| Back to Review Index | Go to the Home Page |
Fall 2005-April 2006 Taken from that wonderful e-text source, Project Gutenburg.
Well, it's a very long Russian Classic. And my Dear Pamela and myself read it together, (She in German, I in English.) One of the things we discussed about it, was the fact that there is nearly no action that takes place within the text. (Only at the very end of each of the three sections.) It all happens between the sections. This means that the whole book seems to be about people's reactions, now that such-and-such has occurred. (A theft, or a separation, or a wedding, or an argument, or a death, or so on and on.) But we are never witness to any of these happenings themselves.
Anyhow, it just seems like an unusual way to write a novel. It's entirely involved with people's reactions. I feel that it's about how they change, and grow. This is Caused by the events, but it takes place after them. And that's what we're given to see. For example; the death of one older man causes a sick man to consider how he's dealing with his mortality. It causes another to grow up, and a family to pull together. The author doesn't care a bit for him, now that he's gone. The important thing is how the others change, and react. (And I was making most of that up. I can't remember now what all the results were from this old man dying.) The whole book is spent giving us a clearer and clearer picture of who the characters are. Even though they do nearly nothing during the text. Have I made this clear? That it seems action only takes place so that we have more insight into thoughts.
A strange idea that came into my head, was "what would the story of the Titanic be like, if told this way?" Imagine being in the heads of a number of the crew, as they were setting sail, on that glorious maiden voyage. And then the second half of the book makes a great leap, to the survivors who are in one lifeboat. Nothing in between the two. The book takes place only at the Departing, and when some are rescued. Wouldn't that be... different?
What else? Being Dostoyevsky, it's somewhat depressing, and is tragic in many parts. I've found it well written, and powerful, (although the power inevitably wanes at some parts of the story. But that's something which can't be avoided in such a long book as this.) Part of the reason that Pamela and I decided on reading this book, is because it plays (mostly,) in Saint Petersburg. (Which we visited last summer.) So, we thought that it would be interesting to be able to identify with places in the book. No such luck though. The story doesn't range about the city much, and it plays only at private houses anyhow. There was no "Having coffee in such-and-such a square." or "going to so and so Cathedral to meet someone."
But why did I like the book? It's just interesting. I'm so curious about the people in it, and what they will do. (If they get around to not just thinking, but Doing anything.) Perhaps this is because Dostoyevsky takes such care at giving us a close picture of each one. No, it couldn't be just that. A close picture can be a boring picture. What he does, is show a close picture in a wonderful way; in a way that makes us think. In a way that makes them alive. In a way that makes each of them somehow worth knowing.
But I'm at a loss for more things to say now. What I can say, is that I'm sure it will be interesting to read still more works by Dostoyevsky.