Similar authors?

[underworld men]

Camus certainly was an athiest, and I'm pretty sure he was a socialist, as you say.  Those traits came out in his writing, as he portrayed men without God, in an absurd state of affairs.  And let me ask, who portrayed the atheist/socialist mindset better than Dostoevsky?  Just because Dostoevsky would've rejected Camus' beliefs (you're correct there again), that doesn't mean their works weren't similar.  Camus showed the absurdity of life without God, lived in isolation, and so did Dostoevsky.  The only difference is that Camus believed that that WAS man's lot on earth while Dostoevsky tried to show the emptiness and trouble of such a life.  Camus showed the life of the 20th century isolated man without God "from within", while Dostoevsky showed what 20th century isolated man without God would be "from without".  One might call Dostoevsky a prophet not only for seeing 20th century totalitarianism, but also for seeing the 20th century individual; isolated, alone, unbelieving, in a word...Camus.  

As far as Camus having no depth of psychology, I think that's wrong.  Everything he says about man is right...if you accept his first principles (namely that God doesn't exist).  Just because you, I, and Dostoevsky don't agree with that principle doesn't mean Camus failed to show the psychological depths of man without God.

Incidentally, you're also right about Camus not holding a candle to Dostoevsky as a writer...I never claimed he did (but he did have a few more good passages than you suggest).

Overall, I think you misunderstood me, or I didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean to imply that they would've agreed philosophically (they were quite opposite), only that their work had a similar quality - Camus praising those things which Dostoevsky rejected.

OK then 2 questions-
1. Did Camus commit suicide?
2. If so or not so what was he working on when he died?

[MikeK]

I know he died in a car wreck.  I don't think it was suicide - I may be wrong.  

He was working on an autobiographical novel when he died.  I don't remember the name, and I've never read it, if it's even been published, I'm not sure.

I can't claim to be an expert on Camus' life.  I've never read a biography of his life.  My impressions of his work are based on the works themselves.  Of his, I've read "The Stranger", "The Fall", "The Plague", and "The Myth of Sisyphus", if that helps you know where I'm coming from in my first-hand knowledge of Camus.  I also must confess ignorance and risk looking particularly idiotic by admitting that I don't quite understand what those questions have to do with my assertion that he is a similar writer to D - although I take it from your post that the answer lies somewhere in his unfinished work, and I look forward to hearing back from you about it.

[Dillon]

Mike--just by reading The Stranger I can tell you that Camus did not discuss the same themes as D. Mersault, in the last chapter, denounces the ideas of suffering and redemption by saying that "there are only privileged people" and overall by being known as nothing more than an inert vessel of observation that in no way believes his thoughts (small and shallow as they may be) to be provoked by any emotion or outside occurence--his paramount apathy at the death of his mother comes to mind--and so we can say that, without a doubt, there is no passion or humanity within Mersault, whereas D's characters are wholly substantiated by the existence or inexistence of these ideals.

And no, Camus did not commit suicide--he died in an accidental car wreck while working on an autobiography.

Camus was of the "absurdist" school of philosophy.

[underworld men]

To consider..
http://trc.virginia.edu/Publications/OP_Cook/Cook_Nobelists.htm

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,,96427,00.html

The first man a victim of his own philosophy-absurd.

[MikeK]

Dillon, I agree with your interpretations of Mersault and "The Stranger", and again, I don't see how that conflicts with what I said.  

In your own words: "Mersault, in the last chapter, denounces the ideas of suffering and redemption by saying that 'there are only priveledged people'..."

- What themes are more recurrant in D. than suffering, redemption, and in many of his works, "the priveledged people"?

You again: "(Mersault is) nothing more than an inert vessel of observation that in no way believes his thoughts...to be provoked by any emotion..."

- Dostoevsky spent most of his last twenty years on this theme.  The theme of "scientific determinism", the idea of many of his contemporaries that we have no free will and are only instruments of our senses, i.e. organ stops.  ("Winter Notes", the Underground Man, Raskolnikov, Rakitin, and many others.)

You, one last time: "there is no passion or humanity within Mersault, whereas D's characters are wholly substantiated by the existence or inexsistence of these ideals(passion & humanity)."

- Exactly.  D is concerned with the "existence OR INEXSISTENCE" of those ideals.  You've contradicted yourself in that sentence.  His characters who lack that passion and humanity (like Mersault, as you rightly say) are numerous throughout D's works.  He holds them up to be ridiculed and proven wrong, but they are there.  i.e. He deals with that theme.


You start by telling me that Camus did not discuss the same themes, and then spend the rest of your post describing the similarity of themes between D and Camus.  As I said before, just because D would've disagreed with Camus, doesn't mean they didn't write on similar themes.

[MikeK]

Since my original post seems to have caused much confusion, I'll try to clarify.  The original question of smbaig was:

"Can anyone recommend authors with the same sort of style or themes?"

As far as style, I was thinking particularly of "The Fall".  It is absolutely impossible for anyone who has read "Notes From Underground" not to see that book's influence on Camus and "The Fall".  The style is nearly identical.  A first-person narrator addressing the reader directly, speaking in much the same manner and about many of the same themes as the underground man, using much of the same humor, irony, and other techniques D used in N.F.U.

As for the similarity of themes, I was thinking of Dostoevsky's atheists, socialists, determinists, materialists(philosophically speaking - I don't mean money grubbers), and the way that those thoughts lead many of his characters to isolation (from man and God), alienation, pride, suicide, and all of the other consequences for D's "negative" characters.

I'll describe particularly what I was thinking of when I said that Mersault would fit in with many of them.  First, he is an atheist.  No shortage of those in D's works.  This has led him to utter isolation and alienation.  He is almost demonically proud.  And all of those previous traits lead him to care for nothing or no-one but his immediate bodily desires.   He lives completely by the senses and his human urges - food, sex, cigarettes, etc.  He rejects any type of suffering or sacrifice (as Dillon rightly noted above) for any of his fellow men.  He has none of the love for his neighbor that D constantly preaches about, and that can be traced directly to those character traits I mentioned above.  Mersault, to me, is exactly the kind of man that D recognized would emerge from all of the atheism, determinism, etc...  

That is what made me include Mersault.  Maybe my reading of him is wrong, but when I eventually read D (I didn't read him until after I'd read "The Stranger") Mersault was constantly in my mind as the exact personification of what D feared man would become.

For once and all, I know he didn't agree with Camus or Mersault, but to me the themes were very similar.  To me, it was a perfectly appropriate answer to the question of "who dealt with similar style and themes?"  I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that I'm wrong (I haven't read Camus in a while - so maybe I'm forgetting) but anyone who wants to convince me would do well to answer these  questions:

- What do you see as the main themes of Camus' work?
- And how are those themes so different from D's?

[Dillon]

Mike--I sympathize with you in that reading of Mersault, in that I saw in him what D dreaded would become in the minds of men after his generation, also as a stark personification of the ultimate result of the embellishment of worldly things (cigarettes, sexuality, etc).

What themes are more recurrant in D. than suffering, redemption, and in many of his works, "the priveledged people"?

In saying that Mersault/Camus denounces the ideas of suffering and redemption, I meant that his superficial ideals superceded the acknowledgement of suffering and the drive for redemption. By saying that "there are only privileged people", Mersault implies a touching upon of the theme of suffering, but in no way whatsoever is such a theme explored or respected as it is within D's characters; the blatant incongruity with the perception of the ideas of suffering, redemption, and faith leads me to state the exact same themes are not being discussed on an even plane. But,

Exactly.  D is concerned with the "existence OR INEXSISTENCE" of those ideals.  You've contradicted yourself in that sentence.  His characters who lack that passion and humanity (like Mersault, as you rightly say) are numerous throughout D's works.  He holds them up to be ridiculed and proven wrong, but they are there.  i.e. He deals with that theme.

Ya got me. Really; I now see that I've contradicted myself. Still, D and Camus were worlds apart, literally and philosophically. I see the similarities between both Mersault's and Rodya's 'faith in non-faith' if you will, but still, D's perception of Rodya and Camus's perception of Mersault are drastically different, and so for now I'll stand by my belief that the themes were not quite as identical as they seem, if only in their implication alone.

[MikeK]

Dillon, fair enough.  It's fine if we disagree.  I kind of figured that many of you would disagree, and mentioned Camus partly in anticipation of the responses.

But I'll try one last explanation by way of an example.  It may be redundant, or may give a better insight into my thought that they deal with similar themes without agreeing on them:

Let's suppose I write a book on Renaissance art, and you write a book on Renaissance art.  I like it, praise it, talk about certain artists (Michelangelo, Leonardo, etc...), talk about their techniques (chiaroscuro, etc...), while you dislike it, deride it, show the ineptness of certain artists (Michelangelo, Leonardo, etc...), show how they failed in their use of certain techniques (chiaroscuro, etc...).  We can be 180 degrees apart (like D and Camus), and want our readers to reach vastly different conclusions, but we've dealt with the same themes: Artists of the Renaissance period, specific works, their techniques, etc.

That's how I think of D's and Camus' works.  That's all I was saying; not that they would've agreed, or that their books lead to the same end, and certainly not that Camus was as gifted a writer.  Just that many themes in their works overlapped.

[underworld men]

Dillon, fair enough.  It's fine if we disagree.  I kind of figured that many of you would disagree, and mentioned Camus partly in anticipation of the responses.

But I'll try one last explanation by way of an example.  It may be redundant, or may give a better insight into my thought that they deal with similar themes without agreeing on them:

Let's suppose I write a book on Renaissance art, and you write a book on Renaissance art.  I like it, praise it, talk about certain artists (Michelangelo, Leonardo, etc...), talk about their techniques (chiaroscuro, etc...), while you dislike it, deride it, show the ineptness of certain artists (Michelangelo, Leonardo, etc...), show how they failed in their use of certain techniques (chiaroscuro, etc...).  We can be 180 degrees apart (like D and Camus), and want our readers to reach vastly different conclusions, but we've dealt with the same themes: Artists of the Renaissance period, specific works, their techniques, etc.

That's how I think of D's and Camus' works.  That's all I was saying; not that they would've agreed, or that their books lead to the same end, and certainly not that Camus was as gifted a writer.  Just that many themes in their works overlapped.

I don't agree for very untechnical reasons and some technical too. I see and think of dostoevsky first as being a writer who like no other wrote passages in his books that where spiritual and psychologically lucid and intuitive.  The stranger and the fall have no such passages like Maria and the children or the resurrection of lazarus.

Nothing that camus wrote could compare to this. Nothing he wrote challenged me philosophically like the rebellion, inquisitor or what is hell. Nothing I read by camus was such an innovation to literature as notes from the underworld or the polyphonic voices in his novels. Nothing camus wrote could compare to the prophetic "daemons".

So sure there where writers who wrote novels hell Tolstoy has a passage almost verbatum as the lesson he and big D learned from St Ambrosa/Zosima. AKA what is hell, but D put passages just like that in his worx long before Tolstoy jump onto using such passages and D is by far way better.

It is beyond rare to find an author who can awaken such a strong and richly beautiful reaction from readers like Dostoevsky. I stated what I did so that the poster of the original question would hopefully know what to expect.
Such Dostoevskian beauty is rare in a novel even rarer in one not written by Dostoevsky himself.

[MikeK]

Fair enough, UM.  I agree with what you say, and I certainly didn't want to mislead smbaig in his search for similar writers.  I now see that by mentioning Camus, both smbaig and others may have inferred that I thought he was as gifted a writer.

But I would caution both smbaig and others.  You rightly say that "Nothing that Camus wrote could compare to (D)."  True enough, but who could claim such "innovations to literature" through the technique of polyphonic composition and such "prophetic works", as you put it?  No author.  So by that logic, you can't give any answer to smbaig's question, since I think (and I suspect that you would agree) that NO other writer, not just Camus, could compare to the best passages in D.  You can make that same reply about any author that is mentioned as a writer of similar themes: "Nothing that ________ wrote could compare to (D)."  So I regret if I left smbaig or others with the impression that Camus was as good.  My orginal response wasn't to imply equal artisitc quality between the two, or equal depth of insight, but as far as any author offered as a response, I believe that most members on this board would say, "yeah, but he doesn't compare to D."

Maybe I should revise my answer to smbaig in this way:  I still do think that Camus dealt with many similar themes, but be forewarned, you won't reach anywhere near the same heights as when you read D."  How's that?

[underworld men]

Fair enough, UM.  I agree with what you say, and I certainly didn't want to mislead smbaig in his search for similar writers.  I now see that by mentioning Camus, both smbaig and others may have inferred that I thought he was as gifted a writer.

Now I did not say he wasn't gifted. I am just repulsed at the fact that he tries to use Dostoevsky accompishments  AGAINST the very things Dostoevsky was trying to save and protect by those great innovations. To me camus was a sham-moooo. You don't have to agree. No big deal. But hey at least we're talking about it. Aleast your of a mind to even to begin to approach these things

But I would caution both smbaig and others.  You rightly say that "Nothing that Camus wrote could compare to (D)."  True enough, but who could claim such "innovations to literature" through the technique of polyphonic composition and such "prophetic works", as you put it?  No author.  So by that logic, you can't give any answer to smbaig's question, since I think (and I suspect that you would agree) that NO other writer, not just Camus, could compare to the best passages in D.  You can make that same reply about any author that is mentioned as a writer of similar themes: "Nothing that ________ wrote could compare to (D)."  So I regret if I left smbaig or others with the impression that Camus was as good.  My orginal response wasn't to imply equal artisitc quality between the two, or equal depth of insight, but as far as any author offered as a response, I believe that most members on this board would say, "yeah, but he doesn't compare to D."

Agreed the heart of my point is that if you love what dostoevsky wrote AND what he stood for, Camus might not be your thing. Since I feel from camus' attempted rebuttal to the grand inquisitor where shamoo I mean camus DEFENDS the inquisitor and SIDES WITH HIM, he was in his heart an enemy of dostoevsky's and was so threatened by big D he had to at once act like he was embracing him to then undermind him. Just my opinion.

Maybe I should revise my answer to smbaig in this way:  I still do think that Camus dealt with many similar themes, but be forewarned, you won't reach anywhere near the same heights as when you read D."  How's that?

I hope you understand that I am sincere. As I hope this post is..If it is to be satircal then it all might be just be too much..

[lerik]

Tolstoy is good in analysis,so i recommend him.Thats the first authour that came to my mind

[moderndaymugging]

If you're interested in the extisentialism end of Dostoyevsky check out Sartre, specifically "Nausea"

[woland]

When you look at Camus, I think "the stranger" is not the book to look at,  though i think it is more philosophically deep then previously suggested on here.. Absurdism is interesting.. Look at "The Fall", and i think in this book you can see something of Dostoyevsky's influence though I do agree that Camus has nowhere near the talent of Dostoyevesky, he is still a decent writer..  Marquez, is also obviously heavily influenced by Dostoyevsky, at least in ideas, somewhat in writing style though he writes with a much more exaggerated passion and a flowery style that is not really like dostoyevsky i guess so scratch the somewhat, just ideas... I find Borges similar as well, for another of the latin writers... Well, enough for now...

[RileyRampant]

"Also Niki was big D's favorite (other then Homer)"

I never knew Dostoevsky was a big fan of Homer. Got any references?

Right off the top of my head... there are many references and quotes by him in some of his minor works: Poor Folk, House of the Dead.

I have another question how long does it take you guys to read D's longer novels like C&P, TBK etc.

I am not a slow reader but I spend so much time thinking of what I am reading, the book ends up taking so much longer... I feel that D's philosophy's deserve alot of thought... does this happen to any of you.

PS- I have ten pages left of Poor Folk and can't finnish them because I am running a fever of 102F. I am so frustrated with that..

having taken the evelyn woodhead speed-reading course, that is not a problem for me.

the most weighty tome flashes by pretty much as fast as i can riffle the pages

most books seem pretty vague and confusing, though  
and the thick ones take a lot more handiwork