What sort of cultural points might be missed on a non-Russian person reading Dostoevsky? I just finished Crime and Punishment a couple months back and am curious, if you have the time.

Not that guy, but, Dostoevsky is pretty frequently referencing thinkers and cultural currents that were important in Russia at the time he was writing, and there are references like the "yellow card" and "ordinary paper" that are just totally opaque unless someone explains them to you.

I'd be curious too. I read Crime and Punishment, Notes from Underground, The Double, and other short stories—and I found them to make quite a bit of sense.

I didn't get the sense that I'd extracted everything from "The Grand Inquisitor" (excerpt from The Brothers Karamazov), but I got the feeling it was just because it was more deep and compact, but would yield fruit with further study (even as an American).

GEB (Hofstadter's book) has a chapter about exactly this. Using Crime and Punishment as an example it is shown how different translations struggle with the lack of context.

Haha—this is the first thing I've heard about GEB in years that makes me again somewhat interested in reading it. There was a point when I was a teenager where it seemed like probably the most interesting book on the planet, and I'd read a decent bit of it then; but years later—after studying a bunch of math, CS, and philosophy stuff—when I'd consider reading it there just didn't appear to be enough new meaty stuff of interest (though it still looks like an enjoyable packaging of many already familiar things). I also disagree fundamentally with the possibility of a material 'strange loop' resulting in another ontological category, so I feel like I'd be missing drive to reach the conclusion.

I'd be curious to hear any opinions on GEB by those with decently strong math, cs, and/or philosophy backgrounds—might it still be worth reading? (I mean it's damn long...)

If you are interested in the context analysis in Crime and Punishment then you can read just those few pages. He goes over just the first couple sentences of the book if I recall correctly. It's not an explanation of the context for the entire book by any means but an example of how much context could be needed to read a simple sentence.

His essay about machine translation is quite illustrative of the issues of cultural context as well. Even the best translations lose a substantial chunk of meaning, because it’s often not just what the author said, but also how he said it, which particular words were used, and subtle other meanings and gradations attached to that particular choice of words (and, in Russian, the word order as well).

When I was growing up I read a ton of sci-fi. One of my favorite works is “Stranger in a strange land” by Robert Heinlein. I had two different translations of it. One was good, another one was a turd, and neither came anywhere close to living in the US for 15 years and _then_ re-reading the book in its original form. And that’s sci-fi, a relatively “shallow” literary genre.

Indeed, while a separate issue from cultural context of 19th century Russian literature, translation is a literary genre by itself. I also noticed that Americans are generally unaware of this. Not that I'd blame them. I wouldn't care about translation myself if I had been a native English speaker and enjoyed immediate access to the enourmous body of English literature :)

ah shit. i also read C&P last year and GEB is on my shelf untouched. welp now i’m obligated...

I mean not to get all postmodern on you but I would argue most media stands alone to be interpreted. You can enhance or color a work by knowing factual and historical details but humans are pretty good at finding meaning in almost anything. Sometimes I think the less an object has on the surface the more we take it as a challenge to inscribe the thing with meaning.

On balance I think that's creativity in a nutshell and a good thing, though it can be taken to socially obnoxious lengths. The best kinds of "misreading" are where new and interesting ideas are born rather than just your run of the mill internet contrarianism. But the former type of creativity usually requires a kind of foresight and conviction we save for our revered term "artist."

> As a Russian, I don’t understand how Americans can “get into” Dostoevsky or Tolstoy. The cultural background required to understand them is simply not there, so you’re getting maybe 50% of what’s there, and that’s an optimistic estimate.

I'm from Pakistan, and I've adored everything I've read so far of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. I don't think you need so much cultural background to "get into" either author. In fact, part of why I enjoyed War & Peace and Anna Karenina so much is precisely because of the uncanny parallels between 19th century Russian aristocrats and modern Pakistani society. As just one example, the view of French as a more modern, cultured language vs Russian parallels how English is viewed in Pakistan.

I'm sure I must have missed out on some cultural context. But I would say I missed perhaps 10% of what's in the books, not 50% :)

I'm actually reading Crime and Punishment now, and the edition I'm reading has pretty frequent footnotes explaining all the Russian cultural references. But really, it goes beyond being Russian, doesn't it? You'd miss stuff if you weren't very familiar with the Bible, or by virtue of the fact that the Imperial Russian system it's set in no longer exists, or if you hadn't read Hugo or Pushkin, or a million other things. I'm not sure anybody catches everything casually reading the book, or even through years of study.

Hemingway himself considered himself pretty influenced by Russian authors. It's often speculated that his terse writing was in part influenced by Constance Garnett's translations of them.

I am Indian. You're right, one can never experience Russian literature in a way that a Russian does. But there are quite similarities in cultures shaped by religion because there are similarities in religion.

Please don’t take this as a put down or anything. I’m sure much of the meaning in Indian literature is culturally inaccessible to me as well. The problem is 100% symmetrical, one just needs to be aware of it.

> I have not found an American novelist who would be anywhere near Dostoevsky or Tolstoy.

I haven't found any Europeans either. Of course all this is art, thus a matter of personal perception, but D. and T. are the best authors I've came across so far.

I find the depth of D's characters breathtaking.

You are not the first Russian I have heard say that about Dostoevsky.

That’s because Russians themselves find it difficult to fully contextualize Dostoevsky. A couple hundred years from now they may not be able to do so at all, and the full depth will become inaccessible to anybody other than historians of the period in which Dostoevsky lived. Russia is still similar enough to that so a Russian of today can fill in the gaps as she reads the books. Not just what happened, that part is trivial, but how the characters really _felt_.

People still read Shakespeare, whose world was even more remote from the one that English speakers live in today. Heck, they read Homer and Virgil and Ovid.

American here. I could never "get into" American novelists like Hemingway and Steinbeck because I found their characters unrelatably thin automatons whereas Tolstoy's and Dostoevsky's characters are recognizably and deeply human. The only other English writer I have found who comes close is Graham Greene. I find it odd to think the socio-cultural understanding of a native is required to "get" the works of foreign authors as I consider such things ancillary to the point of art, which is to reveal what either cannot be or is insufficiently explained by direct language. I read to be able to get inside the minds of others and see what human existence is like in a way that is impossible from IRL interaction, not to imbibe the works as a socio-cultural commentary or to "deconstruct" them into the foundations for my own philosophical/political arguments/ramblings/delusions.

I don’t know man, I was poor myself at one point, and I’ve found Steinbeck’s characters to be very 3D and relatable. Grapes of Wrath is more like an impressionist painting. He doesn’t draw every detail, you’re supposed to transport yourself there and live it. If it helps, I have listened to The Grapes of Wrath as an audiobook, and I’ve found the version that Audible carries to be excellently narrated.

But you’re right, old school Russian writers did deliver character development in spades. Maybe at times a little too much, as in the case of Tolstoy. Though I suspect it was in part so that the reader still has something to hold onto as the story progresses, because characters sometimes disappear for a while.

> I could never "get into" American novelists like Hemingway and Steinbeck because I found their characters unrelatably thin automatons ...

I pretty much agree with you on Hemingway, and maybe there are examples in Steinbeck's work, but at least in his case I can say that most of what I've read had a pretty high degree of realism and profundity. Maybe check out 'Winter of our Discontent' if you'd like another sample.