above dostoevksy, it's always the argument that he somehow captures humanity more concisely, and that his prose is better, first, aesthetics are for plebs, and dostoevssky is more than serviceable. second, the cardboard characters in AK are hardly the utmost of human depth, and it was far more pleasing and human to read of the earthy peasants in dostoevksy's works than the disaffected and alien aristocracy in tolstoy's. sure, tolstoy isn't irredeemable as an author, hardly, he's just supremely overrated. people are just afraid of being called plebs for preferring the obviously more pleasurable works of dosty. it's a textbook example of hipsterish hatred of the mainstream.

>>8720695

>Seinfeld reference.

>>8720674
What about Dosto? This board seems to have a favorable opinion of him.

>>8721053
he's great. also try leskov, goncharov, gogol, chekhov, and pushkin. there are quite a few others but they are a bit more modern.

strongly recomment

I just finished the first volume and it was pretty mediocre.

>>8721090
it's disappointing, isn't it?

>>8721053
Dostoevskij is troublesome topic. He was my favorite author when I was 20 years old, but I have grown up and realized he was a dissolute man rationalizing his poor choices in life - this is clearly seen in Brothers K. He provides good insight on many topics and he will entertain you quite a lot, however he was still a writer for the proto-masses at that time. This is a problem for many readers who want to get something out of the book (besides escapism) due to the many allusions, references, banter between writers and intellectuals and specific problems of the zeitgeist, in which the book was conceived, that you won't get and don't need to get. Dosto tried to increase the level of immersion in his book by introducing several topics and events which the reader could empathize with and relate to. Although for us it's unnecessary drivel that didn't age well, since the message in the book is diluted by being mixed with all the other nonsense. Most of the other posters disagree with this. For me, if an author knows what he's doing he will be clear, short and coherent. If he writes something that is bigger than it should be then he's insecure of what he's doing and he's trying to overcompensate for whatever faults he thinks his work might have. This is what everyone does with their papers. I know it because I do it myself. Whenever I have to do a paper I overcompensate by doing it with a lot of pages and a bunch of references just to be safe. If you want to start with Tolstoj read his short stories. If end up really liking him, read War and Peace.

>>8719728
This.
Dosto>>>>>>Tolstoy

>>8720697
>>8721019
>DAE

why did this book suck so much? i really wanted it to be good, is there anything of tolstoy's worth reading or should i just concentrate on the other russians? i really want to read solzhenitsyn. is he any good?

>>8721606
not memein'

>>8721606
Turgenev. Do it.

>>8719760
Tolstoy is in the crown of tree of life of Harold's book "Genius", besides Shakespeare, Cervantes, Chaucer and Montaigne.

>>8721693
Harold is retarded. Can someone please explain the genius of Tolstoy? What am I missing? Is it literally just >muh realistic descriptions?

>>8720984
>aesthetics are for plebs

Poor nigger

>>8721707
YES. GOD, YOU'RE SLOW. THAT'S ABOUT IT: REALISM. TOLSTOI IS A HACK. HE WAS AN EGOCENTRIC LUNATIC THAT WAS ABLE TO DO REALIST DEPICTIONS OF HOW HUMAN RELATES TO ONE ANOTHER. THAT'S IT. FUCK, FORMULATE YOUR OWN GODDAMN OPINION, YOU SHEEP. STOP TRYING TO SUCK OUR DICK ON EVERY CORNER:

jesus christ this board is terrible

>>8721736
whoahoho we got a superior intellect over here!

>The only people who hate long books like W&P are those who never finished it because they have double digit IQs and can't concentrate if the book is longer than a novella.