tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post1020109366697210180..comments2024-03-27T16:48:21.039-05:00Comments on Wuthering <br>Expectations: Quoting the Underground Man - it’s really better in booksAmateur Reader (Tom)http://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-50746227486919475512014-05-13T14:28:10.124-05:002014-05-13T14:28:10.124-05:00I urge you to read Joseph Frank's big Dostoevs...I urge you to read Joseph Frank's big Dostoevsky bio. 1) What I've read of it is excellent, 2) you would be a great reader of it, 3) I would rather read what you write about it than read it myself. It's very long!Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-49457032064991375152014-05-13T14:19:24.459-05:002014-05-13T14:19:24.459-05:00Oh, I see. Not for the first time, I fear, I misun...Oh, I see. Not for the first time, I fear, I misunderstood...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-11763697136233317622014-05-13T10:17:03.770-05:002014-05-13T10:17:03.770-05:00Right, part of the fiction, exactly.
The later cr...Right, part of the fiction, exactly.<br /><br />The later critics - e.g., Joseph Frank - are not "wide of the mark." They're the integrators ("only" and "detaching" are not part of my description). I haven't come across a critic who pays attention only to the last 2/3, or a critic complaining that other critics did so. The problem was earlier critics <i>ignoring</i> the last 2/3.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-56095521462215997642014-05-13T10:02:37.305-05:002014-05-13T10:02:37.305-05:00Indeed, the questions are important in the context...Indeed, the questions are important in the context of critical responses to the book. But it does seem to me that both the earlier and the later critics, as you describe them, were a bit wide of the mark. I really don't think it'll do to see this purely as a "position paper" by Dostoyevsky; and neither do I think it makes much sense to pay attention only to the last 2/3 of the book, detaching it from what had come earlier.<br /><br />I do not doubt that the essayist of the first part of the book has strong elements of Dostoyevsky himself; neither do I doubt that Dostoyevsky is using the voice of the essayist to refute Chernyshevsky. But this essay is the essay of a fictional character; it presents the thoughts of a fictional character. The essay itself is part of the fiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-34331138945590738362014-05-12T13:12:11.763-05:002014-05-12T13:12:11.763-05:00You're not working from the actual debate. Th...You're not working from the actual debate. The early critical positions were that art is in the service of message, <i>Notes</i> is didactic, and the first third of the book is a position paper by Dostoevsky. None of these critics "accept" what "Dostoevsky" says. They argue against it. But they think it's Dostoevsky.<br /><br />Later critics said "Maybe we should pay attention to the last 2/3s of the book" and "Maybe this business with Chernyshevsky is worth looking at." Once we do that, "Is the Underground Man Dostoevsky?" turns out to have a clear answer.<br /><br />So the questions are important because influential Russian critics thought they were important. They're part of the history of the book.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-83677794110235323422014-05-12T12:48:42.353-05:002014-05-12T12:48:42.353-05:00The question "Is the Underground Man Dostoyev...The question "Is the Underground Man Dostoyevsky?" , though frequently asked, doesn't, itseems to me, have a clear answer. In the first place, Dostoyevsky was very keen in his fiction to place some of his own most deeply felt views in the mouths of foolish people; or he would presentthem in a way that make them seem foolish. An obvious example is in "Demons" where Shatov speaks passionately about the idea of a "Russian Christ". Now, Dostoyevsky was himself very keen on tis idea of a specifically Russian spiritality that would save the world; but thankfully, when he presents this idea in the novel, he mocks it.<br /><br />The Underground Man is oobviously mad. But much that he says, Dostoyevsky would have approved of. But atteh same time, Dostoyevsky knows it is madness. It's abit like the relationship between Swift and Gulliver, partocularly in the last part of "Gulliver's Travels", where Gulliver really does go mad.<br /><br />I suppose in the end that the question "Is the Underground Man Dostoyevsky?"; and the related question "Is the reader supposed to accept whatteh Underground Man says?" are only important qestions if we believe that this novels are didactic rather than exploratory, and tat works of art are to be understood in terms of their "message".The Argumentative Old Githttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09583407462940146876noreply@blogger.com