/lit/ - Literature

>>6647715
There isn't a chapter in that book that isn't philosophically stimulating or useful. If you want some mindless narrative go read asoiaf or something

>>6647720
This

brb babbee needs more cliffhangers and plot fluffing.

>>6647720
Actually, agreed. The fact that I haven't enjoyed it that much could be due to my highest expectations. Though I couldn't find anything that was as deeply explored in the book as the topic of Christianity.

Because unlike the majority of authors who are degenerate and blinded by cultural marxism; Dostoevsky kept true to tradition and his catholic beliefs in his works.

For me the main theme of the book is passion. And he does a good job and exploring the origins and the outcomes of passion and what it drives us to do.

>>6647774
or not do

>>6647720
If you care about literally nothing but philosophical stimulation and 'usefulness', read non-fiction. It's inarguable that Dostoevsky overwrites and has a tendency to wax sophistic. The Brothers Karamazov is by no means a perfect novel.

Aesthetics matter, you cunts.

>>6647805
Dostoevsky is not a prophet. Much of his philosophy, to educated people (e.g., Vladimir Nabokov and Jorge Luis Borges: two despisers of Dostoevsky), is old news and a drag to have to read. Idiots appreciate him for breaking them of the delusion of their not being idiots; his intellectual peers, however, would prefer he'd shut up his reference books and write some bloody fiction, i.e., keep to what he's good at.

>>6647751
Dostoevsky was an Orthodox Christian, you pleb. How dare you denigrate him by calling him a Catholic.

Because The Grand Inquisitor is really nice.
And the judgment too.

>>6647715
>Why are Brothers Karamazov so praised?

Because of the immense intellectual power of his ideas, the brilliantly crafted characters and the powerful message behind it.

> I mean it's great if speaking of psychological portraits and has a great intrigue,

Arguably there isn't a single author who was better at psychological portrayal than Dostoevsky

>but there's absolutely no suspense to the plot

Are you retarded?

>for the 3/4th + it's overtalked.

The whole novel is people talking moron.

>>6647715
Because most of the people are so dumb, they take shallow ideas and trivial speculations as "philosophically stimulating" thoughts and "powerful" messages. Worst thing is that they go full "lol too deep for you" when anyone with a head on his shoulders says there is nothing intellectual in the book. Pretty much same story with every piece of "literature of ideas". To think that a fiction can provide significant ideas is a delusion.
And as someone who's seen enough of Dostoevsky's favorite character types in the faces of russian drunkheads, whores and outcasts I would call his "psychological portrayal" absolutely worthless.
Still his books are amusing and provide a compelling fantasy so I would call him a decent writer overall.

>>6647833
You never fail to make me cringe, tripfaggot

>>6647778
Yes if you want.

>>6647720
But the only philosophical chapters are the Ivan and Zosima chapters.

>>6647805
For me, something that can philosophically stimulate me is interesting. The fact that its fiction and is set around a family's interactions allows me to connect more to the message that Dostoevsky is trying to tell. Basically, stop projecting you pseudo intellectual

>>6647833
>Jorge Luis Borges didn't like Dostoevsky
Do you have anything to back this up?
Because my sources say the opposite.

>>6647833
You made me cringe with that trip and that shit taste.

>>6647833
>intellectuals didn't like it so I can't like it either

>all this pathetic DIDF

Well, turning a lack of editing into an advantage probably counts for something

>>6647751
>his catholic beliefs

>>6648531
>>6649731
>>6649746
I didn't mean there was anything wrong with being an idiot, or anything wrong with writing for idiots for that matter; it's a perfectly noble disability you guys have. But his whole shtick is, 'Here's what you believe, elegantly expressed, expressed even more elegantly perhaps than you'd express it, and here am I, the Christian, still not believing it. Don't you feel humble now?' The trouble is, if you were familiar with and up to date with the day's politics and philosophies, you'd not draw a drop of interest, and all the winding, mincing dialogue would be nothing more than that: only so much talking. I'm not saying 'get to the action'. I think I'm saying something more, à la this anon >>6647774, like 'get to the passion'. He's not without his value, but that value's grossly overstated. (Think of Eckhart Tolle; Dostoevsky deserves more repute than him, just for his artistic facility, but in terms of as a philosopher, all his merit there, all Dostoevsky's as with Tolle's, is nothing but an appeal to the lowest common denominator.)

>>6649623
I think you may be right. I read somewhere about an author I respect being asked to give a lecture on Dostoevsky and then saying, in effect, 'As I don't care for Dostoevsky, I've decided I'll give a lecture on Dante instead.' I searched a bit and could't find the quote again, but it must not have been Borges.

>>6651307
>I didn't mean there was anything wrong with being an idiot
>uses the word idiot