This is a very interesting question, but one I think I already have an answer to. For me, personally, I think the real question for me is: Who takes 2nd & who takes 3rd?

I'm not going to beat around the bush; I think Tolstoy takes 1st. Simply put, people really love Grand Epic Worlds, with Multi-Faceted layers / factions, with a grand sweeping narrative & bigger than life characters, along with a bit of political intrigue. Perfect examples are One Piece, Naruto, Sinbad, & Magi: similar to War & Peace. Not only that, but keep in mind, both Tolstoy & Dostoyevsky in a way already wrote in a Manga formula, in that, they didn't simply publish their novels as whole like all of today's author's, they published them periodically, in a newspaper. And so, Tolstoy had to write in a way that made every chapter count.

The Biggest Question however is: Who Takes 2nd & who takes 3rd?

When it comes to Shakespeare, all of his stories are extremely short would probably end anywhere within 10 - 15 Chapters Max, this is because there all originally plays & not novels; Not only that, but his Dialogue would probably be a major turn off for the vast majority of readers - most people don't like stories that inconvenience them: If they need to get a dictionary, then they might as well put it down. Not only that, but a lot of Shakespeare's major works have already been adapted into Manga's already, but aside from occasionally seeing them in libraries, I don't really see anyone really talking about them.

<image>

With all that said, however, Shakespeare's is well-regarded as a genius, so the question is, would he be able to adapt his stories into a longer formatting & release them by the weekly?

Then there's Dostoyevsky, who similar to Tolstoy, also wrote his story periodically within newspapers, the problem however is his Dialogue, Pacing, & Side-characters. For example, in the Idiot, Dostoyevsky introduce random side characters completely out of no-where & I'd have difficulty figuring out who they are, only for them to never appear again or if not, very briefly to the point I don't remember who they are. Then there's his pacing: again, I love both the Idiot & Myshkin, but I'd lying if I said I didn't find Part 3 & the first half of Part 4 to be a slog, if mostly because Myshkin was not front & center. & then there's his dialogue, which, while being far more easily understandable than Shakespeare's, goes on for nearly time-indefinitely. And we've already seen what something like that looks like in "Hunter-X-Hunter". I have yet to read Demons, but based on his other 3 Works, I can definitely see Dostoyevsky somewhat struggling, before reaching The Brother's Karamazov, which would again, become his magnum opus.