"My position in regards to Dostoevski is a curious and difficult one. In all my courses I approach literature from the only point of view that literature interests me - namely the point of view of enduring art and individual genius. From this point of view Dostoevski is not a great writer, but rather a mediocre one - with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between. In 'Crime and Punishment' Raskolnikov for some reason or other kills an old female pawnbroker and her sister. Justice in the shape of an inexorable police officer closes slowly in on him until in the end he is driven to a public confession, and through the love of a noble prostitute he is brought to a spiritual regeneration that did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. My difficulty, however, is that not all the readers to whom I talk in this or other classes are experienced. A good third, I should say, do not know the difference between real literature and pseudo-literature, and to such readers Dostoevski may seem more important and more artistic than such trash as our American historical novels or things called 'From Here to Eternity' and such like balderdash.
However I shall speak at length about a number of really great artists - Â and it is on this high level that Dostoevski is to be criticized. I am too little of an academic professor to teach subjects that I dislike. I am very eager to debunk Dostoevski. But I realize that readers who have not read much may be puzzled by the set of values implied"
-Excerpt from Vladimir Nabokov's Lectures on Russian Literature.
For someone like me who doesn't think much of Dostoevski (actually even hates his writing to some extent), Nabokov's assessment was a fun read. As much as I admire Nabokov for his literary chops, I think I admire him more now for the clarity of his thoughts!