Prepping for The Brothers Karamazov beginning Nov. 1st
Talk Le Salon Littéraire du Peuple pour le Peuple
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1absurdeist
I don't know about all of you, but I'm rearing up for The Brothers Karamazov beginning Nov. 1, and I'm not really feeling the vibe for pursuing a group read of Marguerite Yourcenar's, Memoirs of Hadrian that was originally scheduled.
I say, if you were already planning on reading Marguerite's Memoirs, then please, do go ahead and start your own thread and discuss it, but I'll be skipping it since, I think, it's too major a work to get into right before Dostoy.
What do you think, Magnificent Murr? Oh, and Murr, please feel free either to use this thread (or start your own) for any BK preparatory work (notes, errata, arcana) you might need to access. Let the salon know if you need anything, prep-wise, in support of your leading us through one of the most important pillars of World Literature.
I'm reading Joseph Frank's Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time at the moment, prepping for BK. The Frank volume is an abridged version of the five volumes (2,500 pages total) that Frank spent his professional life of thirty-plus years composing. The volume I'm reading is just under 1,000 pages (and it's, yes, abridged) and my God, what a revelation it is! Dostoy's family background is fascinating reading, and sheds tremendous light on how he became the Dostoy we all know and love today. Frank has the knack for taking complex topics and making them accessible to the non-academic "lay person" such as yours truly.
Here's an excerpt from the Preface of Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time that, for obvious reasons, I'm quoting and absolutely love, in which Joseph Frank touches upon his singular focus in chronicling the literary career of Dostoy:
"It thus seemed to me, when I set out to write my own work on Dostoevsky, that its perspective should be shifted, and that the purely personal biography should no longer dominate the explanatory context in which he was creating. Much less space is thus given in my books to the details of Dostoevsky's private life and much more to the clash of various ideas prevailing during the period in which he lived."
And now look what Frank unexpectedly says:
"The most perceptive reader of my first four volumes, the much lamented and gifted novelist and critic David Foster Wallace, remarked that 'Ellmann's James Joyce, pretty much the standard by which most literary bios are measured, doesn't go into anything like Frank's detail on ideology or politics or social theory.' This is not to say that I ignore Dostoevsky's private life, but it remains linked to other aspects of his era that provide it with a much larger significance. Indeed, one way of defining Dostoevsky's originality is to see in it this ability to integrate the personal with the major social-political and cultural issues of his day."
I say, if you were already planning on reading Marguerite's Memoirs, then please, do go ahead and start your own thread and discuss it, but I'll be skipping it since, I think, it's too major a work to get into right before Dostoy.
What do you think, Magnificent Murr? Oh, and Murr, please feel free either to use this thread (or start your own) for any BK preparatory work (notes, errata, arcana) you might need to access. Let the salon know if you need anything, prep-wise, in support of your leading us through one of the most important pillars of World Literature.
I'm reading Joseph Frank's Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time at the moment, prepping for BK. The Frank volume is an abridged version of the five volumes (2,500 pages total) that Frank spent his professional life of thirty-plus years composing. The volume I'm reading is just under 1,000 pages (and it's, yes, abridged) and my God, what a revelation it is! Dostoy's family background is fascinating reading, and sheds tremendous light on how he became the Dostoy we all know and love today. Frank has the knack for taking complex topics and making them accessible to the non-academic "lay person" such as yours truly.
Here's an excerpt from the Preface of Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time that, for obvious reasons, I'm quoting and absolutely love, in which Joseph Frank touches upon his singular focus in chronicling the literary career of Dostoy:
"It thus seemed to me, when I set out to write my own work on Dostoevsky, that its perspective should be shifted, and that the purely personal biography should no longer dominate the explanatory context in which he was creating. Much less space is thus given in my books to the details of Dostoevsky's private life and much more to the clash of various ideas prevailing during the period in which he lived."
And now look what Frank unexpectedly says:
"The most perceptive reader of my first four volumes, the much lamented and gifted novelist and critic David Foster Wallace, remarked that 'Ellmann's James Joyce, pretty much the standard by which most literary bios are measured, doesn't go into anything like Frank's detail on ideology or politics or social theory.' This is not to say that I ignore Dostoevsky's private life, but it remains linked to other aspects of his era that provide it with a much larger significance. Indeed, one way of defining Dostoevsky's originality is to see in it this ability to integrate the personal with the major social-political and cultural issues of his day."
2Porius
Hey there EF, I read Frank earlier in the Summer. Yes, a fine study. Though how did Frank know that DFW was his most perceptive reader. I will not take a back seat to the 'ultimate foot-note-ist', not to mention TCM who leads us through the semi- darkness of Russian Literature. And furthermore, JAAJ didn't give two raps about poladicks, etc. He was interested in CONSCIOUSNESS. History (Politics, etc,) was the nite-mare from which he was trying to awake. In the end Joyce was concerned with not much more than how much freight a word could carry. 'Tu art Petrus'
3absurdeist
Though how did Frank know that DFW was his most perceptive reader.
Well, in DFWs collection of essays, Consider the Lobster, he wrote a twenty page piece titled "Joseph Frank's Dostoevksy," originally published in The Village Voice Literary Supplement in '96. So, I'm assuming Frank must have read that and quite liked what DFW had to say about his work. I've just spent some time searching the web for the essay to no avail. I don't know if it's available online or not.
So, here's a good chunk of an excerpt from his essay for your literary edification:
"To really appreciate Professor Frank's achievement -- and not just the achievement of having absorbed and decocted the millions of extant pages of Dostoevksy drafts and notes and letters and journals and bios by contemporaries and critical studies in a hundred different languages -- it is important to understand how many different approaches to biography and criticism he's trying to marry. Standard literary biographies spotlight an author and his personal life (especially the seamy or neurotic stuff) and pretty much ignore the specific historical context in which he wrote. Other studies -- especially those with a theoretical agenda -- focus almost exclusively on context, treating the author and his books as simple functions of the prejudices, power dynamics, and metaphysical delusions of his era. Some biographies proceed as if their subjects' own works have all been figured out, and so they spend all their time tracing out a personal life's relation to literary meanings that the biographer assumes are already fixed and inarguable. On the other hand, many of our era's "critical studies" treat an author's books hermetically, ignoring facts about that author's circumstances and beliefs that can help explain not only what his work is about but why it has the particular individual magic of a particular individual writer's personality, style, voice, vision, etc.**
So, biographically speaking, what Frank's trying to do is ambitious and worthwhile. At the same time, his four volumes constitute a very detailed and demanding work on a very complex and difficult author, a fiction writer whose time and culture are alien to us. It seems hard to expect much credibility in recommending Frank's study here unless I can give some sort of argument for why Dostoevsky's novels ought to be important to us as readers in 1996 America. This I can do only crudely, because I'm not a literary critic or a Dostoevsky expert. I am, though, a living American who both tries to write fiction and likes to read it, and thanks to Joseph Frank I've spent pretty much the whole last two months immersed in Dostoevskynalia....
**That distinctive singular stamp of himself is one of the main reasons readers come to love an author. The way you can just tell, often within a couple paragraphs, that something is by Dickens, or Chekhov, or Woolf, or Salinger, or Coetzee, or Ozick. The quality's almost impossible to describe or account for straight out -- it mostly presents as a vibe, a kind of perfume of sensibility -- and critics' attempts to reduce it to questions of "style" are almost universally lame."
Por-Man in the driver's seat;
TomcatMurr in the passenger's;
While DFW sits in back;
Yessirree!
I agree!
;-)
Well, in DFWs collection of essays, Consider the Lobster, he wrote a twenty page piece titled "Joseph Frank's Dostoevksy," originally published in The Village Voice Literary Supplement in '96. So, I'm assuming Frank must have read that and quite liked what DFW had to say about his work. I've just spent some time searching the web for the essay to no avail. I don't know if it's available online or not.
So, here's a good chunk of an excerpt from his essay for your literary edification:
"To really appreciate Professor Frank's achievement -- and not just the achievement of having absorbed and decocted the millions of extant pages of Dostoevksy drafts and notes and letters and journals and bios by contemporaries and critical studies in a hundred different languages -- it is important to understand how many different approaches to biography and criticism he's trying to marry. Standard literary biographies spotlight an author and his personal life (especially the seamy or neurotic stuff) and pretty much ignore the specific historical context in which he wrote. Other studies -- especially those with a theoretical agenda -- focus almost exclusively on context, treating the author and his books as simple functions of the prejudices, power dynamics, and metaphysical delusions of his era. Some biographies proceed as if their subjects' own works have all been figured out, and so they spend all their time tracing out a personal life's relation to literary meanings that the biographer assumes are already fixed and inarguable. On the other hand, many of our era's "critical studies" treat an author's books hermetically, ignoring facts about that author's circumstances and beliefs that can help explain not only what his work is about but why it has the particular individual magic of a particular individual writer's personality, style, voice, vision, etc.**
So, biographically speaking, what Frank's trying to do is ambitious and worthwhile. At the same time, his four volumes constitute a very detailed and demanding work on a very complex and difficult author, a fiction writer whose time and culture are alien to us. It seems hard to expect much credibility in recommending Frank's study here unless I can give some sort of argument for why Dostoevsky's novels ought to be important to us as readers in 1996 America. This I can do only crudely, because I'm not a literary critic or a Dostoevsky expert. I am, though, a living American who both tries to write fiction and likes to read it, and thanks to Joseph Frank I've spent pretty much the whole last two months immersed in Dostoevskynalia....
**That distinctive singular stamp of himself is one of the main reasons readers come to love an author. The way you can just tell, often within a couple paragraphs, that something is by Dickens, or Chekhov, or Woolf, or Salinger, or Coetzee, or Ozick. The quality's almost impossible to describe or account for straight out -- it mostly presents as a vibe, a kind of perfume of sensibility -- and critics' attempts to reduce it to questions of "style" are almost universally lame."
Por-Man in the driver's seat;
TomcatMurr in the passenger's;
While DFW sits in back;
Yessirree!
I agree!
;-)
4Porius
After a very trying week this gave me a much needed laugh. There's no doubt DWF was the real McCoy, I just can't fit him into my peculiar studies. My eyes can only take so much. Maybe I'll take IJ to Bermuda where we go for a bball tourney during Thanksgiving. All that plane riding and time between games will give me a chance to do him some real justice. The only experience I have with DFW, and I admit it is thinner than thin, has me thinking that he has no music. You can almost hear the nuts and bolts rattling along like some early seventies monstrous Oldsmobile. And the midnight lamp seems to me too much of a muchness - though I am willing to admit the unfairness of my criticism; I have not given the matter much time, and even less thought.
5QuentinTom
Thanks for getting us started on this, Henri. There's lots to say about this. I have not read Frank's bio. I am waiting for it to come out in paperback before I get it.
I have been using Mochulsky's one volume biography and Dostoevsky letters for Dostoevsky's life, and various histories of Russia for the historical background. What DFW and Frank say about the various slants of bio is very interesting. I think with Dosto it's especially important to understand the historical background, as Dosto was very much a writer of his time and place. Paradoxically, this is what makes him timeless. I am a firm believer in Matisse's dictum that universal art is art which is most rooted in its own milieu.
Henri you raised a most interesting point about why a 19th century Russian is so relevant to a 21st century American. Here are some of Dostoevsky's most important themes:
the nature of consciousness
the nature of the self
the struggle between rationalism and irrationalism
the struggle between faith and atheism
the relationship between the individual and society
crime and its causes and results
depression, nihilism and absurdity
All timeless and relevant themes that will reappear in BK.
(Incidentally, it's my opinion that DFW really knew his Dostoevsky. IJ is full of references to Dostoevskyan themes, images and and concerns.)
I'll put some resources up into this thread over the next few days.
I have been using Mochulsky's one volume biography and Dostoevsky letters for Dostoevsky's life, and various histories of Russia for the historical background. What DFW and Frank say about the various slants of bio is very interesting. I think with Dosto it's especially important to understand the historical background, as Dosto was very much a writer of his time and place. Paradoxically, this is what makes him timeless. I am a firm believer in Matisse's dictum that universal art is art which is most rooted in its own milieu.
Henri you raised a most interesting point about why a 19th century Russian is so relevant to a 21st century American. Here are some of Dostoevsky's most important themes:
the nature of consciousness
the nature of the self
the struggle between rationalism and irrationalism
the struggle between faith and atheism
the relationship between the individual and society
crime and its causes and results
depression, nihilism and absurdity
All timeless and relevant themes that will reappear in BK.
(Incidentally, it's my opinion that DFW really knew his Dostoevsky. IJ is full of references to Dostoevskyan themes, images and and concerns.)
I'll put some resources up into this thread over the next few days.
6Macumbeira
recommended translation ? Volohonsky ?
7QuentinTom
My own feeling about translations for this read is that they do not matter. Read whatever translation you have to hand/can get hold of. I doubt that we will get into any detailed linguistic analysis over the pros and cons of different versions. We will have too much else on our plate lol!
Go for a translation that comes with good footnotes and introductory material and that you enjoy carrying around and reading. The more versions we have, the more we can share knowledge from the footnotes and stuff. The Chapters are short so it will be easy to locate things if we need to close read and quote.
I will read the Pevear and Volokhonsky version published by Everyman (I adore Everyman hardbacks), and probably also the Ignat Avsey version published by Oxford World Classics.
Here is a link to the most popular editions on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords...
Let me know if you need any help choosing one.
Go for a translation that comes with good footnotes and introductory material and that you enjoy carrying around and reading. The more versions we have, the more we can share knowledge from the footnotes and stuff. The Chapters are short so it will be easy to locate things if we need to close read and quote.
I will read the Pevear and Volokhonsky version published by Everyman (I adore Everyman hardbacks), and probably also the Ignat Avsey version published by Oxford World Classics.
Here is a link to the most popular editions on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords...
Let me know if you need any help choosing one.
8absurdeist
Yeah, I'm going w/P.&V. too, I like (hard to define) simply how the words flow, the vibe, how it just sounds right to my untrained-in-the-ways-of-translation, ear.
Here's Murr's Notes From Underground thread which will undoubtedly help illumine our imminent journey into deepest Russia.
Here's Murr's Notes From Underground thread which will undoubtedly help illumine our imminent journey into deepest Russia.
9QuentinTom
>3 absurdeist: I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Here is a summary of DFW's essay on Frank's Dostoevsky.
http://machines.pomona.edu/dfwwiki/index.php/Joseph_Frank's_Dostoevsky
http://machines.pomona.edu/dfwwiki/index.php/Joseph_Frank's_Dostoevsky
12geneg
If I can find my Constance Garnett, that's the one I'll use. I've read several of her translations of Dosty and her language structure, while it may not flow like a modern translation, has the feel of reading a Russian novel. She does an excellent job of capturing the mood.
13highdesertlady
I have a 1950ish Constance Garnett as well. I liked her C&P and Anna Karenina translations. No footnotes though. :-( I will leave that to you scholars.
14Macumbeira
Received yesterday the penguin classic edition
translated and introduced by David Mc Duff
there is also a chronology, a list of further reading and a note on the Text
translated and introduced by David Mc Duff
there is also a chronology, a list of further reading and a note on the Text
15slickdpdx
I'm giving P&V another chance. I actually liked the Idiot alot, just thought their touch seemed too contemporary. Looking through the pages, I am getting really excited to start reading!
16QuentinTom
Yeah, me too, Slick
More on Translator McDuff here. His translations feature in my copy of Everyman Russian Poets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McDuff
Should be a good version, MAc.
More on Translator McDuff here. His translations feature in my copy of Everyman Russian Poets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McDuff
Should be a good version, MAc.
17absurdeist
I think Geneg could be spot on right re. the Constance Garnett translation. Joseph Frank is very high on it. Truth be told, I nearly purchased by third copy of The Brothers Karamazov today, the Modern Library ed. translated by C.G. I may have no choice but do so later this month.
But I hear you too, Slick, P.&V., while, maybe too contemporary (arguably) are damn good nonetheless. And Joseph Frank thinks highly of their translations too. What's a Dostoy reader to do w/so many high quality translations out there?
But I hear you too, Slick, P.&V., while, maybe too contemporary (arguably) are damn good nonetheless. And Joseph Frank thinks highly of their translations too. What's a Dostoy reader to do w/so many high quality translations out there?
19urania1
I'm here with multiple translations of the Bros. in hand. But I can't start prepping yet - or if I do it will be via Stefan Zweig's Balzac, Dickens, Dostoevsky: Master Builders of the Spirit as I am currently hanging priceless (and stolen) art at Club Balzac. But I do have Frank - three volumes. I lack the remaining however many.
I will return anon when I am not club hopping or engaging in my new profession as international art thief.
I will return anon when I am not club hopping or engaging in my new profession as international art thief.
20absurdeist
Ha! Great blog, Urania! I'm following ...
21Porius
In keeping with my pleasure theme.
The repudiation of pleasure in favor of the gratification which may be found in unpleasure is a leading theme in Dostoyevsky's great nouvelle NOTES. Th: Mann has this to say about the work:
'its painful and scornful conclusions', 'its radical frankness . . . 'ruthlessly transcending all literary bounds', have 'long become parts of our moral culture.' Accurate, but the painful and scornful conclusions of D.'s story have established themselves not only as parts of our moral culture but as its essence, at least so far as that culture makes itself explicit in literature.
NOTES is an account, in the first person, of the temperament and speculations of a miserable clerk, down-trodden in every way, who responds with bitterness and resentfulness and hostility to those around him who are more fortunate. He hates men of purpose. Reasonable men. Men of action. Happy men. He also despises the SUBLIME and the BEAUTIFUL. And of course PLEASURE. He is a super-subtle item, and we mistake him if we think that he is merely envious of his fellow voters. He beats us to all forms of self-hatred. He bathes in his own misery. He has freed himself to despise himself and others.
At one point in the story he speaks of himself as an 'anti-hero.' He tells the 'gentlemen' the lovers of the 'sublime and beautiful' that he has more life in him then they do.
He hated all hope. Hope that was expressed in Chernyshevski's WHAT IS TO BE DONE was especially repugnant to him. He laughed at the idea that man would be better served by rationalism, and a society organized around the pleasure principle.
The 'Specious Good' 'The Idea of Bliss' "More Life"
Dread Eden, and of all Christian concepts there is none we cotton to so well as the 'Felix Culpa' and the 'Fortunate PFall' not certainly because we anticipate the Salvation to which these Christian paradoxes point, but because by means of the sin and pfall we managed to escape the seductions of peace and bliss.
more from Lionel Trilling's BEYOND CULTURE.
The repudiation of pleasure in favor of the gratification which may be found in unpleasure is a leading theme in Dostoyevsky's great nouvelle NOTES. Th: Mann has this to say about the work:
'its painful and scornful conclusions', 'its radical frankness . . . 'ruthlessly transcending all literary bounds', have 'long become parts of our moral culture.' Accurate, but the painful and scornful conclusions of D.'s story have established themselves not only as parts of our moral culture but as its essence, at least so far as that culture makes itself explicit in literature.
NOTES is an account, in the first person, of the temperament and speculations of a miserable clerk, down-trodden in every way, who responds with bitterness and resentfulness and hostility to those around him who are more fortunate. He hates men of purpose. Reasonable men. Men of action. Happy men. He also despises the SUBLIME and the BEAUTIFUL. And of course PLEASURE. He is a super-subtle item, and we mistake him if we think that he is merely envious of his fellow voters. He beats us to all forms of self-hatred. He bathes in his own misery. He has freed himself to despise himself and others.
At one point in the story he speaks of himself as an 'anti-hero.' He tells the 'gentlemen' the lovers of the 'sublime and beautiful' that he has more life in him then they do.
He hated all hope. Hope that was expressed in Chernyshevski's WHAT IS TO BE DONE was especially repugnant to him. He laughed at the idea that man would be better served by rationalism, and a society organized around the pleasure principle.
The 'Specious Good' 'The Idea of Bliss' "More Life"
Dread Eden, and of all Christian concepts there is none we cotton to so well as the 'Felix Culpa' and the 'Fortunate PFall' not certainly because we anticipate the Salvation to which these Christian paradoxes point, but because by means of the sin and pfall we managed to escape the seductions of peace and bliss.
more from Lionel Trilling's BEYOND CULTURE.
22QuentinTom
Peter Ustinov interviews Dostoevsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J2tMuQgNjo
THe prophet of paradox.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J2tMuQgNjo
THe prophet of paradox.......
23Porius
What a spot! P.U. is extraordinary, a great memoir, his. The voter that played F.D. was perfect. The poor merely eccentric Tolstoy feigning madness, and the long suffering F.D. straining to be normal. I shall say little more for the moment.
24booksontrial
It reminds me of what Voltaire wrote of Cicero, "when I found that he doubted of everything, I concluded that I knew as much as he, and that I had no need of a guide to learn ignorance. ... I like only that which serves my purpose."
Maybe I have no need of a guide to learn madness either. :) How would reading F.D. serve my purpose? I don't have the answer for that at the moment.
Maybe I have no need of a guide to learn madness either. :) How would reading F.D. serve my purpose? I don't have the answer for that at the moment.
25dchaikin
(nothing to add, just posting to keep up with this thread)
...
(Books - good luck on that one. The concept of a personal purpose and how reading BK could fit - it never occurred to me that this is something I should think about.)
...
(Books - good luck on that one. The concept of a personal purpose and how reading BK could fit - it never occurred to me that this is something I should think about.)
27janeajones
Looks cold and monumental. Hardly any trees except across the river -- no wonder everyone tried to escape for a month in the country.
28slickdpdx
Those pics are awesome. The big frozen empty spaces make the buildings look even more monumental.
29geneg
They make one appreciate how gloominess is bred in the Russian soul. I wish I knew of a similar set for St. Petersburg.
30RidgewayGirl
Now that I'm back from putting on a sweater...
Are there pictures available of a village/town of appropriate size for Karamazov?
Are there pictures available of a village/town of appropriate size for Karamazov?
31PimPhilipse
Dostoevsky wrote BK in the town Staraya Russa, and he used features of this town in the book. Here is a site with some pictures of the beginning of last century:
http://russa.novgorod.ru/photo/old.php
His home in Staraya Russa was (according to my Dostoevsky Encyclopedia) used as a model for the Karamazov home. It is now a museum. Here are some more photo's:
http://dostdom.ru/component/option,com_datsogallery/Itemid,9/func,viewcategory/c...
http://russa.novgorod.ru/photo/old.php
His home in Staraya Russa was (according to my Dostoevsky Encyclopedia) used as a model for the Karamazov home. It is now a museum. Here are some more photo's:
http://dostdom.ru/component/option,com_datsogallery/Itemid,9/func,viewcategory/c...
32RidgewayGirl
Thank you! Now that sets the stage...
33QuentinTom
Oh fabulous! That does set the stage.
Here are some more interesting things to look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2KQma5wvWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYmUUT8Xfl4&feature=related
Here are some more interesting things to look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2KQma5wvWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYmUUT8Xfl4&feature=related
34theaelizabet
Excellent, all! Murr, who is Professor Miller?
35QuentinTom
I don't know, but what he says is very interesting, no? especially about each brother representing a type, an idea.
36Porius
He gave the poor the short shrift when commenting on D.'s deep matters. Good & Evil indeed. Is not the mere fact of the poor, an Evil. And I know full well that we must have the poor if we have the wealthy. What a real mess we are in, yes?
37QuentinTom
yes. A mess indeed.
Pim's very informative review of a key Dostoevsky critic.
http://www.librarything.com/work/4872744/reviews
Pim's very informative review of a key Dostoevsky critic.
http://www.librarything.com/work/4872744/reviews
38Porius
Doesn't help much with the tangle that is BK, but it is pretty pfunnie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8ZL_gcTSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8ZL_gcTSM
39PimPhilipse
At http://www.archive.org/details/lettersoffyodorm00dostiala you can find a 1914 edition of 77 letters of D. that may be more or less enlightening. The letter to his brother Michael of 1-1-1840 was quoted by Merezhkowsky to demonstrate D.'s early literary tastes:
We were recalling the past winter,
when we talked much of Homer, Shakespeare, Schiller, and Hoffmann - particularly Hoffmann.
...
I could never have learnt to know Schiller so well as
precisely in those days. When I read Schiller with him, I saw in him the noble and fiery Don Carlos, the Marquis Posa, and Mortimer.
...
I may have happened to mention the names of Pushkin and Schiller in immediate juxtaposition, but I believe that you will find a comma between them. They have no smallest point of resemblance. Now between Pushkin and Byron one might speak of a likeness. But as to Homer and Victor Hugo, I positively believe that you have chosen to misunderstand me ! This is what I meant: Homer (a legendary figure, who was perhaps sent to us by God, as Christ was) can only be placed with Christ; by no means with Victor Hugo.
...
And isn't Racine's Achilles of the same race as Homer's ? I grant you, Racine stole from Homer, but in - what a fashion! How marvellous are his women!
...
Why, don't you know that Corneille, with his titanic figures and his romantic spirit, nearly approaches Shakespeare? You miserable wretch!
...
It was as much as one could expect that he should borrow his form from Seneca. Have you read his " Cinna "? What, before the divine figure of Octavius, becomes of Karl Moor, of Fiesco, of Tell, of Don Carlos ? That work would have done honour to Shakespeare. You wretch!
We were recalling the past winter,
when we talked much of Homer, Shakespeare, Schiller, and Hoffmann - particularly Hoffmann.
...
I could never have learnt to know Schiller so well as
precisely in those days. When I read Schiller with him, I saw in him the noble and fiery Don Carlos, the Marquis Posa, and Mortimer.
...
I may have happened to mention the names of Pushkin and Schiller in immediate juxtaposition, but I believe that you will find a comma between them. They have no smallest point of resemblance. Now between Pushkin and Byron one might speak of a likeness. But as to Homer and Victor Hugo, I positively believe that you have chosen to misunderstand me ! This is what I meant: Homer (a legendary figure, who was perhaps sent to us by God, as Christ was) can only be placed with Christ; by no means with Victor Hugo.
...
And isn't Racine's Achilles of the same race as Homer's ? I grant you, Racine stole from Homer, but in - what a fashion! How marvellous are his women!
...
Why, don't you know that Corneille, with his titanic figures and his romantic spirit, nearly approaches Shakespeare? You miserable wretch!
...
It was as much as one could expect that he should borrow his form from Seneca. Have you read his " Cinna "? What, before the divine figure of Octavius, becomes of Karl Moor, of Fiesco, of Tell, of Don Carlos ? That work would have done honour to Shakespeare. You wretch!
42highdesertlady
#41 - Please write me a letter, A_musing... I feel so wretched today, the laughter would do me good.
*Bwahahahahahahahahaha*
(I envision Margaret Whitton in the Secret of my Success after Helen Slater throws an expensive vase saying: "That's a very expensive vahz, you bitch!")
Sorry, looking for humor on a sick day.
*Bwahahahahahahahahaha*
(I envision Margaret Whitton in the Secret of my Success after Helen Slater throws an expensive vase saying: "That's a very expensive vahz, you bitch!")
Sorry, looking for humor on a sick day.
43QuentinTom
The influence of Hoffmann is everywhere in Dostoevsky.
44absurdeist
If you can't read Joseph Frank, read this piece from Murr before starting out:
http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2010/10/writers-diary-dostoevsky.html
http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2010/10/writers-diary-dostoevsky.html
45A_musing
Dear High Desert Lady,
My apologies for not writing sooner, but excitement on another thread regarding Joyce, Mann, Austen and Xueqin had kept me from checking in on this one. I now find myself beginning this Karamazov read (yes, I've already begun) yet also being encumbered with yet more reading and viewing each time I visit here. Now there's a blog to follow, too. Are we to read Karamazov or spend our time discussing it without reading? The latter seems both a bit of a fools errand and business as usual around here. Enough of this. To book! Get thee to a Library!
You wretch.
My apologies for not writing sooner, but excitement on another thread regarding Joyce, Mann, Austen and Xueqin had kept me from checking in on this one. I now find myself beginning this Karamazov read (yes, I've already begun) yet also being encumbered with yet more reading and viewing each time I visit here. Now there's a blog to follow, too. Are we to read Karamazov or spend our time discussing it without reading? The latter seems both a bit of a fools errand and business as usual around here. Enough of this. To book! Get thee to a Library!
You wretch.
46highdesertlady
Yay! Smiles abound in my wretched state! ;-) (Unfortunately, so is the coughing spasm due to raucous laughter brought about by your letter) Thank you, I think?
*Note to self: Step away from LT and go read Dostoevsky*
*Note to self: Step away from LT and go read Dostoevsky*
47LolaWalser
I don't have my Karamazovs with me so I ordered a French translation from the library, just to be different. ALSO, it contains Freud's essay on "Dostoevsky and parricide". Will tell you all about it.
Dostoı̈evski ; traduction et notes de Henri Mongault ; précédé de Dostoı̈evski et le parricide / par Sigmund Freud ; postface de Pierre Pascal.
Dostoı̈evski ; traduction et notes de Henri Mongault ; précédé de Dostoı̈evski et le parricide / par Sigmund Freud ; postface de Pierre Pascal.
48absurdeist
OMG!!! Everybody, that post up above mine, is from Lola Walser! Woohoo!!
So we've got Pim reading it in Russian; Lola reading it in French; any takers on reading BK in Portugeuse?
So we've got Pim reading it in Russian; Lola reading it in French; any takers on reading BK in Portugeuse?
49highdesertlady
Nyet. I Like my Russian in English. ;p (sorry, could not help myself) *runs back to sick bed*
50theaelizabet
#45 A_musing, I too have begun to read BK. What a nice little family.
51absurdeist
whoa whoa whoa, they've started already?! tomcat! Do something! They're prematurely reading!
52QuentinTom
don't worry, I have told the Third Department already. Expect a knock on the door at three AM.
53QuentinTom
And a big welcome to luscious Lola!!! Woohoo!
54Macumbeira
Started too with thz Bros. yesterday evening.
With la Salammbo out of my system, I can free my mind for this Ruski behemoth.
I read Tomcat's excellent piece on Dosto. Very interesting TC but I think I don't like D. as a person from what you have written. But we have to consider his opinions in the light of his century. It would be unfair to judge him on the basis of XXI th century opinions.
Lola LOLOLOLOLolaaaaaaaaaa
With la Salammbo out of my system, I can free my mind for this Ruski behemoth.
I read Tomcat's excellent piece on Dosto. Very interesting TC but I think I don't like D. as a person from what you have written. But we have to consider his opinions in the light of his century. It would be unfair to judge him on the basis of XXI th century opinions.
Lola LOLOLOLOLolaaaaaaaaaa
55theaelizabet
Have laughed out loud while reading BK. Please advise.
56janeajones
Me too -- so far, much seems over the top to me. But amusing and intriguing -- not what I've encountered with D before.
57geneg
I'm currently reading Soldier's Pay, Faulkner's first novel and it shows, but still an interesting read. Should finish up either Monday or Tuesday. Then into BK.
59highdesertlady
Bring on the Ruski! And don't forget the wodka and herring for Murrushka.
(Anyone notice that the new pic of Dusty in the lobby looks like a cross between Lou Diamond Philips and Benjamin Bratt? jes sayin')
(Anyone notice that the new pic of Dusty in the lobby looks like a cross between Lou Diamond Philips and Benjamin Bratt? jes sayin')
60QuentinTom
>54 Macumbeira:
Thanks Mac.
Yes, there is lots in the Diary to make you wince. but you are right about judging - or trying to understand Dostoevsky in the context of his times. It might be helpful to consider is that the views he expressed in the Diary were most likely designed to appeal to a particular audience, after all, he was doing it for the money, and always had an eye on sales. His Diary therefore gives a picture of ideas that were current at the time. There was a strong jingoistic current in Russia in the 1870s due to the war with Turkey.
Thealizbet and Janeajones, don't worry, you are meant to find BK funny. More on D's humour tomorrow. don't panic.
Thanks Mac.
Yes, there is lots in the Diary to make you wince. but you are right about judging - or trying to understand Dostoevsky in the context of his times. It might be helpful to consider is that the views he expressed in the Diary were most likely designed to appeal to a particular audience, after all, he was doing it for the money, and always had an eye on sales. His Diary therefore gives a picture of ideas that were current at the time. There was a strong jingoistic current in Russia in the 1870s due to the war with Turkey.
Thealizbet and Janeajones, don't worry, you are meant to find BK funny. More on D's humour tomorrow. don't panic.
61QuentinTom
I love that pic of Dusty! It must have been when he was a young dandy. Reminds me of Poe.
62absurdeist
Yeah I thought it was something ... different for Dusty, something that captures his intense and solemn determination better than his later, bearded profiles.
I love that we are rockin' the Karamazov!
I love that we are rockin' the Karamazov!
63Macumbeira
Henri, I am dissapointed you didn't choose my picture
64absurdeist
perhaps, Mac, you be prematureth in your disappointment
dost thou truly thinketh that Henri wouldn't dareth to posteth such a provacative picture? Remember The Reading Girl? God, I miss her.
dost thou truly thinketh that Henri wouldn't dareth to posteth such a provacative picture? Remember The Reading Girl? God, I miss her.
65Porius
Just an odd coincidance, as I settled down with BK tonight, the TV was tuned to the Addam's Family marathon, the voice was off, I opened the book, glanced up for a second, and there was a portrait of F.D. on the wall behind the harpsichord where Lurch was patiently playing. It startled me for a second but it was not long before I took for an omen, a good one I trust. The timing I think qualified it as a genuine Jungian synchronicity.
66highdesertlady
Oh, how delicious, Porius! And on All Hallows Eve! ;-)
67QuentinTom
Spooky.
OMG as thenaughtyhottie woulda said.
OMG as thenaughtyhottie woulda said.
