yeah, romantic in literature cannt be translated to normal day romantic idea. Dostoievisky is more a critic of romantic ideals than a romantic by himself (he is rather dispointed to be idealistic) unlike one of his precusors, Hugo or even Dickens.
yeah, romantic in literature cannt be translated to normal day romantic idea. Dostoievisky is more a critic of romantic ideals than a romantic by himself (he is rather dispointed to be idealistic) unlike one of his precusors, Hugo or even Dickens.
Yes. He seems to create potentially romantic relationships (e.g. Myshkin/Aglaya, Raskolnikov/Sonya, Alexei Ivanovich/Polina Alexandrovna) before systematically undermining their romantic aspects.Originally Posted by JCamilo
The most dominant concept of American Transcendentalism or Romanticism is the beauty of a soul, and we always found some Dostoyevsky's characters being childlike, innocent, impractical, and in a sense, unfit for reality. This close connection alone made me consider Dostoyevsky as one of the most romantic writers in all literature.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-22-2009 at 10:46 AM.
In Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, Nature, he presented the following ideas. Nature glimmers in harmony with the heart of a child. One enchanted by nature regains the spirit of infancy. Then in an instant, I (the autor) merge into nature and vanish, though I see.
This is almost a counterpart of a chapter in The Idiot, in which the author portrays how the idiot spent time with the kids in Swiss. I was touched each time I read that chapter where prince Myshkin told the Yepanchin family how the kids loved him and trusted him that their schoolmaster became enraged finally and wished to keep him away from the pupils lest he should have pernicious effects upon them. The most charming point is that the prince said he would tell the kids everything they wanted to know but were not told by their teacher or family, because the prince believed they had a right to the truth just as adults did. He said before he ended his speech that he thought he was a child intrinsically. Do you see the beauty of a soul here, unspoiled by the harshness of reality? He is like an infant, having connection only with wild nature.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-22-2009 at 10:48 AM.
Dostoevsky often has that theme of innocence found in children and Myshkin's childlike qualities, and the fact that he actually spent a lot of his time with children, helped to set up that innocence that Dostoevsky wanted him to have.
The difference Virginia, is that Mishikin is not heroic, idealized, a model to be followed. In Romanticism those ideals are what you seek. Mishikin tragedy is more close to the greek Comedy, he is unable to be a hero despite his virtues and they, unlike the romantic heroes, do not fall because he is victim of those. Rather because he is outplaced in the society, he is naive and not just pure. Dostoievisky is kicking in the nuts of the romantics, not praising.
I've reread Chapter 6 at your prompting: an ironic masterpiece with frequent allusions to the ending of The Idiot. Prince Myshkin's selfless treatment of poor Marie, shunned by the adults, is played out again in the ending with Nastasya Filippovna and Roghozin.
While you are right, Virginiawang, in speaking of the beauty of the soul, such beauty is ethical and spiritual rather than aesthetic and romantic. Through the prince, the Swiss children perceive truth of a spiritual nature, unblemished and pure. Neither romantic nor ideal, the Prince's truth is distasteful and objectionable to adult sensibilities: to Dr Schneider's and to schoolmaster Thibaut.
Chapter 6 ends, as does the last page of the novel, with Lizabetha Prokofievna.
As for your face, Lizabetha Prokofievna, I not only think, but am perfectly sure, that you are an absolute child--in all, in all, mind, both good and bad-and in spite of your years. Don't be angry with me for saying so; you know what my feelings for children are.
As I understand the prince, he is not really out-placed or naive. He is supremely self-sacrificing, driven by a Christ-like love. Adults, whether in Switzerland or Russia, will always find such a love offensive: excessive, threatening and mad.
Romanticism does not deal with heros and heroines, and on the contrary they deal with the trueset feelings of ordinary people. Those writers did not pretend, boast or mislead. They simply said how they felt. That's the magic. Myshkin was romantic both in his character and his love, not because he was ideal like a saint , but rather because he had a beautiful soul and devoted his heart to his love without any practical considerations. He could never be a saint but he was only childlike and innocent.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-23-2009 at 02:18 AM.
Self-sacrifice is the phrase I always associate most with Myshkin. He left Aglaya to marry Nastasya not because he was selfishly in love with a beautiful woman, but because he needed to sacrifice his own happiness for the one who needed him the most. I think when he first saw her portrait he saw more than just her beauty, he saw someone who needed his compassion.
"Books don't offer real escape but they can stop a mind scratching itself raw." David Mitchell
If prince Myshin was a saint and really so self-sacrificing, where was his compassion for Agala, to whom he was engaged already? Did he not know that it would be the greatest insult to a woman when her bethrothed left with another woman? If he had known this, why did he choose to do what he did? Is it really absurd to hurt a woman without limits in the hope of saving another woman, whom, according to you, he did not truly love? Why did he have compassion for one but oblivion for another? Will Jesus do the same, to hurt one in order to save another? A self-sacrificing saint is supposed to be one like Jesus, who poured out his love equally to all human humans. I don't think there are such stories in Bible, where Jesus wounded someone on the purpose of saving another more in need of him. Do you know such a story in Bible, please show me where.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-23-2009 at 05:40 AM.
Absolutely.
In life we are sometimes faced with the choice between two good options. Saying, "she is so unhappy", the prince chose to save the lost Nastasya rather than the less needy Aglaya. That he ultimately failed to save Nastasya or, as importantly, the needy Roghozin doesn't lessen this boundless self-sacrifice.
Indeed, the prince was sacrificed, and consigned to a Swiss asylum. Yet he would do the same again: the cost to himself is not a consideration. There's nothing of the romantic here!
But he, perhaps, did not understand the full force of this challenge; in fact, it is certain he did not. All he could see was the poor despairing face which, as he had said to Aglaya, "had pierced his heart for ever."
But you didn't answer my question above? Jesus or someone like Jesus would never have done such a thing even if he had been put in the same situation. He would not hurt anyone under any circumstances because he was a real saint. A saint will never lie. He will always keep his promise, and he will always have the wisdom to do the right thing at the right moment. Have you ever heard of a saint who did not care about his words to one woman and trampled her dignity at the instant he saw another woman? If the act were a sort of self-sacrifice and compared to Jesus, I believe Jesus would jump out of his grave and give vent to his fury.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-23-2009 at 11:59 AM.
If the book, The Idiot, does not involve selfish love and is merely an account of some deeds of self-sacrifice, how does it diffrent from Bible? I am sure you can find similar stories from Bible, the best book of self-sacrifice. Will you give me one example?
Psst, Myshkin has been accepted as a Christ-like figure and Dostoevsky wanted him to symbolize the inability for that sort of person to exist in today's society.
Oh, you haven't answered any of the questions above. If you cannot answer those questions, you don't really understand how he was like Jesus. I think he loved Nastasya at the first sight, and fell in love more and more as days went by. Though he had treated everyone he knew generously and benevolently and harbored the most beautiful sentiments, he could not conquer his heart with his head at the moment he saw Nastasya.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-23-2009 at 12:05 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote