I was pretty turned off from reading when I was in high school. I hated having to read at a certain pace as I’ve always been a slow reader. More than that though, I hated being quizzed on what I read. Sometimes even when I read the book I could forget some detail being asked. Lastly, more than anything, I hated being taught what I was supposed to take away from a book.
​
Anyway, in the past couple years I started reading simply for myself and it’s been a really amazing experience. I started with Crime & Punishment by Dostoevsky and it was a little difficult for me but I got to a certain point and could not put this book down at all.
There was one detail in C&P that bothered me however, and it was >!That a large message was “The truth will set you free” and basically the murderer learned to confess his crimes and go to prison to make things right with God. !< I didn’t really like this connection, and I’m also not religious. Regardless, I found this to be a fantastic read and loved the style and messages, even if I didn’t agree with them, I still found them well thought-out and could contemplate them.
​
Next I read Les Misérables, and found the message to be almost entirely in contradiction with the message in Crime & Punishment (at least from my personal take) and I loved it so much. The book took me on an incredible journey and really did change the way I look at life. That being said, I found the book a bit challenging to read, and while the author is clearly talented, it was a little difficult form me to keep up with so many references, both historical and literary.
​
Then I went hard on the Dostoevsky train because I love his style so much. I read Brothers karamazov, The Idiot, and just finished Demons…. Next I want to read Notes from the Underground.
​
What I worry about, is I might lose that sense of relief and empowerment when I found Victor Hugo basically writing >!”The prison system is flawed, and in many ways can make you a worse person, straying farther from God” !< while I felt myself in disagreement with Dostoevsky.
​
One extra thing, I am an atheist, and this hasn’t turned me off by any means to Dostoevsky, if anything I fully enjoy seeing all of the thoughts he’s had on the matter. I actually did try to find an atheistic writer I liked and gave The Stranger by Albert Camus a shot, did not really enjoy it. Also tried Twilight of The Idols… didn’t love it either, but willing to admit I wasn’t in the right headspace to take on something like that and I will likely try it again down the road.
​
What do you think? Have you ever dove very deep into one author? Or do you make yourself switch things up just to see different viewpoints?
​
​
by Moist_Assignment7
1 Comment
From the title I thought this was going to be another post along the lines of “Can everyone gather around and tell me it’s okay that I only read Harry Potter?” but instead it’s something different. You haven’t *been* reading only one author, and I can tell you won’t be in the future – you’re just going on a Dostoyevsky deep dive at the moment, but once you’re Dostoyevskied out (too much of this guy at once can be depressing) you can go back to Victor Hugo for more of the sense of triumph you got there, and check out other authors and see what you find in them.
I had a Dostoyevsky-reading summer this year (although I didn’t read as much of his work as you – just *Notes From Underground*, *The Double*, and *Crime and Punishment*, then I got a new and tiring job so *The Brothers Karamazov* has been going slow). IMO author deep-dives are normal and fun, and it can be fascinating to watch an author’s focuses or writing habits change over the course of a career, and also see what stays the same. Sometimes an author’s work gives you a particular mood that you can’t get anywhere else, and you want to read those books until you’ve had enough of that mood (for now). It would be limiting if you *only ever* read the work of one author, but to focus on one author *for a time* (and then take a break and/or switch over to another author to compare him to) can be productive.