Archive for the ‘Dostoevsky’ Category
-
An “Idiot” Discussion
Saturday, October 23rd, 2010
Well…you were fairly warned in last week’s post that some of us book nerds united (Lori, Dani, and I) and read Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” a few months back. And being book nerds in the full sense of that awesome title means we had to discuss it. Online. Because we’re cool like that (and because some of us live out of state). So here’s a peek into our semi-deep assessment, interspersed with random tangents, for you as you head into the weekend. Enjoy.
Mary: Okay. *ahem (heavy weighted breath)* we begin. Deep thoughts on Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot.”
Dani: OK, let’s start. Wait, first I must go make myself a latté….
Mary: Ha! I just made a latte as well. So what flavor’s yours? (Mine’s Irish Cream *smirk*.) All right, so, I’m going to get all book-nerd on us for a sec and say that I had no idea of what to expect. It took me until two chapters in to realize this work of Dostoyevsky’s is on a completely different playground than some of his others…say Crime and Punishment. The tone, the flow, the feel…I was surprised.
Dani: My latté is Coconut Rum (how is it we are on totally the same page? It’s 11:30 in the morning, for crying out loud!). I’m right with you. I didn’t know what to expect other than the fact that it would be a LONG read (which it is), but it took me such a long time to be interested enough to STICK with the story. I was rather bored by it at the beginning. So it isn’t like C&P? How so?
Mary: C&P was tight, intricate, and faster paced compared to The Idiot’s meandering plot. Although I don’t remember being bored at the beginning of The Idiot (but, you know, it was like 3 months ago when we started–long yes). However, I think I liked the slow, sweet set up of this one.
Dani: My favorite character is Elizavéta Prokófyevna Epanchin. She’s totally nuts. And I really like how Dostoevsky makes everyone’s “voice” very believable. It’s like exactly how people talk in real life… starting and stopping and getting sidetracked. Brilliantness.
Mary: Totally agree on the varied voices, conversations, and interruptions. It’s real. We can feel the chaos and yet easily follow the main thread. For the record though, my favorite is the Prince. What can I say? I’m a sucker for good men.
*Interruption break while we wait for Lori to go find her own latte.*
Dani: The appeal of the Prince to me is that he makes a great anchor for all the drama of the story to surround. He’s really steady in his craziness. But I think I like how Mrs. Epanchin’s character is written… she’s kinda like my MIL (don’t tell her, though…)
Enter Lori: Ok – time for me to catch up – and Mary – you’ll just have to make me a latte since I have yet to have my own machine
. I’m going to start really shallow – beginning with the cover of the book. Honestly, it made me confused because Dostoevsky described the Prince (the idiot right?) as a blond fair headed guy, but on the cover of my book – it’s a dark brogue – who, Will says, looks like Peter. That’s a very confusing beginning right there. I also feel that it has been a slow beginning and is consistently hard for me to feel connected to the story or the characters. It has been too easy to be distracted by other YA novels (like Shiver for example) for me to bust through this. My favorite character is also the Prince. I like the way that he is written, because honestly I sometimes wonder if he is just a brilliant con artist – there is definite mystery and intrigue there trying to figure out if he really is simple, or if he is playing simple.Ok – I’m ready for that latte now.
Dani: I’ve got book ADD, too, Lori (and wasn’t Shiver great? Linger is out now…). Anyways, yes, my cover has a dark guy, too, and I had to read the first chapter twice because I was getting lost with the first conversation. And I like your theory that the Prince is a con artist… he definitely knows more than everyone gives him credit for!
Lori: Ooooh!!!! Linger – that is exciting. I’m not buying it though, so I will have to wait till my library procures a copy… I’ll have to investigate on Thursday. Okay, so who else is just over Nastasya character? I mean – this is sad – but all I can think about is why does everyone love her so much if she is just a witch all the time? She seems too much the broken damsel that needs a prince to rescue her to be very lovable. I find her exasperating. I know there is much more symbolism and what not going on in the novel, but like I said – I’m starting shallow.
Dani: Yeah, at $18, I’m not getting Linger until it arrives at the library, where I’ll have to fight off a bunch of 15-year-olds to check it out. =) I am over Nastasya. I didn’t ever really get her appeal to all the men in the story. I feel bad for her situation as a child, but she is so manipulative and insane, I don’t see how any of the men could find her so attractive! Although, depending on the time of month, *I* can get a little insane, and my husband finds me attractive (at least he says he does…)….
Mary: I don’t know, I feel for her (Nastasya). I think she’s been so abused that it’s remarkable she has ANY self-worth left. Which I think is the problem. And as the novel progresses, she even realizes this and refuses to use the Prince toward her own gain, knowing she’ll ultimately ruin him. Sad…
Lori: agreed – it’s sad. I think the hopeless that she feels is awful – and considering it was a difficult read for me anyway – that didn’t help bring any light fluffy feelings to my reading experience. Am I a shallow reader – maybe. I think when there is so much drama going on in real life – I’d rather read about not so real life. Tragedies are not my favorite I have rediscovered.
Dani: I am very much with you, Lori. I read to escape my real life, but if the novel I’m reading delves too much into the sad state of reality, well, then it isn’t much of an escape. One of the things I know Dostoevsky does very well is drawing out the human nature of his characters, but did you feel almost like we were getting beaten to death by the FLAWS of these people? Every scene seemed to get more and more uncomfortable as the characters basically got themselves into crazier relationships and situations. I don’t know if, by the end, I saw this as a redeeming point… or maybe that’s because it is Russian literature, but I was really hoping for a more cheerful conclusion than the one we were offered.
Mary: I admit I was super surprised by the ending as well, Dani. I think I sat up in bed and went, “What?! You’re kidding me!” And while it made sense, I’m ultimately a romantic “happy ending” girl at heart (but don’t tell anyone). I wanted my happy ending with this one. On a separate note, I adored Ferdyshchenko, the other lodger. His personality comes through in his comment, “I just came to warn you, in the first place, not to lend me money, because I’m quite sure to ask you to.” Followed by his winking “warningly several times behind [the other gentleman's back] and so managed to make an effective exit after all.” Love him.
Dani: Oh yeah! That was a funny scene.
Lori: I don’t have my book here – but I kinda liked the sister at the boarding house (Varya). She was enough removed to not thoroughly annoy me, but I liked her perspective and how she reacted to things – I guess she just amused me.
Mary: Okay, final thoughts…what about the book did you most love? Or what most annoyed you?
Dani: What I most loved about the book was the ending, as in the closing of the back cover. The ability to say with complete confidence “Oh yeah, I’ve read Dostoevsky. His themes on innocence and human nature are intriguing”. I realize that I should be more sophisticated in my answer, but I’m just telling it like it is. I wanted a happy ending after slogging through all that drama (and boy, was it DRAMA!), and I was annoyed that the ending wasn’t happy. It isn’t a Russian saying, but “c’est la vie”… which Mr. D does an excellent job of portraying.
Mary: Hahaha…the closing of the book cover, Dani? Nice. Hmm…I might agree with you on this one. Basically, from one book nerd to another we can now feel smarter about ourselves, eh? And what about you, Lori?
Lori?
Lori?
It appears that Lori ran off to find that elusive latte.
What’s the mood noise of the moment? Phoenix
Tags: Dostoevsky's The Idiot, notes on The Idiot, The Idiot discussion
Posted in Book Reviews, Dostoevsky, Literary Classics | 8 Comments » -
-
A Rainy Day Stew Recipe
Monday, October 18th, 2010
So I have a new stew recipe I’m obsessed with. I got it from one of my friend’s old magazines* and after a few adjustments have declared it a staple for this stew-ish season. Butternut squash, Italian sausage…enough said. In fact, I made it this weekend when Lori came over. We ate and discussed Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot,” and then the husbands appeared and finished off the rest. And if I can make a suggestion, you’ve GOT to make Dani’s INCREDIBLE cheesy breadsticks to go with the stew. They look like this:
Mmm…
Alrighty then…you know the drill. Payment for reading on through is to share the juicy details of your weekend. What did you do that we should all know about???
A Recipe for Rainy Day Stew
- 1 Tab. olive oil
- 1 lb. Italian sausage
- 1 Tab. garlic
- 1 chopped yellow onion
- ½ cup sliced mushrooms
- 1 peeled and chopped butternut squash (3 or 4 lbs.)
- 1 can corn
- 1 can green beans
- 1 can Italian stewed tomatoes
- 1 tsp. smoked paprika
- 1 ½ cups broth (chicken or beef)
- 1 handful fresh cilantro, chopped
- Feta cheese
- Tortilla chips (crushed)
In a thick pot, cook the Italian sausage (crumbling it with the back of wooden spoon) in the olive oil until thoroughly done. Drain excess grease; then add the garlic, onion, and mushrooms until softened. Add in the squash, corn, green beans, stewed tomatoes, paprika, and broth. Cook around 30 minutes, and then serve up with sprinkles of feta, cilantro, and chips on top of individual bowls. Enjoy.
*original recipe from Cuisine At Home, issue 79, Feb. 2010
Tags: breadsticks, butternut squash stew, Dostoevsky's The Idiot, rainy day recipes, Reading Recipes
Posted in Dostoevsky, Literary Classics, Reading Recipes | 8 Comments »
-
The Idiot (a book musing)
Thursday, October 14th, 2010
Don’t mind me. I’m just sitting on my bed writing this review while my husband hides behind the pillow next to me watching a zombie movie. So if at any point you hear screaming or someone whimpering like a little girl, that would be him. Just ignore it and read on.
And to answer your question, yes, I finally finished Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot.” And, yes, it took me three months. Don’t laugh. Some literature is best enjoyed in slow, chewable bites (similar to how zombies eat apparently). And if you recall my silly Idiot’s Guide to Dostoevsky post, then you’ll know how I feel about this piece in particular as well as its author. Next week I’ll give you part two, where Dani, Lori, and I hash over the book together in humored thoughts, edited comments (ahem), and lattes. But for now, here you go.
“I am a realist in the highest sense of the word, that is to say, I depict all the depths of the human soul.” –Dostoevsky.
I’ve said it before (in Women of Hysteria Unite), and I’ll say it again: Dostoevsky’s genius lies in his ability to exaggerate a quality or flaw within human nature (to the point of developing an entire personality based upon that single characteristic) for the purpose of exposing the innermost depths of the human soul. A type of embellished psychoanalysis, if you will, which remains unmatched by any plot device or redemptive conclusion in regards to the level of spirit-searching one can exact upon their reader. Not to say that Dostoevsky’s characters wallow without change in their particular quality or flaw, (or even forego any manner of redemption), but that, similar to us, they cannot achieve it without first having dredged the soul in self-discovery. In “Crime and Punishment,” Dostoevsky gave us Raskolnikov, the tormented conscience. In the case of “The Idiot,” he offers us our beloved Prince Myshkin, the personification of innocence.
An epileptic and a “simpleton,” the Prince is said to be Dostoevsky’s archetype of Christ. An embodiment of purity in human form set in the broken world of Russia’s nineteenth-century political and social system. From the beginning encounter with the unscrupulous Rogozhin, on through the varying societal circles of St. Petersburgh, Prince Myshkin’s virtue is met with the attitude most might cop when facing a man who idealistically confounds the standards of relational and social customs. First, they humor and at times even seek to use him, until their own insecurity rises with the suspicion that perhaps he is using and ridiculing them. Soon emerges, however, varying degrees of toleration, and finally, eventually, a certain amount of respect derived from both those who love and those who despise the Prince. And those who love him? Do so for the goodness he evokes in them. Those who despise him do so for the pricking their consciences give at their utter lack of goodness.
Thus the Prince is the crux of the story. The one on whom all plot and personalities play off of. He enters each family, each life, each scene with such presence that the book itself (not to mention the characters) changes consequently. (I suspect this is one of the reasons Dostoevsky rewrote it so many times before publication.) And just as he is the crux of Dostoevsky’s story, the Prince’s love for beautiful Aglaya thwarted by his compassion for Nastasya Filippovna is the heart of HIS story. Romantic desire sacrificed to empathy. Benevolence misunderstood for need. In light of this contrast, it becomes clear that the Prince cannot function in our world. He is too good, too pure. Emphasized all the more by the disparity between himself and Rogozhin, whose selfish passions drive him to murder, while our Prince’s incorruptibility leads to insanity.
Okay…so there you have it. My musings on Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot.” Now tell me, what’s the last novel you read where the main character inspired the best (or worst) within yourself? Or if you’re not up for deep reflection, then what’s the last movie you watched that made you squeak like a scared little girly girl?
What’s the mood noise of the moment? Creedence Clearwater Revival
Tags: chapter summaries, cliff notes, fyodor dostoevsky, homework, idiot dostoevsky, review of dostoevsky the idiot, studyguide for dostoyevsky, the idiot
Posted in Best & Worst Books, Book Reviews, Dostoevsky, Literary Classics | 13 Comments »
-
An Idiot's Guide to Dostoyevsky
Friday, April 9th, 2010
My husband spoiled me on our anniversary this week by arriving home with multiple gifts in hand: A new cell phone, a lovely outfit, and the book “The Idiot.” Okay . . . admittedly, with a title like that, a lesser woman might have commenced with a petard hoisting (and rightly so), but not me. I’ll say this much for him–the man knows his way to a nerd-girl’s heart.
Mainly, through Dostoyevsky.
What is it about that literary genius I so lionize? Well . . . hmm. I guess there’s the fact that Dostoyevsky was an ACTUAL literary genius. There’s also the tidbit where he’s often considered the founder of existentialism (something which fascinates me to no end). Oh, and let’s not forget Dostoyevsky as hands-down one of THE supreme literary psychologists of all time (reference “Notes from Underground”).
And then we come to that sweeeeeeeet fact of life where by simply dropping Dostoevsky’s name we get to sound oh-so-intelligent amidst large gatherings of snooty / witty / yuppy / half-drunk people.
“Dostoyevsky.”
See. Didn’t that up your opinion of my mental faculties at least a half-point? Take notes on this because, for some of you, it could mean the difference between having Friday night dinner with your mother, or with that hot wedge of intellect over in the next cubicle who unfairly thinks you have a few marbles missing.
So here’s my offering—a brief run-down of Dostoyevsky details—in hopes your weekend turns out AWESOME ***said in a high-pitched sing-song voice***. Don’t say I never did anything for you.
Ahem. I begin.
Born in Russia in 1821 as the second of six children, Dostoevsky grew up among the angst-soaked faces of the poor and dissolute. He lived in the hospital where his father worked as a physician in a community littered with delinquency, orphans, a cemetery (specifically for criminals) and an insane asylum. (Sound like any of his books?)
Dostoyevsky attended the Academy of Military Engineering, after which, he earned the status of lieutenant and served in the army. During Dostoyevsky’s time in school (1839 to be exact) his alcoholic father died. Rumors abound as to the cause–one of which suggests that Daddy D.’s serfs went all Karamazov on him by drowning him in vodka. It wasn’t until after Dostoyevsky resigned his military commission that he earned his first literary success–the book “Poor Folk” at the age of 24.
Following a brief period involving a socialist group called the Petrashevsky Circle (here’s a random crumb that’s great for cocktail gossip: Petrashevsky once attended church wearing woman’s clothing), Dostoyevsky was sent to a mock firing squad and then to a Siberian prison camp for four years (see “Crime and Punishment,” “The House of The Dead,” and “The Insulted and Injured”).
Although he achieved enormous success as a living author (versus a dead one–a significant feat that
), Dostoyevsky spent his later years plagued by severe poverty due to tremendous business and gambling debts and a strong conviction to provide financially for his step-son and his dead brother’s family. It appears he worked like a speed demon on the latter parts of “Crime and Punishment,” while also working on “The Gambler,” in order to sell both and pay his debts.Dostoyevsky suffered from epilepsy (influencing characters in “The Idiot” and “The Brothers Karamazov”) and a gambling addiction. He was a playwright (“Mary Stuart,” “Boris Godunov”), a journalist, and a Russian Orthodox Christian (“The Peasant Marey”).
And last (but never least), there really was a Katerina Ivanovna (my favorite, as you well know—see Dostoevsky and His Women). Apollinaria Suslova. He used her as a model for both of his Katerina Ivanovnas (one appearing in “Crime and Punishment,” the other in “The Brothers Karamazov”).
Dostoyevsky died in February of 1881 (from a lung hemorrhage), having written an assortment of books bearing such depth that people like you and I read only one, and then brag about it for the rest of our lives.
All right, my reading friendlies. There you have it: your very own easy access Idiot’s Guide to Dostoyevsky.
So . . . my question of the day? Is there a particular Dostoyevsky novel that you (a) prefer, (b) have always wanted to read, or (c) have never read but use to impress the ladies (or gents) with? Tell the truth.
What’s the mood noise of the moment? Demon Hunter: My Heartstrings Come Undone
For further Dostoyevsky info (or to access that cool picture of him up there) you can go here, here, or here.
Tags: biography on Dostoyevsky, demon hunter music, dostoyevsky's psychology, Dostoyevsky's The Idiot, Katerine Ivanovna, literary genius
Posted in Author Tidbits, Best & Worst Books, Book Reviews, Dostoevsky, Literary Classics | 14 Comments »
-
Dostoevsky and His Women (or women of hysteria unite)
Thursday, January 28th, 2010
Speaking of rabid and swooning women (as we did in last week’s Twilight post), I’m convinced that Dostoevsky went and bought the corner market on that petri dish.
Don’t get me wrong–I love his female characters. It’s just that, well . . . they’re all kind of insane. Spending weeks (or months in some cases) entrenched in a book with them is akin to something of an extended visit with the world’s most unbalanced mother-in-law. For example, Dostoevsky’s women hardly ever actually say anything. Instead, they shriek, they cry, they interrupt, they moan, and–more often than not–they yell whatever it is they want to communicate at the rest of humanity.
Take my favorite Crime and Punishment character for instance, Katerina Ivanova. A drama-queen to the hilt (okay, so I might’ve once or twice unfairly referred to her as a 19th-century Perez Hilton). She’s furious at her husband for being alive and drunk, then cursing up his corpse for getting killed and abandoning the family. She accuses her landlady of being heartless and low (which she is), but then proceeds to thoroughly insult the woman’s, er, “heritage” before digging into one of the best cat-fights recorded in literary fictiondom. Not that her hysterics aren’t understandable in light of her life situation; however, it’s the way she performs them which is so disturbingly wonderful.
What I love about Katerina Ivanova more than anything though is that she is, in essence, an exaggerated variation of each one of us–male or female.
Her pride and craving for security breed false expectation and a yearning to control. She sets up in her mind the way life is supposed to be–the way she needs it to be–and then alters her view of people and circumstances to support those ideals; to the point that she truly believes in her own illusions. And when life and individuals don’t pan out the way she planned? Her world falls apart. Over. And over. And over. She becomes victimized by circumstance, yes. But more so by her unreal expectations.
And herein lays Dostoevsky’s genius with his women. They are each a piece of the dysfunction we all possess. Just embellished to the point of hysteria so that we might see ourselves as we are, in the dish, under the microscope of fiction at its best.
All that said, my reading friendlies, I’ve a question for you. What novel would you recommend as doing an excellent job in its representation of human nature???
What’s the mood noise of the moment? Coldplay: Fix You
Tags: Coldplay's fix you, crime and punishment, Dostoevsky's women, Perez Hilton, Twilight women
Posted in Author Tidbits, Best & Worst Books, Dostoevsky, Literary Classics | 12 Comments »