Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/Archive 4

Criticism
Hello,

User:Alcmaeonid put a large section about Nabokov's critique in the criticism section. I would like to hear suggestions from the 300+ watchers. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems undue to me to include a large criticism section that focuses on the views of a single critic. Perhaps an additional couple of sentences in the Legacy section, where views on his writings are included, would be better. --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 different writers/critics are represented in the section. Nabokov, as probably the most preeminent of recent Russian literary figures, deserves & gets some detailed explication. (As a world class novelist and native speaker of Russian, he occupies as special place in English-speaking Russian criticism.) This provides some balance to the extensive Legacy section that, as I said above, reads like hagiography. Doesn't appear Undue to me. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than a separate section, it would be better to put both the positive and negative views of his work into a single section. A heading like "Criticism" should not be in a blp (the criticism is about Dostoyevsky as a writer not about the person Dostoyevsky). --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you don't mean blp but granting that, where does this constraint about "criticism" appear? I have to disagree with your assessment that these are critiques on D. as a person. They (barring the recent entry which was placed there to be inflammatory) are literary criticisms. Actually I originally put the critique in the Legacy section but the above editor stated that criticisms don't belong there (where that comes from he doesn't say - seems to be a personal preference). I'm flexible on this. My original concern was and remains simply balance. All witers, even the greats, have met with critique. The reader needs to have these available as well as the kudos. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant biography. Sorry about that. You've misread my comment above. I'm saying that these are criticisms about dostoyevsky as a writer not of the person. Therefore, a section titled "Criticism" makes no sense in an article on the writer (it might in an article titled "The writings of Dostoyevsky" or some such place) . My suggestion is that this be included in the legacy section where opinions of his writing, both positive as well as negative, can be appropriately discussed and properly balanced. Perhaps GreatOrangePumpkin could explain why he believes that this material is inappropriate in that section? --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways of doing this. Jane Austen is a biography and discussion of her writing is interwoven throughout; after all this is a biography of a writer. The reception of her work is discussed several times, as  she was much praised, but there were times when she was criticized. Overall, she is considered "one of the most widely read writers in English literature. Her realism and biting social commentary have gained her historical importance among scholars and critics." MathewTownsend (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Criticism, in the conventional sense, does not mean a listing of negative views but rather should be a nuanced commentary on the writings and writing style and therefore should, as you suggest, be interwoven into the text. I looked at Honoré de Balzac as a model (it is an FA) and critical views, few though they are, are incorporated into the text of the Legacy section with appropriate nuance. That's what we should be seeing here as well. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for CE tag in Political stance section
—copied from my Talk page. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence: "Dostoyevsky believed in an utopian Christianized Russia, as he meant that 'not a single social question would come up'" is opaque and needs to be clarified.
 * "He viewed democracy as an ill-minded system, taking the French disinterest of society and the country's future state." What is meant by "ill-minded"? evil? deceitful? stupid? And what exactly is the connection with the French?
 * Regarding the quotation that starts with "lacking the instincts of the bee", where does the quote end?
 * ✅ all except first. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done until all concerns have been addressed. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What does this mean: "taking the French disinterest of society and the country's future state"? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced "taking" with "exemplifying"--Kürbis (✔) 19:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well, still what does it mean? Did the French have a disinterest "of society and the country's future state"? (Does the French disinterest refer to France or to Russia? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Removed the fuzzy French example & clarified the "Christianized Russia" sentence. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why exactly did you remove "exemplifying the French disinterest of society and the country's future state". Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Does the French disinterest refer to France or to Russia" What are you talking about? Your suggestion really does not make sense at all, as it is clear what country is meant. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well, I'm unaware that French people (in contrast to people of other nationalities) are known for having a "disinterest of society and the country's future state".  Specifically, what does "disinterest of society" mean? That the French are not interested in social events? And the meaning of "the country's future state" is that the French don't care what happens to Russia?  (Just seems unlikely to me; the French seem to care about such things, and Russia is rather close to them geographically.) (Ignore my comment if I'm not making sense - just don't understand what the French have to do with Dostoyevsky,s views. Was he particularly influenced by what the French thought?)  MathewTownsend (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are talking nonsense. Ever heard of the French Revolution in 1789? France was a very good example as they introduced democracy into their system.--Kürbis (✔) 10:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate tag. Could GOP's inability to grasp the problem here, be an ESL issue? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny that you say this even though you can not understand the following note: "This section may require copy editing for grammar, style & cohesion. You can assist by editing it. (September 2012)". It says "section" not a few sentence and "may" not "must". Post the issues here for the record. Thanks.--Kürbis (✔) 10:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just flabbergasted. And at my wits end with how to deal with you. After the whole issue was laid out, discussed, fixed, reverted, & etc., you have the temerity to ask for the issues to be laid out?! Again? And then make threats? I've come to the determination that you are no longer editing in good faith. I think you've got some serious ownership issues and it might be time for you to step back and take a critical look at your contentious behavior here. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Post the issues here, simple as that. --Tomcat (7) 10:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I give up. I have no stomach for edit wars. I guess a campaign of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors really works unless countered by aggressive concerted effort from several editors. Singly it just wears you down. You can keep your bungled prose. Good luck. You're going to need it. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you return then state which sentences should be corrected. It seems like I resolved all issues in this section. If not then state it here instead of writing like a smart ass. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tatar ancestry
Hello,

to avoid edit-warring let us discuss the current problem. It is about the sentence that Dostoyevsky's family may have had Tatar blood. Either though I cited two sources, both offline, they may be viewed as snippets. Let us take the Hingley 1978 biography Dostoevsky, his life and work as an example. It states: "The family name occurs fairly frequently from the sixteenth century onwards, and Tatar, Lithuanian, Belorussian and Polish connections have been established or suspected." The Lavrin book states (saddly my library won't open until the end of October) that Dostoyevky may have descended from a partial Tatar family. There is also a genealogical and heraldical site:. There it is written that the coat of arms of the ancient family Rtyshchev, ancestors of the Dostoyevskys, had a crescent and a hexagonal star, both indications for the Tatar ancestry. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any one interested in the backstory of this dispute can take a look here. As a compromise—even though speculations are not my cup of tea—I've added the substance of the Hingley reference to the section. That currently is the only independently verifiable source available. My opinion is that any interpretation of a coat-of-arms is going far afield and must necessarily fall under wp:or. Instead, it needs to be stated—unequivocally—in an accessible, written-in-English, reliable, secondary source. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why you always state OR. This information is written in the Dostoyevsky archives, and English sources are acceptable. Also your edition may be closely paraphrased. Also it already states that the Dostoyevskys were of multi-ethnical ancestry. And third, it does not really belong on this page. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK: I'll ask one final time: please provide—right here on the talk page—the book, page number and a quotation (in English) that supports the Tatar assertion. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to read what I actually wrote. I don't want to repeat. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's called evasion. I'm removing the sentence and ask one final time for you not to reinstate it until it is properly sourced. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to discuss what you add. Because of you, who suddenly edited this article, it failed the nomination. Post the issues here, simple as that. --Tomcat (7) 10:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't have the book as my library is closed at the moment. The other references state that the Dostoyevsky may had Tatar ancestry. The coat of arms is also a definitive statement.--Tomcat (7) 10:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting, but not surprising, to see your finger raised at me. I suppose your own intransigence and prickly collaboration skills directed at the first two reviewers, myself and others had nothing to do with it? What's apparent to me from the failure notice below, is that the article in very material ways is simply not up to snuff yet. I agree with Christine's assessment. (a telling excerpt: "other editors also ask you to correct basic English grammar errors and you refuse to do so".) You dismissed many of Christine's constructive criticisms and reverted her good faith efforts at CE for English. Then, minutes after its failure and without any further effort at improvement, you go and re-post the article for GA status. Wow. Good luck with that.

But getting to the point of this section. Can you be blind to the irony in your asking me to "post the issues here"? given the above history of this thread? Or could this simply be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?

For the record, as you say, I will lay the situation out once again in B&W: There are 4 references for the Tatar statement. I'll deal with them one by one.
 * 1) Lavrin 1947, p. 7. a search of the books finds no hits on 'tatar'
 * 2) Hingley 1978, p. 17. a search turns up this: "The family name occurs fairly frequently from the 16th century onwards, and Tatar, Lithuanian, Belorussian and Polish connections have been established or suspected." If you select only the tatar part of this sentence then that is wp:undue. What is your reason for including only "tatar" and not the others? I inserted this expanded information as a compromise a day or so ago, and you reverted it. Perplexing to say the least.
 * 3) Kjetsaa 1989, pp. 9–35. a search turns up no hits on 'tatar'.
 * 4) Frank 1979, pp. 6–22. a search again turns up no hits.

Joseph Frank, having spent three decades documenting D's life, is the definitive English language source here. In a full 6 volumes, the size of door-stoppers, not one mention is made of Tatar. That in itself should be enough to convince anyone that it's inclusion might be the pushing of some hidden adenda.

Putting the valid wp:or issue aside, the coat-of-arms—since there is no English language reference—is simply not in play. So there it is. The other references do not state that the Dostoyevsky may have had (strictly) Tatar ancestry. I'll stay my hand and await your reply. Please try to be specific and keep your answers genuine. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Kjetsaa and Frank biographies are sourcing the whole paragraph. However, as Christine made several changes, she moved the sentence to the end, three footnotes appeared at the end. This is now confusing for some people, this is one of several issues regarding her copyedit. The other reference clearly has this piece of information, and I can ensure you this is included in the Lavrin book. And I already state that he was of multi-ethnical descent. If you don't trust me, then please go to your library and borrow this book, do not stand to your false position. And not everything should be in English; either learn Russian or translate the content to English. The reference is from the Dostoyevsky archives so clearly reliable, and not really OR. If you raise the flag of Russia, you won't say it is Germany. Same applies here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit tag
Hello,

why not simply state the problems on this talk page rather than putting this tag? The article is read by approximately 2000 users per day. Now when they see this tag they lose their trust on Wikipedia. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, what looks worse is badly-written prose and inept sourcing. The purpose of tags like this is to inform readers that the current version is a draft, and that more work needs to be done to it.  I came upon this article because I was asked to do a GA review, which I admit has been slow due to real-life busyness, but the main editors have consistently refused to consider my feedback and/or not seemed to understand why I asked them to make basic corrections in English grammar.  Here's just one example: in my most recent copyedit, in the "Last years" section, I was unable to correct this sentence: He declined the invitation after his son Alyosha's death on 16 May, after an epileptic seizure that had lasted for two hours.  The original version's grammar makes it unclear who had the seizure, Dostoyevsky or his son, so I placed a hidden note asking for clarification.  Instead of making the clarification, Kurbis, you simply removed the note without addressing the confusion; your version is unclear and fails to tell us who had the seizure.  I'm tempted to explain some basic English grammar to you, but taking the above discussions into account, where other editors also ask you to correct basic English grammar errors and you refuse to do so, I won't waste my time.  My copyedits, the purpose of which were to improve the article so that it can be passed to GA, haven't accomplished this goal because of the above issues.  Therefore, I can't pass this article to GA.  It has been improved greatly since its current GAC, but it's still far away from it.  In addition, I'll no longer waste my time trying to copyedit this article, since I have other articles that are worth my limited time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Christine, thanks for all your work, even though you made some radical changes and introduced minor nitpicks. I feel it was a mistake to change my mind. Your large nomination page was interesting but it was rather a peer review. I feel sorry that I asked Grapple and then you; I know learned from this that I probably won't ask anyone. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Question over sentence structure
'but Pavel Khotiaintsev, a landowner, claimed he had been killed by his own servants so that he could buy the property at a low price.' The word 'he' is confusing when used twice, it's unclear. The next sentence doesn't seem to make it any clearer 'Khotiaintsev's allegations, however, could not be verified because if they had been true, he would have inherited more land.' Any thoughts? SamCardioNgo (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced the first "he" with "Mikhail". Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It reads better already. Please bear with me if I still can't quite get it. 'Pavel Khotiaintsev, a landowner, claimed Mikhail had been killed by his own servants so that he could buy the property at a low price.' 'so that he could buy' - who is this 'he'? Dostoyevsky Junior? Also 'Khotiaintsev's allegations, however, could not be verified because if they had been true, he would have inherited more land.' - Who would have inherited more land? Thanks SamCardioNgo (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been copy editing this article for several days now (still am) and that sentence is the stuff of nightmares. Been also ploughing through the bibliography provided in the links, but found nowt really specific about this episode (damn Google books). I think that in "so that he could buy" the pronoun refers clearly to Khotiaintsev (he wanted to buy the land so he made up that story) – correct me if I'm wrong. THE problem, though, is the last "he". I tend to think it refers to F. Dostoyevsky (later in time) but it seems like there's some information missing. I've asked Tomcat on his talk page twice but he didn't get back to me.
 * I'd really appreciate it if anyone can enlighten me.
 * Cheers,--Cocolacoste (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, SamCardioNgo, thanks ever so much for fixing one of my (many) typos.


 * Hi Cocolacoste, I have found the relevant text under Google books, just copy the following passage into Google and it will take you to page 109 in The Dostoyevsky Encyclopedia -> 'the two doctors independently confirmed death by an apoplectic stroke'. Be sure to read a half page before and after. The author questions the epilepsy episode, but definitely verifies the court case. Some progress! SamCardioNgo (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why the last "he" is confusing. Mikhail died so the only one is the peasant. Not sure why discussion is still going on. Reagrds.--Tomcat (7) 11:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled as to why he/she removed relevant information, such as dates or visits to cities. The article should be comprehensive but now I feel it won't meet the featured article criteria. Correct me if I am wrong, but St. Petersburg always contains the period. Also not sure why you delinked sermon, prophet, pastor, graffiti? Why did you move the Netochka Nezvanova sentence to the "Early career" section? It is more plausible to move it to the Release from prison section. The sections are getting smaller and smaller... The copyedits are all good but I asked to copyedit one section only.--Tomcat (7) 11:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tomcat,
 * The last "he" is confusing because it's the subject of the verb "inherit". Khotiaintsev could have bought, acquired, purchased etc., etc., but hardly "inherited" that land. Thankfully, Truthkeeper's rewording has cleared up that rather messy sentence.
 * I (she) didn't remove one single city, just some dates. I don't think it's that important, when talking about his journeys, if D. arrived in Frankfurt on 19 September or 20 September. But I may well be wrong and it'd be best to write "He arrived in Frankfurt on 20 Sept 18(whatever), at 4:17 am. The temperature was 12°C (then lowered to 10°C). It was misty but, as the day wore on cloudy skies gave way to freshening winds and sun, and the birds started singing".


 * As you seem to be a tad stubborn, I won't say anything about the full stop after "St", but this lovely chap will.


 * Re delinks: Truthkeeper's already stepped in. One more thing: you didn't notice I provided the links to Epokha and Vremya magazines. More's the pity.


 * As for Netochka Nezvanova, I've moved it cuz here ("After his release on 14 February 1854, Dostoyevsky asked his brother Mikhail to financially help him and to send books by authors such as Vico, Guizot, Ranke, Hegel or Kant. Dostoyevsky also began to work on The House of the Dead, basing it upon his experience in prison. It became the first novel about Russian prisons. The first parts of his third book, the novel Netochka Nezvanova, had been released in 1849, but the work had remained unfinished before he went sent to exile") the poor sod seemed to have been left sticking around.


 * Fair enough, you did ask to copy edit only one section. And that was my intention when I first laid my filthy, ignorant paws on this article. Alas, after coming across little gems like this "In 1849 he was arrested for his involvement with the Petrashevsky Circle, a progressive discussion group. He and other members were condemned to death for their participation in this group", or this "Poor Folk was released on 15 January 1846 in the almanac St. Petersburg Collection and was commercially enormously successful, or this "Liprandi, an official with the Ministry of International Affairs", or this "During a visit with Lieutenant-Colonel Belikhov [where the hell to?! Oh no! It turns out to be, according to the bibliography, that D. was visiting Belikhov] Dostoyevsky met the family of Alexander Ivanovich Isaev and Maria Dmitrievna Isaeva" − I'm copypasting from the 20 October 2012 version −, I had a hunch the whole article needed a good scrub. If you don't agree with my changes, you can revert them whenever you feel like it.


 * Finally, apologies to all for sounding a bit rude, but I'm human and inane whining really hacks me off.--Cocolacoste (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Butting in here - these are positive changes for this page. Per WP:Overlinking those are appropriate links to remove. Comprehensiveness refers to whether all the literature has been consulted, which in the case of FD is a lot, not to add tiny details. I think these copyedits are a step in the right direction. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the peasents vs Mikhail case: It is hard for me to determine whether everyone understands it as I read thousands of biographical pages about Dostoyevsky and so may have a lower understanding. As I wrote above, the last "he" is referred to the one peasent. He believed that the other peasents killed Mikhail, while the other peasents thought that Mikahil died of an illness. Since Mikhail died, the only person that is the "He" is Khotiaintsev. Fyodor Dostoyevsky has no connection to the case, except through the letter he received.

Regarding the overlinking: I think that at least most of the words should be linked to help understanding what is meant. For example, not everyone knows what graffiti is, and removing it will complicate the understanding. The clergy ranks may be also useful. Also the guideline says "articles explaining technical terms" should be linked. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "not everyone knows what graffiti is". Its not for you to presume or pander. I mean, come on. You know its ok to be intutive and think outside guidelines. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomcat, here's a more relevant section on linking . Relevant connections to the subject are necessary; but no reason to link anything directly relevant. Sermon, prophet, pastor, graffiti aren't directly relevant to FD & so good choices to be removed. My suggestion is to let this current copyedit take its course - as I mentioned above, from a cursory look the changes look good. I might jump in here again at some point and have a look at the sources, the structure and the content. A lot of changes have been made to this page, a lot of good editors have stepped up to help, and honestly bringing a page like this to fruition and through review requires strong collaboration and lots of help. FWIW. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've commented it out because it doesn't make sense and another sources gives an entirely different account, see page 20 here . Father's murder mentioned here (and the murder should be mentioned but clearly explained), and here a discussion re the reliability of the claim that the first seizure occurred b/c of the father's death. Also, it's really dangerous to use google books as sources for a page like this because context is lost. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten per the source. Not convinced this much detail is necessary and not at all convinced this episode was when the first seizure occurred. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tomcat - insulting editors who are trying to help is unhelpful. I've seen you do it to a number of editors (and I've seen you template two regulars - one of whom left because of that). The issue is not that we have a lower understanding of FD but that as written the sentence was simply wrong. 1., there is no evidence the father's murder caused a seizure; 2., anectodal evidence has been discredited; 3., much of the incident is based on a third hand account (FD's brother); 4., the neighbor may have cooked up the story so as to buy the land, not inherit the land. Our mission is to present completely accurate information - and to present every point of view. We can't cherry pick; we can't show a bias; we can't introduce a POV to an article. To some extent much of that is happening here, so be cautious. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Before I unwatch this article and refrain from it for a considerable time to avoid being accused of ownership, racism, inhumanity, incivility, etc, I want to say that the original wording was indeed "buy" not "inherit". This is why I sometimes really don't like top-to-bottom copyedits. Everyone has his bias and it is rare to find a person who will copyedit the article that no one will moan about it. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No it was "craved" and "received". Christina couldn't have known the meaning either without looking at the source. A bit over the top claiming to be blamed for racism and inhumanity. I suggested in June the prose be toned down and offered a copyedit then. Now we're here. What's important is that the sentence has been fixed and our readers will be getting the right information. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How was I supposed to know the word was "buy"? – which isn't even the case, as Truthkeeper points out.
 * You've read an awful lot to write the article. That's undeniable, and congrats on that. Quite why you stubbornly refuse to accept your English grammar is not brilliant, despite having been told so over and over again, is beyond my grasp. Plus, if you're so self-assured and up yourself, why request a copy-editing at GOCE? Let your article be the way it is. Simples. --Cocolacoste (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomcat, you know there are other ways to deal with constructive critism of a page rather than stonewalling and petulance. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A note on copy-editing
From now on, I'll be copy-editing following some useful info Truthkeeper provided this peer reviewed (the Peer review by Truthkeeper) and these (the three consecutive GA Reviews of the article)   . They offer an insight as to what tweaks should be done. Side note: the third paragraph under the Return to Russia differs quite significantly from the sour it cites (Frank, The Mantle of the Prophet). I'm not quite sure whether a detailed account of D's daughter's broken wrist is essential or not, but shall try to rewrite it anyway.

Goes without saying that any help, cooperation, criticism, slagging off, vituperation and stuff is more than welcome.

Cheers,--Cocolacoste (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following the suggestions in all the various reviews. I won't be jumping in here much (for one thing don't have any sources) but am keeping an eye on things. I think some of the other editors who have made suggestions might be enticed back. I believe that might have worked on one of the reviews and perhaps been involved in some copyediting, so perhaps he can be brought back to watch. The archives are full of talk; this has been going on for months and many have left the page. That said, it is actually looking better than when I looked in the summer, so progress is being made. It's an important page and these pages and very very hard to get right. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why it differs from the Mantle book. However, most of the content is from Kjetsaa anyway. I will exhamine further and hope that nobody actually leave this page and instead suggest suggestions. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are Gregorian dates used?
The Gregorian calendar was not used in Russia in Dostoyevsky's lifetime. Should not his birth and death dates be 30 October 1821 and 28 January 1881? see ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Достоевский,_Фёдор_Михайлович genesee.gbh (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because WP:JG states, if the majority of reliable sources use one calender then that one should be used throughout. Most sources, even Russian, use the Gregorian calendar when referring to Dostoyevsky-related topics. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Other views
Hello,

should I add his other views beside religion and politics? Here are a few (all from Diaries):


 * Animal rights
 * Children
 * Spiritism
 * Women
 * America
 * Asia
 * Turkey
 * Wealth
 * Board school
 * Ethics
 * etc.

Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of this might be interesting. I'd consider the diary a primary source so would use it sparingly but if any of this can added in a short paragraph or so, it might work. I'd have to see it written out to be certain. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, some of them could work. But I think they must be kept as short as possible. Asia, America and Turkey could perhaps fall into the Political subsection. As for the "children" topic, I've read some interesting bits about D. as a father in The Mantle of the Prophet, can't remember the pages, though.--Cocolacoste (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly Google Books hides the two pages I really need to expand the religious section. Can someone of you view the pages 218 and 220? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nopes, they've been left out. That's the snag with Google books.--Cocolacoste (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Today I can see 219 but it's useless without context. What I can read is that he told someone (don't know who because on the previous page) that he disliked spiritualism, yet was interested in it and was acquainted with better known spiritualists of the day. Lots of anecdotes on this page that aren't very useful. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Political beliefs

In my opinion – and I may well be wrong –, the phrase "Catholicism – which for him continued the tradition of Imperial Rome and was anti-Christian and pre-socialism" is not only flagrantly obvious (I mean, the Communist Manifesto is from 1848!) but also a distortion of what's said in Lantz, The D. Encyclopedia. I've rewritten the paragraph following the source, especially pp 183-9 and, even more specifically, p 185.

If anyone thinks this ain't right, please correct it. Cheers, --Cocolacoste (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable references
In the last GAN, the reviewer meant that the article "contains numerous unreliable sources ". I am still puzzled why he thought so. Since he retired, could someone help detecting those unreliable sources? The closest I could think of is Encyclopedia Britannica, but it is not unreliable. Russia Today is biased so may be unreliable. But otherwise I can not see the "numerous" unreliable sites. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a wild guess from a non expert on biographical stuff: maybe it has to do with whether some books are by authorities on the subject or not. I mean, ideologies aside, nobody will question Bloom, Bakhtin or Kjetsaa, but who are, for example, Maria Bloshteyn or Victor Terras? Anyway, they're all published books so I don't really know if they count as "unreliable". Another two that may be suspicious are those in notes 86 and 87:


 * 1) Neurophilosophy is just a Wordpress blog (although the author writes for no less a paper than the Guardian ([]). I've searched for the "Diagnosing Dostoyevsky's epilepsy" on, a site hosted by the Guardian, but came up empty-handed.
 * 2) ACNR – Advances in Clinical Neuroscience & Rehabilitation is a web mag, not endorsed by any university or organisation whatsoever.
 * What I do think it's a problem is that the page range for the quotes is all too broad. Pinning down the p. number'd be way better (I did a teensy bit about this in my last edit).
 * Re my edits, soz for being absent for quite a long time. Thing is my real life's pretty chaotic at the mo. Shall return soon-ish, promise.
 * Finally, Tomcat: contrary to what your last edit summary reads, the phrase "He thought democracy and oligarchy poor systems" is grammatically correct. Think as a stative verb can take several patterns:


 * Verb + clause: He thought (that)* democracy and oligarchy were poor systems. *the complementiser can be left out.
 * Verb + preposition + as: He thought of democracy and oligarchy as poor systems.
 * Verb + object + to be: He thought democracy and oligarchy (to be) poor systems. Often, "to be" can be omitted.

(Hope this is useful)
 * I chose this form just for stylistic preferences* you may disagree with, but please inform you before bandying about accusations on language misuse. *I'm not wild about subordination after subordination.-- Coco Lacoste  talk  05:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never heard of this rule, but your English must be better :). Not sure how many readers will understand it, though.--Tomcat (7) 12:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Victor Terras, he wrote, for example, Handbook of Russian Literature, which received positive reviews. He is a "Professor Emeritus of Slavic Languages" on the Brown University. Additionally he is the former Vice President of the International Dostoevsky Society
 * Regarding Maria Bloshteyn, her book also received positive reception by well-respected members of several Slavic study societies. I once found that she is a member of a society, but I can not find the link. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Suicide
Although I have previously edited the error,the change has not been made.It is not Raskolnikov who committed suicide in Crime And Punishment.Svidrigailov did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.207.166 (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But he was a murderer. The article states "suicide victims and murderers". Perhaps changing "and" with "or" would avoid the confusion? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The recent sandbox nature of this article
Judging from recent editing history, this article appears to have become the sandbox of a single editor who makes wholesale changes with no rationale ever given. His edit summaries are by fiat with no reason as to why provided. This continual destabilization needs to stop. Advice: take it to a sandbox and then come back with a more finished product with your changes explained on the talk page. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. I made all the changes that were proposed by the FA reviewers. I have enough sandboxes, and even dedicated one to FD, see User:Tomcat7/Sandbox21. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit
I'm editing this upon request. I will note any things that need other eyes. Feedback encouraged. Please note that I'm happy to correct any errors that I introduce. In turn, my request is that instead of reverting, that we discuss any disagreements here. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It says he lived a "liberal lifestyle". Don't know what that means.
 * I will return to this.
 * Perhaps something like "pretentious", "unmodest"...? — Tomcat (7) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It talks about a "daily boarding school". Sounds contradictory.
 * I removed "daily".


 * It talks about "diverse subjects". Either show the diversity, or leave it out.
 * Removed that phrase.


 * What help did his family members supply to get him into the mil academy?
 * I added that the school was free.


 * "originated from accounts (now considered unreliable) written by his daughter, which were later expanded by Sigmund Freud". Are the daughter's accounts the source here or Freud's expansion? Needs clarification and a cite (if the later cite isn't the source).
 * I think it talks about the daughter's account.


 * Did he die of his third haemorrhage?
 * Yes.--— Tomcat (7) 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy!
 * Thanks! The article now reads much easier without some redundant content. Regards.— Tomcat (7) 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Frank footnotes
I decided to remove some Frank footnotes with very long page ranges. It was already pointed out at the first FAC, and I know that someone will sometime comment on that. I will use the five-volume biograph as a general reference. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dostoevsky in exile
Please excuse my bad English. I want to make a comment on the caption "Dostoyevsky (left) in his cell, 1853" The signature of the image that should show Dostoevsky in Siberia, is not correct. The rationale: The premises in any way correspond to those of the Omsk camp. The clothing in no way corresponds, of those worn in the camp. The age of Dostoevsky is not the time of his exile.

The picture shows Dostoyevsky 21/22 March 1874 in the guardhouse at the Haymarket. He sat there on the arrest because he had failed as an editor for a censorship provision.

More information can be found here: http://www.dostojewski.eu/01_Vita/VITA_1873_Zensurversto%DF.html ww.dostojewski.eu

I hope I could be a little help. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.164.156 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I will correct the caption. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 07:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In the grounds
What are people talking about? I cannot think of a single example where it is appropriate to say something occurred in the grounds of something else. The house was on the grounds, not in them. Ryan Vesey 21:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be a British English thing, but nope Telegraph.co.uk says "Ten thousand ticket holders tucked into a royal picnic on the grounds of Buckingham Palace". Ryan Vesey 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked an Ngram and "on the grounds" is used much more frequently. Ryan Vesey 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahem, check the headline of that Telegraph article!


 * The Ngram will be skewed by the fact that "on the grounds of" is frequently used with meanings similar to "by reason of". When grounds means the land/estate of a building or institution "on the grounds of ..." rather suggests covering the whole estate, while "in the grounds of ..." can imply just one part of the estate. "on the grounds of" vs "in the grounds of" is a quite useful google search term. --Stfg (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * However, looking through several more articles from that Google search, it may indeed be an ENGVAR thing. (The article State funerals in the United States even manages to use both forms!) --Stfg (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit, April 2013

 * Lede: the statment that FD was devastated by his mother's death is not covered in the body and has no citation. As it is only a statement of emotion, I have edited out the devastation. --Stfg (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Family background: middle of 2nd paragraph: "In 1819 he married Maria Isayevna". Maria Nechayeva, surely? --Stfg (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--Tomcat (7) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Childhood: Just checking: it says that his nannies (plural) influenced him to become religious, but only mentions one nanny (Alina Frolovna) as being an influential figure. Is this what we mean: several nannies influencing religiosity, but only one being very influential in his childhood? --Stfg (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alena (now corrected) Frolovna was particularly influential among all nannies.--Tomcat (7) 16:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Youth: the first paragraph needs putting in chronological order. The brothers are sent to attend the Engineering Institute in May 1837, but Fyodor doesn't enter it until January 1838 and Mikhail doesn't enter it at all, being refused admission (do we know in what month?). BTW I've removed the awkward half-sentence about the brothers being separated -- if one is in St Petersburg and the other in Estonia, then their separation is obvious ;) --Stfg (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Siberian exile: "Dostoyevsky responded to these charges by declaring that he had read the essays only "as a literary monument, neither more nor less" and argued about "personality and human egoism" rather than politics." Did Dostoyevsky argue about ..., or did he claim that the essays argued about these things? --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He argued about personality and human egoism (but quite likely it was just a bad excuse)--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Siberian exile: Is the red-linked Sergey Durov significant? If so, we need to say how. --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was linked recently, so I thought the author planned to create the article or found him very important.--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. He is mentioned only when they reach Omsk and in the caption of the execution picture. Pleshcheyev, also mentioned in the caption, is introduced properly, but the reader is left wondering who was Durov. Shall we remove mention of him, or is he significant in some way? --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I went out on a limb and searched for Sergei Durov who is certainly significant. Here is an entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.  I also learned here that Dostoyevsky and Durov grew to hate eachother while in Omsk and Dostoyevsky refused to mention Durov by name or by initials in any of his writings.  Unless someone beats me to it, I'll write an article on Durov this weekend. Ryan Vesey 17:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I've inserted a phrase to give context. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Release from prison: In the quote at the end of the first paragraph, the word "intensively" is strange: it should be "intensely". Please can we check the source? If it does in fact say "intensively", we should insert sic after it. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Marriage and honeymoon: Anna's description of FD at the end of paragraph 2: is this our translation that we can copy edit, or Sekirin's? (The wording is a little strange.) --Stfg (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is Sekirin's translation. There might be a different one by Kjetsaa, but I don't have the biography any more.--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worry. So long as I know not to edit it. --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Marriage and honeymoon: the business around Sergey Nechayev is confusingly described -- the article on him mentions 'this student movement's "Program of revolutionary activities"', which falls somewhat short of being a terrorist organization. But aren't we giving the details of this incident undue weight? How about replacing the whole "Around November 1869 ..." paragraph with:
 * After hearing news that the socialist revolutionary group "People's Vengeance" had murdered one of its own members on 21 November 1869, Dostoyevsky began writing Demons.
 * (This is adapted from the article Demons (novel)). --Stfg (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Last years: "The book includes his classic works, composition books, sketches, drafts, letters, autographs, and committed thoughts." Lots of questions here:
 * What are "classic" works?
 * Really composition books, or just noteboks?
 * What are "committed thoughts"?
 * --Stfg (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I shortened that phrase and merged it with the next sentence.--Tomcat (7) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Last years: The part about the haemorrhage possibly being a result of the disputes about Aleksandra Kumanina's estate is rather distracting and seems very speculative, since that was 1879 and the haemorrhage was 1881. I've put it in parentheses for now. Would it be better relegated to a footnote, do you think? --Stfg (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is a good idea to convert it into a footnote, just as the note about his abscense from casinos.--Tomcat (7) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * His first wife: inconsistent spelling: Isayevna in the infobox, but Isaeva in the Release from prison section. See also the next point. --Stfg (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Tomcat (7) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Liaisons: Much of the 2nd paragraph is about his relationship and marriage to Maria. A marriage is not a liaison, so this needs to be removed from here and merged into the Release from prison section, where the marriage is covered. I haven't copy edited the passage "Around this time, his first wife ... They mostly lived apart." I'll do this once the material has been merged.
 * Probably that section should be renamed "Liasons and marriages" or just "Personal life"--Tomcat (7) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a big mistake, because his wives, especially Anna, are so much tied up with his career that the early sections need to cover them. The liaisons are much less significant, so they can stay here. This section currently sticks out like a sore thumb, as if a different writer had stuck it in -- it even refers to Anna differently than the rest of the article. I can fix that, but we need to move the stuff about the wives. I can do that too, if you agree. --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try to move phrases about his two wives out of this section, though I would prefer to have a section about his relationships with woman.--Tomcat (7) 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the content about his first wife into the Release from prison section, and removed the other content entirely.--Tomcat (7) 12:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The same problem exists with the last part, about Anna Snitkina. That was not a liaison -- it should be removed from this section and anything that isn't already in the Marriage and honeymoon section needs to be noved there.


 * I've removed the sentence "She had remained with a Methodist pastor in the Isle of Guernsey, taking the surname "Brown", until divorcing and moving to Russia" from near the start of the last paragraph. It raises more questions than it answers, and her backstory seems irrelevant to FD.


 * Finally in this section, we need to clarify who Anna Dostoyevskaya is. Is she his wife, née Snitkina? --Stfg (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarified.--Tomcat (7) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Political: what does "a connection between the peasantry and the affluent classes" mean? --Stfg (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He wanted an anti-feudal system with a weaker social structure.--Tomcat (7) 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried a rephasing. Does it work? --Stfg (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Tomcat (7) 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Racial: "but was not entirely comfortable with these views" is too euphemisitic. Can you provide a quotation from the source, please? --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try to find one.--Tomcat (7) 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is not available online. I think Frank meant that he was not agreed with his views. It goes on noting that he supported giving rights to Jews.--Tomcat (7) 11:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a new section to ask for help on this. --Stfg (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Religious: I've removed the sentence "Overall, many critics have pointed out that Dostoyevsky's religion is unusual and partially at odds with the Christian dogma" because: "Overall" is just hand-waving. "many critics" is weasel; "pointed out" is POV; "the Christian dogma"?!; it's non-specific; it's uncited. --Stfg (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal, because it states that "many critics" have said that. I really can not list everyone who have stated it.--Tomcat (7) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also keeping a one-sentence paragraph on a random critic's meaning, Malcolm V. Jones' in this case, is very odd. That's why there was a concluded phrase.--Tomcat (7) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I think you need to find at least three sources and accurately reflect what they say. At present, with weasel, OR and POV in abundance, this sentence wouldn't get through a decent GAN review, much less a FAC. We can't keep bad sentences in just to pad out one-sentence paragraphs. --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it becomes clear that his views are not orthodox :).--Tomcat (7) 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were clear, you wouldn't need to say it, would you. But I think the whole idea is very problematic. What, after all, is "unusual"? Suppose I challenge you by saying that I find all his views, insofar as they are described in the article, to be completely normal. What then? Your only recourse would be to produce sources. Or to put it another way, which version of "the Christian dogma" was he "partially at odds" with? Or to put it yet another way, why is that sentence not mere editorializing, with the "many critics" as an appeal to (unidentified) authority? --Stfg (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * His beliefs were overall orthodox, except his views of salvation, which were identified as unorthodox (for evangelicals), as he meant that Christ has suffered for our sins (and not that we suffer from our sins, as is declared by the NT). See for a comprehensive account of his beliefs.--Tomcat (7) 11:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a very interesting source, and it might be possible to make some use of it. However, let's look quite carefully. The first conlusion is: "His presentation of God, Christ, and sin are generally aligned with the theological thought of Christian orthodoxy." Thus, orthodoxy is the overall picture. However the next is (my bolding): "Sadly, however, his crystallizations that relate to the subject of salvation in his novels often appear defective." It is his "crystallizations" in novels that we see, which is not quite the same as his belief per se. Now, you've misread the next part: "Do we suffer for our sins, or (as the NT declares) has Christ sufficiently suffered for our sins (Heb 9:26-28; 1 Pet 2:21-24; 3:18)? Dostoevsky almost seemed to embrace an in-this-life purgatory. Suffering here on earth is purgative, regenerative for him, which does not square with NT teaching." This says that the NT says that Christ suffered for our sins while Dostoyevsky was on about "an in-this-life purgatory", not the other way round. In this, FD was certainly unorthodox (or the characters in his novels were, which possibly isn't exactly the same thing). I would say that this source rather presents FD as a rather orthodox Christian who diverged (if his characters signify this) on whether suffering on earth atones for our sins. (A rather common view, by the way.) Surely no more of a maverick than this. --Stfg (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put something in there now. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good--Tomcat (7) 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Notes from Underground: "At the same time, he takes his aggression out on lower-class people: he presents himself as a possible saviour to the poor prostitute Lisa, advising her to reject self-reproach when she looks to him for hope." The colon implies that the second half amplifies the first. But it's a non-sequitur -- encouraging her isn't taking his aggression out on her. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about replacing the colon with a semicolon? --Tomcat (7) 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't really help. The problem is that the words "he takes his aggression out on lower-class people" set up an expectation that we'll be told how he takes it out on them. Regardless of puncuation, the following statement doesn't answer that question. --Stfg (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed that phrase.--Tomcat (7) 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "self-created circle" isn't any clearer than "self-created society" -- perhaps even more confusing. The problem is that it appears to speak of circles/societies that create themselves, but how can abstractions create themselves? --Stfg (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult question, but I will try to find a solution.--Tomcat (7) 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about something like "vision of the world"?--Tomcat (7) 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK (done). --Stfg (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable works
I think there are too many works listed in the infobox:


 * 1) Notes from Underground
 * 2) Crime and Punishment
 * 3) The Idiot
 * 4) Demons
 * 5) The Brothers Karamazov
 * 6) The House of the Dead
 * 7) The Gambler
 * 8) A Gentle Creature
 * 9) The Dream of a Ridiculous Man
 * 10) White Nights

I suggest keeping the first five because they are often cited as Dostoyevsky's best works. Nr. 6 and 7 are medium works, and his short stories are not outstanding. Poor Folk, while not very famous, should be included in my opinion (very successful in Russia, received many praises). --Tomcat (7) 09:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would keep 6 and 7, which are quite well known, but I agree with removing the short stories and including Poor Folk. Removing the short stories incidentally removes an error, because the italic styling affects them too. --Stfg (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Help requested
Does any of the 359 watchers of this article have access to Goldstein, David. Dostoevsky and the Jews. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-71528-8, please? If so, please could you help with a quotation from its foreword relevant to the question under Racial in the section above. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My library has it. I should be able to pick it up tomorrow or possibly later today. Ryan Vesey 17:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you are at it, could you write down the titles of some unreleased works by Dostoyevsky in the Appendix chapter of Dostoevsky: His Life and Works. I have only the Russian version, and the English online version does not show some pages. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Ryan hasn't been able to access a copy. Anyone else, please? --Stfg (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reception and influence
Together with Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky is often regarded as one of the greatest and most influential novelists of the Golden Age of Russian literature. Albert Einstein put him above the mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss, calling him a "great religious writer" who explores "the mystery of spiritual existence". Friedrich Nietzsche called Dostoyevsky "the only psychologist ... from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life". Hermann Hesse enjoyed Dostoyevsky's work and cautioned that to read him is like a "glimpse into the havoc". The Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun wrote that "no one has analysed the complicated human structure as Dostoyevsky. His psychologic sense is overwhelming and visionary."

In his posthumous collection of sketches A Moveable Feast, Ernest Hemingway stated that in Dostoevsky "there were things believable and not to be believed, but some so true that they changed you as you read them; frailty and madness, wickedness and saintliness, and the insanity of gambling were there to know". James Joyce praised Dostoyevsky's prose: "... he is the man more than any other who has created modern prose, and intensified it to its present-day pitch. It was his explosive power which shattered the Victorian novel with its simpering maidens and ordered commonplaces; books which were without imagination or violence." In her essay The Russian Point of View, Virginia Woolf said, "Out of Shakespeare there is no more exciting reading". Franz Kafka called Dostoyevsky his "blood-relative" and was heavily influenced by his works, particularly The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment, both of which profoundly influenced The Trial. Sigmund Freud called The Brothers Karamazov "the most significant novel ever written". Modern cultural movements such as the surrealists, the existentialists and the Beats cite Dostoyevsky as an influence, and he is cited as the forerunner of Russian symbolism, existentialism, expressionism and psychoanalysis.

Honours
In 1956 an olive-green postage stamp dedicated to Dostoyevsky was released in the Soviet Union, with a print run of 1,000 copies. A Dostoevsky Museum was opened on 12 November 1971 in the apartment where he wrote his first and final novels. A mercury crater was named after him in 1979. A minor planet discovered in 1981 by Lyudmila Karachkina was named 3453 Dostoevsky. Music critic and broadcaster Artemy Troitsky hosts the radio show "FM Достоевский" since 1997. J.M. Coetzee wrote the 1997 novel The Master of Petersburg, featuring Dostoyevsky as the protagonist. Viewers of the TV show Name of Russia voted him the ninth greatest Russian of all time, behind chemist Dmitry Mendeleev and ahead of ruler Ivan IV. Vladimir Khotinenko directed an Eagle Award-winning TV series about Dostoyevsky's life, and was screened one year later in 2011.

Numerous memorials were inaugurated in cities and regions such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Semipalatinsk, Kusnetsk, Darovoye, Staraya Russa, Lyublino, Tallinn, Dresden, Baden-Baden and Wiesbaden. Two metro stations were opened in St. Petersburg and Moscow, first on 30 December 1991. The latter was opened on 19 June 2010, the 75th anniversary of the Moscow Metro, and is decorated with murals by artist Ivan Nikolaev depicting scenes from Dostoyevsky's works, such as controversial suicides.

Criticism
Dostoyevsky's work did not always gain a positive reception. Several critics, such as Nikolay Dobrolyubov, Ivan Bunin and Vladimir Nabokov, viewed his writing as excessively psychological and philosophical rather than artistic. Others found fault with chaotic and disorganised plots, and others, like Turgenev, objected to "excessive psychologising" and too-detailed naturalism. His style was deemed "prolix, repetitious and lacking in polish, balance, restraint and good taste". Saltykov-Shchedrin, Tolstoy, Nikolay Mikhaylovsky and others criticised his puppet-like characters, most prominently in The Idiot, The Possessed and The Brothers Karamazov. These characters were compared to those of Hoffmann, an author whom Dostoyevsky admired.

Basing his estimation on stated criteria of enduring art and individual genius, Nabokov judges Dostoyevsky "not a great writer, but rather a mediocre one—with flashes of excellent humour but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between". Nabokov complains that the novels are peopled by "neurotics and lunatics" and states that Dostoyevsky's characters do not develop: "We get them all complete at the beginning of the tale and so they remain." He finds the novels full of contrived "surprises and complications of plot", which are effective when first read, but on second reading, without the shock and benefit of these surprises, appear loaded with "glorified cliché".

Reputation
Dostoyevsky's books have been translated into more than 170 languages and have sold around 15 million copies. The German translator Wilhelm Wolfsohn published one of the first translations, parts of Poor Folk, in an 1846–1847 magazine, and a French translation followed. French, German and Italian translations usually came directly from the original, while English translations were second-hand and of poor quality. The first English translations were by Marie von Thilo in 1881, but the first highly regarded ones were produced between 1912 and 1920 by Constance Garnett. Her flowing and easy translations helped popularize Dostoyevsky's novels in anglophone countries, and Bakthin's Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (1929) provided further understanding of his style.

Dostoyevsky's works were interpreted in film and on stage in many different countries. Princess Varvara Dmitrevna Obolenskaya was among the first to propose staging Crime and Punishment. Dostoyevsky did not refuse permission, but he advised against it, as he believed that "each art corresponds to a series of poetic thoughts, so that one idea cannot be expressed in another non-corresponding form". His extensive explanations in opposition to the transposition of his works into other media were groundbreaking in fidelity criticism. He thought that just one episode should be dramatised, or an idea should be taken and incorporated into a separate plot. According to critic Alexander Burry, some of the most effective adaptions are Sergei Prokofiev's opera The Gambler, Leoš Janáček's opera From the House of the Dead, Akira Kurosawa's film The Idiot and Andrzej Wajda's film The Possessed.

After the 1917 Russian Revolution, Dostoyevsky's books were often censored or banned. His philosophy, particularly in Demons, was deemed capitalist and anti-Communist, leading Maxim Gorky to dub the author "our evil genius". Reading Dostoyevsky was forbidden, and those caught doing so were imprisoned. During the Second World War, however, his works were used as propaganda by both the Soviets and the Nazis, and after the war the Soviet prohibition was overturned. Although the 125th anniversary of his birth was celebrated throughout Russia in 1947, his works were banned again until Nikita Khrushchev's accession to power ten years later, following de-Stalinization and a softening of repressive laws. }}

I would also add a picture from the Gambler opera. What do you think?--Tomcat (7) 10:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very good idea, and have boldly copied it into the article and copy edited it. One point for future reference: please be aware of WP:LINKCLARITY. Links like make the reader think they are being offered a link to Moscow. Do add a picture from the Gambler opera -- it's a good idea. --Stfg (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found only pictures of modern plays, and they are likely copyrighted. How about something like File:Tala Birell-Douglass Dumbrille in Crime and Punishment.jpg or File:Saawariya's set.jpg? These are the only freely licensed pictures about one of Dostoyevsky's works. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the first picture. I think it looks pretty good.--Tomcat (7) 11:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think so too. --Stfg (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've received a DPL bot warning that the link to Lyublino (in the Honours section) is to a disambiguation page. Tomcat, please could you disambiguate it -- I don't know which Lyublino you were referring to. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)