help!

[soccerash388]

What do you think about this statement...

"One critic has said of Dostoyevski in general- and this novel in particular- that he is spectatular at beginnings, competent at middles, and really not very good at endings."

My assignment for my AP English Class is to evaluate the above idea of Dostoyevski's beginning, middle and end... supporting it with quotes.

In my opinion, the beginning is the worst. The middle is the best and the end is second best.

What is your opinion on this? Quotes to support your opinion would help me... thanks!

[toddhill]

Well, I'm at work and don't have my references with me, but I know some critics feel that the end of the book (Crime and Punishment) is contrived or forced. They don't like the conversion. Probably they just don't like happy endings (maybe this is characteristic of many modern critics). I disagree with them and think the ending is wonderful. Redemptive might be a good word. Personally, I think the book would be pretty awful without it. It's so full of doom and gloom. I like the "glorious sunset" ending. Why do you think the beginning is worst, the middle best, and the end second best? Todd

[Boris239]

I can't say anything bad about "C&P" ending. I think the whole novel is brilliant. You could say that in "Idiot" the first part is much more interesting and dynamic than the second one( although not everybody agrees with that). Traditionally it's considered that when Dostoevsky was writing the first part his wife was pregnant, and the second one was done after she lost the baby.

[Dulcinea]

First off, that critic is retarded. The greatness of Dostoevsky is the amount of social commentary and psychological evaluation found within every sentence of his works, not anything trivial as plot and all that garbage. No Dostoevsky work can be judged in parts. As far as your assignment is concerned, many people (including myself), feel that the epilogue of Crime and Punishment was not necessary.