It’s a book that intertwines the narrative of his life with his own words, taken from where his fiction has been drawn from lived experience, which is such a great way to do a literary biography. You are the author of a new biography of Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1861). Foreign Policy & International Relations.This entry was posted in 19th Century Russian Prose, 20th Century Irish Prose, Irish Literature, Russian Literature and tagged Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Samuel Beckett by Anthony. The insight that lies within Dostoevsky’s ideas and thoughts are what makes his novels so interesting, and so worthwhile to read and ponder.
Style and artistry are secondary to his psychological intuition. In a sense, Dostoevsky steals a march on Beckett’s 1961 comments by finding a form that accommodates his chaotic themes, characters, all the stuff he chucks into his narrative. To find a form that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. …there will be new form…and this new form will be of such a type that it admits the chaos and does not try to say that the chaos is really something else…That is why the form itself becomes a preoccupation, because it exists as a problem separate from the material it accommodates. The flat narrative texture is far less forgiving and shows up the imperfections in Dostoevsky’s form to a greater degree than the other novels. It recalls the Beckett quote that I wrote about once before: Nowadays we’d classify it as fictionalised autobiography. The narrative texture of Memoirs from the House of the Dead is very different from his other novels in that Dostoevsky avoids didacticism and narrates using what is almost a direct reportage style.
Reading Dostoevsky’s Memoirs from the House of the Dead and some relevant parts of Joseph Frank’s Dostoyevsky, The Years of Ordeal, 1850-59 brings into focus what I think I find most interesting in Dostoevsky’s novels.
0 kommentar(er)
