Should I read Dostoevsky?

[Stauderhorse]

I keep hearing good things about The Brothers Karamazov, and the summary of The Idiot sounded kind of intriguing. Not to mention he’s one of the most famous and oft-mentioned Russian writers. Since I keep coming across his name, I started wondering if maybe I should give his novels a try. I tend to like works about existentialism, particularly The Plague by Camus. However, I was assigned The Grand Inquisitor for a humanities class, which is a very short segment from The Brothers K, and…I couldn’t follow it at all. I had to read it three times just to somewhat understand it, and I still feel the underlying message is beyond my grasp. Will the rest of the book be too difficult for me to follow? And I believe most of his novels are pretty long. I’d rather not get into a long and complex novel unless I feel the impact and satisfaction I get from the book are worth the time and effort. Should I plunge into Dostoevsky’s body of work? Maybe start with the shorter novels?

Thanks.

[Thudlow_Boink]

Yes, you should read Dostoevsky.

Start with Crime and Punishment. It’s not hard to follow. If you like that, go on to The Brothers Karamazov.

I liked astorian’s description in another thread:

@astorian

Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment a and The Brothers Karamazov are, underneath it all, murder mystery novels. The difference being that The Brothers Karamazov is a whodunit, while Crime and Punishment is a Columbo episode (you KNOW who did it and how, the question is how he’s going to get tripped up and arrested)- quite literally.

I say literally because Levinson and Link, the creators of Lieutenant Columbo, admit they based him on the magistrate in Crime and Punishment.

Point being, there are good STORIES underneath all the metaphysical and theological speculation.

[Spud]

Dear God NO…

I had to read several of his works one year in college and it was the most painful and frustrating experience I ever had. I can honestly say that in the 30 years since I’ve never found anything I gained from them of any use at all (other than claiming I’m well read).

Please find something… anything else to spend your time on.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Not if you don’t want to, which it seems like you don’t. They are long books, and complicated and sometimes boring.

But I absolutely think that Dostoevsky is worth the time it takes to read, and not that difficult to follow or get the gist of. The Grand Inquisitor, for what it’s worth, isn’t representative of the accessibility of the whole, like at all.

Maybe try something shorter first. I like Notes From Underground a lot and it seems like it might be more up your alley if you like Camus.

[Thudlow_Boink]

Of course, Dostoevsky’s readability will probably depend somewhat on which translation you read. I don’t know enough to give recommendations.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Yes, he is one of the best novelists of all time, IMO. Sometimes, his long novels tend to drag a bit, but they are very much worth reading. For one of his shorter novels, I recommend The Gambler.

[obfusciatrist]

“Should” isn’t necessarily the right word. If you don’t enjoy his type of stuff then you don’t enjoy it and there is no moral imperative to read it anyway.

However, I’d say that you deserve to at least give it a shot. If it isn’t for you, you’ve lost nothing and gained at least a better understanding of what people are talking about. If you love it (like I do with some but not all of his stuff) then it will be a great addition to your life.

Translation can indeed play a big role in enjoyment. I’ve read Crime and Punishment four or five times in two different translations. I enjoyed one much more than the other. Unfortunately I can’t remember which were the two translations and which was better than the other.

[from_a_to_z]

Near be it from me to opine that the translators be the husband-wife team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky rather than Constance Garnett. Per The New Yorker article listed below, quoting Joseph Brodsky:

The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren’t reading the prose of either one. They’re reading Constance Garnett.

Wiki articles:
[ul]
[li]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larissa_Volokhonsky[/li][li]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pevear[/li][li]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Garnett[/li][/ul]
And from The New Yorker (link listed in Garnett above):
[ul]
[li]“The Translation wars” by David Remnick; November 7, 2005[/li][/ul]

[AncientHumanoid]

Dostyguy was a good read. BUT… you really need to have some understanding of the time and place. I had some history books in my high school library that helped. Nowadays, I’m guessing that this internet invention thingy could be of some limited use for historical background.

[74westy]

Just to reiterate, The Grand Inquisitor is in no way representative of Dostoevsky’s work. It used intentionally “grand” diction and, as I recall, was all 500 word sentences and 3 page paragraphs.

I probably spent as much time reading that as I spent on the rest of The Brothers K.

So it’s your call. You’ll have to spend time on things like figuring out what the hell “wisp of tow” means and dealing with the fact the everyone has at least two names and it can take a while to realize that Dmitri and Misha are the same guy but the etymology of Smerdyakov is worth it.

[Cisco]

For books like this, the answer is yes*.

*If you’re willing to do some contextual research on the philosophical, literary, social, and political climate of the time, willing to read slow, re-read passages, possibly take notes or look up character guides, and, to be honest . . . read the entire book 2 or 3 times. All of this could easily be an investment of 100 or more hours, but if you do it all, you will almost certainly thank yourself and come out the other side a changed person.

Just grinding through it for the sake of having read it isn’t going to do much for you, and if that’s all you want to do (which is perfectly fine and understandable), skip it.

[gallows_fodder]

Dostoevsky is the most compassionate writer I’ve ever come across. He endows even his villainous, petty, shallow, silly, spiteful, foolish, ugly characters with a kind of dignity of purpose and an authentic point of view – I really respect him for this. I always have the sense that Dostoevsky empathizes with these kinds of people and genuinely loves humanity despite all its ugliness. One of my favorite passages, from the beginning of The Brothers Karamazov, illustrates this well:

Fyodor Pavlovich was drunk when he learned of his wife’s death, and the story goes that he ran down the street, lifting his hands to the sky and joyfully shouting: “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace.” Others say that he wept and sobbed like a little child, so much so that they say he was pitiful to see, however repulsive they found him. Both versions may very well be true – that is, that he rejoiced at his release and wept for her who released him, all at the same time. In most cases, people, even wicked people, are far more naive and simple-hearted than one generally assumes. And so are we.

All of his books (that I’ve read) have moments of profound insight into human nature that leave me in awe and leave me feeling like I’m better off for having read this book than I was before I started. Even The Idiot, which took me nine years and maybe seven attempts to finish, has moments of absolute genius that made the effort well worth while.
That said, be absolutely sure you stay away from Constance Garnett’s translations. As from_a_to_z says, the Pevear and Volokhonsky translations are the way to go.

[Sage_Rat]

Any British novel: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy meets girl again. They get married and live happily ever after.

Any French novel: Boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy takes mistress. Everybody lives happily ever after.

Any Russian novel: Boy meets girl, and the boy and the girl agonize about it for 900 pages.

[septimus]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

… They are long books, and complicated and sometimes boring.
…
Maybe try something shorter first. I like Notes From Underground a lot and it seems like it might be more up your alley if you like Camus.

This. His longer works are much too tedious for me, but Notes From Underground is one of my very favorite novels (novellas?). (Apologies to Jimmy Chitwood for quoting him slightly out of context.)

[The_bell_tolls_for_no_one]

If you would like to read a book only for the story-telling purposes, works of Dostoevsky can appear irksome to readers whose Russian (or Slavic) is not a mother tongue. However, if you would like to explore deeper into the psychology of characters and their actions, expend your vocabulary, and improve your syntax, it will certainly help you. Aside all those technicalities, the author is very dedicated to humanitarianism, which is very different from the books that promote heroism. The main difference is that heroism is when you defend yourself from others, but humanitarianism is when you defend others from yourself. A few quotes from Brothers Karamazov that depict what I am trying to say:

do not be so ashamed of yourself, for that is at the root of it all.

don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone.

Are you speaking the truth? Well, now, after such a confession, I believe that you are sincere and good at heart. If you do not attain happiness, always remember that you are on the right road, and try not to leave it. Above all, avoid falsehood, every kind of falsehood, especially falseness to yourself.

I hope, from the quotes above, you understand what i was trying to say.

The Idiot is very close to my personal experience and I strongly recommend as I haven’t found a better man than that of Prince Myshkin’s character. Yet the Crime and Punishment is very appealing to Western culture due to thematic. On the other hand, Slavic people (especially youth) experience moral, ethical, and existential issues of that novel very often and unfortunately very early in their lives, therefore the upshot of the story should not be as important as the process of understanding the inner struggle of Raskolinkov.

My mother’s favorite is the Gambler. I have not read it in English yet. But that one and Notes from the Underground are next on my list.

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

Try Feodor’s epic Seven Year Old Zombie Thread. In the original Klingon, of course.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@The_bell_tolls_for_no_one

If you would like to read a book only for the story-telling purposes, works of Dostoevsky can appear irksome to readers whose Russian (or Slavic) is not a mother tongue.

Just curious: are you a native Russian speaker?

[John_Mace]

@Thudlow_Boink

Just curious: are you a native Russian speaker?

I’m curious what he thinks of Hemingway.

[Mr.Nylock]

@Cisco

For books like this, the answer is yes*.

*If you’re willing to do some contextual research on the philosophical, literary, social, and political climate of the time, willing to read slow, re-read passages, possibly take notes or look up character guides, and, to be honest . . . read the entire book 2 or 3 times. All of this could easily be an investment of 100 or more hours, but if you do it all, you will almost certainly thank yourself and come out the other side a changed person.

Just grinding through it for the sake of having read it isn’t going to do much for you, and if that’s all you want to do (which is perfectly fine and understandable), skip it.

I agree with this. Dostoyevski is my favorite author even though I’ve probably just spelled his name wrong. I have read Brothers Karamazov three times and The Idiot twice, and a few other things as well. I have read and discussed his works in college and I’ve discussed his works in several book clubs. I think in all this time I’ve only met a couple people that really got much out of reading Dostoyevski. There is also the problem of his monumental stature interfering with one’s reading his works as if they were just like any other thing one might read.

IMHO I really don’t think you need to go too crazy with the historical background information, I would say the most important thing with that is knowing what significance various things have on people’s rank and social standing. I will say that one of the more difficult things is keeping track of all the small details and keeping track of who is related to who and the various backstories that numerous characters have - it’s a lot to keep track of.

People seem to either love or hate Dostoyevski - with a third type of reader who pretends to think he’s great so as to appear to themselves and others to be a sophisticated person.

My suggestion would be to pick up The Brothers Karamazov or The Idiot or maybe even Notes from the underground and read 10 or 20 pages. If after reading this amount you are not interested enough in the characters that you just have to keep reading so you can learn more about them then there is absolutely no point in slogging through the next several hundred pages.

P.S. I love Dostoyevski but for some reason could never get through Crime and Punishment

[Ukulele_Ike]

Oh, yes, you should. Like many folks have said, start with Notes from Underground. As an existentialist, you’ll dig it, and it’s short and easy. Go on to Crime and Punishment, which I re-read every few years. Then The Brothers K, which was a long slog for me, but well worth having assimilated into my brain, much like Dickens’s Bleak House.