What makes Tolstoy so good?

His intense hatred toward shakespeare

>>8937636
deep characterization and an obsession with clarity

everything he writes is convincing

how he got that talent, no idea

File: pierre.jpg (47KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 976x549px

>>8937636
He puts character above everything else, even above the explication of his themes.

Which is why it's strange that even W&P and AK Tolstoy has a reputation for being moralizing and didactic

In other character-driven novels, characters are used to represent the strife between ideas. You have an atheist character and a religious character etc. These characters, while they may be well-developed, are secondary to the ideas which have taken over them. But in Tolstoy, we see the strife of ideas played out internally. We see Andrei's disillusionment following his first war experience undergo changes. He becomes cynical, then regains some kind of idealism, then loses it again, and in each case the idealism or the nihilism he comes to in this second instance is not the same one as in the first; this is the element of change inherent in his technique of characterization.

As far as I can see, nobody but Tolstoy is capable of doing this. There's the pyrotechnics of his characterization; you'll have heard the "makes you feel like you know a character in two to three sentences" meme. And that is indeed impressive. But the thing that really marks his technique out as original, and to my mind makes him the single greatest novelist, is that, for a man whose ideas about life are so well documented and forceful in every other aspects, Tolstoy is alone amongst writers in allowing his characters to undergo true and authentic change, independent of what he wants us to glean from his work intellectually.

But if characterization doesn't interest you then there is literally no reason to read him beyond a level of basic familiarity. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. Many people here dislike him immensely and accuse him of writing soap operas (the reason being the only exposure we get in the modern world to serious character-building is soap operas, which is pretty sad), and I do understand that position.

>>8937667
>>8937730
these posts are correct

>>8937662
this guy needs to go back to r/books

>>8937636
Turgenev is better.
>muh train
>muh filthy dwarf

>>8937736
laughable opinion. likely read 2 books by turgenev and a novella by Tolstoy. embarrassing tbqhwyf

>>8937798
>muh grumpy response to differing opinions
good job, you sure showed me what for!

The Kreutzer Sonata has to be a troll

>>8937736
even Turgenev knew Tolstoy was better.
Turgenev begged Tolstoy to go back to writing literature while on his deathbed.

>>8937815
> tfw you murder ur hunni and have to stop yourself from pursuing her lover because ur cognizant of how foolish you look chasing after him in ur socks

>Tolstoy Thread struggles to get 10 posts

>/pol/-bait Threads easily pass 100 regularly

>>8938063
>implying tolstoy could sit down and write something more entertaining and mentally stimulating and genuine as /pol/

>>8937815
It's one of his best non-epic works.

>>8937882
>implying this means an acknowledgment of superiority
my dear lad, you are so naive and mar any hope of exposing good sense from within. turgenev knew the man had become a religious nut and attempted to get him back to writing to help him from his obvious insanity, it also shows that turgenev had a beautiful soul, wishing only the best for what could easily be called a rival. your contempt betrays you for someone who may be unable to look critically at a situation without losing your head. you truly must try to iron that wrinkle, my friend!

>>8938698
The only thing interesting about Turganev is his satirical portrayal in Demons. It took me like a month to finish Fathers and Sons because I'd fall asleep after 10 pages every time I picked the book up.

>>8938759
so you simply have no patience for genius, i suppose that is fine, but no fault of turgenev's.

>>8938881
I had enough patience to get through all of Tolstoy's and Dostoyevsky's great works. Perhaps Turganev is simply not the genius you perceive him to be.

>>8938891
nope, pretty sure he's a genius of singular merit, a piece of the pie along with tolstoy and dostoyevsky. in many ways a superior artist to them both. to say that something is not genius because you could not see it is hardly convincing. you have every right to disagree with me, however i can't help but feel sorry for you, being unable to appreciate such a master.

>>8938909
Saying perhaps he is superior to tolstoy and dosto without any study or comparison of their work is not convincing to me

>>8938932
i'm glad that you think sometimes about what is convincing and what is not. it must be quite nice for you!

>>8938942
Oh dear you have nothing left to say

>>8938945
i don't believe there is anything i could offer to one who falls asleep at every ten pages of a masterpiece. i'm afraid that i've given up on you. oh dear, i'm very sorry for that. i do hope i haven't ruined your hope for a discussion that would only serve you as an opportunity to make an ass of yourself in contempt for someone who loves that which you are incapable of loving. if i have disappointed you, i welcome you to file a report with your superiors.

>>8937636
>Memestoy
>Good

File: 592146306.jpg (46KB, 1920x923px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1920x923px

This board has a shallow understanding of Tolstoy. Look at this guy >>8937730. Tolstoy "puts character above everything else, even above the explication of his themes" -- are you kidding me? Have you read anything post conversion? Your post is a total joke and you think it's good content. Almost nobody on /lit/ knows what they are talking about. Tolstoy is one of the most didactic writers to have existed. If you want to talk about a small subset of his work, go ahead. Just don't pretend that you are talking about Tolstoy. You are talking about the 2 works that you are familiar with.

Other retards go on about even worse garbage. There is a myth of him as being ultra altruistic, a deep lover of Humanity and other uninformed nonsense. This myth of him is too revered by most people here for them to actually talk about him. They just talk about this one dimensional literary Christ figure they've turned him into.

I'm always happy to run into threads like these. They keep me off 4chan for the next several days or weeks. Great place to have fun and talk to people about their lives and feelings. Awful place for finding someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Everyone wants to make an informed, quality post. No on wants to actually put the hours in to know what they're talking about. Imageboards and wikipedia are all I need, man! It's so obvious when people's only sources of knowledge are 4chan and their ass.

He writes experience well

>>8937736
>>8938698
>>8938881
>>8938909
>>8938942
>>8938967
feel free to explain yourself because weak repetitive banter certainly isn't very compelling evidence for your argument

>>8939020
>long paragraph of complaining without any substance, simply refuting everything said in what is likely his own prior post, trying to incite some response out of hubris and loneliness

git gud plebcuck.

>>8939053
i'm sorry, i wasn't aware that i was required to convince anyone of anything. if you feel you have been slighted in some way, i apologize. anyhow, i hope you have a fine night, looking for people to compel you to believe what you are uninclined to believe.

>>8939020
This.

Anna and the Death of Ivan illustrate this abundantly. The guy was a super devote Christian after all.

I actually think a major part of why people think he's so good is his story structure. Everything seems to move along perfectly naturally, with only very rare exceptions (like having the second epilogue where it is in W&P instead of elsewhere).

>>8939020
>Awful place for finding someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Everyone wants to make an informed, quality post. No on wants to actually put the hours in to know what they're talking about.
1. why dont you just answer the fucking OP
2. i've gotten a better overview of what the canon is, what periods there are and what are some important authors / names / titles than i ever did from school, which i consider valuable.

>>8937636
This is a terrible thread, you should be ashamed. Fuckin Tolstoy francofags always argue about every little god damn thing because they're god damned boring like their stupid idol. Dostoevsky will always be greater, will always inspire better minds, and will always have better fans. Plain and fucking simple.

Proline critical reception

>>8939176
wew lad, it's not a competition

>>8939278
Is too.

>>8939176
Dosto is a pleb

>>8939020
It's okay deary, you didn't wait all those hours reading books. You're better than all your friends. Mommy's here for you.

I'll go along with the others and pinpoint characterisation (think of AK: Anna, Vronsky, Oblonsky, Kitty, Levin etc., these are all astonishingly true characters and each of a different type), but also description of the world. There's no cleaner describer of things or of noticing the tiniest details to build a scene in all of literature.

>>8939020
Are you the same moron who was calling Hadji Murat of all works didactic a week ago? Please learn to read or kill yourself.

>>8939020
Reread my post and think about what it actually said. You wasted a lot of time typing out this response when it could have been avoided by more careful and thoughtful reading.

>>8937636
His writing

>>8940152
But also his looks, let's not dismiss that.

>>8937730
>"How Much Land Does a Man Need?"
>not moralizing and didactic

>>8940159
Of course, I didn't state it because I thought it was obvious.

>>8940235
Supposing that AK and W&P are the best works of the man, they are not so didactic as his latter works, which, in my opinion, aren't on the same level of quality of the previous