It is better, on the whole, for you to know the truth about those two schools of writing than to imagine them as much as you like.
It is better, on the whole, for you to know the truth about those two schools of writing than to imagine them as much as you like.
I think Myshkin is Christ-like, not godlike. 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. But in the denouement, he puts his own feelings aside and goes with Nastasya because his capacity for agape takes precedence over his romantic love for Aglaya.Originally Posted by virginiawang
The main thing I dispute is that Myshkin was ever "in love" with Nastasya. I think that what he felt for her was pity, agape, Christian love. On first seeing her portrait, he notices her beauty, but immediately draws our attention to her frailty:
"She was rather thin, perhaps, and a little pale."
and
"It's a wonderful face," said the prince, "and I feel sure that her destiny is not by any means an ordinary, uneventful one. Her face is smiling enough, but she must have suffered terribly-- hasn't she? Her eyes show it--those two bones there, the little points under her eyes, just where the cheek begins."
By saying that Myshkin loved everyone equally as Jesus taught, I'm not claiming that he is devoid of human feeling. I'm claiming that his capacity for Christian love was so great that he sacrificed his own happiness with Aglaya, who he was "in love" with.
Don't let the fact that he recognised Nastasya's beauty fool you into thinking that that's why he "loved" her.
On the contrary, I think his compassion for Nastasya exceeded his romantic love for Aglaya.
He lapsed into mental illness because of the realisation that his efforts to save Nastasya were in vain.
I agree that it seems unlikely that Nastasya would have committed suicide. The important point is that Myshkin believed she would, and I take that as further evidence of his compassion, rather than of his romantic love.
I see what you mean, and I agree that Dostoevsky was trying to show that it is impossible for one who is so ideal to exist in society. I think the message of the book is more like "it's pointless to try to be too good", so in a sense you're right.
Last edited by Tsuyoiko; 06-25-2009 at 11:53 AM.
"Books don't offer real escape but they can stop a mind scratching itself raw." David Mitchell
You are judging these events on a surface level. The fact that the prince had been happier with Aglaya than with Nastasya does not tell us that he was more in love with Aglaya. You are not God. How do you know what lay behind his mind? How can you analyze the workings of his heart step by step? You are neither the author nor the prince. I presented my views as an observer. The prince hurt Aglaya and left with Nastasya. He married her after a fortnight. She ran away with another man right before the wedding and was killed. The prince became an everlasting idiot after the night he spent with the corpse and the man who killed her.
Love works beyond our consciousness. The prince seemed to be how you described him, but you didn't see his innermost urges.
You agreed that Nastasya would not commit suicide if the prince left him. The fact that the prince was deeply convinced that she should proved the fact that the prince was utterly bewitched. Great compassion does not lead to blindness. or why didn't he think that Aglaya would do something awful when in fact she wouldn't? Why did he only consider Nastasya as the one who would face danger? Oh, you haven't told me why the prince chose the two most pretty women to fall in love with if he only had equal compassion for everyone, just like Jesus. Once he entangled himself in feelings of love, you can never compare him with Jesus or analyze him as he appeared. You have to delve deeper into his heart.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-25-2009 at 12:37 PM.
He was happier with Aglaya because she was not that complicated and unhappy, and that is also why he choose Nastasya instead of Aglaya - she is more in need.
You're not God or writer or Prince and so is everyone here - we are all just observers.
P.S. Tsuyoiko, excellent comments
At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.
To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
If you need me urgent, send me a PM
As a mere observer, I see, the simple fact that he chose Nastasya rather than Aglaya speaks the truth.
Last edited by virginiawang; 06-25-2009 at 12:48 PM.
What truth? That he was selfish male pig who ran for prettier without hesitation?
At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.
To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
If you need me urgent, send me a PM
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?
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.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=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?
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote