Describe a favorite literary character.

[Danik 2016]

One always has one or more literary characters which one finds particularly fascinating. They may remain with one during a good part of one´s life but they also may change as one´s literary tastes changes.
Describe a favorite character of yours and the reasons why he/she is a favorite with you.

[Pompey Bum]

I try to keep a consciousness that the characters I read about are only ink and paper. I learn what I can from them and move on. But there are a few that seem unusually vivid to me. Sun Wukong, the monkey king from Journey to the West is one. I like his weird mix of innocence and arrogance, especially in the first third of the book (before he tries to reform). There's just no one like him in literature.

I also like Stubb, the second mate of the Pequod in Moby-Dick, whose philosophy (for better or worse) was:"I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I’ll go to it laughing." What was coming was death, and sure enough he laughed.

[thekingrat]

Pierre Bezuhov (War and Peace). He is acts the way he is regardless of company, and is in constant search of happiness and purpose, I find him very relatable.

[Pompey Bum]

Pierre Bezuhov (War and Peace). He is acts the way he is regardless of company, and is in constant search of happiness and purpose, I find him very relatable.

Pierre was supposed to be Tolstoy writing about himself (or at least his younger self and all the mistakes he made). My favorite part of his story is when he becomes a prisoner of war and actually has to grow up. I find him very easy to relate to as well.

[Pompey Bum]

So Danik, how would you answer your own question?

[Danik 2016]

Thanks for the interesting posts, PB and King. I read Moby Dick and War and Peace a long time ago and enjoyed both very much at the time but don´t remember the details any more.
From Moby Dick I remember of course Ishmael and Queequeg (not sure about the spelling) but neither Stubbs nor Starbuck. But I liked the vivid account you gave of Stubbs
Pierre I remember very vaguely as an ungainly but very sympathetic character.
Favorite characters come and go with the books one reads But I remember two favorite characters, which impressed me and stayed with me for a long time. One of them is Sydney Carton from A Tale of Two Cities. What I think interesting about the book besides the historical part are its double aspects and the underground and shadowy aspects that arise from it. There are two cities and there are also two protagonists. Sydney is the shadow protagonist: he has a cynical side as the talented lawyer who has to live out his permanent failure, and a sublime side which can only express itself through sacrifice. If this book was written in our days possibly the cinicism would take over and Carton wouldn´t have any chance for sacrifice or something would go terribly wrong. Set in a context where the good used to win, he succeeded.
Another character that fascinates me is Simon from Lord of the Flies by William Golding. He is again a sacrificial character, a boy whith special sensibility, who feels that things are going awry and why, so he sets out to fight the source of their fear and gets killed by his own companions who confuse him with the monster. So Simons´s sacrifice has an ironic meaning: the boys learn though it how far they are able to go to survive.

But the Dicken´s discussion in another thread reminded me of my favorite character in Little Dorrit: Mr. F´s aunt. She made me laugh a lot and she knew exactly where the danger to Mr. F´s cherished memory lay, for she might be mad but she wasn´t stupid.

[Pompey Bum]

Oh, the crazy aunt in Little Dorrit. Yes, she's great. I also like Miss Flite from Bleak House, the crazy lady with the caged birds (Joy, Youth, Peace, Rest, Life, Dust, Ashes, Waste, Want, Ruin, Despair, Madness, Death, Cunning, Folly, Words, Wigs, Rags, Sheepskin, Plunder, Precedent, Jargon, Gammon, and Spinach) who keeps talking about the Final Judgment. I think on the whole I prefer the minor characters in Bleak House to the major ones. That's probably true of Little Dorrit, too.

[Danik 2016]

Lol! I had forgotten Miss Flite!

[Pompey Bum]

There are some great minor villains in Bleak House, too, like Smallweed, a slightly crazier version of Scrooge, and Krook, who is so demonic he spontaneously combusts. Now those are characters.

[prendrelemick]

John Ridd from Lorna Doone.
I like his simple incorruptable knowledge of right and wrong. He has no hidden agenda or strategy, he is an unchangeing granite block in the middle of the story, cleverer, more sophisticated men can only dash themselves to pieces against him. He wins by doing the simple honest thing. I also like the way he carries sheep about through deep snow - one under each arm.

[Danik 2016]

I never read anything by Lorna Doone, but maybe John is a bit similar to Gabriel Oak in Far from the Madding Crowd. One of the important scenes is when he saves the sheep from a disease which fills their stomach with air.

[Danik 2016]

There are some great minor villains in Bleak House, too, like Smallweed, a slightly crazier version of Scrooge, and Krook, who is so demonic he spontaneously combusts. Now those are characters.

As for Dickens, when I first read his books I was interested in his main characters. But today what fascinates me more is the colourful often bizarre world he creates around them. For example Miss Havisham in her static decadence seems quite modern to me.

[prendrelemick]

I never read anything by Lorna Doone, but maybe John is a bit similar to Gabriel Oak in Far from the Madding Crowd. One of the important scenes is when he saves the sheep from a disease which fills their stomach with air.

A little bit perhaps, but Gabriel lived in quieter times.


Sorry, I've just noticed The book is Lorna Doone by RD Blackmore. I didn't make it very clear.

[Danik 2016]

It´s ok, prendre. I just looked it up and put the link here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorna_Doone

Many ups and downs in the plot indeed.

[Jackson Richardson]

For me, Miss Havisham IS the main character in Great Expectations !

Miss Bates in Emma for me though. Every time she starts talking, my heart lifts. You can see why Emma finds her irritating (I would) although Emma's perfect manners prevent her expressing it except at Box Hill, but Miss Bates is a deeply sympathetic character for all her silliness.

[DATo]

Sancho Panza from Don Quixote by Cervantes.

A close second would be Mr. McCawber from Dickens' David Copperfield.

[Danik 2016]

For me, Miss Havisham IS the main character in Great Expectations !

Miss Bates in Emma for me though. Every time she starts talking, my heart lifts. You can see why Emma finds her irritating (I would) although her perfect manners prevent her expressing it except at Box Hill, but she is a deeply sympathetic character for all her silliness.
I´ll have to read Emma. I think that´s the one of Austen´s more known novels I haven´t read yet.

Your remark about Miss Havisham gave me an idea for another thread. I should like you to enlargen about that idea here or there.

[Danik 2016]

Sancho Panza from Don Quixote by Cervantes.

A close second would be Mr. McCawber from Dickens' David Copperfield.
Yes, DAto, Sancho is also a favorite with me and there are at least two Sanchos on LitNet.
I think there is a Dickensian version of the character to, Sam Weller.
Mr. McCawber is an interesting character too. Maybe he was inspired by Dickens father.

[Pompey Bum]

Your remark about Miss Havisham gave me an idea for another thread. I should like you to enlargen about that idea here or there.

Here's an old Miss Havisham thread, Danik. You may want to add your ideas there or, if not, to start one of your own. (There are a couple others, too, in the Authors List forum).

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?82368-Miss-Havisham-s-Self-Deceit

It's good to see the conversation on this site turning back to literature. As Mona said recently, that is LitNet at its best.

[Ecurb]

"Favorite" can suggest someone you like as a person, or someone you like as a character (even though he or she might be despicable).

From Trollope: Septimus Harding is my favorite in the first sense; Mrs. Proudie and Mr. Crawley in the second.

Becky Sharpe is a great character.

Classic characters who never appear on stage, from Jane Austen: Miss Andrews -- she was Isabella Thorpe's friend in Northanger Abbey, "One of the sweetest girls in the world." Isabella scolds the men for "not admiring her" although she "could not get through the first volume of Sir Charles Grandison". From this I conclude she was plain and sensible.

Mr. Perry, the apothecary in "Emma" who serves as evidence for Mr. Woodhouse's imaginary complaints. One wonders whether he's embarrassed by the nonsense Mr. Woodhouse ascribes to him.

My favorite: Dr. Davies. He joined Lucy and Nancy Steele in a post-chaise to London. Nancy was nearly 30, "with a plain and not very sensible face" whose mind ran on "smart beaus". She is distressed when the company fails "to have laughed at her about the doctor. So little were they inclined to oblige her,that if Sir John dined from home she might spend a whole day without hearing any raillery on the subject other than what she was kind enough to bestow on herself."

For some reason, I think all three of these Austen characters are very different in person, and like imagining scenes where they actually show up. I can hardly forgive Elinor and Marianne for their lack of raillery, when such little effort would have given such great pleasure.

[Ecurb]

Duplicate

[Danik 2016]

Thanks, PB. It´s an interesting thread.
I just posted a new one, you are invited to take a look. It can be related to Kev´s thread but it is a different discussion.
People have now three different threads to add up.
I still have some difficulty to find old threads in this forum.
And I quite agree with Mona and you.
I see so many people registering and wandering away.

[Danik 2016]

.....

[Jackson Richardson]

Your remark about Miss Havisham gave me an idea for another thread. I should like you to enlargen about that idea here or there.

See my last comment on the linked thread where I set out my views.

Emma is novel which doesn't really work on the first reading to my mind.

[Pompey Bum]

I still have some difficulty to find old threads in this forum.

Go the forum page, choose Authors List, choose an author, choose a book, and you will find many threads.


And I quite agree with Mona and you.
I see so many people registering and wandering away.

A few weeks ago a lady asked if anyone would be interested in having book discussions based time periods. Mona and I said sure. Mortal Terror said no, it would be wasting his time. Everyone else ignored her. I felt terrible for the lady and embarrassed for LitNet. Can you wonder that people don't stay?

[Red Terror]

Alex from A Clockwork Orange. I still remember when I read the novel for the first time. I had the greatest time reading it. It is indeed one of the greatest times of my life, truly. Then again I had the nadsat translator which was very helpful. Alex speaks in a street slang invented by the author Anthony Burgess. a lex (i.e. Latin for without law) Well, you have to read the novel then watch the film. It would be unfair to describe him to you.

http://soomka.com/nadsat.html

http://www.moviecricket.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A-Clockwork-Orange-Stanley-Kubrick-Top-25-Best-Book-To-Film-adaptations.gif

[Pompey Bum]

Yarbles. Great bolshy yarblockos to you. (:))

[Danik 2016]

"Favorite" can suggest someone you like as a person, or someone you like as a character (even though he or she might be despicable).

From Trollope: Septimus Harding is my favorite in the first sense; Mrs. Proudie and Mr. Crawley in the second.

Becky Sharpe is a great character.

Classic characters who never appear on stage, from Jane Austen: Miss Andrews -- she was Isabella Thorpe's friend in Northanger Abbey, "One of the sweetest girls in the world." Isabella scolds the men for "not admiring her" although she "could not get through the first volume of Sir Charles Grandison". From this I conclude she was plain and sensible.

Mr. Perry, the apothecary in "Emma" who serves as evidence for Mr. Woodhouse's imaginary complaints. One wonders whether he's embarrassed by the nonsense Mr. Woodhouse ascribes to him.

My favorite: Dr. Davies. He joined Lucy and Nancy Steele in a post-chaise to London. Nancy was nearly 30, "with a plain and not very sensible face" whose mind ran on "smart beaus". She is distressed when the company fails "to have laughed at her about the doctor. So little were they inclined to oblige her,that if Sir John dined from home she might spend a whole day without hearing any raillery on the subject other than what she was kind enough to bestow on herself."

For some reason, I think all three of these Austen characters are very different in person, and like imagining scenes where they actually show up. I can hardly forgive Elinor and Marianne for their lack of raillery, when such little effort would have given such great pleasure.
Sorry, Ecurb! Correcting the quotation:
Yes, I think it is often the secondary characters, who are the spice of the novel. In their case the author doesn´t have to worry so much about making them good or bad or beautiful, because they are in the shadow, so they often turn out to be more intesting.

[Danik 2016]

See my last comment on the linked thread where I set out my views.

Emma is novel which doesn't really work on the first reading to my mind.
Ok, Jackson!

[Danik 2016]

Go the forum page, choose Authors List, choose an author, choose a book, and you will find many threads.



A few weeks ago a lady asked if anyone would be interested in having book discussions based time periods. Mona and I said sure. Mortal Terror said no, it would be wasting his time. Everyone else ignored her. I felt terrible for the lady and embarrassed for LitNet. Can you wonder that people don't stay?
Thanks, PB. I did that to open the Dickens thread. Probably I must be more specific and write "Mrs Havisham" to get to the threads about her.
As for the lady you are referring to, I saw her request but wasn´t sure if it might work. That´s why I didn´t answer.

[Danik 2016]

Alex from A Clockwork Orange. I still remember when I read the novel for the first time. I had the greatest time reading it. It is indeed one of the greatest times of my life, truly. Then again I had the nadsat translator which was very helpful. Alex speaks in a street slang invented by the author Anthony Burgess. a lex (i.e. Latin for without law) Well, you have to read the novel then watch the film. It would be unfair to describe him to you.

http://soomka.com/nadsat.html

http://www.moviecricket.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A-Clockwork-Orange-Stanley-Kubrick-Top-25-Best-Book-To-Film-adaptations.gif
A lex= the lawless one! That defines the character but also the world he inhabits. An antecipatory book with its both sided often gratuituos violence. I wonder if the part on behaviorist therapy isn´t a bit dated today.
What I like about the book is the language. Thanks for the gloss! I din´t know that Russian was one of its inspiration!
Valeu!

[Ecurb]

My favorite film critic, Pauline Kael, hated the movie "A Clockwork Orange" (although I believe she liked the book). She hated Kubrick in general. (I don't agree with her, but I like her style.)

Here's a link to her excellent review:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html

[Pompey Bum]

A lex= the lawless one! That defines the character but also the world he inhabits.

Alexander also means the defender of Man, which may be more pertinent in the context of Burgess' humanism and anti-Skinnerism. Alex is the defender of humankind in that his exercise of will, however immoral, is contrary to the behavioral control that is forced eventually on him. Burgess' point is not that the ultraviolent Alex is good (he's not, he's a monster), but that good, to be good, requires a choice away from animalistic violence. Alex's choices are in the opposite direction, but at least they are choices; and therefore they are defiantly human.

Burgess' book is better than Kubrick's film, which is dated in what it thinks is shocking, and which never succeeds in manipulating its audience's instinctive mind (for all its bouncing t*tties and lurid reds). Malcolm McDowell had Alex's voice down perfectly, but parts of the script were dopey even for those days. The guy who played Dim was awesome, though.

[Danik 2016]

I think both definitions complete each other: Alexander defends his right to make his own choices but he is also a destroyer of humans.
http://www.behindthename.com/name/alexander
Just a curiosity for those who like the novel/film and also like rock: The album A-lex from the Brazilian band Sepultura:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-Lex

[Red Terror]

Some student filmmakers/actors recreated the flat-block marina fight scene. Hilarious!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuzMnzBph8I

[Red Terror]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtRGeyznv7k

[Red Terror]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-mDTdeKR8

[Red Terror]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJb3ka_ZNtM

[El Entenado]

Parfyon Semyonovich Rogozhin.

Dostoyevsky already described him, so I will not.

[Danik 2016]

Lol. You are right, he didn´t make it easy for Dostoyevsky. But maybe you could explain,why he is you favorite character.

[El Entenado]

Lol. You are right, he didn´t make it easy for Dostoyevsky. But maybe you could explain,why he is you favorite character.

Well, because he isn't an idiot, and in contrary to most non-idiot characters/persons, he isn't an idiot in a good way. (Forgive the pun).

[Danik 2016]

I think you mean Prince Myshkin, the protagonist.

[El Entenado]

I think you mean Prince Myshkin, the protagonist.

But Prince Myushkin *is* an idiot, unlike Rogozhin. I meant Rogozhin.

If I were to apply such a general adjective to a character, I would say Prince Myushkin is a good character, and in a way, all other non-idiots are non-idiots because they're missing something that he has, they're worse than him. However, IMO, his character is impractical, or mythical (pardon me my limited English vocabulary). For me, Rogozhin is the non-idiot that is not worse than the idiot. This, along with the fact that he is in the same setting that has the idiot and all the other unusual characters of the work, makes him one of my favorite characters.

[Danik 2016]

I see Entenado. Unfortunatelly I read "The Idiot", as mosts classics, a long time ago, so I don´t remember the details of the novel. The one thing I remember is that Rogozhin and Myshkin get very close, in a complex dostoyevskian way, and that Rogozhin ends by killing the woman he is obsessed with. Anyway he wouldn´t stand out for me as an intelligent character.
On impulse I would rather think of the detective Porfiry of Crime and Punishment as an intelligent Dostoyeski character.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_Punishment
He is not one of the main characters of the book. But he achieves his aim in making the murder confess in a very peculiar way.

[Pompey Bum]

Father: Remember that nice boy next door, Raskolnikov?
Boris: Yeah.
Father: He killed two ladies.
Boris: What a nasty story.
Father: Bobak told it to me. He heard it from one of the Karamazov brothers.
Boris: He must have been possessed.
Father: Well, he was a raw youth.
Boris: Raw youth, he was an idiot!
Father: He acted assaulted and injured.
Boris: I heard he was a gambler.
Father: You know, he could be your double!
Boris: Really, how novel.

--Woody Allen, Love and Death

[Pompey Bum]

But Prince Myushkin *is* an idiot, unlike Rogozhin. I meant Rogozhin.

If I were to apply such a general adjective to a character, I would say Prince Myushkin is a good character, and in a way, all other non-idiots are non-idiots because they're missing something that he has, they're worse than him. However, IMO, his character is impractical, or mythical (pardon me my limited English vocabulary). For me, Rogozhin is the non-idiot that is not worse than the idiot. This, along with the fact that he is in the same setting that has the idiot and all the other unusual characters of the work, makes him one of my favorite characters.

Great suggestion, EE. Rogozhin is a complicated and well made character, and Myshkin, of course, is one of the great characters of literature. There seems to be a strong opposing duality to them. But if Myshkin (as most believe) is a Christ figure, then who does that make Rogozhin, the anti-Myshkin? The implications of that question make the final scene (where they are in the sack together) a shocking one. It's a great book.

The Idiot is also a sentimental favorite of mine because it was the subject of the first literary discussion I had on this site. I was new and everyone was ignoring me, but this really nice lady named Gladys decided to talk with me about Myshkin and Rogozhin. As I remember, Gladys thought Myshkin was a straight-out (that is, non-ironic) Christ figure, while I was pointing out that a lot of people near him end up get ting destroyed. She threw some proof texts at me and I threw some Pauline theology back at her. No one conceded. Gladys still pops in sometimes (though rarely), but she has never had much else to say to me. I've always hoped there were no hard feelings over the debate (it can be hard to tell sometimes). I really do appreciate her kindness to me when I was new.

Here is the thread if you are interested in reading it or even continuing the discussion. If not, don't worry about it. I just thought you might want to talk about Rogozhin. (The conversation with Gladys starts on page 2).

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?31957-Love-your-enemies-the-unlovable-Rogozhin&p=1273742#post1273742

[Danik 2016]

Thanks for providing that interesting thread, PB, in fact I was hoping that a more recent reader of The Idiot than myself would chime in.
I have never read theology but what stands out for me about some of the greatest characters of Dostoyevski is there quest for a deeper meaning of what it means to be human. It´s a religion above religions, a goodness above conventional ethics or a moral far above moralities. I don´t know if I am using the right words, but whatever it is, it can´t be put in ortodox straightjackets. Maybe his most ambicious book in this sense is The Brother Karamazow, my favorite on.

[prendrelemick]

Molly Bloom from Ulysses is an amazing creation - or presentation. She's there throughout in Bloom's head and in converstions and comments from others (kind of early locker room talk.) Then she bursts out right at the end in one chapter-long single sentence, and shows she is so much more than we have been led to expect. She knows more, has experienced more and has more native understanding than all the other 'more educated' characters put together.
Or is Joyce saying everyone has their own remarkable internal persona that no one else can know.



Oops, just interrupted a "The Idiot" discussion (which I haven't read) My favourite Dostoevsky characters are Sonya's family in Crime and Punishment, simply because they don't keep their troubles behind their front door like we English, with our precious dignity, tend to do - nothing deeper than that. They have a kind of brash openness that I admire. Which probably says more about me than the book.

[Pompey Bum]

My favourite Dostoevsky characters are Sonya's family in Crime and Punishment, simply because they don't keep their troubles behind their front door like we English, with our precious dignity, tend to do - nothing deeper than that. They have a kind of brash openness that I admire. Which probably says more about me than the book.

One of the peculiar things about Dostoyevsky is the way his characters are so rational and contemplative in inner dialogues, but In groups they just go nuts on each other. Such pyrotechnics also happen in The Brothers K and especially in The Idiot's parties from hell. Maybe it's a Russian thing.

Speaking of Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is a great character, though not especially likable (I didn't like him anyway). But he is immensely believable as an angry and clueless 20-something. Dostoyevsky's genius is to take his his vividness and make it insane beyond what one could normally understand. That's what gives the novel its punch. It's horrible to be there when the ladies die, but it is just so believable.

[Danik 2016]

Molly Bloom from Ulysses is an amazing creation - or presentation. She's there throughout in Bloom's head and in converstions and comments from others (kind of early locker room talk.) Then she bursts out right at the end in one chapter-long single sentence, and shows she is so much more than we have been led to expect. She knows more, has experienced more and has more native understanding than all the other 'more educated' characters put together.
Or is Joyce saying everyone has their own remarkable internal persona that no one else can know.



Oops, just interrupted a "The Idiot" discussion (which I haven't read) My favourite Dostoevsky characters are Sonya's family in Crime and Punishment, simply because they don't keep their troubles behind their front door like we English, with our precious dignity, tend to do - nothing deeper than that. They have a kind of brash openness that I admire. Which probably says more about me than the book.
I also like Molly Bloom. I didn´t read the novel(if I ever do I´ll consider it a special feat) but I was promptly attracted to that intense last chapter.
I also like Sonya`s family as a group (and there is her father, Marmeladow) and Sonya herself.
And it seems that Dostoyevski was much influenced by Dickens in his portrayal of urban characters. In an earlier novel, Humiliated and Insulted, he criates his own "Little Nell",setting her in the harsh Russian context of adolescent prostituition.

[prendrelemick]

The Marmeladows remind me of the Darbyfields, (Tess of the D'urbervilles) and Sonya is like Tess. not sure which came first.

I think it is time I read some more Dostoyevsky. I could never make up my mind about Raskolnikov - which I am sure was what Dostoyevsky was after. I could not get past the pointless brutal murders he committed as an interllectual exercise for many chapters afterwards.
There was a film called "The Rope" with James Stewart where something similar happened, but there the murderers were arrogant and unlikeable, whereas Raskolnikov is mostly a decent chap. However as James Stewart points out the moment you opt to commit murder you fail the test of being an outstanding human being.

[El Entenado]

Great suggestion, EE. Rogozhin is a complicated and well made character, and Myshkin, of course, is one of the great characters of literature. There seems to be a strong opposing duality to them. But if Myshkin (as most believe) is a Christ figure, then who does that make Rogozhin, the anti-Myshkin? The implications of that question make the final scene (where they are in the sack together) a shocking one. It's a great book.

The Idiot is also a sentimental favorite of mine because it was the subject of the first literary discussion I had on this site. I was new and everyone was ignoring me, but this really nice lady named Gladys decided to talk with me about Myshkin and Rogozhin. As I remember, Gladys thought Myshkin was a straight-out (that is, non-ironic) Christ figure, while I was pointing out that a lot of people near him end up get ting destroyed. She threw some proof texts at me and I threw some Pauline theology back at her. No one conceded. Gladys still pops in sometimes (though rarely), but she has never had much else to say to me. I've always hoped there were no hard feelings over the debate (it can be hard to tell sometimes). I really do appreciate her kindness to me when I was new.

Here is the thread if you are interested in reading it or even continuing the discussion. If not, don't worry about it. I just thought you might want to talk about Rogozhin. (The conversation with Gladys starts on page 2).

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?31957-Love-your-enemies-the-unlovable-Rogozhin&p=1273742#post1273742

Thanks for the link. Being trapped in a story of Kafka right now, I really appreciate finding so much information about something I'm interested in, condensed in one place.

I'm no educated man on literature and analysis of text, but I just wanted to voice what I thought about the book when I was reading it. Please bear with it. I'm too lazy to put "what came to my mind is" before each following sentence that I write, but you can assume it's there.

Myushkin is said to be a Christ figure. He is, in a way, the perfect man. One who has neither hatred nor vengeance. I will refer to him as the idiot, you may as well read that as Christ or The Perfect Man. What I never understood is Rogozhin being considered to be antagonist of the story. If anything, he is part of the "protagonist". The idiot can't exist without Rogozhin. Not in the sense that darkness is impossible without light, but rather in the sense that there is no saltwater without, well, salt and water.

Rogozhin was based on a criminal, if I'm not mistaken. In The Idiot, the narrator analyses the characters by their inherent characteristics, put out of context. The book is set in an inverted world on the whole, idiocy turns into elegance, eloquence turns into superficiality, and desire turns into hypocrisy.

Rogozhin is the unhappy child of the era. He is the one who loves what the idiot pities and others abuse. He drops his chains and jewels, and goes to any lengths to do the bidding of the loved/pitied/abused. Even though, as we read in the magnificent final act of the book, he can't manage the last and ultimate request of the loved/pitied/abused without the help of the idiot.

--

I figure that my views may be radically different from what's accepted and understood about the work, and, to be honest, I have no meta-information about Dosyovesky, as I've only read his books. However I really wanted to share what I think about the work and see what you think about it.

[Danik 2016]

The Marmeladows remind me of the Darbyfields, (Tess of the D'urbervilles) and Sonya is like Tess. not sure which came first.

I think it is time I read some more Dostoyevsky. I could never make up my mind about Raskolnikov - which I am sure was what Dostoyevsky was after. I could not get past the pointless brutal murders he committed as an interllectual exercise for many chapters afterwards.
There was a film called "The Rope" with James Stewart where something similar happened, but there the murderers were arrogant and unlikeable, whereas Raskolnikov is mostly a decent chap. However as James Stewart points out the moment you opt to commit murder you fail the test of being an outstanding human being.
I looked them up:
Crime and Punishment-1866
Tess-1891
Both families are large and destitute, the head of the family is a drunkard and in both cases the girls have to support their families. Sonya has to work as a prostitute and Tess is seduced by the false cousin. Both are strong women.
Raskolnikov might have been a decent chap at the outset but lack of money and to much brooding turn him into a criminal. But Dostoievsky devises for him an end of repentance, redemption and a life with Sonya.
Hardy is more pessimistic. Alex is Tess´hubris, who prevents her to be happy with her (stone) Angel, until she finally kills him (Alex) and is sentenced to death for it.

[prendrelemick]

I think - or thought at the time I read it many years ago, that Roskolnikov was having a mental crisis or breakdown of some type that he eventually gets over with the help of sonya. I suspect this is a huge over simplification born of my desire to have an explanation. I suppose he "represents" some thing or other integral to mankind.

I started reading "The Idiot" last night by the way.

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks for the link. Being trapped in a story of Kafka right now, I really appreciate finding so much information about something I'm interested in, condensed in one place. I'm no educated man on literature and analysis of text, but I just wanted to voice what I thought about the book when I was reading it. Please bear with it. I'm too lazy to put "what came to my mind is" before each following sentence that I write, but you can assume it's there.

Oh, you are welcome. And this is just a site for readers who want to talk about what they read. Your voice is as valid as anyone else's.


Myushkin is said to be a Christ figure. He is, in a way, the perfect man. One who has neither hatred nor vengeance. I will refer to him as the idiot, you may as well read that as Christ or The Perfect Man.

Well, I don't think Myshkin is meant to be Jesus on a symbolic level. And The Idiot certainly isn't a retelling of the Gospel. It's more like speculative literature: what would happen if a man of Christ-like compassion and perfect innocence and humility were to appear in (what was for Dostoyevsky) today's world? What would people think of him? How would he interact with the world? Who would he be drawn to and how would they react to him? Would his mission be a successful one? So Isee Myshkin as a kind of a Christ figure even if he is not exactly a symbol. He also follows the Russian Orthodox tradition of the divine fool. And as I am writing this, it occurs to me that he may even be related to the kind of world-rejecting/world-rejected hyper-consciousness Dostoyevsky talks about in Notes From the Underground. Maybe that was Myshkin's problem. Maybe he was Jesus Christ as the Underground Man. But nicer.


What I never understood is Rogozhin being considered to be antagonist of the story. If anything, he is part of the "protagonist". The idiot can't exist without Rogozhin. Not in the sense that darkness is impossible without light, but rather in the sense that there is no saltwater without, well, salt and water.

They are an opposed duality. Myshkin's pure and spiritual love for Nastassya (I believe it is more than pity) implies the existence of Rogozhin's passionate and possessive love for her. But I think it is more like the darkness and light in your example. Here is saltwater, but if there was not also freshwater, saltwater and freshwater would not even be categories. Everything would just be water. But as it is, salt water and fresh water constitute two sides of the same coin--an opposed duality. The shocking thing about The Idiot is that by the last scene, the Christ-Satan/Myshkin-Rogozhin duality looks awfully chummy. I don't want to say more because Prendrelemick is still reading the book, but I think talk about it with Gladys in the link I gave above.

[Danik 2016]

I think - or thought at the time I read it many years ago, that Roskolnikov was having a mental crisis or breakdown of some type that he eventually gets over with the help of sonya. I suspect this is a huge over simplification born of my desire to have an explanation. I suppose he "represents" some thing or other integral to mankind.

I started reading "The Idiot" last night by the way.
I don´t think it is a simplification, it is viewing the characters from another perspective.
If you come to think of it most of Dostoiyevskis great characters are having "a mental crisis or breakdown of some type" or are on the brink of it. Ironically his own illness enabled him
to create these unforgetable psychologically over refined characters which seem to transit perpetually between heaven and hell. They also are, in my opinion, one of the last forcefully instance of a 19C sensibility.
I once tried to imagine Dostoievsky characters at a breakfast table saying common place things like: "Can you pass me the butter please"?. It somehow would not work.
I think you will enjoy The Idiot. I think it is one of it´s greatest.
There is also a great Kurosava film on it. It is sow emphatic that one forgets that the director and the actors are Japanese and not Russian.

[prendrelemick]

Yes, I am enjoying The Idiot a great deal. Sometimes I think we spend too much time searching for meaning and symbols in a book and forget to enjoy it. The Idiot is a great read, funny, accessible -a real pleasure. Dostoyevski is a great advocate of "show don't tell". One thing I have noticed is that so far the women seem to have a monopoly on intellegence and insight. So far the prince has been a device to open everyone up for our inspection, but I think he is about to take on a role of his own.

[Danik 2016]

So far as I remember he lives more the lives of others than his own, as you observed. He gets deeply entangled with the people he meets. He is a sort of catalyst.

[Clopin]

Yes, I am enjoying The Idiot a great deal. Sometimes I think we spend too much time searching for meaning and symbols in a book and forget to enjoy it. The Idiot is a great read, funny, accessible -a real pleasure. Dostoyevski is a great advocate of "show don't tell". One thing I have noticed is that so far the women seem to have a monopoly on intellegence and insight. So far the prince has been a device to open everyone up for our inspection, but I think he is about to take on a role of his own.

Dostoyevsky's women, in general, usually seem a cut above the men. His male protagonists tend to be struggling with alignment issues and often act very erratically, to put it mildly, as a result. Raskolnikov's sister Dunya, for example, is just as intelligent and accurate a thinker as he is, but she gets there without the double murder and extreme overemphasis on self... reflection? Of course Dosto himself was a pretty impatient and erratic guy (while his wife Anna was, to my knowledge, calm and reasonable), so it's probably something of a self-insert on his part.


One of the peculiar things about Dostoyevsky is the way his characters are so rational and contemplative in inner dialogues, but In groups they just go nuts on each other. Such pyrotechnics also happen in The Brothers K and especially in The Idiot's parties from hell. Maybe it's a Russian thing.

haha, that's always how I considered it.

[Pompey Bum]

Dostoyevsky's women, in general, usually seem a cut above the men. His male protagonists tend to be struggling with alignment issues and often act very erratically, to put it mildly, as a result. Raskolnikov's sister Dunya, for example, is just as intelligent and accurate a thinker as he is, but she gets there without the double murder and extreme overemphasis on self... reflection? Of course Dosto himself was a pretty impatient and erratic guy (while his wife Anna was, to my knowledge, calm and reasonable), so it's probably something of a self-insert on his part.

It's a great point about Raskolnikov's sister. She embodies all the strong and positive aspects of him. Their mother mentions a strong physical resemblance, and Razumihin tells her that she and her brother have highly similar personalities. She takes charge of her own life (as when she rejects Luzhin's snares), and she is tough in a crisis (as when Svidrigailov tries to rape her). You don't hear much about Dounia as a proto-feminist character, but I think she is a very modern woman.

Obviously that's not the case for all Dostoyevsky's women. Sonia is strong in her own way, but she is constantly described as confused or overwhelmed in the face of crises. I suppose you could say she was tenacious, especially in the epilogue, but how realistic was her loyalty (especially since Svidrigailov had already pulled her out of prostitution)? Sonia reminded me a little too much of a Dickens virgin (she even has a sylphic body like Little Dorrit); but at least Dostoyevsky had the realism to make Sonia a prostitute. God knows what she would have been in a Dickens novel--maybe a flower girl or a rag peddler. I only see Sonia as (a little) unrealistic as Raskolnikov's girlfriend. On the other hand, Dounia marries Razumihin, who is a little too convenient a male character (cheerfully industrious, willing to sacrifice, loyal to people he doesn't know all that well). So maybe Dostoyevsky could only handle one entirely realistic partner per relationship. That would still be one more than Dickens was usually able to manage.

[bounty]

I wonder the worth of adding to a thread almost 7yrs old, but who knows...

unfortunately I cant describe her since its been so many years since ive read the book, but I remember being very attracted to agnes, david Copperfield's second wife.

and I loved hazel from watership down and his wise and brave leadership throughout all the rabbits trials and tribulations.

and maybe jack reacher from all the lee child stories. apart from being a physical beast of a fellow, and despite his desires to live a quiet solitary life after leaving the military, he never fails to do "right" when he finds himself in the midst of some grievous "wrong."

[DATo]

Yes, I'd say it is still a good topic, so it is worth it.

I agree with your choices of Agnes and Hazel. They were both great characters. I did not read Lee Child so I cannot comment on Jack Reacher.

[hellsapoppin]

Having grown up in Brooklyn, NY I have always been fascinated by the way New Yorkers are portrayed on cinema, TV, and on literature. Perhaps the greatest NY character ever portrayed in literature was the Mose who was based on a real life character.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtzh5CxR3e9BfqLSzdr7BkbO48CLZzX JgVxP2hh_NS8w&s



https://www.google.com/search?q=the+mose+nyc+character&rlz=1CAKSOU_enUS1067&oq=the+Mose+NYC+character&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i64.5553j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



He might be said to be a trickster --- one moment he is a heel, another moment later he is a hero. He was featured in Ned Buntline's stories of NYC. While Buntline's many books are not readily available in libraries or bookstores, his influence on literature and cinema remain after all these years.


One character that emerged from Buntline's writings was a Chuck Connors (no, not the rifleman):


https://mcnyblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/f2012-58-276.jpg?w=210



https://blog.mcny.org/2016/05/24/young-chuck-connors-mayor-of-chinatown/



Years later there were the Bowery Boys/East Side Kids which featured Muggs McGinnis/Slip Mahoney:



https://wearysloth.com/Gallery/2017/G/6750.jpg





I have watched so many movies which featured this great trickster who often misquoted Shakespeare, caused trouble, got into innumerable fights, rarely worked and almost never earned an honest buck, but who had a heart of gold and would give the shirt off his back to help a friend in need. Very contradictory character. But that's the way New Yorkers often were.



By the way, similar characters can be found in Stephen Crane's Bowery Tales.

See?*





*New Yorkers often ended their sentences with the word see? when they spoke what was called "flash" way back in the 1840s until about WW I and just up to WW II.






One last thing:


NYC real life Bowery Boys from the 1840s and thereafter:



https://res.cloudinary.com/bloomsbury-atlas/image/upload/w_568,c_scale/jackets/9780275985387.jpg



They were heavily involved in the infamous Astor Place Riots (1849) ~ a fascinating episode in NYC and American history.

[hellsapoppin]

quoting bounty: "I wonder the worth of adding to a thread almost 7yrs old, but who knows..."


quoting DATo: "Yes, I'd say it is still a good topic, so it is worth it."




Literature is a living thing and, more significantly, it is timeless. Thus, it is never too late to add to the exchange when it comes to literature.

[hellsapoppin]

More than once I've been described as being exceedingly eccentric. That's OK since, after all, I'm originally from Brooklyn. So naturally, I'm attracted to characters who, like myself, are just a bit out of the ordinary. One who fits this bill and is of my absolute favorites is Col Sellers:



https://live.staticflickr.com/4028/4211916108_5c72ec1be7.jpg


https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.w3Q9BW6rSnbTz38xfRtQxQHaJp?pid=ImgDet&w=201&h=261&c=7&dpr=1.6



He appears in several different evolutions in a couple of Mark Twain's writings. Here he is portrayed by legendary actor John T Raymond who did an extensive tour as this character back in the 1870s. This as Sellers in the book The Gilded age (1873). Raymond died in 1887. Then, the character reappeared in Twain's American Claimant (1892). So sad that people were not able to watch Raymond portray him as he evolved and became even more eccentric.



The good Colonel and Mark Twain:

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.qE4y2SVTC2m0_CmCARr1qgHaLX?w=186&h=286&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.3&pid=1.7

[hellsapoppin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs8K3P-DpDs


https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3179/3179-h/3179-h.htm#chap2


Colonel Mulberry Sellers—this was some days before he wrote his letter to Lord Rossmore—was seated in his “library,” which was also his “drawing-room” and was also his “picture gallery” and likewise his “work-shop.” Sometimes he called it by one of these names, sometimes by another, according to occasion and circumstance. He was constructing what seemed to be some kind of a frail mechanical toy; and was apparently very much interested in his work. He was a white-headed man, now, but otherwise he was as young, alert, buoyant, visionary and enterprising as ever. His loving old wife sat near by, contentedly knitting and thinking, with a cat asleep in her lap. The room was large, light, and had a comfortable look, in fact a home-like look, though the furniture was of a humble sort and not over abundant, and the knickknacks and things that go to adorn a living-room not plenty and not costly. But there were natural flowers, and there was an abstract and unclassifiable something about the place which betrayed the presence in the house of somebody with a happy taste and an effective touch ...

[Sancho]

He’s a bit of a lug nut, but he’s our lug nut. Sergeant George Washington Hayduke, former Green Beret, has recently returned for Vietnam and is looking for his purpose in life when he falls in with a rag-tag group of folks on rafting trip in the Grand Canyon. They become The Monkey Wrench Gang, environmental activists, eco warriors, monkey wrenchers, that sort of thing:

Hayduke:


My job is to save the f*cking wilderness. I don't know anything else worth saving. That's simple, right?

To “Monkey Wrench” something is to render an implement of progress useless by direct action, like dumping 5 pounds of sugar into the gas tank of a bulldozer.

From The Monkey Wrench Gang, by Ed Abbey:


If God meant this here bulldozer to live He wouldn't of filled its tank with diesel fuel.

More about Hayduke:


Like so many American men, Hayduke loved guns, the touch of oil, the acrid smell of burnt powder, the taste of brass, bright copper alloys, good cutlery, all things well made and deadly.

Hayduke’s inner struggle:


Hayduke smelled something foul in all this. A smoldering bitterness warmed his heart and nerves; the slow fires of anger kept his cockles warm, his hackles rising. Hayduke burned. And he was not a patient man.

Hayduke speaks:


I piss on you from a considerable height

HAYDUKE LIVES!

[hellsapoppin]

Movie and book The Third Man by Graham Greene:


https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/5/52/Harry-lime-third-man-portrait.png/revision/latest?cb=20241202062641



The ####### was as evil as they come. But he was a charmer, dressed well, had class, was articulate, enterprising, resourceful, funny as f**k, and memorable. He was killed by his childhood friend Holly Martins and he deserved to die for his evils.

But wait - did he really die as both the book and the movie showed?

Consider all this:

•We are told from the beginning of the movie that "this is Vienna, anything can happen".
•Baron Kurtz tells Holly, "I enjoy your books as anything can happen [in them]."
•The first one to greet Harry is the cat (9 lives?).
•Harry's shoes are wing tipped (meaning the Phoenix or multiple lives).
•Holly & Harry meet at the Ferris Wheel representing the endless circle of life.
•In the Ferris Wheel Harry tells Holly 'we can never hurt each other'.
•Holly is asked at the end, 'did you kill him?' and he says 'yes' but the body is not shown.
•At the second funeral for Harry, again, his body is not shown.
•3 or 4 years after the movie The Third Man reappears as a radio series with Harry narrative his own "death" and subsequent adventures.
•4 years after that Harry appears on European TV in modern day Europe having more adventures.


Thus, the anti hero Harry Lime was NOT killed in the end of the movie. He was wickedly evil. But he was so resourceful that he managed to escape and thrive for decades to come.

Definitely one of literature's most fascinating characters.

[hellsapoppin]

Have Gun Will Travel was one of television's greatest shows. This because of its fascinating leading character Clay Alexander better known as Paladin. Book by Frank G Robertson.


Paladin:

◆Graduate of West Point Academy
◆Civil War hero
◆Marksman
◆Professional boxer
◆High class detective & bounty hunter with strong, principled moral code
◆Wine and food connoisseur
◆Reads/write Chinese with much proficiency
◆Award winning hunter who captured and killed man eating tiger in Asia
◆World traveler
◆Bon vivant who dresses superbly well
◆Lady's man whom women find irresistible




Have gun will travel, reads the card of a man
A knight without armor in a savage land
His fast gun hire, heeds the calling wind
A soldier of fortune, is a man called --- Pal-a- din
Paladin, Paladin, where do you roam
Paladin, Paladin, far, far from home
He travels on to where ever he must
A chess knight of silver is his badge of trust
There are campfire legends that the plainsmen men sing
Of the man with the gun, of the man called --- Pal-a- din

Paladin, Paladin
Where do you roam?
Far from home
Far from home ...



Definitely one of American literature's greatest characters.




I recall now that I did discuss this book earlier however, I went more in depth this time to discuss the character of Paladin.

[hellsapoppin]

Happy May Day - Beltane to all.


I am reminded of Hawthorne's story The May Pole of Merry Mount:

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+MayPole+of+Merry+Mount&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=072bf505c6b5844f&sxsrf=AHTn8zqsFnp7x_OjLdam4Tqv_7dSykKfMA%3A1746108 901111&ei=5YETaMLLBuvGp84P_cLf-QI&ved=0ahUKEwiC0qjGuoKNAxVr48kDHX3hNy8Q4dUDCBI&uact=5&oq=The+MayPole+of+Merry+Mount&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGlRoZSBNYXlQb2xlIG9mIE1l cnJ5IE1vdW50MgUQLhiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABD IEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIGEAAYBRgeMgsQABiA BBiGAxiKBTIUEC4YgAQYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQFIlyVQuANY0B xwAXgBkAEAmAG8AaABkgSqAQMwLjO4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgSgAoEF wgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICBxAuGIAEGA3CAgcQABiABBgNwgIIEA AYBxgIGB7CAgYQABgNGB7CAggQABiABBiiBMICFhAuGIAEGA0Y lwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQGYAwCIBgGQBgi6BgYIARABGBSSBwUxLj EuMqAH_h2yBwUwLjEuMrgH8gQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp


The story features my LEAST favorite character of all time: the bigoted and intolerant Governor Endicott. He is one guy I'd like to briefly put a choke hold on him and hopefully teach him to be more tolerant.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/The_Token%2C_1836_-_May-Pole_of_Merry_Mount.jpg

[Danik 2016]

For you too, Poppins and thanks for the story and link, I'm going to read it later.

[tonywalt]

a perfect literary pull for Beltane! The May-Pole of Merry Mount is such a fascinating clash of joy and repression, light and shadow. Endicott really is the embodiment of cold, puritanical severity — the killjoy of killjoys. I can understand the chokehold impulse! Hawthorne’s brilliance is how he captures that moment in history when merriment itself was seen as a threat to order. It's a reminder that even joy can be revolutionary.

Thanks for sharing — now I want to reread it by the fire with a bit of mischief in mind.

[hellsapoppin]

quote,


Danik 2016
For you too, Poppins and thanks for the story and link, I'm going to read it later.

tonywalt
a perfect literary pull for Beltane! The May-Pole of Merry Mount is such a fascinating clash of joy and repression, light and shadow. Endicott really is the embodiment of cold, puritanical severity — the killjoy of killjoys. I can understand the chokehold impulse! Hawthorne’s brilliance is how he captures that moment in history when merriment itself was seen as a threat to order. It's a reminder that even joy can be revolutionary.

Thanks for sharing — now I want to reread it by the fire with a bit of mischief in mind.




💯 for both!