Anyone who has ever read Fyodor Dostoyevsky, please comment

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olga4real

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olga4real

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

---

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

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

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

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

Virginia:

Quote:

---

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

---

Which facts? Your opinion is not a fact.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

http://www.online-literature.com/for...8&postcount=31

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virginiawang

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virginiawang

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I doubt you know all the literary people. You know why? Because Melville bleak vision is not transcendental.

---

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