Quote:
Originally Posted by
bazarov
I would agree. His only optimism is in Alyosha and speech to kids in TBK and in ending of Crime and Punishment; everything else is rather pessimistic (although I am trying to invent new term ''pure realism'' :D )
Call it russian realism, they all seem pessimistic, but Tolstoy who became almost a self-help writer when went crazy. :D
Virginia:
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.
First, no not come to preach a moral. You are making everyone repeat a hundred times about the reasons why Dostoievisky is not a romantic writer, yet you stubbornly repeat it. Second, I have asked you to show me how realistic writers - gave you a work to analyse, M.Bovary - and instead you still ask people to go after sites who are not a realiable source.
Read your own sentence, he is Classificated as a Psychological Realism yet you conclude he is a romantic writer. His work orignated from romantics (like all realism in the end, after all it is history, a flow of circunstances) and yet he is the same, the minute workings of a heart is something meaninglesss (plus, psychological is related to mind, Dostoievisky is analytic writer)... It is abusive.
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.
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:
Have you ever heard of a term, Dark Romanticism, writers of which include HermanMelville, Nathanial Hawthorn, and many others. This school
of writing is a part of Romanticism. How do you apply your model-to-be followed theory to these writers. Please don't twist the original meaning of your theory by something like anti-models or whatever, or it will not make sense otherwise.
Young lady, it is not the first time and I am not the first person that you assume in such arrogant manner that we did not read the obvious or know the obvious. I know what Dark Romanticism is, basically the gothic american version. And because of that, I know it is not the same as transcendentalism, because instead of a site, I read Hawthorne or Poe, and they are criticals of the movement. It may have the origem in the transcendentalism, but it is not the same thing.
And anti-heroes, anti-models are not something unheard. If you are having trouble to know about them, you are simple needing to leave the internet sites and search for other sources.
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?
The online source only points that there is transcendentalism in his texts, They do not say he is one of them, even because Melville was massivelly misunderstood and criticised during his lifetime. Because they could not see what he was talking about, because a certain Big White Whale destroyed everything.
And if you can not know what all literary people think, them do not claim they all have said anything, like you did. Futhermore, I never said Melville was not classificated under romanticism, I said he is not a typical romantic writer, his works defy the typical romanticism, that is why Melville was accepted and praised decades after his death. And it is pointless, there is no link between Dostoievisky and american writers, I have no idea why you are dealing with this pointless classification.
And My theory? The anti-hero was a typical trait of romanticism. The idealised hero also, but in a different form. But I never said you will find heroes and anti-heroes in every work.
And I did not ignored anything. The classification of Poe as a romantic is sometimes challenged, because he is already the end of it. And they are gothic writers, I hape pointed that to you. American romanticism is a later than european, thus they have different approaches.
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.
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:
You were quite mistaken when you disown Dostoyevsky as a romantic writer because he was not optimistic. Some works of Romanticism deal with subjects even more pessimistic than the subjects in Dostoyevsky's novels, for example works written by Herman Melville and Nathanial Hawthorn.
No, I said he is not idealistic. He is pessimist and that is what destroyed his idealism. Melville and Poe still idealists, even if Poe is a bit harder. I know Schopenhauer, who is a romantic philosopher and I know he is pessimist.
Most of the romanticism will deal with progress and evolution, but there is a bleak approach and it is not because of Melville or Hawthorne.
