Anyone who has ever read Fyodor Dostoyevsky, please comment

[virginiawang]

Your definition of being romantic is limited to the optimistic side even after you claimed your knowledge about the other side of the word. I am surprised to find that you joined the two sentences written by me, and twisted my meaning in such a curious manner. I never said Hemingway was a Brazilian. I find it futile to discuss with you, so I didn't even finish what you wrote. However I have to point out that your interpretation of the literary term, Romanticism is shallow, as can be proved in Post number 2.You are still thinking to be romantic is to be idealistic. You never answered me directly how you should follow Bartleby as a model. You always claimed that you've read those romantic tragedies, but whenever you used the word, romantic, you only thought about being idealistic. Here, in the work of Herman Melville, an American Romantic, how do you consider Bartleby "an idealized version symbolizing ideals you should seek for"? Please answer my question directly.
When I said Dostoyevsky's writing style being influened by his constitution, I was referring to his epileptic fits, which led to the path he took in writing, in some way. You should understand more about Dostoyevsky and his writing style before you jump into any of those conclusions.
Do you know Stream of Consciousnes is a style under the category of Psychological Realism, which had its origin in some romantic writing? American Romanticism ended around 1865, not at the beginning of the century. You made your analysis of Dostoyevsky's works from a surface level only, and you didn't seem to grasp the intrinsic spirit of them. You read Dostoyevsky's novels as a scanning machine reads its documemnts. I think to continue our discussion is futile because you seemed unable to appreciate the most valuable in such works. PERIOD WITH YOU IN THIS THREAD

[Gladys]

So from what I understand from JCamilo's argument (my own knowledge of Dostoevsky is sadly limited to C&P and The Gambler) there's Romanticism in Dostoevsky, but it's only there to be discredited, just like Leibniz's "best of all worlds" philosophy is articulated in Voltaire's Candide only to be parodied.

Like JCamilo, I am in complete agreement with this thesis, and particularly in relation to The Idiot, which I think a masterpiece. I dreamed up the very same thesis overnight but Mr Endon posted first.

Another good example would be Don Quixote and no wonder, Mishkin is also labeled as a quixotic character.

I think Prince Myskhin heroic, but the antithesis of quixotic. If you think him so, most of the characters in The Idiot would likely agree with you.

[Gladys]

After you really understand the word agape, you'll know you were not making senses...If you want to invent a new meaning to the word, agape, the discussion is not worthwhile.

To avoid confusion, let me label Myshkin's love: 'agape'...For Kierkegaard (Dostoevsky and Ibsen) agape differs from romantic love as follows...

I failed to appreciate, Virginiawang, that in labelling Myshkin's love 'agape', to be understood in an existential sense, I had infringed a dictionary meaning of the word, as used in the Greek New Testament. Are there rules for using words?

In the situations where people are arranged to get married, they can not agape because they have to do what normal couples do at night.

The prince acted out of agape, not affection. You seem to imagine that agape can’t apply in courtship or marriage. Not so, although the sad reality is that pure agape is rare in any relationship of any gender. While agape does not describe the sensual or sexual attraction between a man an a woman, agape and eros may coexist. The prince is a pattern we can aspire to.

How have I failed to communicate my contention that 'agape and eros may coexist' in a good marriage?

To get married due to agape means to have lust on the part of Jesus...Will the prince marry Nastasya or Aglaya and not perform the duty of a husband at night?

All relationships should be motivated by agape, married or unmarried, sexual or otherwise. The prince wished to marry out of love (agape). You seem to forget, Virginiawang, that in many cultures, romantic love is not the basis for marriage (e.g. arranged marriages).

You seem to feel that marriage always involves 'lust', and that the sexual relationship in marriage is tawdry in some way?

The probability that Nastasya would commit suicide if the prine left him was very little, and the fact that the prince was utterly convinced that she would showed only one thing. He was bewitched.

The prince is probably more worried about Roghozin than Nastasya. And worried with good reason! As for Nastasya, in her desperation she was capable of anything dreadful; she might even get herself...murdered.

How did you arrive this 'probability', that the prince was 'utterly convinced', and that your fact 'showed only one thing'?

1 Please answer to all my points rather than only some of those that you are interested in.

Could you possibly number your future points, Virginiawang, to ensure I don't inadvertently or wilfully miss any?

[virginiawang]

Collins English Dictionary gave the word "Agape" the following definition: Christian love, esp as contrasted with erotic love; charity.
If you wish to respect your imagination rather than facts, I won't discuss with you.

I was viewing the event from an objective standpoint. Since Nastasya had not had committed suicide at the time her first seducer insulted her and left, she would not have died if the prince had left with Aglaya. The fact that the prince was utterly convinced that she would tells us that he was bewitched, because compassion does not lead to blindness. You didn't answer my questions directly. Will the prince perform the duty of a husband after he gets married with either Aglaya or Nastasya? How will he agape at night? Answer my questions directly or stop the discussion.
Again, if you wish to analyze a novel out of your own imagiation and twist the meaning of a word accepted by all literate people, I won't discuss with you. Since you don't want to discuss with me to delve into the truth, I feel there is not a need to continue our discussion.

[virginiawang]

Can you assert that the prince feels nothing and only agapes his wife when he performs his duty at night, in the same way Jesus agaped his sheep or one loves his neighbors? Yes or No

[Gladys]

I was viewing the event from an objective standpoint.

'An objective standpoint', Virginiawang, is much to your credit.

Since Nastasya had not had committed suicide at the time her first seducer insulted her and left, she would not have died if the prince had left with Aglaya.

There is a certain logic here.

The fact that the prince was utterly convinced that she would [suicide,] tells us that he was bewitched, because compassion does not lead to blindness.

If Prince Myshkin was 'utterly convinced' of Nastasya's impending suicide, he certainly is blind. And it is a truth universally acknowledged that loving - madly, passionately - is tantamount to blindness.

Will the prince perform the duty of a husband after he gets married with either Aglaya or Nastasya?

One would hope so.

How will he agape at night?

Sensually and sexually, in all probability.

Again, if you wish to analyze a novel out of your own imagiation and twist the meaning of a word accepted by all literate people, I won't discuss with you.

I'd like to think I've curbed my recourse to imagination in this post.

Can you assert that the prince feels nothing and only agapes his wife when he performs his duty at night, tin the same way Jesus agaped his sheep or one loves his neighbors? Yes or No

No, I must admit.

[JCamilo]

Like JCamilo, I am in complete agreement with this thesis, and particularly in relation to The Idiot, which I think a masterpiece. I dreamed up the very same thesis overnight but Mr Endon posted first.

Yeah, I knew. When I replying to Mr Endon I was about to write that you also agreed, but then I decided to not do it and look like I was talking for you.

I think Prince Myskhin heroic, but the antithesis of quixotic. If you think him so, most of the characters in The Idiot would likely agree with you.

Being quixotic is not something negative neither means insane. Means just someone which believes and perception are unable see the reality and thus, end in a serie of "adventures". In this case, the natural good of Mishkin is the love for books and the hypocrisy of society are the windmills.
Anyways, it was used also under the contest of Candide- Voltaire - Leibniz: Cervantes used elements of the chivaliry poetry to build Dom Quixote but only to build critics to that literature (or norm of conduct).
Of course, Dom Quixote is a straight out satyre, humor in Dostoievisky is something subtle, usually not to provoke straight out laughs, more likely a sneer

[Gladys]

Quote:

I think Prince Myskhin heroic, but the antithesis of quixotic. If you think him so, most of the characters in The Idiot would likely agree with you.

Being quixotic is not something negative neither means insane. Means just someone which belie[f]s and perception are unable see the reality and thus, end in a serie[s] of "adventures". In this case, the natural good of Mishkin is the love for books and the hypocrisy of society are the windmills.

I am familiar with Don Quixote, the consummate romantic. Prince Myshkin is the antithesis of Don Quixote precisely because the prince alone has beliefs and perceptions attuned to reality. Here we see Dostoevsky's critique of the meanness, mediocrity and sheep-like mentality of his fellow Russians.

Let me explain how Don Quixote and Prince Myshkin are antithetical.

1. Far from delusional, the prince sees authentic good in people where others prefer blindness (delusion).
   
   
2. Chivalry is a veneer; but Myskhin's works of love (agape) are real essence (from the heart and soul) and the pinnacle of human accomplishment.
   
   
3. Don Quixote's search for adventure is romantic (aesthetic); Prince Myskhin's life of love (agape) is ethical or even religious.
   
   
4. Not obsessed with knight errantry or romantic ideals, the prince loves his neighbour without show or pageantry - he's down to earth.
   
   
5. Rather than focussed on himself and his adventures, the prince has a unique and authentic focus on others - on his neighbour, whether Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky or Lebedev.

To your eyes and to the eyes of Russian society, the prince is outrageous, exaggerated, naive, ridiculous, gullible and, yes, quixotic. To Dostoevsky the prince is Nietzsche's indomitable superman: a man in good faith (inner integrity) standing tall against popular opinion, against worldly (selfish) wisdom, and against society's norms and values. The prince is a courageous giant of integrity - tilting not at windmills - but at sham, hypocrisy, indifference, meanness and mercilessness.

That the prince is seen to fail is a measure of society's blindness and delusion. A society that tilts at windmills and thrives on veneer without the substance. Prince Myskhin may have achieved nothing in the world but he stands shoulder to shoulder with Sofia Semyonovna Marmeladova (aka Sonia or Sonechka) the love-filled young prostitute and Siberian super-hero of Crime and Punishment.

[JCamilo]

You are giving Quixote notions that he is outrageous, exaggerated, naive, ridiculous, gulible which he may be, but you are confuding that Cervantes is all that while writing. But a Quixotic character is not Alonso Quijano but model of character. Captain Ahab is quixotic, and not naive or ridiculous. Mishkin is idealistic (loving his neighbour is a romantic ideal, specially in the lighty of XIX century socialism), romantic, chivalirous. His sense of reality often places him in a sittuation of being the idiot (I repeat, one can only be an idiot with the contrast with others). He is not exactly down to earth, if that means pratical (of course, he is not dellusional to the point of creation a new identidy, but that is besides the point and not what defines quixotic, but Alonso Quijano).
Now, Ortega Y Gasset for example defines Dom Quixote as the most sane of the man. A example of hyper-reality rather than just lunacy. His fantasies are the most pratical, it is his ideals who put him in troubles. Mishkin projects his own self onw others while "interpretating" then, his own goodness is his ideal, it is what the others use to "Manipulate" him. He is very attuned to peoeple emotions and feelings, but not exactly to their pratical social interations.
Anyways, again, under the contest of Candide and Leibniz, Mishkin and Romanticism, works where previous literature elements are used as a critic, Dom Quixote is a fine example. Which was why I used Dom Quixote in first place.

I must add one thing: I am not the first to link Quixote and Myshkin. Many did before and Dostoievisky was exactly the first one. He said Quixote is in literature one of the few natural good man (good as a ideal), he calls the Quixote the greatest and saddest book and mention that Quixote is a character mocked by those inferior to him and the Poor Knight quotation is a direct reference. This only reiforces the idea that Mishkin is a idealised character to work as a critic of reality, but just like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well.

[Gladys]

Mishkin is idealistic (loving his neighbour is a romantic ideal, specially in the light of XIX century socialism), romantic, chivalrous. His sense of reality often places him in a situation of being the idiot (I repeat, one can only be an idiot with the contrast with others).

I can accept your notion of the Quixotic. I have always believed Dostoevsky deliberately created, in the prince, a character who is perceived superficially - and by many a reader - as 'idealistic, romantic, chivalrous'. And yes, he appears to the world around him as not just Quixotic, but also as naive and an idiot.

Notwithstanding, naivety actually lies in this almost universal perception, because the prince is none of these. He is a man of ethical integrity with a thoroughly existential outlook on life, who unfailingly show his love through his works (his actions). Paradoxically, his end is a triumph not a failure. Most readers fail to see any of this.

Dostoevsky's subtlety reminds me of Henry James in Washington Square, where what appears as a romance - with young Catherine Sloper jilted by fortune-hunter Morris Townsend - is actually a story of communication breakdown between loving father and daughter. But here too, readers rarely perceive the latter.

Mishkin projects his own self on others while "interpreting" then, his own goodness is his ideal, it is what the others use to "Manipulate" him. He is very attuned to people emotions and feelings, but not exactly to their practical social interactions.

Rather, I think the prince looks for the good in others. And in no sense is he manipulated, despite all appearances to the contrary. As for social interactions, I'm sure the prince has a higher, more noble focus: agape.

...Dostoievisky was exactly the first one. He said Quixote is in literature one of the few natural good man (good as a ideal), he calls the Quixote the greatest and saddest book and mention that Quixote is a character mocked by those inferior to him and the Poor Knight quotation is a direct reference. This only reinforces the idea that Mishkin is a idealised character to work as a critic of reality, but just like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well.

Dostoevsky has certainly made use of Quixotic flavours in 'The Idiot'. But there is little evidence to support your idea 'that Mishkin is...like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well', and much evidence to the contrary.

[JCamilo]

I can accept your notion of the Quixotic. I have always believed Dostoevsky deliberately created, in the prince, a character who is perceived superficially - and by many a reader - as 'idealistic, romantic, chivalrous'. And yes, he appears to the world around him as not just Quixotic, but also as naive and an idiot.

You must understand that the Prince is not an idiot. He do act like an idiot. When I told you that you are analysing the Prince as a separated unity and not a part of the text, that is why. When he uses his strong sense of ethics to deal with the social interation he is doing something foolish, not just because the others think so, but because is foolish to expect his own higher integrity, it is foolish to believe such ideal do not suffers when applied in real life, he is foolish to not adapt himself to the social norms. Of course, this is also why he have such outstandding integrity. He is not corrupted, we may say so. But Dostoievisky ends making him act like fool (not only because we all do it sometimes), it is not just about a misjudgement of others.

Notwithstanding, naivety actually lies in this almost universal perception, because the prince is none of these. He is a man of ethical integrity with a thoroughly existential outlook on life, who unfailingly show his love through his works (his actions). Paradoxically, his end is a triumph not a failure. Most readers fail to see any of this.

It is both or neither. Dostoievisky is showing real life. In Real Life, there is no real triumph or failure. The prince obviously have the triumph to remain truthful to his self. But he does not have the triumph to live with that society, which was also his intention.
Again, Just like Dom Quixote, who never could be a Knight, but had several adventures anyways.

Dostoevsky's subtlety reminds me of Henry James in Washington Square, where what appears as a romance - with young Catherine Sloper jilted by fortune-hunter Morris Townsend - is actually a story of communication breakdown between loving father and daughter. But here too, readers rarely perceive the latter.

Do not disagree, James is one of the best psychological writers after Dostoievisky (his brother helped it of course).

Rather, I think the prince looks for the good in others. And in no sense is he manipulated, despite all appearances to the contrary. As for social interactions, I'm sure the prince has a higher, more noble focus: agape.

Of course he does. What you do not understand is that I do not discredit it. The book goes beyond that however. The prince is not the perfect good man of Rousseau having fun in his life. It is about the conflicts and more than anything, Myshkin is the one who suffers the conflicts. Everything , negative and positive afects him and the book is about the effects and not about the character.

Dostoevsky has certainly made use of Quixotic flavours in 'The Idiot'. But there is little evidence to support your idea 'that Mishkin is...like Quixote, a critic of the ideal as well', and much evidence to the contrary.

but non, you already agreed with this. Quoting your answer to Mr Endon:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
So from what I understand from JCamilo's argument (my own knowledge of Dostoevsky is sadly limited to C&P and The Gambler) there's Romanticism in Dostoevsky, but it's only there to be discredited, just like Leibniz's "best of all worlds" philosophy is articulated in Voltaire's Candide only to be parodied.

Like JCamilo, I am in complete agreement with this thesis, and particularly in relation to The Idiot, which I think a masterpiece. I dreamed up the very same thesis overnight but Mr Endon posted first.

If you completelly agree with this thesis, that romantics elements are introuced to discredited (which means Dostoievisky critics those elements, since he is no rambling old man), that is like Leibniz/Dr.Pangloss on Candide (a satyre model very likely the use of Quixote), then you will have to agree that, Myshkin, who is represents the romantic elements in The Idiot (his noble idealism, being a natural good man, his ultimate ethic virtue) is also being discredited, or under critics. It is just logical.
(I would add that if someone like Dostoievisky mentions Quixote, he is aware of the double role of Quixote, so it would not be in vain, I would mention that Dostoievisky was very disapointed with his own experience in what he considered naive idealism, I would point Dostoiesviky is not a nice guy with a happy life, so he would hardly present a life without spots).
We are not mean to be like Myshkin (or do his mistakes, even if caused by his goodness) altough his ideals must be protected and praised.

[virginiawang]

Here, in the work of Herman Melville, an American Romantic, how do you consider Bartleby "an idealized version symbolizing ideals you should seek for"?

a question unanswered

[Gladys]

But Dostoievisky ends making him act like fool (not only because we all do it sometimes), it is not just about a misjudgement of others.

This is the nub of our disagreement - Dostoevsky creates a subtle third dimension which few can see. In the ending, the prince's deliberate actions are not those of a fool, irrespective of appearances or the judgement of others. That is the point, not just of the final page, but of the entire novel.

It is both or neither. Dostoievisky is showing real life. In Real Life, there is no real triumph or failure.

I'm certain Dostoevsky would characterise this view of life as sadly cynical. In real life Dostoevsky can see unalloyed triumph: with Christ crucified the archetypal triumph. Both Jesus and the prince triumph as 'suffering servants', but this subtle third dimension is 'foolishness to the wise'.

1 Corinthians 1:25___Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The prince understands the paradoxical redemptive power of suffering, for he stares at and long remembers that dreadful ‘Deposition’: the poor Holbein copy, ‘at Roghozin’s in one of his gloomiest rooms, over the door’.

But he does not have the triumph to live with that society, which was also his intention.

The epileptic prince's overarching intention is to love (agape). He triumphs, and especially so in the end: a witness to truth and love. Those around him echo Pilate's question, "What is truth?", while committing the prince to a Swiss asylum.

Of course he does [have a higher, more noble focus]. What you do not understand is that I do not discredit it. The book goes beyond that however. The prince is not the perfect good man of Rousseau having fun in his life. It is about the conflicts and more than anything, Myshkin is the one who suffers the conflicts.

The book is about the effects and the character of the prince. I have long understood that you accept the 'noble focus' of the prince. Have you understood what I mean by 'the suffering servant', a Christ-like figure, who would self-sacrifice even to death? Dostoevsky probably had in mind the Scripture:

Isaiah 53:3___He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

If you completely agree with this thesis, that romantics elements are introduced to discredited ... then you will have to agree that, Myshkin, who is represents the romantic elements in The Idiot (his noble idealism, being a natural good man, his ultimate ethic virtue) is also being discredited, or under critics. It is just logical.

Ah no. The 'romantic elements' exist exclusively in the minds of those around Prince Myshkin. And Dostoevsky systematically demolishes these elements, leaving the prince is unscathed - Nietzsche's 'Übermensch' (overman).

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…

We are not mean[t] to be like Myshkin... although his ideals must be protected and praised.

Prince Myshkin sets high goals, which Sonya in Crime and Punishment' well nigh achieves. We could do worse than to aspire to them. Is the prince's gracious treatment of Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky or Lebedev beyond us? In this sense, The Idiot is a novel full of hope.

[JCamilo]

This is the nub of our disagreement - Dostoevsky creates a subtle third dimension which few can see. In the ending, the prince's deliberate actions are not those of a fool, irrespective of appearances or the judgement of others. That is the point, not just of the final page, but of the entire novel.

Not being a fool is not a third dimension, it is only one dimension. Either he is a fool or not fool. Dostoievisky dimension is having the prince and the book as both at sametime. The existence of one does not deny the other.

I'm certain Dostoevsky would characterise this view of life as sadly cynical. In real life Dostoevsky can see unalloyed triumph: with Christ crucified the archetypal triumph. Both Jesus and the prince triumph as 'suffering servants', but this subtle third dimension is 'foolishness to the wise'.

Dostoievisky life is sadly. We have several examples of Dostoievisky desillusion. So, it is not out of character to find a book about dostoievisky and see them. The same Dostoievisky of The Idiot wrote THe PLayer, Underground Man, the chapter Great Inquisitor, The Demons, etc.

The prince understands the paradoxical redemptive power of suffering, for he stares at and long remembers that dreadful ‘Deposition’: the poor Holbein copy, ‘at Roghozin’s in one of his gloomiest rooms, over the door’.

The problem is not what prince understand about the moral virtues, but what he does not understand about social interation.

The epileptic prince's overarching intention is to love (agape). He triumphs, and especially so in the end: a witness to truth and love. Those around him echo Pilate's question, "What is truth?", while committing the prince to a Swiss asylum.

Obviously they question, The prince should be truth, he is the ideal.

The book is about the effects and the character of the prince. I have long understood that you accept the 'noble focus' of the prince. Have you understood what I mean by 'the suffering servant', a Christ-like figure, who would self-sacrifice even to death? Dostoevsky probably had in mind the Scripture:

Isaiah 53:3___He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

The sacrifice is part of the character. Dom Quixote dies, jesus dies. He obviously can not live, a living great man (the prince) while alive can change and conquer. His redemption is not the redemption of the real word, but of his own being. Or what he symbolizes.

Ah no. The 'romantic elements' exist exclusively in the minds of those around Prince Myshkin. And Dostoevsky systematically demolishes these elements, leaving the prince is unscathed - Nietzsche's 'Übermensch' (overman).

Exclusively? The prince is a romantic element, a natural good man (rousseau, another example gave by Dostoievisky besides Quixot is a Dickens character), idealistic, noble. He is romantic. It is not just on others. (The overman of Nitzches is a typical romantic character as well).

Prince Myshkin sets high goals, which Sonya in Crime and Punishment' well nigh achieves. We could do worse than to aspire to them. Is the prince's gracious treatment of Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky or Lebedev beyond us? In this sense, The Idiot is a novel full of hope.

And he fails. The basic fails is the failure with society and reality. THis is also present. In this sense, all the hope is not the prince is understanding where he fails.

[Gladys]

In saying 'But Dostoevsky ends making him act like fool', JCamilo, you miss the dimension of Nietzsche's hyper-rational superman; unless you mean that, contrary to appearances, the prince acts with inscrutable wisdom.

The prince's limited understanding of and interest in refined 'social interaction' has no significant impact on outcomes in The Idiot.

We have several examples of Dostoevsky's disillusion.

Based on my reading, I disagree. In part, because Dostoevsky has a phenomenal ability to present convincing philosophical positions contrary to his own (spectacularly so in The Brothers Karamazov).

His redemption is not the redemption of the real word, but of his own being.

Rather, the prince redeems, or at least brings comfort and joy to, the lives of so many. For instance: Roghozin, Nastasya, Aglaya, Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky, Lebedev and, finally, Vera Lebedev, Lizabetha Prokofievna, and Evgenie Pavlovitch. You may say that his redeeming influence is short-lived. Perhaps so, but life itself is short and one should 'seize the day'. Dostoevesky's existential prince lives always in the moment.

Exclusively? The prince is a romantic element, a natural good man...idealistic, noble. He is romantic. It is not just on others. (The overman of Nietzsche is a typical romantic character as well).

Exclusively. My point is that the prince is a peacemaker, focused on helping his neighbour (agape), while his fellow Russians follow ephemeral self-interest - selfishly chasing the wind. Compared to them, the prince is 'down to earth' and rooted in tangible reality. So says Dostoevsky.

And he fails. The basic fail[ing] is the failure with society and reality. This is also present. In this sense, all the hope is not the prince[; it] is understanding where he fails.

No, the prince never fails because he sees so clearly. He succeeds admirably, and this success is the critical dimension I think you're missing. He succeeds from the first page of the novel to the last. Isn't this, JCamilo, the yawning gulf between our positions?

Prince Myshkin alone succeeds in appreciating the existential nature of human reality (Dostoevsky's reality), in which society is a veneer and only individuals matter. Love is all is Dostoevsky’s existential thesis. And the prince loves much.