4 ms·

There are masterpieces in this genre too. Take for example Dostoyevsky. Each of his character is a direct representative of a certain philosophy - you easily fi

• forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  > There are masterpieces in this genre too. Take for example Dostoyevsky. Each of his character is a direct representative of a certain philosopy I strongly disagree that Dostoevsky characters are created to be genre representatives by the way - the closest match to this kind prototypical categorization would probably be Devils (Or Demons depending on the translation) which of his works has the most political character hues - and I've read the various literary theory that pigeon hole Dostoevsky's characters in Devil's to various ideological/political positions - but in my own natural impression of the work this wasn't there and I am inclined to believe this is the author's of the related literary theory imposing what they would like to read form the work onto Dostoevsky's imagination. It's hard to explain why exactly I think it reads so differently - but I would say my impression of the literary imagination and creative process is entirely at odds with the accounts that want to extract political or ideological positives from which these theories are built; it's not that > 'God is mandatory to ethics' is not part of Dostoevsky's thought process let's suppose it is - but I would rather suggest that the idea of agenda is foreign to his work (consider what is the agenda in for example The Idiot? -- to prove that natural goodness in people is useless and leads to insanity?) - and that rather the construction happens organically, my hypothetical recipe for imitation would be something like this: let us suppose some starting conditions and an ideological theory within a setting (suggested say by current events, or local conditions, or a real life individual) and then try to see how this character (with application of his ideological theory) develops in this setting. But this is surely a different process from starting with agenda and designing characters with the goal of convincing the public of a particular ethical or economic theory. Of course I cannot prove that Dostoevsky was not trying to convince the public of something - this is only my particular impression, but I would say two things point in favour of it - the literary merit itself - and the fact that despite the literary merit, rarely is the agenda ever clear or strongly convincing.
  • szemet 11y ago
    Ok. But on the other hand if we suppose you do have an agenda, then it just a decision if you write it in original platonic style (I dont know anything, I have only questions, let see where the conversation leads), or in Gallileo style (poor stupid Simplicio...) Of course the second will be more clearly propagandastic...
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • mercer 11y ago
    What I liked about Dostoevsky was that he seemed to primarily focus on the psychology of his characters, and any politics and agenda felt like a natural part of this. Because of this focus on 'rich' individuals, I never felt he simply put words in the characters mouths to promote or reject an agenda. Real humans are too messy for that. In contrast, a writer who I personally greatly love, C.S. Lewis, had a tendency to become overtly preachy. I'm using him as an example because he strikes me as a perfect case of someone torn between telling a good story and wanting to put out a message. There's an interesting split in his oeuvre between books that are wonderful stories (Perelandra), and books that try to convince you to be a Christian, and his Narnia Chronicles occupy a confusing mix of the two. Many people love his stories despite his preachiness, and many people absolutely hate him for his preachiness despite the fact that he was a good writer. Personally, I wasn't bothered by most of his overt Christian themes in Narnia, for example, because many of those themes transcend mere Christianity (budum ching). But the little tidbit about one of the core characters not going to heaven because she liked lipstick a little too much (basically) felt like a terrible violation of his storytelling just to make a point. Anyways, I'm getting off topic here but I like any excuse to get into Lewis, as he's one of my favorite characters precisely because he strikes me as so maddeningly torn between different things. Carry on.