Best part of this is that Russians have three names (a first name, surname, and a patronymic) and they love using nicknames. So the main character is Rodion (first name) Romanovitch (patronymic) Raskolnikov (surname), but can (and is) called by any of those three names. He’s also got nicknames like Rodya, Rodenka, and Rodka. So this deranged individual (who decided to call Raskolnikov “Pete” I guess) is going to be hopelessly confused when somebody starts referring to Rodya, and he’ll think the book is filled with like five times as many characters as it actually is.
I’m reading What is to be Done? And idk what book this is, but I imagine it would be pretty hard to replace names like that.
This is Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky.
Just replace every instance of “Kautsky” with “Steve” like the goober in the OP
Better idea: replace regular fiction names with political figures
Greg HeffleyFriedrich Engels
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I should have specified Chernyshevsky, but Lenin’s also contains some names that are weird.
YES. When I studied Rus Lit my prof dedicated a whole lecture to this! With slides! I honestly love this part of Russian literature, it gives it so much character, and anyone who complains about it doesn’t deserve to read it.
I mean you kinda just laid out why it’s extra confusing to begin with
But that’s kind of the rub; it’s never actually confusing. In context of the story it’s very clear when somebody is addressing Raskolnikov, even if they’re using a nickname or a name you’re not entirely familiar with. It’s like when you hear somebody has a nickname in real life. You might not know why they have that nickname, but you know that nickname is theirs.
I read the book, unless you’re already familiar with Russian naming conventions you’re going to go “wait who the fuck are they talking about” over and over, and if you’re not familiar with Russian naming conventions and claim otherwise you’re simply lying to me
also it’s not just Raskolnikov
I don’t know what to tell you, I too read the book and had no such issues. I thought it was very clear when they’re talking about Raskolnikov or his sister or the inspector or the landlady or anybody, and I don’t speak any Russian. You just had to trust things would become clear in time with context.
Everyone’s brain works different
Yeah I think that’s what it comes down to.
You have a point in that the characters are very vivid and distinct/individual
but I think it’s fair to say most people will experience at least mild confusion a few times with the cast of characters
It is not that difficult, because there are contexts to each use, and they are consistent between characters as well. It is not always easy as well, but if you have the attention span to read Dosteyevski, you have it to remember some naming conventions as well.
If your cracker ass can remember hundreds of pokemon names for the duration of a game, you can remember a dozen russian names for the duration of a book
he could probably remember the names if there was a picture next to them most of the time.
i love casual ableism as much as the next guy but i have to flip to the dramatis personae sometimes even when the character names are anglo
I’m shit at names too, this is just a silly way of handling it
It is supremely poorly thought out that’s for sure lol
Cursed monkey paw: “Damn, I can believe that Squirtle’s brother got arrested by Tsar Lapris’s secret police for spreading the seditious works of Koffing.”
a dozen
There’s probably over 100 characters in it tho, maybe 200
huh. I mean, I have made charts to try to keep track of families and shit in byzantine politics novels, but, uh… huh.
when this is done by the author to obfuscate a fictional portrayal of real people, it’s called a roman a clef https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_à_clef
For anyone that doesn’t want to click but likes words, it’s French for ‘novel with a key’, as in if you know the key you can understand the underlying allegory.
I’d love to see what he does with 100 years of solitude. There are only like 4 names for 15 different characters
typical anglo L
If you don’t give the characters racist caricature like names how can I keep them straight?
I keep a digital copy on the side and Ctrl+F the character’s name so I can get a refresher on them when I’m reading Dostoevsky.
Part of the problem is the 3 names as the other commenter said, and part of it is that the style of book has 100s of characters, much like a soap opera.
Cannot imagine your first reaction to name-memory difficulty being “imma give em white guy names”
Crime and Punishment is my second favorite book. That said, I was confused when Raskolnikov’s friend’s name was randomly switched up. That’s when I learned that Russians and Latinos share the having four or five names thing in common. Absolutely based tradition, though I’m surprised I remember my own name sometimes.
It’s also not best advised to read that book when you’re a college-aged boy short on cash. Or maybe it is…
Crime and Punishment is my second favorite book.
What’s your first favourite book?
Dune. 🪱
Doing rowling naming conventions:
Axe Mcprison-ov
Mona E. Lander-ov
Norm Horseaccident-ov
Fbi Copper-ov
Liberals when the black guy isn’t named “Kingsley Shacklebolt”
Also, I didn’t make that shit up.
Cho Chang and Privy Patel Asian representation yay
Recently read A Fire Upon the Deep were half the story takes place on a planet with dog like group mind beings whose names are the combination of every member and if members die and they get a new member the name changes to include the new member, but they also use nicknames for the group beings whenever they feel like it. This person would have a great time with that book. Also book was eh but fun.
also there were intelligent flowers that zoomed around in little gokarts and waved their leaves to talk
maybe the first book to envision racist shitposting leading to genocide
Also racist butterfly people.
Also I just learned the author just died a month ago. Think he was some kind of AnCap, but was pretty good at writing weird SciFi tho.
Oh yea they were fun to picture in my head. And yea the intergalactic genocidal shit posts were really something to enjoy reading in 2024.
maybe like highlight the names with different colors or something until you get used to them
Nah, this is a fine thing to do and I support it heartily!
Especially recommend stuff like this when reading theory, Lenin likes to call dudes out by name and hyper specific organizations and membership etc, when those details don’t really matter much for my purposes reading this 120 years later
Ive never actually gone in and replaced names, but I kind of glance at them and go “this is guy 1” and move on
Or more specifically like “opportunist leader of anti-bolshevik faction guy” etc etc. It’s really not worth remembering every single name
Also, some people find remembering names hard, let alone unfamiliar ones
This is however still a funny post lol
In the Lenin texts I just sort of gloss over those names. Like you said, those people are long dead and their orgs have been dead and buried since before the russian civil war.
It’s nice for historical purposes though, exact sourcing is just very good praxis, when writing any theory.
A novel is not a piece of political theory. The aims are different, also russian naming conventions are more complex than english ones.
Also I believe on should try and actually engage with the cultural context of a piece of art(the novel) and not just to actively remove it. Why read russian literature then?
Different people struggle with different things. Everyone’s different
Engaging with the cultural context of a classic novel is part of reading it. Of course it can be difficult, but it is a russian piece of literature. It is an integral part of what it is, on a conceptual level. If you take that away you have a fundamentally different work. What’s the poin then? This is not about ability, at least I don’t think so, there is a glossary is there after all(in the better translations at least).
Like, I agree, fuck the names of obscure political groups from a hundred years ago. Outside of specific contexts they are generally not needed for understanding the theory. But theory is not a narrative novel.
If you take that away you have a fundamentally different work. What’s the poin then?
You’re already reading a translation. You’re already reading a fundamentally different work
I agree that it’s good to try to understand things that are foreign to you but if that’s too difficult then do whatever works best for you it’s not a big deal
What tge person in the post there is doing isn’t working. Replacing the names in a way that still provides the same context(which is your proposal) would need you to understand exactly why each name is used each time, it is more exhausting than just learning the names. The translation also left the names in place, they didn’t try to translate it, because that is a ludicrous idea. I am not sure it is possible.
We don’t think thats working either for the guy in the post
Yeah, I spent too many words to say “This is a bad idea, don’t do it” tbh
of course they should try I’m not sayin otherwise, but if its this or just not experiencing the work at all, I mean
How are you going to edit the name usage out of a book exactly? It has a meaning, you can’t replace it at all, really. It’s not context you can provide otherwise.
I’m not saying edit it, in my other comment I explained what I mean
Yeah whatever makes reading more widely more accessible to people seems good.
Even when I’m reading stuff originally written in English it’s not like I’m paying enormous attention to names. If you’re not subvocalising names are sort of start letter-end letter-length-shape tags.
I really appreciate it when authors include dramatis personae anyway. Helps if you get busy and need to put a book down, it also means authors don’t have to exposition in every new character which can kill pacing in complex stories.
All I know is Kautsky is a fuck
Is that the guy? I’ve been trying to remember who I called “asshole guy” post 1918
Yeah, he’s the brain genius that came up with super-imperialism i.e. the late stage of imperialism which creates world peace through cartelisation of the world powers into a one-world imperial cartel, the same way the banks and industry formed cartels to maximize profits.
