Well done, now do it from the mean old ladies perspective. Lol. Bravo. Not everyone will get it, what you did here, what it can expand to but I am here for it. This was great. Keep going.
Please do Anna Karenina but make her polyamorous, practicing soft parenting and nested coparenting with her two partners. She’s having whatever health thing is trending (self-diagnosed autism, ADHD, ticks or perimenopause) and is using it as an excuse to destroy her life and those of everyone around her instead of realizing she just needs to get off tik tok. You have endless choices as to what kills her in the end (a facelift gone wrong, a murderous match on Tindr, her smart fridge). What fun!
OMG, clearly I can't stop thinking about this. The Idiot is my favorite. Also perfect for a re-do as a polycule where Prince Mushkin is a softboy wellness influencer, Rogozhin is a Twitch streamer who is rich and never sleeps, and Natasha is a messy internet hot girl. UGGGGHH!!! (I love it)
I got a little scared you were talking about me for a second Amy. 40, ADHD, gentle parenting my Autistic child, perimenopause, enjoyer of tik tok. If only I had the power to destroy lives I could be your girl. 😊
I'm just saying (like the original post) that without the historical context, modern readers sometimes mistake the intentions of the Russian Greats and take the main characters as heroes rather than what the authors meant: somewhere on the scale of a cautionary tale to complete fool, depending on how empathetic you are and whether your views are more traditional or conservative during times of societal change.
Both our man Dostoevsky and Count Tolstoy were social conservatives (at least by the time they wrote the pieces we all read) and were arguing to varying degrees for a maintenance of traditional Russian values in the face of an onslaught of outside (Western) ideas that they viewed as corrupting the youth.
In T's case, he thought that the newfangled notion of marrying for romantic love was misleading women (who didn't have the capacity to think for themselves anyway) into disastrous ruin, potentially taking society down with it. The train that hits Anna was a powerful symbol of modernity of at the time of writing, and him using it to run her over in the end was a pretty on-the-nose metaphor. But for modern readers, romantic love and trains, for example, carry completely different connotations and don't strike anyone as "new" or potential disruptors to the family structure and society. The analogies today would be something along the lines of poly and deep-plane facelifts told from the view of someone who was not necessarily sympathetic toward those ideas.
In D's case, it was mostly political thought, emerging formalization of the field of psychology and philosophical stuff, like whether we can really have free will and how to find a system that actually provides "justice" in society (he was clearly often working through his feelings toward the traditional Russian penal system, which affected him profoundly, and he was not sold on the then-new idea of "trial by jury" too). In most cases, he was reading all of the new ideas and exploring them with a healthy dose of skepticism in his novels, while still arguing we need to find a way that embraces traditional Russian values but helps us navigate the harsh realities of modern life, especially the squalid urban settings in which many of his novels were set. Where is the line? How do we find the right balance? Can we be aware of these ideas without letting them infect our brains and cause violence (a good question again for the internet age!) But these days, folks read The Brother's K or and the jury trial part just doesn't even register as a "new" idea that was radical or that the youths' ideas might "kill the father." People read C&P and don't realize that half the point is that this dude killed someone because he was "influenced by the media" -- in their day, reading books and pamphlets by Western philosophers posing proto-existentialism and psychology. In our day, it would be something more like internet radicalization of young men. Still slaps!
Just as the OP was saying that the Underground Man doesn't read as clearly to modern audiences as someone D was painting as a foolish neckbeard, Anna K doesn't always read as someone that T thought was a ... pardon me ... dumb bitch eating up ideas sold to her by men for their own advantage.
In the Underground Man's case, I say, let's expose him for who he is. Because I can no longer take the irony of these keyboard warriors holding him up as a hero when they are exactly the kind of armchair philosophers D was trying to roast.
But -- in Anna K's case, maybe we should just leave her alone already and let her be the new version of herself. For so many years, there were no literary characters for women to identify with anyway, it's not surprising (and perhaps a radical takeover!) that we might remake her in our own image and give her a new legacy. (Just as everyone should probably leave you and whatever you're doing in your life alone too! lol)
Brilliant! I’d love to read more proper translations. The main thing that has kept me from diving down a Russian classics rabbit hole has been good translations. I don’t know any Russian but I know a bad translation when I see one, and most Eastern European classics are very badly translated. Kafka’s Metamorphosis is a perfect example, the most popular translations are an awful read that leave you thinking the books are rubbish. Very sad.
Love these kinds of corrections to the popular narrative.
This made my day, thank you
brilliant and much-needed
Well done, now do it from the mean old ladies perspective. Lol. Bravo. Not everyone will get it, what you did here, what it can expand to but I am here for it. This was great. Keep going.
Oof feels like a lot of folks around the internet nowadays. Add crypto libertarianism.
more please
Dostoposting reaches its apotheosis
Artfully done
Awesome! Notes from Underground is one of my favorites. He totally feels like someone who would post some weird manifesto at 3 am. Perfect.
Please do Anna Karenina but make her polyamorous, practicing soft parenting and nested coparenting with her two partners. She’s having whatever health thing is trending (self-diagnosed autism, ADHD, ticks or perimenopause) and is using it as an excuse to destroy her life and those of everyone around her instead of realizing she just needs to get off tik tok. You have endless choices as to what kills her in the end (a facelift gone wrong, a murderous match on Tindr, her smart fridge). What fun!
Last thought before she dies, “I should have been a tradwife.”
OMG, clearly I can't stop thinking about this. The Idiot is my favorite. Also perfect for a re-do as a polycule where Prince Mushkin is a softboy wellness influencer, Rogozhin is a Twitch streamer who is rich and never sleeps, and Natasha is a messy internet hot girl. UGGGGHH!!! (I love it)
I got a little scared you were talking about me for a second Amy. 40, ADHD, gentle parenting my Autistic child, perimenopause, enjoyer of tik tok. If only I had the power to destroy lives I could be your girl. 😊
Haha no judgment on my part. Get it, girl.
I'm just saying (like the original post) that without the historical context, modern readers sometimes mistake the intentions of the Russian Greats and take the main characters as heroes rather than what the authors meant: somewhere on the scale of a cautionary tale to complete fool, depending on how empathetic you are and whether your views are more traditional or conservative during times of societal change.
Both our man Dostoevsky and Count Tolstoy were social conservatives (at least by the time they wrote the pieces we all read) and were arguing to varying degrees for a maintenance of traditional Russian values in the face of an onslaught of outside (Western) ideas that they viewed as corrupting the youth.
In T's case, he thought that the newfangled notion of marrying for romantic love was misleading women (who didn't have the capacity to think for themselves anyway) into disastrous ruin, potentially taking society down with it. The train that hits Anna was a powerful symbol of modernity of at the time of writing, and him using it to run her over in the end was a pretty on-the-nose metaphor. But for modern readers, romantic love and trains, for example, carry completely different connotations and don't strike anyone as "new" or potential disruptors to the family structure and society. The analogies today would be something along the lines of poly and deep-plane facelifts told from the view of someone who was not necessarily sympathetic toward those ideas.
In D's case, it was mostly political thought, emerging formalization of the field of psychology and philosophical stuff, like whether we can really have free will and how to find a system that actually provides "justice" in society (he was clearly often working through his feelings toward the traditional Russian penal system, which affected him profoundly, and he was not sold on the then-new idea of "trial by jury" too). In most cases, he was reading all of the new ideas and exploring them with a healthy dose of skepticism in his novels, while still arguing we need to find a way that embraces traditional Russian values but helps us navigate the harsh realities of modern life, especially the squalid urban settings in which many of his novels were set. Where is the line? How do we find the right balance? Can we be aware of these ideas without letting them infect our brains and cause violence (a good question again for the internet age!) But these days, folks read The Brother's K or and the jury trial part just doesn't even register as a "new" idea that was radical or that the youths' ideas might "kill the father." People read C&P and don't realize that half the point is that this dude killed someone because he was "influenced by the media" -- in their day, reading books and pamphlets by Western philosophers posing proto-existentialism and psychology. In our day, it would be something more like internet radicalization of young men. Still slaps!
Just as the OP was saying that the Underground Man doesn't read as clearly to modern audiences as someone D was painting as a foolish neckbeard, Anna K doesn't always read as someone that T thought was a ... pardon me ... dumb bitch eating up ideas sold to her by men for their own advantage.
In the Underground Man's case, I say, let's expose him for who he is. Because I can no longer take the irony of these keyboard warriors holding him up as a hero when they are exactly the kind of armchair philosophers D was trying to roast.
But -- in Anna K's case, maybe we should just leave her alone already and let her be the new version of herself. For so many years, there were no literary characters for women to identify with anyway, it's not surprising (and perhaps a radical takeover!) that we might remake her in our own image and give her a new legacy. (Just as everyone should probably leave you and whatever you're doing in your life alone too! lol)
Brava
love it; can’t wait for chapter 2
a while since ive been on substack and this is the first thing ive read. thanks vanya!
(I'm always plagued with bad timing, I noted)
Thank you, Vanya.
PS would need to re-read the original. after I finish 'the Deletes Scenes" (and ten other books. ).
lol makes me glad I haven’t read it yet and if I do will make sure to find a good translation.
not trying to be humble or anything but... you have already found one! the only problem is I'll probably finish it in a year
ahhhhh that is incredibly exciting 🤩
Brilliant! I’d love to read more proper translations. The main thing that has kept me from diving down a Russian classics rabbit hole has been good translations. I don’t know any Russian but I know a bad translation when I see one, and most Eastern European classics are very badly translated. Kafka’s Metamorphosis is a perfect example, the most popular translations are an awful read that leave you thinking the books are rubbish. Very sad.
Wow ...this was really good read