>"My position in regard to Dostoevski is a curious and difficult one. In all my courses I approach literature from the only point of view that literature interests me —namely the point of view of enduring art and individual genius. From this point of view Dostoevski is not a great writer, but a rather mediocre one—with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between. In Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov for some reason or other kills an old female pawnbroker and her sister. Justice in the shape of an inexorable police officer closes slowly in on him until in the end he is driven to a public confession, and through the love of a noble prostitute he is brought to a spiritual regeneration that did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. My difficulty, however, is that not all the readers to whom I talk in this or other classes are experienced. A good third, I should say, do not know the difference between real literature and pseudoliterature, and to such readers Dostoevski may seem more important and more artistic than such trash as our American historical novels or things called From Here to Eternity and such like balderdash."
Other than the established fact that he has absolutely no regard for human life, can we have a discussion about Nabokov's ideals with regards to art and literature, I suppose, in this case with reference to Dostoyevsky, being the ? Do you think his criticism is warranted? Why or why not? I've included a snippet from his lectures on Russian literature.
His taste was actually pretty awful and he had a very narrow view of what a novel should be like, dismissing everything that didn't cater specifically to him personally.
Benjamin Reyes
>Dostoevski's lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity—all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of "sinning their way to Jesus" or, as a Russian author Ivan Bunin put it more bluntly, "spilling Jesus all over the place." Just as I have no ear for music, I have to my regret no ear for Dostoevski the Prophet.
And with specific reference to his writing: >In the light of the historical development of artistic vision, Dostoevski is a very fascinating phenomenon. If you examine closely any of his works, say The Brothers Karamazov, you will note that the natural background and all things relevant to the perception of the senses hardly exist. What landscape there is is a landscape of ideas, a moral landscape. The weather does not exist in his world, so it does not much matter how people dress. Dostoevski characterizes his people through situation, through ethical matters, their psychological reactions, their inside ripples. After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance any more in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist, say Tolstoy, who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment.
Can this be attributed to mere stylistic differences, or does it point to Dostoyevsky's failures as an artist?
James Moore
stylistic. dostoevsky was primarily concerned with the internal and how the characters themselves view the world and their own being.
Tolstoy preferred a more balanced approach that tilted towards the external and how characters interact with each other and project their selves to the society around them
Lincoln Kelly
>After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance any more in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist, say Tolstoy, who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment. I really lile this because I don't have a particularly vivid graphical imagination.
Caleb Anderson
So basically, Nabokov is just an angry man who wants to voice an opinion without having any sound arguments other than "I dislike it, so it's bad!"
Lucas Bennett
Yes, none of this is something that's wrong. Lucky for us, literature wasn't catered for him.
Nicholas Williams
>Just as I have no ear for music It shows.
Angel Cook
I think this is in regards to Nabokov's assertion that Dostoyevsky sees his characters more as symbols and ideas rather than fleshed out entities with human depth. Yes, Nabokov stresses letting the characters, rather the author's moral sympathies, dictate the progression of the story.
Ian Cruz
Dostoyevsky was a novelist whereas nabakov was a writer
