Anyone who has ever read Fyodor Dostoyevsky, please comment

[virginiawang]

The mainstream writer of American Romanticism once presented an idea about beauty in his essay, Nature. Beauty emerges only when you encounter nature coincidently. It submerges into the depth of water if you manage to seek for it.
I totoaly agree with him.
Once I had a chance to be photographed in a photo studio, for my college required some photos by the time I was about to graduate, and the photographer started to give instructions as to how I should look, where I should look at, the position of my hat, my postures, or the smile on my face when I sat before the camera. I did as I was told and applied myself to the task of posing, or looking nice, but the harder I tried, the more awkward I looked in my photos. Utterly perplexed, an idea cropped up in my mind one day. I rushed to the photo studio and told the photographer not to give any instructions and to shoot the photo when I was unaware of it. That man was quite smart and he got my point immediately. Again I was sit before the camera, but this time he began by chatting with me something about my boyfriend. My current of thoughts was directed to a course which drew such fervor to my heart, though I was still looking at the camera. "Click", he snapped the photo, and he succeeded. Again and again he did the same thing, and I ended up with a pack of photos in which I looked wonderful. I was really delighted when I glanced throuh the photos.
The photographer captured the momentary beauty.
The same idea applies to writing as well, so I don't think we should re-write our works over and over again when the inspiration leaves us. One of these days, I read a part of the introduction to the book, The Idiot, and I learned that, unlike his friend, Turgenev, who never sat down to write any of his novels before he worked out a detailed plan of his novels, Dostoyevsky began with the main idea of his novel and never had a carefully worked-out plan of it or its characters. I can quite understand the way he wrote his novels. His inspirations and momentary emotions, which followed one by one in a flow, led him to write, so he never made plans beforehand, for he didn't quite know himself what would come into his head the next moment. He never attempted to create beauty, and beauty visited him almost each time he wrote. That is the reason why I always consider him as one of the most romantic writers I've ever read.

[PoeticPassions]

I suppose it depends how you define "romantic." If you just mean it to be the beauty in his works, then sure. As a literary movement, he was not part of Romanticism or associated with romantic authors. His novels tend more to psychological realism, and his works are deemed as precursors to existentialism.

But in any case, your post, virginia, reminds me of something Dostoevsky once said: "Beauty will save the world."

[virginiawang]

The gap between realism and romanticism is the feelings involved. Realists writers portrayed events and people drily without emotions getting involved, and those writers of naturalism, an outgrowth of realism even did their best to remain calm and objective. They more often than not did not give their chracters names. However Dostoyevsky was driven by his feelings to write, and as far as that is concerned, Dostoyevsky could never be classified as a realist. As for existentialism, I believe his feelings did direct him to some hidden truth about life.

[Gladys]

Mishkin ... often trust them based on his own goodness. Apparently, irony in Dostoisviksy is lost by the feelings towards Mishkin.

No. Prince Myshkin trusts the likes of Ippolit and Roghozin simply because he rightly perceives sparks of goodness in them.

Dostoievisky is cynical, are you joking me? The underground man, his own experience that almost resulted with his death on Siberia, brothers karamazov, works of genial cynic

Cynical? The several Dostoevsky novels I have read are full of restrained hope - even Crime and Punishment. And Brothers Karamazov, most will agree, is thoroughly inspiring despite grim circumstances. Dostoevsky paints a penetrating, if uncomfortable, picture of human life that accentuates the positive in people.

...the book name is The Idiot, and even if the Russian name is not perfectly fit.

The novel's title, The Idiot, is ironic. The prince is surrounded by idiots! As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, Prince Myshkin is the sanest of men, although all around him would wish to think otherwise.

There is much more to The Idiot, JCamilo, than your two dimensional interpretation would have us believe.

[PoeticPassions]

Dostoevksy, still, was not a romantic author. Romanicism has a lot more than feelings involved.. it is a movement which encompasses a lot of things (mainly a revolt against aristocratic social and political norms and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature, with a focus on imagination, feelings, aesthetic pleasure, etc--. think Blake, Shelley, Wordsworth, etc). Dostoevsky came right after the Romantic Movement, though still influenced by it.

As for realism, he is not fully realistic. There is a lot of psychology to his works, this is why I see it as a psychological realism (though I think his works are so great and vast that they cannot be fully catagorized), and definitely existentialism (esp. in Notes from Underground)

[virginiawang]

"The first rise of the psychological novel as a genre is said to have started with the sentimental novel of which Samuel Richardson's Pamela is a prime example"
Sorry, I haven't quite understood the term Psychological Realism until I read some articles online, and the quote I offered above showed that psychological realism originated from some romantic writing.

[Gladys]

There is a lot of psychology to his works, this is why I see it as a psychological realism (though I think his works are so great and vast that they cannot be fully catagorized), and definitely existentialism (esp. in Notes from Underground)

Prince Myshkin in The Idiot is an exemplar of the existential man. Both Dostoevsky and his existential father, Soren Kierkegaard, were blessed with exceptional insight into human psychology.

[Tsuyoiko]

Will you give me another example where Jesus wounded one living being for the purpose of saving another more in need of Him?

To compare Myshkin with Jesus is not to say that we can find a parallel for everything Myshkin does in something Jesus did. It is just to say that their overriding motivations were similar. Since their backgrounds were entirely different, and the situations in which they found themselves were entirely different, it's pointless to look for parallels in their specific actions. But we can certainly see them in their characters: they were both motivated by compassion and self-sacrifice above all else.

I argue that he sees with incomparable insight, with the vision of genius. Prince Myshkin alone is able to filter out the bad and see clearly the good in such pariahs as Ippolit and Roghozin.

How is such fearless magnanimity and selflessness naive?

Mishkin have a vision of genious? He is a mockery, Dostoieviksy intents him as a critiic of naivity...

I don't think these two viewpoints are entirely incompatible. Myshkin is naive in the sense that he lacks the experience necessary to survive in society. However, prior to the vase scene, we are aware of his conviction that he will break the vase. So, as well as the power to see into other people's souls and divine the good in them, he has the power of introspection. This shows us the depth of his emotional intelligence, both inter- and intrapersonal. His naivete is "external", it's an extrinsic trait of his character, due to the fact that he has spent so long away from society. But his emotional intelligence is intrinsic, it is the essence of Myshkin.

He is a mockery, Dostoieviksy intents him as a critiic of naivity...How come he saw really what is underneath his peers? He often trust them basead on his own godness. Apparently, irony in Dostoisviksy is lost by the feelings towards Mishkin.

I have to disagree here. If anything, Dostoevsky intended Myshkin as a critique of society. He characterises Myshkin as an idiot to show us how society would view a person who is completely pure in his nature. There is irony here, but it is in the fact that society would reject the pure of heart. The parallel with Jesus seems blindingly obvious.

[virginiawang]

Romanticism differs from all genres in that it mainly involes feelings and intuitions, and different writers had vent their feelings in different areas in the time and place they lived in. Therefore those aspects that you mentioned above are only the workings of their heart, which is the focus of Romanticism. As I said in my last post, psychological realism stems from some sort of romantic writing, so it is a romantic form intrisically. If you had classified Dostoyevsky as a writer of psychological realism, you already admitted that he was a romantic writer.

[virginiawang]

However Dostoyevsky was driven by his feelings to write, and as far as that is concerned, Dostoyevsky could never be classified as a realist. As for existentialism, I believe his feelings did direct him to some hidden truth about life.

I explained in that post, that Dostoyevsky did explore some hidden meanings of life, but that did not deny the fact that he was driven by his impulses to write all the time, and that made him a romantist.

[virginiawang]

[QUOTE=Tsuyoiko;741729]To compare Myshkin with Jesus is not to say that we can find a parallel for everything Myshkin does in something Jesus did. It is just to say that their overriding motivations were similar. Since their backgrounds were entirely different, and the situations in which they found themselves were entirely different, it's pointless to look for parallels in their specific actions. But we can certainly see them in their characters: they were both motivated by compassion and self-sacrifice above all else.

The fact that they are situated in different eras, places and conditions in life does not deny one fatal point, and that is Jesus would never have hurt one living being for the purpose of saving another. If it were not for love, such a compassionate and good-natured man, the idiot, would never have done such a thing to hurt another, Agaly, whom he also cared quite a lot. He loved Nastasya more than he was aware of it. You talked about motivations, but to think and to act differ to a great extent. You may say you wish to do something, but that doesn't mean you will do it without fail. You may have good intentions, but you probably do the opposite in the end. Who knows?

[Tsuyoiko]

The fact that they are situated in different era, place and conditions in life does not deny one fatal point, and that is Jesus would never have hurt one living being for the purpose of saving another. If it were not for love, such a compassionate and good-natured man, the idiot, would never have done such a thing to hurt another, Agaly, whom he also cared quite a lot. He loved Nastasya more than he was aware of it. You talked about motivations, but to think and to act differ to a great extent. You may say you wish to do something, but that doesn't mean you will do it without fail. You may have good intentions, but you probably do the opposite in the end. Who knows?

I think your reluctance to accept the comparison is based on your denial that Myshkin was motivated entirely by compassion and self-sacrifice. What do you think he should have done in the situation? In other words, what would Jesus have done?

Jesus never claimed that we should never hurt people, on the contrary, he was perfectly aware that it was sometimes inevitable for the greater good:

I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me

[Gladys]

Myshkin is naive in the sense that he lacks the experience necessary to survive in society.

Myshkin and Jesus had about the same likelihood of surviving in society, yet would you describe Jesus as naive?

[virginiawang]

A man left his betrothed to spend time with another woman and marry her after a fortnight. Will anyone believe he was sacrificing himself like Jesus? I wouldn't if I were the first one. I am sure I would get extremely angry if he said he did it for the greater good. How about you?
Attachment between a man and a woman is beyond our power to reason. You may say something but do something quite different. You may have reasons to believe you are doing something like God, but you cannot figure out how your feelings go all the time.

[virginiawang]

[QUOTE=Tsuyoiko;741729] His naivete is "external", it's an extrinsic trait of his character, due to the fact that he has spent so long away from society. But his emotional intelligence is intrinsic, it is the essence of Myshkin.

I agree with you in what you said about the prince's emotional intelligence. People who are hyper-sensitive are often found intuitive in many situations where most ordinary people do not feel a thing. They tend to look into their inner selves more often and are always ready to discern the subtleties in their surroundings. However I don't think his naivete is only an external trait. It stemmed from the purity of his heart, the most inner part of himself, which led him to the path he took.