I wasn't expecting any kind of ending with regard to the story. But I actually didn't expect the end to be that way. There are a lot of things that I still want to know. A lot of reasons that I wanted to discuss, argue with [myself, that is], and justify. I have read an article or two about Fyodor's style, one of which was a critque, the other a defender. To tell you the truth, it almost made me stop reading the book for good, but I wanted to see how the end would be.
Anyway, the critic was right when he said that a lot of the story's characters are half-baked. I think I should also add that a lot of sub-stories had no ending [nor beginning... at times] and you are left to wonder and speculate about the end of it, or even how it came about. On the other hand, the defender justified that Fyodor tells his story about life as it happens; which means that probably, in real life, all things just happen - with no reason and no end. For this part, I wholly agree with the defender. The book is very long. But that is because Fyodor had so much to say. He discussed politics, religion, Catholicism as it happens in one's life, a day at a time. The only thing is, somehow, Dostoevsky might have opted not to finish off with one topic deliberately because he feels that there were a lot more important issues n the story and that these issues are of another story.
I am touched by a lot of sub-stories in the book. There were a lot of things that Dostoevsky was able to articulate and describe in detail. There are a lot of issues that he discussed and the discussion of which has brought light to some of those things that I haven't thought of at all. I was rather fascinated at how he discussed certain death [as in death sentence] vs. uncertain death [like an accident]. I couldn't quite articulate about these things. So, I suggest that if you want to find out more, you should read the book. There is a lot more than death, religion, politics. But I was rather perplexed that the center of tha story seems to be love, but which I didn't find any kind or romance in it. Romance in the figurative sense - not the literal. So, it made me believe that his intention for this book was originally of political note. Only using the affairs of Myshkin with the society that he chose to live with so that he can discuss [or vent out] his whims and qualms against the society he lives with in reality.
During my adventure with the book, I thought of maybe like doing it the way other writers did. In a way that it's a book with a lot of stories, like Stephen King's 'Different Seasons'' where you can find the story, 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.' But then again, I contradicted myself for the book might lose its spontaneity and continuity. Because in a way, the sum seems not to be equal with its parts, so I think it was unwise for me to say that I can give an ending to each of the story had I proposed it that way.
If he was able to justify the adventures and misadventures of this idiot, I leave upon you to say for yourself.
Anyway, the critic was right when he said that a lot of the story's characters are half-baked. I think I should also add that a lot of sub-stories had no ending [nor beginning... at times] and you are left to wonder and speculate about the end of it, or even how it came about. On the other hand, the defender justified that Fyodor tells his story about life as it happens; which means that probably, in real life, all things just happen - with no reason and no end. For this part, I wholly agree with the defender. The book is very long. But that is because Fyodor had so much to say. He discussed politics, religion, Catholicism as it happens in one's life, a day at a time. The only thing is, somehow, Dostoevsky might have opted not to finish off with one topic deliberately because he feels that there were a lot more important issues n the story and that these issues are of another story.
I am touched by a lot of sub-stories in the book. There were a lot of things that Dostoevsky was able to articulate and describe in detail. There are a lot of issues that he discussed and the discussion of which has brought light to some of those things that I haven't thought of at all. I was rather fascinated at how he discussed certain death [as in death sentence] vs. uncertain death [like an accident]. I couldn't quite articulate about these things. So, I suggest that if you want to find out more, you should read the book. There is a lot more than death, religion, politics. But I was rather perplexed that the center of tha story seems to be love, but which I didn't find any kind or romance in it. Romance in the figurative sense - not the literal. So, it made me believe that his intention for this book was originally of political note. Only using the affairs of Myshkin with the society that he chose to live with so that he can discuss [or vent out] his whims and qualms against the society he lives with in reality.
During my adventure with the book, I thought of maybe like doing it the way other writers did. In a way that it's a book with a lot of stories, like Stephen King's 'Different Seasons'' where you can find the story, 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.' But then again, I contradicted myself for the book might lose its spontaneity and continuity. Because in a way, the sum seems not to be equal with its parts, so I think it was unwise for me to say that I can give an ending to each of the story had I proposed it that way.
If he was able to justify the adventures and misadventures of this idiot, I leave upon you to say for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment