board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Dostoyevsky

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 12 posts ]
Author Message
Semprini
Post subject: Dostoyevsky
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 3:50 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
Hail one of the great literary masters. Perhaps the only one who had both the gift of literature and the gift of philosophy.

His great books are horribly structured but are among the most powerful ever written. His characters sometimes appear to be irrational and crazy and yet Nietzsche said that he is the only writer who taught him something on psychology. He discovered before everyone what communism would be about in The Demons, half a century before the Russian revolution, and yet he appeared to have thought that communism was still better than a world where the existence of God would be questioned and where men would be cynical and would indulge in compromises (I disagree with him). He was antisemitic and nationalist (as shown by his letters and self-edited newspaper) and yet, some of his characters are gentle and humanistic (The Idiot, Aliocha Karamazov, etc...). His characters are either violent, excessive, crazy, intolerant or saints full of love and forgiveness but unable to change the course of events and thus ultimately detached from the world, and yet you cannot help pitying them, loving them, and through, them, humanity, any man, whatever his condition is. He faced during his life tragic events and yet the very end of his last (and unfinished) novel, The Brothers Karamazov, ends on a note of hope. He is full of contradiction and yet, his works bear the mark of a coherent and consistent vision of life. Etc...

Who is a Dostoyevsky fan here?

Edited for spelling and clarification.

Last edited by Semprini on Sun 06 Mar , 2005 4:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Ethel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 3:58 pm
The Pirate's Daughter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Four Corners
 
It has been many years since I read Dostoyevsky, but I remember liking him very much. He's completely over the top, but somehow it works. I think the Grand Inquisitor chapter of Brothers Karamazov is one of the most compelling essays on human psychology I have ever read.

I bought a copy of The Idiot recently, thinking I would like to reread it. I hope you'll be around to discuss it with when I do.

_________________

Living well is the best revenge. --George Herbert


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 4:15 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I certainly consider myself a fan, but not a knowledgable one. Its been years since I read The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment and The Idiot, but I still consider them to be among the most important books that I have read. Fyodor certainly had some very powerful insights into the human condition. I would probably mostly lurk in any discussion on him and/or his works, but I would greatly appreciate the chance to do so. And who knows, maybe I would be able to contribute a bit here and there. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 4:49 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Ethel - the Idiot is one of my all time favourite books, one of those for which I forgot lunch and stayed awake at night. :D

In other words I love Dostoyesky (In German he is spelled Dostojewski....)

Someone drag Rodia over here?

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 5:07 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
In French, he is spelt Dostoïevski. :)

Thanks for your comments. :) The Idiot is also one of my favorite books. It moved me to tears. I would be glad to discuss it here.

There is a particular aspect of Dostoyevsky I would like to address later in the thread if you agree. This aspect is the paradox represented by the over-the-top and excessive nature of his books and characters and the soothing effect they have on the readers. When you consider the rage that can be found in some of his books, this soothing effect, this reward, is unexpected. It is almost a catharsis.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 5:54 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Evidently there's a company in Russia using his image on a lottery ticket, which if you know anything about his life is beyond ironic, in the land of simply tacky.

His descendants are NOT happy.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Rodia
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 6:08 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:48 pm
 
:D

*points to username* Nothing like reading old Fiedia at the height of your teenage angst.
Quote:
There is a particular aspect of Dostoyevsky I would like to address later in the thread if you agree. This aspect is the paradox represented by the over-the-top and excessive nature of his books and characters and the soothing effect they have on the readers. When you consider the rage that can be found in some of his books, this soothing effect, this reward, is unexpected. It is almost a catharsis.
I admit I never really ordered my thoughts about his books well enough but reading what you wrote I have to agree. It's an interesting thing to discuss. I've often stopped in the middle of a book and wondered at how outrageous the players were- in a film or a series, would I ever accept that? I think I'd call it kitsch, or an extreme form that is interesting to see once, but soon becomes tiring. And yet he doesn't tire me, and I take the books for granted, passion and all. Maybe because Dostoyevski does no more than open a little window into his characters' world. He doesn't offer much analysis, nor does he try and explain further what feelings or cause drive them. He simply shows us the actions and reactions and lets us make our own decisions. Which isn't always easy.

I'd love to discuss The Idiot here...perhaps we could even try a group read? It's been a while since I've read it. It's a frustrating (and fascinating) book for me, I've read it twice so far and both times I was extremely annoyed at not being able to decide what I should think of Myshkin. Was he or was he not an 'idiot'.

My first love however, and we all know first loves are never forgotten, was Crime and Punishment. For some inexplicable reason I felt a strong fellowship with Raskolnikov (hence the choice of my username, which has been my online handle since the beginning) and I reveled in his experiences. He represents a life that is completely unlike anything I've ever experienced, and even his way of thinking is not at all like my own. And yet I felt a brotherhood with this fool. I would read the book and exclaim and curse him for walking all the wrong paths. He was exasperating. I adored him.

_________________

[ img ]
Help me go to the North Pole! by Magic Madzik, on Flickr

TRYING TO GET TO THE NORTH POLE! You can help by voting: http://www.blogyourwaytothenorthpole.com/entries/244


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 7:59 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I think the Grand Inquisitor chapter of Brothers Karamazov is one of the most compelling essays on human psychology I have ever read.

Me too, Ethel. This is one of my favorite passages in all of literature.

My daughter is a huge fan of Dostoevsky. She's read all his works. Her favorite is The Idiot. Maybe I can induce her to join this discussion!

I would definitely be up for a group read of The Idiot or Crime and Punishment (she said, after apologizing in the Sil thread for falling behind before the thing had even started).

Generally, I'm not a fan of Russian literature. It's too, too ... something. Maudlin, I guess. But Dostoevsky is different altogether - he has some distance from his own characters which makes him readable.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 07 Mar , 2005 5:06 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Jnyusa - I would even read The Idiot in English if it allows to discuss it with you. But only after the Convention, please.

Semprini: tu parles français? J'aimerais bien en savoir plus.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 08 Mar , 2005 10:48 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
Rodia,

Thank you for your post. I must confess that I had to struggle hard to overcome my dislike of Raskolnikov. I first intensely disliked his philosophy, his nihilism and his arrogance. It is only progressively that I reconciled myself with him, that I realized how lost and miserable he was. I think I have been pretty harsh and intolerant with him while reading Crime and Punishment. I had construed his rage against society as being too intellectual, too abstract, too detached from real life to be meaningful and worthy of compassion. And then suddenly, almost to my surprise, I forgave Raskolnikov, and I found myself guessing and hoping that he would eventually surrender, which he did. Dostoyevsky had done it again: he had me love and forgive one of his character.

This spirit of forgiveness that Dostoyevsky grants to his readers is IMO the core and the heart of his art. It is a great gift he makes to us. He presents us with people who are so excessive and outrageous that in real life we would dismiss them as being either out of their mind or good comedians. Also, we would be afraid of them. But in his books, not only do we accept them as real characters, not only do we accept their rage as granted, as you said, but we also accept them as brothers, whose acts we can forgive. I believe that it is because Dostoyevsky values honesty and innocence above all qualities, and gives to his heroes these qualities. His characters cannot help acting the way they do (and when they can, they pay for it at a very high price). They cannot fake it. Rogojine in The Idiot can only yield to the temptation; he can only kill Nastaja; it is the call of his blood; an uncontrollable impulse. The Player cannot help playing. Stavroguine in The Demons cannot distinguish between Good and Evil, and because he wants at least to once understand and touch the natural and tangible limit of evil, which he realizes other and normal people understands and recognizes, he commits one of the worst possible crime a man can commit. But even this crime does not really give him a conscious (what kind of Demon is he anyway? A demon who does not feel the joy of evil cannot be considered a true demon. He is, in fact, not a demon at all. He is just a man without a conscience and seeking helplessly one; he is not evil as he does not know what evil is; he just lacks the principle of good in him: he his an uncomplete man). And yet, we still forgive Rogojine, Stavroguine (and even Ivan, who did not directly kill his father, although he is partly responsible for it, and who turned out not to be the cold intellectual we thought he was but also a child), because of the way Dostoyevsky describes them to us: as innocent children, not realizing what they are doing. Dosto is the only writer who does that to me. I strongly believe that people should be held accountable for their acts. I believe in responsability. So for me forgiving really means forgiving someone who is in fact responsible for what he has done even though he may appear to have acted like an innocent child.

Rodia, you said that Dostoyevsky just opens a window into the soul of his character and that we do not really know what they are thinking. But I think that what is important to bear in mind is that these characters are not double-crossing you. They are shown as who they are (as if they were possessed) without varnish. We may not know exactly what they are thinking, but we know that they earnestly, sincerely, think it, if you see what I mean. Dostoyevsky expects and wants his reader to realize that his characters are sincere, hoping that his reader will empathize with their characters and forgive them because of their sincerety. And this spirit of forgiveness that he grants to his reader is the reason why, I suspect, I love him so much. Why, also, I love, above all of his characters, Muychkine, the so-called Idiot, who has, at the highest degree, this spirit of forgiveness. Myshkin sees. He is not an Idiot: he sees what other people cannot see: he pierces the heart of the people he meets and he knows who they really are. What he cannot do, however, is change these people. He does not have the power to change them, to stop the tragic course of events. And this is where lies the sadness that is conveyed by the book: we want the Prince to dominate the world, whereas it is not his world, and his fundamental goodness, which is a weakness in the real world, ends up frustrating us, while we should cheer for it. The same goes for Aliocha in The Brothers Karamazov. However, neither Myshkin nor Aliocha are meant to change the course of events. They should let other people exercise their free will, and then forgive them because these characters do not really know what they are doing.

By reading some of Dostoyevsky’s articles in his newspaper, I discovered that Dostoyevsky’s love for the innocents and his belief that innocent is a great virtue had its drawback: Dostoyevsky hated compromises. He really hated intellectuals who were consciously and cynically compromising with life (Dosto gives his intellectuals a very hard time in his books; for example, I think that he treats Ivan Karamazov unfairly). He really was vomiting them. It is almost ironic that Dostoyevsky became such an icon in France, where he has been studied and discussed by all intellectuals since Gide discovered him around 1920, while he probably hated the French for their absence of faith in God and their perceived cynical (and he was wrong for the French are not cynical, they are just pessimist). This is a less known, uncomfortable and frightening, aspect of his personality. But I forgive him, thanks to the spirit of forgiveness he gave to me, an unbeliever. :)

A quick and last comment: I think that Frodo is almost a Dostoyevskian character: he had with Gollum a true double, his possible negative double. Frodo sees what Sam cannot see, just like Myshkin. And although he perfectly knows that Gollum would betray him, just like Myshkin knew that Rogojine would stab him, he let Gollum betray him, he gives Gollum a chance. Then, he forgives Gollum after the destruction of the Ring. Even more, he asks Sam (us) to forgive him too in what is probably the most meaningful passage of LOTR, which PJ, unfortunately (and consciously :) ) cut, thus very much simplifying one of the uncomfortable theme of the book. However, contrary to Myshkin, Frodo is not weak. He is as strong as Dmitri Karamazov.

Sorry for rambling on. :) I hope this makes some sense.

Jn,

You find Russian literature maudlin? Funny. I would not call maudlin any of my favorite Russian novels (which include Dosto’s four great novels, Vassili Grossmann’s Vie et Destin (don’t know the English title for this one), Gontcharov’s Oblomov, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Solzhenitsyn’s One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, and Gogol’s Dead Souls). May I ask you what Russian novels you find maudlin? :)

Nin,

Of course I speak French. I am French. :) If you want to speak in French with me, do not hesitate to send me a private message (je ne crois pas qu'il soit approprié de parler en français dans ce fuseau). :)


Top
Profile Quote
gimli_axe_wielder
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 12:26 am
The easily amuse-OH SHINY!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3120
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:09 pm
Location: So Cal er... Cave systems..
 
I'm half way through Crime and Punishment thanks to a certain hobbit who shall remain nameless.. (RODIA) I dunno.. I do like the book.. but it's the way he writes. I feel like he is writing in fast forward or something. I swear my head starts to hurt trying to keep everything straight.. hes here then hes there then he goes back to here but hes still thinking about there but then this other guy is over here and he is talking about there and here but the first guy is still working on the here part but is now standing in the there part...


WHAAAT???????

_________________

Things and stuff.


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 10:00 am
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
I've read "The Demons" and slept through until somebody bit another one's ear, which was a great scandal. Then I went to sleep again. Brainy, intellectual, difficult to read stuff.

To my shame I extended this label and experience to all Russians, until I stumbled over an english edition of "War and Peace" and made my peace with Tolstoy. In fact, I loved him (his works) ever since. And love so many Russian writers - Pushkin, Mayakovsky, Gogol, Kaminer, Jeroveieff.

But Dostoyevsky? Years later, with half of Russia filling my bookshelves, I poked my nose into "Crime and Punishment" - undigestable.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 12 posts ]
Return to “Literary Rambles: There & Back Again...”
Jump to: