Anyone who has ever read Fyodor Dostoyevsky, please comment [Archive]

virginiawang

06-06-2009, 10:10 AM

Although prince Myshkin had a generous heart and treated everyone he knew benevolently, he was still a human being with senses to feel. At the moment he saw the portrait of Nastasya Filipovna, he was enchanted by her beauty.Throughout the whole novel, he couldn't resisit his impulse to love her, and that was the reason why he couldn't do anything but to rush away from Aglaya directly he saw Nastasya. It is a devastating love that makes a great diffrence from God's love, which is always described as generous and fair. He did not have even the slightest compassion for Aglaya at the moment he dashed away from her, with whom he agreed to spend the rest of his life already. He had even settled everything with the Yepanchin family about their marriage, but he just couldn't extinguish his flame of love for another woman, who always deceived him in the past. He could not conquer his heart with his head, and that's why I said in my last post that Dostoyevsky created an extremely romantic love story. By the end of the story, the idiot gave way to everlasting idiocy at the sight of the dead woman, whom he loved with every part of his heart. He couldn't have done otherwise, because he had no choice. It was a natural response. His love was so intense that it wrenched his heart and reason into pieces when he saw the woman lying dead on a bed.
Though he had great wish to save and treat people with extreme benevolence, his passion completely routed his good will or compassion for anyone who got involved. He did not care a bit what Aglaya would feel when he ran away to the other woman. I think Dostoyevsy laid a great emphasis upon human impulses and natural feelings, somthing that took place in your head when you don't even know it.
I think people called him an idiot because he did not know too much about the practical side of the real world. He chose to ignore it and acted as a child, who had not known too much about the real world where money, social status, etc are the main concerns. He often found some difficulty in understanding the language, the hints of many people he got associated with, so he became a laughing stock and a cause of amazement for those people. I don't think he had the wisdom to do what he was required at each moment.
I think the idiot was like a baby, totally new to the world. He had compassion for everyone but the most selfish and romantic love for a beautiful woman. Dostoyevsky had romantic ideas and his work, the Idiot, became a great piece of art.

JCamilo

06-06-2009, 03:44 PM

Look, the romantic traits of many of the characters of Dostoievisky are not a reflex of Dostoievisky ideas and aesthetical, Mishikin life is really tragic, but Dostoievisky is using them to express his own experience and disapointment with the ideals. He is a reflex of a world were the romantic ideals are already under criticism. He is after the romantics, not one of them, the contrast (the so called sadness) is what is relevant.
And while it is nice calling his writing beauty, he is not a great aestheticist like Tolstoy, I find the use of this word a bit outplaced.

Gladys

06-06-2009, 08:47 PM

Although prince Myshkin had a generous heart and treated everyone he knew benevolently, he was still a human being with senses to feel. At the moment he saw the portrait of Nastasya Filipovna, he was enchanted by her beauty rather, by the fragile beauty of her soul. Throughout the whole novel, he couldn't resist his impulse to love her rather, to save her from herself, and that was the reason why he couldn't do anything but to rush away from Aglaya directly he saw Nastasya.

It is a devastating love that makes a great difference from God's love, which is always described as generous and fair. He did not have even the slightest compassion rather, he had infinite compassion for Aglaya at the moment he dashed away from her, with whom he agreed to spend the rest of his life already.

He could bear it no longer, and with a look of entreaty, mingled with reproach, he addressed Aglaya, pointing to Nastasia the while:

"How can you?" he murmured; "she is so unhappy."

But he had no time to say another word before.

He had even settled everything with the Yepanchin family about their marriage, but he just couldn't extinguish his flame of love rather, ofcompassion for another woman, who always deceived him in the past. He could not conquer his heart with his head, and that's why I said in my last post that Dostoyevsky created an extremely romantic love story. Not even remotely romantic – like a soldier in battle, the prince is willing 'to give his life for his friend'.

By the end of the story, the idiot gave way to everlasting idiocy at the sight of the dead woman, rather, at the sight of Roghozin, whom he loved with every part of his heart. And afterward, no one understood his tears on Roghozin's cheek as infinite compassion. He couldn't have done otherwise, because he had no choice. It was a natural response. His love was so intense that it wrenched his heart and reason into pieces when he saw the woman lying dead on the ground. rather, when he saw Roghozin a sinner in need, whom he could no longer help.

Though he had great wish to save and treat people with extreme benevolence, his passion completely routed his good will or compassion for anyone who got involved. He did not care a bit what Aglaya would feel when he ran away to the other woman. rather, 'The prince made a rush after her, but he, was caught and held back'. I think Dostoyevsky laid a great emphasis upon human impulses and natural feelings, something that took place in your head when you don't even know it.

I think people called him an idiot because he did not choose to know too much about the practical side of the real world. He chose to ignore it and acted as a child rather, a saint, who had not known too much rather, was not concerned about the real world where money, social status, etc are the main concerns. He often found some difficulty in understanding the language, the hints rather, the lack of compassion of many people he got associated with, so he became a laughing stock and a cause of amazement for those people. I don't think he had rather: He had indeed the wisdom to do what he was required at each moment.
I think the idiot was like a baby, totally new to the world. He had compassion for everyone but the most selfish and romantic love for a beautiful woman. Dostoyevsky had romantic ideas and his work, the Idiot, became a great piece of art.

-----------------------------------------------------------

It seems strange to me, Virginiawang, that you appreciate the great compassion of the Prince Myshkin but fail to see that it is boundless, and so extends without limit to Aglaya and Nastasia Philipovna. In the case of the latter, from as early as Chapter 1.

The character of the prince is devoid of the romantic. He is driven by boundless compassion to do good works: works of love (as advocated by the epistle of James).

virginiawang

06-07-2009, 05:15 AM

When a man left a woman, to whom he was engaged, and chose to stay with another woman and marry her after a few days, he did not have any compassion for the first one. If you insist on his unwillingness in the whole affair, I believe you are joking.
If prince Myshkin had had the wisdom to do the right thing at the right moment, he wouldn't have broken the vase and made a ridiculous scene at the evenig party near the end of the novel. It was only because he couldn't check his impulses and feelings that seized him on the spur of the moment. Feelings and insticts are what Dostoevsky emphasized in most of his novels. These aspects belong to the realm of Romanticism.
In the end of the novel, if you think that the prince became an idiot only because he sympathized a great deal over Rogazin, you are looking at these events on a surface level. You have to admit that from the very beggining of the novel the prince could not get Nastasya out of his head for no reasons at all. One time he even wondered why that woman always seemed to turn up at the most critical moment and change the course of his life immdiately. Many times poeple don't say love to really love a person, they feel and act. You may say you did something out of compassion, social decency, or even politeness, but you don't really know what was going on in your head or your mind all the time. That's what makes love fascinating.

billl

06-07-2009, 05:43 AM

You may say you did something out of compassion, social decency, or even politeness, but you don't really know what was going on in your head or your mind all the time. That's what makes love fascinating.

i haven't read the book, but virginiawang is making a lot of sense.

Gladys

06-09-2009, 03:31 AM

If Prince Myshkin had had the wisdom to do the right thing at the right moment, he wouldn't have broken the vase and made a ridiculous scene at the evening party near the end of the novel.

Thanks, Virginiawang, for drawing my attention to the significance of the valuable china vase of Lizabetha Prokofievna. Loving this novel, I've had fun tracing impact of the broken vase.

Before 'the evening party at the Epanchins'', Aglaya says frivolously to the prince:

I'm sorry for it then, for I should have had a good laugh at you otherwise. Do break something at least, in the drawing-room! Upset the Chinese vase, won't you? It's a valuable one; do break it. Mamma values it, and she'll go out of her mind--it was a present. She'll cry before everyone, you'll see! Wave your hand about, you know, as you always do, and just smash it. Sit down near it on purpose.

And later the anxious prince:

I shall say something foolish out of pure 'funk,' and break something for the same excellent reason; I know I shall.

And a repentant Aglaya:

And you won't reproach me for all these rude words of mine--some day--afterwards?" she asked, of a sudden.

At the party he inadvertently topples the vase:

He saw them gather up the broken bits of china; he heard the loud talking of the guests and observed how pale Aglaya looked, and how very strangely she was gazing at him. There was no hatred in her expression, and no anger whatever. It was full of alarm for him, and sympathy and affection, while she looked around at the others with flashing, angry eyes.

Aglaya's mother dotingly responds with:

"Oh, what a dreadful calamity! A wretched vase smashed, and a man half dead with remorse about it," said Lizabetha Prokofievna, loudly. "What made you so dreadfully startled, Lef Nicolaievitch?" she added, a little timidly. "Come, my dear boy! cheer up. You really alarm me, taking the accident so to heart."

And to the prince the next morning, with strains prophetic of the last page:

"Oh, that's nothing," replied Lizabetha; "I'm not sorry for the vase, I'm sorry for you. H'm! so you can see that there was a 'scene,' can you? Well, it doesn't matter much, for everyone must realize now that it is impossible to be hard on you. ... and be assured, once for all, whatever happens, and whatever may have happened, you shall always remain the friend of the family--mine, at all events. I can answer for myself."

A fortnight after Nastasia Philipovna 's murder, the narrator reports the local gossip:

It was rumoured that he had purposely waited for the solemn occasion of a large evening party at the house of his future bride, at which he was introduced to several eminent persons, in order publicly to make known his ideas and opinions, and thereby insult the "big-wigs," and to throw over his bride as offensively as possible; and that, resisting the servants who were told off to turn him out of the house, he had seized and thrown down a magnificent china vase. As a characteristic addition to the above, it was currently reported that the young prince really loved the lady to whom he was engaged, and had thrown her over out of purely Nihilistic motives, with the intention of giving himself the satisfaction of marrying a fallen woman in the face of all the world...

Why a broken vase? The incident is Dostoyevsky’s way of showing that Prince Myshkin was on the best possible terms with the Epanchin family: ‘whatever happens...you shall always remain the friend of the family’.

While the prince has human weakness, social ineptitude and mild epilepsy for instance, he is a man of peerless integrity and compassion. Nevertheless, the family soon spurns him when he selflessly strives to rescue ‘the fallen woman’, the suicidal Nastasia Philipovna, from herself.

bazarov

06-20-2009, 03:32 AM

Fyodor's intention was not to show romance and happiness where it doesn't exist (if you like that, try with Hugo); he just showed how people and world really are.

Originally Posted by virginiawang
Sorry I don't agree with what you wrote. In my opinion, Dostoyevsky created all kinds of characters that act foolishly, romanticly, but end up in sadness. For example Dymitri had a childish heart, which he devoted entirely to Grunshenka. His passion and love for her could never be more romantic, and that could be seen in all the rash actions he took in the story. Alshoya, in a sense, was romantic in another way. The way he looked at the world was from the angle of a child, who had not grown accustomed to the practical world we know. It best describes the viewpoints suggested in Emrson's Nature, that the rays of stars, which are the most magnificent blessings in the universe, only shot into the eyes of children, but seldom reach those sophiscated adults. Emerson is the most important writer of American Romanticism, and his idea about nature and children is nothing but beautiful. You can never feel romantic without beauty getting involved. I feel the essense of all Dostoyevsky's novel is the beauty of a soul, which can be found in many of his characters. Sadness only intensified beauty and romance, in my opinion.

I don't see what is romantic in Dimitri's love toward Grushenka? Insulting and beating of his own father and brother while she is laughing to him?
Alyosha is a bit too good to even be true; when he realized world is ugly he leaved monastery immediately.

You're mentioning Emerson as a most important writer of American Romanticism - then why are you comparing him with Dostoevsky? It is totally different perspective on humans and world.

Seriously, try with Hugo.

P.S. Mishkin is even not a human, his ''romanticism'' just isn't real.

P.P.S. Welcome!:wave:

virginiawang

06-21-2009, 05:29 AM

There are situations where you can act quite romanticly but you don't enjoy happiness at all, and many times we muddled the two words " romantic" and " happy" when indeed they are diiffrent fundamentally. For example, I am sure you can remember having read romantic stories that end up sadly. The sadness only makes us feel the romantic sentiments all the more. In my opinion, Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novels presented only a part of the world where most people act instinctively, and in a sense, romanticly. When people follow their hearts rather than their heads, they are being romantic. Instincts and intuitions can often be found as the motives of acts in Dostoevsky's characters, and those are the part over which our head or rational faculties have no control. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the mainstream writer of American Romanticism, laid stress upon human instincts, the most natural part of human faculties, in most of his works, because he considered everything natural as being beautiful and romantic. That's the reason why I said in my previous posts that Fyodor Dostoyevsky was a romantic writer. You cannot say the story is not romantic because it is sad. More often than not, we find people who act romanticly do not enjoy the happiness they deserve in real life, but perhaps they do.
By the way, you mentioned Dimitri as void of romance, and I don't quite understand you. If he were not considered as romantic, who else could have been classified as being romantic? He could do anything for his love, and that included all you've mentioned there, for example, beating his father, stealing money from his bethrothed, and wounding the old man who raised him in his childhood. It is an unconditional love on his part. Grashenka, though made fool of him always, accepted him and loved him truly toward the end of the novel.
It is fairly romantic to create such a character as Alyosha, who had an infant-like mind that most people couldn't have imagined in a dream. I agree with you that he was not fit for reality, too naive, innocent, and sincere.
As far as Myshkin is concerned, I believe he had the truest love for Nastasya.
Who is Hugo? I never read him before. If, according to you, he ended up all his novels in great felicity, I don't think I should like to read them. Oftentimes, sadness inspires romancce.

bazarov

06-21-2009, 04:13 PM

Romance is, at least for me; Romeo and Juliet or Sonya and Raskolnikov - I really don't see nothing of that in Dimitri's case. That's just my point of view.

Who is Hugo?? Victor Hugo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo), French writer from 19th century. His novels doesn't always end happily, but they are romantic.

JCamilo

06-21-2009, 05:39 PM

yeah, romantic in literature cannt be translated to normal day romantic idea. Dostoievisky is more a critic of romantic ideals than a romantic by himself (he is rather dispointed to be idealistic) unlike one of his precusors, Hugo or even Dickens.

Gladys

06-21-2009, 06:27 PM

Dostoievisky is more a critic of romantic ideals than a romantic Yes. He seems to create potentially romantic relationships (e.g. Myshkin/Aglaya, Raskolnikov/Sonya, Alexei Ivanovich/Polina Alexandrovna) before systematically undermining their romantic aspects.

virginiawang

06-22-2009, 10:24 AM

The most dominant concept of American Transcendentalism or Romanticism is the beauty of a soul, and we always found some Dostoyevsky's characters being childlike, innocent, impractical, and in a sense, unfit for reality. This close connection alone made me consider Dostoyevsky as one of the most romantic writers in all literature.

virginiawang

06-22-2009, 10:45 AM

In Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, Nature, he presented the following ideas. Nature glimmers in harmony with the heart of a child. One enchanted by nature regains the spirit of infancy. Then in an instant, I (the autor) merge into nature and vanish, though I see.
This is almost a counterpart of a chapter in The Idiot, in which the author portrays how the idiot spent time with the kids in Swiss. I was touched each time I read that chapter where prince Myshkin told the Yepanchin family how the kids loved him and trusted him that their schoolmaster became enraged finally and wished to keep him away from the pupils lest he should have pernicious effects upon them. The most charming point is that the prince said he would tell the kids everything they wanted to know but were not told by their teacher or family, because the prince believed they had a right to the truth just as adults did. He said before he ended his speech that he thought he was a child intrinsically. Do you see the beauty of a soul here, unspoiled by the harshness of reality? He is like an infant, having connection only with wild nature.

Dr. Hill

06-22-2009, 11:51 AM

Dostoevsky often has that theme of innocence found in children and Myshkin's childlike qualities, and the fact that he actually spent a lot of his time with children, helped to set up that innocence that Dostoevsky wanted him to have.

JCamilo

06-22-2009, 01:57 PM

Gladys

06-23-2009, 01:53 AM

This is almost a counterpart of a chapter in The Idiot, in which the author portrays how the idiot spent time with the kids in Swiss. I was touched each time I read that chapter where prince Myshkin told the Yepanchin family how the kids loved him and trusted him that their schoolmaster became enraged finally and wished to keep him away from the pupils lest he should have pernicious effects upon them. The most charming point is that the prince said he would tell the kids everything they wanted to know but were not told by their teacher or family, because the prince believed they had a right to the truth just as adults did. He said before he ended his speech that he thought he was a child intrinsically. Do you see the beauty of a soul here, unspoiled by the harshness of reality? He is like an infant, having connection only with wild nature.

I've reread Chapter 6 at your prompting: an ironic masterpiece with frequent allusions to the ending of The Idiot. Prince Myshkin's selfless treatment of poor Marie, shunned by the adults, is played out again in the ending with Nastasya Filippovna and Roghozin.

While you are right, Virginiawang, in speaking of the beauty of the soul, such beauty is ethical and spiritual rather than aesthetic and romantic. Through the prince, the Swiss children perceive truth of a spiritual nature, unblemished and pure. Neither romantic nor ideal, the Prince's truth is distasteful and objectionable to adult sensibilities: to Dr Schneider's and to schoolmaster Thibaut.

Chapter 6 ends, as does the last page of the novel, with Lizabetha Prokofievna.

As for your face, Lizabetha Prokofievna, I not only think, but am perfectly sure, that you are an absolute child--in all, in all, mind, both good and bad-and in spite of your years. Don't be angry with me for saying so; you know what my feelings for children are.

Rather because he is outplaced in the society, he is naive and not just pure. As I understand the prince, he is not really out-placed or naive. He is supremely self-sacrificing, driven by a Christ-like love. Adults, whether in Switzerland or Russia, will always find such a love offensive: excessive, threatening and mad.

virginiawang

06-23-2009, 02:15 AM

Romanticism does not deal with heros and heroines, and on the contrary they deal with the trueset feelings of ordinary people. Those writers did not pretend, boast or mislead. They simply said how they felt. That's the magic. Myshkin was romantic both in his character and his love, not because he was ideal like a saint , but rather because he had a beautiful soul and devoted his heart to his love without any practical considerations. He could never be a saint but he was only childlike and innocent.

Tsuyoiko

06-23-2009, 05:13 AM

As I understand the prince, he is not really out-placed or naive. He is supremely self-sacrificing, driven by a Christ-like love.

Self-sacrifice is the phrase I always associate most with Myshkin. He left Aglaya to marry Nastasya not because he was selfishly in love with a beautiful woman, but because he needed to sacrifice his own happiness for the one who needed him the most. I think when he first saw her portrait he saw more than just her beauty, he saw someone who needed his compassion.

virginiawang

06-23-2009, 05:34 AM

Gladys

06-23-2009, 07:41 AM

He left Aglaya to marry Nastasya not because he was selfishly in love with a beautiful woman, but because he needed to sacrifice his own happiness for the one who needed him the most. Absolutely.

In life we are sometimes faced with the choice between two good options. Saying, "she is so unhappy", the prince chose to save the lost Nastasya rather than the less needy Aglaya. That he ultimately failed to save Nastasya or, as importantly, the needy Roghozin doesn't lessen this boundless self-sacrifice.

Indeed, the prince was sacrificed, and consigned to a Swiss asylum. Yet he would do the same again: the cost to himself is not a consideration. There's nothing of the romantic here!

But he, perhaps, did not understand the full force of this challenge; in fact, it is certain he did not. All he could see was the poor despairing face which, as he had said to Aglaya, "had pierced his heart for ever."

virginiawang

06-23-2009, 08:53 AM

But you didn't answer my question above? Jesus or someone like Jesus would never have done such a thing even if he had been put in the same situation. He would not hurt anyone under any circumstances because he was a real saint. A saint will never lie. He will always keep his promise, and he will always have the wisdom to do the right thing at the right moment. Have you ever heard of a saint who did not care about his words to one woman and trampled her dignity at the instant he saw another woman? If the act were a sort of self-sacrifice and compared to Jesus, I believe Jesus would jump out of his grave and give vent to his fury.

virginiawang

06-23-2009, 09:22 AM

If the book, The Idiot, does not involve selfish love and is merely an account of some deeds of self-sacrifice, how does it diffrent from Bible? I am sure you can find similar stories from Bible, the best book of self-sacrifice. Will you give me one example?

Dr. Hill

06-23-2009, 10:54 AM

Psst, Myshkin has been accepted as a Christ-like figure and Dostoevsky wanted him to symbolize the inability for that sort of person to exist in today's society.

virginiawang

06-23-2009, 11:56 AM

Oh, you haven't answered any of the questions above. If you cannot answer those questions, you don't really understand how he was like Jesus. I think he loved Nastasya at the first sight, and fell in love more and more as days went by. Though he had treated everyone he knew generously and benevolently and harbored the most beautiful sentiments, he could not conquer his heart with his head at the moment he saw Nastasya.

JCamilo

06-23-2009, 01:32 PM

As I understand the prince, he is not really out-placed or naive. He is supremely self-sacrificing, driven by a Christ-like love. Adults, whether in Switzerland or Russia, will always find such a love offensive: excessive, threatening and mad.

Completely out-placed. The hypocritical russian society is exposed by the more idealistic characters of Dostoievisky like the prince or Aliosha. Reflects Dostoievisky own desillusion from his youth days. He was a critical of the individuals who are all for a change but less effective. Dostoievisky did not believe anymore in those changes just like Basarov pointed, it is Victor Hugo realm. There is a bit of irony in the works of Dostoievisky. (The prince is willing to self-sacrifice, but this does not change the fact that he is naive in many aspects)

Virginiawang

Romanticism does not deal with heros and heroines, and on the contrary they deal with the trueset feelings of ordinary people. Those writers did not pretend, boast or mislead. They simply said how they felt. That's the magic. Myshkin was romantic both in his character and his love, not because he was ideal like a saint , but rather because he had a beautiful soul and devoted his heart to his love without any practical considerations. He could never be a saint but he was only childlike and innocent.

I do not know a single literature that does not deal with heroes. The romanticism created the Anti-hero in the Byronic sense. We also have the natural naive man from Rousseau.
All writers do not pretend, boast and mislead and all of them do it. And everyone just said what they feel. Romanticism also have a strong sense of individualism, but writing about the commum people was a trait of all literature after the romanticism. Joyce wrote about it and it was not a romantic.
And talking about romanticism without idealism is funny. The idea of democracy, communism, socialism, anarchism...

And again, It is not that he is not good, pure, etc. It is how he is used. All his troubles in the book is to conect with others because they are not like him. His fate is tied to that as well. He is a romantic like character, Dostoievisky, not. Mishikin is an irony. That is why he is showing a drama, a sad reality, because he was telling to the idealistic youth of his country that all goodness they pretend was not effective. The whole, "the path to hell is filled with good intentions" thing...

bazarov

06-23-2009, 04:37 PM

If prince Myshin was a saint and really so self-sacrificing, where was his compassion for Agala, to whom he was engaged already? Did he not know that it would be the greatest insult to a woman when her bethrothed left with another woman? If he had known this, why did he choose to do what he did? Is it really absurd to hurt a woman without limits in the hope of saving another woman, whom, according to you, he did not truly love? Why did he have compassion for one but oblivion for another? Will Jesus do the same, to hurt one in order to save another? A self-sacrificing saint is supposed to be one like Jesus, who poured out his love equally to all human humans. I don't think there are such stories in Bible, where Jesus wounded someone on the purpose of saving another more in need of him. Do you know such a story in Bible, please show me where.

Mishkin had to choose one of those womens, so naturally; when you have to pick someone, you will always hurt the other. Do you see any possibility? He didn't also, so he decided to pick Nastasya - she was more unhappy and in need for real friendship and protection (I doubt Miskin was capable to give her true love, only his friendship and compassion).

But you didn't answer my question above? Jesus or someone like Jesus would never have done such a thing even if he had been put in the same situation. He would not hurt anyone under any circumstances because he was a real saint. A saint will never lie. He will always keep his promise, and he will always have the wisdom to do the right thing at the right moment. Have you ever heard of a saint who did not care about his words to one woman and trampled her dignity at the instant he saw another woman? If the act were a sort of self-sacrifice and compared to Jesus, I believe Jesus would jump out of his grave and give vent to his fury.

Prince is not and was not Jesus. Jesus never loved women in sexual context and nobody loved him in that way so he never was in danger to hurt someones feelings. So comparing Jesus and Prince is absurd. Dostoevsky never said that Prince is Jesus; he just wanted to create character who supposed to be ''pure merit'', something like Don Quijote and he showed, of course; that there is no place for such mens on this world.

If the book, The Idiot, does not involve selfish love and is merely an account of some deeds of self-sacrifice, how does it diffrent from Bible? I am sure you can find similar stories from Bible, the best book of self-sacrifice. Will you give me one example?

Every love between men and women is actually selfish because we can make someone happy only and only if we are also happy; so we are the important one. From other side of that ''love'', it's completely the same.
Jesus and Maria Magdalena - Mishkin and Nastasya? Only compassion and love for humans, not love for specified person.

Oh, you haven't answered any of the questions above. If you cannot answer those questions, you don't really understand how he was like Jesus. I think he loved Nastasya at the first sight, and fell in love more and more as days went by. Though he had treated everyone he knew generously and benevolently and harbored the most beautiful sentiments, he could not conquer his heart with his head at the moment he saw Nastasya.

From the first moment, he saw something frightening in her eyes, he realized then and even more later how unhappy she is and how unfair she is treated by others. He had never seen someone unhappy and miserable like her - that was reason for his ''great love'' toward her.

JCamilo

06-23-2009, 08:07 PM

I think there is a super valorization of the goodness of Mishkin in this thread that is missing the stage where Dostoievisky placed him and the contrast caused by such option. This missing the irony of Dostoievisky and reducing him to a "emotional drama writer", what his critics most accuse instead of his cleaver critics to the russian society, pointing to the future, which is the area where he surpass Tolstoi.

Gladys

06-24-2009, 02:56 AM

He had never seen someone unhappy and miserable like her - that was reason for his ''great love'' toward her. I agree with all you say.

Completely out-placed. The hypocritical Russian society is exposed by the more idealistic characters of Dostoievisky like the prince or Aliosha.

The Prince is no more out-placed in Russia than Jesus was in Jerusalem. As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, just days before the fateful wedding day, it won’t do to dismiss the prince as mad ('no one left for keepers').

Prince Myshkin is the sanest of men! Far from naive, the prince is insightful, intelligent, compassionate and far seeing. That he seems naive to fellow Russians, is an indictment of their petty society, shallow ethics and blinkered vision.

As an instance of Nietzsche's Superman (Übermensch), Prince Myshkin lays bare 'hypocritical Russian society' just as Jesus once exposed Pharisaic hypocrisy in Palestine. No 'emotional drama writer', Dostoevsky presents a character as intellectually radical as Meursault in Albert Camus' L’Étranger.

If the book, The Idiot, does not involve selfish love and is merely an account of some deeds of self-sacrifice, how does it different from Bible? I am sure you can find similar stories from Bible, the best book of self-sacrifice. Will you give me one example? The prince and Jesus equate to Nietzsche's Superman. Soren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, first categorised Jesus in the way, and Dostoevsky was much influenced by the Danish genius.

You ask, Virginiawang, for a Biblical example of self-sacrifice comparable to Myshkin's. Jesus, like the prince, was crucified by his society. Jesus' parable of the lost sheep parallels the central theme of The Idiot:

Matthew 18:12____ How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

It is crystal clear that Nastasya Filippovna and Roghozin are lost sheep, and Prince Myshkin the shepherd.

virginiawang

06-24-2009, 03:25 AM

First of all, I would like to tell you American Romanticism deals with the true feelings of ordinary poeple, so those writes had been unconventional in a time when most writers focused on secenes of a higher level of society. If you wish to know more, you may want to read Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathanial Hawthorn, Herman Melville or David Henry Thureau, to get to know more about this type of work.
I agree with you, Bazarov, that prince Myshkin was not Juses, not Christ-like, so not a saint, but he was pure and innocent. However I want to offer my opinion here. It's hard to analyze an attachment between a man and a woman, and it's beyond our power to say which part of my affection is drawn by compassion, which part is caused by neccisity, or which part presents only frindship. When prince first saw the portrait, he was conquered by some feelings indescribable, perhaps fear, shock, amazemention, and compassion, all of which being parts of what was going on deep within himself, constituted love, I believe.
I agree with you in what you said about love between a woman and a man being selfish. The reason why I chose to compare Jesus and Myshkin was that I hoped people would understand that Myskin did involve himself in some selfish love affairs. Though he is pure, and compassionate, his attachment for Nastasya was so strong that he couldn't have cared anybody else, including his bethrothed. At the moment he decided to stay with Nastasya, his heart took the reign. That's why I said he was being romantic.
By the way, to have true emotions involved is a good thing that makes this piece of literature worth reading. It does not lessen its value.

virginiawang

06-24-2009, 03:50 AM

One like Jesus, trampled upon the dignity of his bethrothed to stay by the side of another woman whom he could never get out of his head for no reasons at all throughout his life and married her after a fortnight. He broke his promise for the first one, went astray in moral concerns, and deeply wounded the feelings of his bethrothed. All he did was out of a wish to sacrifice himself, just like Jesus, and he never really loved another woman. Is that logical? By the way, I have to point out that the example you gave me did not address the most important point, for Jesus, though let go of the missing sheep, did not wound the animal in any way. Will you give me another example where Jesus wounded one living being for the purpose of saving another more in need of Him?

JCamilo

06-24-2009, 09:59 AM

The Prince is no more out-placed in Russia than Jesus was in Jerusalem. As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, just days before the fateful wedding day, it won’t do to dismiss the prince as mad ('no one left for keepers').

Prince Myshkin is the sanest of men! Far from naive, the prince is insightful, intelligent, compassionate and far seeing. That he seems naive to fellow Russians, is an indictment of their petty society, shallow ethics and blinkered vision.

As an instance of Nietzsche's Superman (Übermensch), Prince Myshkin lays bare 'hypocritical Russian society' just as Jesus once exposed Pharisaic hypocrisy in Palestine. No 'emotional drama writer', Dostoevsky presents a character as intellectually radical as Meursault in Albert Camus' L’Étranger.

First, I am not bothered at all with Mishkin and Jesus relations. I am talking about the notion that Dostoievisky is a romantic writer in the first post of this thread. I think Bakarov can easily reply reasons why Jesus and Mishkin are also different.
Someone can be only naive in relation to others. The prince is naive because he can see those around him but not perceive the underneath of the individuals, his trust is too big to see the hypocrisy. That is what give to him the idea of martir, but it is a futile martir and that is something due to Dostoievisky own cinism. I doubt dostoievisky saw Jesus martyridom as ineffective, simple because Jesus action is also in the dialetic level. But what I want to make clear is that both Mishkin and the society around him are critics by Dostoievisky. To Dostoievisky both dialect side of russia at that momment are stuck, ineffective. Alioacha, who shares a lot of with the prince, perceives the flaws of russian society and prefer to avoid it. He is an evolution of Mishkin reaction.

JCamilo

06-24-2009, 10:10 AM

First of all, I would like to tell you American Romanticism deals with the true feelings of ordinary poeple, so those writes had been unconventional in a time when most writers focused on secenes of a higher level of society

Romanticism as a whole dealt with ordinary people. William Wordsworth Ballads are about ordinary people, Victor Hugo dramas are about ordinary people, Charles Dickens dealt with ordinary people, Gogol dealt with ordinary people. And of course, it is considerable harder to americans write about a upper class that didn't exist in their country. But it is not dealing with ordinary people the definitive trait of Romanticism. Later writers are going to still deal with that without being romantic, Balzac, Zola, Eça de Queiroz, Joyce, Kafka, etc.

If you wish to know more, you may want to read Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathanial Hawthorn, Herman Melville or David Henry Thureau, to get to know more about this type of work.

I have read all of them. Emerson is the only who can fit in this category, because he is the great democrat of early american writers, and there is Thoureau. Hawthorne have Scarlet Letter but also several gothic tales - which due to Washington Irving are a key feature of american literature - which do not deal with Ordinary people only. Melville certainly do not deal with ordinary people. He deals with Exotic people, who are close to the natural man and the urban city type, but there is nothing ordinary about Ahab. If we consider Emily Dickinson in the package, she is the only ordinary people she dealt with. Futher we may have Whitman or Poe and things got complicated. But a great deal of American romanticism is the influence of Rousseau and democracy - the idealism and notion of progress - and this is romanticism. Not dealing with ordinary people.

Now, I have no idea which literature showed us false emontions.

virginiawang

06-24-2009, 10:22 AM

But you have to know that a very romantic writer can have very antagonistic attitudes towards the current society. If you are willing to spend some time reading Walden, written by David Henry Thoreau, you'll get the point. Another piece of work by this author, Resistance To Civil Govenment, tells us more clearly how the author celebrated his idividuality and isolation from the multitude. However I quite agree with you in that prince Myshkin was naive and innocent rather than being intellectual as a saint. He did not have the wisdom to discern the hypocricy of most people around him because he was simply like a baby, so pure in its mind.

virginiawang

06-24-2009, 10:35 AM

Sorry, I don't understand what You meant. Not only Emerson but all the romantic writers make up American Romanticism, that does deal with ordinary people, when compaired with writers before them, who wrote a great deal about upper class decorium and things like that. Romanticism deals with the feelings of ordinary people, but not all writings that deal with ordinary people are categorized into Romanticism. I've been dwelling on the feelings, not ordinary people.

JCamilo

06-24-2009, 10:47 AM

I have read Thoureau, and here lies the difference: Thoureau idealism against Dostoievisky strong pessimism. The end of romanticism is exactly when they start to consider that progress is not leading foward, but we are stuck. That is why Dostoievisky is that important to XX century, because he was already showing the chaos and desillusion of moderm world. That is why he is not a romantic.
All writings deal with feeling as well.

virginiawang

06-24-2009, 11:49 AM

How about the pessimistic romantic writer Herman Melville, who wrote, Bartleby, the Scrivener, in which the author portrayed a tragedy of a man who could not fit into society and died in the end?

Gladys

06-24-2009, 09:14 PM

The prince is naive because he can see those around him but not perceive the underneath of the individuals, his trust is too big to see the hypocrisy. That is what give to him the idea of martyr, but it is a futile martyr and that is something due to Dostoievisky own cinism. Our understanding of Prince Myshkin, JCamilo, is radically different.

You say that he does 'not perceive the underneath of the individuals'. I argue that he sees with incomparable insight, with the vision of genius. Prince Myshkin alone is able to filter out the bad and see clearly the good in such pariahs as Ippolit and Roghozin. You say 'his trust is too big'. Not too big: infinitely big, boundless, divine!

How is such fearless magnanimity and selflessness naive? Rather, the prince sees through enlightened eyes, as guileless Vera Lebedev, child-like Lizabetha Prokofievna, and sceptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch are realising in the last page of the novel.

Would we were all like Prince Myshkin. You say he is 'a futile martyr'. It is not Dostoevsky who’s cynical, but yourself.

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 12:45 AM

Mishkin have a vision of genious? He is a mockery, Dostoieviksy intents him as a critiic of naivity... How come he saw really what is underneath his peers? He often trust them basead on his own godness. Apparently, irony in Dostoisviksy is lost by the feelings towards Mishkin.

Dostoievisky is cynical, are you joking me? The underground man, his own experiencer ithat almost resulted with his death on siberia, brothers karamazov, works of genial cynic

Dostoieviisky is so good that you are seeing his trick as truth, the book name is the idiot, and even if the russian name is not perfectly fit.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 01:53 AM

The difference Virginia, is that Mishikin is not heroic, idealized, a model to be followed. In Romanticism those ideals are what you seek.
Will you please tell me how we should follow Bartleby as a model in Bartleby, the Scrivener, wriiten by a pessimistic writer of the American Romanticism? By the way, I quite agree with you in believing the innocence of the prince.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 05:14 AM

The mainstream writer of American Romanticism once presented an idea about beauty in his essay, Nature. Beauty emerges only when you encounter nature coincidently. It submerges into the depth of water if you manage to seek for it.
I totoaly agree with him.
Once I had a chance to be photographed in a photo studio, for my college required some photos by the time I was about to graduate, and the photographer started to give instructions as to how I should look, where I should look at, the position of my hat, my postures, or the smile on my face when I sat before the camera. I did as I was told and applied myself to the task of posing, or looking nice, but the harder I tried, the more awkward I looked in my photos. Utterly perplexed, an idea cropped up in my mind one day. I rushed to the photo studio and told the photographer not to give any instructions and to shoot the photo when I was unaware of it. That man was quite smart and he got my point immediately. Again I was sit before the camera, but this time he began by chatting with me something about my boyfriend. My current of thoughts was directed to a course which drew such fervor to my heart, though I was still looking at the camera. "Click", he snapped the photo, and he succeeded. Again and again he did the same thing, and I ended up with a pack of photos in which I looked wonderful. I was really delighted when I glanced throuh the photos.
The photographer captured the momentary beauty.
The same idea applies to writing as well, so I don't think we should re-write our works over and over again when the inspiration leaves us. One of these days, I read a part of the introduction to the book, The Idiot, and I learned that, unlike his friend, Turgenev, who never sat down to write any of his novels before he worked out a detailed plan of his novels, Dostoyevsky began with the main idea of his novel and never had a carefully worked-out plan of it or its characters. I can quite understand the way he wrote his novels. His inspirations and momentary emotions, which followed one by one in a flow, led him to write, so he never made plans beforehand, for he didn't quite know himself what would come into his head the next moment. He never attempted to create beauty, and beauty visited him almost each time he wrote. That is the reason why I always consider him as one of the most romantic writers I've ever read.

PoeticPassions

06-25-2009, 05:41 AM

I suppose it depends how you define "romantic." If you just mean it to be the beauty in his works, then sure. As a literary movement, he was not part of Romanticism or associated with romantic authors. His novels tend more to psychological realism, and his works are deemed as precursors to existentialism.

But in any case, your post, virginia, reminds me of something Dostoevsky once said: "Beauty will save the world."

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 05:59 AM

Gladys

06-25-2009, 06:12 AM

Mishkin ... often trust them based on his own goodness. Apparently, irony in Dostoisviksy is lost by the feelings towards Mishkin. No. Prince Myshkin trusts the likes of Ippolit and Roghozin simply because he rightly perceives sparks of goodness in them.

Dostoievisky is cynical, are you joking me? The underground man, his own experience that almost resulted with his death on Siberia, brothers karamazov, works of genial cynic Cynical? The several Dostoevsky novels I have read are full of restrained hope - even Crime and Punishment. And Brothers Karamazov, most will agree, is thoroughly inspiring despite grim circumstances. Dostoevsky paints a penetrating, if uncomfortable, picture of human life that accentuates the positive in people.

...the book name is The Idiot, and even if the Russian name is not perfectly fit. The novel's title, The Idiot, is ironic. The prince is surrounded by idiots! As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, Prince Myshkin is the sanest of men, although all around him would wish to think otherwise.

There is much more to The Idiot, JCamilo, than your two dimensional interpretation would have us believe.

PoeticPassions

06-25-2009, 06:17 AM

Dostoevksy, still, was not a romantic author. Romanicism has a lot more than feelings involved.. it is a movement which encompasses a lot of things (mainly a revolt against aristocratic social and political norms and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature, with a focus on imagination, feelings, aesthetic pleasure, etc--. think Blake, Shelley, Wordsworth, etc). Dostoevsky came right after the Romantic Movement, though still influenced by it.

As for realism, he is not fully realistic. There is a lot of psychology to his works, this is why I see it as a psychological realism (though I think his works are so great and vast that they cannot be fully catagorized), and definitely existentialism (esp. in Notes from Underground)

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 06:27 AM

"The first rise of the psychological novel as a genre is said to have started with the sentimental novel of which Samuel Richardson's Pamela is a prime example"
Sorry, I haven't quite understood the term Psychological Realism until I read some articles online, and the quote I offered above showed that psychological realism originated from some romantic writing.

Gladys

06-25-2009, 06:33 AM

There is a lot of psychology to his works, this is why I see it as a psychological realism (though I think his works are so great and vast that they cannot be fully catagorized), and definitely existentialism (esp. in Notes from Underground)

Prince Myshkin in The Idiot is an exemplar of the existential man. Both Dostoevsky and his existential father, Soren Kierkegaard, were blessed with exceptional insight into human psychology.

Tsuyoiko

06-25-2009, 06:36 AM

Will you give me another example where Jesus wounded one living being for the purpose of saving another more in need of Him?

To compare Myshkin with Jesus is not to say that we can find a parallel for everything Myshkin does in something Jesus did. It is just to say that their overriding motivations were similar. Since their backgrounds were entirely different, and the situations in which they found themselves were entirely different, it's pointless to look for parallels in their specific actions. But we can certainly see them in their characters: they were both motivated by compassion and self-sacrifice above all else.

I argue that he sees with incomparable insight, with the vision of genius. Prince Myshkin alone is able to filter out the bad and see clearly the good in such pariahs as Ippolit and Roghozin.

How is such fearless magnanimity and selflessness naive?

Mishkin have a vision of genious? He is a mockery, Dostoieviksy intents him as a critiic of naivity...

I don't think these two viewpoints are entirely incompatible. Myshkin is naive in the sense that he lacks the experience necessary to survive in society. However, prior to the vase scene, we are aware of his conviction that he will break the vase. So, as well as the power to see into other people's souls and divine the good in them, he has the power of introspection. This shows us the depth of his emotional intelligence, both inter- and intrapersonal. His naivete is "external", it's an extrinsic trait of his character, due to the fact that he has spent so long away from society. But his emotional intelligence is intrinsic, it is the essence of Myshkin.

He is a mockery, Dostoieviksy intents him as a critiic of naivity...How come he saw really what is underneath his peers? He often trust them basead on his own godness. Apparently, irony in Dostoisviksy is lost by the feelings towards Mishkin.

I have to disagree here. If anything, Dostoevsky intended Myshkin as a critique of society. He characterises Myshkin as an idiot to show us how society would view a person who is completely pure in his nature. There is irony here, but it is in the fact that society would reject the pure of heart. The parallel with Jesus seems blindingly obvious.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 06:48 AM

Romanticism differs from all genres in that it mainly involes feelings and intuitions, and different writers had vent their feelings in different areas in the time and place they lived in. Therefore those aspects that you mentioned above are only the workings of their heart, which is the focus of Romanticism. As I said in my last post, psychological realism stems from some sort of romantic writing, so it is a romantic form intrisically. If you had classified Dostoyevsky as a writer of psychological realism, you already admitted that he was a romantic writer.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 06:54 AM

However Dostoyevsky was driven by his feelings to write, and as far as that is concerned, Dostoyevsky could never be classified as a realist. As for existentialism, I believe his feelings did direct him to some hidden truth about life.

I explained in that post, that Dostoyevsky did explore some hidden meanings of life, but that did not deny the fact that he was driven by his impulses to write all the time, and that made him a romantist.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 07:10 AM

[QUOTE=Tsuyoiko;741729]To compare Myshkin with Jesus is not to say that we can find a parallel for everything Myshkin does in something Jesus did. It is just to say that their overriding motivations were similar. Since their backgrounds were entirely different, and the situations in which they found themselves were entirely different, it's pointless to look for parallels in their specific actions. But we can certainly see them in their characters: they were both motivated by compassion and self-sacrifice above all else.

The fact that they are situated in different eras, places and conditions in life does not deny one fatal point, and that is Jesus would never have hurt one living being for the purpose of saving another. If it were not for love, such a compassionate and good-natured man, the idiot, would never have done such a thing to hurt another, Agaly, whom he also cared quite a lot. He loved Nastasya more than he was aware of it. You talked about motivations, but to think and to act differ to a great extent. You may say you wish to do something, but that doesn't mean you will do it without fail. You may have good intentions, but you probably do the opposite in the end. Who knows?

Tsuyoiko

06-25-2009, 07:38 AM

The fact that they are situated in different era, place and conditions in life does not deny one fatal point, and that is Jesus would never have hurt one living being for the purpose of saving another. If it were not for love, such a compassionate and good-natured man, the idiot, would never have done such a thing to hurt another, Agaly, whom he also cared quite a lot. He loved Nastasya more than he was aware of it. You talked about motivations, but to think and to act differ to a great extent. You may say you wish to do something, but that doesn't mean you will do it without fail. You may have good intentions, but you probably do the opposite in the end. Who knows?

I think your reluctance to accept the comparison is based on your denial that Myshkin was motivated entirely by compassion and self-sacrifice. What do you think he should have done in the situation? In other words, what would Jesus have done?

Jesus never claimed that we should never hurt people, on the contrary, he was perfectly aware that it was sometimes inevitable for the greater good:

I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me

Gladys

06-25-2009, 08:38 AM

Myshkin is naive in the sense that he lacks the experience necessary to survive in society. Myshkin and Jesus had about the same likelihood of surviving in society, yet would you describe Jesus as naive?

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 08:41 AM

A man left his betrothed to spend time with another woman and marry her after a fortnight. Will anyone believe he was sacrificing himself like Jesus? I wouldn't if I were the first one. I am sure I would get extremely angry if he said he did it for the greater good. How about you?
Attachment between a man and a woman is beyond our power to reason. You may say something but do something quite different. You may have reasons to believe you are doing something like God, but you cannot figure out how your feelings go all the time.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 09:08 AM

[QUOTE=Tsuyoiko;741729] His naivete is "external", it's an extrinsic trait of his character, due to the fact that he has spent so long away from society. But his emotional intelligence is intrinsic, it is the essence of Myshkin.

I agree with you in what you said about the prince's emotional intelligence. People who are hyper-sensitive are often found intuitive in many situations where most ordinary people do not feel a thing. They tend to look into their inner selves more often and are always ready to discern the subtleties in their surroundings. However I don't think his naivete is only an external trait. It stemmed from the purity of his heart, the most inner part of himself, which led him to the path he took.

Tsuyoiko

06-25-2009, 09:11 AM

Myshkin and Jesus had about the same likelihood of surviving in society, yet would you describe Jesus as naive?

It's not the fact that Myshkin is unlikely to survive in society that makes him naive, but his lack of experience in society, which I don't think applied to Jesus. As I said, this naivete is not an intrinsic trait of Myshkin's, it is a description of his situation. He is naive from the viewpoint of society (which of course does him an injustice).

A man left his betrothed to spend time with another woman and marry her after a fortnight. Will anyone believe he was sacrificing himself like Jesus? I wouldn't if I were the first one. How about you?

You're judging with an ordinary human understanding of romantic relationships and with your emotions. The understanding Myshkin had was far beyond this; he saw his duty to other human beings from an objectively compassionate standpoint. He loved everyone in the way that Jesus taught when he said "love your neighbour as yourself".

Imagine Myshkin is a doctor. There has been an accident in which his fiancee is injured very slightly, but his ex-lover is seriously wounded. Who should he help?

You will object that the situation is different, but that is the point. To Myshkin, they are the same. Because of his superior compassion, he is capable of acting totally unselfishly and going to the aid of one he judges to need him most.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 10:05 AM

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 10:12 AM

Will you please tell me how we should follow Bartleby as a model in Bartleby, the Scrivener, wriiten by a pessimistic writer of the American Romanticism? By the way, I quite agree with you in believing the innocence of the prince.

There is the anti-model. You should not follow Ahab or be like him, but his traits are idealized, he is the anti-hero. Keep in mind that Melville is hard to cathegorize, because he may have romantic traits such in Moby Dick or Billy Budd but at sametime his writings are already poiting to modernism or the endo of IXIX century literature. (to guys like Kafka, Dostoievisky)
Dostoievisky is more close to european romantism such as Dickens than north-americans who are a separeted group.
Another thing: It is not that Dostoievisky had no romantic trait on his work. He do have. After all he was created by this movemment. The thing is that Dostoievisky add a new perspective to romanticism, even as a form of criticism because the idealism, and this already place him out of the group and moving foward to the XX century.
And realism deal with feelings. How Zola is without feelings? Or Flaubert? (Realism as school is a myth, but if we categorize the writers of second half of XIX century they would be there).

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 10:29 AM

No. Prince Myshkin trusts the likes of Ippolit and Roghozin simply because he rightly perceives sparks of goodness in them.

The prince trust more than one person. Altough this is irreelvant, the prince pretty much judges others by his own standards and that is social naiviety.

Cynical? The several Dostoevsky novels I have read are full of restrained hope - even Crime and Punishment. And Brothers Karamazov, most will agree, is thoroughly inspiring despite grim circumstances. Dostoevsky paints a penetrating, if uncomfortable, picture of human life that accentuates the positive in people.

I have no idea how being cynical is contrary than showing hope, but most of the novels have a character that have hope inside a sittuation of no-hope. It is the contraditory that Dostoievisky explores. He create sittuations of stress - two different viewpoints that enhance the other side. Mishkin would be a dull character but inside the society of The Idiot, he is a notable character. The same society would be just irrelevant without the presence of the Prince. Aliocha enhances the conflicts of his brothers and his father character. But hope? In the end, Dostoievisky have the conclusion always open, it is always hard to cause any change, it is not clear if anything turned better or worst. He is not optimistic, and even the Prince final fate is hardly something that can be somehow positive.

The novel's title, The Idiot, is ironic. The prince is surrounded by idiots! As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, Prince Myshkin is the sanest of men, although all around him would wish to think otherwise.

The old doctor would be one of those idiots, right...
Meh, The prince is an Idiot because all his traits puts him a sittuation where he is the idiot, not the others! It is ironic because we know he is not an idiot (by the way, someone can be sane and an idiot) but inside that sittaution he is one, exactly because he is not part of that society and hypocrisy. In the end, it is always a gamble: while the prince shows that the socieity is made of idiots, the society shows the prince is an idiot.

There is much more to The Idiot, JCamilo, than your two dimensional interpretation would have us believe.

err, do not be pretentious. My interpretation is hardly two dimensional, in fact I am adding aspects to your interpretation because you seems to refuse to acknowledge that the critic of Dostoievisky is not limited just to the society but to the prince as well, even if his human traits are louvable (Or exactly because of that).

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 10:37 AM

Do you really think Nastasya would have committed suicide if the prince had gone with Aglaya, from an objective standpoint? She didn't commit suicide when her seducer insulted her and left her in the beginning of the novel. How would she commit suicide if the prince did not follow her instructions?The fact that the prince was convinced that she would do so only tells us that the prince was utterly bewitched by the woman. The comparison you made about a doctor and his two lovers, whom, according to you, he didn't love as a man loves a woman, is supposed to be changed as such. A doctor had to choose between his betrothed and his ex-lover, who was not wounded more than his betrothed. To go on does not make sense, I think.

bazarov

06-25-2009, 10:43 AM

The gap between realism and romanticism is the feelings involved. Realists writers portrayed events and people drily without emotions getting involved, and those writers of naturalism, an outgrowth of realism even did their best to remain calm and objective. They more often than not did not give their chracters names. However Dostoyevsky was driven by his feelings to write, and as far as that is concerned, Dostoyevsky could never be classified as a realist. As for existentialism, I believe his feelings did direct him to some hidden truth about life.

Totally wrong. Realists tried to show real people in real situations, and it was very objective and Dostoevsky is along with Tolstoy the best in that. Just read Crime and Punishment and after that The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Hugo and you will see the obvious difference. Naturalists are far from objective, they are too pessimistic.

Mishkin have a vision of genious? He is a mockery, Dostoieviksy intents him as a critiic of naivity... How come he saw really what is underneath his peers? He often trust them basead on his own godness. Apparently, irony in Dostoisviksy is lost by the feelings towards Mishkin.

He used Mishkin to criticize society, not his naive; it was just the tool he used to show it.

Dostoievisky is cynical, are you joking me? The underground man, his own experiencer ithat almost resulted with his death on siberia, brothers karamazov, works of genial cynic

No, Dostoevsky just showed how people and society really are. That's sad, not cynical. Maybe we could describe Gogol as cynical, but not Dostoevsky.

The novel's title, The Idiot, is ironic. The prince is surrounded by idiots! As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, Prince Myshkin is the sanest of men, although all around him would wish to think otherwise.

Miskin is The Idiot, not society that surrounds him. His idiotism lays in fact that he cannot realize and understand how humans and world really functions. And we could hardly say that all of others characters in the novel were idiots. They actually act totally normal - everyone was just looking for their interests no matter of others.

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 10:43 AM

I have to disagree here. If anything, Dostoevsky intended Myshkin as a critique of society. He characterises Myshkin as an idiot to show us how society would view a person who is completely pure in his nature. There is irony here, but it is in the fact that society would reject the pure of heart. The parallel with Jesus seems blindingly obvious.

Yes, that is one side of The Idiot. The other is also using Myshkin as a critic to idealized or idealistic members of russian society. Neither side of The Idiot is free of Dostoievisky critic, at the same time the society would not accept Myshkin, Myshkin would also not fit there. Dostoievisky do not pick sides or give confort to Myshkin, his fall is also his doing. The message is of the book is more "everything is wrong" than "there is one good option to follow"...
I think Brothers Karamazov is where Dostoievisky can achive this vision of society more completely.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 10:48 AM

bazarov

06-25-2009, 10:52 AM

Don't want to be rude or inpolite, but virginiawang; did some male done something really bad to you lately in your life?

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 10:53 AM

Totally wrong. Realists tried to show real people in real situations, and it was very objective and Dostoevsky is along with Tolstoy the best in that. Just read Crime and Punishment and after that The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Hugo and you will see the obvious difference. Naturalists are far from objective, they are too pessimistic.

Please go to websites about realism and naturalism, to get to know more about the two terms. Naturalists are objective and indifferent. They don't even give their characters names.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 10:56 AM

Don't want to be rude or inpolite, but virginiawang; did some male done something really bad to you lately in your life?

You are quite mistaken. I would like to share with you the most beautiful blessings in my life, but my reason forbade me. Sorry.

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 10:58 AM

He used Mishkin to criticize society, not his naive; it was just the tool he used to show it.

I reckon that sentence I wrote is not sounding like it should, Yeah, not a critic of Naive just it, what really I wanted to say is that his naive is the perspective he uses to build the critic of book, which is the society (or others characters in the book) in contrast with Myshkin natural good.

No, Dostoevsky just showed how people and society really are. That's sad, not cynical. Maybe we could describe Gogol as cynical, but not Dostoevsky.

I can describe both. Cynics distrusts the motives of society, are often pessimists. Also they often used contraditory sittuations to show up the wrongs of a society, exactly like throwing a good natural man into a den of wolves and labeling him an Idiot. Cynism is related to the XIX existencialism, pessimism and nihilism, philosophical movements who found in Dostoievisky works a bridge to the XX century. Cynism is not hypocrisy or telling lies, at least I am not using the term as such.

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 11:10 AM

But you said in your post before that Romanticism deals with heros to be followed as models, not anti-model or whatever. I am curious to know how one should follow an anti-model, a term I've never heard before. Therefore, according to you, everyone can be followed as a hero, because you can always find him in either of the two categories, models and anti-models, and that's really an interesting way of looking at things.

Heroes and anti-heroes. You are not supposed to follow, as a positive thing, the anti-heroes, but they have a lot of idealized traits. They can be charming or genial, they can be brave, but they are often leading those around them to negativity - Ahab for example? Or Hatchliff from Wuthering Heights...
The thing about romanticism is that at sametime they directed their lights towards to ordinary people they also aimed to a higher individualism, but it was a world that was skeptical, so the models are twisted. Therefore the idealized heroes of the past turned to be flawed as well.

By the way, I have to tell you realism and naturalism do not involve feelings, and you can get to know more from all websites about them.

There is no art without feelings, but I do not need websites: Madame Bovary is part of french realism and is full of feelings. You can have, as they have, the distance from the characters in the book, the narrator without intervention,but even that is something that Dostoievisky used, because he is exactly, alongside with Tolstoy, the top guys that teached realists how to write.

bazarov

06-25-2009, 11:33 AM

Please go to websites about realism and naturalism, to get to know more about the two terms. Naturalists are objective and indifferent. They don't even give their characters names.

Believe me; I've read so much books from those periods that I should make those websites instead of them :)

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 11:45 AM

Realists and naturalists shunned emotions. You need to know the truth about the two schools of writing rather than imagine them in your head as much as you like.
By the way, you blurred the point you made in the very beginning. "a hero to be followed as a model " was what you proclaimed in that post, not anti-model or whatever, so I wanted to know how we should follow Bartleby as a model? Or is it a mistake you've made accidentally?

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 11:47 AM

It is better, on the whole, for you to know the truth about those two schools of writing than to imagine them as much as you like.

Tsuyoiko

06-25-2009, 11:48 AM

You are judging the prince's case as if he were really a God, dealing with living organisms without his own feelings getting involved. I don't think Dostoyevsky intended to portray his main character as a God-like, indifferent machine, and the women there as simply dull objects to be saved, or he wouldn't have portrayed Nastasya's beauty, Agala's affability and subtlety in such details.

I think Myshkin is Christ-like, not godlike. I don't think he's indifferent, and doesn't have his own feelings. Of course he appreciated Nastaya's beauty and was romantically in love with Aglaya. But in the denouement, he puts his own feelings aside and goes with Nastasya because his capacity for agape takes precedence over his romantic love for Aglaya.

The author was thinking about a world where human beings inhabited rather than some etherial place of acient Gods, or an area filled with mechanic devices, when he wrote the book. If, according to you, he treated everyone with equal love just like Jesus did, why did he choose the two most pretty women to fall in love with?

The main thing I dispute is that Myshkin was ever "in love" with Nastasya. I think that what he felt for her was pity, agape, Christian love. On first seeing her portrait, he notices her beauty, but immediately draws our attention to her frailty:

"She was rather thin, perhaps, and a little pale."

and

"It's a wonderful face," said the prince, "and I feel sure that her destiny is not by any means an ordinary, uneventful one. Her face is smiling enough, but she must have suffered terribly-- hasn't she? Her eyes show it--those two bones there, the little points under her eyes, just where the cheek begins."

By saying that Myshkin loved everyone equally as Jesus taught, I'm not claiming that he is devoid of human feeling. I'm claiming that his capacity for Christian love was so great that he sacrificed his own happiness with Aglaya, who he was "in love" with.

Don't let the fact that he recognised Nastasya's beauty fool you into thinking that that's why he "loved" her.

The prince had great compassion for everyone including the two women he had affairs with, but he surrendered himself to the strongest love for a woman toward the end of the novel. That love exceeded his compassion for Aglaya, so he did what he did.

On the contrary, I think his compassion for Nastasya exceeded his romantic love for Aglaya.

The true cause of his everlasting idiocy was the sight of the dead woman whom he loved most all his life. It is a love tragedy, not a theological story about missions impossible.

He lapsed into mental illness because of the realisation that his efforts to save Nastasya were in vain.

Do you really think Nastasya would have committed suicide if the price had gone with Aglaya, from an objective standpoint? She didn't commit suicide when her seducer insulted her and left her in the beginning of the novel. How would she commit suicide if the prince did not follow her instructions?The fact that the prince was convinced that she would do so only tells us that the prince was utterly bewitched by the woman.

I agree that it seems unlikely that Nastasya would have committed suicide. The important point is that Myshkin believed she would, and I take that as further evidence of his compassion, rather than of his romantic love.

Yes, that is one side of The Idiot. The other is also using Myshkin as a critic to idealized or idealistic members of russian society. Neither side of The Idiot is free of Dostoievisky critic, at the same time the society would not accept Myshkin, Myshkin would also not fit there. Dostoievisky do not pick sides or give confort to Myshkin, his fall is also his doing. The message is of the book is more "everything is wrong" than "there is one good option to follow"....

I see what you mean, and I agree that Dostoevsky was trying to show that it is impossible for one who is so ideal to exist in society. I think the message of the book is more like "it's pointless to try to be too good", so in a sense you're right.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 12:17 PM

You are judging these events on a surface level. The fact that the prince had been happier with Aglaya than with Nastasya does not tell us that he was more in love with Aglaya. You are not God. How do you know what lay behind his mind? How can you analyze the workings of his heart step by step? You are neither the author nor the prince. I presented my views as an observer. The prince hurt Aglaya and left with Nastasya. He married her after a fortnight. She ran away with another man right before the wedding and was killed. The prince became an everlasting idiot after the night he spent with the corpse and the man who killed her.
Love works beyond our consciousness. The prince seemed to be how you described him, but you didn't see his innermost urges.
You agreed that Nastasya would not commit suicide if the prince left him. The fact that the prince was deeply convinced that she should proved the fact that the prince was utterly bewitched. Great compassion does not lead to blindness. or why didn't he think that Aglaya would do something awful when in fact she wouldn't? Why did he only consider Nastasya as the one who would face danger? Oh, you haven't told me why the prince chose the two most pretty women to fall in love with if he only had equal compassion for everyone, just like Jesus. Once he entangled himself in feelings of love, you can never compare him with Jesus or analyze him as he appeared. You have to delve deeper into his heart.

bazarov

06-25-2009, 12:36 PM

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 12:43 PM

As a mere observer, I see, the simple fact that he chose Nastasya rather than Aglaya speaks the truth.

bazarov

06-25-2009, 12:54 PM

What truth? That he was selfish male pig who ran for prettier without hesitation?

grotto

06-25-2009, 01:23 PM

You have veered far away from your original post, may I ask what your point is Virginiawang?

I’m glad when I read “The Idiot” that I never read what every ones opinion and dissections of it were; I came away from the novel with a totally different view than what I have since read others opine. I will definitely read it again.

Happy pointless dissecting, continue on, Fyodor isn’t here to validate or invalidate, that’s what I love about all of this.

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 01:47 PM

Realists and naturalists shunned emotions. You need to know the truth about the two schools of writing rather than imagine them in your head as much as you like.

Here lies the problem, I am talking about Madame Bovary. Flaubert shunned emotions?
As a Brazilian, I must talk about Machado de Assis, a typical realist which one of the most famous book is Dom Casmurro, a book about jealousy. Either you explain to me how those two examples show emotions shunned or you must consider them as evidences that realists (a place where Dostoievisky would fit quite well or Tchekhov) deal with emotions as well.

By the way, you blurred the point you made in the very beginning. "a hero to be followed as a model " was what you proclaimed in that post, not anti-model or whatever, so I wanted to know how we should follow Bartleby as a model? Or is it a mistake you've made accidentally?

Mishkin is not an anti-hero. He is a idealized good individual. I pointed to you that Melville build in some books an anti-heroe, which is not a model of virtue that we must copy. Bartleby is not a typical romantic product, he is more closed to the end of XIX century/ early XX kind of character.

JCamilo

06-25-2009, 01:56 PM

I see what you mean, and I agree that Dostoevsky was trying to show that it is impossible for one who is so ideal to exist in society. I think the message of the book is more like "it's pointless to try to be too good", so in a sense you're right.

Yeah, I think in a sense, Dostoievisky was very disapointed with the early socialists movements and became very skeptical. It was pointless to fight because no change would happen. (The Demons is a bit more like that). If Dostoievisky placed a ideal good man in a book (even if with a tragic end) to show trust in that natural goodness or that it can be effective he would be a trutly romantic as it was claimed. But it is the step out of Romanticism for Dostoievisky. It is pointless. His good guys end crazy, reclusive, dead. Not always the bad guys are punished. And there is people who is neither. Excess of humanity perhaps (and there, more close to the realism way of showing humanity)...

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 07:36 PM

[QUOTE=Tsuyoiko;741847 I don't think he's indifferent, and doesn't have his own feelings. Of course he appreciated Nastaya's beauty and was romantically in love with Aglaya. [/QUOTE]

"You're judging with an ordinary human understanding of romantic relationships and with your emotions. The understanding Myshkin had was far beyond this; he saw his duty to other human beings from an objectively compassionate standpoint. He loved everyone in the way that Jesus taught when he said "love your neighbour as yourself", written by Tsuyoiko in a previous post.

Were you contradicting yourself?

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 07:41 PM

Realists and Naturalists shunned emotions and focused on events and the relationship between human beings and their environment. A more detailed description can be found on all websites. It does not make sense to argue about this point. it is a fact acknowledged by all literary people.

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 07:46 PM

I pointed to you that Melville build in some books an anti-heroe, which is not a model of virtue that we must copy. Bartleby is not a typical romantic product, he is more closed to the end of XIX century/ early XX kind of character.

Bartleby, the Scrivener was truly wrtten by a transcendentalist. I see you're not able to show me how we should follow Bartleby as a hero or a model. That was the way you looked at characters of a romantic work in the very beginning. Was it a mistake you made accidentally?

virginiawang

06-25-2009, 07:50 PM

My point is simple. The book is romantic. The author was a romantic author. The idiot had the most romantic love for Nastasya filipovna.

JCamilo

06-26-2009, 12:21 AM

It is rather know fact that Dostoievisky is not romantic. Rather relatisc. No desire to be blunt because those classifications are pointless,Dosto is Dosto and that is all.
Anywas, Bartebly is not romantic or anything. Melville is not even accepted on his own time. He is a proto-model of Kafka and others. It is not a mistake: trying to find traits of styles is easy - trying to define is hard.
Dostoieviksy as romantic is hilarious - he is pessimists, he presents more trait related to moderm (or relatisc or natualistic) writers than romantic. It is placing dostoievisky backwards, as a emulation of Victor Hugo or Dickens, rather than an unique writer.
And please, Virginia, because you seems to be a polite and nice person, stop assuming others "Need to read" anything. Most of us have been reading XIX century literarute or else for quite while. We are not just sayng stuff out of blue, ok.

Your point is wrong. Mishkin is a romantic ideal threw in the fire. The author places him in the realm that no romantic author would do. Something else is behind it,hence Dostoievisky quality of creaing humnity from even human merits.He is quite different from other romatic heroes, Dostoievisky own life is not idealistc, but a sense of skeptical wiht real soceity. Mishkin is hardly a finished charatacter. he is bellow Aliosha who is the finished deal. And what message dostoiewvisky leave to us?
And Virgniia, do not adress to websites: Mademe BOvary is realist and you are claiming it shuns emotioins......... how so?

Gladys

06-26-2009, 01:02 AM

Tsuyoiko wrote:

I don't think he's indifferent, and doesn't have his own feelings. Of course he appreciated Nastaya's beauty and was romantically in love with Aglaya.

AND

"You're judging with an ordinary human understanding of romantic relationships and with your emotions. The understanding Myshkin had was far beyond this; he saw his duty to other human beings from an objectively compassionate standpoint. He loved everyone in the way that Jesus taught when he said "love your neighbour as yourself", written by Tsuyoiko in a previous post.

Were you contradicting yourself? Yes, I too think this is a contradiction. While the prince may be 'romantically in love with Aglaya', his duty of love (agape) towards her is ever dominant. Dominant in his dealings with her and with all others. He is Christ-like.

Gladys

06-26-2009, 01:18 AM

Myshkin...is naive from the viewpoint of society (which of course does him an injustice) We agree, Tsuyoiko. Many considered Jesus naive in that sense, as Paul suggests in:

1 Corinthians 3:18-20___Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool [an Idiot], that he may be wise.___For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.___And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

The prince trust[s] more than one person.

Because of his superior compassion, he is capable of acting totally unselfishly and going to the aid of one he judges to need him most.

And not just in relation to Nastasya Filippovna. He acts the same way towards everyone: Roghozin, Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky, Lebedev and even Aglaya herself. Prince Myshkin is focussed on love - but never the romantic, infatuated variety. He seeks and finds something to love in everyone (just as 'God so loved the world...'). Loving and self-sacrificing, but not gullible.

...and even the Prince final fate is hardly something that can be somehow positive. And yet, like Crime and Punishment, the final page is 'somehow positive'.

The old doctor would be one of those idiots, right... Right, but a disinterested idiot, and therefore credible.

In the end, it is always a gamble: while the prince shows that the society is made of idiots, the society shows the prince is an idiot. While I agree with the former, the latter is only true if you take a cynical, negative view of the Prince Myshkin. As I've said earlier, the 'crucified' prince is 'resurrected' on the last page as argued in THE ENDING: ‘like a lamb dumb before his shearer’ (www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=734367#post734367).

you seems to refuse to acknowledge that the critic of Dostoievisky is not limited just to the society but to the prince as well I do indeed. The prince is akin to Sonya or Lizaveta (another idiot) in Crime and Punishment: he is portrayed as entirely positive.

Miskin is The Idiot, not society that surrounds him. Barazov, the book's title is a double entendre. The idiot prince is the opposite of what he seems - he is literally the sanest - the most down to earth - of men.

Do you really think Nastasya would have committed suicide if the prince had gone with Aglaya, from an objective standpoint? The prince is probably more worried about Roghozin than Nastasya. Here is the paramount subtlety in The Idiot!

But in the denouement, he puts his own feelings aside and goes with Nastasya because his capacity for agape takes precedence over his romantic love for Aglaya. Romantic? Interesting, although I feel sure that Prince Myshkin's relationship with Aglaya is driven by agape: he wishes to rescue her from a future Polish misadventure. And in this he fails too (like Jesus on Calvary – despised, betrayed and deserted).

I think the message of the book is more like "it's pointless to try to be too good" We agree in much, Tsuyoiko, but here I must demur. The message is rather the buoyant: Prince Myshkin lives a life of love (agape), and though achieving nothing in the eyes of the world, he touches with grace the lives of some. As did Sonya (the prostitute) and Lizaveta (the idiot) in Crime and Punishment.

virginiawang

06-26-2009, 05:37 AM

Love transcends the boundary of reasoning faculties, counsiousness and even sub-consciousness. It creeps into the innermost layer of our soul surreptitiously, without letting us know, and bids us to perform mariad deeds, some may be considered ludicrous, some out of all proportions to reality, and some truly outrageous. However before we discern the curious change we undergo, we have been cast a spell by this magic for perhaps quite a long time, and that's why we sometimes find ourselves not doing the sort of thing we would normally do but can't figure out why.
Sometimes people even battle with the emotions that arise in their minds, and oftentimes they find their efforts futile. When they try to figure out the truth about this condition, they end up in profound perplexity. Indeed the keenest observer cannot see through the minutes of the workings of his heart under this spell. Not only the prince himself, who couldn't have grasped the meaning of all the actions he took, the author, as well, may not see into this innermost layer of a soul. Dostoyevsky was driven by his momentary impulses to write, so he couldn't have known what would come next to his charaters the moment before. Perhaps he intended to write about a perfect man, but as he unfurled his plot, the man turned out to be someone quite different from what he originally expected. He kept writing whatever came to his mind, so he was not able to discern the secret visit of love to his charcter. I will give evidence to Dostoyevsky's way of writing from an introduction to the book, The Idiot. " On the other hand, it is no less true that Dostoyevsky's method of writing seemed to demand a condition of continuous mental strain, a condition of constant over-excitement and tearing rage.....Dostoyevsky first began with the main idea of his novel and never had a carefully worked-out plan of it or its characters." Flow of emotions, which cropped up one by one led him to write, so perhaps he didn't create love intentionally, but as he developed his story further and further ahead, his charaters encountered love coincidently. That was what made him a romatic writer of all time.
I don't know too much about God or its existence, so forget about it. Now neither the author nor the prince was able to tell the prince's heart under the influence of human love between a man and a woman, we only know the most obvious fact that he chose Nastasya in the end.

virginiawang

06-26-2009, 06:03 AM

Dostoyevsky has been classified by most literary people as a witer of Psychological Realism, which originated from some sort of romantic writing, so Dostoyevsky was a romantic writer without doubt.
Herman Melville was a transcendentalist, and that was a fact known to all peopel who study literature. Your model-to-be-followed theory in Romanticism does not apply to Bartleby, but you blurred the point, wrote a lot of unrelated pharagraphs that only show something I have no wish to disclose. Realism and Naturaism have been understood by all people as forms of literature in which authors made their best attempt to shun emotions and portrayed with objectivity events and their characters. So perhaps you have invented some new explanation to the two literary terms, and indulged yourself in it. That's not a bad thing perhaps.

virginiawang

06-26-2009, 06:20 AM

The novel's title, The Idiot, is ironic. The prince is surrounded by idiots! As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, Prince Myshkin is the sanest of men, although all around him would wish to think otherwise.

There is much more to The Idiot, JCamilo, than your two dimensional interpretation would have us believe.

I agree with you. The prince, being hyper-sentive since the day he was born, could detect the most delicate sutleties in his surroundings and in his mind, which would have escaped the eyes of ordinary people. He could even divine vaguely what would happen to him in the future by his keen intuitions, as could be found in the broken vase case, and that was beyond the power of ordinary people. An idiot, when considered in another light, becomes an intelligence.

JCamilo

06-26-2009, 09:39 AM

And yet, like Crime and Punishment, the final page is 'somehow positive'.

Yeah, very positive. We all know that Dostoievisky is an optimistic by nature.

Right, but a disinterested idiot, and therefore credible.

I was ironic because a sane man can an idiot as well. So the good doctor opinion does not help to build a case to defend the Prince as not the idiot in the title.
In fact, in many aspects Dostoievisky apply a traditional use of idiot: someone who act like an idiot but because of that is free to point that the king is naked.

While I agree with the former, the latter is only true if you take a cynical, negative view of the Prince Myshkin. As I've said earlier, the 'crucified' prince is 'resurrected' on the last page as argued in THE ENDING: ‘like a lamb dumb before his shearer’ (www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=734367#post734367).

We are talking about Dostoievisky, there is several momments where he condemn the idealism that dominated the russian society. The Prince is obviously a positive person, a idealized good guy. What is negative is the sittuation where Dostoieviksy place him. With this, Dostoievisky allow us to show the flaws of the society but also the problems a person like Mishkin - or the pure idealistic - suffer when facing reality.

I do indeed. The prince is akin to Sonya or Lizaveta (another idiot) in Crime and Punishment: he is portrayed as entirely positive.

All the good characters of Dostoievisky (Alioach, the prince) are positive. The negativity is the sittuation that Dostoievisky place them and the internal conflict generated by it. Analysing Dostoievisky characters outside the book is a mistake. As much the prince defines those around him, he is defined by those same individuals.

Virginia:

Voltaire philosophical tales were originated from oriental parables, this would mean Voltaire is an oriental writer? Dostoievisky is influenced by romantic writers but what make him expectional and not just one more is that he moved foward, not only in themes but in form also. His psychological work is considerable different from Dickens or Emily Bronte.
Melville being a trancendentalist is irrelevant. His many texts are not easy to classify because they break patterns. He is not a typical romantic writer - Benito Cereno or Baterbly stand up for this. There is no heroic model in tBaterbly (not all romantics used heroes), Ahab is an anti-hero of shorts, and Billy Budd an idealized good guy just like Mishkin.
And you certainly confund the objetivism of realism or the distance of the writer defended by Flaubert with absence of emotions. I need no literary terms, I need Madame Bovary. It proves that realism deals with emotions as much as anything, any claim otherwise needs a better explaination to be accepted.

virginiawang

06-26-2009, 10:30 AM

bazarov

06-26-2009, 02:40 PM

Yeah, very positive. We all know that Dostoievisky is an optimistic by nature.

Actually, ending of Crime and Punishment really is a positive. Nobody dies, and Raskolnikov is morally a new peaceful man, nothing from a crazy murderer from the beginning of the story.

Virginia; do you trust more to some websites and sources or to your personal opinion based on numerous books you have read?

Gladys

06-26-2009, 08:27 PM

I was ironic because a sane man can [be] an idiot as well. So the good doctor opinion does not help to build a case to defend the Prince as not the idiot in the title. I well understood your irony. As I wrote to Barazov:

Barazov, the book's title is a double entendre. The idiot prince is the opposite of what he seems - he is literally the sanest - the most down to earth - of men.

Actually, ending of Crime and Punishment really is a positive. Even so, Crime and Punishment seems more negative than others I've read, including The Idiot and The Brothers Karamazov. Compared with say Thomas Hardy or Emily Bronte, isn't Dostoevsky optimistic?

Analysing Dostoievisky characters outside the book is a mistake. Am I guilty of this?

The Prince is obviously a positive person, a idealized good guy. What is negative is the sittuation where Dostoieviksy place him. With this, Dostoievisky allow us to show the flaws of the society but also the problems a person like Mishkin - or the pure idealistic - suffer when facing reality. Agreed. But do you see the wonderful and overarching paradox central to The Idiot?

Despite 'the problems a person like Mishkin' suffers in society, he shines a radiant beacon (Nietzsche's 'superman') inspiring all who would see. Especially so, as his tears fall on murderer Roghozin's cheek, and when the positive influence of the prince remain undiminished even though exiled to a Swiss asylum.

A rainbow in a dismal firmament!

Gladys

06-26-2009, 08:41 PM

Love transcends the boundary of reasoning faculties, consciousness and even sub-consciousness…Sometimes people even battle with the emotions that arise in their minds… Indeed the keenest observer cannot see through the minutes of the workings of his heart under this spell.

Thanks for explaining your view of romantic love. What you write about romantic love, Virginiawang, may well be true: transcending reason, an emotional battle, the workings of the heart, and an entrancing spell. Unfortunately for you, the nature of the love Prince Myshkin shows to all he meets, including Aglaya, has little in common with romantic love. To avoid confusion, let me label Myshkin's love: 'agape'.

Like Henrick Ibsen (in the plays Brand of 1866 and The Wild Duck of 1884), Dostoevsky borrowed the concept of agape from the great Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard (the father of existentialism), whose awesome insights into Biblical psychology are radical even today. Kierkegaard explained the nature of agape in his "Works of Love" (1847).

I don't know too much about God or its existence, so forget about it.

You can't entirely forget about God because Dostoevsky, a professed Christian, alludes to and is influenced by Biblical perspectives, and particularly as expressed in Kierkegaard’s writings. You do need to grasp his existential concepts. For instance, the scripture ‘God is love’ has nothing to do with romantic love. Interestingly, the existentialist philosophers that sprung from Kierkegaard (including Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers and Sartre) were all atheist.

For Kierkegaard (Dostoevsky and Ibsen) agape differs from romantic love as follows.

Agape is fundamentally an act of will - a decision, a work, an action, a duty.

Agape is never an emotion, but a compassionate way of being.

Agape rejects the preferential (the aesthetic, the romantic) choice of the other.

Agape demands limitless self-sacrifice for one's neighbour (‘Love your neighbour as yourself’).

If agape sounds infinitely onerous, consider the courage and fate of Prince Myshkin (or Jesus Christ). Romantic love (infatuation) is not a trait of the prince.

An idiot, when considered in another light, becomes an intelligence. Equally true of Prince Myshkin and Jesus Christ: two lights shining in darkness.

JCamilo

06-27-2009, 01:34 AM

You used the word "originate" in a different context, so the comparison does not make sense. However, I can still make something out of it. "Voltaire's philosophical tales were originated from oriental parables, " This clause points to the fact that Voltaire's philosophical tales were oriental, not that Voltaire was an oriental writer. He might come from any part of the world, but he wrote stories that had oriental origins. You see the difference?

None, Dostoievisky sytle may be born from romantic writers, but he is not one. In Literature the fact you are under influence of writer does not means you belong to that writer style.

Dostoyevsky was more inflenced by himself than by romantic writers and that could be proved by his spontaneous writing style.

He was influenced by himself? That works well. Another thing, Spontaneous writing style (something more applied to surrealists french writers) does not eliminated influence at all.

I have no wish to explain more.

You better explain youself. Just saying things out of blue and not explaining it is a pointless argument. We should trust you basead on your blue eyes only?
And you better explain how you found a single writer that is not under the power of influence considering how himself said about Gogol influence, how anyone can see Dickens (and other other novelists) giving form to Dostoievisky, his daily "fight" with Tolstoy, Pushikin, bible... Before coming to claim his lack of influence.

You can read my previous posts: let me explain, and reply to me afterwards. His writing being different from any other writer doesn't alter the intrinsic qualities of his works.

his writings are quite similar to many works. It is how he does it and the orginality (mostly moderm stuff, he did build the stream of conciousness for others) and nobody is even discussing in this thread how good or bad dostoievisky is. Everyone agrees he is good.

As for Herman Melville, all literary people had put him under the category of Transcendentalism.

I doubt you know all the literary people. You know why? Because Melville bleak vision is not transcendental. He moves away from Emerson, being closer to Nathaniel Hawthorne and Poe , but critics of transcendentalism.
But mostly, this is irrelevant, Melville could be labeled as transcendentalism, a traint that have more phylosophical and spritual traits and still be a writers which style of writing is a not a typical romanticism.

How about your model-to-be-followed theory? Let me tell you it's no use to attempt to disown Melville as a transcendentalist, because a great many transcendentalists wrote gloomy stories just like Herman Melville.

I never tried to dismiss it (Until now) because a transcendentalist is optimistic and idealistic. He gives a model. What I said, pointing to you the books of Melville is that he is hardly a typical writer.

Your hero theory cannot apply to any of them, if only you don't twisted your original meaning of that theory.

I never applied the use of heroes and anti-heroes to them. I said romantics have the tendency to use such idealized figure, but not all of them. I care little for them as they have no place in this argumentantion. Dostoievisky is not one of them, that simple. But I could easily build the argument, as Thomas Carlyle is one of the main influences of them - He is very similar to Emerson by the way and Carlyle main theory of history is the existence of heroes.

As far as realism and naturalism are concerned, I think it is better for you to reach out for truth than to make sketches with your own imagination. If you insist on those two writers involving emotions in their writing, I have to tell you that the classification of literary works is made by comparison rather than by delving deeper and deeper into someone's work to search

I would ask you to read the books and explain them instead of giving such answer. Madame Bovary and Flaubert, the archetypical realistic writer. By the way, Balzac, Machado de Assis, Zola, Tchekhov - they are filled with emotions and are realist. So as a group your claims are just plain wrong.

Romantic works cannot have only emotions. They do need some descriptions about what really happened, or the stories would otherwise not have been stories.

doh! Stories need aspects of narrative or they would not happen! Amazing.

Works of Realism and Naturalism do involve a bit emotions because they were created by human beings rather than machines. However it's the degree of emotions involved that made the gaps between all categories.

The difference between realism and romanticism is not the degree of emotions. You obviously do not grasp it.

They shunned emotions as best as they could and remained objective, when they were compared with romantics. You were not making sense when you insisited that they involved emotions in their writing. Of course, their writing involved emotions because they were not created by machines.

Again, explain to me how Madame Bovary is less emotional than Geral Inspector by Gogol or Hoffman's tales.

JCamilo

06-27-2009, 01:42 AM

I well understood your irony. As I wrote to Barazov:

Even so, Crime and Punishment seems more negative than others I've read, including The Idiot and The Brothers Karamazov. Compared with say Thomas Hardy or Emily Bronte, isn't Dostoevsky optimistic?

Dostoievisky is not optmistic. Wuthering Heights ends with a loving couple, united, a version of Cathy-Heatcliff couple, but they are honets and good. Bronte is bleak but her final is totally optmistic.

Agreed. But do you see the wonderful and overarching paradox central to The Idiot?

Not only I see, like I pointed a hundred times that the contradiction also works to show the flaws of Mishkin, thus a critic of him.

Despite 'the problems a person like Mishkin' suffers in society, he shines a radiant beacon (Nietzsche's 'superman') inspiring all who would see. Especially so, as his tears fall on murderer Roghozin's cheek, and when the positive influence of the prince remain undiminished even though exiled to a Swiss asylum.

obviously, the prince is good. So? The book and Dostoievisky still passes the notion that being good is not enough and maybe even damaging. Dostoievisky may be even projecting his own moral flaws when using guys like Mishkin or Aliocha and how they are impossible: one is crazy and the other a recluse. Both deny the real world and the real world is where Dostoievisky rules.

bazarov

06-27-2009, 01:56 AM

Dostoievisky is not optmistic. Wuthering Heights ends with a loving couple, united, a version of Cathy-Heatcliff couple, but they are honets and good. Bronte is bleak but her final is totally optmistic.

I would agree. His only optimism is in Alyosha and speech to kids in TBK and in ending of Crime and Punishment; everything else is rather pessimistic (although I am trying to invent new term ''pure realism'' :D )

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 03:01 AM

Thanks for explaining your view of romantic love. What you write about romantic love, Virginiawang, may well be true: transcending reason, an emotional battle, the workings of the heart, and an entrancing spell. Unfortunately for you, the nature of the love Prince Myshkin shows to all he meets, including Aglaya, has little in common with romantic love. To avoid confusion, let me label Myshkin's love: 'agape'.

You can't entirely forget about God because Dostoevsky, a professed Christian, alludes to and is influenced by Biblical perspectives, and particularly as expressed in Kierkegaard’s writings. You do need to grasp his existential concepts. For instance, the scripture ‘God is love’ has nothing to do with romantic love. Interestingly, the existentialist philosophers that sprung from Kierkegaard (including Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers and Sartre) were all atheist.

For Kierkegaard (Dostoevsky and Ibsen) agape differs from romantic love as follows.

Agape is fundamentally an act of will - a decision, a work, an action, a duty.

Agape is never an emotion, but a compassionate way of being.

Agape rejects the preferential (the aesthetic, the romantic) choice of the other.

Agape demands limitless self-sacrifice for one's neighbour (‘Love your neighbour as yourself’).

If agape sounds infinitely onerous, consider the courage and fate of Prince Myshkin (or Jesus Christ). Romantic love (infatuation) is not a trait of the prince.

Equally true of Prince Myshkin and Jesus Christ: two lights shining in darkness.
Did you ever notice a difference in Bible, a book of equal love to all human
beings, and the book, The Idiot? If the book, the Idiot is all about an equal compassion for all people, why did the prince choose the two most pretty women to fall in love with? Why did the author portray the beuaty of one and the delicacy of another in the greatest details? The author also describeed the princes's resnsponces to the two pretty women. This was an attachment between a man and a woman, in another word, romance, not God's equal love for human beings. Or can you give me an example where God is attracted by a woman from the Bible? You may say that the prince had great compassion for everyone, but you cannot deny the fact that he had been in love with two women and had romance. By the way, no one can see through the prince's heart, including himself, but we know by the end of the novel, he chose Nastasya.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 03:11 AM

I would agree. His only optimism is in Alyosha and speech to kids in TBK and in ending of Crime and Punishment; everything else is rather pessimistic (although I am trying to invent new term ''pure realism'' :D )
Have you ever heard of a term,"Dark Romanticism", the writers of which wrote pessimistic and romantic works? Herman Melville, Nathanial Hawthorn were writers of this school. However it can never be the same as Realism, in which writers shun emotions and wrote from an objective point of view.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 05:12 AM

I looked up a dictionary and found the definition of the word,"agape" as "
unselfish love of one person for another without sexual implications; brotherly love." Do you really think the prince love Aglaya and Nastasya as Jesus loved his sheep, or as one loves his neibhors. If it were so, the prince could have chosen Rogazine or Ippolot to get married with, for a man made no difference from a woman to him, who only had agape for everyone. Did you not feel the attachment between he and Nastasya when he stroke his face and hair tenderly after Aglaya left and the attachment between he and Aglaya, being different from the way he agaped other chracters in the novel? Did you not feel he was somewhat shocked by the beauty of Nastasya at the first sight of her portrait? Though you may tell me, he had compassion more than that, you have to admit some sort of enchantment between a man and a woman was also involved, in addition to his great compassion. At least, his love for the two women cannot be called agape. Then you may want to tell me his compassion for human beings surpassed his selfish love for any woman, and he only wanted to save the one who needed him most. Let me answer you step by step. First of all, the statement that Nastasya would commit suicide if the prince left with Aglaya was not true. She didn't commit suicide when her seducer insulted her and left her in the beginning of the novel. Do you think she would die if the prince did not follow her instructions? To view it from an objective standpoint, we all know the answer is no. It was a delusion rooted deeply in the prince's head. You may say it was a sign of deep compassion. Compassion does not lead to blindness. The fact that the prince was not able to consider the whole thing in an objective way proved that he was bewitiched by the beautiful woman. God was never misled by anyone into believing something that had no likeness to truth. Please think about it deeply. It is a novel of humans beings, not God with omnipotent powers. Do you really think such a hyper-sensitive and delicate young man to not have heeded the vacissitudes around him at all, as a God did? Does the story really go like this?

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 05:45 AM

If Prince Myshkin had had agape for everyone like Jesus and was a saint with wisdom, he wouldn't have been misled into believing that Nastasya would die if he left with Aglaya. He would have applied his widom and compassion for both the two women, and so kept his promise, married Aglaya, and perhaphs did something else for Nastasya. In fact this hypothosis does not make too much sense, because his love for the two women is not agape in itself. However I made this hypothosis to show you the fact that the prince was a man bewitched, though he had great compassion.You have to admit that some influence from a woman had its effect upon him, and that led him to take the path which a saint with wisdom and compassion would not have taken

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 06:12 AM

[QUOTE=JCamilo;742816]None, Dostoievisky sytle may be born from romantic writers, but he is not one. In Literature the fact you are under influence of writer does not means you belong to that writer style.[QUOTE=]
You didn't follow the previous thread as I thought you said, and asked me to write again and again the same thing. That's not curteous. Dostoyevsky had always been classified as a writer of Psychological Realism that originated from some romantic work and still had its focus entirely on not only human emotions but the minute workings of a heart now, so Dostoyevsky was a romantic writer.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 06:23 AM

He was influenced by himself? That works well. Another thing, Spontaneous writing style (something more applied to surrealists french writers) does not eliminated influence at all.
You better explain youself. Just saying things out of blue and not explaining it is a pointless argument. We should trust you basead on your blue eyes only?
And you better explain how you found a single writer that is not under the power of influence considering how himself said about Gogol influence, how anyone can see Dickens (and other other novelists) giving form to Dostoievisky, his daily "fight" with Tolstoy, Pushikin, bible... Before coming to claim his lack of influence.

How Dostoyevsky is influenced by himself was explained by me for twice in:Let me explain. I really don't want to repeat. If you had a respect for this forum and the people engaged in it, you should follow each post before you give your objections. He had epilectic fit and a particular way of writing, which few others had. It was made known to the public in the introduction of the book,The Idiot.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 06:32 AM

The difference Virginia, is that Mishikin is not heroic, idealized, a model to be followed. In Romanticism those ideals are what you seek. Mishikin tragedy is more close to the greek Comedy, he is unable to be a hero despite his virtues and they, unlike the romantic heroes, do not fall because he is victim of those. Rather because he is outplaced in the society, he is naive and not just pure. Dostoievisky is kicking in the nuts of the romantics, not praising.

Have you ever heard of a term, Dark Romanticism, writers of which include HermanMelville, Nathanial Hawthorn, and many others. This school
of writing is a part of Romanticism. How do you apply your model-to-be followed theory to these writers. Please don't twist the original meaning of your theory by something like anti-models or whatever, or it will not make sense otherwise.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 06:51 AM

" Transcendentalist thems of thinking for oneself and coming to knowledge through experience are reflected in one of Melvilles's short stories," Bartleby, the Scrivener."
The above was adapted from an online source. Perhaps, not accepted by all literary people as transcendentalist, but he was absolutely considered as one of American Romanticism, which does not always deal with ideals and models, as can be seen in Dark Romanticism, Melville being one of the writers of this school. I am not God. How can I know what all literay people think when they have different opinions, but no one will doubt him as a writer of American Romanticism. How about your theory?

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 07:04 AM

I never applied the use of heroes and anti-heroes to them. I said romantics have the tendency to use such idealized figure, but not all of them. I care little for them as they have no place in this argumentantion. Dostoievisky is not one of them, that simple. But I could easily build the argument, as Thomas Carlyle is one of the main influences of them - He is very similar to Emerson by the way and Carlyle main theory of history is the existence of heroes.

I would ask you to read the books and explain them instead of giving such answer. Madame Bovary and Flaubert, the archetypical realistic writer. By the way, Balzac, Machado de Assis, Zola, Tchekhov - they are filled with emotions and are realist. So as a group your claims are just plain wrong.

But in your post, you once said, heros are what Romanticism seeks for. They are models to be followed. You ignored a branch of Romanticism, which deals with pessimism, as I said in my earlier posts, it was called Dark Romanticism, which has nothing to do with heros or models. You made a mistake obviously in your original post by saying all romantic writers seek for ideals, heroes, and models. Don't twist the original meaning of your post, something written by yourself.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 07:14 AM

To argue about the involvement of feelings in Realism and Naturalism does not make sense, because you didn't do your study before you tried to challege me. I will suggest you to know the truth about these two terms before you discuss with me. After that you'll see my point. You'll know the gap between Realism and Romanticism by that time. However I don't think you would do so because you've been confined by your own imagination and had difficulty getting out of it. So sad.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 07:39 AM

You were quite mistaken when you disown Dostoyevsky as a romantic writer because he was not optimistic. Some works of Romanticism deal with subjects even more pessimistic than the subjects in Dostoyevsky's novels, for example works written by Herman Melville and Nathanial Hawthorn.

Gladys

06-27-2009, 08:41 AM

Dostoievisky is not optmistic. Wuthering Heights ends with a loving couple, united, a version of Cathy-Heatcliff couple, but they are honets and good. Bronte is bleak but her final is totally optmistic. Totally optimistic? Isn't there is something brutish, savage and wild - out of control in both relationships: Catherine with Heathcliff, and Cathy with Hareton? For Emily Bronte, life is necessarily out of control. As for Dostoevsky, both you and Barazov, seem to underestimate the massively understated hope inherent in his writings.

Not only I see, like I pointed a hundred times that the contradiction also works to show the flaws of Mishkin, thus a critic of him. If you could really see 'the wonderful and overarching paradox', you would not give minimal attention to what is the central thesis of 'The Idiot' - you and all but Tsuyoiko.

In particular, you fail to grasp the prince's love for the murderer Roghozin that is so fundamental to 'The Idiot' - the story begins and ends with Roghozin, not with Nastasya. Dostoevsky views the prince as a pattern (the suffering servant) for us to follow. Here also is his optimism.

Or can you give me an example where God is attracted by a woman from the Bible? Yes. The woman who was a sinner in Luke 7:36-50.

Luke 7:45___Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

Do you really think the prince love Aglaya and Nastasya as Jesus loved his sheep, or as one loves his neibhors. If it were so, the prince could have chosen Rogazine or Ippolot to get married with, for a man made no difference from a woman to him, who only had agape for everyone. Yes, he loved all, but only marriage to women was acceptable in Russia.

you have to admit some sort of enchantment between a man and a woman was also involved, in addition to his great compassion. The prince had a sense of the aesthetic, but agape prevailed always.

First of all, the statement that Nastasya would commit suicide if the prince left with Aglaya was not true. As I wrote earlier

The prince is probably more worried about Roghozin than Nastasya. Here is the paramount subtlety in The Idiot!

And worried with good reason! As for Nastasya, in her desperation she was capable of anything dreadful; she might even get herself...murdered.

Do you really think such a hyper-sensitive and delicate young man to not have heeded the vacissitudes around him at all, as a God did? You're right in saying the prince is very human and has to battle emotions which would inhibit agape. And battle he does. He fights the good fight, and prevails heroically - though from a worldly standpoint, he's a total failure.

In the ending, a wonderful paradox. Victory in defeat. Success in failure. Communication in (a Swiss) silence. Miraculous. And Dostoevsky's an optimist.

JCamilo

06-27-2009, 09:11 AM

I would agree. His only optimism is in Alyosha and speech to kids in TBK and in ending of Crime and Punishment; everything else is rather pessimistic (although I am trying to invent new term ''pure realism'' :D )

Call it russian realism, they all seem pessimistic, but Tolstoy who became almost a self-help writer when went crazy. :D

Virginia:

You didn't follow the previous thread as I thought you said, and asked me to wrote again and again the same thing. That's not curteous. Dostoyevsky had always been classified as a writer of Psychological Realism that originated from some romantic work and still had its focus entirely on not only human emotions but the minute workings of a heart now, so Dostoyevsky was a romantic writer.

First, no not come to preach a moral. You are making everyone repeat a hundred times about the reasons why Dostoievisky is not a romantic writer, yet you stubbornly repeat it. Second, I have asked you to show me how realistic writers - gave you a work to analyse, M.Bovary - and instead you still ask people to go after sites who are not a realiable source.
Read your own sentence, he is Classificated as a Psychological Realism yet you conclude he is a romantic writer. His work orignated from romantics (like all realism in the end, after all it is history, a flow of circunstances) and yet he is the same, the minute workings of a heart is something meaninglesss (plus, psychological is related to mind, Dostoievisky is analytic writer)... It is abusive.

How Dostoyevsky is influenced by himself was explained by me for twice in:Let me explain. I really don't want to repeat. If you had a respect for this forum and the people engaged in it, you should follow each post before you give your objections. He had epilectic fit and a particular way of writing, which few others had. It was made known to the public in the introduction of the book,The Idiot.

No, you did not explained and will not. Saying that in a book the author personal experiences are part of the book is not the same as influence. It happens with everyone. And it is also a know fact of Dostoievisky life his deception with idealism which leads to his more bleak approach.

Have you ever heard of a term, Dark Romanticism, writers of which include HermanMelville, Nathanial Hawthorn, and many others. This school
of writing is a part of Romanticism. How do you apply your model-to-be followed theory to these writers. Please don't twist the original meaning of your theory by something like anti-models or whatever, or it will not make sense otherwise.

Young lady, it is not the first time and I am not the first person that you assume in such arrogant manner that we did not read the obvious or know the obvious. I know what Dark Romanticism is, basically the gothic american version. And because of that, I know it is not the same as transcendentalism, because instead of a site, I read Hawthorne or Poe, and they are criticals of the movement. It may have the origem in the transcendentalism, but it is not the same thing.
And anti-heroes, anti-models are not something unheard. If you are having trouble to know about them, you are simple needing to leave the internet sites and search for other sources.

" Transcendentalist thems of thinking for oneself and coming to knowledge through experience are reflected in one of Melvilles's short stories," Bartleby, the Scrivener."
The above was adapted from an online source. Perhaps, not accepted by all literary people as transcendentalist, but he was absolutely considered as one of American Romanticism, which does not always deal with ideals and models, as can be seen in Dark Romanticism, Melville being one of the writers of this school. I am not God. How can I know what all literay people think when they have different opinions, but no one will doubt him as a writer of American Romanticism. How about your theory?

The online source only points that there is transcendentalism in his texts, They do not say he is one of them, even because Melville was massivelly misunderstood and criticised during his lifetime. Because they could not see what he was talking about, because a certain Big White Whale destroyed everything.
And if you can not know what all literary people think, them do not claim they all have said anything, like you did. Futhermore, I never said Melville was not classificated under romanticism, I said he is not a typical romantic writer, his works defy the typical romanticism, that is why Melville was accepted and praised decades after his death. And it is pointless, there is no link between Dostoievisky and american writers, I have no idea why you are dealing with this pointless classification.
And My theory? The anti-hero was a typical trait of romanticism. The idealised hero also, but in a different form. But I never said you will find heroes and anti-heroes in every work.
And I did not ignored anything. The classification of Poe as a romantic is sometimes challenged, because he is already the end of it. And they are gothic writers, I hape pointed that to you. American romanticism is a later than european, thus they have different approaches.

To argue about the involvement of feelings in Realism and Naturalism does not make sense, because you didn't do your study before you tried to challege me. I will suggest you to know the truth about these two terms before you discuss with me. After that you'll see my point. You'll know the gap between Realism and Romanticism by that time. However I don't think you would do so because you've been confined by your own imagination and had difficulty getting out of it. So sad.

Challenge you? You seem to be quoting for sites, It is ridiculous to argue with someone which main source are sites. It is above trully knowledge. I am starting to think you incapacity to reply about Mademe Bovary is lack of reading.

You were quite mistaken when you disown Dostoyevsky as a romantic writer because he was not optimistic. Some works of Romanticism deal with subjects even more pessimistic than the subjects in Dostoyevsky's novels, for example works written by Herman Melville and Nathanial Hawthorn.

No, I said he is not idealistic. He is pessimist and that is what destroyed his idealism. Melville and Poe still idealists, even if Poe is a bit harder. I know Schopenhauer, who is a romantic philosopher and I know he is pessimist.
Most of the romanticism will deal with progress and evolution, but there is a bleak approach and it is not because of Melville or Hawthorne.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 09:18 AM

The example you gave me did not present Jesus being attracted, and he remained quite unmoved. Did he respond with fervor ?
You didn't address my point. If he only had agape for all people, how did he fall in love with two women? The definition of agape does not include love between a man and a woman. By the way, no one forced him into marriage. He could have chosen not to get married just like Jesus who had only agape for all people.
"prevail" is not the right word. A sense of esthetic is not even an excuse. Yes or No. When affection between a man and a woman gets involved, it is no longer "agape", according to a dictionary.
After her seducer insulted her and left, she didn't commit suicide. She would not have died if the prince had left with Aglaya. It is a more objective way of looking at things.
Let me tell you. The fact that the prince had love feelings for a woman, he feelings could not be called agape. That's according to a dictionary. If he had to battle emotions that inhibit agape, the real success would be to leave both women. Please learn the definition of the word,"agape" before you jump into any conclusions. Even the prince himself admitted once that he did love Nastasya and Aglaya as well. This sort of love is not agape.

Olga4real

06-27-2009, 09:38 AM

Hello, I read Notes from the Underground a few years ago, and my soul was immensely quaked by the description of a sick man in this book, during the time I read it, and for quite some time after I read it. Then I started to read some other books written by him and I soon read most of the books written by this Russian author through the course of some years. His stories always end in a deathly sadness, but they are all romantic. That made me wonder at times why people who act in a romantic way cannot enjoy felicity at the end, or is it only a story that does not need too much thought? The sadness in some of his stories adds a tinge of beauty to romance, when without it, they wouldn't have been so beautiful. Do beauty, romance and filicilty coexist in real life? What do you think?

Romantic? Maybe, but definitely an optimist!!! When you read Brothers Karamazov, you feel the power of optimism in every line of the novel. And isn't prince Myshkin ('Idiot') a romantic?
Dostoevsky's books are a mixture of romanticism, passion and optimism, but it is my point of view.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 10:00 AM

I don't like my writing to be corrected by any one in one way or another, so I'll soon make it disappear. Do you not think it is rather sad for a man who reads literature to resort to such trick to assert homeself, in a discussion or a debate? Mr. barozov?

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 10:02 AM

Look, Dostoievisky is not romantic, neither his characters. He could write that Ivan, Dimitri and Aliocha are all happy. It would be a two pages book that nobody would read.
(In the end, you enjoy death, not felicity).

If you could have understood anything about Dark Romanticism, you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 10:07 AM

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 10:35 AM

But you or anyone else cannot deny that Melvillve is a writer of American Romanticism, and your model theory obviously does not apply here.
I am not God. How can I know all people's thoughts from ancient time till now? However I was not mistaken in the fact that Romanticism deals with pessimistic subjects, and that is the point. Yes, you never said he was not classified as a romantic writer, but you did say Romantic writer only wrote optimistic and ideal themes, which are the opposite of those in Greek tragedy. You must have been mistaken. I never said Dostoyevsky is an American romantic writer, and I only said Dostoyevsky was a romantic writer. Dostoyevsky was a Russian. How can he become an American? It's funny.
You never mentioned anything like an anti-hero in the posts you wrote in the very beginning. There you believed Romanticism never deals with sadness. I quoted what you wrote there in my last two posts, and they are the best proof of your ignorance. I nevered mentioned Poe in my previous posts. See, your imagination started working again. To quote site is not a bad thing when I read literature at the same time. At least I know you have an imagination faculty that is far above human knowlege in Literature. Here, What's your point here. To list a great deal of authors does not alter the fact that in the very beginning you did disown Dostoyevsky as a romantic author due to his pessimism. Do you want me to show you the proof, something you said before?

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 10:47 AM

Romantic? Maybe, but definitely an optimist!!! When you read Brothers Karamazov, you feel the power of optimism in every line of the novel. And isn't prince Myshkin ('Idiot') a romantic?
Dostoevsky's books are a mixture of romanticism, passion and optimism, but it is my point of view.

I couldn't have been happier than I had been the moment I read your post, because I totally agree with you. Not only some of his characters, but Dostoyevsky was a romantic author himself. If you are willing to spare some time, please read two of my posts in this thread, entitled Let Me Explain. I really want to know how you will think about my views. By the way, the question I raised in the beginning that no one ever tried to answer is still here in my heart. Will you give me some suggestions as to how you think. Do romance, beauty, and romance coexist in reality? Thank you again.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 10:48 AM

I was too anxious to sumbit my post last night that I pressed the "sumbit" button twice accidentally, and the same post turned up. Since I cannot delete it, I can only make some explanations by the function of editting here.

blazeofglory

06-27-2009, 11:07 AM

I have read Dostoevsky and he kind of was really very moving . I have read his crime and punishment, and I got so much absorbed in this.

He is really different than the rest in terms of his capacity for presenting stories in a different way than the rest of other writers.

virginiawang

06-27-2009, 11:32 AM

I utterly agree with you. He was one of my favorate authors when I was in college. I think beauty and emotions flowed naturally through his works. Many other writers always tried to create something magnificent when in fact the inspirations left them.

bazarov

06-27-2009, 01:54 PM

Romantic? Maybe, but definitely an optimist!!! When you read Brothers Karamazov, you feel the power of optimism in every line of the novel. And isn't prince Myshkin ('Idiot') a romantic?
Dostoevsky's books are a mixture of romanticism, passion and optimism, but it is my point of view.

Poor Folk, Netochka Nezvanova, The Insulted and Humiliated, The House of Dead, Notes from the Underground, The Gambler, The Idiot, The Possessed, Raw Youth - do you see any optimism in these novels?

Crime and Punishment (end of a novel - had to be finished due to deadline; who knows how it would it really end) and Brothers Karamazov(his LAST NOVEL) are his only optimistic novels, and short stories are all pessimistic. So how can be an optimistic writer?

I am not saying he is pessimistic; rather real which in life often is pessimism. Sorry.

JCamilo

06-27-2009, 04:07 PM

I would not call Brothers K. optimistic. I feel more like a little map of humanity, so there is bad and good things. Seems like the life goes on. Dostoievisky own life (not quite great) lead him to more pessimistic writings. The sittuation in russia also. The philophical influence. All this is real life of course.

Virginia:

No matter how many people thought Dostoyevsky not being romantic, the fact speaks itself.

Which facts? Your opinion is not a fact.

Due to his health problems, he was driven by his temporary impulses and feelings to write. That speaks for the most part why he was one of those romantic writers, who deal with feelings and intuitions.

This fact? Then Hemingway had to deal with feelings and emotions and his ill health thus he is a romantic? What about Milton, was him a romantic? Your definition of romantic is ridiclous: every had to deal with emotions, just not the romantic. You are confuding the writer own personal life with his creation.

Due to his health problems, he was driven by his temporary impulses and feelings to write. That speaks for the most part why he was one of those romantic writers, who deal with feelings and intuitions.

you only quoted websites. I consider them unrealiable, have you read Bakhtin? I have. Have you read Henry James? I have. Have you read Tolstoy and Chekhov critical writings?I have. Have you read Borges?Cortazar? Walter Benjamin, Paul Valéry, etc,etc. I have.
Have you read Madame Bovary?

There is no need for you to discuss with people because your imagination surpass any wisdom in the literary field. Look, you even misspelt the word, classified.

You mispelled Hawthorne and Thoureau. I was polite enough to not dismiss any of your texts by internet typos.

There is nothing wrong with my sentence, but you didn't fully grasp the meaning of it. It makes no sense to clip the sentense into many parts and only grab the beginning and the end to make a challege.

you said he is a realist. Then conclude he is a romantic. So, your sentence is a contraditory mess.

His works did not originate from any romantic writing, but the school of writing into which his works had always been classified originated from some romantic writing.

This is ridiculous. The school is realism, realism is under influence of romantic school, everywhere.
And your phrase is pure sofistry. The feelings in the mind and the beat of a heart? It says anothing. Regardless, any writer beings with the feelings he have. It is not just dostoievisky.

If you think Psycological Realism is being analytic rather than being subjective to feelings, you can understand better after you compare a book of Psychology with a work of this school.

Ridiculous. Those books are different because it is art and the other is science. Freud have often been compared to Dostoievisky, in fact many say that Dostoievisky the father of moderm psychology because the accuracy of his creations. And the expression Psychological Realism only means a work that shows the inner feelings of someone in a realistic manner. Realism. Remember.

If you could have understood anything about Dark Romanticism, you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment.

Do not be ridicolous. The answer is not related to dark romanticism, which is something irrelevant to this thread.

See, you didn't take into consideration that gloomy side of Romanticism. It is sheer ignorance. The above is the best proof.

Sorry, but the above is related to the hero figure. There is nothing about gloomy side of romanticism. If you start to be such annoying and stubborn person I will ask you stop trying to transform Dostoievisky in a mediocre self-help writer.

But you or anyone else cannot deny that Melvillve is a writer of American Romanticism, and your model theory obviously does not apply here.

Again, I am never arguing if Melville is or not romantic. I said he is not a typical romantic, since I have read books (Have you read Moby Dick) I can do more than copy and paste from sites. Anyways, a not typical romantic, still a romantic and you insist on this point because you are unable to address or justify watever you say.

I am not God. How can I know all people's thoughts from ancient time till now? However I was not mistaken in the fact that Romanticism deals with pessimistic subjects, and that is the point. Yes, you never said he was not classified as a romantic writer, but you did say Romantic writer only wrote optimistic and ideal themes, which are the opposite of those in Greek tragedy.

You quoted me and there is said nothing about romantic writers writing only idealistic or optimistic ideas. I have said in romantism they are idealist, so they work with the ideals.

You must have been mistaken. I never said Dostoyevsky is an American romantic writer, and I only said Dostoyevsky was a romantic writer. Dostoyevsky was a Russian. How can he become an American?

So, why do you insist in this futile talk about americans? You can not organize your thoughts?

It's funny.
You never mentioned anything like an anti-hero in the posts you wrote in the very beginning.[/quote]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=741088&postcount=31

There you believed Romanticism never deals with sadness. I quoted what you wrote there in my last two posts, and they are the best proof of your ignorance. I nevered mentioned Poe in my previous posts.

One: Find where I said romanticism never deals with sadness. You wont.
Two: In the two posts you quoted, I did not even used the word sadness. If you are going to call me ignorant, please, be careful.
three: I used Poe, I do not need to limit my knoweldge to your limitations. Poe is a typical Dark Romantic. If you talk about them, you talk about Poe.

See, your imagination started working again. To quote site is not a bad thing when I read literature at the same time. At least I know you have an imagination faculty that is far above human knowlege in Literature. Here, What's your point here. To list a great deal of authors does not alter the fact that in the very beginning you did disown Dostoyevsky as a romantic author due to his pessimism. Do you want me to show you the proof, something you said before?

Yes, because I did not such thing. I do not doubt you read. I doubt you can understand anything. I am being polite with you, but you are really abusing of my willingness to accept you are very young and have not studied enough.
And please, do not split your answers into several posts.

bazarov

06-27-2009, 04:17 PM

No matter how many people thought Dostoyevsky not being romantic, the fact speaks itself. Due to his health problems, he was driven by his temporary impulses and feelings to write. That speaks for the most part why he was one of those romantic writers, who deal with feelings and intuitions. If you consider all websites, encyclopedias and textsbooks as unrealiable sources, and your imaginative statements as being all the reliable. There is no need for you to discuss with people because your imagination surpass any wisdom in the literary field. Look, you even misspelt the word, classified. There is nothing wrong with my sentence, but you didn't fully grasp the meaning of it. It makes no sense to clip the sentense into many parts and only grab the beginning and the end to make a challege. His works did not originate from any romantic writing, but the school of writing into which his works had always been classified originated from some romantic writing. "the minute workings of a heart is something meaningless" was a sentence written by you. No it addresses the most subtle emotions that ever arise to a writer's mind. If you think Psycological Realism is being analytic rather than being subjective to feelings, you can understand better after you compare a book of Psychology with a work of this school. Again you are creating something out of your great imagination. I didn't say Dostoyevsky included his personal exrerience in his body, which he never did, but I said his writing style was influenced by his constitution.

Words in bold are wrongly written and in they are all in only one post.
Funny, you also made few huge misses, but nobody took that like an argument for or against your thread-arguments. You know why? Because it's rude.
And please, respect the fact that all people around here are not from USA or some other Anglo-parts. Thank you.

Olga4real

06-27-2009, 06:21 PM

Poor Folk, Netochka Nezvanova, The Insulted and Humiliated, The House of Dead, Notes from the Underground, The Gambler, The Idiot, The Possessed, Raw Youth - do you see any optimism in these novels?

Crime and Punishment (end of a novel - had to be finished due to deadline; who knows how it would it really end) and Brothers Karamazov(his LAST NOVEL) are his only optimistic novels, and short stories are all pessimistic. So how can be an optimistic writer?

I am not saying he is pessimistic; rather real which in life often is pessimism. Sorry.

I have not read all his works, unfortunately, plus I read most of them as a school girl, but I felt the optimism, maybe it is my character, my point of view.

JCamilo

06-27-2009, 06:38 PM

The main critical point of Dostoievisky is related to the multiple voices he is able to represent in his books. Each voice is distinct and it would not be natural if he did not show also positive elements. But his idea, as it is how life is, is to creating moral conflicts - how someone "negative" reacts if something positive (as love) appears or how someone positive (as Mishkin) reacts when he is conflicted by his negative surrouding. He does not pretend each side is more real, possible or anything else. It is left to the reader (Which by the way, Is Dostoievisky genial take) the conclusion. We are going to find examples of both sides - Dostoievisky denies neither side.
Now, as Bazarov pointed, real life have the tendency of leading us to pessimistic views. While I think it is also possible to lead to positive views, Dostoievisky life and russian society did not. So, it is something strongly related to his writings and his option to show the stress of our inner turmoils.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 02:43 AM

Look, Dostoievisky is not romantic, neither his characters. He could write that Ivan, Dimitri and Aliocha are all happy. It would be a two pages book that nobody would read.
(In the end, you enjoy death, not felicity).

You made grammitical mistakes throughout your posts in addition to your spelling mistakes, but you took it for granted and went on and on. I had a hard time reading what you wrote. Now back to the beginning, look at what you wrote because this is the main point we've been discussing. You thought that Dostoyevsky and his novels are not romantic only because they are not happy. On this point alone, all people can know you ignored the part of Romanticism that is all but gloomy. Don't try to escape from this focus and answer me yes nor no. You were quite ignorant when you post the above thread. If you cannot answer my question directly, you've lost by remaining quiet.
By the way, I have to tell you I am not interested in Brazilian Literature, from which you drew many authors to discuss with me. Sorry I have no wish to be an expert in that field. Answer the above question, yes or no, because this was our focus point in the very beginning.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 02:57 AM

Yes, I made some typing mistakes, which, compared with your grammatical mistakes in almost all of your posts, seem nothing worthy of mentioning. Before you try to make judgements of other people, look first at yourself.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 03:01 AM

I agree with you in the optimism of all Dostoyevsky's novels. He celebreted the nobility of a human soul with all his fervor, without fail in each of his novels. This is sheer optimism.

Olga4real

06-28-2009, 04:35 AM

I couldn't have been happier than I had been the moment I read your post, because I totally agree with you. Not only some of his characters, but Dostoyevsky was a romantic author himself. If you are willing to spare some time, please read two of my posts in this thread, entitled Let Me Explain. I really want to know how you will think about my views. By the way, the question I raised in the beginning that no one ever tried to answer is still here in my heart. Will you give me some suggestions as to how you think. Do romance, beauty, and felicity coexist in reality? Thank you again.

Virginiawang, I read your 'Let Me Explain' post, I must admit I needed my dictionary to understand it - my English is far from perfection. In my opinion there is some romanticism in Dostoevsky novels (think of White Nights), but reading your post 'LME' the word passion came to my mind. Love you described is passionate love. Most of Dostoevsky's works were written with high level of passion. Romanticism and Passion can't be considered as synonyms.
Romance, Beauty and Felicity coexist in our imagination. Beauty is everywhere around us, Romance is in some people hearts, felicity - for very brief time, as soon as we look around and see the cruelty of the world it fades away.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 05:37 AM

I doubt you know all the literary people. You know why? Because Melville bleak vision is not transcendental.
One of my college textbooks is Norton Anthology of American Literature, the second volume of which included works of American writers dating from1820 to 1865. I read the introduction of this volume last night and discovered that fortune seemed to smile to me. First of all, I would like to make known of the fact that Transcendentalism was the revolt againt the dominant religion of their time by way of presenting different philosophies by different writers.It was a group of phisolophies rather than one set of beliefs agreed by all. According to my textbook, these different writers included all writers who had a different exposition of theology from their predecessors. Herman Melville was among one of them. The point is not whether his vision is dismal or optimistic, but it is the fact that he was among a group of writers who had uttered some different voice against the once all dominant Protestant Christianity. Therefore he was classified as a transcendentalist, according to my textbook, which I think you must agree in its authority over some of the websites you might have come across.
Secondly, when I said, "all", I simply meant,"all". I didn't mean ," 100% of the population that ever inhabited the earth since Melville's time till now". When 100 people in a billion literary people criticized against Melville being a transcendentalist, the fact that most literary people thought he was still remained unshaken, and I could still use the word, "all". These small number of people might have created many websites and uploaded their own views, and some other people who did not have their own views upon this point might even have copied the articles posted by those people to make their own websites, for mercenary reasons or whatever. Web articles, being downloaded, uploaded, or imitated may confuse people at times, but it does not detract from the truth of the statement I found in my textbook, that Herman Melville was among those writers of Transendentalism. Though you may find different websites stating different views, some for the statement, and some against it, my textbook, being a book intended to teach and written by the most authoritative literary people who drew their information from the most reliable sources and from the accumulated knowledge of people like them, cannot tell lies.
Let me tell you I don't know all the literary people of course, because I couldn'd have spanned the time of about 150 years to know all of them, but I arrived at the truth by choosing the right materials.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 05:52 AM

But romantic writers were driven by feelings to write, and intense feelings equal passion. I cannot see the difference. I am happy to know that you consider Prince Myshkin as being romantic, because it was the first time I had heard people say so, though I've always thought so since I read the book.

Gladys

06-28-2009, 06:06 AM

When you read Brothers Karamazov, you feel the power of optimism in every line of the novel.

Poor Folk, Netochka Nezvanova, The Insulted and Humiliated, The House of Dead, Notes from the Underground, The Gambler, The Idiot, The Possessed, Raw Youth - do you see any optimism in these novels? Yes, in relation to the ones I’ve read: Netochka Nezvanova, The Insulted and Humiliated, The Gambler, and The Idiot. As in The Brother Karamzov, there is always in Dostoevsky, salvation in suffering.

I must say, Virginiawang, how much I am enjoying our discussion on this superlative novel.

If he only had agape for all people, how did he fall in love with two women? While appreciating their sensual attributes, the prince loved (agape) both women rather than falling in love (infatuation). Nevertheless, he well understood and was embarrassed by the romantic preconceptions of those around him. He loved (agape) all, including the two women.

But why do you, and everyone else, shy away from addressing the love (agape) the prince has for murderous Roghozin that is so fundamental to 'The Idiot', which begins and ends with Roghozin, not with Nastasya? In marrying her, the prince is focused on saving both.

The definition of agape does not include love between a man and a woman. By the way, no one forced him into marriage. All relationships should be motivated by agape, married or unmarried, sexual or otherwise. The prince wished to marry out of love (agape). You seem to forget, Virginiawang, that in many cultures, romantic love is not the basis for marriage (e.g. arranged marriages). By the way, my original definition of 'agape' did not rely on dictionary meanings.

Prince Myhskin agrees to marry Nastasya, in part, to save Roghozin from himself. Hardly romantic!

"prevail" is not the right word. A sense of esthetic is not even an excuse.

The prince had an awareness of the aesthetic, but agape - the duty to love one’s neighbours as oneself - prevailed (won) over other considerations, and won always.

Yes or No. When affection between a man and a woman gets involved, it is no longer "agape", according to a dictionary The prince acted out of agape, not affection. You seem to imagine that agape can’t apply in courtship or marriage. Not so, although the sad reality is that pure agape is rare in any relationship of any gender. While agape does not describe the sensual or sexual attraction between a man an a woman, agape and eros may coexist. The prince is a pattern we can aspire to. Let us be optimistic…like Dostoevsky himself.

After her seducer insulted her and left, she didn't commit suicide. She would not have died if the prince had left with Aglaya. I’ll say it for the third time,

Do you really think Nastasya would have committed suicide if the prince had gone with Aglaya, from an objective standpoint?

The prince is probably more worried about Roghozin than Nastasya. And worried with good reason! As for Nastasya, in her desperation she was capable of anything dreadful; she might even get herself...murdered. Here is the paramount subtlety in The Idiot! The tears of the prince fall on murderer Roghozin's cheek: compassion for even the worst. An inspiring paradox.

Even the prince himself admitted once that he did love Nastasya and Aglaya as well So true: he loved (agape) all.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 06:44 AM

You have to learn more and feel deeper before you can judge whether my opinion is a fact or not. Did Hemingway have epileptic fits, see you didn't grasp my points at all. I told you already I do not feel interested in Brazilian Literature. It does not make sense to show off how many books you've read when you had made such a shallow and ignorant comment in post number 2.
To misspell names is much better than to make grammatical miatakes from the beginning till the end. It is better on the whole to look into yourself than to criticize people. You really sounds funny. See, from what you said, you told everyone in this forum that you didn't know the difference between Psychological Realism and Realism. Here you don't even see the difference between," under the influence of" and "originate". The disclosure of the reality of a heart rather than that of practical events gives the word reality different connotations, but it seems that you failed to see the point. irrelevant? From the beginning of the thread, you told me Dostoyevsky's novels are not romantic because they are sad. I would have thought it were uttered by some children who never learned Literature. Is Bartleby a hero? How will people follow him. Sorry, I don't understand your English laden with grammatical mistakes. Mediocre? a best deacription for your shallowness. If you admit Melvile was a romantic, how do you folow his character, Bartleby, as a model? Obviously you ignored the fact that Romanticism also deals with sadness and pessimistic themes. To make comparisons was what I did.
But in post number2, you didn't seem to know anything about the negative side of Romanticism. Do you want me to quote the post? If you dare to challenge me, explain to me post number two. Your thought about Poe must have led you to think that I have also mentioned Poe, and it must be a sympton of brain defect.
Explain post number 2 in this thread to me, if you dare to challenge me in my study of Literature. POST NUMBER 2 is a proof of something both you and I know.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 07:06 AM

After you really understand the word agape, you'll know you were not making senses. In the situations where people are arranged to get married, they can not agape because they have to do what normal couples do at night. It's entirely different from Christian love and brotherly love. To get married due to agape means to have lust on the part of Jesus. It's even funnier to say one will love one's neighbor as he loves his wife. Is anyone allowed to do what he does with his wife with his neighbor, or according to you, with all mankind? Will the prince marry Nastasya or Aglaya and not perform the duty of a husband at night? How do agape and love coexist? Please show me how.
Here my point is that compassion does not lead to blindness. The probability that Nastasya would commit suicide if the prine left him was very little, and the fact that the prince was utterly convinced that she would showed only one thing. He was bewitched. You didn't address my point. Compassion does not lead to blindness.
1 Please answer to all my points rather than only some of those that you are interested in.
2 If you want to invent a new meaning to the word, agape, the discussion is not worthwhile.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 07:34 AM

Mr Endon

06-28-2009, 08:03 AM

This is none of my business... but then again, as a foreigner and LitNet member, it is.

To misspell names is much better than to make grammatical miatakes from the beginning till the end.

It's preposterous that you should devalue JCamilo's comments just because he made a couple of typos. His command over the English language is remarkable. Even if it weren't, as is the case of a few posters, this is, like bazarov pointed out, an international forum, so you must be tolerant. Besides,

To misspell names is much better than to make grammatical miatakes from the beginning till the end.

What an unfortunate time to slip!

So maybe JCamilo was rather blunt in his reply to the OP; but still, he made his point, a valid one, and proceeded to explain his view in the following posts. Such explanation has clearly been overlooked or ignored by you, as you are kind enough to say explicitly:

From the beginning of the thread, you told me Dostoyevsky's novels are not romantic because they are sad.

He said nothing of the kind. This is beyond oversimplification or even misinterpretation: it's a malicious blend of the two.

Sorry, I don't understand your English laden with grammatical mistakes. Mediocre? a best deacription for your shallowness.

Not only is your typo timing exquisite, your ad hominem attacks are unfounded and gratuitous.

I visited this post expecting to learn more about an author I admire and all I got was this lousy rant.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 09:11 AM

Look, Dostoievisky is not romantic, neither his characters. He could write that Ivan, Dimitri and Aliocha are all happy. It would be a two pages book that nobody would read.
(In the end, you enjoy death, not felicity).

How do you read the above paragraph? Dostoyevsky and his chracters are not romantic, because they are not happy. Is it a shallow viewpoint, or do you agree with him? Obviously he didn't seem to know that some romantic works are tragedies. Many writers of American Romanticism created sad stories, for example, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. When I demanded his explanation, he beat around the bush and abused me harshly. Is that proper?

Mr Endon

06-28-2009, 09:21 AM

Point well taken; as I said, his first post was rather dismissive, and had he written no more I wouldn't be sure as to his argument's strength.

However, his second post seems to me to be a much clearer explanation of what he had meant in the first post, and if you ask me it's a very perceptive analysis of the subject at hand (Romanticism in Dostoyevsky):

Look, the romantic traits of many of the characters of Dostoievisky are not a reflex of Dostoievisky ideas and aesthetical, Mishikin life is really tragic, but Dostoievisky is using them to express his own experience and disapointment with the ideals. He is a reflex of a world were the romantic ideals are already under criticism. He is after the romantics, not one of them, the contrast (the so called sadness) is what is relevant.
And while it is nice calling his writing beauty, he is not a great aestheticist like Tolstoy, I find the use of this word a bit outplaced.

This makes a lot of sense to me, as does this:

yeah, romantic in literature cannt be translated to normal day romantic idea. Dostoievisky is more a critic of romantic ideals than a romantic by himself (he is rather dispointed to be idealistic) unlike one of his precusors, Hugo or even Dickens.

So from what I understand from JCamilo's argument (my own knowledge of Dostoevsky is sadly limited to C&P and The Gambler) there's Romanticism in Dostoevsky, but it's only there to be discredited, just like Leibniz's "best of all worlds" philosophy is articulated in Voltaire's Candide only to be parodied.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 09:24 AM

If you only see one side of the argument and criticize it as much as you like, with abusing words, are you doing the same thing as JCamilo and I did? How are you different from us? It's better to know what you're doing than to point your fingers at someone else.

Mr Endon

06-28-2009, 09:32 AM

I'm sorry if I've offended you. For example, the little typo-spotting flourish was perhaps too much. However, I'm not taking any of what I said back. I believe it was all constructive criticism.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 09:33 AM

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 09:48 AM

His second post which you quoted did explain more what he had in mind about the genre of romantic writing, but it proved more plainly that his definition of a romantic work was still limited to idealism, which is only a glimpse of this type of work. As I said earlier, romantic tragedies can be found in both American and British Literature.
The next quote in your last post proved more that he was utterly convinced that to be romantic equals to be idealistic.
If you do agree with JCamilo's argument concerning a romantic piece of work, you do not really enjoy this type of writing, I believe.

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 10:11 AM

So from what I understand from JCamilo's argument (my own knowledge of Dostoevsky is sadly limited to C&P and The Gambler) there's Romanticism in Dostoevsky, but it's only there to be discredited, just like Leibniz's "best of all worlds" philosophy is articulated in Voltaire's Candide only to be parodied.

The definition of the word," Romanticism" in your context is sadly limited to being idealistic when the word itself involves such profound meanings, which escaped the eyes of both you and JCamilo, or you wouldn't have made the above comparison and pronounced that Romanticism is being discredited in Dostoyevsky's works.

JCamilo

06-28-2009, 10:27 AM

You are rude and offensive, I really lost the patience with you.
In the sentence you like to point I have made no cause-consequence between the two phrases. And it is an answer to your original question:

"His stories always end in a deathly sadness, but they are all romantic. That made me wonder at times why people who act in a romantic way cannot enjoy felicity at the end, or is it only a story that does not need too much thought?"

And futhermore, when you questioned for more explanation I gave to you.
I am not offending you at all (Neither did Mr Endon, who was polite enough to apologise for what he did not), If I acted like you, your sentence :

"Did Hemingway have epileptic fits, see you didn't grasp my points at all. I told you already I do not feel interested in Brazilian Literature. "

would mean that you think Hemingway is a brazilian? But I do not lower myself to think such absurdity is possible, I consider the fact that in an internet forum the writing style is often framentary and many times the posts are made without a futher scrutinization and edition. (I could even point that you claimed I am bringing brazilian names, when the one name I used was Machado de Assis, under the contests of realism, and he is an international writer often reckonized in the entire world. It is not about brazilian literature, but world wide literature). I refrain to do such conclusions, I wish you could do the same. Instead you are attacking me for typos? And then calling me ignorant? Trying to judge my knowledge? (When you say all , you mean everyone, not just the majority - which by the way is not something you would know either - and Poe, the most proeminent american critic of XIX century did not ranked Melville among the transcendentalists. And just like Melville closest literary friend, Hawthorne did not. Some critics believe Bartebly is a satyre to Thoureau and Confidance man to Emerson, and the question to which group Melville belongs is heat topic, because as I told you, Melville is not a typical romantic writer, his writings defy labelization.)

and finally:

Does Romanticism only deal with heroes, models to be followed with? I asked JCamilo the same question thousands of times, but he gave me thousands of unrelated answers and concluded that I didn't read enough.

And I have answered you countless times: I do not use the word "Only" a single time in the sentence you quote. It is your invention. I do not deal with absolutes, it is ridiculous. When a hero model is used, he is an idealised version (does not matter if the destiny is positive or negative) symbolizing ideals that you should sought for. With Dostoievisky (and other writers), those ideals are showed more like something that will not be possible. There is such negativity because it reflects real life or Dostoievisky own experience. (Please, saying that an author is limited by his health is not relevant, every author have such limitations, borges stopped to use free verse when blind. That would should not be used to analyse the writing style they use.)

And do not jump to conclusions: neither of those reasons are the sole reasons why Dostoievisky is not a romantic. He is closer to realism not only because the philosophy and tematics, but because the tecniques (He does not name the Underground Man, just like you pointed naturalists did; he uses inner monologue, in fact he should be considered the father of stream of conciousness; In Brother Karamazov he uses an omniscient narrator to allow every character to have their own voice while giving the credibility to the narration just like Flaubert did,after all he is a master of polyphony; the deep psychological without the symbolism or lyrism, are some examples) place him closer to the literature of the end XIX century than the literature of the begining of that century. Which should not be a surprise, since Dostoievisky wrote until the end of his life, near the end of XIX and not while Puchkin was alive, or the romanticism movement in his full power.

I did not said Romanticism is characterized by idealism only. You seem to think that if I say that a Parrot have feathers, I am defining a parrot only by an animal with feathers. Romanticism is chracterized by idealism, but it is not the only trait, altough one of the strongest.

JCamilo

06-28-2009, 11:07 AM

virginiawang

06-28-2009, 11:09 AM

Your definition of being romantic is limited to the optimistic side even after you claimed your knowledge about the other side of the word. I am surprised to find that you joined the two sentences written by me, and twisted my meaning in such a curious manner. I never said Hemingway was a Brazilian. I find it futile to discuss with you, so I didn't even finish what you wrote. However I have to point out that your interpretation of the literary term, Romanticism is shallow, as can be proved in Post number 2.You are still thinking to be romantic is to be idealistic. You never answered me directly how you should follow Bartleby as a model. You always claimed that you've read those romantic tragedies, but whenever you used the word, romantic, you only thought about being idealistic. Here, in the work of Herman Melville, an American Romantic, how do you consider Bartleby "an idealized version symbolizing ideals you should seek for"? Please answer my question directly.
When I said Dostoyevsky's writing style being influened by his constitution, I was referring to his epileptic fits, which led to the path he took in writing, in some way. You should understand more about Dostoyevsky and his writing style before you jump into any of those conclusions.
Do you know Stream of Consciousnes is a style under the category of Psychological Realism, which had its origin in some romantic writing? American Romanticism ended around 1865, not at the beginning of the century. You made your analysis of Dostoyevsky's works from a surface level only, and you didn't seem to grasp the intrinsic spirit of them. You read Dostoyevsky's novels as a scanning machine reads its documemnts. I think to continue our discussion is futile because you seemed unable to appreciate the most valuable in such works. PERIOD WITH YOU IN THIS THREAD

Gladys

06-29-2009, 01:22 AM

So from what I understand from JCamilo's argument (my own knowledge of Dostoevsky is sadly limited to C&P and The Gambler) there's Romanticism in Dostoevsky, but it's only there to be discredited, just like Leibniz's "best of all worlds" philosophy is articulated in Voltaire's Candide only to be parodied. Like JCamilo, I am in complete agreement with this thesis, and particularly in relation to The Idiot, which I think a masterpiece. I dreamed up the very same thesis overnight but Mr Endon posted first. :)

Another good example would be Don Quixote and no wonder, Mishkin is also labeled as a quixotic character. I think Prince Myskhin heroic, but the antithesis of quixotic. If you think him so, most of the characters in The Idiot would likely agree with you.

Gladys

06-29-2009, 02:25 AM

After you really understand the word agape, you'll know you were not making senses...If you want to invent a new meaning to the word, agape, the discussion is not worthwhile.

To avoid confusion, let me label Myshkin's love: 'agape'...For Kierkegaard (Dostoevsky and Ibsen) agape differs from romantic love as follows...

I failed to appreciate, Virginiawang, that in labelling Myshkin's love 'agape', to be understood in an existential sense, I had infringed a dictionary meaning of the word, as used in the Greek New Testament. Are there rules for using words?

In the situations where people are arranged to get married, they can not agape because they have to do what normal couples do at night.

The prince acted out of agape, not affection. You seem to imagine that agape can’t apply in courtship or marriage. Not so, although the sad reality is that pure agape is rare in any relationship of any gender. While agape does not describe the sensual or sexual attraction between a man an a woman, agape and eros may coexist. The prince is a pattern we can aspire to.

How have I failed to communicate my contention that 'agape and eros may coexist' in a good marriage?

To get married due to agape means to have lust on the part of Jesus...Will the prince marry Nastasya or Aglaya and not perform the duty of a husband at night?

All relationships should be motivated by agape, married or unmarried, sexual or otherwise. The prince wished to marry out of love (agape). You seem to forget, Virginiawang, that in many cultures, romantic love is not the basis for marriage (e.g. arranged marriages).

You seem to feel that marriage always involves 'lust', and that the sexual relationship in marriage is tawdry in some way?

The probability that Nastasya would commit suicide if the prine left him was very little, and the fact that the prince was utterly convinced that she would showed only one thing. He was bewitched.

The prince is probably more worried about Roghozin than Nastasya. And worried with good reason! As for Nastasya, in her desperation she was capable of anything dreadful; she might even get herself...murdered.

How did you arrive this 'probability', that the prince was 'utterly convinced', and that your fact 'showed only one thing'?

1 Please answer to all my points rather than only some of those that you are interested in.

Could you possibly number your future points, Virginiawang, to ensure I don't inadvertently or wilfully miss any?

virginiawang

06-29-2009, 03:05 AM

Collins English Dictionary gave the word "Agape" the following definition: Christian love, esp as contrasted with erotic love; charity.
If you wish to respect your imagination rather than facts, I won't discuss with you.
I was viewing the event from an objective standpoint. Since Nastasya had not had committed suicide at the time her first seducer insulted her and left, she would not have died if the prince had left with Aglaya. The fact that the prince was utterly convinced that she would tells us that he was bewitched, because compassion does not lead to blindness. You didn't answer my questions directly. Will the prince perform the duty of a husband after he gets married with either Aglaya or Nastasya? How will he agape at night? Answer my questions directly or stop the discussion.
Again, if you wish to analyze a novel out of your own imagiation and twist the meaning of a word accepted by all literate people, I won't discuss with you. Since you don't want to discuss with me to delve into the truth, I feel there is not a need to continue our discussion.

virginiawang

06-29-2009, 03:31 AM

Can you assert that the prince feels nothing and only agapes his wife when he performs his duty at night, in the same way Jesus agaped his sheep or one loves his neighbors? Yes or No

Gladys

06-29-2009, 05:52 AM

I was viewing the event from an objective standpoint.

'An objective standpoint', Virginiawang, is much to your credit.

Since Nastasya had not had committed suicide at the time her first seducer insulted her and left, she would not have died if the prince had left with Aglaya. There is a certain logic here.

The fact that the prince was utterly convinced that she would [suicide,] tells us that he was bewitched, because compassion does not lead to blindness. If Prince Myshkin was 'utterly convinced' of Nastasya's impending suicide, he certainly is blind. And it is a truth universally acknowledged that loving - madly, passionately - is tantamount to blindness.

Will the prince perform the duty of a husband after he gets married with either Aglaya or Nastasya? One would hope so.

How will he agape at night? Sensually and sexually, in all probability.

Again, if you wish to analyze a novel out of your own imagiation and twist the meaning of a word accepted by all literate people, I won't discuss with you. I'd like to think I've curbed my recourse to imagination in this post.

Can you assert that the prince feels nothing and only agapes his wife when he performs his duty at night, tin the same way Jesus agaped his sheep or one loves his neighbors? Yes or No No, I must admit.

JCamilo

06-29-2009, 09:31 AM

Like JCamilo, I am in complete agreement with this thesis, and particularly in relation to The Idiot, which I think a masterpiece. I dreamed up the very same thesis overnight but Mr Endon posted first. :)

Yeah, I knew. When I replying to Mr Endon I was about to write that you also agreed, but then I decided to not do it and look like I was talking for you.

I think Prince Myskhin heroic, but the antithesis of quixotic. If you think him so, most of the characters in The Idiot would likely agree with you.

Being quixotic is not something negative neither means insane. Means just someone which believes and perception are unable see the reality and thus, end in a serie of "adventures". In this case, the natural good of Mishkin is the love for books and the hypocrisy of society are the windmills.
Anyways, it was used also under the contest of Candide- Voltaire - Leibniz: Cervantes used elements of the chivaliry poetry to build Dom Quixote but only to build critics to that literature (or norm of conduct).
Of course, Dom Quixote is a straight out satyre, humor in Dostoievisky is something subtle, usually not to provoke straight out laughs, more likely a sneer :D

Gladys

06-30-2009, 02:34 AM

Quote:

I think Prince Myskhin heroic, but the antithesis of quixotic. If you think him so, most of the characters in The Idiot would likely agree with you.

Being quixotic is not something negative neither means insane. Means just someone which belie[f]s and perception are unable see the reality and thus, end in a serie[s] of "adventures". In this case, the natural good of Mishkin is the love for books and the hypocrisy of society are the windmills.

I am familiar with Don Quixote, the consummate romantic. Prince Myshkin is the antithesis of Don Quixote precisely because the prince alone has beliefs and perceptions attuned to reality. Here we see Dostoevsky's critique of the meanness, mediocrity and sheep-like mentality of his fellow Russians.

Let me explain how Don Quixote and Prince Myshkin are antithetical.

Far from delusional, the prince sees authentic good in people where others prefer blindness (delusion).

Chivalry is a veneer; but Myskhin's works of love (agape) are real essence (from the heart and soul) and the pinnacle of human accomplishment.

Don Quixote's search for adventure is romantic (aesthetic); Prince Myskhin's life of love (agape) is ethical or even religious.

Not obsessed with knight errantry or romantic ideals, the prince loves his neighbour without show or pageantry - he's down to earth.

Rather than focussed on himself and his adventures, the prince has a unique and authentic focus on others - on his neighbour, whether Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky or Lebedev.

To your eyes and to the eyes of Russian society, the prince is outrageous, exaggerated, naive, ridiculous, gullible and, yes, quixotic. To Dostoevsky the prince is Nietzsche's indomitable superman: a man in good faith (inner integrity) standing tall against popular opinion, against worldly (selfish) wisdom, and against society's norms and values. The prince is a courageous giant of integrity - tilting not at windmills - but at sham, hypocrisy, indifference, meanness and mercilessness.

That the prince is seen to fail is a measure of society's blindness and delusion. A society that tilts at windmills and thrives on veneer without the substance. Prince Myskhin may have achieved nothing in the world but he stands shoulder to shoulder with Sofia Semyonovna Marmeladova (aka Sonia or Sonechka) the love-filled young prostitute and Siberian super-hero of Crime and Punishment.

JCamilo

06-30-2009, 08:19 AM

You are giving Quixote notions that he is outrageous, exaggerated, naive, ridiculous, gulible which he may be, but you are confuding that Cervantes is all that while writing. But a Quixotic character is not Alonso Quijano but model of character. Captain Ahab is quixotic, and not naive or ridiculous. Mishkin is idealistic (loving his neighbour is a romantic ideal, specially in the lighty of XIX century socialism), romantic, chivalirous. His sense of reality often places him in a sittuation of being the idiot (I repeat, one can only be an idiot with the contrast with others). He is not exactly down to earth, if that means pratical (of course, he is not dellusional to the point of creation a new identidy, but that is besides the point and not what defines quixotic, but Alonso Quijano).
Now, Ortega Y Gasset for example defines Dom Quixote as the most sane of the man. A example of hyper-reality rather than just lunacy. His fantasies are the most pratical, it is his ideals who put him in troubles. Mishkin projects his own self onw others while "interpretating" then, his own goodness is his ideal, it is what the others use to "Manipulate" him. He is very attuned to peoeple emotions and feelings, but not exactly to their pratical social interations.
Anyways, again, under the contest of Candide and Leibniz, Mishkin and Romanticism, works where previous literature elements are used as a critic, Dom Quixote is a fine example. Which was why I used Dom Quixote in first place.

I must add one thing: I am not the first to link Quixote and Myshkin. Many did before and Dostoievisky was exactly the first one. He said Quixote is in literature one of the few natural good man (good as a ideal), he calls the Quixote the greatest and saddest book and mention that Quixote is a character mocked by those inferior to him and the Poor Knight quotation is a direct reference. This only reiforces the idea that Mishkin is a idealised character to work as a critic of reality, but just like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well.

Gladys

06-30-2009, 11:38 PM

Mishkin is idealistic (loving his neighbour is a romantic ideal, specially in the light of XIX century socialism), romantic, chivalrous. His sense of reality often places him in a situation of being the idiot (I repeat, one can only be an idiot with the contrast with others). I can accept your notion of the Quixotic. I have always believed Dostoevsky deliberately created, in the prince, a character who is perceived superficially - and by many a reader - as 'idealistic, romantic, chivalrous'. And yes, he appears to the world around him as not just Quixotic, but also as naive and an idiot.

Notwithstanding, naivety actually lies in this almost universal perception, because the prince is none of these. He is a man of ethical integrity with a thoroughly existential outlook on life, who unfailingly show his love through his works (his actions). Paradoxically, his end is a triumph not a failure. Most readers fail to see any of this.

Dostoevsky's subtlety reminds me of Henry James in Washington Square, where what appears as a romance - with young Catherine Sloper jilted by fortune-hunter Morris Townsend - is actually a story of communication breakdown between loving father and daughter. But here too, readers rarely perceive the latter.

Mishkin projects his own self on others while "interpreting" then, his own goodness is his ideal, it is what the others use to "Manipulate" him. He is very attuned to people emotions and feelings, but not exactly to their practical social interactions.

Rather, I think the prince looks for the good in others. And in no sense is he manipulated, despite all appearances to the contrary. As for social interactions, I'm sure the prince has a higher, more noble focus: agape.

...Dostoievisky was exactly the first one. He said Quixote is in literature one of the few natural good man (good as a ideal), he calls the Quixote the greatest and saddest book and mention that Quixote is a character mocked by those inferior to him and the Poor Knight quotation is a direct reference. This only reinforces the idea that Mishkin is a idealised character to work as a critic of reality, but just like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well.

Dostoevsky has certainly made use of Quixotic flavours in 'The Idiot'. But there is little evidence to support your idea 'that Mishkin is...like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well', and much evidence to the contrary.

JCamilo

07-01-2009, 10:15 AM

I can accept your notion of the Quixotic. I have always believed Dostoevsky deliberately created, in the prince, a character who is perceived superficially - and by many a reader - as 'idealistic, romantic, chivalrous'. And yes, he appears to the world around him as not just Quixotic, but also as naive and an idiot.

You must understand that the Prince is not an idiot. He do act like an idiot. When I told you that you are analysing the Prince as a separated unity and not a part of the text, that is why. When he uses his strong sense of ethics to deal with the social interation he is doing something foolish, not just because the others think so, but because is foolish to expect his own higher integrity, it is foolish to believe such ideal do not suffers when applied in real life, he is foolish to not adapt himself to the social norms. Of course, this is also why he have such outstandding integrity. He is not corrupted, we may say so. But Dostoievisky ends making him act like fool (not only because we all do it sometimes), it is not just about a misjudgement of others.

Notwithstanding, naivety actually lies in this almost universal perception, because the prince is none of these. He is a man of ethical integrity with a thoroughly existential outlook on life, who unfailingly show his love through his works (his actions). Paradoxically, his end is a triumph not a failure. Most readers fail to see any of this.

It is both or neither. Dostoievisky is showing real life. In Real Life, there is no real triumph or failure. The prince obviously have the triumph to remain truthful to his self. But he does not have the triumph to live with that society, which was also his intention.
Again, Just like Dom Quixote, who never could be a Knight, but had several adventures anyways.

Dostoevsky's subtlety reminds me of Henry James in Washington Square, where what appears as a romance - with young Catherine Sloper jilted by fortune-hunter Morris Townsend - is actually a story of communication breakdown between loving father and daughter. But here too, readers rarely perceive the latter.

Do not disagree, James is one of the best psychological writers after Dostoievisky (his brother helped it of course).

Rather, I think the prince looks for the good in others. And in no sense is he manipulated, despite all appearances to the contrary. As for social interactions, I'm sure the prince has a higher, more noble focus: agape.

Of course he does. What you do not understand is that I do not discredit it. The book goes beyond that however. The prince is not the perfect good man of Rousseau having fun in his life. It is about the conflicts and more than anything, Myshkin is the one who suffers the conflicts. Everything , negative and positive afects him and the book is about the effects and not about the character.

Dostoevsky has certainly made use of Quixotic flavours in 'The Idiot'. But there is little evidence to support your idea 'that Mishkin is...like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well', and much evidence to the contrary.

but non, you already agreed with this. Quoting your answer to Mr Endon:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
So from what I understand from JCamilo's argument (my own knowledge of Dostoevsky is sadly limited to C&P and The Gambler) there's Romanticism in Dostoevsky, but it's only there to be discredited, just like Leibniz's "best of all worlds" philosophy is articulated in Voltaire's Candide only to be parodied.

Like JCamilo, I am in complete agreement with this thesis, and particularly in relation to The Idiot, which I think a masterpiece. I dreamed up the very same thesis overnight but Mr Endon posted first.

If you completelly agree with this thesis, that romantics elements are introuced to discredited (which means Dostoievisky critics those elements, since he is no rambling old man), that is like Leibniz/Dr.Pangloss on Candide (a satyre model very likely the use of Quixote), then you will have to agree that, Myshkin, who is represents the romantic elements in The Idiot (his noble idealism, being a natural good man, his ultimate ethic virtue) is also being discredited, or under critics. It is just logical.
(I would add that if someone like Dostoievisky mentions Quixote, he is aware of the double role of Quixote, so it would not be in vain, I would mention that Dostoievisky was very disapointed with his own experience in what he considered naive idealism, I would point Dostoiesviky is not a nice guy with a happy life, so he would hardly present a life without spots).
We are not mean to be like Myshkin (or do his mistakes, even if caused by his goodness) altough his ideals must be protected and praised.

virginiawang

07-01-2009, 11:26 AM

Here, in the work of Herman Melville, an American Romantic, how do you consider Bartleby "an idealized version symbolizing ideals you should seek for"?

a question unanswered

Gladys

07-01-2009, 09:11 PM

But Dostoievisky ends making him act like fool (not only because we all do it sometimes), it is not just about a misjudgement of others.

This is the nub of our disagreement - Dostoevsky creates a subtle third dimension which few can see. In the ending, the prince's deliberate actions are not those of a fool, irrespective of appearances or the judgement of others. That is the point, not just of the final page, but of the entire novel.

It is both or neither. Dostoievisky is showing real life. In Real Life, there is no real triumph or failure.

I'm certain Dostoevsky would characterise this view of life as sadly cynical. In real life Dostoevsky can see unalloyed triumph: with Christ crucified the archetypal triumph. Both Jesus and the prince triumph as 'suffering servants', but this subtle third dimension is 'foolishness to the wise'.

1 Corinthians 1:25___Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The prince understands the paradoxical redemptive power of suffering, for he stares at and long remembers that dreadful ‘Deposition’: the poor Holbein copy, ‘at Roghozin’s in one of his gloomiest rooms, over the door’.

But he does not have the triumph to live with that society, which was also his intention.

The epileptic prince's overarching intention is to love (agape). He triumphs, and especially so in the end: a witness to truth and love. Those around him echo Pilate's question, "What is truth?", while committing the prince to a Swiss asylum.

Of course he does [have a higher, more noble focus]. What you do not understand is that I do not discredit it. The book goes beyond that however. The prince is not the perfect good man of Rousseau having fun in his life. It is about the conflicts and more than anything, Myshkin is the one who suffers the conflicts.

The book is about the effects and the character of the prince. I have long understood that you accept the 'noble focus' of the prince. Have you understood what I mean by 'the suffering servant', a Christ-like figure, who would self-sacrifice even to death? Dostoevsky probably had in mind the Scripture:

Isaiah 53:3___He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

If you completely agree with this thesis, that romantics elements are introduced to discredited ... then you will have to agree that, Myshkin, who is represents the romantic elements in The Idiot (his noble idealism, being a natural good man, his ultimate ethic virtue) is also being discredited, or under critics. It is just logical.

Ah no. The 'romantic elements' exist exclusively in the minds of those around Prince Myshkin. And Dostoevsky systematically demolishes these elements, leaving the prince is unscathed - Nietzsche's 'Übermensch' (overman).

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…

We are not mean[t] to be like Myshkin... although his ideals must be protected and praised.
Prince Myshkin sets high goals, which Sonya in Crime and Punishment' well nigh achieves. We could do worse than to aspire to them. Is the prince's gracious treatment of Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky or Lebedev beyond us? In this sense, The Idiot is a novel full of hope.

JCamilo

07-01-2009, 10:48 PM

This is the nub of our disagreement - Dostoevsky creates a subtle third dimension which few can see. In the ending, the prince's deliberate actions are not those of a fool, irrespective of appearances or the judgement of others. That is the point, not just of the final page, but of the entire novel.

Not being a fool is not a third dimension, it is only one dimension. Either he is a fool or not fool. Dostoievisky dimension is having the prince and the book as both at sametime. The existence of one does not deny the other.

I'm certain Dostoevsky would characterise this view of life as sadly cynical. In real life Dostoevsky can see unalloyed triumph: with Christ crucified the archetypal triumph. Both Jesus and the prince triumph as 'suffering servants', but this subtle third dimension is 'foolishness to the wise'.

Dostoievisky life is sadly. We have several examples of Dostoievisky desillusion. So, it is not out of character to find a book about dostoievisky and see them. The same Dostoievisky of The Idiot wrote THe PLayer, Underground Man, the chapter Great Inquisitor, The Demons, etc.

The prince understands the paradoxical redemptive power of suffering, for he stares at and long remembers that dreadful ‘Deposition’: the poor Holbein copy, ‘at Roghozin’s in one of his gloomiest rooms, over the door’.

The problem is not what prince understand about the moral virtues, but what he does not understand about social interation.

The epileptic prince's overarching intention is to love (agape). He triumphs, and especially so in the end: a witness to truth and love. Those around him echo Pilate's question, "What is truth?", while committing the prince to a Swiss asylum.

Obviously they question, The prince should be truth, he is the ideal.

The book is about the effects and the character of the prince. I have long understood that you accept the 'noble focus' of the prince. Have you understood what I mean by 'the suffering servant', a Christ-like figure, who would self-sacrifice even to death? Dostoevsky probably had in mind the Scripture:

Isaiah 53:3___He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

The sacrifice is part of the character. Dom Quixote dies, jesus dies. He obviously can not live, a living great man (the prince) while alive can change and conquer. His redemption is not the redemption of the real word, but of his own being. Or what he symbolizes.

Ah no. The 'romantic elements' exist exclusively in the minds of those around Prince Myshkin. And Dostoevsky systematically demolishes these elements, leaving the prince is unscathed - Nietzsche's 'Übermensch' (overman).

Exclusively? The prince is a romantic element, a natural good man (rousseau, another example gave by Dostoievisky besides Quixot is a Dickens character), idealistic, noble. He is romantic. It is not just on others. (The overman of Nitzches is a typical romantic character as well).

Prince Myshkin sets high goals, which Sonya in Crime and Punishment' well nigh achieves. We could do worse than to aspire to them. Is the prince's gracious treatment of Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky or Lebedev beyond us? In this sense, The Idiot is a novel full of hope.

And he fails. The basic fails is the failure with society and reality. THis is also present. In this sense, all the hope is not the prince is understanding where he fails.

Gladys

07-02-2009, 05:44 AM

In saying 'But Dostoevsky ends making him act like fool', JCamilo, you miss the dimension of Nietzsche's hyper-rational superman; unless you mean that, contrary to appearances, the prince acts with inscrutable wisdom.

The prince's limited understanding of and interest in refined 'social interaction' has no significant impact on outcomes in The Idiot.

We have several examples of Dostoevsky's disillusion. Based on my reading, I disagree. In part, because Dostoevsky has a phenomenal ability to present convincing philosophical positions contrary to his own (spectacularly so in The Brothers Karamazov).

His redemption is not the redemption of the real word, but of his own being. Rather, the prince redeems, or at least brings comfort and joy to, the lives of so many. For instance: Roghozin, Nastasya, Aglaya, Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky, Lebedev and, finally, Vera Lebedev, Lizabetha Prokofievna, and Evgenie Pavlovitch. You may say that his redeeming influence is short-lived. Perhaps so, but life itself is short and one should 'seize the day'. Dostoevesky's existential prince lives always in the moment.

Exclusively? The prince is a romantic element, a natural good man...idealistic, noble. He is romantic. It is not just on others. (The overman of Nietzsche is a typical romantic character as well). Exclusively. My point is that the prince is a peacemaker, focused on helping his neighbour (agape), while his fellow Russians follow ephemeral self-interest - selfishly chasing the wind. Compared to them, the prince is 'down to earth' and rooted in tangible reality. So says Dostoevsky.

And he fails. The basic fail[ing] is the failure with society and reality. This is also present. In this sense, all the hope is not the prince[; it] is understanding where he fails. No, the prince never fails because he sees so clearly. He succeeds admirably, and this success is the critical dimension I think you're missing. He succeeds from the first page of the novel to the last. Isn't this, JCamilo, the yawning gulf between our positions?

Prince Myshkin alone succeeds in appreciating the existential nature of human reality (Dostoevsky's reality), in which society is a veneer and only individuals matter. Love is all is Dostoevsky’s existential thesis. And the prince loves much.

JCamilo

07-02-2009, 10:22 AM

In saying 'But Dostoevsky ends making him act like fool', JCamilo, you miss the dimension of Nietzsche's hyper-rational superman; unless you mean that, contrary to appearances, the prince acts with inscrutable wisdom.

You are missing the point: the Prince thinks with inscrutable wisdom, he have a superior morality, but the pratice is harder. He would not be existencialist if his actions are always the perfect reflection of his nature. There must be a contradictory view so Dostoievisky could portrait the difference between the being and the reality. He acts like an idiot,he is not one (Or in fact, nobody in the book is an idiot) because of the pratical conflict where he is.

The prince's limited understanding of and interest in refined 'social interaction' has no significant impact on outcomes in The Idiot.

How come? You say that the book is about failure of communication (which implies the Prince trying to communicate with others, thus interaction with society), you say that he is an idiot for others (another result of the interaction with society), you say he would cause redemption of several individuals (interation with society) and more, you are just moving away Dostoievisky main character, the only one present in all his writings: Russian Society. The Prince is just a factor of change that appears. He is not complete apart from Society (and that would be reducing Dostoievisky to a second rate rousseau).

Based on my reading, I disagree. In part, because Dostoevsky has a phenomenal ability to present convincing philosophical positions contrary to his own (spectacularly so in The Brothers Karamazov).

Basead on your reading, The Underground Man is a positive, happy portrait??? That is baffling. How so? Are you going to tell me that all dostoievisky did was characters like Alioacha and Myshkin? Are you going to ignore Dimitri, Ivan or his father?
In fact, all examples I gave are not of characters that share Dostoievisky position, but different characters. And if anything, Dostoievisky indeed have the capacity of showing different voices but that is not a voice made of happiness only. And the number of examples of a mistrust and disapointment is enough.

Rather, the prince redeems, or at least brings comfort and joy to, the lives of so many. For instance: Roghozin, Nastasya, Aglaya, Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky, Lebedev and, finally, Vera Lebedev, Lizabetha Prokofievna, and Evgenie Pavlovitch. You may say that his redeeming influence is short-lived. Perhaps so, but life itself is short and one should 'seize the day'. Dostoevesky's existential prince lives always in the moment.

I may ask what redemption Roghozin and Nastasya discovered? In the middle of the book the presence of the prince is often good, but what change he caused to them? And more, What change Roghozin caused to the prince (the are opposite characters, you know.) How come the prince ends in a negative state (remember, an existential man must remain aware of his own self, and insanity is not the samething), with the two women he "loved" unhappy or dead, his closest relation in siberia (are you going to tell me that Dostoievisky had positive views about Siberia?) can only convey redemption and Hope? It is not possible to eliminated the very negative elements that surround Myshkin fate and those near to him. That some may have sympathy to him (altough most still failed to understand him or follow his high ideals) is obviously positive, but just like seeing it as a drama where only bad things happens is wrong, and so is seeing it just by the qualities of Myshkin.

Exclusively. My point is that the prince is a peacemaker, focused on helping his neighbour (agape), while his fellow Russians follow ephemeral self-interest - selfishly chasing the wind. Compared to them, the prince is 'down to earth' and rooted in tangible reality. So says Dostoevsky.

Dostoievisky say it? (And it would not be odd at all, being romantic is not synounimous of having a mind in the clouds). And again, nothing of that turns the prince in a less romantic character. Yourself said you could see quixotic tones and called quixote a romantic character. I repeat, when Dostoievisky says someone is a good natural man, or compare him with Dickens, he is not being vain. He knows well that he is fishing in a romantic pound.

No, the prince never fails because he sees so clearly. He succeeds admirably, and this success is the critical dimension I think you're missing. He succeeds from the first page of the novel to the last. Isn't this, JCamilo, the yawning gulf between our positions?

Maybe, but the question is what sucess have him? Insanity is losing his insight, not gaining it. Being the cause of death and unhappiness is obviously a failure to him.
In the end, you are saying Madame Bovary is a success because she is herself all though the book. And Mishkin is, but he is also someone activelly under influence and influencing others. If Dom Quixote remained in his library, he would never be Dom Quixote.

Prince Myshkin alone succeeds in appreciating the existential nature of human reality (Dostoevsky's reality), in which society is a veneer and only individuals matter. Love is all is Dostoevsky’s existential thesis. And the prince loves much.[/QUOTE]

Gladys

07-02-2009, 06:09 PM

Prince Myshkin alone succeeds in appreciating the existential nature of human reality (Dostoevsky's reality), in which society is a veneer and only individuals matter. Love is all is Dostoevsky’s existential thesis. And the prince loves much. With this quoted paragraph, your last post abruptly ends. Have you a comment on the paragraph?

JCamilo

07-02-2009, 06:35 PM

Just that would not be Dostoievisky reality. His reality is present in Karamazov. Several conflicting views. You could say that Dostoievisky desired guys like Myshikin to be part of his society, but he is more a Tolstoy than a Dostoievisky (In fact, It is one of the funniest analogies this conversation caused o me. I have once said that the relation between both, among admiration and attacks, lead Tolstoy to write Ivan Illitch,that is one of the most dostoieviskian books not write by him, now it is good to see that the natural good man could be the old count. I wish someone could find a letter by dostoievisky saying this... anyways back to reality)...
This leads to the Great Inquisitor, after all the orignal good man is there, Jesus. And he is held captive not because people do not reckonize him, but exactly because of that. Brothers Karamazov works with similar themes of The Idiot, except they seem more defined in Dostoievisky mind, plus, his writing technique achived the highest level there. And nobody rescue Jesus. Not even Aliosha. It is the same hypocrite society. (Yet, Brothers K is not about the natural good man, but should be about a sinner). What does Aliosha, who works as the moral reference of the Karamazov family? Of course, there should be more about Aliosha, to bad we havent. All the voices are there, and something that we note, a difference between Jesus or Quixot from Myshkin is that they are active, fighters. Myshkin is sometimes too passive.
In the end, I think our point of disagreement lies that you are correct about the character of Myshkin, but while focusing too much on him you just change the simplicity of interpretation: instead of a mistaken simplistic interpretation of a drama of clumsy idiot, we have a simplistic view of a redemption of a too perfect character. Dostoievisky is too complex to tell us "all is bad" or "all is good" and this lies in accepting the fact the prince is also tragic, failible, sad (his fate) altough noble, memorable and strong.

Gladys

07-03-2009, 08:10 AM

...the Prince thinks with inscrutable wisdom, he have a superior morality, but the practice is harder. He would not be existentialist if his actions are always the perfect reflection of his nature. Exactly so. The prince is not the perfect god/man, Jesus Christ. Always in good faith (to use Jean-Paul Sartre’s phrase), Myshkin lives and acts in the moment. He does his best but the epileptic and inexperienced prince is often surprised by the consequences of his own actions. The crucial point is: he acts in good faith.

You say that the book is about failure of communication (which implies the Prince trying to communicate with others, thus interaction with society), you say that he is an idiot for others (another result of the interaction with society), you say he would cause redemption of several individuals (interaction with society) By 'refined social interaction', I meant social graces: etiquette and decorum. He lacks the finesse of sceptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch. Certainly the prince is limited by his capabilities, as are we all.

In part, because Dostoevsky has a phenomenal ability to present convincing philosophical positions contrary to his own (spectacularly so in The Brothers Karamazov).

Are you going to tell me that all Dostoevsky did was characters like Alioacha and Myshkin? Are you going to ignore Dimitri, Ivan or his father? As I explained, Dostoevsky (like Kierkegaard) could portray, convincingly, viewpoints far from his own.

I may ask what redemption Roghozin and Nastasya discovered? In the middle of the book the presence of the prince is often good, but what change he caused to them? And more, What change Roghozin caused to the prince (the are opposite characters, you know.) How come the prince ends in a negative state (remember, an existential man must remain aware of his own self, and insanity is not the same thing), with the two women he "loved" unhappy or dead, his closest relation in Siberia (are you going to tell me that Dostoievisky had positive views about Siberia?) can only convey redemption and Hope? It is not possible to eliminated the very negative elements that surround Myshkin fate and those near to him. I've answered this in detail long ago but here's a summary. This is part of the dimension you missed. The prince is not God, Jove or Zeus because he has no control over destiny: either the fates of others or his own fate. But magnificently, he does all he can do: He loves much.

Luke 7:47___Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

My point is that the prince is a peacemaker, focused on helping his neighbour (agape), while his fellow Russians follow ephemeral self-interest - selfishly chasing the wind. Compared to them, the prince is 'down to earth' and rooted in tangible reality. So says Dostoevsky.

He knows well that he is fishing in a romantic pond. I don't understand your response and I wish to avoid the use of the word 'romantic' due to ambiguities. My point is that Dostoevsky portrays the prince as a glorious success in the face of ostensible utter failure.

He succeeds admirably, and this success is the critical dimension I think you're missing. He succeeds from the first page of the novel to the last. Isn't this, JCamilo, the yawning gulf between our positions?

Maybe, but the question is what success have him? Insanity is losing his insight, not gaining it. Being the cause of death and unhappiness is obviously a failure to him. From a human, rational standpoint, the prince achieves absolutely nothing. No success. Nil. Nothing but total and abysmal failure.

However, from an ethical or (better still) a religious perspective, "He loved much" He is Dostoevsky's superman, whom the world mocks as a romantic, an idealist.

You could say that Dostoevsky desired guys like Myshkin to be part of his society Perhaps, but he is more of an inspiration, a ‘suffering servant’.

This leads to the Great Inquisitor, after all the original good man is there, I started re-reading it tonight.

...instead of a mistaken simplistic interpretation of a drama of clumsy idiot, we have a simplistic view of a redemption of a too perfect character. Dostoevsky is too complex to tell us "all is bad" or "all is good" and this lies in accepting the fact the prince is also tragic, fallible, sad (his fate) although noble, memorable and strong. It's not so much the prince is redeemed, as the joy and light, whether small or transient, that he brings to the hearts of many. Dostoevsky's "all is good" in relation to the prince is cleverly hidden in paradox (success in failure). Just read all the negative perceptions readers have of the prince on 'The Idiot' forum or on September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky (www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37767).

I have focused on the prince because therein lies the glorious paradox. The thunderbolt of subtlety. Nevertheless, as for The Brothers Karamzov, there is so much to be said of Dostoevsky’s psychological portraits of all the characters in The Idiot.

JCamilo

07-03-2009, 10:40 AM

Exactly so. The prince is not the perfect god/man, Jesus Christ. Always in good faith (to use Jean-Paul Sartre’s phrase), Myshkin lives and acts in the moment. He does his best but the epileptic and inexperienced prince is often surprised by the consequences of his own actions. The crucial point is: he acts in good faith.

Existencialism is not just about having good will or better, good ethics, but the pratice of it. The prince acts in good faith seeking his (and others equally) good. His failure lies in doing both, obviously: hell is full of good intentions.

By 'refined social interaction', I meant social graces: etiquette and decorum. He lacks the finesse of sceptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch. Certainly the prince is limited by his capabilities, as are we all.

But I never meant it. The prince social limitations leads him to misunderstading the motives of others and thus he ends using himself (the only social being he fully understands) as model. There lies his communication problem (Or anyone else, Hell are others)

As I explained, Dostoevsky (like Kierkegaard) could portray, convincingly, viewpoints far from his own.

Thus, all the negative points in the books I listed.

I've answered this in detail long ago but here's a summary. This is part of the dimension you missed. The prince is not God, Jove or Zeus because he has no control over destiny: either the fates of others or his own fate. But magnificently, he does all he can do: He loves much.

Luke 7:47___Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

I did not miss. The prince may be in peace with himself. He was never in peace with others. Just saying that he loved is not enough, it is how it happens, the pratice that is shown that gives the dimensions of a character.

I don't understand your response and I wish to avoid the use of the word 'romantic' due to ambiguities. My point is that Dostoevsky portrays the prince as a glorious success in the face of ostensible utter failure.

We did not avoid it so far, and I need not. Romantic is not the only ambiguous words we are using. Love is considerable more ambigous. How to avoid it? Anyways, Romantic is literary movemment, style that Dostoievisky do not belong, but that is behind his formation as a reader (before being a writer) and he was aware of this.

From a human, rational standpoint, the prince achieves absolutely nothing. No success. Nil. Nothing but total and abysmal failure.

No absolutes. The prince achives and fails.

However, from an ethical or (better still) a religious perspective, "He loved much" He is Dostoevsky's superman, whom the world mocks as a romantic, an idealist.

The world does not mock who mocks him. Dostoievisky is the one who do it: he says the good is an ideal. The prince is the natural good man. He compare the prince with Romantic characters (Victor Hugo and Dickens). And Superman is born in the romantic ages, some would trace them to Carlyle Heroes.

Perhaps, but he is more of an inspiration, a ‘suffering servant’.

Actually, Dostoievisky was an open critic to martyridom in name of politics. So, I think he demanded more than just suffering servant, altough this would not make the Prince tragic...

It's not so much the prince is redeemed, as the joy and light, whether small or transient, that he brings to the hearts of many. Dostoevsky's "all is good" in relation to the prince is cleverly hidden in paradox (success in failure). Just read all the negative perceptions readers have of the prince on 'The Idiot' forum or on September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky (www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37767).

I do not mind what others think much. There is nothing much negative about the Prince, the negative is the sittuation where he was, the famous real life that Dostoievisky wanted to portray. He do like to present contraditions such as a light causing darkness, because Dostoievisky is not a fan of absolute certains. But this is hardly well hidden, what is well hidden is Dostoievisky mistrusts in the society, not because they are idiots, but because they are selfish. The failure of the prince is not meant to enhance his goodness, but rather let this clear. His redemption is his failure, his success should be the redemption of others. (Of course, impossible, he was created to be shunned). Of course, sometimes he even motivated genuine goodness from others and that is possible part of his success.

I have focused on the prince because therein lies the glorious paradox. The thunderbolt of subtlety. Nevertheless, as for The Brothers Karamzov, there is so much to be said of Dostoevsky’s psychological portraits of all the characters in The Idiot.

There is no need to focus in one side of the coin here, I do not see the prince as a one-dimensional character, but his effect on the story and the whole place on Dostoievisky work.

JCamilo

07-04-2009, 08:03 PM

btw, Gladys, if our disagreement point is basically the view of Myshkin and that you are focusing on his goodness because of the previous exagerated negativity towards him, then you could have said so and we would have no disagreement (or at least not signficantly) at all and life would go on :D

Gladys

07-07-2009, 07:08 AM

btw, Gladys, if our disagreement point is basically the view of Myshkin and that you are focusing on his goodness because of the previous exaggerated negativity towards him, then you could have said so and we would have no disagreement (or at least not significantly) at all...

No, no, no. Our disagreement is major, and pertains to the allegorical intent of the The Idiot, which I have up to now avoided by preferring to focus on discrete evidence rather than existential complexities. So, throwing caution to the wind, here is my overview of the religious or allegorical dimension of the novel.

...the prince (the symbol of the idiot) is something particular moving to an universal symbolism (In this case two universal : the fool and the martyr. Since the allegory moves from universal to particular, that is not the case)

The prince (the symbolic representative of God’s elect) arrives in Russia (the symbol for Christendom). Here is something universal moving to a particular symbolism: the individual’s or reader’s (our own) relationship to love (agape) and so to the God of love: to the eternal, the absolute and the infinite.

The core of The Idiot expresses Dostoevsky’s religious and existential world-view. He sees Prince Myshkin as a courageous follower of Christ, one of the few thousand elect in The Grand Inquisitor: exceptional humans (overmen) who can existentially stare freedom in the face. Predictably, the disciple (Myshkin) ‘fails’ just as Jesus failed, both on Calvary and fifteen centuries later at the hands of the aged inquisitor. The prince’s tears, falling on Roghozin’s cheek, parallels Jesus kissing the devilish, old inquisitor. Both the prince and Jesus (see Alyosha's words quoted below) are vindicated through loving, suffering, crucifixion and resurrection: they triumph gloriously, in life as in 'death'. The Idiot ends with understated ecstasy, hidden in 'a fog cloud': Myshkin’s spiritual resurrection. It is crucial to appreciate that Myshkin, in leading a life of love (agape), succeeds from moment to moment (existentially), not just at the end. Dostoevsky reveres and venerates this witness to the truth, who loves (agape) much. The prince becomes a pattern, a universal symbol, a rallying cry for humanity.

Are not our positions, JCamilo, worlds apart? We more or less agree that the prince is insightful and loving. You see his ethical strength but not his religious audacity, because you characterise as ambivalence or even failure, what for Dostoevsky and Alyosha is unblemished, ongoing triumph. Martyrdom plays only a minor role. Why do we see differently? While you are more widely read, I suspect my knowledge of Christianity and the existential religious writings of Soren Kierkegaard (a towering genius, and a Christian like Dostoevsky) help in understanding the many religious allusions in ‘The Idiot’.

I said about books which the literal meaning are contradictory to the allegorical meaning or that even writers use the literal as a fog cloud to manipulate the [reader].

Both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor are fictional reflections of Kierkegaard's religious writings of the 1840’s, culminating in his vitriolic ‘Attack on Christendom’ (1855). The suffering servant (Jesus or Myshkin) of Isaiah 53, though ‘despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief’, is vindicated with ‘he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand’. In both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky uses the literal, the apparent failures of Myshkin and Jesus, as a fog to cloud their existential and eternal success.

The first work of Soren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) was On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates and last was Attack upon Christendom. Irony is fundamental to Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard; both play the devil’s advocate consummately. The last work is one of several that attacked Christendom in the same vein as The Grand Inquisitor. In Ivan’s poem, the devilish inquisitor shows the duplicity of Christendom, but Dostoevsky sympathies align with Alyosha’s viewpoint.

"But all that is absurd!" suddenly exclaimed Alyosha, who had hitherto listened perplexed and agitated but in profound silence. "Your poem is a glorification of Christ, not an accusation, as you, perhaps, meant to be. And who will believe you when you speak of 'freedom'? Is it thus that we Christians must understand it? It is Rome (not all Rome, for that would be unjust), but the worst of the Roman Catholics, the Inquisitors and Jesuits, that you have been exposing!

Similarly, Alyosha would rightly interpret The Idiot as a glorification of the prince, not an accusation.

A couple of years ago, when I finished reading 'The Idiot', I drew much the same verdict on the novel as you, except that "his tears flowed on to Roghozin's cheek" jarred terribly. This anticlimax of an ending was not what I had come to expect from Dostoevsky. Hours later I recognised the heartbroken prince’s banishment to Switzerland as a ‘crucifixion’, a splendid sacrifice, but weeks passed before I perceived Myshkin’s ‘resurrection’ and the jigsaw began to make thorough sense.

------------------------------

Existentialism is not just about having good will or better, good ethics, but the practice of it. The prince acts in good faith seeking his (and others equally) good. His failure lies in doing both His success, understood from an eternal standpoint, ‘lies in doing both’. A paradox.

The prince social limitations leads him to misunderstanding the motives of others He looks for and understands the good in others; he loves (agape) much. Can you provide even one substantial example where the prince misunderstands ‘the motives of others’?

Thus, all the negative points in the books I listed. Through Ivan in The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky seamlessly plays devil's advocate, as he does in all his novels: and like Kierkegaard, he argues both sides most convincingly.

Just saying that he loved [agape] is not enough, it is how it happens, the practice that is shown that gives the dimensions of a character.
Yes, it's not enough, because agape is nothing less than works of love. Practice (self-sacrificing works and actions) is all. While, love may be ambiguous, agape is not.

From a human, rational standpoint, the prince achieves absolutely nothing. No success. Nil.The prince achieves and fails. His comprehensive success is evident on the plane of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' (to quote from The Grand Inquisitor).

His redemption is his failure, his success should be the redemption of others. The disciple succeeds like his master, Jesus: betrayed, deserted, denied and crucified.

The world does not mock who mocks him. Dostoevsky is the one who does it You have not understood Dostoevsky's irony here.

So, I think he demanded more than just suffering servant... The words 'suffering servant' allude to Jesus, and his demand is 'Follow me', in my footsteps. If the Christian 'Dostoevsky is not a fan of absolute certainties', what are we to make of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' at the heart of Christianity? His Christianity, like Kierkegaard’s, is radical, as blatantly expressed in Ibsen’s play, Brand. In an 1854 letter (to N.D. Fonvisin, Russian novelist) Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote,

"If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with the truth."

Surely, ‘a fan of absolute certainties’!

JCamilo

07-07-2009, 10:29 AM

The prince (the symbolic representative of God’s elect) arrives in Russia (the symbol for Christendom). Here is something universal moving to a particular symbolism: the individual’s or reader’s (our own) relationship to love (agape) and so to the God of love: to the eternal, the absolute and the infinite.

Again, Love, Christianism symbols, pretty evident in Dostoievisky are not particular. Once you get the obvious clue (The title of the book, the biblical references, Dom Quixote) you are finding an nice symbolism, but an universal archetypical character.

The core of The Idiot expresses Dostoevsky’s religious and existential world-view. He sees Prince Myshkin as a courageous follower of Christ, one of the few thousand elect in The Grand Inquisitor: exceptional humans (overmen) who can existentially stare freedom in the face. Predictably, the disciple (Myshkin) ‘fails’ just as Jesus failed, both on Calvary and fifteen centuries later at the hands of the aged inquisitor. The prince’s tears, falling on Roghozin’s cheek, parallels Jesus kissing the devilish, old inquisitor. Both the prince and Jesus (see Alyosha's words quoted below) are vindicated through loving, suffering, crucifixion and resurrection: they triumph gloriously, in life as in 'death'. The Idiot ends with understated ecstasy, hidden in 'a fog cloud': Myshkin’s spiritual resurrection. It is crucial to appreciate that Myshkin, in leading a life of love (agape), succeeds from moment to moment (existentially), not just at the end. Dostoevsky reveres and venerates this witness to the truth, who loves (agape) much. The prince becomes a pattern, a universal symbol, a rallying cry for humanity.

The prince was already a universal symbol (he was jesus, dom quixote) but the question is not the individual prince only but his effects on society. There ends his ties with Jesus, and there is a point for Dostoievisky, the russian society is also relevant. You can not split the individual from society.

Are not our positions, JCamilo, worlds apart? We more or less agree that the prince is insightful and loving. You see his ethical strength but not his religious audacity, because you characterise as ambivalence or even failure, what for Dostoevsky and Alyosha is unblemished, ongoing triumph. Martyrdom plays only a minor role. Why do we see differently? While you are more widely read, I suspect my knowledge of Christianity and the existential religious writings of Soren Kierkegaard (a towering genius, and a Christian like Dostoevsky) help in understanding the many religious allusions in ‘The Idiot’.

I would not worry about being widely read, I think we know about the point but it is the interpretation. Like a puzzle, we are just placing the same pieces in different configurations.
Kierkegaard defines the existencialism. Dostoievisky can build an existential character. But Dostoievisky does more than that (the difference between a philosopher and a novelist): Dostoievisky makes him alive and in action. The book is not a description of an existential man, but his relation in society. You certainly know that after the XIX century (a bit because the insight given by people like Dostoievisky who had the labour to apply the ideas of existencialism in living fictional works) the existencialism was symbolized by thinkers which lead the discussion to the scenary of politics because they are arguing the position of the existencialm man in the world and how effective they must be. Those questions are raised by Dostoievisky. That is why you must always analyse the prince under the light of the relations with russian society.

Both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor are fictional reflections of Kierkegaard's religious writings of the 1840’s, culminating in his vitriolic ‘Attack on Christendom’ (1855). The suffering servant (Jesus or Myshkin) of Isaiah 53, though ‘despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief’, is vindicated with ‘he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand’. In both The Idiot and The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky uses the literal, the apparent failures of Myshkin and Jesus, as a fog to cloud their existential and eternal success.

Jesus had an eternal success. Myshkin? If there is any continuity, it is Alioacha and Alioacha stills having troubles to conect himself with the world.

The first work of Soren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) was On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates and last was Attack upon Christendom. Irony is fundamental to Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard; both play the devil’s advocate consummately. The last work is one of several that attacked Christendom in the same vein as The Grand Inquisitor. In Ivan’s poem, the devilish inquisitor shows the duplicity of Christendom, but Dostoevsky sympathies align with Alyosha’s viewpoint.

Of course, altough some would argue he is sympathetic with Dimitri also. Anyways I pointed the use of Irony before. Even said about cynism, which was misunderstood, I think. Anyways, irony is a great idea, we have the hypocrisy of russian society (a little more, Roghozin is a more direct contradiction to Myshkin) and the Prince ethical strength. But when you use Irony you do not want to mean any of the points given, but force the reader (viwer, listener, student) to analyse the contradictions of points of view and arrive to a conclusion. If we consider, as you did, and I do, that Dostoievisky is ironic, his main aim is not the glorification of either side of his argument (one being Myshkin) but for us to question it. It is the question of the book, you obviously know well the book and have the condition, but as I said your focus in Myshkin is allow you to view beyond his archetypical function to the fourth (thinking like Dante here) level of interpretation.

"But all that is absurd!" suddenly exclaimed Alyosha, who had hitherto listened perplexed and agitated but in profound silence. "Your poem is a glorification of Christ, not an accusation, as you, perhaps, meant to be. And who will believe you when you speak of 'freedom'? Is it thus that we Christians must understand it? It is Rome (not all Rome, for that would be unjust), but the worst of the Roman Catholics, the Inquisitors and Jesuits, that you have been exposing!

Similarly, Alyosha would rightly interpret The Idiot as a glorification of the prince, not an accusation.

Of course, Alyosha is one view. But not the only view. (And Alyosha is a development of the characteristics of Myshikin, so he must see it).

His success, understood from an eternal standpoint, ‘lies in doing both’. A paradox.

It is not a paradox, they are compatible because they happen in different levels of action. One is the individual Myshkin, other are his effects. I think you are judging Myshin, either sucess or failure is irrelevant. He is alive, in life we have both negative and positive results. I think that is very important for Dostoievisky, a world where even a good guy who he liked would have bad momments.

He looks for and understands the good in others; he loves (agape) much. Can you provide even one substantial example where the prince misunderstands ‘the motives of others’?

His two love "affairs", he is in both sittuations misinterpretating how the two women reacts because his kind of Love does not deal with social rules, it is a feeling, truthful and strong that must be expressed.

Through Ivan in The Grand Inquisitor, Dostoevsky seamlessly plays devil's advocate, as he does in all his novels: and like Kierkegaard, he argues both sides most convincingly.

Yeah, and that is why Karamazov is, my opinion, a stronger work than The Idiot. In Karamazov, with the brothers, he have stronger and more convicing voices than Roghozin, who was a counter-part of Myshkin. His irony is more powerful and developed; he can argue convicingly with both sides. In many ways, the ressurection of Myshkin is Ivan, Dimitri and Alioacha.

His comprehensive success is evident on the plane of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' (to quote from The Grand Inquisitor).

I think you want to give a veredict. A conclusion about Myshkin actions. And I think it is a Question that is presented in The Idiot, not an answer.

The disciple succeeds like his master, Jesus: betrayed, deserted, denied and crucified.

See, at somepoint it ends. Jesus kept his disciples. One of them followed him to the church. He came back and conviced them to follow him. He activelly changed the world.

You have not understood Dostoevsky's irony here.

I have. That is why I said Dostoievisky is the one making the mockery. Not others.

The words 'suffering servant' allude to Jesus, and his demand is 'Follow me', in my footsteps. If the Christian 'Dostoevsky is not a fan of absolute certainties', what are we to make of 'the Eternal and the Absolute' at the heart of Christianity? His Christianity, like Kierkegaard’s, is radical, as blatantly expressed in Ibsen’s play, Brand. In an 1854 letter (to N.D. Fonvisin, Russian novelist) Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote,

"If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with the truth."

Surely, ‘a fan of absolute certainties’!

As I said before, Dostoievisky make us question and not give an answer. Finding Sucess, a glorification of one side, hope everywhere is finding someone who deal with absolute answers.

Gladys

07-08-2009, 08:42 AM

JCamilo

07-08-2009, 10:24 AM

We aren’t placing the same pieces in different configurations, JCamilo, because you have gravely underestimated the prince’s intuitive understanding of Nastasya and Aglaya - and of others too, I suspect. You have misconstrued the clear literal meaning.

Myshkin’s success, understood from an eternal standpoint, is paradoxical in that Russian society (and many a reader) sees his life as essentially a failure. And so do you, inasmuch as, you imagine the prince has misinterpreted how the two women, Aglaya and Nastasya, would react. HE DOES NOT! This fact is key to understanding the novel. Even with hindsight, the prince would behave in exactly the same way again towards the two women, because he intuits their deepest motives and feelings accurately. If Dostoevsky’s irony is lost on you here, you cannot possibly make sense of the rest: Myshkin’s earthly failure and eternal success.

There is no eternal success about Myshkin. He is not Jesus, his character is similar, but his story is not. And how you can talk about literal meaning and and this? The Literal meaning is the one with him crazy,your view of redemption is beyond the literal meaning.
And again, I never said he would misinterprete how the women would react. Here are walking in circles. The prince is keen about the other feelings and motives. He is not keen in how to deal with the intricated social conducts and place his own feeling as norm. And that is what show his failure to deal with the social interations: as result one women he tried to save died killed by the very friend he tried to made and the other in a unhappy marriage. All because he know not how to balance his true feelings and noble intentions to help with them.

Can’t you see that the prince, though labelled ‘the idiot’, understands better than anyone the desires, motives and feelings of all the needy characters in the novel? He especially understands Roghozin, Aglaya and Nastasya. Dostoevsky makes this clear, as a literal reading shows time and time again. My interpretation is based on this.

And also show that he literary ended with their lives and his own. The literal meaning does not show Myshikin just as a good man, but a good man who is unable to interact in social level. Since you ignore this (altough you do not, since you perceive the use of irony) our interpretation also leaves behind something important.

I have been using ‘allegory’ in the sense of ‘In literature, a symbolic story that serves as a disguised representation for meanings other than those indicated on the surface’ or ‘The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events’. The prince is one of God’s elect, not Jesus Christ. The prince’s story symbolises the elect’s relationship with agape and with Christendom. And challenges to the reader.

This definition of allegory does not mean anything. Any form of symbolism is a represention of abstract ideas, etc. And allegory is not the only form of symbolism. We have agreed with a definition and you even tryied to use the defintion in your previous argument, so I do not see how moving to this new defintion will help anything. Now, Myshikin is obviously a good guy with good intentions. It is not a disguise.

The book portrays the relationship one of God’s elect (not some existential man) to society. And yes, Dostoevsky is placing the existential Christian in the world, in Russian society, in Christendom, and exposing his apparent failures.

It is some existential man as it is basically an existential character. As Dostoievisky said : a natural good man, not exactly god's elect. And his failures are not apparent. You are just ignoring Dostoievisky works and own life. He is not a trancedentalist and we can see how his portrait is much more realistic in Brother K, which is an evolution of The Idiot theme (and other books). You are putting behind Dostoievisky blatant realism, political concerns and own personal experience. When someone like him build up a story that is quest of ideals and the effects on real society and his failure and have himself an experience with this kind of things he is not talking only about the glorification of ideals or how the others are at faulty at this. Repeating the traits of the prince does not change this.

‘Jesus had an eternal success’? Not in his lifetime!

err, No lifetime lasts an eternity. It is impossible to use eternal sucess because of that, unless you are a divine being (as Jesus) and that is something Myshkin was not. His effects end with his death and the death of those around him. The destiny are definitive. They are not changed positively by the prince at all. When you labour to argue the prince found his redemption after death while the 3 individuals closer to him were dead, unhappy or criminals, you are turning him in a selfish individual. The tragedy of the Prince is not his own happiness is the fact that all his good intentions and love caused several disgraces. For Dostoievisky, Kierkeergard or however, that is bad. The Ethical ideals must be praticed and not only desired. (That is existencialism, Jean-Paul Sartre demmands that it is not enough to be an estoic, but you must act to bring changes to the world).
Unlike Jesus, those who followed Jesus are glorified. He was the path of salvation, unlike the prince. His sacrifice redemmed others. Myshkin, not. You must apply your obvious knowledge about christianism to see the difference fundamental about them and how the sucess of Myshkin is so different from Jesus (and to be fair, we should not call it sucess or failure, just life).

Much the same with Myshkin. Alyosha, Jesus, Myshkin and Sonia ‘confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth’ to quote Hebrews 11:13. Dostoevsky religious position aligns squarely with these four. Nevertheless, he is intensely and sincerely sympathetic to almost all his characters, including Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, Pavel Smerdyakov and Roghozin. Both points are fundamental in understanding his irony.

He is not sympathetic to all of them, at least not beyond the fact they are his "sons". Some of them represent individuals or positions he despited and Alyosha, Myshkin represent something he was sympathetic, but far from being his own pratice or own moral. Although this argument leads to nowhere: Dostoievisky does not portrait himself, but is guidaded by his experiences and conduct the characters.

In most of his works, Dostoevsky’s ‘main aim’ is ‘the glorification of’ God. In so doing, like Kierkegaard, he can and does present both sides of the argument with astonishing insight and skill. He is never shallow. He is not cynical but Christian, although his irony fools many.

Err, Cynics are philosophers who used irony as main toy. He is cynical (in a sense, as nobody is really a cynic anymore). Cynism is basically irony used as social criticism.
And you are turning Dostoievisky in a preacher. His main aim was not the glorification of god, but the conflict between moral and feelings in the human mind/soul and the society around him.

The ‘disciple succeeds like his master’ and both actively change the world through agape. Jesus kept his disciples? No, one betrayed, another denied, and all deserted. And after Jesus’ death, was there a multitude of followers? No; as the grand inquisitor says, “But remember that these are but a few thousands--of gods, not men…”

Err, All deserted? There is a certain John and a group of women watching in the cross, remember? Wait, this same women who, despite the roman guard, went to his tomb? What about Joseph of Arimateia, his disciple, who took care of the corpse. And you seem to believe Jesus life ended in the cross, it does not. The only disciple that was not back in 3 days was the one that betrayed him. After his death there is a description of a multidute of followers, yes.
And Dostoievisky would not be foolish, as christian, to deny Christ efficience. And you know, the Inquisitor represents the Roman Church pretension to represent all christians and keep to themselves the "monopoly" of christianism. You know Dostoievisky did not approved it, and that comment was obviously an attack to the roman church and not to Jesus.

Dostoevsky is ‘a fan of absolute certainties’ who glorifies one side, with the ironic subtlety of genius.

Quite otherwise. You quoted his preference for Christ (faith) instead of Truth (absolute certainites). If anything is primal in Dostoievisky literary style is the capacity to portrait different voices (and opinions) without giving power to a single of them. It is the capacity to portrait conflicts and doubts (because he was also like this). It is not the capacity to arrive in the end of the book with a conclusive and absolute moral. In Brother K there is not glorification of one side at all.

But anyways, I would rather allow others to write here. This became circular. I think we will have to sneer to each other and learn to live with that (Joking of course, you may give up sneering and throw stones at me instead :D )

Gladys

07-08-2009, 10:25 PM

This became circular. I think we will have to sneer to each other and learn to live with that

I have nothing useful to add on existential Christianity, the life of Christ, allegory, literal meaning, The Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamzov or Dostoevsky the person. I always had good reason to doubt my ability or wisdom in trying to explain the existential religious complexities of Kierkegaard, as reflected in Dostoevsky or Ibsen. My prime interest remains textual evidence in The Idiot.

Our discussion has been circular for a week, through language difficulties and differences in background. As you say, we have both been repeating positions. Please understand that my last couple of posts have been more aggressive, without sneering :thumbs_up, simply to break communication deadlock. I finally understand you better in the following crucial area.

And again, I never said he [Myshkin] would misinterpret how the women would react. Here are walking in circles. The prince is keen about the feelings and motives of others. He is not keen in how to deal with the intricate social conducts and places his own feeling as norm. And that is what shows his failure to deal with the social interactions: as result one women he tried to save, died killed by the very friend he tried to made and the other in a unhappy marriage. All because he know not how to balance his true feelings and noble intentions to help with them.

Walking in circles, I had thought you disagreed that the prince understands how Aglaya and Nastasya would react. Of course, I still assert that the prince behaves appropriately in key social interactions with both women. Is there evidence to the contrary? Far from being responsible for disasters that befall Nastasya, Roghozin and Aglaya, the prince acts courageously and appropriately to forestall disaster, while all around gawk. That he fails to avert disaster is not his fault.

If you can accept this proposition, everything about the prince changes.

JCamilo

07-09-2009, 01:08 AM

The sneering is a joke, Gladys, hence the final smile and well ,the stones, my dear Magdanele ;)

Gladys

07-14-2009, 07:36 AM

I still assert that the prince behaves appropriately in key social interactions with both women.

For more on this see: How aware is Myshkin? (www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=749462#post749462)

Truthlover

07-22-2009, 01:02 PM

I read The Idiot about twelve years ago. What stuck in my mind more than anything else was the Prince's statement: "In the end beauty will save us." This was stated two or three times in the book, but I never could retrieve the exact pages. If anyone knows, please inform me, and rectify the exact quote for me if my memory is bad.

I found another quote, very similar, in Dostoyevsky's The Devils (or The Possessed): "... it [humanity] can get on without science, without bread, but without beauty it cannot carry on, for then there will be nothing more to do in the world! The whole mystery is there, the whole of history is there! Even science could not exist a moment without beauty—do you know that, you who are laughing at me?" (pp. 483–484 in the paperback edition by Penguin Classics).

Another question I have is: It seems strange to me that our online-literature does not feature one of my favorites among Dostoyevsky's novels: Memoirs from the House of the Dead. I just loved this book. It tells what it's like to live in prison, and although it spans 13 years, it reflects Dostoyevsky's four-year experience in prison.

Truthlover

07-22-2009, 02:15 PM

It appears to me the discussion presupposes all of us agree on the definition of the term "romantic." It might be presumed that most of us know what is being referred to when we speak of the Romantics of the earliest part of the 19th century. Even if that is true, I think it would be worthwhile for someone among us to find a definition of romanticism we can agree on, because in some of the replies the word is used in the popular sense as in the sigh: "How romantic!" which means something like—you make my heart beat and it blinds my reasoning process. And in others, the word is expressed in relation to the Romantic Movement in literature, music, and fine arts. It would be very superficial to leave Dostoyesvky thinking that his message to us is something similar to what is expressed by the former, popular meaning—feelings as the ultimate source of truth. At the same time, even though Dostoyevsky is writing in the third quarter of the 19th century, what elements can be considered "romantic" in his works, even if not related to the Romantics, strictly speaking, fifty years before him?

I wish to give an example of the confusion that can arise, taken from my personal experience. After I had read some of Jane Austen's novels, I wanted to comment viva voce with a friend of mine on the intricate human relationships portrayed in Austen's novels through elaborately refined conversations between the characters. My friend, after listening a while, simply said: "Oh, those stories are romances." I felt very let down, because I do not think the love stories Austen presents have anything to do with the main issues she is trying to communicate in her works on a much deeper level: the human virtues, decisions made from discernment processes, ethical issues demanding loyalty between the characters, etc. If you read her books looking for "romances" in the popular sense of the word, you might as well save yourself the great effort it takes to read and understand her novels, and watch the afternoon soap opera.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying love affairs cannot be the main attraction in great literature. If that were so, I would have to exclude The Betrothed by Alessandro Manzoni (which novel, by the way, I am surprised is not included on our online-literature list). No, it has nothing to do with "what" the author is talking about, in the sense of what the story is about. Rather, it has to do with the message the author is trying to convey, using the vehicle of the particular story he is narrating. I realize the difference between these two principles should not be exaggerated, however it is worth making the distinction in order to decide what really makes a novel great.

Gladys

07-22-2009, 07:35 PM

What stuck in my mind more than anything else was the Prince's statement: "In the end beauty will save us."

In Ch 33, Lebedeff says:

Is it true, prince, that you once declared that 'beauty would save the world'? Great Heaven! The prince says that beauty saves the world! And I declare that he only has such playful ideas because he's in love! Gentlemen, the prince is in love. I guessed it the moment he came in. Don't blush, prince; you make me sorry for you. What beauty saves the world? Colia told me that you are a zealous Christian; is it so? Colia says you call yourself a Christian."

The prince regarded him attentively, but said nothing.

In Ch 38, the prince reads the third letter from 'that poor, "sinful" woman', Nastasya Filippovna, to Aglaya:

"Why do I wish to unite you two? For your sakes or my own? For my own sake, naturally. All the problems of my life would thus be solved; I have thought so for a long time. I know that once when your sister Adelaida saw my portrait she said that such beauty could overthrow the world. But I have renounced the world. You think it strange that I should say so, for you saw me decked with lace and diamonds, in the company of drunkards and wastrels. Take no notice of that; I know that I have almost ceased to exist. God knows what it is dwelling within me now--it is not myself. I can see it every day in two dreadful eyes which are always looking at me, even when not present. These eyes are silent now, they say nothing; but I know their secret. His house is gloomy, and there is a secret in it. I am convinced that in some box he has a razor hidden, tied round with silk, just like the one that Moscow murderer had. This man also lived with his mother, and had a razor hidden away, tied round with white silk, and with this razor he intended to cut a throat.

-------------------------------------------------

I am not saying love affairs cannot be the main attraction in great literature ... No, it has nothing to do with "what" the author is talking about, in the sense of what the story is about. Rather, it has to do with the message the author is trying to convey, using the vehicle of the particular story he is narrating.

Yes. The Idiot centres around Prince Myhskin's attraction to the 'beauty' of Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya. Superficially, this seems like romance, but the 'beauty' that attracts the prince is much more than skin deep - infinitely more.

At the same time, even though Dostoyevsky is writing in the third quarter of the 19th century, what elements can be considered "romantic" in his works, even if not related to the Romantics, strictly speaking, fifty years before him?

Here are the simplest definitions of 19th century Romanticism, I can find:

In literature, a style that emphasizes the imagination, emotions, and creativity of the individual artist.

In the purest form, the Romantic movement elevated imagination above realism. It sought to convey the thoughts and emotions behind a work.

As the industrial revolution began, people and nature were objectified, and reduced to commodity status. This was regarded as undesirable and leading to the degradation of humans. According to the Romantics, the solution was “back to nature” because nature was seen as pure and a spiritual source of renewal.

The Romantic Movement literature characterized by any emphasis on emotion, passion and the natural world.

Having just read Scott's Rob Roy and Shelley's Frankenstein, I can readily recognise these features, whereas The Idiot seems dominated by an ethical, or even a religious, focus: a profound beauty in the human spirit.