What truth? That he was selfish male pig who ran for prettier without hesitation?
Printable View
What truth? That he was selfish male pig who ran for prettier without hesitation?
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.
Here lies the problem, I am talking about Madame Bovary. Flaubert shunned emotions?Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
[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?
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
My point is simple. The book is romantic. The author was a romantic author. The idiot had the most romantic love for Nastasya filipovna.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
We agree, Tsuyoiko. Many considered Jesus naive in that sense, as Paul suggests in:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
And yet, like Crime and Punishment, the final page is 'somehow positive'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Right, but a disinterested idiot, and therefore credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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’.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I do indeed. The prince is akin to Sonya or Lizaveta (another idiot) in Crime and Punishment: he is portrayed as entirely positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
The prince is probably more worried about Roghozin than Nastasya. Here is the paramount subtlety in The Idiot!Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Yeah, very positive. We all know that Dostoievisky is an optimistic by nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
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.Quote:
Right, but a disinterested idiot, and therefore credible.
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.
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.Quote:
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’.
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.Quote:
I do indeed. The prince is akin to Sonya or Lizaveta (another idiot) in Crime and Punishment: he is portrayed as entirely positive.
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.
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?
Dostoyevsky was more inflenced by himself than by romantic writers and that could be proved by his spontaneous writing style. I have no wish to explain more. 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. As for Herman Melville, all literary people had put him under the category of Transcendentalism. 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. Your hero theory cannot apply to any of them, if only you don't twisted your original meaning of that theory. 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. Romantic works cannot have only emotions. They do need some descriptions about what really happened, or the stories would otherwise not have been stories. 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. 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Virginia; do you trust more to some websites and sources or to your personal opinion based on numerous books you have read?
I well understood your irony. As I wrote to Barazov:Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
Am I guilty of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Agreed. But do you see the wonderful and overarching paradox central to The Idiot?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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!
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
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:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
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.Quote:
Dostoyevsky was more inflenced by himself than by romantic writers and that could be proved by his spontaneous writing style.
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?Quote:
I have no wish to explain more.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
As for Herman Melville, all literary people had put him under the category 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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Your hero theory cannot apply to any of them, if only you don't twisted your original meaning of that theory.
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.Quote:
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
doh! Stories need aspects of narrative or they would not happen! Amazing.Quote:
Romantic works cannot have only emotions. They do need some descriptions about what really happened, or the stories would otherwise not have been stories.
The difference between realism and romanticism is not the degree of emotions. You obviously do not grasp it.Quote:
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.
Again, explain to me how Madame Bovary is less emotional than Geral Inspector by Gogol or Hoffman's tales.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 )Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Did you ever notice a difference in Bible, a book of equal love to all humanQuote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
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?
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
[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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Have you ever heard of a term, Dark Romanticism, writers of which include HermanMelville, Nathanial Hawthorn, and many others. This schoolQuote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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.
" 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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
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.
Yes. The woman who was a sinner in Luke 7:36-50.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
Quote:
Luke 7:45___Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Yes, he loved all, but only marriage to women was acceptable in Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
The prince had a sense of the aesthetic, but agape prevailed always.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
As I wrote earlierQuote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
And worried with good reason! As for Nastasya, in her desperation she was capable of anything dreadful; she might even get herself...murdered.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
In the ending, a wonderful paradox. Victory in defeat. Success in failure. Communication in (a Swiss) silence. Miraculous. And Dostoevsky's an optimist.
Call it russian realism, they all seem pessimistic, but Tolstoy who became almost a self-help writer when went crazy. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
Virginia:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
" 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?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by virginiawang
Dostoevsky's books are a mixture of romanticism, passion and optimism, but it is my point of view.
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?
If you could have understood anything about Dark Romanticism, you wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
See, you didn't take into consideration that gloomy side of Romanticism. It is sheer ignorance. The above is the best proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo