What do you think?
Rate this book
A Writer's Diary
The essential entries from Dostoevsky's complete Diary, called his boldest experiment in literary form, are now available in this abridged edition; it is a uniquely encyclopedic forum of fictional and nonfictional genres. A Writer's Diary began as a column in a literary journal, but by 1876 Dostoevsky was able to bring it out as a complete monthly publication with himself as an editor, publisher, and sole contributor, suspending work on The Brothers Karamazov to do so.
The Diary's radical format was matched by the extreme range of its contents. In a single frame it incorporated an astonishing variety of material: short stories; humorous sketches; reports on sensational crimes; historical predictions; portraits of famous people; autobiographical pieces; and plans for stories, some of which were never written while others appeared later in the Diary itself. A range of authorial and narrative voices and stances and an elaborate scheme of allusions and cross-references preserve and present Dostoevsky's conception of his work as a literary whole.
Selected from the two-volume set, this abridged edition of A Writer's Diary appears in a single paperback volume, along with a new condensed introduction by editor Gary Saul Morson.
The Diary's radical format was matched by the extreme range of its contents. In a single frame it incorporated an astonishing variety of material: short stories; humorous sketches; reports on sensational crimes; historical predictions; portraits of famous people; autobiographical pieces; and plans for stories, some of which were never written while others appeared later in the Diary itself. A range of authorial and narrative voices and stances and an elaborate scheme of allusions and cross-references preserve and present Dostoevsky's conception of his work as a literary whole.
Selected from the two-volume set, this abridged edition of A Writer's Diary appears in a single paperback volume, along with a new condensed introduction by editor Gary Saul Morson.
574 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1881
About the author
Fyodor Dostoevsky
3,453 books55.8k followersWorks, such as the novels
Crime and Punishment
(1866),
The Idiot
(1869), and
The Brothers Karamazov
(1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.
Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons (1872).
Many literary critics rate him of the greatest of world literature and consider multiple highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He also well acts as a philosopher and theologian.
(Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) (see also Fiodor Dostoïevski)
Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons (1872).
Many literary critics rate him of the greatest of world literature and consider multiple highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He also well acts as a philosopher and theologian.
(Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) (see also Fiodor Dostoïevski)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
April 29, 2024
O precizare. Nu este vorba de un jurnal intim. Nu cuprinde nici celebrele carnete de însemnări ale scriitorului. Sînt articole publicate de Dostoievski sub forma unui ziar, reacții la știrile semnalate de celelalte gazete și răspunsuri la nedumeririle cititorilor. Abia succesul de public al acestui jurnal l-a scos din sărăcie pe autor...
În chipul cel mai surprinzător, dincolo de o mulțime de idei retrograde (despre „esența rusă” și alte bazaconii), dau peste un elogiu al femeii care ar putea fi contrasemnat pînă și de feministele cele mai înverșunare. Într-o vreme cînd toți bărbații erau niște nătărăi misogini, Dostoievski a făcut o figură aparte. Personajele lui feminine, Nastasia Filippovna, Sonia Marmeladova, Maria Timofeevna Lebeadkina (din Demonii) sînt fascinante, de neuitat. Transcriu:
Găsesc și un elogiu al vieții la care n-ar fi rău să medităm cît mai des:
Nu uit că F.M. Dostoievski a fost unul dintre cei mai ironici scriitori (a se vedea însemnarea despre Turgheniev, p.83), poate că, uneori, scrie în glumă, dar fraza de mai sus rămîne oricînd valabilă. De prea multe ori, privim doar în sine, în bezna din sufletul nostru amărît, indiferenți la frumusețea din jur. Sigur, nu prea o merităm. Dar de vreme ce ni s-a dat, e o greșeală să mergem cu ochii închiși... (28.04.23, vineri)
În chipul cel mai surprinzător, dincolo de o mulțime de idei retrograde (despre „esența rusă” și alte bazaconii), dau peste un elogiu al femeii care ar putea fi contrasemnat pînă și de feministele cele mai înverșunare. Într-o vreme cînd toți bărbații erau niște nătărăi misogini, Dostoievski a făcut o figură aparte. Personajele lui feminine, Nastasia Filippovna, Sonia Marmeladova, Maria Timofeevna Lebeadkina (din Demonii) sînt fascinante, de neuitat. Transcriu:
„Cîte femei oneste nu găsești pe cuprinsul pămîntului [rus]! Femeile sînt la noi în ascensiune și poate că vor salva multe... Femeile sînt marea noastră speranță”.În Rusia de astăzi, tot femeile au rămas marea noastră speranță. De bărbați n-are rost să vorbim, ar fi o cumplită pierdere de vreme. Din păcate, pînă și femeile au un mare defect: se lasă strivite de o mare idee, nu o pot suporta și se sinucid. În treacăt fie spus, Smerita nu se sinucide pentru că are o idee, ci pentru că nu-l înțelege pe soț:
„La noi ideea cade pe capul omului precum o piatră uriașă și-l strivește pe jumătate, așa că-l vezi chircit sub ea... Cîte unul consimte să trăiască chiar și strivit, altul însă nu e de acord și își face seama”.
Găsesc și un elogiu al vieții la care n-ar fi rău să medităm cît mai des:
„Dragii mei oameni buni și cinstiți...., încotro plecați, de ce v-a devenit atît de drag mormîntul acesta mut și întunecat? Uitați-vă, pe cer strălucește soarele primăverii, copacii și-au deschis mugurii, iar voi ați obosit de viață, fără să apucați s-o trăiți”.
Nu uit că F.M. Dostoievski a fost unul dintre cei mai ironici scriitori (a se vedea însemnarea despre Turgheniev, p.83), poate că, uneori, scrie în glumă, dar fraza de mai sus rămîne oricînd valabilă. De prea multe ori, privim doar în sine, în bezna din sufletul nostru amărît, indiferenți la frumusețea din jur. Sigur, nu prea o merităm. Dar de vreme ce ni s-a dat, e o greșeală să mergem cu ochii închiși... (28.04.23, vineri)
March 19, 2012
Review: A Writer’s Diary by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Volume 1 (1873-1876)
I’m almost tempted to say that Dostoevsky became the first blogger when he decided to publish a monthly diary, paid for by subscriptions, in 1873. This literary experiment includes everything from letters, literary battles, and short stories to fragments of poems, recollections and long polemics focused on Russia’s system of justice (which had undergone a substantial reform in the previous decade.)
It’s a whopper of a book, over 700 pages. Do you have to be a Dostoevsky fanatic to want to read it? Probably. But it’s also true that anything Dostoevsky wrote had (and still has) a relentless force and crackling energy worth exploring.
In a very long introductory study, Gary Saul Morson of Northwestern University makes a valiant attempt to suggest that many of Dostoevsky’s failings and surprising shifts of genre and subject in his Writer’s Diary amount to a new kind of literature. I didn’t find myself persuaded this was the case, although it is oddly Russian for a writer to push words in any direction he wishes (Solzhenitsyn ended up working in a kind of fictional/historical pastiche format and didn’t like the term novel applied to what he was doing).
I won’t go through this book item by item, but I did find a few things worth remarking.
Dostoevsky’s faith in the Russian People and the Russian Orthodox Church was boundless.
Dostoevsky was deeply preoccupied with the so-called “Eastern Question” which actually refers to Europe’s eastern border on Russia and not to Russia’s eastern border with the Orient.
He was a man of strange compassion, always ready to take up the pen to assault injustices perpetrated by Russia’s new courts.
He liked to think of Russia as a kind of new country, still fresh and waking up to its mission on earth.
He rejected the notion that pan-Slavism was a key to understanding Russia’s quarrel with Europe; he liked to place more emphasis on a spiritual fraternity that united people under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church, or Eastern Orthodox Church, as the case may be (though not the Greek Orthodox Church).
The line of descent he liked to trace in religious affairs went from Byzantium into what would become Russia, which inherited Orthodoxy in its proper form and had, in some vague way, a claim on Istanbul, or Constantinople.
He was an unthinking, reflexive anti-Semite of the worst kind.
He adored children.
His capacity to write great courtroom scenes in his novels is mirrored in his Writer’s Diary. His oratorical power was silent, spoken in ink, but thunders when you read it.
He could be whimsical, self-deprecating, witty, casual and many other endearing things one wouldn’t think of in association with the author of Crime and Punishment.
Somehow (presumably through intensive reading of newspapers and direct correspondence) he was able to keep up with the events of the day, including wars hundreds of miles away from where he wrote, in great detail. One wouldn’t think one could do that without the benefit of today’s instantaneous forms of communications, but I can’t see any difference between what he knew about public affairs and what our current pundits know...or don’t know. H.e was on top of things
There is a second volume to The Writer’s Diary that covers the years 1877-1881. I’ll probably read it because I am, in fact, a Dostoevsky fanatic and generally fascinated by Russian writers and Russia as a country. The critically important lesson one learns in the first volume of The Writer’s Diary is how alienated, confused, attracted and repelled Dostoevsky was with regard to Europe, not to mention America. We follow Putin’s Russia...or Yeltsin’s Russia...or Gorbachev’s Russia and shake our heads. That’s probably because we don’t fathom Russia’s sense of difference, vulnerability, and mission vis-a-vis the West. Dostoevsky knew all about it, and it shows up on every page of this large strange book.
I’m almost tempted to say that Dostoevsky became the first blogger when he decided to publish a monthly diary, paid for by subscriptions, in 1873. This literary experiment includes everything from letters, literary battles, and short stories to fragments of poems, recollections and long polemics focused on Russia’s system of justice (which had undergone a substantial reform in the previous decade.)
It’s a whopper of a book, over 700 pages. Do you have to be a Dostoevsky fanatic to want to read it? Probably. But it’s also true that anything Dostoevsky wrote had (and still has) a relentless force and crackling energy worth exploring.
In a very long introductory study, Gary Saul Morson of Northwestern University makes a valiant attempt to suggest that many of Dostoevsky’s failings and surprising shifts of genre and subject in his Writer’s Diary amount to a new kind of literature. I didn’t find myself persuaded this was the case, although it is oddly Russian for a writer to push words in any direction he wishes (Solzhenitsyn ended up working in a kind of fictional/historical pastiche format and didn’t like the term novel applied to what he was doing).
I won’t go through this book item by item, but I did find a few things worth remarking.
Dostoevsky’s faith in the Russian People and the Russian Orthodox Church was boundless.
Dostoevsky was deeply preoccupied with the so-called “Eastern Question” which actually refers to Europe’s eastern border on Russia and not to Russia’s eastern border with the Orient.
He was a man of strange compassion, always ready to take up the pen to assault injustices perpetrated by Russia’s new courts.
He liked to think of Russia as a kind of new country, still fresh and waking up to its mission on earth.
He rejected the notion that pan-Slavism was a key to understanding Russia’s quarrel with Europe; he liked to place more emphasis on a spiritual fraternity that united people under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church, or Eastern Orthodox Church, as the case may be (though not the Greek Orthodox Church).
The line of descent he liked to trace in religious affairs went from Byzantium into what would become Russia, which inherited Orthodoxy in its proper form and had, in some vague way, a claim on Istanbul, or Constantinople.
He was an unthinking, reflexive anti-Semite of the worst kind.
He adored children.
His capacity to write great courtroom scenes in his novels is mirrored in his Writer’s Diary. His oratorical power was silent, spoken in ink, but thunders when you read it.
He could be whimsical, self-deprecating, witty, casual and many other endearing things one wouldn’t think of in association with the author of Crime and Punishment.
Somehow (presumably through intensive reading of newspapers and direct correspondence) he was able to keep up with the events of the day, including wars hundreds of miles away from where he wrote, in great detail. One wouldn’t think one could do that without the benefit of today’s instantaneous forms of communications, but I can’t see any difference between what he knew about public affairs and what our current pundits know...or don’t know. H.e was on top of things
There is a second volume to The Writer’s Diary that covers the years 1877-1881. I’ll probably read it because I am, in fact, a Dostoevsky fanatic and generally fascinated by Russian writers and Russia as a country. The critically important lesson one learns in the first volume of The Writer’s Diary is how alienated, confused, attracted and repelled Dostoevsky was with regard to Europe, not to mention America. We follow Putin’s Russia...or Yeltsin’s Russia...or Gorbachev’s Russia and shake our heads. That’s probably because we don’t fathom Russia’s sense of difference, vulnerability, and mission vis-a-vis the West. Dostoevsky knew all about it, and it shows up on every page of this large strange book.
December 10, 2021
Para los que amamos a Dostoievski este libro es el paraíso.
Me ha gustado; en los artículos a diferencia de las novelas en las que en ocasiones tiene que hablar a través de sus personajes aquí Dostoievski dice claramente y sin ambages lo que opina. El tono es más directo, irónico, mordaz y eso me ha sorprendido para bien.
Dostoievski era un escritor al que siempre he admirado muchísimo pero después de este libro muchísimo más. Siempre he tenido una idea de él bastante oscura ya que sus libros eran muy fuertes y muy crudos en ocasiones pensé que quizá relatar ciertos acontecimientos se debía a una falta de sensibilidad después de este libro me ha quedado claro que no. Es todo lo contrario. Dostoievski era muy sensible y precisamente lo que plasmaba en sus obras eran imágenes que no se podía quitar de lo mucho que le habían afectado. Era su forma de exorcizar sus demonios por decirlo así.
Gran libro, gran recopilación. Mucho me temo que se va directo a las mejores lecturas de este año.
Me ha gustado; en los artículos a diferencia de las novelas en las que en ocasiones tiene que hablar a través de sus personajes aquí Dostoievski dice claramente y sin ambages lo que opina. El tono es más directo, irónico, mordaz y eso me ha sorprendido para bien.
Dostoievski era un escritor al que siempre he admirado muchísimo pero después de este libro muchísimo más. Siempre he tenido una idea de él bastante oscura ya que sus libros eran muy fuertes y muy crudos en ocasiones pensé que quizá relatar ciertos acontecimientos se debía a una falta de sensibilidad después de este libro me ha quedado claro que no. Es todo lo contrario. Dostoievski era muy sensible y precisamente lo que plasmaba en sus obras eran imágenes que no se podía quitar de lo mucho que le habían afectado. Era su forma de exorcizar sus demonios por decirlo así.
Gran libro, gran recopilación. Mucho me temo que se va directo a las mejores lecturas de este año.
December 12, 2020
ليست يوميات بالمعنى الشخصي؛ بل مقالات متواترة استمر دوستويفسكي بنشرها تحت عنوان " يوميات كاتب " في إحدى الصحف على مدى خمسة أعوام .. بعض المواضيع المختارة تتعلق مباشرة بالشعب الروسي وسيجد القارئ صعوبة في الإحاطة بها، وبعضها الآخر متنوع وممتع وعبقري ككل ما كتبه هذا الإنسان.
October 31, 2020
Profetic, maiestos, titanic, Jurnal de Scriitor nu se termină niciodată pentru că orice idee sau teoremă a lui Dostoievsky formulată în Jurnal are continuitatea veșnică, e prolifică, naște mereu la nesfârșit alte și alte concepții, se repetă, se trăiește de toate generațiile, e seculară, chiar dacă l-am început acum 5 ani Jurnal de scriitor încă nu l-am terminat pentru că aceasta e Biblia mea universală mereu deschisă, mereu cu cotorul la vedere, răsfoită de mii de ori, subliniată, deși e extrem de greu să-i parcurgi fiecare pagină la rând, cititul pe sărite e soluția potrivită,cititul fragmentar pentru o delectare lecturală boemă de prim rang, doar aici e vorba despre F.M.Dostoievsky, ce să mai, îl voi citi toată viață, nu poți să minți vreodată pe cineva că l-ai citit pe de-a întregul, ar fi perfid și straniu...
September 23, 2015
La edición completa del Diario de un Escritor tiene 1600 páginas. Está, sólo 300. Además de Escritor, Dostoievski era periodista y podía hacer ensayos realmente extensos a partir de pequeñas notas que leía en los periódicos. Siempre me pregunto cómo hacía para escribir tanto! Realmente admirable...
Read
March 20, 2020Nietzsche a spus despre Dostoievski că este singurul psiholog de la care mai poate învăţa ceva. A spus psiholog şi nu a spus politician sau economist sau filosof.
Amintind acest lucru trebuie să spun că la politică Dostoievski e varză. Şi nu doar că bate câmpii dar o face cu fanatism şi înflăcărare. Îţi vine chiar să-i spui: dacă tăceai, filosof rămâneai.
Cam o treime de carte, Dostoievski te sâcâie cu „problema Orientului” şi cu panslavismul. De exemplu, spre sfârşit, calul lui de bătaie devine Levin, din Anna Karenina. Bineînţeles, atacându-l pe Levin îl înţeapă pe Tolstoi: adică de ce Levin (Tolstoi) nu-şi rupe cămaşa de pe el şi nu-şi smulge părul din cap de grija altor popoare slave asuprite de turci. Sincer, când am citit Anna Karenina, Levin mi s-a părut foarte echilibrat şi de bun simţ. Nu a pus botul la propagandă, aşa cum a făcut Dostoievski [este vorba de acel gen de propagandă clasică din toate războaiele, conform căreia duşmanul aruncă copiii în suliţă, siluieşte femeile în timp ce le înjunghie cu pumnalul, şi jupuieşte bărbaţii de vii.]
Şi când este naţionalismul mai oribil? Când e impregnat de misticism. După revoluţia din '89 şi la noi au apărut opinii copilăreşti conform cărora Bucureştiul va fi noul Ierusalim şi poporul român e cel ales etc. etc. Asemenea gogomănii le-a spus şi Dostoievski în Jurnal, doar că poporul ales este cel rus. Poporul rus va izbăvi lumea de ateism şi socialism. Cine cunoaşte istoria poate înţelege ironia ruşinoasă, cu tot bolşevismul şi materialismul care au urmat - cu care am fost „blagosloviţi” şi noi de altfel.
Apoi, nu ştiu cum un om extraordinar de inteligent ca Dostoievski a putut scrie despre „problema jidovească”? E drept, atunci când un intelectual „ovreu” îl dojeneşte într-o scrisoare că pentru 10% dintre jidanii care-s rapace şi nesimţiţi îi atacă şi pe restul de 90% dintre evreii ce trăiesc la limita sărăciei, Dostoievski o cam dă în bâlbâială.
Aş vrea să-i găsesc o scuză lui Dostoievski, deoarece e scriitorul meu preferat. Pot spune doar că politica ziarului în care şi-a publicat Jurnalul era de orientare conservatoare, aşa că şi el s-a conformat. Sper să mă împac cu gândul acesta.
Am scăpat de chestiile negative din acest Jurnal. Acum să vorbesc şi despre caracteristicile pozitive, care-s infinit mai multe şi mi-l dezvăluie pe Dostoievski aşa cum îl ştiu şi-l iubesc.
În primul rând în Jurnal sunt incluse două nestemate, Sfioasa şi Visul unui om ridicol. Aceste două povestiri sunt extraordinare. Sunt atât de profunde încât a trebuit să trag un scaun şi să stau vreo jumate de oră să mă dezmeticesc. Ăsta-i Dostoievski pe care-l cunosc, nu naţionalistul ridicol.
Apoi, Dostoievski apără şi susţine dreptul femeilor de a avea educaţie universitară. Este nemaipomenit şi de bun-simţ. O idee foarte progresistă pentru vremea aceea, cu mult înaintea mişcărilor feministe din ţările anglo-saxone.
În sfârşit, la un moment dat, în capitolul „Un discurs fantastic al preşedintelui completului de judecată” am avut norocul să asist la o lecţie rară de pedagogie şi psihologie infantilă. Lecţia are ca punct de plecare cazul familiei Djunkovski, în care părinţii şi-au supus copii la chinuri groaznice şi la tratamente inumane [existau „ştirile de la ora 5” şi pe vremea aia :)]. Asemenea discurs este înaintea timpului său.
Dostoievski a spus: „dacă ar fi să aleg între adevăr şi Hristos aş alege Hristosul”. În Jurnal explică şi dezvoltă această afirmaţie. Fără credinţa în nemurirea sufletului viaţa devine absurdă şi singura soluţie rămâne sinuciderea. [Mi-am amintit că tocmai despre absurd şi sinucidere a vorbit şi Camus în Mitul lui Sisif, ba chiar cu citate din Demonii.] Îmi place foarte mult că în Jurnal se explică cele mai importante idei din romanele sale. Am înţeles mai bine unele lucruri şi toată gândirea din spatele lor. Cred că acesta a fost şi motivul principal pentru care m-am apucat să citesc cu poftă cartea asta uriaşă.
Şi ceva amuzant. Am aflat că existau troli şi pe atunci. Capitolul Despre scrisorile anonime injurioase tratează cu amuzament şi înţelegere această chestie.
Amintind acest lucru trebuie să spun că la politică Dostoievski e varză. Şi nu doar că bate câmpii dar o face cu fanatism şi înflăcărare. Îţi vine chiar să-i spui: dacă tăceai, filosof rămâneai.
Cam o treime de carte, Dostoievski te sâcâie cu „problema Orientului” şi cu panslavismul. De exemplu, spre sfârşit, calul lui de bătaie devine Levin, din Anna Karenina. Bineînţeles, atacându-l pe Levin îl înţeapă pe Tolstoi: adică de ce Levin (Tolstoi) nu-şi rupe cămaşa de pe el şi nu-şi smulge părul din cap de grija altor popoare slave asuprite de turci. Sincer, când am citit Anna Karenina, Levin mi s-a părut foarte echilibrat şi de bun simţ. Nu a pus botul la propagandă, aşa cum a făcut Dostoievski [este vorba de acel gen de propagandă clasică din toate războaiele, conform căreia duşmanul aruncă copiii în suliţă, siluieşte femeile în timp ce le înjunghie cu pumnalul, şi jupuieşte bărbaţii de vii.]
Şi când este naţionalismul mai oribil? Când e impregnat de misticism. După revoluţia din '89 şi la noi au apărut opinii copilăreşti conform cărora Bucureştiul va fi noul Ierusalim şi poporul român e cel ales etc. etc. Asemenea gogomănii le-a spus şi Dostoievski în Jurnal, doar că poporul ales este cel rus. Poporul rus va izbăvi lumea de ateism şi socialism. Cine cunoaşte istoria poate înţelege ironia ruşinoasă, cu tot bolşevismul şi materialismul care au urmat - cu care am fost „blagosloviţi” şi noi de altfel.
Apoi, nu ştiu cum un om extraordinar de inteligent ca Dostoievski a putut scrie despre „problema jidovească”? E drept, atunci când un intelectual „ovreu” îl dojeneşte într-o scrisoare că pentru 10% dintre jidanii care-s rapace şi nesimţiţi îi atacă şi pe restul de 90% dintre evreii ce trăiesc la limita sărăciei, Dostoievski o cam dă în bâlbâială.
Aş vrea să-i găsesc o scuză lui Dostoievski, deoarece e scriitorul meu preferat. Pot spune doar că politica ziarului în care şi-a publicat Jurnalul era de orientare conservatoare, aşa că şi el s-a conformat. Sper să mă împac cu gândul acesta.
Am scăpat de chestiile negative din acest Jurnal. Acum să vorbesc şi despre caracteristicile pozitive, care-s infinit mai multe şi mi-l dezvăluie pe Dostoievski aşa cum îl ştiu şi-l iubesc.
În primul rând în Jurnal sunt incluse două nestemate, Sfioasa şi Visul unui om ridicol. Aceste două povestiri sunt extraordinare. Sunt atât de profunde încât a trebuit să trag un scaun şi să stau vreo jumate de oră să mă dezmeticesc. Ăsta-i Dostoievski pe care-l cunosc, nu naţionalistul ridicol.
Apoi, Dostoievski apără şi susţine dreptul femeilor de a avea educaţie universitară. Este nemaipomenit şi de bun-simţ. O idee foarte progresistă pentru vremea aceea, cu mult înaintea mişcărilor feministe din ţările anglo-saxone.
În sfârşit, la un moment dat, în capitolul „Un discurs fantastic al preşedintelui completului de judecată” am avut norocul să asist la o lecţie rară de pedagogie şi psihologie infantilă. Lecţia are ca punct de plecare cazul familiei Djunkovski, în care părinţii şi-au supus copii la chinuri groaznice şi la tratamente inumane [existau „ştirile de la ora 5” şi pe vremea aia :)]. Asemenea discurs este înaintea timpului său.
Dostoievski a spus: „dacă ar fi să aleg între adevăr şi Hristos aş alege Hristosul”. În Jurnal explică şi dezvoltă această afirmaţie. Fără credinţa în nemurirea sufletului viaţa devine absurdă şi singura soluţie rămâne sinuciderea. [Mi-am amintit că tocmai despre absurd şi sinucidere a vorbit şi Camus în Mitul lui Sisif, ba chiar cu citate din Demonii.] Îmi place foarte mult că în Jurnal se explică cele mai importante idei din romanele sale. Am înţeles mai bine unele lucruri şi toată gândirea din spatele lor. Cred că acesta a fost şi motivul principal pentru care m-am apucat să citesc cu poftă cartea asta uriaşă.
Şi ceva amuzant. Am aflat că existau troli şi pe atunci. Capitolul Despre scrisorile anonime injurioase tratează cu amuzament şi înţelegere această chestie.
February 21, 2021
كتاب مليء بالأحداث السياسية التي لا تهم سوى الشعب الروسي على الأرجح ولذلك لم أستطع تكملته 😅
المقدمة أكثر إفادة من باقي الكتاب لما بها من معلومات عن أعمال دوستويفسكي .وسنوات نشرها..فيما عدا ذلك يصعب قراءته لعدم إلمامنا بتاريخ روسيا
المقدمة أكثر إفادة من باقي الكتاب لما بها من معلومات عن أعمال دوستويفسكي .وسنوات نشرها..فيما عدا ذلك يصعب قراءته لعدم إلمامنا بتاريخ روسيا
March 28, 2012
This is a specialist book, or at least for those who are pretty keen on the author. For them, it is a treasure trove of the good and bad aspects of one of the greatest of all writers. The English translation contains about half the text of what was a periodical put out in the years follwing the publication of The Adolescent and before Dostoevsky began serious work on The Brothers Karamazov. It contains some wonderful stories, some interesting analyses of current affairs and accounts of interventions in public affairs - including Dostoevsky's involvement in a court case of a woman who threw her stepdaughter out a window (she lived), who was released. There is also full measure of Dostoevsky's anti-Semitism that is displayed only fitfully in his works of fiction, and of his pretty nutty beliefs about current affairs. I read this book for his belief in "The Russian Idea" that his native country had a mission to fulfill for the planet; he is on this subject eloquent and in his characteristically eccentric fashion, strangely convincing.
Shelved as 'wish-list'
November 16, 2014From Brain Pickings:
Read more here.
"One November night in the 1870s, legendary Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (November 11, 1821–February 9, 1881) discovered the meaning of life in a dream — or, at least, the protagonist in his final short story did. The piece, which first appeared in the altogether revelatory A Writer’s Diary (public library) under the title “The Dream of a Queer Fellow” and was later published separately as The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, explores themes similar to those in Dostoyevsky’s 1864 novel Notes from the Underground, considered the first true existential novel. True to Stephen King’s assertion that “good fiction is the truth inside the lie,” the story sheds light on Dostoyevsky’s personal spiritual and philosophical bents with extraordinary clarity — perhaps more so than any of his other published works. The contemplation at its heart falls somewhere between Tolstoy’s tussle with the meaning of life and Philip K. Dick’s hallucinatory exegesis."
Read more here.
September 21, 2021
Supongo que tiene pocas reseñas porque el libro es caro. Es la versión completa. Una lectura obligada para quienes son admiradores de Dostoievski y así como para los admiradores de la literatura rusa clásica
April 17, 2024
Un po’ quel timore reverenziale di quando stai per conoscere dal vero il tuo idolo personale e temi, disperatamente temi, di scoprire che è una persona abominevole.
In questo caso nessun idolo è caduto, ma ha assunto sfumature più umane (persona con cui non vorresti trovarti a discutere) e mantenuto la dimensione divina (capacità di guardare dentro e oltre come quella di pochi altri).
Consigliato a: patiti di cronaca; fan sfegatati; slavofili.
In questo caso nessun idolo è caduto, ma ha assunto sfumature più umane (persona con cui non vorresti trovarti a discutere) e mantenuto la dimensione divina (capacità di guardare dentro e oltre come quella di pochi altri).
Consigliato a: patiti di cronaca; fan sfegatati; slavofili.
November 3, 2020
هذا الكتاب هو مجموعة من المقالات الصحفية التي نشرها دوستويفسكي تحت عنوان "يوميات كاتب" في جريدة "المواطن" أولاً، ثم في جريدته الخاصة التي حملت نفس الاسم لاحقاً.
يخطئ من يظن أن الكتاب ممل. إنه على العكس تماماً، جرعة متعة يومية داومتُ عليها طوال الأسابيع الفائتة.
هناك بعض المقالات المغرقة في الشأن الروسي (وبخاصة من الناحية السياسية) وهي تهم القارئ الروسي ولكن القارئ العربي لن يستمتع بها ما لم يكن مطلعاً على تاريخ روسيا قليلاً، ومقالات أخرى عرض فيها دوستويفسكي آراءه في بعض القضايا الاجتماعية وبضع جرائم جنائية، وكانت بمجملها رائعة من حيث تحليلها وتحليل نفسية جميع الأطراف المعنيين بها
وأيضاً تناول دوستويفسكي مواضيع لم نعد نسمع بها البتة (كجلسات استحضار الأرواح) ونقديات أدبية (كمقالاته حول رواية آنا كارنينا وأدب نكراسوف وبوشكين) إضافة إلى الكثير من المواضيع المتنوعة الشائقة.
صدق المترجم عندما نقل عن أديب روسي معاصر تساؤله المفحم "وهل هناك من هو أكثر معاصرة لنا من دوستويفسكي؟"
فالكتاب بمجمله يرسم صورة الكثير من تفاصيل عصرنا، وكأن الزمن أدار عجلته دورة مئوية كاملة إلا أن الإنسانية لا تزال واقفة على عتبات أواخر القرن التاسع عشر.
وإذا كنا نتعرف على دوستويفسكي الأديب الإنساني العبقري والطبيب النفساني البارع في أعماله الروائية، فإننا في مقالاته الصحفية سنكتشف فيه المواطن الروسي الغيور على شعبه ووطنه، والناقد الساخر، والمحلل السياسي والمصلح الاجتماعي، والصحفي النزيه الذي نقل هموم وقضايا عصره بصدق وشفافية، والمكافح الذي لم يتنازل عن الحفاظ على جودة أعماله رغم انقطاع شريانه وملازمته الفراش في أيامه الأخيرة.
لن أكف عن الانبهار بعظمة هذا الروسي في كل ما أقرأ من أعماله.
يخطئ من يظن أن الكتاب ممل. إنه على العكس تماماً، جرعة متعة يومية داومتُ عليها طوال الأسابيع الفائتة.
هناك بعض المقالات المغرقة في الشأن الروسي (وبخاصة من الناحية السياسية) وهي تهم القارئ الروسي ولكن القارئ العربي لن يستمتع بها ما لم يكن مطلعاً على تاريخ روسيا قليلاً، ومقالات أخرى عرض فيها دوستويفسكي آراءه في بعض القضايا الاجتماعية وبضع جرائم جنائية، وكانت بمجملها رائعة من حيث تحليلها وتحليل نفسية جميع الأطراف المعنيين بها
وأيضاً تناول دوستويفسكي مواضيع لم نعد نسمع بها البتة (كجلسات استحضار الأرواح) ونقديات أدبية (كمقالاته حول رواية آنا كارنينا وأدب نكراسوف وبوشكين) إضافة إلى الكثير من المواضيع المتنوعة الشائقة.
صدق المترجم عندما نقل عن أديب روسي معاصر تساؤله المفحم "وهل هناك من هو أكثر معاصرة لنا من دوستويفسكي؟"
فالكتاب بمجمله يرسم صورة الكثير من تفاصيل عصرنا، وكأن الزمن أدار عجلته دورة مئوية كاملة إلا أن الإنسانية لا تزال واقفة على عتبات أواخر القرن التاسع عشر.
وإذا كنا نتعرف على دوستويفسكي الأديب الإنساني العبقري والطبيب النفساني البارع في أعماله الروائية، فإننا في مقالاته الصحفية سنكتشف فيه المواطن الروسي الغيور على شعبه ووطنه، والناقد الساخر، والمحلل السياسي والمصلح الاجتماعي، والصحفي النزيه الذي نقل هموم وقضايا عصره بصدق وشفافية، والمكافح الذي لم يتنازل عن الحفاظ على جودة أعماله رغم انقطاع شريانه وملازمته الفراش في أيامه الأخيرة.
لن أكف عن الانبهار بعظمة هذا الروسي في كل ما أقرأ من أعماله.
June 19, 2022
“Ao tornar-se um poeta do povo, ao entrar em ligação com a força do povo, Púchkin pressentiu a grande missão futura desta força. Nisto, é um profeta.”
July 18, 2014
Well...let me think. It is Dostoievski, but somehow different, as expected, probably. I was kind of surprised, as I was assuming he will talk more about his literary work, how did he come to write certain novels. Of course, you may guess some of his drivers, but the focus is not on him, but on Russian people. I have been impressed all the time I was reading it (three volumes of about 400 pages) about his great love, respect and hopes he had for the people. So, actually it is about putting face to face principles that do not seem to go together (and he is trying to explain why and how things came to this): Russian people vs. Russian "elite", Slavic vs. non-Slavic, Russia vs. Europe, war vs. peace, Orthodox vs Catholic (!), mother language vs. learned language, justice vs. injustice, equity vs, inequity. I have to say that as naive he may seem sometimes, his analysis are quite profound and still surprising (mind you it was written around 1875) although science, history evolved since then. And sometimes you just may find yourself in those times.
There are also few pages about Puskin, Tolstoi, about his work. He tells stories (fictional and non-fictional) as good as ever, talking about law suits when he is trying to shed some light on the characters and their motivations, and from my point of view these are the best parts and after reading you can say: yeah, this is Dostoievski.
Being Romanian, I was interested to find out how did he see us (part of the journal is written in 1877 when we had our Independence war), but alas only few words. :(
There are also few pages about Puskin, Tolstoi, about his work. He tells stories (fictional and non-fictional) as good as ever, talking about law suits when he is trying to shed some light on the characters and their motivations, and from my point of view these are the best parts and after reading you can say: yeah, this is Dostoievski.
Being Romanian, I was interested to find out how did he see us (part of the journal is written in 1877 when we had our Independence war), but alas only few words. :(
September 21, 2021
Hay tres opciones para leer “Diario de un escritor” siendo la opción más mediocre y común la edición de poco más de 200 páginas. Después sigue esta alternativa de unas 600 páginas . Es buen libro pero al ser admiradora de Dostoievski decidí cambiar por la edición completa con más de 1500 páginas.
Si no te interesa tanto Dostoievski puedes conformarte con esta edición
Si no te interesa tanto Dostoievski puedes conformarte con esta edición
March 21, 2018
Dostoevsky is the first writer of literature that I fell in love with. Of nineteenth-century authors, none had a better eye for the psychology of the downtrodden, the frustrated, the half-mad. Perhaps this is because he himself was all of these things, at least at certain points in his life. He spent four years in a Siberian prison, suffered from a gambling addiction, battled epilepsy and struggled with constant debts. Perhaps it takes an erratic soul to accurately depict erratic souls.
D. published the "Writer's Diary" mostly in 1876-1877. Half-journalism, half-literary experiment, he meant it to be a vessel for his continually evolving views on current events which, by their nature, are currently evolving. Gary Saul Morson's foreword labels this a "processual" approach--D. did not know how the Diary would evolve because he could neither predict future events nor his contemporary responses (he also selected the articles and stories that would show up in this abridgment. As far as I can tell, he did a good job; everything that is included seemed relevant to my interests in D.). This means that we get the real Dostoevsky, writing to his readers as if they were close friends, and it's often phenomenal. He writes passionately about poor children, about criminals who maybe are not as guilty as it would seem, about the suicide epidemic that seemed to be spreading. The small observations and literary detours are the best parts of the "Diary", as one can sense the conception of an idea earlier in the work before enjoying its realization later.
The more political articles are interesting as well, though it's good to know a bit about the complicated politics of Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century. D. often positions himself in a unique position in the framework of contemporary society--he's neither a liberal Westernizer, those who want Russia to emulate European ideals and mores, nor a hard-line conservative. His most constant belief is in the power of the Russian peasant class, whom he calls the People, as he believes that they perfectly embody a Russian national spirit that is inextricably linked with humble, "genuine" Christianity. I read Frank Turner's Dostoevsky biography a few years ago, and, while it covered the "Diary", I think I could have benefited from having read it beforehand, as the "Diary" truly illuminates D.'s frame of mind.
But his mind has many ugly features, and these show through. As 1877 rolls around, and with it the increasing likelihood of war with Turkey, D. betrays himself as a fervent ethno-nationalist who wants to lilberate Russia's Slavic brethren in the Balkans from the cruel and malicious Turks. While I don't doubt that the Slavs were oppressed by the Turks, D.'s narrow view about the potentials of this war contrast heavily with the empathy he generally portrays, both in his fiction and in other articles.
Many get caught up in the patriotism and zeal of war, but D. took it a step further. Convinced that he understood the way that European history would play out, he writes several times about an impending clash between French socialists allied with papists and German Protestants. He predicts that a war will break out, and that Russia, by liberating the Slavs in the East, will be able to spread its strong national idea throughout the Continent, taking the first step in a chain of events that will eventually lead to a universal Christian brotherhood across the globe. The spirit of the "People" would be accepted by all, and love for one's neighbors would be the way of the world.
Which all sounds nice and one can forgive a man for dreaming, but when such a dream takes hold, a person can excuse many means in order to obtain their preferred end. I can't help but see hints of the single-mindedness that would lead Europe to destroy itself several decades after D. was buried. It's interesting to read his predictions now, because, in a way, Russia did spread itself throughout the world, and, in a way, France and Germany did have a climactic clash, but none of it happened for the reasons that D. thought it would, and universal Christian brotherhood seems to have been entirely left out.
And then there's the article semi-ironically titled "The Jewish Question", in which D. defends himself against a host of readers who accused him of anti-semitism, but mostly just proves himself as an anti-semite in the process. D. gets so much about empathy and love correct, and it's more than disheartening to see this side of him.
Yet, for all the flaws, he's a great writer. Tolstoy may have been more modern in his historical-philosophical views and in the quality of his sentences, but something about Dostoevsky seems to transcend the normal literary criticisms one might level at him. I'm reminded of a story in Hemingway's "A Moveable Feast" in which Hemingway asks a friend how it's possible that D. can be so moving when he's such a terrible writer. I'm also reminded of an essay by David Foster Wallace in which he reviews Frank Turner's Dostoevsky biography and discusses how D., unlike modern or postmodern authors, was truly trying to change the way the world in non-artistic ways. He thought he had a God-given mission to save Russia and direct it toward the future triumph of it and the Christian idea that it embodied, and he took this mission very seriously. Strong convictions don't always make great people, but they can make great writers. "A Writer's Diary" shows the convictions and the writing side by side, and thus is remarkable.
D. published the "Writer's Diary" mostly in 1876-1877. Half-journalism, half-literary experiment, he meant it to be a vessel for his continually evolving views on current events which, by their nature, are currently evolving. Gary Saul Morson's foreword labels this a "processual" approach--D. did not know how the Diary would evolve because he could neither predict future events nor his contemporary responses (he also selected the articles and stories that would show up in this abridgment. As far as I can tell, he did a good job; everything that is included seemed relevant to my interests in D.). This means that we get the real Dostoevsky, writing to his readers as if they were close friends, and it's often phenomenal. He writes passionately about poor children, about criminals who maybe are not as guilty as it would seem, about the suicide epidemic that seemed to be spreading. The small observations and literary detours are the best parts of the "Diary", as one can sense the conception of an idea earlier in the work before enjoying its realization later.
The more political articles are interesting as well, though it's good to know a bit about the complicated politics of Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century. D. often positions himself in a unique position in the framework of contemporary society--he's neither a liberal Westernizer, those who want Russia to emulate European ideals and mores, nor a hard-line conservative. His most constant belief is in the power of the Russian peasant class, whom he calls the People, as he believes that they perfectly embody a Russian national spirit that is inextricably linked with humble, "genuine" Christianity. I read Frank Turner's Dostoevsky biography a few years ago, and, while it covered the "Diary", I think I could have benefited from having read it beforehand, as the "Diary" truly illuminates D.'s frame of mind.
But his mind has many ugly features, and these show through. As 1877 rolls around, and with it the increasing likelihood of war with Turkey, D. betrays himself as a fervent ethno-nationalist who wants to lilberate Russia's Slavic brethren in the Balkans from the cruel and malicious Turks. While I don't doubt that the Slavs were oppressed by the Turks, D.'s narrow view about the potentials of this war contrast heavily with the empathy he generally portrays, both in his fiction and in other articles.
Many get caught up in the patriotism and zeal of war, but D. took it a step further. Convinced that he understood the way that European history would play out, he writes several times about an impending clash between French socialists allied with papists and German Protestants. He predicts that a war will break out, and that Russia, by liberating the Slavs in the East, will be able to spread its strong national idea throughout the Continent, taking the first step in a chain of events that will eventually lead to a universal Christian brotherhood across the globe. The spirit of the "People" would be accepted by all, and love for one's neighbors would be the way of the world.
Which all sounds nice and one can forgive a man for dreaming, but when such a dream takes hold, a person can excuse many means in order to obtain their preferred end. I can't help but see hints of the single-mindedness that would lead Europe to destroy itself several decades after D. was buried. It's interesting to read his predictions now, because, in a way, Russia did spread itself throughout the world, and, in a way, France and Germany did have a climactic clash, but none of it happened for the reasons that D. thought it would, and universal Christian brotherhood seems to have been entirely left out.
And then there's the article semi-ironically titled "The Jewish Question", in which D. defends himself against a host of readers who accused him of anti-semitism, but mostly just proves himself as an anti-semite in the process. D. gets so much about empathy and love correct, and it's more than disheartening to see this side of him.
Yet, for all the flaws, he's a great writer. Tolstoy may have been more modern in his historical-philosophical views and in the quality of his sentences, but something about Dostoevsky seems to transcend the normal literary criticisms one might level at him. I'm reminded of a story in Hemingway's "A Moveable Feast" in which Hemingway asks a friend how it's possible that D. can be so moving when he's such a terrible writer. I'm also reminded of an essay by David Foster Wallace in which he reviews Frank Turner's Dostoevsky biography and discusses how D., unlike modern or postmodern authors, was truly trying to change the way the world in non-artistic ways. He thought he had a God-given mission to save Russia and direct it toward the future triumph of it and the Christian idea that it embodied, and he took this mission very seriously. Strong convictions don't always make great people, but they can make great writers. "A Writer's Diary" shows the convictions and the writing side by side, and thus is remarkable.
July 14, 2021
Diario di uno scrittore è una rubrica redatta da Dostoevskij nel 1873, interrotta e ripresa nel 1876,1877 e 1878, sospesa per i problemi di salute che tormentavano l'autore, e nuovamente continuata nel 1881, salvo poi concludersi improvvisamente con la morte dell'autore. L'opera verte su problemi di attualità: l'intento dell'autore era di voler interpretare le spinte e gli avvenimenti sociali secondo il proprio personale punto di vista, distante dalle maggiori tendenze culturali russe del tempo. Il testo, per il suo carattere quotidiano, potrebbe apparire perciò datato, superato, anacronistico, ma la tendenza di Dostoevskij di sublimare il particolare nell'universale riesce a fornire al lettore numerosi possibili spunti per comprendere la realtà odierna, spesso non proprio così distante da quella ottocentesca. Altra caratteristica interessante che si denota nelle quasi 1400 pagine, è la capacità profetica del Dostoevskij che, seppur non sempre rivelatasi veritiera (come nel caso delle rivoluzioni comuniste da lui predette in tutta Europa), riesce spesso a sorprendere per l'incredibile lungimiranza, come nel caso della predizione delle guerre mondiali o della perdita dell'ideale cristiano in Europa. Interessante è inoltre la soluzione che Dostoevskij detta per risanare il problema della degenerazione del popolo russo nel corso di molti articoli appartenenti all'opera: il ritorno alla terra, alle proprie radici, alla propria primigenia cultura, soluzione che a distanza di 150 anni circa appare attualissima. L'opera appare utile anche per la comprensione dei grandi romanzi dell'autore, personaggi e tematiche dei romanzi maggiori appaiono molto più chiari dopo la trattazione in modo dettagliato delle problematiche che hanno causato la loro generazione, come nel caso dell'affare Necaev che ispira Dostoevskij nella creazione di Stravoghin, protagonista de I Demoni. In conclusione, l'opera non la consiglio a chi si approccia al grande romanziere russo per le prime volte, ma piuttosto a chi è già esperto delle sue altre opere e dunque risulta maggiormente avvezzo alle tematiche trattate, inoltre l'opera potrebbe risultare noiosa per coloro che non sono appassionati di storia, dato che la cronaca, seppur filtrata dall'idealismo dostoevskijiano, è preponderante nel testo.
Shelved as 'to-read-reviewed'
March 17, 2016All of Dostoyevsky's heroes question themselves as to the meaning of life. In this they are modern: they do not fear ridicule. What distinguishes modern sensibility from classical sensibility is that the latter thrives on moral problems and the former on metaphysical problems. In Dostoyevsky's novels the question is propounded with such intensity that it can only invite extreme solutions. Existence is illusory or it is eternal. If Dostoyevsky were satisfied with this inquiry, he would be a philosopher. But he illustrates the consequences that such intellectual pastimes may have in a man's life and in this regard he is an artist. Among those consequences, his attention is arrested particularly by the last one, which he himself calls logical suicide in his Diary of a Writer. In the installments for December 1876, indeed, he imagines the reasoning of 'logical suicide'. ...March 18, 2016
- The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus (p. 101 of 134)
June 1, 2022
Очень шокирует, насколько Достоевский чувствовал время и насколько мир остался прежним.
April 22, 2020
استمر دوستويفسكي من عام ١٨٧٦ حتى عام ١٨٨١ ( مع انقطاع دام عامين ) بإصدار يوميات كاتب في مطبوعة مستقلة، تصدر مرة في الشهر ، وبين الكاتب بأن المطبوعة أو اليوميات ستكون يوميات بالمعنى الحرفي للكلمة، ستكون تقريرًا عن الانطباعات التي تكونت لديّ فعلاً في كل شهر ، تقريرًا عما شاهدته وسمعته وقرأته .
.
يقول دوستويفسكي عن كتابة اليوميات : أكتب اليوميات لنفسي، وقد استولت هذه الأفكار على ذهني وترسخت فيه . وعلى كل فأنا أعترف بأن هذه ليست أفكارًا بل مجرد أحاسيس وهواجس تراودني .
.
.
وبعد عام من اصدار اليوميات أخذت رسائل القراء تتوارد على دوستويفسكي ونشأت بينه وبين قراءه صلة لا مثيل لها في روسيا ،فقد كان القراء يمطرونه برسائلهم وزياراتهم ليعبروا عن شكرهم على ما يقدمه لهم من غذاء أخلاقي رائع في يومياته.
وكان بعضهم يقول إنه يقرأ اليوميات بإجلال كما يقرأ الكتاب المقدس .
.
.
الكتاب عبارة عن مقالات يعبر فيها دوستويفسكي عن أفكاره وآراءه ووجهة نظره وانطباعاته للعديد من القضايا والأفكار والمسائل في زمنه .
تكلم عن روسيا والاصلاحات والصراع الفكري بين الغربوية والسلافوية ورؤية كل فريق لطريقة الاصلاح والتنوير والنهوض بروسيا .
وأيضًا تكلم وعبر عن وجهة نظره في النظام القضائي بعد الاصلاح ، وعن الأدب والأدباء ، مسائل الأخلاق والإيمان والخير والتعليم والأسرة والطفل ، وموقفه من موجة الإلحاد وغيرها .
ونلاحظ حبه للأطفال ومناصرته للمرأة وكرهه لليهود وأفكارهم ، واعتزازه بالشعب الروسي وإيمانه العميق بالمسيحية والقومية وجذوره التاريخية .
.
ولقد كان دوستويفسكي يرى أن إيمان الشعب بالنور الأبدي هو بالذات الأساس الذي يجب أن يقوم عليه التنوير الحقيقي الذي يستحيل من غيره تحقيق القضية العظمى ( المحبة ) ومغزى التنوير الحقيقي مُتضمن حسب رأيه في جذور هذا المفهوم بالذات، وهو النور الروحي الذي يضيء النفس وينير القلب ويوجه العقل ويدله على درب الحياة .
.
.
كتاب يحتوي على مقالات وأفكار تستحق القراءة وبعضها كان ممل صراحة وما اعجبتني ، هالكتاب انصحك فيه إذا كنت محب لدوستويفسكي وترغب في ال��عرف عليه وعلى أفكاره وآراءه بشكل أعمق .. .
December 28, 2022
”Kan en människa grunda sin lycka på en annans olycka?”
Dostojevskij medger mer eller mindre själv att det här skrivprojekt är hans egen välvilja till sig själv och sin önskan att skriva om aktuella ämnen. Han har lust helt enkelt och skriver om det han tycker är intressant och viktigt i samhället.
Historiskt är det väldigt intressant att ta del av vad han såg som stora och viktiga frågor, det är även intressant att se på relationen Ryssland-Europa från hans perspektiv.
Det är väldigt nationalistiskt och han är öppen slavofil, men det kan nog ingen vara förvånad över ifall de väljer att läsa denna bok. Det här är inte för nybörjaren, det är inte tillräckligt intressant för det, tycker jag. Jag uppfattar även att översättaren har varit mer ”ärlig” så att säga, i sin översättning, i jämförelse med sådana som översatt romaner. Med det menar jag att Dostojevskijs stil verkligen kommer fram, han har anklagats för att vara nästan oläslig på ryska på grund av hans väldigt talrika och tunga stil, vilket lett till att många översättare har förenklat hans intrikata paragrafer och gjort dem mer läsvänliga.
Det märks här för det här var inte särskilt läsvänligt, förutom de kortare novellerna som är inkluderade. Mycket är som en vägg av text med fullproppade paragrafer vars grammatiska strukturer ofta känns påtvingat klumpiga. Det är dessutom ganska trist och ibland tungt moraliserande.
Det är alltid beklämmande, men inte förvånande när man möts av hans antisemitism, det finns en del tal om judaiserande… som ”Kan idéer av sådant format underordna sig, små, judaiserande idéer av tredje rang?” s.194
Jag uppfattade detta både som rart men också problematiskt och tja… att jämföra det med t.ex. ”Kriget har inget kvinnligt ansikte” så ser man att samhället inte kom så långt som kanske Dostojevskij ville, på denna punkt.
Samtidigt känns hela stycket som någon som beskriver en duktig och prisvärd häst, typ, och ger den sen huvudansvaret för hela nationens moraliska och andliga omdaning. (Sen att hon måste förtjäna sin jämlikhet…) Det känns lite dubbelt och varken realistiskt eller schysst. Men men, det sprudlar av värme och entusiasm i alla fall.
”Men den viktigaste och effektivaste förnyelse av det ryska samhället faller otvivelaktigt på den ryska kvinnans lott. Efter detta krig där den ryska kvinnan har visat sig så storartad, så ljus och helig, är det inte längre möjligt att tvivla på vilka stora insatser hon kommer göra hos oss. Äntligen raseras århundradens fördomar, och det ’barbariska’ Ryssland kommer att visa vilken ställning det ger den ryska soldatens ’mor’ och ’syster’ som offrat sig och pinats för den ryska människans skull. Skulle hon som har visat ett sådant uppenbart mod längre kunna förvägras full jämlikhet med mannen i fråga om utbildning, sysselsättning, och befattningar, när vi idag, efter hennes bedrift, fäster alla våra förhoppningar vid henne vad gäller vårt samhälles andliga förnyelse och moraliska lyftning!” 260~261
För den som verkligen vill läsa allt av Dostojevskij.
Dostojevskij medger mer eller mindre själv att det här skrivprojekt är hans egen välvilja till sig själv och sin önskan att skriva om aktuella ämnen. Han har lust helt enkelt och skriver om det han tycker är intressant och viktigt i samhället.
Historiskt är det väldigt intressant att ta del av vad han såg som stora och viktiga frågor, det är även intressant att se på relationen Ryssland-Europa från hans perspektiv.
Det är väldigt nationalistiskt och han är öppen slavofil, men det kan nog ingen vara förvånad över ifall de väljer att läsa denna bok. Det här är inte för nybörjaren, det är inte tillräckligt intressant för det, tycker jag. Jag uppfattar även att översättaren har varit mer ”ärlig” så att säga, i sin översättning, i jämförelse med sådana som översatt romaner. Med det menar jag att Dostojevskijs stil verkligen kommer fram, han har anklagats för att vara nästan oläslig på ryska på grund av hans väldigt talrika och tunga stil, vilket lett till att många översättare har förenklat hans intrikata paragrafer och gjort dem mer läsvänliga.
Det märks här för det här var inte särskilt läsvänligt, förutom de kortare novellerna som är inkluderade. Mycket är som en vägg av text med fullproppade paragrafer vars grammatiska strukturer ofta känns påtvingat klumpiga. Det är dessutom ganska trist och ibland tungt moraliserande.
Det är alltid beklämmande, men inte förvånande när man möts av hans antisemitism, det finns en del tal om judaiserande… som ”Kan idéer av sådant format underordna sig, små, judaiserande idéer av tredje rang?” s.194
Jag uppfattade detta både som rart men också problematiskt och tja… att jämföra det med t.ex. ”Kriget har inget kvinnligt ansikte” så ser man att samhället inte kom så långt som kanske Dostojevskij ville, på denna punkt.
Samtidigt känns hela stycket som någon som beskriver en duktig och prisvärd häst, typ, och ger den sen huvudansvaret för hela nationens moraliska och andliga omdaning. (Sen att hon måste förtjäna sin jämlikhet…) Det känns lite dubbelt och varken realistiskt eller schysst. Men men, det sprudlar av värme och entusiasm i alla fall.
”Men den viktigaste och effektivaste förnyelse av det ryska samhället faller otvivelaktigt på den ryska kvinnans lott. Efter detta krig där den ryska kvinnan har visat sig så storartad, så ljus och helig, är det inte längre möjligt att tvivla på vilka stora insatser hon kommer göra hos oss. Äntligen raseras århundradens fördomar, och det ’barbariska’ Ryssland kommer att visa vilken ställning det ger den ryska soldatens ’mor’ och ’syster’ som offrat sig och pinats för den ryska människans skull. Skulle hon som har visat ett sådant uppenbart mod längre kunna förvägras full jämlikhet med mannen i fråga om utbildning, sysselsättning, och befattningar, när vi idag, efter hennes bedrift, fäster alla våra förhoppningar vid henne vad gäller vårt samhälles andliga förnyelse och moraliska lyftning!” 260~261
För den som verkligen vill läsa allt av Dostojevskij.
April 17, 2024
everytime i finish any of his works i have to sit in silence for a while and stare at my wall
September 6, 2021
Una pena que los editores se negaran a traducir los ensayos "polémicos" de Dostoievski, no sea que la progresía se ofenda por los tropos decimonónicos que dominaban su pensamiento.
Read
November 2, 2023Having just finished The Diary of a Writer, all 1,000+ pages of it, I am feeling a bit like a bloated boa constrictor trying to digest its last meal. Published irregularly as a literary journal between 1873 and 1881 (the last issue came out a month before Dostoevsky’s death), the one-man operation was mostly high-caliber punditry, though it did contain a smattering of fiction. But if you have to read Dostoevsky right now, go for the punditry. In fiction you see the writer; in his nonfiction, where there are no characters to provide camouflage, you see the man. Nine months into Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine, one will learn a lot more about Putin’s Russia from The Diary than from Father Zosima or Netochka Nezvanova. Not that Vladimir Putin necessarily draws his weltanschauung from Dostoevsky; I am not sure how the “Russian World” and the homegrown “manifest destiny” advanced by Russian elites square with their predilection for luxury yachts, European real estate, and offshore bank accounts. This is not what Dostoevsky had in mind when he wrote about the renewal that Russian civilization offered its spiritually and morally bankrupt Western counterpart.
But if the power structure of Putin’s regime is not itself idea-driven, whatever its outward manifestations, it can, and does, gin up popular support by appealing to those ideas that Dostoevsky propounded in his day and that still have a lot of currency in Russia’s ideological marketplace. Reading The Diary, one is amazed by how little Russia has changed since the 19th century, in some ways. The Petrine PTSD and the accompanying identity crisis, the chasm between elites and masses, the opposition between Slavophile conservatives and Westernizing liberals — it’s as if Russian history is covered by permafrost. If he were alive now, I doubt Dostoevsky would be especially overawed by President Putin, but I am certain he’d be on board with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. For Dostoevsky, national glory doesn’t stem from material comforts. He scoffs at countries whose only ambition is to raise the living standards of their people; nations with a bourgeois ethos have a short shelf life. Only those nations that carry a missionary torch have a right to longevity. It doesn’t matter if much of the citizenry has no modern plumbing and uses outhouses for its needs; Russian spaceships in outer space trump modern plumbing. That example is mine, not Dostoevsky’s — but that’s the crux of it.
Dostoevsky’s Russia is a country on a mission. That’s bad news for Russia’s neighbors — a country with a great mission may require military persuasion when soft power fails to do the job. Dostoevsky claims that the Russians, the greatest among Slavs, embody the true spirit of Christ. Thanks to their special spiritual qualities, they have a unique task before them: to unite all Slavic peoples, to treat the afflictions of putrefying Western Europe, and to bring the entire human race together under the fraternal banner of the cross. A tall order, but Dostoevsky’s confidence in Russia’s ability to pull it off is religious. Just like his other predictions (a great conflagration in Western Europe at the end of the 19th century, a Russian Constantinople, etc.), this one hasn’t quite panned out. For a man venerated by many as a near-prophet, Dostoevsky’s oracular track record is lackluster, an inevitability when the prophet’s great humanizing mission must be reconciled with an unshakeable belief in the superiority of his own tribe and the concomitant inferiority of the Other. Dostoevsky’s chauvinist reflexes are always easy to trigger. He thinks nothing of dismissing whole nations with a slur or a facile label, as when he calls Germans conceited and self-satisfied. He takes another pundit to task for daring to suggest that the Russians are only primus inter pares in their country and that an ethnic group such as the Tatars can also lay claim to the land; Russia, Dostoevsky says, belongs exclusively to Russians, and the Tatars (and everyone else not of the host population) are aliens on Russian soil, where they merely live on sufferance. This is a problematic argument in an ethnically diverse country as well as in an empire; Russia was both. In the last pages, Dostoevsky praises Russia’s expansion into Asia; in Europe, he writes, we are only poor relations and slaves, but in Asia we will be masters, backed by the victorious sword of the “white tsar.” So much for Christ-like fraternity.
Dostoevsky was an unequivocal supporter of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, and a good deal of The Diary concerns the “Eastern question,” with its oneiric longings for a Russian conquest of Constantinople. Dostoevsky sees Russia’s war as a justified response to Turkish oppression of Slavs in the Ottoman Empire. But there is more to this than tribal sympathy; the war serves an auxiliary purpose. He writes, “We need this war ourselves; we are not going to war only for our ‘Slavic brothers,’ oppressed by the Turks as they are, but also for our own salvation: the war will clear the stultifying air we breathe while we stew in our corrupting powerlessness and spiritual gridlock.” The war is sold as a way to cure Russian society of its spiritual debility. Whatever this is, it is not the embodiment of Christ and His message.
Dostoevsky’s Judeophobia is especially striking. Thick and dyspeptic, it pervades the pages of The Diary — and stains them. Dostoevsky’s Jews are insatiable bloodsuckers forever feasting on the carcass of any country foolish enough to have let them in. In a chapter called (what else?) “The Jewish Question,” Dostoevsky mentions a legend he heard back in his childhood, according to which every Jew awaits a messiah who will gather all members of the tribe at the gates of Jerusalem. As the Jews want to make sure they travel to Jerusalem in style when the hour comes, they flock to trades that allow them to hoard gold in preparation for the big day. This, then, explains the attraction that money-making pursuits hold for the Jews. We are practically one step away from the blood libel here.
Dostoevsky employs the word “zhid” to describe the Jews — “yid” in modern Russian usage, but still a borderline term in 19th-century Russia. Those who were attuned to such nuances used evrei; Dostoevsky did not trouble himself with such nuances, and he was unapologetic about it. As he explains to Jewish readers piqued by his antisemitic outbursts, “zhid” is a description of a certain general idea, a “style of the times,” as Ernst Jünger would have put it. It has more of a spiritual connotation than an ethnic one. This is not just an exercise in disingenuousness, though of course it is also that. Dostoevsky does, after all, use evrei occasionally, usually in reference to those Jews who made it into his good graces. When he writes that it is incumbent on ethnic Russians to settle Crimea lest the “zhidy” descend on it and poison its soil (July/August issue, 1876), there is no ambiguity concerning the intended target, here and elsewhere. (In one English translation of Brothers Karamazov, Mitya tells Alesha, “I won’t keep you in suspense” — an instance of deft linguistic alchemy on the part of Constance Garnett, who must have wanted to water down the sentence to suit Western reading palates. The original text literally reads: “I won’t squeeze the Jew [yid] out of myself.”)
But he is not entirely disingenuous. Dostoevsky’s antisemitism is less personalistic than ontological. Jewishness for him is a state of being — a spirit as much as an ethnic classification. It is a toxic spirit, one of commercialism and usury that brings with it exploitation and parasitism. Hostile to the doctrine of Christ, it destroys those societies it contaminates. Anybody can fall prey to this spirit, Jews and non-Jews alike. This allows Dostoevsky to write of “Jewified” Christians (or Europeans, or Russians). But “Jewified” non-Jews can presumably be “de-Jewified”; the Jews, whose long history of homelessness renders them “status in statu” (a state within a state), are beyond redemption. This kind of antisemitism is arguably more dangerous than the personalistic one, since it turns the Jews into something of an infectious pathogen. Infectious pathogens are managed through eradication, and various 20th-century regimes made attempts to be exemplary managers. The question is not whether Dostoevsky understood the implications of his ideas, but whether he at all cared. He does not disagree with the objection, expressed by his Jewish readers, that most Jews did not live like the Rothschilds, but he finds it inconsequential; if the majority of Jews are mired in abject indigence, surely this is a sign of penance, a karmic form of expiation for their sins. Guilty in wealth and guilty in poverty — a few loyal readers of The Diary excepted, the Jews just can’t win here.
Dostoevsky was a deep thinker, but one with many blind spots. He writes about Russians’ Christ-like nature, but does not explain how that jives with Russia’s suicide epidemics or its gross mistreatment of children, dreadful phenomena that were rampant in the society of his time and that are described at sometimes soporific length in The Diary. Dostoevsky criticizes Western-oriented liberals for abandoning the Russian peasant for the sake of universalist ideas of some abstract humanism, but he does the same thing when he calls on Russians to forgo material comforts in the name of hazy historical grandeur (Russian spaceships over modern plumbing). Commenting on reports of Serbian soldiers deserting the battlefield to return to their villages during the Russo-Turkish War, he suggests they were simply unaccustomed to the idea of responsibility, having been deprived of any autonomy by their (doubtlessly Europeanized and probably “Jewified”) overlords. The possibility that the Serbs returned to their villages because they lacked the pan-Slavic fervor to fight for their Bulgarian brethren simply does not cross his mind.
The Diary has few illuminations, few “eureka” moments, few flashes of lightning that expose the dark folds of the horizon in the thick of the night. There is no feeling of intellectual discovery, of revelatory effervescence, that one experiences with de Tocqueville, Ortega y Gasset, or Berdyaev, to name but a few writers who were past masters at taking the pulse of their times. The text is constricting and almost claustrophobic, less a cerebral maze than a coffin. But it should still be read. Henry Kissinger, a man wise in the ways of the world, once referred to Putin as a character out of Dostoevsky. A nice formulation, but it doesn’t tell us very much. I am not sure if the Russian president resembles any of Dostoevsky’s characters; he is certainly nothing like their author. Dostoevsky has the smell of the Black Hundreds about him; Putin, however odious, does not, and no book by Dostoevsky will tell you who Putin really is. What The Diary of a Writer will do is help you understand why Putin is.
Originally published here: https://eugeneehren.substack.com/p/fy...
But if the power structure of Putin’s regime is not itself idea-driven, whatever its outward manifestations, it can, and does, gin up popular support by appealing to those ideas that Dostoevsky propounded in his day and that still have a lot of currency in Russia’s ideological marketplace. Reading The Diary, one is amazed by how little Russia has changed since the 19th century, in some ways. The Petrine PTSD and the accompanying identity crisis, the chasm between elites and masses, the opposition between Slavophile conservatives and Westernizing liberals — it’s as if Russian history is covered by permafrost. If he were alive now, I doubt Dostoevsky would be especially overawed by President Putin, but I am certain he’d be on board with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. For Dostoevsky, national glory doesn’t stem from material comforts. He scoffs at countries whose only ambition is to raise the living standards of their people; nations with a bourgeois ethos have a short shelf life. Only those nations that carry a missionary torch have a right to longevity. It doesn’t matter if much of the citizenry has no modern plumbing and uses outhouses for its needs; Russian spaceships in outer space trump modern plumbing. That example is mine, not Dostoevsky’s — but that’s the crux of it.
Dostoevsky’s Russia is a country on a mission. That’s bad news for Russia’s neighbors — a country with a great mission may require military persuasion when soft power fails to do the job. Dostoevsky claims that the Russians, the greatest among Slavs, embody the true spirit of Christ. Thanks to their special spiritual qualities, they have a unique task before them: to unite all Slavic peoples, to treat the afflictions of putrefying Western Europe, and to bring the entire human race together under the fraternal banner of the cross. A tall order, but Dostoevsky’s confidence in Russia’s ability to pull it off is religious. Just like his other predictions (a great conflagration in Western Europe at the end of the 19th century, a Russian Constantinople, etc.), this one hasn’t quite panned out. For a man venerated by many as a near-prophet, Dostoevsky’s oracular track record is lackluster, an inevitability when the prophet’s great humanizing mission must be reconciled with an unshakeable belief in the superiority of his own tribe and the concomitant inferiority of the Other. Dostoevsky’s chauvinist reflexes are always easy to trigger. He thinks nothing of dismissing whole nations with a slur or a facile label, as when he calls Germans conceited and self-satisfied. He takes another pundit to task for daring to suggest that the Russians are only primus inter pares in their country and that an ethnic group such as the Tatars can also lay claim to the land; Russia, Dostoevsky says, belongs exclusively to Russians, and the Tatars (and everyone else not of the host population) are aliens on Russian soil, where they merely live on sufferance. This is a problematic argument in an ethnically diverse country as well as in an empire; Russia was both. In the last pages, Dostoevsky praises Russia’s expansion into Asia; in Europe, he writes, we are only poor relations and slaves, but in Asia we will be masters, backed by the victorious sword of the “white tsar.” So much for Christ-like fraternity.
Dostoevsky was an unequivocal supporter of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, and a good deal of The Diary concerns the “Eastern question,” with its oneiric longings for a Russian conquest of Constantinople. Dostoevsky sees Russia’s war as a justified response to Turkish oppression of Slavs in the Ottoman Empire. But there is more to this than tribal sympathy; the war serves an auxiliary purpose. He writes, “We need this war ourselves; we are not going to war only for our ‘Slavic brothers,’ oppressed by the Turks as they are, but also for our own salvation: the war will clear the stultifying air we breathe while we stew in our corrupting powerlessness and spiritual gridlock.” The war is sold as a way to cure Russian society of its spiritual debility. Whatever this is, it is not the embodiment of Christ and His message.
Dostoevsky’s Judeophobia is especially striking. Thick and dyspeptic, it pervades the pages of The Diary — and stains them. Dostoevsky’s Jews are insatiable bloodsuckers forever feasting on the carcass of any country foolish enough to have let them in. In a chapter called (what else?) “The Jewish Question,” Dostoevsky mentions a legend he heard back in his childhood, according to which every Jew awaits a messiah who will gather all members of the tribe at the gates of Jerusalem. As the Jews want to make sure they travel to Jerusalem in style when the hour comes, they flock to trades that allow them to hoard gold in preparation for the big day. This, then, explains the attraction that money-making pursuits hold for the Jews. We are practically one step away from the blood libel here.
Dostoevsky employs the word “zhid” to describe the Jews — “yid” in modern Russian usage, but still a borderline term in 19th-century Russia. Those who were attuned to such nuances used evrei; Dostoevsky did not trouble himself with such nuances, and he was unapologetic about it. As he explains to Jewish readers piqued by his antisemitic outbursts, “zhid” is a description of a certain general idea, a “style of the times,” as Ernst Jünger would have put it. It has more of a spiritual connotation than an ethnic one. This is not just an exercise in disingenuousness, though of course it is also that. Dostoevsky does, after all, use evrei occasionally, usually in reference to those Jews who made it into his good graces. When he writes that it is incumbent on ethnic Russians to settle Crimea lest the “zhidy” descend on it and poison its soil (July/August issue, 1876), there is no ambiguity concerning the intended target, here and elsewhere. (In one English translation of Brothers Karamazov, Mitya tells Alesha, “I won’t keep you in suspense” — an instance of deft linguistic alchemy on the part of Constance Garnett, who must have wanted to water down the sentence to suit Western reading palates. The original text literally reads: “I won’t squeeze the Jew [yid] out of myself.”)
But he is not entirely disingenuous. Dostoevsky’s antisemitism is less personalistic than ontological. Jewishness for him is a state of being — a spirit as much as an ethnic classification. It is a toxic spirit, one of commercialism and usury that brings with it exploitation and parasitism. Hostile to the doctrine of Christ, it destroys those societies it contaminates. Anybody can fall prey to this spirit, Jews and non-Jews alike. This allows Dostoevsky to write of “Jewified” Christians (or Europeans, or Russians). But “Jewified” non-Jews can presumably be “de-Jewified”; the Jews, whose long history of homelessness renders them “status in statu” (a state within a state), are beyond redemption. This kind of antisemitism is arguably more dangerous than the personalistic one, since it turns the Jews into something of an infectious pathogen. Infectious pathogens are managed through eradication, and various 20th-century regimes made attempts to be exemplary managers. The question is not whether Dostoevsky understood the implications of his ideas, but whether he at all cared. He does not disagree with the objection, expressed by his Jewish readers, that most Jews did not live like the Rothschilds, but he finds it inconsequential; if the majority of Jews are mired in abject indigence, surely this is a sign of penance, a karmic form of expiation for their sins. Guilty in wealth and guilty in poverty — a few loyal readers of The Diary excepted, the Jews just can’t win here.
Dostoevsky was a deep thinker, but one with many blind spots. He writes about Russians’ Christ-like nature, but does not explain how that jives with Russia’s suicide epidemics or its gross mistreatment of children, dreadful phenomena that were rampant in the society of his time and that are described at sometimes soporific length in The Diary. Dostoevsky criticizes Western-oriented liberals for abandoning the Russian peasant for the sake of universalist ideas of some abstract humanism, but he does the same thing when he calls on Russians to forgo material comforts in the name of hazy historical grandeur (Russian spaceships over modern plumbing). Commenting on reports of Serbian soldiers deserting the battlefield to return to their villages during the Russo-Turkish War, he suggests they were simply unaccustomed to the idea of responsibility, having been deprived of any autonomy by their (doubtlessly Europeanized and probably “Jewified”) overlords. The possibility that the Serbs returned to their villages because they lacked the pan-Slavic fervor to fight for their Bulgarian brethren simply does not cross his mind.
The Diary has few illuminations, few “eureka” moments, few flashes of lightning that expose the dark folds of the horizon in the thick of the night. There is no feeling of intellectual discovery, of revelatory effervescence, that one experiences with de Tocqueville, Ortega y Gasset, or Berdyaev, to name but a few writers who were past masters at taking the pulse of their times. The text is constricting and almost claustrophobic, less a cerebral maze than a coffin. But it should still be read. Henry Kissinger, a man wise in the ways of the world, once referred to Putin as a character out of Dostoevsky. A nice formulation, but it doesn’t tell us very much. I am not sure if the Russian president resembles any of Dostoevsky’s characters; he is certainly nothing like their author. Dostoevsky has the smell of the Black Hundreds about him; Putin, however odious, does not, and no book by Dostoevsky will tell you who Putin really is. What The Diary of a Writer will do is help you understand why Putin is.
Originally published here: https://eugeneehren.substack.com/p/fy...
January 26, 2024
No he leído tanto a Dostoevsky como quisiera, pero considero que este libro lo deja en otra posición.
Cuando pensamos en un diario, pensamos en nuestros pensamientos profundos o lo que atormenta a una pobre alma. Este no es el caso. El diario de Dostoevsky funciona como una especie de reflexión constante sobre sus coetáneos. Sobre temas como el talento, como las personas que viajan junto a él en el tren o un barco.
La verdad me esperaba algo más personal, algo más íntimo quizás. Es un libro más general, sobre sus pensamientos y no tan estructurado. Ahora bien, el libro es entretenido y pone al autor fuera de la pose que, creo todos tenemos de él, la de un hombre duro y que no se conmueve con nada. Quizás solo yo tenía esa idea, mero prejuicio. Lo importante aquí es que, como todo buen escritor, Dostoevsky se distancia muchísimo de sus personajes, puede que compartan el carácter enfermizo y la ludopatía, pero gracias a este libro conocemos como era él realmente, o como se quiso contar al resto, ojo ahí.
Dostoevsky era una persona muy atenta al mundo que lo rodea, un ser observador que conocía muy bien a sus compatriotas. Me recuerda quizás a Joyce con dublineses, ya que el texto entrega artículos en los que deja ver la fauna de San Petersburgo.
Recomiendo mucho este libro a quienes quieran ahondar en la figura del autor, y por sobre todo el apartado de la cartas. Pucha que son buenas las cartas, siempre pidiendo plata y debiendo plata xd.
Nota: Cuidado donde dejan su diario personal, no sabemos si en algún momento terminara siendo reseñado por una persona X en un lugar X del mundo.
Cuando pensamos en un diario, pensamos en nuestros pensamientos profundos o lo que atormenta a una pobre alma. Este no es el caso. El diario de Dostoevsky funciona como una especie de reflexión constante sobre sus coetáneos. Sobre temas como el talento, como las personas que viajan junto a él en el tren o un barco.
La verdad me esperaba algo más personal, algo más íntimo quizás. Es un libro más general, sobre sus pensamientos y no tan estructurado. Ahora bien, el libro es entretenido y pone al autor fuera de la pose que, creo todos tenemos de él, la de un hombre duro y que no se conmueve con nada. Quizás solo yo tenía esa idea, mero prejuicio. Lo importante aquí es que, como todo buen escritor, Dostoevsky se distancia muchísimo de sus personajes, puede que compartan el carácter enfermizo y la ludopatía, pero gracias a este libro conocemos como era él realmente, o como se quiso contar al resto, ojo ahí.
Dostoevsky era una persona muy atenta al mundo que lo rodea, un ser observador que conocía muy bien a sus compatriotas. Me recuerda quizás a Joyce con dublineses, ya que el texto entrega artículos en los que deja ver la fauna de San Petersburgo.
Recomiendo mucho este libro a quienes quieran ahondar en la figura del autor, y por sobre todo el apartado de la cartas. Pucha que son buenas las cartas, siempre pidiendo plata y debiendo plata xd.
Nota: Cuidado donde dejan su diario personal, no sabemos si en algún momento terminara siendo reseñado por una persona X en un lugar X del mundo.
March 20, 2020
Dacă vreți, adaptat la zilele noastre, sunt postările de pe blogul lui Dostoievski, sau poate peretele lui de Facebook, publicate timp de câțiva și adunate într-o carte. Eu le-am citit de 3 ori.
November 16, 2015
Dostoyevski'nin başta bir dergide yazdığı köşe, sonra da bizzat kendi çıkardığı derginin adı, "Bir Yazarın Günlüğü". Kendisi dergi olarak yaklaşık iki sene boyunca düzenli olarak çıkarmış; 1876-1877 yıllarında. Ardından sağlık sorunları dolayısıyla 3 sene kadar ara veriyor; 1880'de çıkardığı tek sayı dışında. 1881'de tekrar düzenli yayına heves etse de bir sayıdan fazlasına ömrü vefa etmiyor.
Dolayısıyla 1200 sayfalık bir külliyat kalmış, bu makalelerden. Bu 1200 sayfa bilmediğimiz Dostoyevski'yi göstermesi açısından ilginç.
İki üç öyküye de yer verilen külliyat, çoğunlukla güncel siyasi / toplumsal meseleler üzerine yazılardan oluşmuş :
- Tipik üçüncü sayfa haberleri, önemli bir yüzdeyi oluşturuyor. Çocuğu pencereden atan üvey annenin bu işi hamileliği dolayısıyla yaptığından, çocuklarını dövüyor diye mahkemeye verilen anne babalara, intihar eden gençlere kadar mahkemeye aksetmiş bir çok konu ile ilgili uzun uzun yazılar var.
- Batıcılık / Slavçı milliyetçilik ekseninde bir çok yazı var. Dostoyevski batıcıların karşısında, Slav davasını savunanların tarafında yer alıyor. Slav davası, bizim Türki cumhuriyetler üzerinden kurulan turancılık ideolojisi gibi, Rusların Ortodoksluk paydasında buluştuğu Slav halkları üzerinden inşa edilen siyaset. Bu minvalde Tolstoy'un Anna Karenina'sındaki Levin karakteriyle uzun uzun cebelleşiyor Dostoyevski Aslında derdi Tolstoy'la tabii.
- Türklerle, Türklerin Slav halkları üzerinde uyguladığı vahşetle ilgili bir çok bölüm var. Doğu Sorunu'nu sadece Rusya'nın çözebileceği, "Çargrad" diye andığı İstanbul'un "Hasta Adam"'ın çöküşünden sonra sadece Rusların olması gerektiğine dair uzun uzun yazılar var.
- Rus edebiyatı üzerine çok az şey var. Ölümünün ardından Nekrasov'la ilgili bir yazı, yukarıda bahsettiğim Tolstoy'un Anna Karenina'sı üzerine bölümler var. Her ikisine de Dostoyevski övgüler düzmüş. Dostoyevski'nin üç öyküsü de var : "Bobok", "Gülünç adamın düşü", ve "İsa'nın Noel Ağacındaki Çocuk". İlk ikisi İletişim'in bastığı "Öyküler" kitabında da varlar. Sonuncusu ise yok; çok kısa bir Noel öyküsü.
Dostoyevski'yi bugün yaşasa sevmeyeceğimizi kanıtlayan bu 1200 sayfalık yazıalrı, ancak benim gibi külliyatı tamamlamadan edemeyen completist'lere öneriyorum. Yoksa bunun yanında Pessoa'nın "Huzursuzluğun Kitabı" bile aksiyon öyküsü gibi kalıyor.
Dolayısıyla 1200 sayfalık bir külliyat kalmış, bu makalelerden. Bu 1200 sayfa bilmediğimiz Dostoyevski'yi göstermesi açısından ilginç.
İki üç öyküye de yer verilen külliyat, çoğunlukla güncel siyasi / toplumsal meseleler üzerine yazılardan oluşmuş :
- Tipik üçüncü sayfa haberleri, önemli bir yüzdeyi oluşturuyor. Çocuğu pencereden atan üvey annenin bu işi hamileliği dolayısıyla yaptığından, çocuklarını dövüyor diye mahkemeye verilen anne babalara, intihar eden gençlere kadar mahkemeye aksetmiş bir çok konu ile ilgili uzun uzun yazılar var.
- Batıcılık / Slavçı milliyetçilik ekseninde bir çok yazı var. Dostoyevski batıcıların karşısında, Slav davasını savunanların tarafında yer alıyor. Slav davası, bizim Türki cumhuriyetler üzerinden kurulan turancılık ideolojisi gibi, Rusların Ortodoksluk paydasında buluştuğu Slav halkları üzerinden inşa edilen siyaset. Bu minvalde Tolstoy'un Anna Karenina'sındaki Levin karakteriyle uzun uzun cebelleşiyor Dostoyevski Aslında derdi Tolstoy'la tabii.
- Türklerle, Türklerin Slav halkları üzerinde uyguladığı vahşetle ilgili bir çok bölüm var. Doğu Sorunu'nu sadece Rusya'nın çözebileceği, "Çargrad" diye andığı İstanbul'un "Hasta Adam"'ın çöküşünden sonra sadece Rusların olması gerektiğine dair uzun uzun yazılar var.
- Rus edebiyatı üzerine çok az şey var. Ölümünün ardından Nekrasov'la ilgili bir yazı, yukarıda bahsettiğim Tolstoy'un Anna Karenina'sı üzerine bölümler var. Her ikisine de Dostoyevski övgüler düzmüş. Dostoyevski'nin üç öyküsü de var : "Bobok", "Gülünç adamın düşü", ve "İsa'nın Noel Ağacındaki Çocuk". İlk ikisi İletişim'in bastığı "Öyküler" kitabında da varlar. Sonuncusu ise yok; çok kısa bir Noel öyküsü.
Dostoyevski'yi bugün yaşasa sevmeyeceğimizi kanıtlayan bu 1200 sayfalık yazıalrı, ancak benim gibi külliyatı tamamlamadan edemeyen completist'lere öneriyorum. Yoksa bunun yanında Pessoa'nın "Huzursuzluğun Kitabı" bile aksiyon öyküsü gibi kalıyor.
December 4, 2012
Ma asteptam sa fie un pic mai personala.
Treateaza prea mult cauza Rusiei si a ortodoxismului. N-are nimic in comun cu celelalte opere ale sale, si nici nu mi-am dat seama cum a putut acest om sa scrie niste opere extraordinare, iar in jurnalul sau sa fie interesat de cu totul alte probleme.
Totusi, e un capitol interesant (daca mi-l mai amintesc bine), cand pleaca la bai in Germania si este pur si simplu uimit de diferenta dintre functionarul public rus si cel neamt. Cel neamt il trata cu respect, rabdare, cel rus se ascundea dupa un gemulet mic, ignora faptul ca oamenii stateau la coada. Cu cat te facea pe tine, cel care stateai la coada sa te simti mai mic, el devenea mai important.
Interesant e sa compari lucrurile cu Romania, si lucrurile par a nu se fi schimbat de atatea sute de ani. Si pare a fi o problema de cultura. Cu toate acestea, la 13 ani distanta, pot spune ca functionarul public roman s-a schimbat mult. Au mai ramas rusi, dar nu mai sunt atat de multi :).
Treateaza prea mult cauza Rusiei si a ortodoxismului. N-are nimic in comun cu celelalte opere ale sale, si nici nu mi-am dat seama cum a putut acest om sa scrie niste opere extraordinare, iar in jurnalul sau sa fie interesat de cu totul alte probleme.
Totusi, e un capitol interesant (daca mi-l mai amintesc bine), cand pleaca la bai in Germania si este pur si simplu uimit de diferenta dintre functionarul public rus si cel neamt. Cel neamt il trata cu respect, rabdare, cel rus se ascundea dupa un gemulet mic, ignora faptul ca oamenii stateau la coada. Cu cat te facea pe tine, cel care stateai la coada sa te simti mai mic, el devenea mai important.
Interesant e sa compari lucrurile cu Romania, si lucrurile par a nu se fi schimbat de atatea sute de ani. Si pare a fi o problema de cultura. Cu toate acestea, la 13 ani distanta, pot spune ca functionarul public roman s-a schimbat mult. Au mai ramas rusi, dar nu mai sunt atat de multi :).
February 5, 2017
Достоевски, пророк на революцията и човек надникнал в 21 век..
"Според моето най - дълбоко и пълно вътрешно убеждение Русия няма да има и никога не е имала такива ненавистници, завистници, клеветници и дори явни врагове, каквито ще бъдат всички тия славянски племена веднага щом Русия ги освободи, а Европа се съгласи да ги признае за освободени!..
.. ще изтъкнат като политическа, а по-късно и като научна истина, че ако през тия сто години не би я имало Русия, те отдавна биха се освободили от турците било благодарение на собствената си доблест, било с помощта на Европа, която - стига да нямаше Русия - не само не би имала нищо против тяхното освобождение, но и лично би ги освободила. Това хитро учение несъмнено ще прерасне в научна и политическа аксиома. Може би още цяло столетие, ако не и повече, те непрестанно е треперят за своята свобода и ще се страхуват от властолюбието на Русия; ще се умилкват на европейските държави, ще клеветят Русия, ще бълват хули против нея."
"Според моето най - дълбоко и пълно вътрешно убеждение Русия няма да има и никога не е имала такива ненавистници, завистници, клеветници и дори явни врагове, каквито ще бъдат всички тия славянски племена веднага щом Русия ги освободи, а Европа се съгласи да ги признае за освободени!..
.. ще изтъкнат като политическа, а по-късно и като научна истина, че ако през тия сто години не би я имало Русия, те отдавна биха се освободили от турците било благодарение на собствената си доблест, било с помощта на Европа, която - стига да нямаше Русия - не само не би имала нищо против тяхното освобождение, но и лично би ги освободила. Това хитро учение несъмнено ще прерасне в научна и политическа аксиома. Може би още цяло столетие, ако не и повече, те непрестанно е треперят за своята свобода и ще се страхуват от властолюбието на Русия; ще се умилкват на европейските държави, ще клеветят Русия, ще бълват хули против нея."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews