which Dostoievsky title should I read next?

[© tweed]

I'm still a ways away from finishing War & Peace but when I do I will move on to one of these two.

[patrick1]

Loved the inner monologues in the Idiot.  After many years since reading F.D., I tend to forget major plot points of his works but he was really at master at how the mind works (or maybe just how fellow neurotics minds work)

[© tweed]

interesting, I hadn't pinned you as a literature guy.

[patrick1]

interesting, I hadn't pinned you as a literature guy.

I'm a tough man to pin down, even for myself.   I've gone through many different iterations, twists and turns.  Former Republican, street brawler, drunk, cultured man; now a sober, clean living, dem leaning card carrying member of the I.B.T.. Squeezed a masters degree and a couple different careers of varying pay grade in between....

On lit front, I plowed through 'the classics' and a load of Celine, Welsh, Palahniuk and Bukowski  when I was around your age.  Stress of working life, abuse of the drop, and the internet kind of fried the attention span. However, I've started getting back into it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Demons is my favourite novel, but both are great (obviously).

[Gustaf]

You should read both. I'd start with The Idiot.

[© tweed]

I went with Demons.  I am on p100 and have no clue wtf is going on half the time.  but I suppose that's the point.  "relentlessly escalating" plot and etc.

[© tweed]

I'm most of the way through Demons and, despite obvious brilliant and bright spots, can't help but find myself agreeing with those who see it as a bit of a novelty act, endlessly cryptic and relying on plot twist after plot twist to produce its effect.  perhaps if I spent endless time in stuffy academia with the Stepan Trofimoviches of the world, like Al, I would better understand.  instead I lean towards that old Trondheim quote, here:

And Dostoevski's style is "redundant", something Maier admits: "He often needs fifty pages for something Tolstoi could have told you in one paragraph and in much more artful language and with much more seeming ease"

[angus]

Demons is my favourite novel, but both are great (obviously).

The eponym for your rotten website, no doubt.  I'd call it a blog but blogs actually get written from time to time so we won't call it a blog.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Indeed. It's just a space that I occasionally place things. I think I like the idea of having it more than I do actually using it.

[opebo]

The eponym for your rotten website, no doubt.

Link please?  Is this even half as good as New America?

[minionofmidas]

I'm most of the way through Demons and, despite obvious brilliant and bright spots, can't help but find myself agreeing with those who see it as a bit of a novelty act, endlessly cryptic and relying on plot twist after plot twist to produce its effect.  perhaps if I spent endless time in stuffy academia with the Stepan Trofimoviches of the world, like Al, I would better understand.  instead I lean towards that old Trondheim quote, here:

And Dostoevski's style is "redundant", something Maier admits: "He often needs fifty pages for something Tolstoi could have told you in one paragraph and in much more artful language and with much more seeming ease"

Though I did read a second and rather better Dostoevski in between these two threads.
The Idiot. Who'd'a thunk it. And mostly because of Maier.

[angus]

The eponym for your rotten website, no doubt.

Link please?  Is this even half as good as New America?

You just click on Al's username and then click on the website he provides.  There's some rambling, a bit of arid humor, and a somewhat useful guide to British politics.  Nothing else, really.  I checked it from time to time years ago, assuming he would update it with fresh and interesting political commentary or satire.  Alas, to no avail.  It just gathers dust.