David Foster Wallace on Fyodor Dostoevsky
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 апр 2024
- What were David Foster Wallace's thoughts on Fyodor Dostoevsky? Well, today we are going to do a deep dive into why Wallace loved Dostoevsky, what we can learn from Dostoevsky, and how Dostoevsky embodies unrealized aspects of literature that most Americans ignore.
Access 6+ hours of the David Foster Wallace course (and an hour-plus video on this same topic here) You will also get access to 15+ hours on Cormac McCarthy.
writeconscious.substack.com/
Access 6+ hours of the David Foster Wallace course (and an hour-plus video on this same topic here) You will also get access to 15+ hours on Cormac McCarthy.
writeconscious.substack.com/
I just finished reading Crime and Punishment a minute ago, picked up my phone, and this video is the first thing that popped up on my screen (and it was just posted an hour ago!). The universe works in strange ways sometimes...
That's not a coincidence...
nah that's just the algorithm working as it's supposed to. I gather you've probably at least spoken about, searched for, or read the book on a device that's listening
Sorry, I should have clarified what I meant. Just the day before I actually searched "Write Conscious Dostoevsky" and nothing came up. And then the following day he posted this very video. I'm not saying it's a coincidence that the video popped up--I'm saying it's a coincidence he made it right at the time that he did
Dostoevsky (1821-81)
Dostoyevsky was a man of many compulsions, and his storylines center on spiritual warfare. In order to understand Dostoyevsky, one must understand something about Russian Orthodox piety, a thing alien to Latin theology and Evangelical theology. And that is the figure of the holy fool.
With its apophatic strain, orthodox theology eschews the rational apologetic and theodicean programme of philosophical theology. Instead, orthodox theology is more existential and hagiographic. In Dostoyevsky, characters such as Tihon and Zossima fill this function. And a special case of its hagiographic orientation is the figure of the holy fool. In Dostoyevsky, characters such as Myshkin and Alyosha discharge this role.
Dostoyevsky has no intellectual answer to the problem of evil, but he has an existential answer in the exemplary lives of the saints-with special reference to the tradition of the holy fool. By definition, the holy fool is in some ways a moral naïf, yet his simplicity is a hidden strength, for his innocence is not owing to ignorance of evil. Both saint and sinner experience sin, but with a difference. A man who resists evil has felt the blade of temptation cut more deeply than the man who surrenders without a fight. The saint is a battle-hardened warrior.
What is more, good understands evil-but evil can never grasp the good. And there is even an ironic sense in which evil lacks the necessary detachment to understand its own moral character, for evil is too inebriated by the passion of the moment to be objective; whereas the good, by retaining a wary distance, enjoys a more sober perspective. In this respect, Bernanos and Dostoyevsky share a common philosophy.
What are we to make of Dostoyevsky’s treatment? In its favor, most devout believers are holy fools. They are not intellectuals. They are quite incapable of defending their faith by reasoned argument. For many of them, their version of a theistic proof takes the form of a person, not a proposition-of the living witness and wordless testimony of a godly mother or grandmother, pious father, grandfather, pastor or priest. Their theodicy is a breathing, flesh-and-blood believer. They take heart in the great cloud of pilgrims who have gone before. To his credit, then, Dostoyevsky strikes a note which is often missing in Christian literature-a note that reverberates in many hearts.
Having said that, there are a number of weaknesses in this lopsided emphasis. Left to itself, there is a viciously circular quality to this appeal. To the question, "Why believe?" he points to the example of other believers. But that begs the question. The question is not, "Why do you believe?" but, "Why should anyone believe?" Mere belief is not self-certifying. The moon is not made of green cheese just because a majority might think so.
It must be admitted, though, that there is something about the extremes of good and evil which resist reductive explanations. For both of them exceed any outward provocation. A saint is a living sacrament-an outer sign of an inner grace, whereas a human fiend is an anti-sacrament-an outer sign of an evil incubus.
There is, however, something deeply deficient about ceding the high ground of reason to the devil’s party while reserving a citadel of faith for ourselves. To begin with, this disregards the Dionysian streak of evil. Depravity, in its advanced stages, is radically irrational.
In addition, reason is not the privileged providence of philosophers. A philosopher is a man who never outgrew the questions of a child. Dostoyevsky, himself, was a high-powered intellectual. And he must resort to reason in making a case for fideism.
Steve Hays, "A twice-told tale"
Flannery O’Connor comes to mind as a writer with conviction.
I am reading crime and punishment right now. And earlier today I was like, “man I think Wallace is so so similar to Dostoevsky.” Researched to see if anyone held that view as well, then kind of went about my day. Wrapping my night up to find this posted I felt eerily similar to Raskolnikov in a superstitious way, how this seemed to line up… you da man. Love your stuff.
My Doctorate is in Russian Lit.- specialist on Dostoevsky. His writing is simple to "analyze". He was Russian Orthodox. His religious beliefs explain everything.
Another excellent video.
Great stuff
Thanks!
My head is still spinning from viewing this video.
--
Dostoevsky is at his best in "Crime and Punishment." He explains how the lower class must take the blame for the ills of society and the actions of those segments which continually harm -- just because they can easily be swayed into believing their guilt and malicious unthinking nature? It is because their faith tells them they are not pure for trying to outsmart those higher on the food chain. It makes me think this quality is ingrained in us everytime we see or hear something we can't have because virtue needs to stay in a certain area to be greater. I call it waiting in line and not cutting. We all do it to succomb to that mechanism driving us to function and not be part of anarchy.
I like your line of thinking and would like to hear an expansion of your ideas.
Why don't you back your statements with examples from the texts?
What the heck is a don’t?
Yesterday I finished _Infinite Jest_ and now this video randomly pops up in my recommendations!
Nothing about your recommendations are random
I only wish his writings were short and clear like Dostoyevsky's.
Is that Male Fantasies on the shelf behind you? I found the second volume in hardcover (sans dust jacket) at a yard sale for a buck years ago. Always been looking to catch a physical copy of the first volume out in the world while book hunting. The hardcover goes for big bucks if you can find it...
Gaddis was an extreme example of high modernism in USA lit and he worshiped Dostoyevsky.
Being alive I assume I'm a witness to modernism in the US. I couldn't finish Recognitions. Lost my way in the hundreds of pages about a party in New York. Loved Infinite Jest for its humor: the alligators at the AA meetings, the paraplegic train robbers in Canada, etc. I could identify with its theme of drug and media addictions. Gaddis focused on originality while Wallace on consumerism and dependance. Different layers of thought about the same thing. Dostoyevsky's novels, however, still tap a deeper source that either of these great writers.
Wallace's admiration for Dostoyevsky's moral character makes sense in Wallace's context of late 20th century irony-ridden postmodern departments. But I do have to say not everyone (or anyone) can replicate Dostoyevsky's masterful abilities. Having a strong textual moral standpoint through your work becomes, in less deft hands, preachy. I'd say that actually much modern literature, especially the types of confessional coming-of-age novels you have often railed against, generally wear their politics on their sleeve. And I don't think this is a good thing.
Literature's point is not to create a philosophical treatise (for example, Ayn Rand's "novels"), it is to investigate and express the human condition. To do this means not strawmanning the opposing position, to fairly and honestly represent people in all their contradictions, conflicts, and qualities. But that also doesn't mean the author need be a passive observer. They can put their thumb on the scale, but must do so with a spirit of love and respect for all characters and people, and be aware that their perspective is not objective nor final. We are all subjects of history.
That is what Dostoyevsky achieved (on top of his important structural/stylistic developments): a passionate discussion of faith, morality, and identity which lovingly yet sternly talks to his community.
[That said I would like to see a book like Crime & Punishment where there is an actual moral dilemma. The case Dostoyevsky presents is all too black-and-white to be interesting or persuasive. The Brothers Karamazov is far better.]
Yeah sometimes through trying to make a point with a story we get carried away into the other details, but it’s those details that make writing more human. In As I Lay Dying, Faulkner’s writing is supposed to just be a way of pointing out how each of these characters think of one objective thing, but it ends up saying so many broader things about the human condition.
Yeah, anyone who is familiar with modern evangelical Christian art knows that making a statement only gets you so far. Artists can absolutely make preachy, grating, shallow "statement" works. To strike the balance seen in Dostoevsky takes immense talent, precision, and hard work.
Have you read Nikos Kazantzakis?
What is the best one to read?
@@yogi2436 The Last Temptation of Christ is the only one I’ve read so far. I did like it a lot though.
@@jakfan09 thanks
His novels are bigger than him. I don’t think he fully and consciously realized some things he had expressed in his works.
I think he very much did so, to the point of epilepsy. He wants so hard to express these things, that he often runs ahead of himself and writes in a very slapdash, undisciplined way.
@@AleksandarBloom he simply didn’t have time to edit for the most part up until his very last novel. On the point of epilepsy, I don’t think it was what is clinically and classically considered epilepsy. I think it was, in part, a severe case of somatisation with some neurological basis.
At last, someone pushing back against radical Leftism.
John Fante would of made ol as the dusty proud, his writing was jsut as guttaral and evasive american style wihtout dusty's convictioin. more often than not its economic as in housing/finances of family from a group of those that musnt' critisize that made the world its stage of why it is so. love is an underccurent that ppl can't tap into cuz head in cloud or gutter isms
Crime & Punishment is one of the most boring books I've ever 'felt' compelled to read, considering who he was - it's just my opinion.
Crime & Punishment is one of the finest pieces of literature ever written, it is slower than molasses in parts especially the middle, but if you get through it man is it worth it. Ever since I finished it for the first time 4 years ago or so I haven’t gone a day without thinking about it.
@@rowleyzero made it to the last chapter & let it go. It left me empty. I'm glad you like it though. 👍🏻
@@46metube oh my! Well I’m sure there are books that didn’t resonate with me either that other consider “brilliant” I can definitely understand why Dostoyevsky isn’t for everyone, his stuff can be too dark and just…let’s just say he was a bit of an emo kid sometimes but very knowledgeable of the written word lol.
I don’t like elitests who act as though you should smell the dudes farts and be paralyzed by his brilliance. When it comes down to it if you don’t like it put that son of a bitch down and read something you like more. I give you 2 thumbs of for finishing it even though you didn’t like it.
I tried to read neuromancer by Gibson people say it is “the” sci fi book… I literally couldn’t keep my eyes open past page 50 something and instantly dnfd it.
Ayn Rand is a good writer, lmao. Cope.
Currently rereading Atlas Shrugged. No, she isn't.
@@TheTrueRandomGamer What about the book isn't good?
Strawmen antagonists, prose which doesn't understand the concept of peaks and valleys, unnatural dialogue, to name a few.
@@TheTrueRandomGamer I found the dialogue and prose to be fine. Also the characters aren't supposed to be realistic depictions - they're ideal versions of what Rand would consider to be ideal men.
Many fiction novels do this, it isn't unique to Atlas Shrugged.
Good for you. Everyone else sees glaring technical problems absent from better literature. And "muh idealized characters" isn't an excuse for them all having the same voice and essential traits, even in situations which are ill fitting at best.