Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nodrog
The Brothers Karamazov, on the other hand, I thought was shit. The main problem is that Doestovsky was completely unable to write a character who wasnt decadent - he was great at portraying 'bad' humans, but that was it. In his notes for BK, he said that Alyosha was meant to be the positive character, but this is pretty laughable given that he was at least as contemptible as the rest of them. All throughout the book, I was screaming for the appearnce of a heroic character, someone with even a basic degree of strength, integrity, or honesty, who would stand above the pathetic failures and actually give the whole thing a point. But alas he never came, and I was stuck with 800 pages about mediocrity.
"Notes From the Underground" is far better imo, since it allowed Doestoyvsky to concentrate on what he was best at - writing about sick people and sick societies - rather than trying to take on a task which his religious beliefs probably made him incapable of completing.
|
I think you're just used to characters who come in and have superhuman characteristics is just because most books don't have the same depth of character that Dostoevsky does. His characters are more worthwhile than simply "good" and "bad", the depth of the psychology is good enough that he can make conflicting interests within the characters seem reasonable. Dostoevsky, along with Dickens and some other chaps, were realists. A "hero" in that book would have ruined it and made it seem unrealistic. The characters did have their virtues, but they were tinged with their vices and their failings. Perfect characters are boring.
I also don't quite understand how you can call such a beacon of virtue and goodness as Alyosha "contemptible", I'd like to hear your reasoning for that. It's certainly not how the character came across to me.
I do think Notes from the Underground is perhaps more brilliant though (but as a far far smaller work I would regard TBK as more of an artistic acheivement, or whatever). It's available online and I would suggest that anyone and everyone read it. Whilst you are doing so, try to remember when it was written and it's even more amazing.
Anyway, books. In the last week I have been cut off from the internet at home I've read quite a few books (god bless the university library). I got out James Joyce - Portrait of the artist as a young man, Nick Hornby - High fidelity, Arthur Conan Doyle - hound of the Baskervilles, Arthur C Clarke - 2001, Iris Murdoch - Nuns and soldiers. I also got out Salman Rushdie - East, West. But I haven't read that yet. I'd never read any of those authors before (yes, I know, shut up) and it has been quite an experience reading so many different styles of writing so densely.
Joyce was pretty intense, I didn't know exactly what to expect, but it was fun to find it anyway. It's quite an odd book with oodles of introspection and psychology and I can't be bothered to actually go into it, but the way it's done is great. Especially the writing evolving with the character (you'll know what I mean if you read it).
The Nick Hornby one I actually read in an evening when I wanted a break from Joyce. Really easy to read and an entertaining enough contemporary tale, according to some friends of mine I shouldn't ever read any more of his books now because they're all the same
Hound of the Baskervilles was as ace as you would expect it to be. I'm almost certainly going to read more Holmes some time in the future (maybe I'll get one out when I leave the library I'm making this post from). Excellent plot, written at a perfect pace to keep the reader on his toes and although it can surprise it always felt justified.
2001 was great too, and I feel as if a certain, common part of sci-fi culture that I should have had years ago has finally been consumed. The ending I certainly wasn't expecting though, but somehow very satisfying.
I only picked up the Nuns and Soldiers because I wanted a woman writer's book and had vaguely heard of the author and the title. It's a beast though, it reminded me a bit of dostoevsky at the start actually, very in depth psychological writing that just seems to go on and on and on. It doesn't get boring though, I haven't actually finished it yet (about 50 pages left out of 500, this one took me as long to read as all the others put together. It being the longest by far and being the second most difficult to read) and I'm hoping that something huge happens at the end. I don't think it will, but theres been intrigue building throughout and I can't wait to see where it has all been leading.
Anyway, I'm babbling now. The above is pretty much "what I have done with my week" so at least I can console my internetless self with the fact that at this rate I will have read a few hundred more classic books by the time i get the internet back. Hurrah!