I must say that I am pretty excited about this course. I was a little intimidated when I received the book in the mail. Not by it's size, I actually love tackling large books, but by the fact that we are dedicating an entire course to this material. I've never gone into a book so far and I suppose it'll be interesting to see how I come out of it...
Meeting the Karamazovs for the first time was... actually it started with meeting Fyodor Mikhailovich and his writing style. He seemed think prefaces were unnecessary, but he said this in a preface. He went on to ask a bunch of questions people might have about his peculiar choice of hero, but then never really answered any of the questions in a way that would satisfy anybody. I suppose it did do the job he intended as you are left with a curiosity about this Aleksey Ivanovich that you may not have had otherwise.
I feel that the writing style is too over the place to not be strategic. He leads you into a "corner" of a subject just to halt you there, say that we can't address this yet, and lead you away again. Character studies aren't exactly the most exciting things, so this is actually a great way to keep a reader on his or her toes and interested in the tale.
I don't ever remember reading such a descriptive description as Dostoyevsky's about Fyodor. The physiognomy reminds me about stuff I have read regarding phrenology about facial structures and skulls that were thought to belong to those of criminal nature. By looking at a person's facial structure, you would supposedly been able to determine whether they has criminal tendencies.
I'm not too sure about what to make of the brothers yet. One is fast, one is smart, and the other is... Well Aleksey is... angelic? Other worldly? A dreamer? Again, I am not sure what to make of them yet. I will most definitely keep you posted about their characters and about the trouble brewing between Dmitry and Fyodor, and the other brothers involvement. Can it really be all about the money?
5 comments:
Great image...and phrenology was most definitely something that was the rage in the nineteenth century when it came to people trying to figure out personality types and/or to explain certain patterns of behavior.
I like the way you describe the narrative style. Doesn't it often almost remind you of someone who is so excited to tell you everything that they end up kind of skirting the surface of everything rather than diving right into the heart of it--yet at the same time, it is precisely this approach that can bring forth interesting and peculiar details that might be overlooked by a more traditional narrator. And I also like how you suggest such a tactic may be strategic--or perhaps it only seems so? Another example of this Dostoevskian type of complexity and ambiguity at work!
It is does remind me of of someone who does that... namely myself. Sometimes I do it and forget the original point I was trying to make, but by that time it doesn't really matter anymore. heh. I'm sure that Dostoyevsky won't go so far as that though!
My first impression of Fyodor's writing style was that it somewhat resembled a journal. I recently had to write a journal for my J-term course and upon re-reading it, I was alarmed by how scatter-brained it sounded. I had a tough time remembering everything about each person I encountered, so most of it was written as I remembered it; if that makes sense? Fyodor's writing, or at least the narrator, reminds me of a journal; he wants to record everything before he forgets, but has no order to his thoughts. I am curious to read the rest of the novel and see if it maintains this journalistic style.
Katarina,
Thank you for including the image on phrenology. Even though I've encountered the image before in a psychology textbook, it's been several years since then.
I found your remark about Dostoyevsky's writing as 'strategic' to be very thought-provoking. I guess I hadn't thought of him as setting up any greater plot/plan other than telling the story, and as I write this, I feel foolish making this confession. I'm wondering if he purposely chooses a long-winded, rambling narrator as a way of setting us readers at ease. But do I suspect Dostoyevsky of some master plot into which he's trying to ensnare the reader? I fear I'm coming across far more cynical than I'd like. At this point, I will read the next section with an open mind before making any further judgments.
I do like the writing style of the novel so far. As other posters have mentioned, the wandering narration gives it a unique style that does feel like someone is personally narrating the story. If this style of narration continues I am interested in what possible twist this could add to the story.
I also liked that you devoted part of your blog to phrenology. The history nerd in me loved the picture.
Post a Comment