The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Brothers Karamazov
Fyodor Dostoevsky Collection
>
Brothers Karamazov, The 2010/11: Background & Schedule
date
newest »
newest »
I have a copy of Dostoevsky's A Writer's Diary: Volume 1 1873-1876 on my shelf. When I bought it, I assumed (incorrectly) that it was what it said - a diary written by Dostoevsky. Instead, it is a collection of writing that Dostoevsky published first in a column and then as entire publications, with a little bit of everything. I thumbed through the introduction (written by Gary Saul Morson)and came across some interesting information as it relates to the Brothers K:
"When Dostoevsky suspended the Diary to write the promised "future novel," Karamasov, he brought his new way of organizing heterogeneous material with him. In many respects, Karamasov may be viewed as a combination of plotting techniques developed in his earlier novels with the Diary's essentially poetic hierarchy of resonances. Like the Diary, Dostoevsky's last novel explicitly includes a great diversity of genres, often labeled by their traditional names in the table of contents. As in the Diary, each theme is filtered through radically divergent traditional forms, which are all linked together and set in dialogue with each other. And as in the Diary, it is not just people but whole genres, each conveying a distinct sense of the world, that speak to each other. Each traditional form, understood as a view of experience and a particular way of speaking, enters into the novel's ideological symposium." (pg. 70)
It goes on to say that the Brothers K "resembles A Writer's Diary with a plot." (pg. 71) If I weren't so pressed for time (it will be all I can do to get through the Garnett version of the Brothers K...), I would really like to read A Writer's Diary as a companion read.
"When Dostoevsky suspended the Diary to write the promised "future novel," Karamasov, he brought his new way of organizing heterogeneous material with him. In many respects, Karamasov may be viewed as a combination of plotting techniques developed in his earlier novels with the Diary's essentially poetic hierarchy of resonances. Like the Diary, Dostoevsky's last novel explicitly includes a great diversity of genres, often labeled by their traditional names in the table of contents. As in the Diary, each theme is filtered through radically divergent traditional forms, which are all linked together and set in dialogue with each other. And as in the Diary, it is not just people but whole genres, each conveying a distinct sense of the world, that speak to each other. Each traditional form, understood as a view of experience and a particular way of speaking, enters into the novel's ideological symposium." (pg. 70)
It goes on to say that the Brothers K "resembles A Writer's Diary with a plot." (pg. 71) If I weren't so pressed for time (it will be all I can do to get through the Garnett version of the Brothers K...), I would really like to read A Writer's Diary as a companion read.
Sharon wrote: "I have a copy of Dostoevsky's A Writer's Diary: Volume 1 1873-1876 on my shelf. When I bought it, I assumed (incorrectly) that it was what it said - a diary written by Dostoevsky. Instead, it is..."
Thanks so much for that Sharon! It really opens up even more ways of looking at this as I read it. So much to think about, so little time...
Thanks so much for that Sharon! It really opens up even more ways of looking at this as I read it. So much to think about, so little time...
Get the samovar heated up! Tomorrow, November 11, is Dostoevsky's birthday. If he had lived, he would have been 189 (I think--He was born in 1821).
Mod
Wow! That'll stick with me for sure. I am a U.S. Coast Guard veteran, and now I'll always think of Veteran's Day/Armistice Day also as Dostoevsky's birthday. Cool!
Christopher wrote: "You guys know that I was just trying to be cute.Also, Everyman, I would appreciate it if you would periodically remind me of the fact that the narrator is unreliable. I keep forgetting that, and..."
And would you also like to be periodically reminded that the moderator is unreliable? *wicked laughter*
Now this is strong praise:
“So great is the worth of Dostoevsky that to have produced him is by itself sufficient justification for the existence of the Russian people in the world: and he will bear witness for his country-men at the last judgement of the nations.”
http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/quot...
“So great is the worth of Dostoevsky that to have produced him is by itself sufficient justification for the existence of the Russian people in the world: and he will bear witness for his country-men at the last judgement of the nations.”
http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/quot...
Mmmm....I rather go along with Maxim Gorky's opinion that he was 'Russia's evil genius' and tend to agree with Nikolay Mikhailovsky that he was a 'a sick, cruel talent':(. I am like Vladimir Nabokov and have 'no ear for Dostoevsky'.
MadgeUK wrote: "Mmmm....I rather go along with Maxim Gorky's opinion that he was 'Russia's evil genius' and tend to agree with Nikolay Mikhailovsky that he was a 'a sick, cruel talent':(. I am like Vladimir Nabo..."You have no ear for him, and yet you read all his novels? Why?
I read them whilst I was studying comparative religion and now I read this one because it was the group choice. Glad to see you back Nemo - I thought you had buried yourself deep Underground!I have an ear for Russian Orthodox church music though - this is by Rachmaninov and there are some lovely images of 'Holly' (!) Russian churches and monasteries:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YPMdY...
MadgeUK wrote: "I read them whilst I was studying comparative religion and now I read this one because it was the group choice. Glad to see you back Nemo - I thought you had buried yourself deep Underground!..."I can't go digging into the Underground while leaving a gold mine behind, you know. :)
Okay, I know it's Thanksgiving week and things around GR are slowed down a bit, but the Karamazov discussion is languishing.
I'd like to suggest condensing the rest of the schedule to two books/week and see if we can pick up some participation.
Thoughts, Chris?
I'd like to suggest condensing the rest of the schedule to two books/week and see if we can pick up some participation.
Thoughts, Chris?
I agree and perhaps the Moderators can contribute some thoughts so as to gee folks on a bit?
MadgeUK wrote: "I agree and perhaps the Moderators can contribute some thoughts so as to gee folks on a bit?"
BK and I are not enjoying each others' company. :( My thoughts on it are not necessarily worth sharing, so if someone else has ideas they'd like to throw out to get the ball rolling, feel free.
BK and I are not enjoying each others' company. :( My thoughts on it are not necessarily worth sharing, so if someone else has ideas they'd like to throw out to get the ball rolling, feel free.
I understand that Kate and I have found it very depressing to read BK again. I disliked it the first time round and that dislike has not lessened. I have done my best to contribute but alas! my ideas have fallen on stony ground, perhaps because others feel as you do. Do folks, in fact, want to abandon the reading and move on to pastures new?
I understand that Kate and I have found it very depressing to read BK again. I disliked it the first time round and that dislike has not lessened. I have done my best to contribute but alas! my ideas have fallen on stony ground, perhaps because others feel as you do. Do folks, in fact, want to abandon the reading and move on to pastures new?
Or...will these questions posed by Dartmouth Uni help to regenerate the discussion (POSSIBLE SPOILERS):-
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~karamazo/re...
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~karamazo/wr...
MadgeUK wrote: "Do folks, in fact, want to abandon the reading and move on to pastures new?"
Both Adelle and Patrice have been very active commenters and I'm sure both of them would probably like to continue, so I don't think quitting here makes any sense. I intend to finish it, I'm just going to do so in the next week or so, rather than sometime in January.
Let's leave the question at whether or not people would like to move this along a little faster.
Both Adelle and Patrice have been very active commenters and I'm sure both of them would probably like to continue, so I don't think quitting here makes any sense. I intend to finish it, I'm just going to do so in the next week or so, rather than sometime in January.
Let's leave the question at whether or not people would like to move this along a little faster.
Patrice wrote: "Guys, I have to tell you, I adore this book! A minority of one! It infiltrates my every thought. I was just talking to my husband about a discussion I was having with my son. An angel sitting o..."
Hardly a minority of one! Look at the reviews sometime and see how many people have the same reaction to the book that you have! Lots and lots say this one is life changing.
I don't find it particularly bleak or depressing. I see lots of sly humor in it. On the other hand, I don't find the characters or their discussions very compelling. The melodrama is tiresome, but that's a feature of 19th C. lit and I can ignore it for the most part. But the (universal?) hysteria of the female characters really grates on me, the underlying Russian fatalism finds no echoes in my soul, the Rebellion and Grand Inquisitor chapters were weaker than I'd expected. I'm not finding a lot that appeals to me so far (middle of book 8).
If I look at this book intellectually, I can understand why people find it gives them freedom. It's the same joy some people find in submission. A giving in, maybe? A sense that all of this is true, and none of this is true, so why are you fighting yourself over it? Yes, life is absurd and sometimes silly. Yes, good exists and evil exists with it, and they are wrapped up together and sometimes one is the other. So stop trying to separate them, don't worry about being "right", and just live. BUT. For me that is a strictly intellectual response here and not an emotional one.
So far I am finding this book surprisingly simplistic in its arguments. I think I was expecting something different. I think that apparent simplicity is exactly why it is so effective at engaging people.
But you know, you can get most of the same things out of Huck Finn and do it 600 fewer pages. ;)
ETA: I AM going to finish this! Who knows. My opinions might change. On to Book 9.
Hardly a minority of one! Look at the reviews sometime and see how many people have the same reaction to the book that you have! Lots and lots say this one is life changing.
I don't find it particularly bleak or depressing. I see lots of sly humor in it. On the other hand, I don't find the characters or their discussions very compelling. The melodrama is tiresome, but that's a feature of 19th C. lit and I can ignore it for the most part. But the (universal?) hysteria of the female characters really grates on me, the underlying Russian fatalism finds no echoes in my soul, the Rebellion and Grand Inquisitor chapters were weaker than I'd expected. I'm not finding a lot that appeals to me so far (middle of book 8).
If I look at this book intellectually, I can understand why people find it gives them freedom. It's the same joy some people find in submission. A giving in, maybe? A sense that all of this is true, and none of this is true, so why are you fighting yourself over it? Yes, life is absurd and sometimes silly. Yes, good exists and evil exists with it, and they are wrapped up together and sometimes one is the other. So stop trying to separate them, don't worry about being "right", and just live. BUT. For me that is a strictly intellectual response here and not an emotional one.
So far I am finding this book surprisingly simplistic in its arguments. I think I was expecting something different. I think that apparent simplicity is exactly why it is so effective at engaging people.
But you know, you can get most of the same things out of Huck Finn and do it 600 fewer pages. ;)
ETA: I AM going to finish this! Who knows. My opinions might change. On to Book 9.
Patrice wrote: "A friend of mine is really upset by the female hysteria. But what about Dimitri? Or Fyodor? They seem to be pretty hysterical to me too.
I don't feel any sense of submission. In fact I feel ..."
**SPOILER WARNINGS**
I can see feeling a sense of mastery. But submission and mastery are two sides of the same coin, aren't they? Either way it is a feeling of empowerment.
I thought the Rebellion chapter sounded like reports of real atrocities. I took them for that as I read it. You can find analogs in today's newspapers that are just as stomach turning. And of course neither Ivan or we can find any good answers for why that kind of suffering happens.
Christ's suffering is the obvious parallel in Rebellion, but Ivan seems to be saying that such suffering can't be redeemed. That there is no entity outside the sufferer who can justify or redeem it. To me that sounds like a rejection of Christ's role, rather than a recognition of it.
GI really left me cold. Even if you strip away the obvious criticism of the RC church, I saw it as a false dichotomy. D. presents it as a choice between freedom and oppression, or nurturing the soul vs. feeding the body. Implied is the sense that freedom is achieved through suffering and that sufficiency of the body and satisfaction of the spirit will create a complaisance that enslaves. It's an interesting argument but it seemed like a false either/or to me which maybe leads to your idea of hour glass v. two women.
The Zosima book was an obvious contrast to Ivan's conflicted intellectualism that preceded it. It was an embrace of faith, of being true to oneself, of choosing the right path as a way to freedom. It provides an uncomplicated balance to the previous book, as if to say "See, worrying about such things isn't productive. It harms you. Put your trust in prayer and God; it will lead you to joy and make you true to yourself." Does it strike you that Zosima, in his person and position as starets embodies the "mystery, miracle, authority" trinity that the GI claimed was all mankind needed from religion? It did me.
I agree that I think D's saying doing the right thing will ultimately lead to joy and the wrong will have consequences. What I meant above was that D. says not to worry about the sins and evil in the world, don't let it confuse your own pursuit of joy, of what is right.
As for fatalism, it seems everywhere to me. Kind of an underlying acceptance of suffering as the human condition. Arguably, the only one so far whose choices have determined his fate is Fyodor, but I have plenty more to read.
I don't feel any sense of submission. In fact I feel ..."
**SPOILER WARNINGS**
I can see feeling a sense of mastery. But submission and mastery are two sides of the same coin, aren't they? Either way it is a feeling of empowerment.
I thought the Rebellion chapter sounded like reports of real atrocities. I took them for that as I read it. You can find analogs in today's newspapers that are just as stomach turning. And of course neither Ivan or we can find any good answers for why that kind of suffering happens.
Christ's suffering is the obvious parallel in Rebellion, but Ivan seems to be saying that such suffering can't be redeemed. That there is no entity outside the sufferer who can justify or redeem it. To me that sounds like a rejection of Christ's role, rather than a recognition of it.
GI really left me cold. Even if you strip away the obvious criticism of the RC church, I saw it as a false dichotomy. D. presents it as a choice between freedom and oppression, or nurturing the soul vs. feeding the body. Implied is the sense that freedom is achieved through suffering and that sufficiency of the body and satisfaction of the spirit will create a complaisance that enslaves. It's an interesting argument but it seemed like a false either/or to me which maybe leads to your idea of hour glass v. two women.
The Zosima book was an obvious contrast to Ivan's conflicted intellectualism that preceded it. It was an embrace of faith, of being true to oneself, of choosing the right path as a way to freedom. It provides an uncomplicated balance to the previous book, as if to say "See, worrying about such things isn't productive. It harms you. Put your trust in prayer and God; it will lead you to joy and make you true to yourself." Does it strike you that Zosima, in his person and position as starets embodies the "mystery, miracle, authority" trinity that the GI claimed was all mankind needed from religion? It did me.
I agree that I think D's saying doing the right thing will ultimately lead to joy and the wrong will have consequences. What I meant above was that D. says not to worry about the sins and evil in the world, don't let it confuse your own pursuit of joy, of what is right.
As for fatalism, it seems everywhere to me. Kind of an underlying acceptance of suffering as the human condition. Arguably, the only one so far whose choices have determined his fate is Fyodor, but I have plenty more to read.
Patrice wrote: "Wow, you raise some really great points and i'm going to have to think long and hard. Thank you, it's great to have another viewpoint to bounce off of.
Submission and mastery are two sides of t..."
I have been reading lots of BDSM-related writing in the last year, most of it admittedly erotic fluff (Madge is frowning at me), and have been sucked into looking at the very interesting dynamic of Domination and submission. It's often explored within a sexual context, but its application is much wider than that. It's given me a completely different perspective on the idea of what submission means. I used to think the same way you do, and I think some of that is that we Westerners are conditioned to see submission as weakness. I think D. would have rejected that idea. His hero, Alexei, is very submissive to his starets and his faith and that is what "frees" him to be himself.
:D Life becomes fascinating when you start tying similarities in religious lifestyles to people who choose to enter 24/7 D/s relationships. Amazing that I spent 50 years of my life just clueless about some of these things but equally amazing how you slot bits of new information into your worldview :)
Chatting about these ideas helps keep me motivated on this one. Don't disappear on me!
Submission and mastery are two sides of t..."
I have been reading lots of BDSM-related writing in the last year, most of it admittedly erotic fluff (Madge is frowning at me), and have been sucked into looking at the very interesting dynamic of Domination and submission. It's often explored within a sexual context, but its application is much wider than that. It's given me a completely different perspective on the idea of what submission means. I used to think the same way you do, and I think some of that is that we Westerners are conditioned to see submission as weakness. I think D. would have rejected that idea. His hero, Alexei, is very submissive to his starets and his faith and that is what "frees" him to be himself.
:D Life becomes fascinating when you start tying similarities in religious lifestyles to people who choose to enter 24/7 D/s relationships. Amazing that I spent 50 years of my life just clueless about some of these things but equally amazing how you slot bits of new information into your worldview :)
Chatting about these ideas helps keep me motivated on this one. Don't disappear on me!
Kate wrote: "I have been reading lots of BDSM-related writing in the last year, most of it admittedly erotic fluff (Madge is frowning at me), and have been sucked into looking at the very interesting dynamic of Domination and submission...."LOL, I shoulda known. A sucker for punishment you are! Why else would you keep reading a novel that you don't enjoy? :)
I first came across BDSM in the TV series "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation", and it was something new to me. The idea that the one who submits actually has more power (presumably because it is the exercise of free will), that it takes trust to be able to submit yourself completely to someone else, and that suffering and pleasure can go hand in hand (I don't quite get this masochistic notion though).
Nemo wrote: "Kate wrote: "I have been reading lots of BDSM-related writing in the last year, most of it admittedly erotic fluff (Madge is frowning at me), and have been sucked into looking at the very interesti..."
LOL. I keep thinking that if I read BK long enough I will find what many others seem to see in this book. Undoubtedly a sign of masochism. :)
The mental elements of BDSM are what interest me and how the interpersonal dynamic works. I've heard submissives call the feeling of being able to give up control a feeling of "joy". And you are right that it takes an immense trust and effort of will to do that. Conversely the dominant partner is responsible for both themself and the person submitting to them, and that responsibility is its own kind of submission. Their mastery is also dependent upon the will of the submissive partner. It's an interesting paradox. The physical enjoyment of pain and humiliation escapes me, as does the desire to inflict it. I'm not so sure that it would have confused Dostoevsky, though.
LOL. I keep thinking that if I read BK long enough I will find what many others seem to see in this book. Undoubtedly a sign of masochism. :)
The mental elements of BDSM are what interest me and how the interpersonal dynamic works. I've heard submissives call the feeling of being able to give up control a feeling of "joy". And you are right that it takes an immense trust and effort of will to do that. Conversely the dominant partner is responsible for both themself and the person submitting to them, and that responsibility is its own kind of submission. Their mastery is also dependent upon the will of the submissive partner. It's an interesting paradox. The physical enjoyment of pain and humiliation escapes me, as does the desire to inflict it. I'm not so sure that it would have confused Dostoevsky, though.
Kate wrote: "Okay, I know it's Thanksgiving week and things around GR are slowed down a bit, but the Karamazov discussion is languishing.
I'd like to suggest condensing the rest of the schedule to two books/we..."
Yes, I fell away during Thanksgiving week.
Personally, I'm finding TBK a truly wonderful read. But I have no inclination to read faster than the scheduled book a week. There is so much to think about in each book.
Yet it appears that everyone is well beyond Book IV.
I'd like to suggest condensing the rest of the schedule to two books/we..."
Yes, I fell away during Thanksgiving week.
Personally, I'm finding TBK a truly wonderful read. But I have no inclination to read faster than the scheduled book a week. There is so much to think about in each book.
Yet it appears that everyone is well beyond Book IV.
Kate wrote: (Madge is frowning at me), and have been sucked into looking at the very interesti..."Not frowning exactly but rather worried that you have been 'sucked into' something which, according to psychologists can become an addiction:( To me the very idea of deliberately inflicting pain on someone is no better than deliberately waging war for no good reason. It is something to be avoided, not celebrated. I just read the Wikipedia definition of BDSM and it made me feel physically sick. In Christian terms flagellation, or the 'mortification of the flesh' has the same idea and there are members of the Catholic church who belong to an organisation called Opus Dei who practice self-flagellation 'using an instrument called a "discipline", a cat-tail whip usually made of knotted cords, which is flung over the shoulders repeatedly during private prayer'. This description of erotic flagellation is, to me appalling and IMO these ideas are best left in the Dark Ages:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella...
I find the idea of total submission to any other person, or supernatural being, totally alien. The 'act or state of deference or acquiescence to a stronger power' (dictionary definition) is, for me, a negation of personal freedom and an acceptance of a dictatorship in a personal sense which we would not for one minute accept in a political sense. It is perhaps because the theme of submission runs so strongly through BK that I am unhappy with the book and depressed by it. It also confirms my atheism and makes me feel that I am glad not to be part of an organisation which condones such medieval, barbaric practices. Sorry if this offends but, in turn, I find these religious ideas offensive:(.
Adelle wrote: "Kate wrote: "Okay, I know it's Thanksgiving week and things around GR are slowed down a bit, but the Karamazov discussion is languishing.
I'd like to suggest condensing the rest of the schedule ..."
I was tossing out ideas to help move the discussion along. Books 5 and 6 may provoke more participation because they are so central to the philosophical aspects of BK. Until/unless Chris wants to change the schedule we'll leave it as is. I am going to push the envelope and put up next week's thread a day early, though.
I'd like to suggest condensing the rest of the schedule ..."
I was tossing out ideas to help move the discussion along. Books 5 and 6 may provoke more participation because they are so central to the philosophical aspects of BK. Until/unless Chris wants to change the schedule we'll leave it as is. I am going to push the envelope and put up next week's thread a day early, though.
I've only just started reading, so I'm playing catch-up, but I am reading the 'clunkiness' of the text as something that is there to bring out the comedy. The frequent use of the word 'decidedly' can't be an accident, surely. To me, it conveys the sort of verbal 'tic' that Dickens often used in his characterisations. Maybe the convolutedness of this kind of expression is supposed to convey something to the reader? I don't want the translator to be smoothing out the text if, in fact, Dostoevesky wasn't writing in a smooth way.
Kathy wrote: "I've only just started reading, so I'm playing catch-up, but I am reading the 'clunkiness' of the text as something that is there to bring out the comedy. The frequent use of the word 'decidedly' ..."
The humor is definitely there. It comes through more in some translations than others, I think. I was using Avsey and he was definitely conscious of the humor and structuring his translations to retain the "feel", as he called it, of Dostoevsky's original. I don't know whether the clunkiness is there in Russian or not. Nabokov seems to have thought so.
The humor is definitely there. It comes through more in some translations than others, I think. I was using Avsey and he was definitely conscious of the humor and structuring his translations to retain the "feel", as he called it, of Dostoevsky's original. I don't know whether the clunkiness is there in Russian or not. Nabokov seems to have thought so.
I think perhaps I can't get over Dostoevsky as a person enough to appreciate the humour. I find him a rather distasteful personality and even his humour seems as bitter and twisted as himself:(.
MadgeUK wrote: "I think perhaps I can't get over Dostoevsky as a person enough to appreciate the humour. I find him a rather distasteful personality and even his humour seems as bitter and twisted as himself:(."
I thought the chapter of Ivan and the devil was laugh out loud funny, but then maybe I'm twisted. The warped Russian humor is there from the very beginning. Remember that scene between Fyodor and Zossima? And it's present every time he takes a conversation or a meeting between a group of people up to and over the edge of hysteria. Feels like he intentionally pushes it over the top into farce.
I thought the chapter of Ivan and the devil was laugh out loud funny, but then maybe I'm twisted. The warped Russian humor is there from the very beginning. Remember that scene between Fyodor and Zossima? And it's present every time he takes a conversation or a meeting between a group of people up to and over the edge of hysteria. Feels like he intentionally pushes it over the top into farce.
But I am not at all sure that this is Dostoevsky being humorous Kate. I just think we perceive it to be so. It is rather as people read Victorian melodrama today but that too was taken seriously in its time. I also think the scene between Fyodor and Zossima was satirical rather than humorous. He was illustrating Fyodor's buffoonery as a way of making him, and his views, ridiculous. There is cruelty there, I think.
And I can't see how he could make the chapter of Ivan and the devil funny (even if we see it so), given that he thought Ivan/atheists were so profoundly wrong and would go mad. Again, it was more satire than humour, and sarcastic.
MadgeUK wrote: "I think perhaps I can't get over Dostoevsky as a person enough to appreciate the humour. I find him a rather distasteful personality and even his humour seems as bitter and twisted as himself:(."This is why I am never interested in the lives of writers. I don't think Dostoevsky as a person is relevant when reading his novel. I also don't want to fall into the trap of believing that the narrator is the same as the writer, so best to know as little as possible about the writer as a person.
I've only read the first two books, but I definitely think that the whole lot is a mixture of satire and farce. So far, I haven't thought that there's a single character that is supposed to be taken seriously.
But surely you don't think that is what Dostoevsky intended? That he was a humorist/satirist and not committed to the philosophies his characters were expounding? That surely goes against what he wrote in his non-fiction Diaries and what his contemporaries said about him, that he was on a mission to bring back the religion of old Russia and to prevent the peasants sinking into Western socialist ways?
LOL, Hertsentube is a crack up. And yes, Madge, I do think Dostoevsky is being intentionally humorous. Very much so. I wouldn't say it was satire, but he uses humor very effectively to underline his more serious ideas and yet to keep people guessing "Was he serious there, or was he kidding us?" Or sometimes he uses it just to lighten the mood.
Of course Herzentube is not only funny. He's an incompetent posturing enlightened European who doesn't really have the answers to anything. So this reinforces Dostoevsky's personal views of scientific knowledge and the Europeans in general.
Of course Herzentube is not only funny. He's an incompetent posturing enlightened European who doesn't really have the answers to anything. So this reinforces Dostoevsky's personal views of scientific knowledge and the Europeans in general.
MadgeUK wrote: "But surely you don't think that is what Dostoevsky intended? That he was a humorist/satirist and not committed to the philosophies his characters were expounding? That surely goes against what he..."No, I never think that the author is the same as any of the characters and so I never assume that the author espouses any of the philosophies that he puts in the mouths of his characters. In fact, Dostoevsky is known as the father of the polyphonic novel, isn't he? Bakhtin says this:
'The character is treated as ideologically authoritative and independent; he is perceived as the author of a fully weighted ideological conception of his own, and not as the object of Dostoevsky's finalising artistic vision'. (Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics)
I'm getting the feeling that rather a lot of The B.K. is tongue-in-cheek. But I'll let you know if I start taking it more seriously when I get further into it.
And you know that I ditto. Right?"
Yes, and what would I do without all of you dear people? I would be bereft of the most wonderful company, that's what! You are all the very best! And I genuinely mean that too!