Dostoevsky Writing Style

[phil178821]

For my english class i must write a research paper on a non-american author's writing style and eventually immitate it in a creative writing essay. I am not very familiar with Fyodor but i believe him to be a good choice. So far i have 1) focus in fiction 2) disparate characters in extreme states of mind 3) is deep understanding of human psyche 4) reflection of russias current state 5) prophetic writing that has influenced modern day thought..

i am having trouble really explaining and arguing this essay since i am really unfamiliar with his writing.

any suggestions how to argue those themes and any additional themes that i am overlooking?

[K.]

Depending on how soon your assignment is due, you may want to start by reading some of his shorter work. I recommend Notes From the Underground, as it will give you a better flavor of his style and themes, and not take too long to read.

[phil178821]

my assignments actually due friday, march 17th, but i am going to be traveling and really unable to do much research.

any suggestion on key style themes i should point out?

[Seahawk]

For Dostoyevsky there are always only two real characters in conflict : God and the soul.

If there is no God, then there can be no right and wrong, either, and everything therefore becomes permissible. Man becomes a god to himself.

All his characters struggle with these ultimate issues.

He writes from an omniscient viewpoint (meaning, his narrator knows all, even the inner thoughts of the characters), and he pours out their thoughts in a torrent. He is a great psychologist beacause he shows such understanding of human emotions and conditions.
Though he describes what happens more than showing us what happens,  he does include some very memorable action scenes.

In the end his characters find their redemption can come only through love; and their damnation through failure to love.

[Worm]

I think, Dostoevsky's writing style can be defined as follows:
he doesn't write much about the environment his characters walk in.  A house is described as 'a house' instead of, for example, "a brownish house with two open windows and a large locked wooden old door".  He usually just sticks to "house".  From time to time he makes more detailed descriptions, but usually he keeps descriptions to a minimum.
What he does focus on then, is what their characters say.  He doesn't describe their faces or clothing in much detail.  He focuses on what is said.
Concerning narrative techniques, he's an average writer, as far as i can judge this.  

I consider Dostoevsky not a great writer style-wise.  He didn't put too much effort in his style but focused on the content of his books.  His strength lays in his content.

I think i'm the first one in this topic that has said something about the writing style of Dostoevsky.


Concerning his themes, the content he puts in his novel ....
i think a common element in his works is a love for putting his characters in extreme and unusual situations, to show certain parts of their personalities.  He writes about people.  He's psychological.  He tends to avoid violence and action (which is present in his works, though).  There are no Rambos in his art.
He also tends to write about God, the church, the Russian people, Christianity, .. and basically, about life.



somebody discuss this with me, i want to talk more about this.

[littlefermat]

Dostoevsky's writing style seems hard to pin down in my opinion.  The general consensus is that he's a terrible writer with great ideas.  Many other authors have found his writing style to be atrocious (Henry James).   And on my own experience, I've talked to some people who have said that  the original Russian is even worse.  Quite simply he (apparently) can't even string together sentencs correctly, but that the translators do a good job of trying to cover up these problems.  Part of the reason may have been that many, if not all, of his novels were rushed--C & P was done to pay off debts.

At the same time,  there's a small minority who claim that people who make the above remarks are simply missing the point of D's writing.  The little repititions, tics, and oddities are meant to be there to give the characters uniqueness and individuality that they may not have had.  They believe, in short, that D is in fact a consummate artist--just that people don't look at his works in the right way.  The main piece of evidence people cite for this claim would be his old notebooks. In the notebooks, he'd scratch out sentences and words and put a little "tic" or other oddity there for the character to enhance his individuality or whatnot...

[phil178821]

sadly, something i hope to change, i am not too familiar with dostoevsky's work so vcould you guys offer some specific examples of what you discussed? sry im trying to get this paper in for tomorrow when my parents pulled me out of school and im stuck visiting my sister and trying to concentrate on this paper.

[Worm]

Take one of his famous works, like Crime and Punishment.
The complete work is online here:
http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/crimeandpunishment/


Just discuss it, it's not that hard.  We've already written a bit about Dostoevsky's style, you can use that ofcourse.

Here's an idea for you:
Make two parts
First part: two chapters
first chapter: explain how you view (or we ) Dostoevsky's writing style
second chapter: write down excerpts from Crime and Punishment, and, confirm in these excerpts what you said in the first chapter
Second part: one chapter
first chapter: choose a situation you were in recently during your travel, and write it down in Dostoevsky's style.

As a bonus, you can add a small chapter with basic info about Dostoevsky's life; you can find more about that in the topic "near death experience" in the top category of the forum.

You can also decorate your paper with nice quotes from his work - search for them yourself in the online work of Crime and Punishment, or any other work you prefer.

You can also use a picture of Dostoevsky in the Pictures section of this site.

piece of cake

all this for free

[phil178821]

this was the main breakdown i came up with for my paper when i started a few days ago, which i have improved with yall's help. but dont be afraid to tell me if its garbage.

essay topic is: Discuss what i consider to be the main qualities of my author's style.

so i started with a little intro about Dostoevsky.. now im breaking it down into paragraphs focusing on the following:
1) his main focus in fictional writing
2)use of disparate characters
3)deep understanding of the human psyche
4)intermixing current religious, social, and political status in russia with his work
5)omniscent narrator
6)focus on dialogue, not borring detail.

now im working on formulating paragraphs to support these assertions. i am pretty much using reviews from different websites to express and understanding of his books. kinda chincy but yea, its all i got.

Thanks for all of your help.

[K.]

http://librivox.org/notes-from-the-underground-by-fyodor-dostoyevsky/

Try listening to this as you write. It might give you some info/insight/inspiration.

[phil178821]

paper came otu to six pages.. it was pretty decent, a little lacking with quotes but whatever  .. so anyways i email it to my teacher on friday, which happened to be my birthday.. and he promptly gets back to me saying "i moved the due date to monday" nice of someone to tell me.. lol. but hey its good to have it done.

i'd just liek to thank everyone for their help.

so long.

[Worm]

I study Dostoevsky and i'd like to see how someone writes a paper about it... could you email it to me to, i'd honestly appreciate it?  I've sent my emailadres to you with a PM.

[phil178821]

i appreciate yours and everyone elses help, foxhead, but i am not comfortable circulating my paper on the internet.

Thanks again.

Phil

[jakedarobot]

From what i have read of D- ... I think his true style comes through in NFTU His style in itself is a statement, its almost as if it is D- versus  himself as he writes.  He reliably makes a point, digresses around an apposing argument, then formulates a new point from this digression, all the while making fun of himself for digressing in the first place.  It is a constant battle for control, almost venting insanity to remain sane.... Which really was a focus of NFTU. He also seems embarrassed of his own statements, and i wonder if this is, by design, a  comment on his own vanity??? Could he be intrinsically satisfying his own work?

 PLEASE!!!Call me out  if i'm reading to much into this