The Idiot or The Possessed/Demons

[SirJazzHands]

Which do you believe is the best Dostoevsky novel?

[johann cruyff]

Between the two you listed, I'd say The Idiot is far better. I don't think it's his best work though.

[kelby_lake]

Haven't read The Demons yet, only The Idiot. I did like The Idiot.

[Idril]

It's hard to pick between them because they are very different books. It's hard for me to say I loved The Idiot because it was just such a devastating book, it was well written, incredibly thought provoking but it's not something I would ever put myself through again. On the other hand, I loved The Posessed! It's like a snapshot of the era, you see the beginnings of the revolution, the unrest and social chaos leading up to it, I loved the characters, the plot, it is a book that I will read again and in fact, have read multiple times. If I was recommending one or the other, I would recommend The Posessed over The Idiot simply because of the overwhelming emotional response I had to the later...but maybe that in and of itself speaks to it's genius.

[Kafka's Crow]

I believe that Dostevsky is the greatest of the great Russian writers and The Idiot is one of his best books, if not the best. You do need patience to go through it as it is a slow and a bit laborious read. Don't start it unless you are sure that you are in a mood to read such a thought-provoking but slow book. I would start with Notes from the Underground (a full blast of Dostoevskian angst in a little tiny parcel) and work my way up towards The Brothers Karamazov. I would recommend reading The Possessed before The Idiot but the latter book is a major, major achievement not only in Dostoevsky's works but in the world literature.

On another note, I read Russian folk-tale called Ivanoshka the Idiot yesterday. This notion of a holy, simple, artless, sinless yet perceptive, courageous and daring persona is deeply rooted in the Russian psyche. I have read quite a number of Russian folk-tales where the simple, unassuming person rises up to the occasion when all heroes either flee or fall. So very different from our celebrity-obsessed fake age. The Idiot changed my life for good. I read it 18 years ago at the tender age of 20, it sealed my fate and decided for me the more laborious, less profitable but more (spiritually) fulfilling path for the rest of my life.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

'The Idiot' is a rather abysmal novel, Dostoevskii's wors, actually C&P is his worst novel. The Brothers Karamazov and The Double are his best novels, though the former is overly-long and, like almost all Dostoevskii, tendentious. The 'Grand Inquisitor' chapter is extraordinary however. I always like to think that Dostoevskii is a brilliant philosopher, but a over-rated author-he is certainly nowhere near the level of the other great Russian prose-writers (in this order) Tolstoi, Bely, Gogol, Turgenev, Lermentov.


So very different from our celebrity-obsessed fake age

Surely you are not referring to the great, A la recherche du temps perdu? :p

[Kafka's Crow]

'The Idiot' is a rather abysmal novel, Dostoevskii's wors, actually C&P is his worst novel. The Brothers Karamazov and The Double are his best novels, though the former is overly-long and, like almost all Dostoevskii, tendentious. The 'Grand Inquisitor' chapter is extraordinary however. I always like to think that Dostoevskii is a brilliant philosopher, but a over-rated author-he is certainly nowhere near the level of the other great Russian prose-writers (in this order) Tolstoi, Bely, Gogol, Turgenev, Lermentov.



Surely you are not referring to the great, A la recherche du temps perdu? :p

Two blasphemies in one post, I am amazed! I don't know about you but Dostoevsky changed my life. Tolstoy wrote a lot of forgettable stuff (I have read Anna Karenina thrice, all I can remember is the train station!) I have never forgotten anything written by Dostoevsky. He is GOD (with all three capital letters). We, who read in translation, can not judge the stylistic merits of his writing. I do like Tugenev and Lermontov though but they are no gods when it comes to that. Because of the linguistic constraints we will have to do with the philosophical dimension of Russian writing and nobody can even come near Dostoevsky in that respect, nobody in the entire world literature. I know there are objections concerning his style but I can't read Russian therefore can't comment on that. I don't find any loose-ends in the plots of his great novels. He shows the Russian soul at its worst and at its best. This is the great joy of being able to read good books: they show you humanity in its amazing diversity and complexity.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

I don't know about you but Dostoevsky changed my life.

Speaking personally, which is to say personally speaking (but let's not descend into glib Carollian puns) no work of fiction has ever changed my life.


Tolstoy wrote a lot of forgettable stuff (I have read Anna Karenina thrice, all I can remember is the train station!)

Tolstoi- forgettable?! Now that is blasphemy! Anna Karenin is far superior to anything which Dostoevskii ever wrote, but then again, Tolstoi does not descend into the platitudes and plenitudes of human existence, or into soporific solemnisations on spurious subjects, such as the 'human condition' via deranged, toally fake, totally forced. Deranged sociopaths, noble prostitutes, proto-Nazi intellectuals and other such trash. If all you can remember is the train station then why on earth did you read it again? The art of Tolstoi is eternal, whilst the art of Dostoevskii is ephermeal and unoriginal, by it's very nature. Dostoevskii's characters are, by and large, poorly and banally characterised, spouting philsophical persiflage like nothing else.

Tolstoi, of course, has his weak points, the final 20 or so pages of 'Anna' are as banal as anything out of Dostoevskii, as are his sententious religious meanderings-but the preceding pages are the work of a genius.

I also dislike glib, catch-all phrases such as "show the Russian soul at it's worst and best" and "show you humanity" etc. etc., which so often precede praise of Dostoevskii.

[johann cruyff]

Tolstoi- forgettable?! Now that is blasphemy! Anna Karenin is far superior to anything which Dostoevskii ever wrote, but then again, Tolstoi does not descend into the platitudes and plenitudes of human existence, or into soporific solemnisations on spurious subjects, such as the 'human condition' via deranged, toally fake, totally forced. Deranged sociopaths, noble prostitutes, proto-Nazi intellectuals and other such trash. If all you can remember is the train station then why on earth did you read it again? The art of Tolstoi is eternal, whilst the art of Dostoevskii is ephermeal and unoriginal, by it's very nature. Dostoevskii's characters are, by and large, poorly and banally characterised, spouting philsophical persiflage like nothing else.


I don't think I've come across a comment on LitNet with which I disagreed more. Not looking to start a "fight", just saying.


If all you can remember is the train station then why on earth did you read it again?

Umm... Didn't you just answer your own question?

By the way, it's Anna Karenina, Karenin would be the last name of a man, while women in Russia get that "a" at the end. (a very banal example: Marat Safin, Dinara Safina)

[Kafka's Crow]

Speaking personally, which is to say personally speaking (but let's not descend into glib Carollian puns) no work of fiction has ever changed my life.



Tolstoi- forgettable?! Now that is blasphemy! Anna Karenin is far superior to anything which Dostoevskii ever wrote, but then again, Tolstoi does not descend into the platitudes and plenitudes of human existence, or into soporific solemnisations on spurious subjects, such as the 'human condition' via deranged, toally fake, totally forced. Deranged sociopaths, noble prostitutes, proto-Nazi intellectuals and other such trash. If all you can remember is the train station then why on earth did you read it again? The art of Tolstoi is eternal, whilst the art of Dostoevskii is ephermeal and unoriginal, by it's very nature. Dostoevskii's characters are, by and large, poorly and banally characterised, spouting philsophical persiflage like nothing else.

Tolstoi, of course, has his weak points, the final 20 or so pages of 'Anna' are as banal as anything out of Dostoevskii, as are his sententious religious meanderings-but the preceding pages are the work of a genius.

I also dislike glib, catch-all phrases such as "show the Russian soul at it's worst and best" and "show you humanity" etc. etc., which so often precede praise of Dostoevskii.

So its got to be:

1) Tolstoy
2) Tolkien
3) ??? JK Rowling

I read great books. Some of them work for me, some don't. I still can't find anything by Tolstoy that works for me, except War and Peace which, I think (for all that it's worth!), is the grandest creation of human imagination along with King Lear and Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel.

I don't think I need to defend a writer against charges which are just not right, in fact they are too wrong to be dealt with in any manner. I will leave it at that!

And yes books change lives, books change history. Ideas have consequences!

[bazarov]

the art of Dostoevskii is ephermeal and unoriginal, by it's very nature. Dostoevskii's characters are, by and large, poorly and banally characterised, spouting philsophical persiflage like nothing else.



Levin is probably the most complex Tolstoy's character, and he and Anna Karenina are his only truly well made characters. But still, they are uncomparable with Raskolnikov, Myshkin, Underground Man, Ivan Karamazov, maybe Alyosha also.
Do you think Natasha is similar with Kitty? Alyosha-Andrew, Anatol-Veslovsky, Levin-Pierre...? Too many similar characters and happenings; there are too many similarities between War and Peace and Anna Karenina.


I always like to think that Dostoevskii is a brilliant philosopher, but a over-rated author-he is certainly nowhere near the level of the other great Russian prose-writers (in this order) Tolstoi, Bely, Gogol, Turgenev, Lermentov.

Don't get me wrong, but this is the stupidest opinion I ever seen on this forum. I am sorry.:(

[Gladys]

Levin is probably the most complex Tolstoy's character, and he and Anna Karenina are his only truly well made characters. Vronsky takes my fancy. Towards the end, he seems more nuanced than Anna and more human than Levin.

[Etienne]

Levin is probably the most complex Tolstoy's character, and he and Anna Karenina are his only truly well made characters. But still, they are uncomparable with Raskolnikov, Myshkin, Underground Man, Ivan Karamazov, maybe Alyosha also.
Do you think Natasha is similar with Kitty? Alyosha-Andrew, Anatol-Veslovsky, Levin-Pierre...? Too many similar characters and happenings; there are too many similarities between War and Peace and Anna Karenina.

Actually, Dostoevsky does have a lot of leitmotivs in his characters, notably the women characters and not exclusively. I've said in another topic that I believe Dostoevsky is overrated, I do not however agree with Sanghe's opinion, although I do think he as some points, his conclusions are far from mine (less radical would be the right term).


Don't get me wrong, but this is the stupidest opinion I ever seen on this forum. I am sorry.

I do not think his opinion his devoid of value. Dostoevsky's strength is obviously his great insight in the human mind, his weakness, the very unpolished and sometimes sketchy nature of his novels.

And remember that I am not trying to say that Dostoevsky is not good, I've read quite a few books from him and will read more, I love Dostoevsky, and he is without a doubt one of the great pillars of literature. I just don't think he is God ;) Rabelais is :lol:.

[paperleaves]

Notes From the Underground changed my life. It was the best for me, because it turned me on to Dostoevsky himself :D

[Gladys]

his weakness, the very unpolished and sometimes sketchy nature of his novelsUnpolished and sketchy? Having read half a dozen novels, I haven't noticed this defect. Do other lovers of Dostoevsky agree with this criticism? I thought 'The Idiot' exquisite.


Notes From the Underground changed my life. I look forward to reading the book.

[DostoevskyFTW]

Just by reading my name you can tell which position I'm going to take on this issue, but, with that being said, I think you should not overlook Dostoevsky's greatness as an author.
I'm going to use Svidrigaylov from Crime and Punishment to make my point.
Svidrigaylov is a character quite unlike any other in literature. He is a despicable scoundrel and is mentioned a few times in the novel as possibly "ruining a poor girl's life." The girl, whom he possibly molested, which caused her to commit suicide. Moving on, in the Act V, Svidrigaylov has his series of dreams, one of which is where he approaches a young girl (I believe she was described as being around 8 years old), who is presumably trying to seduce him, and starts to "have desires" for her (this is obviously not a quote from the book, but for a lack of better diction to describe this scene). He recoils in his dream and wakes up in a sweat. He then proceeds to exit the room and in the early morning, finds "Achilles" and proceeds to "go to America" (I don't want to ruin the novel for anyone who hasn't read it, but if you HAVE read it, you'll understand exactly what I'm saying).
My point: Svidrigaylov is not only a horrible person, but a child molester (these are especially horrible people, I'm not willing to argue about this, but to put it in short: I think most people would rather hang out with a murderer than a pedophile...). With that being said, the final scene in which he "goes to America" is an incredible scene in literature because it is here, that Svidrigaylov, the character who has been described as being a horrible, remorseless person, finally regains the thing that is unique to us humans, a conscience, and realizes his wrongs. Here he is finally "redeemed" through "suffering" as Raskolnikov soon does, but in an incredibly different fashion.
Anyway, the point of that whole spiel is that Dostoevsky tackles issues like child molestation in such a way that is very mature and well-done. He is WAY ahead of his contemporary authors, and, I'd argue better than Tolstoy for this.
And for a brief point: Dostoevsky wrote most of his work in the 1840's and 1860's-1870's. His novel Notes From Underground displays an understanding of the human subconscious in a way that is unprecedented in literature. Keep in mind that Sigmund Freud didn't receive his M.D. until Dostoevsky had already died (1881). Friedrich Nietzsche was extremely impressed by the novel, claiming that "Dostoevsky is one of the few psychologists from whom I have learned something," and that Notes from Underground "cried truth from the blood".

So, in short: Stop ripping on Dostoevsky. He's the man.

[DostoevskyFTW]

oops... meant to post this in "Fyodor Dostoevsky - Idiot"

[DostoevskyFTW]

Actually, no I didn't.... ignore my second post!!

[Gladys]

Svidrigaylov, the character who has been described as being a horrible, remorseless person, finally regains the thing that is unique to us humans, a conscience, and realizes his wrongs. Here he is finally "redeemed" through "suffering" as Raskolnikov soon does, but in an incredibly different fashion. Svidrigaylov does feels guilt at the end and in this sense suffers. I hadn't before seen his 'works of love' to Sonia and the wandering five-year-old girl as repentance. But, of course you're right.

But is suicide by revolver redemptive?

[Bumbeli]

Two blasphemies in one post, I am amazed! I don't know about you but Dostoevsky changed my life. Tolstoy wrote a lot of forgettable stuff (I have read Anna Karenina thrice, all I can remember is the train station!) I have never forgotten anything written by Dostoevsky. He is GOD (with all three capital letters). We, who read in translation, can not judge the stylistic merits of his writing. I do like Tugenev and Lermontov though but they are no gods when it comes to that. Because of the linguistic constraints we will have to do with the philosophical dimension of Russian writing and nobody can even come near Dostoevsky in that respect, nobody in the entire world literature. I know there are objections concerning his style but I can't read Russian therefore can't comment on that. I don't find any loose-ends in the plots of his great novels. He shows the Russian soul at its worst and at its best. This is the great joy of being able to read good books: they show you humanity in its amazing diversity and complexity.

Quote for truth.
Dostoevsky changes lifes, Tolstoy provides excellent literature.
Dostoevsky can depress you, but it can also cheer you up, I remember reading the Idiot, I was on my holiday in france, it was devastating. It took me about two days to read that, I never went to the beach, to the city or anywhere outside my house. When I was done, I didn't leave for another week, it was like something crushed down on me. I loved it, still love it and reading that book made me realize some things, widened my horizon.
The Possesed on the other hand, didn't really get to me in such a way. It is amazing, but I'd pick the Idiot over it anytime.

[Gladys]

...but it can also cheer you up, I remember reading the Idiot... The novel radiates warmth but, on finishing, I felt let down for a couple of days. Then, like the sun rising, I began to intuit the majesty of those closing pages: a love sublime.

A month ago, Arundhati Roy’s 'The God of Small Things', left a similar delayed impact.

[Dr. Hill]

Dostoevsky is eons ahead of Tolstoy as a philosopher. I enjoy Tolstoy to a great extent, but Dostoevsky's intelligence is so much more apparent, and if I were to take a guess, I'd say he was more intelligent than Tolstoy.