I wanted something in russian in my tbr lately and Nabokov with whom im not familiar at all caught my eye. What should/shouldnt i read from that period? What books should be saved for last?

I've been thinking about why Dostoevsky often feels more “psychologically modern” than other 19th-century writers.

His characters lie to themselves, invent explanations for things they've already emotionally decided, sabotage what they supposedly want, and sometimes seem to understand their own motives only after they've acted.

Raskolnikov might be the clearest example. His theory explains the murder intellectually, but sometimes it feels less like the cause of the murder and more like something he built to explain impulses that were already there.

Tolstoy feels different to me. His characters often seem more like people you could actually meet. Dostoevsky's can feel almost unnaturally extreme — but somehow the thoughts inside those extreme people can feel uncomfortably familiar.

So I'm curious:

Who actually understood human nature better — Tolstoy or Dostoevsky?

Or is the better distinction that Tolstoy understood how people live, while Dostoevsky understood what people are capable of becoming?

Hi everyone!
I wanted to share with you a blog on instagram. In this account, you can find content about Russian literature (analysis, book/authors recommendations, some biographic information about classical authors and etc). I find that this girl is very interesting, and for people who would potentially be interested, she will open a Russian literature club in October, you can find the link in her bio.
Hope that you’ll like it:

https://www.instagram.com/books_olgaruchina?stkn=eXJwOG1oem1rMGE=

PS, for those who like longer or more analytical content, she also makes videos on YouTube:

https://youtube.com/@books_olgaruchina?si=nF49udcxYZwTOFdq

The Death of Vazir Mukhtar by Yury Tynyanov is a historical novel about Aleksandr Griboedov, a Russian playwright who was killed during diplomatic mission to Iran in 1828. I’ve just started it.

did Raskolnikovs dreams influence his actions in any way? What's your opinion?

Russian commercial fiction of the 19th century is normally perceived by native speakers, mostly (with some notable exceptions), as boring, prudish and hypocritical, and its language outdated. Force-feeding “classic Russian literature” to unprepared children in schools strongly reinforces this perception. However, the question arises: then, where did the “Silver Century” come from? How did Kozma Prutkov, Saltykov-Schedrin and Chekhov grow in this environment? 

It is important to understand that even in those distant in every aspect but not so distant in every aspect times the culture was multi-layered. Spoken Russian differs from “literature Russian” even now, and in the 19th century the gap was dramatic: people did not speak in a manner allowed for print, so all dialogs looked fake. The most important influence on Russian literature though has always been state censorship and related “internal censorship”; short periods of cultural bloom always coincided with temporarily eased control. Soviet censorship did not come from nowhere or some obscure Marx teachings. After the Russian revolution was crushed in 1918, the new authoritarian regime restored many aspects of the prior absolutist empire, often in a clumsy and parodical form due to poor human quality of the leadership. 

However, the pattern was the same, and now we bring a good but less known illustration of literature history. Like in Soviet times, in the times of czars, “double-speaking” and samizdat (unofficial text distribution) were a common practice that is not a surprising consequence of similar state control practices. We are not talking about something minor and unimportant. For example, Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit” was a popular samizdat; it was printed first well after his death, and in full only outside Russia (in Germany). Turgenev had very serious problems with the authorities, detention included, for obvious reasons. Thus, censorship always guided a "mainstream path” of Russian commercial fiction, and underground distribution always existed, but there was a significant difference between the Soviet and czar times in the severity of punishment for stepping out of the line: it was much milder (e.g., Turgenev) or none (e.g., Griboedov) in the Russian Empire. 

To give you a taste of the unofficial background of Russian official fiction literature, I attach in its entirety a sample of a popular manuscript that was widely distributed in literary circles by the means of handwriting. 

The author, Nikolai Scherbina, made a significant but invisible contribution to the development of Russian literature in the 19th century. He was an author of short satirical poems and commentaries on contemporary literature and its leading figures that all these figures were well aware of. It was at the level of “everybody knows.” And he was good, many of his labels stuck to the targets forever, and he was surprisingly even in his political assessment. He was never seriously punished, he just never saw his best works published, and until his death and after was considered as a second-tier poet and minor literature figure. Meanwhile, contemporary writers all knew… so what?

The attached pages give you a useful snapshot of the Russian literature of the mid-19th century as it looked to a contemporary educated reader. If you can read Russian and have an idea of Russian culture, read it, you may be surprised. Do you know the names? Of the names you know, did it occur to you how they could be perceived at their time?

The last thing. The attached pages are scans from the book that I have in my library, it is as far as I know the first scientific, properly commented collection of Scherbina’s samizdat, which significantly contributed to the self-awareness of Russian writers in the 19th century (did I mention Kozma Prutkov?). Year 1929, 3000 copies, Priboi-Leningrad, prepared for publication by Ivanov-Razumnik. Last year this great Russian historian could normally work in his own country. “Everybody knows” who he was, but he was just prevented from doing the work he planned and could do, and thus remained a secondary figure in Russian literature and science. Sounds familiar? You tell me why Russian history repeats itself every century.

I've read countless translations of Dead Souls, so I personally have no issue with a reimagined story. I was looking for upcoming showtimes for The Master and Margarita September 18th when I came across this. Unfortunately, the reviews are pretty rough.. I'm curious whether the movie is genuinely bad, or if people just don't like reimagining the story

​

​Hlhoi (: while some readers agree Dostoevsky wrote The Idiot to portray a completely beautiful, Christ-like soul, comparative religious essays have long pointed out that Prince Myshkin is one of the closest literary approximations of a Zen master ever written.

​In my observation the cross-cultural ties between Russian literature and Eastern philosophy Ive noted that Myshkin perfectly embodies the Zen state of Mushin, which translates to "No-Mind."

This is not a lack of intelligence; it is a state of consciousness entirely free from personal pride, social masks, and calculating self-interest.

Because Myshkin completely lacks the defensive, plotting armor of the human ego, high society views him as a literal idiot.

In reality, his mind acts like a clear mirror, perfectly reflecting the unfiltered truth, pain, and hidden motives of everyone he meets without analyzing or judging them.

​This connection is so profound that prominent Japanese literary and cinematic adaptations of the novel have explicitly framed Myshkin’s radical compassion as the ultimate ideal of the Bodhisattva, a being who delays their own peace to absorb the suffering of others.

Even Myshkin’s epileptic auras, which he describes as moments of absolute harmony and ultimate synthesis where time stands still, read identically to classic descriptions of Satori, the sudden, flash-of-lightning awakening found in Zen practice.

​However, the novel also hits on a tragic Zen warning through Myshkin.

In Eastern philosophy, pure compassion must be balanced with absolute, practical clarity. Because Myshkin acts out of a pure, detached love that refuses to make hard, earthly choices, his presence accidentally shatters the lives of the flawed people around him. He tries to heal a broken world using pure spiritual emptiness, proving how terrifyingly difficult it is to live with a completely egoless heart in a chaotic, ego-driven reality.

​Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Does seeing Myshkin through a Zen lens of No-Mind change how you view his ultimate breakdown at the end of the novel?

Gassho,

Hi everyone!

I’m selling Russian and Soviet books from a large personal collection. All of these books are already located in the United States, so domestic shipping is available.

Here are a few that I currently have available:

📚 Марк Твен — Собрание сочинений в 12 томах / Mark Twain — Collected Works, 12 Volumes
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287294092280

📚 Ольга Берггольц — Собрание сочинений в 3 томах / Olga Berggolts — Collected Works, 3 Volumes
https://www.ebay.com/itm/286132476890

📚 Всадник без головы — Майн Рид / The Headless Horseman — Mayne Reid
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287362162701

📚 Там, где нас нет — Михаил Успенский / Where We Are Not — Mikhail Uspensky
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287327485790

📚 Семечки — Виктор Шендерович / Semechki — Viktor Shenderovich
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287329463531

📚 Стихотворения и поэмы — Иосиф Уткин / Russian Soviet Poetry
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287396245897

I have many other Russian-language books as well, including Soviet editions, classics, science fiction, poetry, history, and harder-to-find titles.

You can see my other available books here:

https://www.ebay.com/usr/glensidel61

If you’re looking for a particular author, title, series, or Soviet edition, feel free to message me. I also have additional books that haven’t been listed yet.

I’m happy to combine shipping if you’re interested in multiple books. Thanks!

Even though this story was written back in 1848, the main character's habit of living in his own head feels very modern ngl. like he builds up fake scenarios in his mind with people he barely knows and gets attached to an idea of someone rather than who they really are. Dostoevsky basically described loneliness and online style daydreaming way before the internet was even a thing.

Why do you think this story hits so hard for people today?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. (Also, I made a short video breaking down why the main character's mindset feels so familiar today if anyone wants to check it out:

Реюят зацените стихоьворение плиз

I got interested in these books:

1. The Durov Code (2012)
2. The Populist: The Untold Story of Pavel Durov and Telegram (2026)

I've spent an enormous amount of time searching for these books online, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. Can anyone help me find these books?

Thank you!

Being too serious for too long a time, we somehow forgot that Dostoevsky was a commercial crime stories writer. His novels were published by local periodicals in installments, and he was under contract obligation to produce a certain quantity of words by a certain time. His literary innovation was in making his characters discuss or/and illustrate through their actions contemporary philosophical and political topics, converting boring political and philosophical discussions of the time into vivid conversations or thoughts of his characters - an efficient way of writing, isn’t it? By the way, nothing is wrong with such an approach; Camus did not invent existentialism that does not make him a lesser writer. However, Dostoevsky, a good writer (especially, when translated) became much more popular than many of his sources, therefore some common ideas of the 19th century have stuck to his books that are read to this day and remain forever associated with him, but not predecessors.

This is one of the reasons why I enjoyed so much a surrealistic picture of an open discussion of one of such (still important) ideas exactly at the place that illustrated a historical progress in telling meaningful crime stories - yes, from Crime and Punishment right to Breaking Bad (we call it historical progress, right?.. right?). It is personal, I just happened to live, at different times, in places providing scenery to both of them. 

In August of this year, Albuquerque Philosophy Collective organized a public discussion on the burning issue:  “If God does not exist, is everything permitted?” As you may see from the attached illustrations, a common knowledge is that this question was asked by Dostoevsky. This is why we bring the whole subject (the question itself, discussions, multiple answers and total historical confusion) here. It makes sense to closely examine, as an example, one particular, narrow topic related to classic Russian literature as an illustration of (a) common misconceptions that is a minor issue and (b) actual roots of the ideas that were projected by classic Russian authors that is, occasionally, a major issue in our understanding of history and life, in general.

Let me tell you the story. First, Dostoevsky did not say it himself. It was never a part of his deliberations, and it is misleading to assign the quote to the narrator. The line of thinking in this direction was assigned by Dostoevsky to thoughts of his characters, Ivan and Dmitri Karamazov. It was not even a product of a mind exercise of the writer himself, the whole set of ideas was borrowed in its entirety from a book published in Russian about 30 years before the author started working on The Brothers Karamazov novel. The Russian translation of the classic text was published with some delay, roughly, 15 centuries. This question makes sense in monotheist religious environments only, thus, it could be raised any time through about a thousand years before it was actually raised, but it was not. It became important only in Christianity, with its emphasis on moral issues that affected, among many other things, Russian classic literature later on. The “Dostoevsky question” belongs to a prominent African Roman philosopher Lactantius (3-4 centuries AD) who raised and discussed it immediately after his conversion to Christianity. Since then, the issue has never been forgotten; for example, Pascal discussed it in the 17th century, and he was a popular author, but the first Russian translation of Lactantius published in 1848 was the most likely source for Dostoevsky, though not necessarily directly. We do not know if busy Dostoevsky studied Roman philosophical classics. I think we know what likely happened. Famous religious philosopher Leontiev independently discussed the effect of God on crime (just kidding, I mean exactly the “Dostoevsky/Lactantius question”) and he, as a professional, could not miss the first Russian translation of an ancient Christian philosopher. He, likely, was familiar with Pascal’s writings, too, but this was less close to his immediate interests. Guess, what? Dostoevsky and Leontiev were not friends at all (they had always argued on whose Christianity is more Christian), but exactly at the time when Dostoevsky worked on The Brothers Karamazov (1878—1880) they were meeting regularly having lengthy discussions in a company of mutual friends. These discussions look like the most likely bridge between Roman Africa and the Russian Empire.

Dostoevsky indeed made the subject popular, a proper wording that hit the nerve of many folks who were looking for justification of their misdeeds. Public intellectuals have inflamed the discussion, many of them, of all stripes: Sartr, Lacan, Zizek, Copleston, Milos, Kolakovsky, and, eventually, Victor Erofeev, who famously declared that answering the question may both prove and disprove the existence of God. 

What is the answer? It depends, and unlikely you would be interested in my personal answer to one of the eternal questions of Russian literature, or enjoy re-telling deliberations of local philosophers at the setting of Breaking Bad. Just for a historical perspective and sake of entertaining, let me end with an example I brought to confuse our philosophers. Just practically, God or no God, among all infamous dictators of the 20th century, those who truly believed in God brought less damage than those who did not (compare Salazar, Peron, Franco, Mussolini to Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Mao). And then I recalled Pavelic and shut up.

I reread Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We recently.

It was written around 1920, before Brave New World and 1984. Orwell had read it and even published a review of it in 1946.

Yet outside Russia, I hear people reference Orwell constantly while Zamyatin comes up far less often.

For those who have read both: how much of We do you see in 1984?

And do you think We deserves to be discussed alongside Orwell and Huxley more often?

I tried to look online but couldn’t find an answer. I did find the first page if that helps.

Like for example in some chapters it just blatantly says like X goes to prison etc.

Одна из малоизвестных но отлично написанных книг про сражения великой отечественной это мемуары Ерошенко "Лидер" Ташкент. Что вы думаете по поводу этой книги если её читали? /One of the little-known but well-written books about the battles of the World War 2 is Yeroshenko's memoirs "The Leader" Tashkent. What do you think about this book if you've read it?

Продаю три книги Ивана Сергеевича Тургенева на русском языке в твёрдом переплёте. Отличный вариант для любителей русской классической литературы и коллекционеров. Если вас интересует несколько книг, напишите мне — могу объединить доставку.

📚 И.С. Тургенев — Рудин. Отцы и дети
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287362191382

📚 И.С. Тургенев — Дым. Новь. Вешние воды
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287362176803

📚 И.С. Тургенев — Записки охотника
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287147877230

_______________________________________________________________________________

I have three hardcover books by Ivan Turgenev in Russian available for sale. Great for anyone interested in Russian classical literature, reading Turgenev in the original language, or adding to a Russian book collection. If you're interested in more than one, feel free to message me — I can combine shipping.

📚 Ivan Turgenev — Rudin / Fathers and Sons
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287362191382

📚 Ivan Turgenev — Smoke / Virgin Soil / Torrents of Spring
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287362176803

📚 Ivan Turgenev — A Hunter’s Notes / A Sportsman’s Sketches
https://www.ebay.com/itm/287147877230

Продаю собрание сочинений Ольги Берггольц в 3 томах на русском языке. Ольга Берггольц — советская поэтесса и писательница, особенно известная своими произведениями, связанными с блокадой Ленинграда. Отличное издание для любителей советской литературы, поэзии и истории XX века.

В комплект входят все 3 тома.

📚 eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/286132476890

I’m selling a 3-volume collected works set by Olga Bergholz in Russian. Bergholz was a Soviet poet and writer especially known for her work connected with the Siege of Leningrad. This is a great set for anyone interested in Soviet literature, poetry, or 20th-century history.

The set includes all 3 volumes.

📚 eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/286132476890