joe curtin what? Really? can you go into that more because I think these characters are some of the best and most unique I have ever seen they are essentially humans.
He actually didn't write in a stream of consciousness style. He wrote down the main ideas first in his notebooks, then elaborated on those ideas, and finally, after completing the intellectual process, he would write his ideas in the form of a narrative.
A very interesting discussion, although I sincerely don't understand Dostoevsky's reputation as being the most difficult of Russian writers. If anything, I think he's the most transparent and probably the best storyteller of the lot. He certainly was a brilliant philosopher, but as a writer he doesn't hide behind anything. The greatest Russian writer perhaps, but I don't think the most complicated.
His books are rather layered and can be read several different ways. 1: Narrative. Very strong, mixing crime and love with vibrant characters. 2: Philosophical and religious. Also very strong, with space and vigor given particularly to FD's antagonists, like Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov. Redemption through just suffering and almost holiness through unjust suffering are themes in all his works. You understand this level a LOT more if you know the Bible and church tradition. History is useful too. 3: Subjective. Characters lie and distort, but so does FD as the narrator. Trust no one! 4: Metaphorical. Mostly of emotional and sometimes religious nature, and actually serve as closing arguments for some of his characters when they can't find the intellectual arguments they need. 5: Political. This is always the backdrop, and should be kept in mind at all times. God is dead, what are the consequences and how does the resulting war between science and mysticism affect humans in particular and society in general? 6: Allegorical/transpositional. Characters as representations of aspects of humanity or aspects of the human soul. The Idiot for example reads very differently indeed once you realize that Mysjkin and Rogozhin are the same person, and that the novel is an FD version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Karamazov is even worse when it comes to this. Fjodor is both the human soul, God and Russia, and his sons the remaining aspects after the former has been murdered: science, religion, emotion. This what FD thought radical intellectuals had actually done in the real world, and he wrote about it in the novel. Karamazov reads just very differently indeed with this in mind. This stuff also ranges from sociology and geopolitics to psychology and religion. It's all the tough issues he wasn't able to describe and fully explore in prose, so they are instead there as allegories or fragments of allegories. It is the heart of Dostoyevski. He lies to you to teach you deeper lessons. Just in general, if you think these are simple, straightforward books, may I humbly suggest that you might have missed some things.
You are loved and cherished. You have nothing to fear. There is nothing you can do wrong. If I had to boil this entire message down to one sentence, it would run this way: You are loved. And if I had to boil it down further, to just one word, it would (of course) be, simply: Love.
Where will the eyes of Dostoevsky look at? This look does not look at the outside. I seem to stare at the inside of the heart of the person. I do not know the writer who stared at the human inside as him. I thank for upload.
Sadly (tragically, even), it is a view that is very widely shared in these times when the message of Christianity has so often been co-opted by the rigid and unimaginative.
+Danny Berry She's utterly flabbergasted that a Christian could be interested in fiction. That's not a problem with Christianity or with fiction - that's a problem with her own seemingly narrow experiences. Has she never heard of someone like Flannery O'Connor, let alone John Milton or Dante Alighieri? Astonishing naivete.
Yes - and shocking how, if you listen carefully, she had almost completely misunderstood Dostoevski as a relativist. Williams’ answer to her “polyphony” question is pure perfection.
Anyone have any theories on the significance in 'The Brothers Karamazov' of the scene in which the monastery's most pious elder dies and begins to rot and stink the place out within hours? Everyone had anticipated that this old monk might one day achieve sainthood. But his premature decomposition rather puts them all in a spin and has them questioning everything. I don't grasp Dostoevsky's meaning here, and this episode has been troubling me for some time. I assume it's symbolic, but of what I cannot fathom. Come on Rowan, help me out. Or anyone else for that matter.
Many Saints were not given the gift of incorruptibility of their corpses, but this doesn’t make them any less Saints than those who were. Dostoevsky was making exactly this point, that sanctity is not strictly bound to the miraculous. Faith and holiness are what counts
The 'hero' of the novel, as Dostoevsky tells us at the beginning is Alyosha, who is a monk. But Fr Zosima has told Alyosha he must leave the monastery and go out in the world. Zosima is a very unconventional monk. His enemy, the half crazed ascetic Fr Ferraton, is much closer to the traditional Orthodox ideal. In my understanding Zosima, by stinking, is driving Alyosha out of the monastery and making the wider point that the old separation from the world is no longer what is required, that Christians should engage with the world. But one should also note that the Devil in conversation with Ivan (but is the Devil really Ivan talking to himself?) refers to the naughty trick he played on Alyosha. Note again that although Alyosha is terribly upset by Zosima's body stinking he continues to regard him as his spiritual father.
"POLYPHONIC, I know a four syllable word- Polyphonic. I think I will use it in a sentence. Wow, that sounds intelligent. I think I will use it again- polyphonic." Unfortunately, this leads to a homophonic analysis.
@@liammurphy2725 I think this was actually a perfect word - or at least a very valid one. Polyphony has to do with the layering of differest octave registers over one another so as to create different musical intervals at various moments in a number of different combinations, almost creating something like "musical space" which is very hard to describe -- and which may be a rich analogy for the almost ineffable drama of a late Dostoevskyan novel -- the varying elements within the underground man, or the outpouring of Zosima before the world, before all of creation, before Alyosha. One could offer think about, however, what makes for the consonance, even when a governing or dominant musical key isn't so clear cut, but certainly there -- almost what Williams talks about right after they discuss the word... and with what might be said about poetry as such
I might also add that the question of poetry as such with Williams introduces bears on the question which seemed to be underlying the conversation concerning the characters and their arguments: how do we intend the content of a voice (polyphony means many voices) in Dostoevsky, and do so with respect to the fact that the novel is not simply chaos, nor is it easily wrapped up in a bow?
The female interlocutor seems to have no clue what she's talking about. Dostoyevsky's searing theological imagination totally eludes her and I can sense Rowan Williams thinking: "really?" The bit about polyphony being antithetical to a theological perspective was very difficult to listen to. So naive. The Trinity? The polyphony of J.S. Bach and other Christian composers? Not sure this interviewer has a clue what Christian theology is actually about.
The reason why the Russian novels and the Russia presented on the news is just incredibly easy to explain: The government controlled every aspect of news shown to residents and international viewers, and the fact that the government couldn’t control the contents of novels and poetry….the men in the top chairs tried hard to repress novels, but they always seemed to circulate anyway.
She's got quite a lot of preconceived notions about what she thinks a Christian is and what An Archbishop should be interested in...nonetheless, an interesting discussion.
so basically what she is saying is this: If you are a catholic christian you shouldn't read FD for he is not only a "contradictory" christian (meaning he himself had his doubts expressed more than anything and yet choose to believe) but also he is a russian orthodox christian who declared that the Roman catholic church wasn't a christian institution at all. As well as the implication that him, the archbishop, being a man of God shouldn't get involved with secularisms of any kind... What the archbishop is saying is this: Yes FD is multidimensional and even "contradictory" at times however he expresses the utter despair of human existence and its dilemma- "we will live it then we will understand it" and that's faith. Also the archbishop implies that it would be a monumental loss for any intelectual to deprive himself from the world's greatest literary works. In summary, Dostoyevsky once said: "I am with Christ, He is the truth, however if somehow someone were to prove to me that he is not with the truth I would prefer to be with Him than with the truth."
What is this lady talking about? A polyphonic view of the world means questioning only one God? Dostoevsky only believed in one God and very devoutly so. He also believed in one church, specifically the Russian Orthodox Church. So, really his view of the world was tending towards monophonic, but those are odd words to describe someones views in the first place.
@@texasvet2729 Lol you can't be serious. For one thing, it really isn't a common word in literature (across any genre). Anyone who's read at least a handful of books across different topics would recognize this. Secondly, the fact you think you can derive how much knowledge a person has from a single sentence in a UA-cam comments section (regarding the use of the word 'polyphonic') is egotistical, pseudo-intellectual and quite frankly laughable. Be honest and admit you've tried to purvey your own warped sense of your own intelligence and it's backfired, you've made yourself look a fool. While we're at it, how many of Dostoevsky's novels have you actually read? My guess is not many...
While I thought some of the journalist’s questions were excellent, I very quickly became annoyed by her questions rather disparagingly beginning with the words (among others), “As the Archbishop of Canterbury…,” as though Williams by his office was an ancient, weird anachronism entirely outside of the world of real people. Also, I perceived small bits of prejudice against his intellect, as though any person who outwardly and often fervently represents the faith of Christ must be inherently a fool. And that attitude has a nasty habit of redounding to the person who gave words to the prejudice in the first place, as we heard in this interview.
Ironic that he has an interest is Dostoevsky because Dostoevsky would have certainly condemned his theological views. It's as if Dostoevsky had already written Williams into his literature in the form of Ivan Karamazov - they both seem to have the same respect for the biblical text and the same confidence in the belief that "anything is permissible." How a man who worships at the alter of leftist relativism could strike a fancy with Russian theology, in particular the conservative realist Dostoevsky, boggles my mind.
Shoahshana Goldberg-Shekelstein Like they said in the interview, you have to make a distinction between Dostoevsky's views in real life and his ability to convey a plurality of views through his characters in his novels. Dostoevsky is NOT a "conservative realist" when it comes to his fiction.
Lynn Turman The nihilist, socialist, and otherwise "progressive" characters are always portrayed as the main antagonist (Pyotr Stepanovich + crew, Smerdyakov), someone who eventually redeems himself (Raskolnikov, Shatov), or a subsidiary character whose views are illustrated to appear farcical and ridiculous (Lebezyatnikov, Ivan Karamazov). Just to name a few. Dostoevsky's political views are extremely clear in how he forms and portrays his characters. Yes, a plurality of views are expressed in the book, but that doesn't mean he agrees with them. The Grand Inquisitor is certainly not written because Dostoevsky is secretly a Catholic. He hated Catholics, and he makes this abundantly well known in his novels.
Shoahshana Goldberg-Shekelstein According to Williams (as stated in this interview--and I'm paraphrasing), one of the things that makes Dostoevsky such a great writer was his ability to present an argument (through his characters) for something (Catholicism, atheism) that he himself was opposed to. I think Williams at one point even claims that Dostoevsky made a better argument FOR these things in his novels than even the real life practitioners did. I'm not defending Williams or even necessarily agreeing with him, I'm just trying to answer your question as to how someone could be attracted to a writer who has seemingly opposite views.
Shoahshana Goldberg-Shekelstein Have you read Dostoevsky's A WRITER'S DIARY? I'm reading it right now. It's pretty interesting. It's kind've like a 19th century version of a blog rather than an actual diary. You're right, he really was conservative: very patriotic, pro-war, anti-Catholic. And by today's standards, anti-semitic. He has a whole chapter where he defends his views as NOT being anti-semitic that when filtered through a modern sensibility, only serves to make him seem more so. Personally, he's my favorite writer. I find his unique sensibility (a dualism containing both the need for Faith & the acknowledgement of doubt) to be very modern & applicable to the zeitgeist amidst the 21st century.
Does this journalist really think that Dostoevski was a relativist? Next time the BBC sends someone to interview a great intellectual about Dostoevski, it might be a good idea to first check that they actually understand Dostoevski’s work. She clearly doesn’t.
This woman embarrasses herself. Does she want a conversation or an interrogation. Whilst she claims to appreciate Dostoyevsky she doesn't seem to appreciate he actually has a very fixed worldview and a vision of the good life, he ain't a liberal missy, and I can't believe she seems to want to push him as one! Of course he shows a whole gamut of characters and worldviews, but he shows, by a presentation of their lives, where their false visions end up- madness, suicide, despair etc.
'Crime and Punishment' I considered to be black humor. The misery is heaped on endlessly. I laughed all the way through the novel. The novel is the literary equivalent of theatrical overacting.
Anyone have any theories on the significance in 'The Brothers Karamazov' of the scene in which the monastery's most pious elder dies and begins to rot and stink the place out within hours? Everyone had anticipated that this old monk might one day achieve sainthood. But his premature decomposition rather puts them all in a spin and has them questioning everything. I don't grasp Dostoevsky's meaning here, and this episode has been troubling me for some time. I assume it's symbolic, but of what I cannot fathom. Come on Rowan, help me out. Or anyone else for that matter.
I'll take a stab. I think he's showing that even the most pious person who has dedicated their life to God and done all sorts of good deeds falls short of true righteousness. The comparison is at the end where he makes a point of saying the young boy, who was a bit onery, had no odor. He was the one that was genuinely pure. It's a statement that fits nicely within Taoism.
Brothers Karamazov should be considered the greatest novel ever written...
I think it is. Freud, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre and Einstein claimed so.
Dial L for Literal better listen what the popular authorities say and obey put the shackles on
Crime and punishment is a close second but you are right it is his best
I got a copy delivered to me last month. I cannot wait to read it!!!
joe curtin what? Really? can you go into that more because I think these characters are some of the best and most unique I have ever seen they are essentially humans.
Dostoevsky was a mad genius who wrote his novels so fast they look like streams of consciousness, which in itself was revolutionary in the novel
Care to elaborate, please?
+Kelly Tardivo Read about polyphonic styles of fiction. Dostoevesky is often classified as using said style
+villaparis2 He dictated some of them them. Some of his beliefs he held can more described as close minded than genius.
I'm reading crime and punishment for the 2nd time now and his bias is much more evident to me now. Still an absolute joy to read
He actually didn't write in a stream of consciousness style. He wrote down the main ideas first in his notebooks, then elaborated on those ideas, and finally, after completing the intellectual process, he would write his ideas in the form of a narrative.
he has one of my favorite voices ever
Excellent on so many levels. Thanks a bunch for uploading this.
A very interesting and enjoyable discussion, thank you for sharing.
Beautiful discussion. Thank you from Japan,
A very interesting discussion, although I sincerely don't understand Dostoevsky's reputation as being the most difficult of Russian writers. If anything, I think he's the most transparent and probably the best storyteller of the lot. He certainly was a brilliant philosopher, but as a writer he doesn't hide behind anything. The greatest Russian writer perhaps, but I don't think the most complicated.
His books are rather layered and can be read several different ways.
1: Narrative. Very strong, mixing crime and love with vibrant characters.
2: Philosophical and religious. Also very strong, with space and vigor given particularly to FD's antagonists, like Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov. Redemption through just suffering and almost holiness through unjust suffering are themes in all his works. You understand this level a LOT more if you know the Bible and church tradition. History is useful too.
3: Subjective. Characters lie and distort, but so does FD as the narrator. Trust no one!
4: Metaphorical. Mostly of emotional and sometimes religious nature, and actually serve as closing arguments for some of his characters when they can't find the intellectual arguments they need.
5: Political. This is always the backdrop, and should be kept in mind at all times. God is dead, what are the consequences and how does the resulting war between science and mysticism affect humans in particular and society in general?
6: Allegorical/transpositional. Characters as representations of aspects of humanity or aspects of the human soul. The Idiot for example reads very differently indeed once you realize that Mysjkin and Rogozhin are the same person, and that the novel is an FD version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Karamazov is even worse when it comes to this. Fjodor is both the human soul, God and Russia, and his sons the remaining aspects after the former has been murdered: science, religion, emotion. This what FD thought radical intellectuals had actually done in the real world, and he wrote about it in the novel. Karamazov reads just very differently indeed with this in mind.
This stuff also ranges from sociology and geopolitics to psychology and religion. It's all the tough issues he wasn't able to describe and fully explore in prose, so they are instead there as allegories or fragments of allegories. It is the heart of Dostoyevski. He lies to you to teach you deeper lessons.
Just in general, if you think these are simple, straightforward books, may I humbly suggest that you might have missed some things.
Some people in Russia don't like him. I know!
Great Interview!
You are loved and cherished. You have nothing to fear. There is nothing you can do wrong. If I had to boil this entire message down to one sentence, it would run this way: You are loved. And if I had to boil it down further, to just one word, it would (of course) be, simply: Love.
Where will the eyes of Dostoevsky look at? This look does not look at the outside. I seem to stare at the inside of the heart of the person. I do not know the writer who stared at the human inside as him. I thank for upload.
Thought this said Robin Williams initially but still am not disappointed
The interviewer has a very narrow/constrained view of what 'being a Christian' can mean in its myriad potentialities...
As a Christian Anarchist I would say 'The Inquisitor' is the greatest argument for Christianity.
Sadly (tragically, even), it is a view that is very widely shared in these times when the message of Christianity has so often been co-opted by the rigid and unimaginative.
Rowan Williams ( b.1950 )
Welsh, 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, Theologian, Poet, and Polyglot*.
*He Speaks 12 Languages!!!
Mike Fuller Great eyebrows as well!
Peter O'Brien
Thanks Peter!!!
bizarre that the interviewer can't seem to get her head around the idea that a priest can be an intellectual - or vice-versa.
Alphonsus Jr.
Thoroughly possessed as well.
+Danny Berry She's utterly flabbergasted that a Christian could be interested in fiction. That's not a problem with Christianity or with fiction - that's a problem with her own seemingly narrow experiences. Has she never heard of someone like Flannery O'Connor, let alone John Milton or Dante Alighieri? Astonishing naivete.
Yes - and shocking how, if you listen carefully, she had almost completely misunderstood Dostoevski as a relativist. Williams’ answer to her “polyphony” question is pure perfection.
Great interviewer
I find myself with an open mouth about to give an answer then the next sentence keeps my mouth agape and speechless.
What Theologian does he mention at 8:33 ?
@John Ales - He referred to Paul Evdokimov
A true scholar
Would love to see this man sit down for a chat with Jordan Peterson.
The 'great inquisitor' is flabbergasting in its genius.
Anyone have any theories on the significance in 'The Brothers Karamazov' of the scene in which the monastery's most pious elder dies and begins to rot and stink the place
out within hours? Everyone had anticipated that this old monk might one
day achieve sainthood. But his premature decomposition rather puts them
all in a spin and has them questioning everything. I don't grasp
Dostoevsky's meaning here, and this episode has been troubling me for
some time. I assume it's symbolic, but of what I cannot fathom. Come on
Rowan, help me out. Or anyone else for that matter.
of course, the old monk was a complete phony. hence he stank.
Many Saints were not given the gift of incorruptibility of their corpses, but this doesn’t make them any less Saints than those who were. Dostoevsky was making exactly this point, that sanctity is not strictly bound to the miraculous. Faith and holiness are what counts
The 'hero' of the novel, as Dostoevsky tells us at the beginning is Alyosha, who is a monk. But Fr Zosima has told Alyosha he must leave the monastery and go out in the world. Zosima is a very unconventional monk. His enemy, the half crazed ascetic Fr Ferraton, is much closer to the traditional Orthodox ideal. In my understanding Zosima, by stinking, is driving Alyosha out of the monastery and making the wider point that the old separation from the world is no longer what is required, that Christians should engage with the world. But one should also note that the Devil in conversation with Ivan (but is the Devil really Ivan talking to himself?) refers to the naughty trick he played on Alyosha. Note again that although Alyosha is terribly upset by Zosima's body stinking he continues to regard him as his spiritual father.
Who is the interviewer? Probably a former Oxbridge graduate who finds a comfort zone in the BBC? Susan Hitch?
I think it is Bridget Kendall.
Blair and Williams have the same voices. Is that good and evil?
"POLYPHONIC, I know a four syllable word- Polyphonic. I think I will use it in a sentence. Wow, that sounds intelligent. I think I will use it again- polyphonic." Unfortunately, this leads to a homophonic analysis.
She loves that word and it diminishes her.
@@liammurphy2725 I think this was actually a perfect word - or at least a very valid one. Polyphony has to do with the layering of differest octave registers over one another so as to create different musical intervals at various moments in a number of different combinations, almost creating something like "musical space" which is very hard to describe -- and which may be a rich analogy for the almost ineffable drama of a late Dostoevskyan novel -- the varying elements within the underground man, or the outpouring of Zosima before the world, before all of creation, before Alyosha.
One could offer think about, however, what makes for the consonance, even when a governing or dominant musical key isn't so clear cut, but certainly there -- almost what Williams talks about right after they discuss the word... and with what might be said about poetry as such
I might also add that the question of poetry as such with Williams introduces bears on the question which seemed to be underlying the conversation concerning the characters and their arguments: how do we intend the content of a voice (polyphony means many voices) in Dostoevsky, and do so with respect to the fact that the novel is not simply chaos, nor is it easily wrapped up in a bow?
Is it just me, or do Rowan Williams’ eyebrows resemble a pair of angel wings quite remarkably? 👼
I think it was Pavel Evdokimov.
The female interlocutor seems to have no clue what she's talking about. Dostoyevsky's searing theological imagination totally eludes her and I can sense Rowan Williams thinking: "really?"
The bit about polyphony being antithetical to a theological perspective was very difficult to listen to. So naive. The Trinity? The polyphony of J.S. Bach and other Christian composers? Not sure this interviewer has a clue what Christian theology is actually about.
she reminds me of Cathy Newman interviewing Jordan Peterson
Imagine being you.
The reason why the Russian novels and the Russia presented on the news is just incredibly easy to explain: The government controlled every aspect of news shown to residents and international viewers, and the fact that the government couldn’t control the contents of novels and poetry….the men in the top chairs tried hard to repress novels, but they always seemed to circulate anyway.
OK. Dostojevsky is not like Rosamunde Pilcher. His characters are a bit complex.
She's got quite a lot of preconceived notions about what she thinks a Christian is and what An Archbishop should be interested in...nonetheless, an interesting discussion.
Typical of the ignorance of religion widespread in the news media
so basically what she is saying is this: If you are a catholic christian you shouldn't read FD for he is not only a "contradictory" christian (meaning he himself had his doubts expressed more than anything and yet choose to believe) but also he is a russian orthodox christian who declared that the Roman catholic church wasn't a christian institution at all. As well as the implication that him, the archbishop, being a man of God shouldn't get involved with secularisms of any kind...
What the archbishop is saying is this: Yes FD is multidimensional and even "contradictory" at times however he expresses the utter despair of human existence and its dilemma- "we will live it then we will understand it" and that's faith. Also the archbishop implies that it would be a monumental loss for any intelectual to deprive himself from the world's greatest literary works.
In summary, Dostoyevsky once said: "I am with Christ, He is the truth, however if somehow someone were to prove to me that he is not with the truth I would prefer to be with Him than with the truth."
I think her interpretation is shallow.
you could see it coming right when she admitted to having had a political interest in russian literature
Oh yes. And that’s putting it mildly. She took Dostoevski as a relativist!! What disappointing superficiality.
What is this lady talking about? A polyphonic view of the world means questioning only one God? Dostoevsky only believed in one God and very devoutly so. He also believed in one church, specifically the Russian Orthodox Church. So, really his view of the world was tending towards monophonic, but those are odd words to describe someones views in the first place.
No one:
This interviewer: Hey I've learnt the word POLYPHONIC...
Non cookie cutter That’s a commonly used word in literature and history. Don’t project your lack of knowledge on others.
@@texasvet2729 Lol you can't be serious. For one thing, it really isn't a common word in literature (across any genre). Anyone who's read at least a handful of books across different topics would recognize this. Secondly, the fact you think you can derive how much knowledge a person has from a single sentence in a UA-cam comments section (regarding the use of the word 'polyphonic') is egotistical, pseudo-intellectual and quite frankly laughable. Be honest and admit you've tried to purvey your own warped sense of your own intelligence and it's backfired, you've made yourself look a fool. While we're at it, how many of Dostoevsky's novels have you actually read? My guess is not many...
The Idiot is his best work. Best novel ever written.
While I thought some of the journalist’s questions were excellent, I very quickly became annoyed by her questions rather disparagingly beginning with the words (among others), “As the Archbishop of Canterbury…,” as though Williams by his office was an ancient, weird anachronism entirely outside of the world of real people. Also, I perceived small bits of prejudice against his intellect, as though any person who outwardly and often fervently represents the faith of Christ must be inherently a fool. And that attitude has a nasty habit of redounding to the person who gave words to the prejudice in the first place, as we heard in this interview.
Ironic that he has an interest is Dostoevsky because Dostoevsky would have certainly condemned his theological views. It's as if Dostoevsky had already written Williams into his literature in the form of Ivan Karamazov - they both seem to have the same respect for the biblical text and the same confidence in the belief that "anything is permissible."
How a man who worships at the alter of leftist relativism could strike a fancy with Russian theology, in particular the conservative realist Dostoevsky, boggles my mind.
Hey thicko, the irony is agonizing. just shut up, you don't know shit about william's nor dostoevsky, i cringe at your being. Titface
Shoahshana Goldberg-Shekelstein Like they said in the interview, you have to make a distinction between Dostoevsky's views in real life and his ability to convey a plurality of views through his characters in his novels. Dostoevsky is NOT a "conservative realist" when it comes to his fiction.
Lynn Turman The nihilist, socialist, and otherwise "progressive" characters are always portrayed as the main antagonist (Pyotr Stepanovich + crew, Smerdyakov), someone who eventually redeems himself (Raskolnikov, Shatov), or a subsidiary character whose views are illustrated to appear farcical and ridiculous (Lebezyatnikov, Ivan Karamazov).
Just to name a few. Dostoevsky's political views are extremely clear in how he forms and portrays his characters. Yes, a plurality of views are expressed in the book, but that doesn't mean he agrees with them. The Grand Inquisitor is certainly not written because Dostoevsky is secretly a Catholic. He hated Catholics, and he makes this abundantly well known in his novels.
Shoahshana Goldberg-Shekelstein According to Williams (as stated in this interview--and I'm paraphrasing), one of the things that makes Dostoevsky such a great writer was his ability to present an argument (through his characters) for something (Catholicism, atheism) that he himself was opposed to. I think Williams at one point even claims that Dostoevsky made a better argument FOR these things in his novels than even the real life practitioners did. I'm not defending Williams or even necessarily agreeing with him, I'm just trying to answer your question as to how someone could be attracted to a writer who has seemingly opposite views.
Shoahshana Goldberg-Shekelstein Have you read Dostoevsky's A WRITER'S DIARY? I'm reading it right now. It's pretty interesting. It's kind've like a 19th century version of a blog rather than an actual diary. You're right, he really was conservative: very patriotic, pro-war, anti-Catholic. And by today's standards, anti-semitic. He has a whole chapter where he defends his views as NOT being anti-semitic that when filtered through a modern sensibility, only serves to make him seem more so. Personally, he's my favorite writer. I find his unique sensibility (a dualism containing both the need for Faith & the acknowledgement of doubt) to be very modern & applicable to the zeitgeist amidst the 21st century.
Does this journalist really think that Dostoevski was a relativist? Next time the BBC sends someone to interview a great intellectual about Dostoevski, it might be a good idea to first check that they actually understand Dostoevski’s work. She clearly doesn’t.
This woman embarrasses herself. Does she want a conversation or an interrogation. Whilst she claims to appreciate Dostoyevsky she doesn't seem to appreciate he actually has a very fixed worldview and a vision of the good life, he ain't a liberal missy, and I can't believe she seems to want to push him as one! Of course he shows a whole gamut of characters and worldviews, but he shows, by a presentation of their lives, where their false visions end up- madness, suicide, despair etc.
GOOOOOD MORNING RUSSIALAND!
He's certainly dedicated to fiction
'Crime and Punishment' I considered to be black humor. The misery is heaped on endlessly. I laughed all the way through the novel. The novel is the literary equivalent of theatrical overacting.
Brothers Karamazov should be considered the greatest novel ever written...
Thanks for your response. Much apppreciated.
Anyone have any theories on the significance in 'The Brothers Karamazov' of the scene in which the monastery's most pious elder dies and begins to rot and stink the place
out within hours? Everyone had anticipated that this old monk might one
day achieve sainthood. But his premature decomposition rather puts them
all in a spin and has them questioning everything. I don't grasp
Dostoevsky's meaning here, and this episode has been troubling me for
some time. I assume it's symbolic, but of what I cannot fathom. Come on
Rowan, help me out. Or anyone else for that matter.
I'll take a stab.
I think he's showing that even the most pious person who has dedicated their life to God and done all sorts of good deeds falls short of true righteousness. The comparison is at the end where he makes a point of saying the young boy, who was a bit onery, had no odor. He was the one that was genuinely pure. It's a statement that fits nicely within Taoism.