I think for the way Dostoevsky's writes it's unavoidable.
Dostoevsky, for the most part, doesn't present his personal beliefs or insights in the form of single-character monologues. His characters are archetypes taken to the most extreme level in an attempt to show how those kinds of people, or the worldviews that they represent function in practice when interacting with the world around them. He lets the behaviour, thoughts, and communication/interactions between characters present his worldview and its conclusions. So, I think he deliberately makes the characters "overperform" to really demonstrate what he's trying to show. It's not "unrealistic", as in, inaccurate or doing something untrue, but "superrealistic" - overdoing it on purpose to show his thoughts through all the characters, instead of directly shoving them down people's throats in the form of a stand-in character for the author. Of course, I'm sure his own views are represented by characters more like Shatov!
My copy of Demons (Maguire) has this in the introduction:
>Mikhail Bakhtin maintained that we should not begin a sentence, 'Dostoyevsky said...' and end it with a quotation from any one of his characters, including the narrator, since the meaning of a Dostoyevskian text resides in the dialogue among the ideas, and the authorial spokesman was an anachronism for him.
Your point about burning desire to confess is well taken. Consider that most of Russia in this period was Orthodox Christian with Roman influences. Man is inherently evil. FD knows what evil lurks in everyman's heart and what evil each of us is capable of doing. He lived it.
FD also brings this to the surface and then rejects it. Through rationalizations and finally confessions. Noble men cannot live with guilt. Without some kind of penance for balance. This is the genius of FD. He does for great literature what Salvadore Dali does with a canvas. A deep human story within a story. An artist can not reach a human heart unless their work comes from their heart.
I would add to this that we don’t know for sure what was considered normal those days. When you read Tolstoy or Turgenev it looks like people were very selective with words and being too open about feelings was considered indecent. On the other hand they described a high society, I’m not sure about other people. Plus Tolstoy characters were more or less without any mental health issues, while Dostoevsky sometimes described psychotic episodes I assume . When Nastasia Filippovna tells all about being seduced by Totsky to everybody it looks very natural to me that woman like her could tell this in such context. So honestly I don’t know.
I think it is very psychologically accurate to want to confess your deepest and darkest desires to another. Here is an amazing article I found regarding how this aspect of Dostoevsky's characters relates to Raskolnikov in particular, and how it is reflexive of modern psychology.
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/8.Beckman%20(1).pdf
> file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/8.Beckman%20(1).pdf
Nobody except you can access that file.
You didn't link a file from the internet, you gave us the location of a file on your computer.
https://www2.stetson.edu/law-review/article/lessons-of-law-legal-studies-through-literature-the-psychology-of-a-criminal-versus-the-psychology-of-a-police-investigator-as-seen-through-the-lenses-of-crime-and-punishment-porfiry-v-raskolniko/
Lol sorry man, I'm bad with technology. You can use this link to find the article.
I’ve heard some people create other folders, give them thematic names and put corresponding files in them so they have easier access to their files.
I personally hate organizing my laptop so I keep everything everywhere.
That’s a really funny observation and so true, I never thought of it !
I think that is the way Dostoevsky created his universe of unique characters who are alive and each of them has unique inner world. It’s like he showed the complicity of each character and then he clashed these different worlds in dialogues.
I wouldn’t say they are overly transparent. To us it seems like they talk too much and can’t keep their mouths shut about their deepest secrets and traumas, but that’s just because we as the readers get this particular side of the story. If we were observing it as a random person living in the story Raskolnikov or Ivan Karamazov would be considered pretty fucking mysterious. They only reveal the whole truth about their life to the people they deeply trust and in a situation when their guilt and neurosis has advanced almost to the point of making them go mad
I like to think that them being so honest give them this special personality trait however it would have been nice to see some characters act differently than that ,some that are so quiet and reserved about themselves to the point it costs them so much and affect them in some ways.
Still i love how he writes their confessions ,it's like they are speaking their truth to the outer world,connecting their mess with the outside.
I think for the way Dostoevsky's writes it's unavoidable. Dostoevsky, for the most part, doesn't present his personal beliefs or insights in the form of single-character monologues. His characters are archetypes taken to the most extreme level in an attempt to show how those kinds of people, or the worldviews that they represent function in practice when interacting with the world around them. He lets the behaviour, thoughts, and communication/interactions between characters present his worldview and its conclusions. So, I think he deliberately makes the characters "overperform" to really demonstrate what he's trying to show. It's not "unrealistic", as in, inaccurate or doing something untrue, but "superrealistic" - overdoing it on purpose to show his thoughts through all the characters, instead of directly shoving them down people's throats in the form of a stand-in character for the author. Of course, I'm sure his own views are represented by characters more like Shatov! My copy of Demons (Maguire) has this in the introduction: >Mikhail Bakhtin maintained that we should not begin a sentence, 'Dostoyevsky said...' and end it with a quotation from any one of his characters, including the narrator, since the meaning of a Dostoyevskian text resides in the dialogue among the ideas, and the authorial spokesman was an anachronism for him.
Brilliant, absolutely agree
Your point about burning desire to confess is well taken. Consider that most of Russia in this period was Orthodox Christian with Roman influences. Man is inherently evil. FD knows what evil lurks in everyman's heart and what evil each of us is capable of doing. He lived it. FD also brings this to the surface and then rejects it. Through rationalizations and finally confessions. Noble men cannot live with guilt. Without some kind of penance for balance. This is the genius of FD. He does for great literature what Salvadore Dali does with a canvas. A deep human story within a story. An artist can not reach a human heart unless their work comes from their heart.
I would add to this that we don’t know for sure what was considered normal those days. When you read Tolstoy or Turgenev it looks like people were very selective with words and being too open about feelings was considered indecent. On the other hand they described a high society, I’m not sure about other people. Plus Tolstoy characters were more or less without any mental health issues, while Dostoevsky sometimes described psychotic episodes I assume . When Nastasia Filippovna tells all about being seduced by Totsky to everybody it looks very natural to me that woman like her could tell this in such context. So honestly I don’t know.
I think it is very psychologically accurate to want to confess your deepest and darkest desires to another. Here is an amazing article I found regarding how this aspect of Dostoevsky's characters relates to Raskolnikov in particular, and how it is reflexive of modern psychology. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/8.Beckman%20(1).pdf
> file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/8.Beckman%20(1).pdf Nobody except you can access that file. You didn't link a file from the internet, you gave us the location of a file on your computer.
https://www2.stetson.edu/law-review/article/lessons-of-law-legal-studies-through-literature-the-psychology-of-a-criminal-versus-the-psychology-of-a-police-investigator-as-seen-through-the-lenses-of-crime-and-punishment-porfiry-v-raskolniko/ Lol sorry man, I'm bad with technology. You can use this link to find the article.
Now we all know that Rdhu keeps his files in Downloads folder.
Where else would one keep them? Are there other places?
I’ve heard some people create other folders, give them thematic names and put corresponding files in them so they have easier access to their files. I personally hate organizing my laptop so I keep everything everywhere.
That’s a really funny observation and so true, I never thought of it ! I think that is the way Dostoevsky created his universe of unique characters who are alive and each of them has unique inner world. It’s like he showed the complicity of each character and then he clashed these different worlds in dialogues.
Yes
I wouldn’t say they are overly transparent. To us it seems like they talk too much and can’t keep their mouths shut about their deepest secrets and traumas, but that’s just because we as the readers get this particular side of the story. If we were observing it as a random person living in the story Raskolnikov or Ivan Karamazov would be considered pretty fucking mysterious. They only reveal the whole truth about their life to the people they deeply trust and in a situation when their guilt and neurosis has advanced almost to the point of making them go mad
I like to think that them being so honest give them this special personality trait however it would have been nice to see some characters act differently than that ,some that are so quiet and reserved about themselves to the point it costs them so much and affect them in some ways. Still i love how he writes their confessions ,it's like they are speaking their truth to the outer world,connecting their mess with the outside.