# Reading > General Literature >  What Dostoevsky works should I read next?

## DystopianGypsy

Hello,

Ive only posted a few times on this forum, although Ive been lurking my through different threads for weeks. Im a literary enthusiast, and I dabble in all genres. Recently I just read a Dostoevsky short story, White Nights.

It was one of the best pieces of literature Ive ever read. I didnt know what love was until I read it, and it changed me as person, because of how much it taught me. It was a really hard read, but it was worth the struggle. Now, Im very eager to read more of his works.

Where should I go next? Id appreciate any suggestions or thoughts.

----------


## Charles Darnay

_White Nights_ is a wonderful, and underrated, story.

If you haven't read any of his novels and a looking to get into them - I recommend _The Idiot_ as a good starting point. _Brothers Karamazov_ is incredible - but requires patience and interest in philosophic materials.

For a good short story along the lines of _White Nights_ - _A Tale of A Ridiculous Man_ is a good one.

----------


## osho

If you have the patience and time it is of course the Brothers Karamazov I suggest. This is one of choicest novels, the best among the bests and in terms of philosophy, literary style and narration. From some perspective I find this book the most appealing and I could not find a single page in this book where I came upon a dull and boring stuff. I have read two times and each reading was a new experience. Dostoevsky is indeed a rare writer and he had us traversed such literary distances and expanses that nobody ends up in it without going through transformations. No writer has taught me some deeper truths in life than him.

----------


## Jassy Melson

I agree with Charles Darnay--a good next story to read would be The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. Then read Notes from Underground; then The Brothers Karamazov.

----------


## Jassy Melson

> If you have the patience and time it is of course the Brothers Karamazov I suggest. This is one of choicest novels, the best among the bests and in terms of philosophy, literary style and narration. From some perspective I find this book the most appealing and I could not find a single page in this book where I came upon a dull and boring stuff. I have read two times and each reading was a new experience. Dostoevsky is indeed a rare writer and he had us traversed such literary distances and expanses that nobody ends up in it without going through transformations. No writer has taught me some deeper truths in life than him.


Truer words were never spoken. I remember when I read my first work by Dostoevsky--Notes from Underground. It was like a bolt of lightning had struck me. It woke me up; it actually changed me in that it changed my perception; indeed, even my consciousness. There is only one other novelist that approaches Dostoevsky, and that is Tolstoy.

----------


## Charles Darnay

Huh, it is _Dream of A Ridiculous Man_ - my bad.

----------


## osho

> Truer words were never spoken. I remember when I read my first work by Dostoevsky--Notes from Underground. It was like a bolt of lightning had struck me. It woke me up; it actually changed me in that it changed my perception; indeed, even my consciousness. There is only one other novelist that approaches Dostoevsky, and that is Tolstoy.


I second you and my mind was whirling when I started reading Notes from Underground and I withdrew the reading thinking I am not mature enough to read it and I have to evolve my mind. Maybe after a year or a couple of years I will revisit this great treasure of literature. I am really thrilled to know that there is someone who felt something I felt.

----------


## cafolini

> _White Nights_ is a wonderful, and underrated, story.
> 
> If you haven't read any of his novels and a looking to get into them - I recommend _The Idiot_ as a good starting point. _Brothers Karamazov_ is incredible - but requires patience and interest in philosophic materials.
> 
> For a good short story along the lines of _White Nights_ - _A Tale of A Ridiculous Man_ is a good one.


I agree except for the philosophical. I don't think Dostoevski was philosophical, although many tried to categorize him as an existentialist but they failed miserably. It is true that he wrote out about the psychological, but his department was free from deductive and philosophical idiots from the philosophy department. And Brothers was probably a very scientific description that inspired hundreds of the most avantgarde writers, including Carlos Fuentes in The Death of Artemio Cruz.
For me, Brothers was a very straight forward, easy read. Of course, some thinking was required to arcertain intentions.
Philosophy departments are specialists in confusion. When they teach you Plato, for example, they do not say he was a Syracusan and that Socrates never put a foot in Arthens and was a result of a mental invasion of Pericles's Greece when the latter made the desperate mistake of running away from Sparta and invading Syracuse to establish a new trirreme empire. Thales never walked the streets of Athens, and neither did Pythagoras. What about Zeno and BS paradox?
Philosophy was finally instituted in Greece by the Roman conquest and for the Roman conquest. The golden age of Athenian democracy was not philosophical. It was strictly scientific.

----------


## WyattGwyon

As a first novel I would recommend _Crime and Punishment_. It will immediately take over your consciousness like a fever delirium. I think it hits more viscerally than the others and the effect is even stronger if one reads it first. 

For shorter fiction I would recommend the novella _The Double_, which is early and experimental, but about as far "out there" as this author gets.

----------


## kidstone

'The Dream of a Ridiculous Man' is an incredible short story, and 'The Brothers Karamozov' is among the best novels ever written.

----------


## Delarge

> As a first novel I would recommend _Crime and Punishment_. It will immediately take over your consciousness like a fever delirium. I think it hits more viscerally than the others and the effect is even stronger if one reads it first. 
> 
> For shorter fiction I would recommend the novella _The Double_, which is early and experimental, but about as far "out there" as this author gets.


Couldn't agree more. _Crime and Punishment_ really forces you to look into parts of your mind you might not even know exists. The question "is it wrong to kill another human being" was strangely difficult to answer. 

I think Crime _and Punishment_ is a great place to start together with _Notes from Underground_. _The Idiot_ is somewhat slow-paced and to me had a few boring parts (though I loved it nonetheless and Rogoshin has to be my favorite dostojevskijan character). 
I think _Brothers Karamozov_ is by leagues the best of Dostojevskijs works, but not as ascessible as _Crime and Punishment_. 

_The Possessed_ is definately worth a read aswell, especially if you are interested in nihilistic/revolutionary philosophy.

----------


## Charles Darnay

I never understood the great love for _Crime and Punishment_. I didn't hate it, but it never really drew me in. I think _Notes From Underground_ and _The Possessed_ both deal with the issue of a tormented soul and twisted morality far better than _Crime and Punishment_.

_The Idiot_ may be slow-paced at some parts, but it is such a beautiful story, with incredible characters.

----------


## Idril

My vote would be for _The Possessed_. It's an investment in time and energy but I found it to be well worth the effort.

----------


## Adolescent09

> My vote would be for _The Possessed_. It's an investment in time and energy but I found it to be well worth the effort.


Shhhh everybody. Idril doesn't know it but she is the one who inspired me to read "The Idiot" years ago. I'm glad I did  :Smile:

----------


## hack

Notes from the Underground was my introduction to Dostoevsky. I agree with Jassy. It changed the way I think about everything I have read since.

----------


## osho

> I agree except for the philosophical. I don't think Dostoevski was philosophical, although many tried to categorize him as an existentialist but they failed miserably. It is true that he wrote out about the psychological, but his department was free from deductive and philosophical idiots from the philosophy department. And Brothers was probably a very scientific description that inspired hundreds of the most avantgarde writers, including Carlos Fuentes in The Death of Artemio Cruz.
> For me, Brothers was a very straight forward, easy read. Of course, some thinking was required to arcertain intentions.
> Philosophy departments are specialists in confusion. When they teach you Plato, for example, they do not say he was a Syracusan and that Socrates never put a foot in Arthens and was a result of a mental invasion of Pericles's Greece when the latter made the desperate mistake of running away from Sparta and invading Syracuse to establish a new trirreme empire. Thales never walked the streets of Athens, and neither did Pythagoras. What about Zeno and BS paradox?
> Philosophy was finally instituted in Greece by the Roman conquest and for the Roman conquest. The golden age of Athenian democracy was not philosophical. It was strictly scientific.


That is your understanding of Dostoevsky. If you observe him from only from a lens of your knowledge you cannot see some other dimensions of him . No other than Sartre himself considered him to be a precursor of existential philosophy. 

The other great thinker was Friedrich Nietzsche who saw in him great philosophical thoughts. Your arguments that Philosophy departments are specialists in confusion is unconvincing and baseless. If you start redefining what philosophy is and what it is not you will be singled out. There had been great discussions, arguments and voluminous treatises were written over the topic and now you want to take a different route and of course you can but I find it simply unpersuasive and wanting reading or understanding this great writer

----------


## Idril

> Shhhh everybody. Idril doesn't know it but she is the one who inspired me to read "The Idiot" years ago. I'm glad I did


Really? I'm curious what I said that made you want to read it. I have very complicated feelings about that book, it's absolutely brilliant and I feel like it should be read but it's so heavy and depressing, I usually stop just short of actually recommending it.  :Wink:

----------


## ashulman

I did the Brothers first and its my favorite, although if you want shorter works, Notes from Underground is a good next step

----------


## WyattGwyon

> I never understood the great love for _Crime and Punishment_. . . I think _Notes From Underground_ and _The Possessed_ both deal with the issue of a tormented soul and twisted morality far better than _Crime and Punishment_.


What was relevant to my recommendation of _C&P_ is not the way the way the novel deals with tormented and twisted souls, but the way it forces the reader to deal with them. Unlike Stavrogin and Verkhovensky, Raskolnikov is a wholly sympathetic (well, almost) character—except for that little thing about killing people with a hatchet—so that the reader finds it easy and desirable to identify with him and to pull for him in his various dilemmas, whereas the above-mentioned characters from _The Possessed_ tend to inspire loathing and disgust. The experience of identifying strongly with and taking the side of a hatchet murderer is instructive in a number of ways, including as a guide to what is central to Dostoyevsky's characterizations. 

By the way, I love all of the novels, some more than C&P and the basis of my recommendation wasn't my personal tastes or my judgment of relative quality, but rather, which one gives a quintessential experience of the author's poetics, one that I suspect might be most striking to the uninitiated—obviously a subjective judgment on my part.

----------


## Gladys

> Recently I just read a Dostoevsky short story, White Nights...I didn’t know what love was until I read it, and it changed me as person, because of how much it taught me.


If Dostoevsky's treatment of _love_ has impressed you, _The Idiot_ is a superlative choice, with _love_ as its focus. 




> I have very complicated feelings about that book, it's absolutely brilliant and I feel like it should be read but it's so heavy and depressing, I usually stop just short of actually recommending it.


It's a matter of interpretation.  :Smile5:  For me, no book has a more positive ending, and _The Idiot_ never approaches the unabated grimness of _Crime and Punishment_. Australia's Nobel prize winning novelist Patrick White, in both _The Aunt's Story_ and _The Solid Mandala_, ends with the protagonist consigned to an asylum. The ending of the first is happy, the second euphoric!

I'm halfway through _The Possessed_.

----------


## Darcy88

You should read Notes from the Underground. That book will will blow your mind. The final part is perhaps the most intense bit of literature I've ever encountered.

----------


## mal4mac

> I think Crime _and Punishment_ is a great place to start together with _Notes from Underground_. _The Idiot_ is somewhat slow-paced and to me had a few boring parts... I think _Brothers Karamozov_ is by leagues the best of Dostojevskijs works...


I agree with this. I also found "the Idiot" a bit slow ( "the Devils" as well....) Dostoevsky is so dark and heavy that I'd intersperse his works with others, for light relief (even Tolstoy would be light relief!) Try Chekhov and Dickens as well, Dostoevsky loved Dickens, and Chekhov's short stories are great....

----------


## Paulclem

I read Crime and Punishment first. I found it a claustrophobic and intense read - not a pleasurable one, but the way he evokes Raskalnikov's mindset in the coffin shaped room is excellent. 

I recently read, and preferred, House of the Dead about the prison camps in Tsarist Russia. It is a surprising read in many ways with a great evocation of camp life and the characters within. It is written thematically rather than chronologically and builds your awareness of the environment through the novel.

----------


## Jassy Melson

I find it interesting that none of the posters deny that Dostoevsky is one of the gretest novelists who has ever written. His explorations into the mind and spirit are unparalled in world literature. That's the thing that moved me and changed me when I first read Dostoevsky. I felt as though he was talking to me. He touched my mind, my soul; indeed my whole being. It was as if someone had tapped me on my chest and said I know what you're going through; well, I'm telling your and my story at the same time I'm creating this immortal work of literature.

----------


## Paulclem

> I find it interesting that none of the posters deny that Dostoevsky is one of the gretest novelists who has ever written. His explorations into the mind and spirit are unparalled in world literature. That's the thing that moved me and changed me when I first read Dostoevsky. I felt as though he was talking to me. He touched my mind, my soul; indeed my whole being. It was as if someone had tapped me on my chest and said I know what you're going through; well, I'm telling your and my story at the same time I'm creating this immortal work of literature.


I'm not sure where he comes in the top 100 list. He's certainly an author I'll keep returning to. I'll reserve judgment until I've read a good many more.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> I'm not sure where he comes in the top 100 list. He's certainly an author I'll keep returning to. I'll reserve judgment until I've read a good many more.


This best describes my current feeling. I've read _Notes From Underground_ TBK and _The Idiot_ one pass for each and I must give the edge to _The Idiot_. But again, that's based on one read each not sufficient for my level of comprehension so return I must.

----------


## Paulclem

> This best describes my current feeling. I've read _Notes From Underground_ TBK and _The Idiot_ one pass for each and I must give the edge to _The Idiot_. But again, that's based on one read each not sufficient for my level of comprehension so return I must.


I'm trying to decide which one to read next. I'll go for The Idiot. I've just downloaded 4 books to read, so it'll be in a month or two.

----------


## AuntShecky

_Crime and Punishment_ was the first novel by Dostoyevsky that I read, decades ago, but I wasn't all that young, even then.

"The Grand Inquisitor" -- an excerpt from _The Brothers Karamozov_ is one of those rare works which can withstand multiple readings. It has a kind of mystical power that affects me each time I read it. When I read the entire novel, I found myself filling a notebook up with quotations and notes. (Not every book I read inspires me to do that.) 

There are some critical guides out there and literary essays that can give you an idea of where to start much better than I can. Just recently I read a solid essay about Joseph Frank, Dostoyevsky's literary biographer. The essay, appearing in _Consider the Lobster_ by David Foster Wallace seems to me would serve as a good overall view.

----------


## Paulclem

I intend to read both The Idiot and The Brothers Karamozov. I've been looking at his books for a while trying to decide which to read next.

----------


## mal4mac

> I intend to read both The Idiot and The Brothers Karamozov. I've been looking at his books for a while trying to decide which to read next.


I would recommend The Brothers Karamozov (or anything else!) Any surface description of "The Idiot" make it sound appealing, but I found it rather disappointing. I found it a rather tedious "social merry-go-round" novel, like Dickens without the humour or energy. For me, it was lacking the in-depth soul searching and "big ideas" that Dostoevsky is famous for.

----------


## Jassy Melson

Dostoevsky, like any writer, had his ups and downs. I think we can all agree that some of his novels are better than others. He died in his sixties. It would have been interesting if he had lived longer to see what he would have written. It would be very difficult to top The Brothers Karamazov, but if anyone could have done it, Dostoevsky could have.

----------


## mal4mac

> Dostoevsky, like any writer, had his ups and downs. I think we can all agree that some of his novels are better than others. He died in his sixties. It would have been interesting if he had lived longer to see what he would have written. It would be very difficult to top The Brothers Karamazov, but if anyone could have done it, Dostoevsky could have.


I find him more variable than Tolstoy & Dickens; although I think his summits are up with theirs, if on the bleak side of the range.

After the sixties, I suggest, you are unlikely to produce any great works, but might go batty (like Tolstoy...) So Dostoevsky died at a good age!

Tolstoy had completed W&P and AK before he reached 60. Does anyone know of an author who produced his greatest masterpiece after 60? Dickens died at 58. George Eliot produced Middlemarch at the age of 51, and died at 61. These are some of my contenders for "writers of the greatest work", but if you check out your favourites I'd be surprised if anyone was over 60 (Hardy stopped writing novels early, Joyce produced Ulysses when still quite young, Shakespeare retired in his fifties, and his best work was well behind him...)

----------


## Paulclem

> I would recommend The Brothers Karamozov (or anything else!) Any surface description of "The Idiot" make it sound appealing, but I found it rather disappointing. I found it a rather tedious "social merry-go-round" novel, like Dickens without the humour or energy. For me, it was lacking the in-depth soul searching and "big ideas" that Dostoevsky is famous for.


I had downloaded The Idiot before your recommendation. I'll be reading The Brothers later though.

----------


## Gladys

> Any surface description of "The Idiot" make it sound appealing, but I found it rather disappointing. I found it a rather tedious "social merry-go-round" novel, like Dickens without the humour or energy. For me, it was lacking the in-depth soul searching and "big ideas" that Dostoevsky is famous for.


_The Idiot_ deals with the biggest idea of all: what it means to love. Prince Myshkin engages in in-depth soul searching from the first page to the last. Your "social merry-go-round" well expresses the perspective of Petersberg society but not that of the prince. Much of the humour, and there's plenty, stems from his singular perspective.

For me, there isn't a better novel.

----------


## sm123

> I find him more variable than Tolstoy & Dickens; although I think his summits are up with theirs, if on the bleak side of the range.
> 
> After the sixties, I suggest, you are unlikely to produce any great works, but might go batty (like Tolstoy...) So Dostoevsky died at a good age!
> 
> Tolstoy had completed W&P and AK before he reached 60. Does anyone know of an author who produced his greatest masterpiece after 60? Dickens died at 58. George Eliot produced Middlemarch at the age of 51, and died at 61. These are some of my contenders for "writers of the greatest work", but if you check out your favourites I'd be surprised if anyone was over 60 (Hardy stopped writing novels early, Joyce produced Ulysses when still quite young, Shakespeare retired in his fifties, and his best work was well behind him...)


Sophocles wrote Oedipus at Colonus, and quite possibly Antigone (I've heard this but can't seem to find a credible source) near the end of his very long life, even using it as his defence against his son's claim of dementia. These two works make up 2/3rds of his most famous trilogy, and contain some of his most complex story lines. That's the example that jumped out at me, but I am sure that if you look into it, many prolific and talented writers continued to create masterpieces well past their sixties. Old age doesn't necessarily mean "battiness." Who knows how Dostoevsky would have changed with age.

----------

