Near death experience?

[nektarios]

Hey! I noticed this poll looks sort of closed, but I can't help adding one more thing to the initial idea of Dostoevsky's near-death experience. First of all, I must say that I'm a new reader of Dostoevsky's and of the stories of his life, but I find them quite fascinating. Anyways, more on that some other time. The thing that has been bugging me ever since I read about his life and the above mentioned experience is that (and this may sound a bit controversial), maybe Dostoevsky did not completely revolutionize his view of religion, poilitics, Russia and all those just because "he saw the light". I mean it is obvious that the event had a major impact on him, but I can't help thinking that maybe that impact was simply fear. I've read quite a bit about his life (I had to actually  ) and I must say that there are some things that seem to disguise Dostoevsky's character as being quite weak. Yeah, he was a literary genius! And yeah, he was an amazingly influential Russian philosopher, but what if he was a "coward" too? That wouldn't make him any worse, obviously. So please try to think about it and comment on this idea. I'm trying to figure out if this could  actually be considered a veritable point. After all, he did become a Slavophile after being a revolutionist, and I bet there's a lot more politics involved in this too, but let's not go there now! Thanks in advance!  

Oh, and about the whole "why was he not executed?" discussion, I'm just gonna guess and say that maybe the Petrashevsky Circle wasn't that big of a deal in Russia at the time and Nikolas I (the tsar) only wanted to scare the young guys a little, yet not create a big national issue. As it was said before, revolutions were quite popular in Russia at the time, so it's not like the tsar felt really threatened. He wasn't the scaredy-cat type anyway .

Hello Milena,

I have to say something about if dostoyevski of he was a coward or not!Lets just think what he passes in his life!Jail,death of his first children,rejection of society and the people who first recognize him,and many other things tha if you read about his life you must know!Even if he was a coward after all that things nothing scares you!You are above pain,you can stand anything!He says somewheremi think in a letter to his brother!(I have pass so many adventures,and pain in my life,that i can stand anything any kind of pain,but i cant stop gumbling)!
Dostoyevski live,and experience all the worst nightmares we will ever have,but he never lost his hope,he never said that life is unfair but the opposite!As more he was sufering and he was despair,he was more convinced for the meanig of life and the existent of god!Brave people are not the fearless but that people,who even if they are afraid,they dealing with their fears,and passing through their problems!So dostoyevski,no he wasnt a coward!He was more brave than only heroes and saints can be!

Take care!

[tzar]

The thing that has been bugging me ever since I read about his life and the above mentioned experience is that (and this may sound a bit controversial), maybe Dostoevsky did not completely revolutionize his view of religion, poilitics, Russia and all those just because "he saw the light". I mean it is obvious that the event had a major impact on him, but I can't help thinking that maybe that impact was simply fear.

what fear, for christsake?!
in 19th century Russia one was allowed to write and publish anything one want.
Soviet Union took place in 20th century, when Dostoevsky was already dead,
by the way, the real popularity came to him in Soviet times, when culture department of communist party of the USSR ordered movie director Pyriev to make films based on Dostoevsky's novels.

[Milena]

Hi again!
So people seem to disagree, thank you, though, for replying to my post! And now on to supporting my point. First of all, I never said that Dostoevsky was afraid to confront life...just that he was not strong enough to stand by his initial feelings of disagreement with the system of government and so on. He was arrested, condemned, he changed. As if there hadn't been many other people killed for speaking up. But Dostoevsky gave up. Of course, it is quite obvious that it isn't an easy thing to deal with, just like "Jail,death of his first children,rejection of society and the people who first recognize him" aren't either. But hey, let's be realistic. Even geniuses and "saints" like Dostoevsky make mistakes. No one said that a great writer and philosopher has to be a fighter, too.
And even if he never complained and actually accepted his sufferings, let's not forget that he did this only after the controversial experience. As a result of it. And what a coincidence, he chose to become religious and profound, just like every other person that isn't strong enough to fight those who condemn him/her, and so gives the power of his life and the choice-making to God. Good excuse, it always works and brings people's sympathy. Now don't get me wrong, i believe in God, I truly do. And I admire Dostoevsky, with all due respect. But I also like to be realistic. He gave up.

And to answer the second reply: the times of the Soviet Union weren't the only times when literary censorship or censorship of any kind was applied in Russia. Tsar Nicholas the I, who Dostoevsky actually plotted against and who set the execution up for him, was really into censorship and everything else that comes with it. Why else would the Petrashevsky Circle be an underground organization? And of course Dostoevsky would be praised during the Soviet era. His post-"near-execution" novels are full of nationalism, praise for the Russian people and disapproval of the Western ideas. Now isn't that exactly what the Soviets promoted?

Once again, I don't accuse Dostoevsky of anything. I am sure his choices were wiser than those of many people. But, at the same time, they might have been less determined. He chose the easy way out. Suffering- Regret- Change- Give God the wheel- Support your actions by preaching your new ideas as the only right ones- Criticize the ones that do otherwise. What would have happened if Dostoevsky had stayed by his revolutionary ideals? Maybe we would have lost one of the greatest writers of all time. So his lack of determination might have been a good thing. But it's still a lack of determination, or whatever else it may be called.

[nektarios]

Dear Milena,

If you think,that is lack of detemination who change dotoyevskis atitude!I am sorry to tell you,but you lost the most crucial point,of dostoyevskis philosophy!When you continue reading,him,yo will realize that this change happened because,of initial deeper understanding,of the life and the example of Christ and has not to do at all,with fear,and easy solution!

take care!

[MikeK]

Milena, I'd like to respond to your latest post.  The thrust of your argument seems to be this:
Dostoevsky mended his revolutionary ways after his exile, mostly out of fear (which you don't condemn), he accepted Christianity during this time and this served as a convenient cover for his cowardice,  and admitting these facts doesn't lessen his literary genius.  --  If I'm wrong in that brief analysis of your ideas, please correct me.

I think that you've made two mistakes that may have led you slightly astray.

First, you overestimate Dosteovsky's 'revolutionary' thoughts in his pre-exile days.  it's been well documented by many writers (and most persuasively by Frank) that Dostoevsky's main concern in his pre-exile days was the problem of serfdom.  He wanted freedom for the serfs.  This happened a couple of years after his exile, in 1861.  What was he to continue fighting for?  You say, "he gave up", whatever that means.  This implies that he was some hardcore revolutionary/anarchist/communist bent only on destruction.  He was never that; his thoughts about improving Russian life and the life of the serfs were quite practical and grounded.  The serfs were freed, and he saw some improvements going on around him.  What was he to fight for?  What did he "give up"?  The truth is that after seeing the serfs freed in 1861, he realized (in conjunction with is experience in exile) that the best way to improve life was not to revolt and overthrow the existing order.  Order and tradition were essential to bring about improvements in society, not things to be overthrown.  The contemporary revolutionaries that he parodied so well in "Demons", Bakunin, Nachayev, and the like, did not improve society, but harmed it.  You make it as though it's noble to become one of these frustrated revolutionaries - constantly crusading, damn the costs to society.  Well, if that's good or bad, that's never what Dostoevsky was.

Secondly, as you overestimated the revolutionary streak in Dostoevsky, you underestimated his pre-exile Christianity.  You say that his becoming Christian coincided with his exile.  This is flat wrong.  By everything I've ever read about him (except by writers who have much interest in mangling the facts of Dostoevsky's life in order to prove their point), the seeds of Christianity were planted in him quite early.  You say you've read much about his life.  Well then I'm sure you know the anecdote about what he said just before his (mock) execution.  He turned to a companion, Speshnev I think, and said, "We'll be together in Christ now."  Speshnev smiled and replied, "just a handful of ashes."  By every report, Dostoevsky was shocked and horrified at this egotistical display of blasphemy in the moments just before death.  Remember, this mention of becoming one with Christ was before his exile, not after.  It's easy to claim that his Christian conversion was a nice coincidence - a good cover for his cowardice - only if you ignore the fact that he was Christian before.  Surely, he had utopian tendancies, but he was never atheistic.  The idea of a prison 'conversion' is quite incorrect.  If anything, the exile years grounded him in his already existing faith, and illumined him.

Incidentally, I also find it strange that you say he would've been praised during Soviet times.  The Bolshiveks were exactly what he found harmful and destructive to society, not admirabe.  And in actual fact (you Russians here will know better than I - I may be wrong), I think Dostoevsky was quite unpopular with the regime after the Revolution.  I'm reminded of a great anecdote I read in Malcolm Muggeridge's autobiography.  When he visited Russia in 1932, before leaving he wanted to see Dostoevsky's grave.  He explained the pains it took just to find it at that time; everyone was denying that they knew where it was, and he could get no official information on where exactly he was buried.  And when he eventually found it, it had fallen into disarray.  It was not kept up.  Hardly the "praise" that you say the Soviets would've given him.

I think that your regarding him as a 'revolutionary' in spirit before his exile (who simply wanted to fight/rage) and not as one who wanted to concretely improve life for fellow Russians and serfs, and your dismissing his pre-exile Christianity have led you down quite the wrong path on this topic.  I'll leave my response there; correcting those two misconceptions about his life, and leave the religious and philosophical implications of your argument to any others who want to pick it up.  But hey, at least you recognize his literary genius.

I look forward to hearing back from you if you think I'm wrong.

[Milena]

Thanks a lot for your response, MikeK. Honestly. You have made things a lot clearer and you seem to know what you're talking about. I knew that the emancipation of the serfs was pretty important to Dostoevsky, but i never knew that it was his main focus before his exile. Now that explains it, because many things changed at the same time that the serfs were freed, so it makes sense that Dostoevsky was at least half content with the new changes. Good point, thank you for that.
About religion, I didn't think that he had been atheistic before prison, just that he didn't care that much about religion. Seems I was wrong again, thanks for that one too.  
And finally, I'm surprised he wasn't too popular during the Soviet era. I know he was against nihilists, radicals, and so on, but at the same time, he was a true nationalist, which, to me, it seemed like something that the Soviets might have admired.
So I'm glad that you took the time to explain things, because it really helped, and now I can go on reading his books without having any doubts directed toward his integrity. Sorry to everyone that might have felt offended by my ideas. But you know what they say, you might miss out on great things if you don't dare to question. Thanks again everybody.

[tzar]

I'm surprised he wasn't too popular during the Soviet era. I know he was against nihilists, radicals, and so on, but at the same time, he was a true nationalist, which, to me, it seemed like something that the Soviets might have admired.

Dostoy was very popular in the Soviet Union, since his works were obligatory studied at our schools at the time.
moreover, Stalin's favorite movie director Pyriev shot two exellent movies, "Brothers Karamazov" and "The Idiot".
"Crime And Punishment" and "The Humble One" created by some other directors followed.