Great critique of Dostoyevsky's many literary faults. 100% agree he's not nearly as engaging a story teller as Tolstoy or Turgenev. That said, "Devils" has some of the greatest insights into the seductive and transgressive nature of illiberalism that I've ever read. Is it a great and well plotted novel with deep Elliot or Austen-like characters? No -- Dostoyevsky uses archetypes pretty plainly and clearly. And the winding and frenetic prose, with little explanation is not the easiest to consume. But that does nothing to take away the book's power or continuing prescience. I get different pleasures from Dostoyevsky than I get from the great English writers or his Russian contemporaries, but the impact is still significant.
Devils,” also known as “The Possessed,” is a favorite of my wife, a native Russian. I’ve never been able to get past the first part. Henry O. doesn’t like the “hysteria, panic, extremity, intensity” in Dostoevsky. But those flavors might be right for the cast of characters in that book. I need to give it another try.
> But what does it mean? Isn’t this all a bit melodramatic or, dare I say, meaningless?
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn’t dismiss these thoughts are meaningless. Everything seems vapid when it’s churned out of a low context social media quote mill.
It’s interesting to me that you find that so alien. It’s probably a good thing for you personally.
So what does it mean?
I think it means that you can ruin yourself by conforming yourself to something that wrecked you because you thought you had to , running totally counter to what you actually wanted to be or could have been and what do you have to show for it? Nothing. Now that may make no sense to you. Which is fine. If you’ve never been there, good for you. Seriously, it’s not a good place to be.Those who’ve been through, will get it.
And it can be applied politically as well as personally-–so many activities and initiatives we allow or encourage that destroy and betray us (people and planet) for the emptiest of outcomes. So many wars fought for nothing of meaning or consequence.
Well, seems now it is behind the paywall. I thought I used to have a free subscription, limited to a few articles a month, but apparently not any more.
Anyway, I can't comment on your whole essay, but I will say the only Dostoevsky I've read was Crime and Punishment, and it left me with zero appetite for more.
Dostoevsky is not funny. As far as that goes he’s no competition for a Wodehouse, Waugh or Kingsley Amis. However I really wonder about a comment like(yours), I find the following meaningless-Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing,”. I don’t find that meaningless or merely melodramatic and I’m no spring chicken. It’s a very acute and quite astute observation about what can be one of life’s basic tragedies.As for Jordan Peterson, I’m not familiar enough with him to know if he says stuff like this but if he does there may be more to him than I’ve imagined.As a creator of fiction this is Dostoevsky’s strong suit. Often it’s the illustration of the pathological as in one of the characters in Brothers Karamazov saying something along the lines that they felt such exalted joy they felt like killing themselves.
John Gray is quite interesting on Dostoevsky. He argues that he is a brilliant analyst of the human condition and the political order and is absolute crap when he comes to actual solutions or advocacy. I agree. That said ,reading Demons or The Underground Man is illuminating in what they show you about a society unraveling.
I’m kind of amused that I wind up defending Doestoevsky here. I had an online argument with someone who claimed to be inspired his ideas . I suggested you might want to reconsider that given his anti Semitism, anti Catholicism and ultra nationalism.
Finally, dim memory but I believe for what it’s worth Aldous Huxley contrasted Dickens unfavorably to Doestoevsky on the basis of his depiction of children’s suffering. Huxley considered Dickens sentimental.Look I’m someone who can be brought to tears by A Christmas Carol but I think Huxley was right.And yes Fathers and Sons is a great novel.
Dickens was sentimental, but charming! Dostoevsky is tedious, including in the endless pages he carries on about how if there was a god why would he let children suffer.
Which is actually all I remember from BK and not fondly.
I don’t look to literature for “solutions” or “advocacy.” That’s preaching or politics. I look for characters, stories, observations and insights. Paint me a picture. Write me a fairytale or one of horror. Tell me a story. Frankenstein is a great example. Let the reader emerge the truths.
Well if the questions raised don’t interest you, you’re not going to find them of much interest.Doestoevsky does preach . He also gives you characters, observations and insights.
Paywalled now. And I dislike the Times. Dostoyevsky is I think, a very great writer, but a very weird person.i remember going to a small exhibition of his personal effects. The thing that’s stuck in my mind is his hat. Worn and battered, the band very sweat stained.i thought of him wearing it and handling it after he had lost all the families money gambling. But the Brothers Karamazov remains one of my favourite books
I reread The Brothers Karamazov recently and found it exhausting and confusing. I think in my twenties I thought I must have thought it was terribly profound and that therefore I was too.
God bless you. A metaphysically fertile mind does not a great artist make, and FD was a hack at the level of his art. Though The Double is quite good, in a Gogolian, proto-Kafkaesque way.
Oh, metaphysics is a fluid category. “Rebellion” rates very high in the metaphysics of morals, in presenting a classic dilemma regarding means and ends, the possibility of treating persons as means rather than as subjects in “the kingdom of ends”, the “game theory” calculus of antecedent and consequent goods, absolute and conditional values, and so forth. Then too he was extremely clever regarding the possibility of genuine nihilism as a transcendental orientation of the will and intellect. Better than Kant on “radical evil,” at any rate. It does not outweigh his horrid politics or his antisemitism, but he has a legitimate if minor place in modern philosophy.
The link at the end of your post was not paywalled for me, FWIW. I could never finish Crime & Punishment, but am reading Brothers K for the 4th time at the moment. I think you are spot on about temperament, in that that you say "I have always found the experience akin to being trapped at a party with a man about whose sanity you feel increasingly unsure." like it's a bad thing ;]
I am also not a Dostoevsky-liker. And I can read him in the original.
You write: “Everything is hysteria, panic, extremity, intensity.” That turns us off. But I recently read “Wuthering Heights.” I was blown away. Lots of panic, extremity and intensity in that book. The characters are not, I’d argue, real people exactly. They’re what … forces? So why am I seduced by Bronte’s hysteria etc. but not Dostoevsky’s? I tend to think that WH is a unique book - a “sport” - as Leavis put it in your excellent roundup recently. Something that’s beyond analysis. Maybe Dostoevsky is the same for his admirers.
I take it you don't think Peterson, or at least 12 Rules, is useful. Given your own writing on (later) human development, are there any particular reasons why?
It’s a bit weird to judge Dostoyevsky by isolated quotes from his books (and I’m not a huge fan of him). Nabokov disliked Dostoyevsky greatly and wrote about it at length in his lectures; in a way Dostoyevsky is the opposite of Nabokov, he’s intense where Nabokov is restrained, emotional where Nabokov is all about intellect and detached curiosity. Ultimately though, Dostoyevsky is trying to tackle fundamental questions of life without looking away from gory detail. His writing has a feverish energy to it (not sure how well it translates) and I suspect that’s part of its appeal, too.
Great critique of Dostoyevsky's many literary faults. 100% agree he's not nearly as engaging a story teller as Tolstoy or Turgenev. That said, "Devils" has some of the greatest insights into the seductive and transgressive nature of illiberalism that I've ever read. Is it a great and well plotted novel with deep Elliot or Austen-like characters? No -- Dostoyevsky uses archetypes pretty plainly and clearly. And the winding and frenetic prose, with little explanation is not the easiest to consume. But that does nothing to take away the book's power or continuing prescience. I get different pleasures from Dostoyevsky than I get from the great English writers or his Russian contemporaries, but the impact is still significant.
Devils,” also known as “The Possessed,” is a favorite of my wife, a native Russian. I’ve never been able to get past the first part. Henry O. doesn’t like the “hysteria, panic, extremity, intensity” in Dostoevsky. But those flavors might be right for the cast of characters in that book. I need to give it another try.
It’s an extremely slow burn — like 200 pages before it gets going. But once it does… it’s extremely heavy metal
Give it another try. It rewards patience.
Devils really is something else entirely.
> But what does it mean? Isn’t this all a bit melodramatic or, dare I say, meaningless?
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn’t dismiss these thoughts are meaningless. Everything seems vapid when it’s churned out of a low context social media quote mill.
Exactly.
So what does it mean?
It’s interesting to me that you find that so alien. It’s probably a good thing for you personally.
So what does it mean?
I think it means that you can ruin yourself by conforming yourself to something that wrecked you because you thought you had to , running totally counter to what you actually wanted to be or could have been and what do you have to show for it? Nothing. Now that may make no sense to you. Which is fine. If you’ve never been there, good for you. Seriously, it’s not a good place to be.Those who’ve been through, will get it.
And it can be applied politically as well as personally-–so many activities and initiatives we allow or encourage that destroy and betray us (people and planet) for the emptiest of outcomes. So many wars fought for nothing of meaning or consequence.
I was able to read it. Thankful for your thoughts. I recently abandoned The Brothers Karamazov, and now I’ve gone from guilt to vindication.
Well, seems now it is behind the paywall. I thought I used to have a free subscription, limited to a few articles a month, but apparently not any more.
Anyway, I can't comment on your whole essay, but I will say the only Dostoevsky I've read was Crime and Punishment, and it left me with zero appetite for more.
Dostoevsky is not funny. As far as that goes he’s no competition for a Wodehouse, Waugh or Kingsley Amis. However I really wonder about a comment like(yours), I find the following meaningless-Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing,”. I don’t find that meaningless or merely melodramatic and I’m no spring chicken. It’s a very acute and quite astute observation about what can be one of life’s basic tragedies.As for Jordan Peterson, I’m not familiar enough with him to know if he says stuff like this but if he does there may be more to him than I’ve imagined.As a creator of fiction this is Dostoevsky’s strong suit. Often it’s the illustration of the pathological as in one of the characters in Brothers Karamazov saying something along the lines that they felt such exalted joy they felt like killing themselves.
John Gray is quite interesting on Dostoevsky. He argues that he is a brilliant analyst of the human condition and the political order and is absolute crap when he comes to actual solutions or advocacy. I agree. That said ,reading Demons or The Underground Man is illuminating in what they show you about a society unraveling.
I’m kind of amused that I wind up defending Doestoevsky here. I had an online argument with someone who claimed to be inspired his ideas . I suggested you might want to reconsider that given his anti Semitism, anti Catholicism and ultra nationalism.
Finally, dim memory but I believe for what it’s worth Aldous Huxley contrasted Dickens unfavorably to Doestoevsky on the basis of his depiction of children’s suffering. Huxley considered Dickens sentimental.Look I’m someone who can be brought to tears by A Christmas Carol but I think Huxley was right.And yes Fathers and Sons is a great novel.
Dickens was sentimental, but charming! Dostoevsky is tedious, including in the endless pages he carries on about how if there was a god why would he let children suffer.
Which is actually all I remember from BK and not fondly.
I don’t look to literature for “solutions” or “advocacy.” That’s preaching or politics. I look for characters, stories, observations and insights. Paint me a picture. Write me a fairytale or one of horror. Tell me a story. Frankenstein is a great example. Let the reader emerge the truths.
Well if the questions raised don’t interest you, you’re not going to find them of much interest.Doestoevsky does preach . He also gives you characters, observations and insights.
“All happy readers are alike; each unhappy reader is unhappy in his or her own way.”
How’s that for an aphorism‽ You can quote me. 🙃
Someone got there ahead of you.
😂🤣
Fitting though, no?‽!
Paywalled now. And I dislike the Times. Dostoyevsky is I think, a very great writer, but a very weird person.i remember going to a small exhibition of his personal effects. The thing that’s stuck in my mind is his hat. Worn and battered, the band very sweat stained.i thought of him wearing it and handling it after he had lost all the families money gambling. But the Brothers Karamazov remains one of my favourite books
I reread The Brothers Karamazov recently and found it exhausting and confusing. I think in my twenties I thought I must have thought it was terribly profound and that therefore I was too.
God bless you. A metaphysically fertile mind does not a great artist make, and FD was a hack at the level of his art. Though The Double is quite good, in a Gogolian, proto-Kafkaesque way.
It’s hardly for me to judge but I don’t find him especially metaphysically fertile either!
Oh, metaphysics is a fluid category. “Rebellion” rates very high in the metaphysics of morals, in presenting a classic dilemma regarding means and ends, the possibility of treating persons as means rather than as subjects in “the kingdom of ends”, the “game theory” calculus of antecedent and consequent goods, absolute and conditional values, and so forth. Then too he was extremely clever regarding the possibility of genuine nihilism as a transcendental orientation of the will and intellect. Better than Kant on “radical evil,” at any rate. It does not outweigh his horrid politics or his antisemitism, but he has a legitimate if minor place in modern philosophy.
The link at the end of your post was not paywalled for me, FWIW. I could never finish Crime & Punishment, but am reading Brothers K for the 4th time at the moment. I think you are spot on about temperament, in that that you say "I have always found the experience akin to being trapped at a party with a man about whose sanity you feel increasingly unsure." like it's a bad thing ;]
Just read the piece, excellent. So do you like Dostoevsky, or not? :)
I am also not a Dostoevsky-liker. And I can read him in the original.
You write: “Everything is hysteria, panic, extremity, intensity.” That turns us off. But I recently read “Wuthering Heights.” I was blown away. Lots of panic, extremity and intensity in that book. The characters are not, I’d argue, real people exactly. They’re what … forces? So why am I seduced by Bronte’s hysteria etc. but not Dostoevsky’s? I tend to think that WH is a unique book - a “sport” - as Leavis put it in your excellent roundup recently. Something that’s beyond analysis. Maybe Dostoevsky is the same for his admirers.
I take it you don't think Peterson, or at least 12 Rules, is useful. Given your own writing on (later) human development, are there any particular reasons why?
Not my view in fact , merely that D is valued for being Petersonian rather than being literary per se
Dreary encapsulates the reading of him, and Nabokov categorized him as a melodramatic sentimentalist.
But all I really want to satisfy to Henry is, “If I’d already loved you for 20 days, I still couldn’t love you more than I do right now.”
"I have always found the experience akin to being trapped at a party with a man about whose sanity you feel increasingly unsure."
Ha!
As to whether the humor of The Friend of the Family is lost somehow in translation: no, it is not.
Couldn't agree with you more
It’s a bit weird to judge Dostoyevsky by isolated quotes from his books (and I’m not a huge fan of him). Nabokov disliked Dostoyevsky greatly and wrote about it at length in his lectures; in a way Dostoyevsky is the opposite of Nabokov, he’s intense where Nabokov is restrained, emotional where Nabokov is all about intellect and detached curiosity. Ultimately though, Dostoyevsky is trying to tackle fundamental questions of life without looking away from gory detail. His writing has a feverish energy to it (not sure how well it translates) and I suspect that’s part of its appeal, too.