question

>>9738656
>I liked The Idiot but most people consider it to be a cheap book
I've never heard that opinion before

it's a cheap book if you shoplift. maybe they were referring to that?

>>9738656
I think the majority of Lit likes the Idiot, and if they don't they certainly don't find it Pseudo

>>9738656
Loved it, but i prefered Demons desu

>>9738832
me too anon desu

>>9738656
Books are not pseudo-intellectual. It's when people put too much value on mediocre books then the people become pseudo-intellectual. Or it's when people pretend to have read or understand difficult and long texts they become pseuds.

>>9738839
I'm not implying that Dostoevsky is mediocre. I love his work.

File: the_idiot.png (57KB, 626x545px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 626x545px

>>9738656
That's because most here are catholics and they got burns from that chapter in which Dosto says the church is the antichrist

>>9738656
>I liked The Idiot but most people consider it to be a cheap book...opinion?
Well it doesn't offer much compared to newer novels based on critical theory and feminism.

>>9738656
What do you mean by cheap? Cheap as in pseudo-intellectual? The Idiot doesn't deal as overtly with philosophical issues as some of Dostoevsky's other novels, I think. My impression is that if some people here think less of it it's because it focuses more on soap opera than on super deep musings at least in comparison with his more meme works. I mean if the Idiot is pseudo-intellectual so should be the rest of Dostoevsky's opus. So if "cheap" means pseudo-intellectual it's weird that those people that consider the Idiot "cheap" didn't complain about some of his other novels instead.

>>9738656
They're retarded
Read what interests youand form your own possibly informed opinion