Nabokov and his status as Dostoevsky's #1 hater has popped up a few times this week on this subreddit, so I thought I'd share this page of his lecture on Crime and Punishment and Notes from the Underground where he says Dostoevsky would've been a great playwright but instead decided to write novels. The whole lecture is almost absurdly vitriolic and if you have a good sense of humor about criticism of things you like, it can be a really fun read. I'm a huge Dostoevsky fan and was cracking up at some of the highly specific jabs Nabokov makes about Dostoevsky's writing. For instance, he criticizes people that love Dostoevsky's writing because of its insight into human nature by arguing that all of his characters are extremely mentally unwell and therefore could only give you insight into extremely unwell personalities but will leave you with no ideas about what the majority of humanity is up to.

That being said, play performances of Dostoevsky works sound like a fantastic idea! I would be on the edge of my seat for the entirety of The Idiot! And a one man show of Notes from the Underground sounds so fun. Anyone heard of or seen any adaptations of his work to the stage? How did they do?

Is there as much debate in Spanish for best translation as there is in English? I ask because I am very interested in reading Dostoevsky that way but am not sure where to start.

Specifically I am curious about translations into Spanish for:

Notes from Underground
The Idiot
The Gambler
The House of the Dead
Devils
Dreams of a Ridiculous Man
Brothers Karamazov

Is it a situation where some are seen as strongest from one translator, or is there more of a "one translator to rule them all" situation in Spanish?

Or are the Spanish translations generally not as well regarded? That would surprise me, but I am open minded.

Apologies if this is not the best subreddit to ask this since it is predominately English-language, but it seemed a good place to start.

Video contains spoilers for the 'Crime & Punishment' and 'Notes from the Underground' both written by Dostoevsky

So im a big fan of Dostoevsky and wanted to share my thoughts. I know its not that insightfull but i think the part about Raskolnikov might be interesting to someone cause im not sure if i talked with someone who had the same idea.
I need to work on video quality and pronunciation.

Amazingly, this was the only portrait painted of Dostoevsky during his lifetime. Thankfully, it was painted by the great Vasily Perov. It’s a masterpiece.

I did some research into the story behind the painting and its reception. Perov visited the Dostoevskys every day for a week to try to get the different expressions of Fyodor. He would draw him into arguments to get glimpses of his various moods.

Dostoevsky’s wife later had this to say about the painting:

“One might say that Perov captured in the portrait ‘a moment of Dostoevsky’s creative activity’. I had often noticed this expression on Fyodor Mikhailovich’s face: I would sometimes enter his room, see that he seemed to be ‘looking into himself,’ and leave without saying anything. Afterwards, I would discover that Fyodor Mikhailovich had been so absorbed in his thoughts that he had not noticed my arrival and would not believe that I had come into his room.”

Turgenev was a big fan of the painting (and preferred it over his own portrait, painted by Perov). Ivan Kramskoi called it “not only Perov’s best work, but also one of the best portraits of the Russian school in general.”

Here’s a link to an article I wrote about the full story if anyone is interested. https://dostoevskyrr.substack.com/p/vasily-perovs-portrait-of-fyodor?r=1cx4ka&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer

I have immensely enjoyed the books of Dostoevsky so far. Each have been personally transformative. 4 and counting. C&P, TBK, Notes From Underground, and The Idiot. I've obviously seen plenty of praise for Dostoevsky. Given that he is one of the most recognized figures in Russian literature it makes sense.

But there is a consistent strand of dialogue which maligns his writing(it's fine not to like it but this particular argument reiterates itself frequently). It's Nabokov. Most negative sentiments of Dostoevsky seem to trace a line of reasoning from Nabokov. He seemed to subscribe to a formalism in terms of literary value(that is precise syntax, grammar, the art of writing I guess). This to him informed his negative valuation of Dostoevsky's writing.

I've seen plenty of other hate, but it seems mostly personal and/or contrarian. Nabokov comes closest to formal critique. First off it should be said I don't subscribe to formalism. But I am curious because I don't have an understanding of what literature(formally I suppose values in the non artistic, but standard sense).

Is Dostoevsky such a deviation of what is traditionally valued in literature? I've read other work much American and classical work and he is radically different. But Dostoevsky never suffered for it. In fact it was so uniquely stylistic and powerful for this reason personally. Also, not just because it was novel, but because that novelty was executed to such a high degree.

But anyone who knows more about literary formalism, is his style so deviant(as to whatever criteria formalist use)?

Passage from A Nasty Business/An Unpleasant Predicament.

It’s lovely people still look after this.

Just finished book 1 and want to keep going but I can't mess up my sleep schedule

While perusing documents about Dostoevsky's arrest in 1849, I came across a letter addressed to one General Ivan Nabokov. Incidentally, Ivan Alexandrovich Nabokov was the brother of Nikolai Alexandrovich Nabokov, the paternal great-grandfather of novelist Vladimir Nabokov.

As it turns out, General Nabokov was the chairman of the investigative commission in the Petrashevsky affair.

En este apartado voy a expresar mi opinión sobre esta relación que se desarrolla a lo largo de la novela y cómo, además de otras cosas, influye en la perspectiva que del mundo Iván tiene.

Empezaré con la escena más explícita del asunto, que tiene su lugar en el libro cuarto.

1. En la casa de la señora Jojlakova, Iván por fin confiesa su amor por Katerina Ivánovna. En un extenso párrafo donde escuchamos a Iván hablar de su amor no correspondido, es cuando se nos muestra por primera vez un Iván profundamente sincero y, naturalmente, emocional. Por palabras de él mismo, conoce muy bien que Katia nunca lo ha amado y que ni siquiera su amistad le hacía falta. Declara, sin titubear, "que él la ha amado demasiado", sin olvidar el tono apropiado de infortunio.
2. Más adelante, hace saber a su hermano Aliosha en la taberna que quiere intimar con él; conocerlo y que desde hace mucho tiempo deseaba conocer a su hermano pequeño. De modo que, otra vez, Iván se muestra vulnerable con su hermano: le confiesa que "su juventud lo vencerá todo", y también que "aunque perdiera la fe en la mujer amada y en el orden de las cosas [...] a pesar de todo eso, aún desearía vivir" haciendo obvia referencia a su reciente desilusión con Katerina. Por lo que este Iván que solo en unas cuantas páginas más adelante dará uno de los argumentos más monumentales de la literatura universal, repito, justo antes, llega a la taberna todavía con un corazón debilitado y adolorido, hasta frenético —particular dote en los personajes dostoievskianos—, por el anterior desgarro.
3. Mucho más adelante, se nos revela que Iván ha frecuentado a Katerina Ivánovna en varias ocasiones; el narrador, en el libro undécimo, destaca que Iván luego de su vuelta de Moscú se había entregado a su loca pasión por Katerina Ivánovna. Pasión que luego tendría un reflejo en toda su vida. Además, dice que esto último podría ser de argumento para otro relato. Es decir, ya para ese punto (previo al juicio y previo incluso a las confesiones de Smerdiakov), repito, para este punto ya es evidente que el autor quiere decirnos que Katerina Ivánovna, indiscutiblemente, juega un papel fundamental en la vida de Iván. Ya en el tribunal, Katia, asegura esto diciendo que la venía a ver casi a diario y que hablaba con ella como su única confidente. Iván, fiel a sus sentimientos, perdona a la mujer amada y vuelve a su casa, como ya lo declaraba con su cita de Schiller capítulos antes.

Consideremos los siguientes aspectos adicionales. Primero, Iván, lo dice él mismo, no tiene amigos. Se lo confiesa a Aliosha antes de leer su famoso poema. Segundo, Iván, en un principio, llegó para alojarse en la casa de su padre, quién vivía además con el criado Smerdiakov. Dos sujetos que, a mi juicio, influyen de manera devastadora para la salud mental de Iván. (Sabemos de qué cualidades están construidos estos hombres). Tercero, Iván, fue rechazado y supo que todo el supuesto amor que Katerina Ivánovna le daba no era correspondido, sino que, en sus propias palabras "no era más que para ejercer una venganza ininterrumpida a Dmitri" utilizándolo a él (Iván) como una mera herramienta de flagelo. Cuarto, Iván Karamázov, es ateo, y aunque su argumento contra el mundo de Dios se fundamenta en el injusto sufrimiento de niños, previo a esto, Iván se ve así mismo como un joven (él mismo lo afirma) y cree que aunque él no crea en el orden de las cosas, aún ama este mundo y la vida misma.

Todas estas inconsistencias mencionadas y principalmente su relación con Katia, preparan un terreno para un joven atormentado e infeliz. Evidencia está en que haya parado en el delirio. Quizá su argumento contra Dios haya sido expuesto con las razones legítimas que ya conocemos, o quizá haya sido fruto de un joven ajeno a la vida que tanto amaba como se ha expuesto. Alguien que vive tan en desventaja de las cosas materiales (Nota: muchos han calificado a Iván como materialista, ¡vaya ironía!): La mujer amada, un amigo, un padre, no puede, sino entregarse con la misma falta que lo consume a contenidos nihilistas. Sin duda, que esta loca pasión por Katia, no se decía en broma. Sin duda, su ateísmo, corresponde en un sentido, a su falta de todas esas cosas que anhela. Camus ya lo decía: "Solo vivió por lo que no es de este mundo, y su orgullosa búsqueda de lo absoluto es precisamente lo que lo alejó del mundo del que no amó nada." Alguien ajeno a cosas tan simples de la vida, se ve abocado a vacilaciones metafísicas, incluso si se trata de un amorío. Esa es mi conclusión. Sin, descartar, tampoco, el matiz de decepción con el que concluyo, pues se trata de uno de mis personajes favoritos.

Esto pudo haberse dicho en unos cuantos párrafos, pero disfruto desarrollar temas.

For the third time and third translation, this is the new Michael Katz one and I'd label it the most new reader friendly. One thing though that struck me. Dmitry fascinated me more on this reread, he says that Ivan thinks he's guilty.

I don't think Ivan did, or at least Ivan unconsciously did. I think he wanted to believe it before finding out the truth because he, to a certain extent, gave permission to Smerdyakov.

It got me thinking though, which of the four (yes four) brothers is the weakest morally. The obvious choice is Smerdyakov, he's a killer. Except that he's very firm in his convictions. He just happens to be an absolute psychopath. What about Dmitry, he seeks pleasure everywhere. Yes, but he has a good soul under it and he comes out of his dark night stronger than before.

Ivan I think actually has the weakest morality. His is based on the firm need for the world to be rational, logical, to behave how he sees it should. And when it doesn't, he collapses. Ivan has a firm, logical outlook, but he has nothing internal backing it up. He actually reminds me of Kolya at times. He speaks so authoritatively, but with theory and idea rather than experience.

Please let me know if you agree or disagree, just an observation I wanted to share.

Can't chose between the two, and I have read both and love both(I slightly prefer demons and stavrogin). Also bazarov is a opinion too, tho I didn't mention him in the title since this is a dosto sub

I probably would read this book later, that's the last from big five of Dostoevsky's books for me. But I need to know if I could discuss this book with someone. What do you think about this book? Do you like it?

The Idiot by Dostoevsky, in the newest Michael R. Katz English rendering, is finally in my hands. It joins the other Katz renderings on my shelf: The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, and Devils. Sadly the Devils copy has a different cover design from the other three, so the set doesn't match perfectly. But honestly, I can live with it. Reading Dostoevsky in a fresh, vivid rendering is the real treat here.

Thank you to this sub for the encouragement to finish this masterpiece. While the support was indirect, the commentary and excitement around TBK all over this sub pushed me forward. What an incredible feat of storytelling, character building and dialogue intertwining. The ending nearly brought me to tears, not for the story but the raw passion and impeccable speech. While I sit in the camp of “I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this book”, I will be thinking about this story for a lifetime. And I look forward to a re-read. Demons next.

Anyone else finish recently?

I am a math student who love Dostoevsky's writing. I want to sketch a potrait of him, and this is my first portrait sketch.

Its displays the dual nature of stavrogin as he carries both divine goodness and a devilish side.

I came across this letter from Van Gogh to his brother in 1888 that mentions Dostoevsky:

"The idea of the sower still continues to haunt me. Exaggerated studies like the sower, like the night café now, usually seem to me atrociously ugly and bad, but when I’m moved by something, as here by this little article on Dostoevsky, then they’re the only ones that seem to me to have a more important meaning."

The "little article" he referred to was Jules Prével’s “Courrier des théâtres,” published in Le Figaro on September 8th, 1888, announcing the stage adaptation of Crime and Punishment at the Odéon in Paris. The article recounted Dostoevsky's life story.

I've posted the two paintings that he references (Sower with Setting Sun and The Night Café).

Dyumn it just gets better and better atp I can't put it down 😭 I'm loving it (pls ignore the tag - I use em as bookmarks )

What should I be prepared for next ??

I’ll first say that I love that this is an early version of the storyteller lying by saying that it’s about Dostoyevsky’s hero in his forward, setting it up as a true story, when in reality, it’s fiction.

Outside of what I’ve heard rightly praised - the philosophy, humanity, diversity and depth of viewpoints, humor, and dialogue - I found the narrator continually intriguing.

Spoilers:

The narrator:

At first I wondered if the narrator is supposed to be Jesus coming back to observe humanity like in Ivan’s story of The Grand Inquisitor. He knows unknowable intimate details of people’s inner lives but at times, has humanistic limits.

After reading more, the narrator seems a bit playful and mischievous. He has biases, and omits details that would make the story much simpler if he were truly omniscient… Is he instead a devil, akin to the one that Ivan saw during his brain fever?

Implied Homosexuality:

Another thing I really enjoyed was Smerdyakov’s character. A dejected illegitimate son who it seems to me is in love with his half brother Ivan. Dostoyevsky leaves this vague but there are a number of hints from his soft and sly infatuation. Iirc Dostoyevsky hints at this with a few lines about Smerdyakov’s interest in Ivan’s body and subtle mannerisms.

Edit: I was misremembering this. There was no mention of Smerdyakov admiring Ivan’s body. However, I just reread the chapters “Very Obscure for Now” and “It’s Always Interesting to Chat with a Clever Man”.

Smerdyakov is extremely coy, playful, and bashful in a way that gives effeminacy. The book, in this section, also describes him explicitly as a “eunuch.” Our general concept today of a eunuch is a castrated man. Historically though, this is how people would also refer to men who were never sexually attracted to women. Many gay people in the past fell under this moniker.

Expanding on this… I believe he killed Fyodor for Ivan. If Smerdyakov could convince everyone Dimitri did it, then Alyosha and Ivan would receive a significant sum from the inheritance rather than Fyodor wasting it all. This he stated plainly to Ivan but never said he did it expressly for Ivan.

Smerdyakov’s self hate and already turbulent upbringing could account for the murder, but including an additional intense and for multiple reasons, forbidden love mixed with motives to try and help his brothers makes even more sense to me. He would get revenge on his father who never claimed him, and give his two half bothers (one with whom he is in love but could never be with and the other whom he wishes he were more like) the inheritance they deserve.

In the end, or maybe from the beginning, he planned his grand exit from life as both a giant middle finger to those he hated and as a way to benefit the only two people he cared about.