Anyone who has ever read Fyodor Dostoyevsky, please comment

[virginiawang]

If Prince Myshkin had had agape for everyone like Jesus and was a saint with wisdom, he wouldn't have been misled into believing that Nastasya would die if he left with Aglaya. He would have applied his widom and compassion for both the two women, and so kept his promise, married Aglaya, and perhaphs did something else for Nastasya. In fact this hypothosis does not make too much sense, because his love for the two women is not agape in itself. However I made this hypothosis to show you the fact that the prince was a man bewitched, though he had great compassion.You have to admit that some influence from a woman had its effect upon him, and that led him to take the path which a saint with wisdom and compassion would not have taken

[virginiawang]

[QUOTE=JCamilo;742816]None, Dostoievisky sytle may be born from romantic writers, but he is not one. In Literature the fact you are under influence of writer does not means you belong to that writer style.[QUOTE]
You didn't follow the previous thread as I thought you said, and asked me to write 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.

[virginiawang]

He was influenced by himself? That works well. Another thing, Spontaneous writing style (something more applied to surrealists french writers) does not eliminated influence at all.
You better explain youself. Just saying things out of blue and not explaining it is a pointless argument. We should trust you basead on your blue eyes only?
And you better explain how you found a single writer that is not under the power of influence considering how himself said about Gogol influence, how anyone can see Dickens (and other other novelists) giving form to Dostoievisky, his daily "fight" with Tolstoy, Pushikin, bible... Before coming to claim his lack of influence.

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.

[virginiawang]

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.

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.

[virginiawang]

" 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?

[virginiawang]

I never applied the use of heroes and anti-heroes to them. I said romantics have the tendency to use such idealized figure, but not all of them. I care little for them as they have no place in this argumentantion. Dostoievisky is not one of them, that simple. But I could easily build the argument, as Thomas Carlyle is one of the main influences of them - He is very similar to Emerson by the way and Carlyle main theory of history is the existence of heroes.

I would ask you to read the books and explain them instead of giving such answer. Madame Bovary and Flaubert, the archetypical realistic writer. By the way, Balzac, Machado de Assis, Zola, Tchekhov - they are filled with emotions and are realist. So as a group your claims are just plain wrong.

But in your post, you once said, heros are what Romanticism seeks for. They are models to be followed. You ignored a branch of Romanticism, which deals with pessimism, as I said in my earlier posts, it was called Dark Romanticism, which has nothing to do with heros or models. You made a mistake obviously in your original post by saying all romantic writers seek for ideals, heroes, and models. Don't twist the original meaning of your post, something written by yourself.

[virginiawang]

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.

[virginiawang]

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.

[Gladys]

Dostoievisky is not optmistic. Wuthering Heights ends with a loving couple, united, a version of Cathy-Heatcliff couple, but they are honets and good. Bronte is bleak but her final is totally optmistic.

Totally optimistic? Isn't there is something brutish, savage and wild - out of control in both relationships: Catherine with Heathcliff, and Cathy with Hareton? For Emily Bronte, life is necessarily out of control. As for Dostoevsky, both you and Barazov, seem to underestimate the massively understated hope inherent in his writings.

Not only I see, like I pointed a hundred times that the contradiction also works to show the flaws of Mishkin, thus a critic of him.

If you could really see 'the wonderful and overarching paradox', you would not give minimal attention to what is the central thesis of 'The Idiot' - you and all but Tsuyoiko.

In particular, you fail to grasp the prince's love for the murderer Roghozin that is so fundamental to 'The Idiot' - the story begins and ends with Roghozin, not with Nastasya. Dostoevsky views the prince as a pattern (the suffering servant) for us to follow. Here also is his optimism.

Or can you give me an example where God is attracted by a woman from the Bible?

Yes. The woman who was a sinner in Luke 7:36-50.

Luke 7:45___Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

Do you really think the prince love Aglaya and Nastasya as Jesus loved his sheep, or as one loves his neibhors. If it were so, the prince could have chosen Rogazine or Ippolot to get married with, for a man made no difference from a woman to him, who only had agape for everyone.

Yes, he loved all, but only marriage to women was acceptable in Russia.

you have to admit some sort of enchantment between a man and a woman was also involved, in addition to his great compassion.

The prince had a sense of the aesthetic, but agape prevailed always.

First of all, the statement that Nastasya would commit suicide if the prince left with Aglaya was not true.

As I wrote earlier

The prince is probably more worried about Roghozin than Nastasya. Here is the paramount subtlety in The Idiot!

And worried with good reason! As for Nastasya, in her desperation she was capable of anything dreadful; she might even get herself...murdered.

Do you really think such a hyper-sensitive and delicate young man to not have heeded the vacissitudes around him at all, as a God did?

You're right in saying the prince is very human and has to battle emotions which would inhibit agape. And battle he does. He fights the good fight, and prevails heroically - though from a worldly standpoint, he's a total failure.

In the ending, a wonderful paradox. Victory in defeat. Success in failure. Communication in (a Swiss) silence. Miraculous. And Dostoevsky's an optimist.

[JCamilo]

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'' )

Call it russian realism, they all seem pessimistic, but Tolstoy who became almost a self-help writer when went crazy.

Virginia:

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.

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.

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.

" 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.

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.

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.

[virginiawang]

The example you gave me did not present Jesus being attracted, and he remained quite unmoved. Did he respond with fervor ?
You didn't address my point. If he only had agape for all people, how did he fall in love with two women? The definition of agape does not include love between a man and a woman. By the way, no one forced him into marriage. He could have chosen not to get married just like Jesus who had only agape for all people.
"prevail" is not the right word. A sense of esthetic is not even an excuse. Yes or No. When affection between a man and a woman gets involved, it is no longer "agape", according to a dictionary.
After her seducer insulted her and left, she didn't commit suicide. She would not have died if the prince had left with Aglaya. It is a more objective way of looking at things.
Let me tell you. The fact that the prince had love feelings for a woman, he feelings could not be called agape. That's according to a dictionary. If he had to battle emotions that inhibit agape, the real success would be to leave both women. Please learn the definition of the word,"agape" before you jump into any conclusions. Even the prince himself admitted once that he did love Nastasya and Aglaya as well. This sort of love is not agape.

[Olga4real]

Hello, I read Notes from the Underground a few years ago, and my soul was immensely quaked by the description of a sick man in this book, during the time I read it, and for quite some time after I read it. Then I started to read some other books written by him and I soon read most of the books written by this Russian author through the course of some years. His stories always end in a deathly sadness, but they are all romantic. That made me wonder at times why people who act in a romantic way cannot enjoy felicity at the end, or is it only a story that does not need too much thought? The sadness in some of his stories adds a tinge of beauty to romance, when without it, they wouldn't have been so beautiful. Do beauty, romance and filicilty coexist in real life? What do you think?

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.

[virginiawang]

I don't like my writing to be corrected by any one in one way or another, so I'll soon make it disappear. Do you not think it is rather sad for a man who reads literature to resort to such trick to assert homeself, in a discussion or a debate? Mr. barozov?

[virginiawang]

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).

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

[virginiawang]

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.

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