Trying to go through enough of dosto to get a good sense of his

Stop reading garbage literature.

File: IMG_3386.jpg (1MB, 3132x2345px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3132x2345px

Hopefully fixing the rotation error in last pic

>>9838273
Quality post anon. Care to elaborate?

>>9838271
have you actually gotten through any one of those books yet or are you just here to flaunt it

>>9838287
3/4 through notes rn. All I'm trying to do is get some opinions on what works are unique/essential to his catalog and add them before I surpass them in the chronology.

>>9838271
>to get a good sense of his philosophy
What? If you want to read philosophy, read philosophy instead of trying to distill a series of works of literature into something pseudo-coherent for whatever pointless and misguided purpose. Dostoyevsky's most important philosophy is based on Jesus Christ.

>>9838305
>unique/essential to his catalog
Read his entire works to figure it out for yourself. Some of his contemporaries rated his early works higher than the bulk of his later works.

Obviously add at least Demons/Possessed, Poor Folk, and The House of the Dead.

Some of my favorite Dostoyevsky passages are from books no one ever recommends (because they've never read them or thought to read them).

If you're gonna read translations then why not read all his work by the same translator? Atleast then you can imagine for yourself a Dosto type author and the way he wrote, had he been English.

>>9839793
Because the best translators dont translate everything and i dont want to read P&V

>>9838271
You are going to have one miserable uphill climb if you set out reading fiction to glean 'the writer's overall philosophy', as if that is something separate from simply reading the books.

Read TBK as TBK, it's all in there.

>>98400271
Simply reading the books is all im doing, and is that not getting "a good sense of his philosophy"? I don't see the problem with this use of the word 'philosophy' apart from the elitist distinction that you and >9838757 made. Granted what i meant to type was philosophies but that's neither here nor there

Show me where I made the distiction between "gleaning 'the writer's overall philosohy'" and simply reading the books. Btw you misquoted my op ("the writer's overall philosophy") and it is not representative of my goal. The only reason I had the first sentence in the op was to qualify i did not want to read his entire catalog. I only wanted to read enough to understand whatever it is that's so important about reading FD, so i appreciate the TBK bit at the end of your post.

>>9840224 was meant to reply to >>9840020

>>9838757
>>9840020
OP used the word philosophy generally, not fucking formalized philosophy. Stick out of ass.

Powys called it a "world myth".

Tons of parts of Dostoevsky read like Kierkegaard, and Kierkegaard is called philosophy but not Dostoevsky? Dumbness.

>>9838274
baka

>>9838271
Demons or The Gambler you need. Stepanchikovo is fun but it's him trying to be/mock Gogol too. The Gambler is much more about him than most his works.

>>9838271

The ones in the pic are all good. Notes is the most over-mentioned/least essential of them.

You do well to add all the others you mention, except Stepanchikovo isn't as essential. I would recommend Netochka Nezvanovna before it. One you don't mention that's especially important is Notes from the House of the Dead

File: 5017105482_0.jpg (127KB, 1000x635px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1000x635px

>>9838271
Пpocтo пpoчитaй этo.