Literature and Politics the Impact of Dostoevsky

The Great Terror was one of the single greatest loss of lives in the history of the world. It was a crusade of political tyranny in the Soviet Union that transpired during the late 1930’s. The Terrors implicated a wide spread cleansing of the Communist Party and government officials, control of peasants and the Red Army headship, extensive police over watch, suspicion of saboteurs, counter-revolutionaries, and illogical slayings. Opportunely, some good did come from the terrors nonetheless. Two of those goods being Sofia Petrovna and Requiem. Both works allow history to peer back into the Stalin Era and bear witness to the travesties that came with it. Through the use of fictional story telling and thematic devises Sofia Petrovna and Requiem, respectively, paint a grim yet descriptive picture in a very efficient manner.

Often times in literature, we are presented with quintessential characters that are all placed into the conventional categories of either good or bad. In these pieces, we are usually able to differentiate the characters and discover their true intentions from reading only a few chapters. However, in some remarkable pieces of work, authors create characters that are so realistic and so complex that we are unable to distinguish them as purely good or evil. In the novel Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky develops the morally ambiguous characters of Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov to provide us with an interesting read and to give us a chance to evaluate each character.

The Russian Revolution and the purges of Leninist and Stalinist Russia have spawned a literary output that is as diverse as it is voluminous. Darkness at Noon, a novel detailing the infamous Moscow Show Trials, conducted during the reign of Joseph Stalin is Arthur Koestler’s commentary upon the event that was yet another attempt by Stalin to silence his critics. In the novel, Koestler expounds upon Marxism, and the reason why a movement that had as its aim the “regeneration of mankind, should issue in its enslavement” and how, in spite of its drawbacks, it still held an appeal for intellectuals. It is for this reason that Koestler may have attempted “not to solve but to expose” the shortcomings of this political system and by doing so

In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Rakitin responds to a central question throughout the novel, “What is permitted?” when he proudly states to Dmitry that “An intelligent man can do anything he likes as long as he’s clever enough to get away with it” (788). While Rakitin has found his answer to this question, multiple characters in the novel are still stuck on that question. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky seems to separate these characters into two groups: the characters like Dmitry who wonder if all actions are permitted and the characters like Ivan who wonder if all thoughts are permitted. These groups seem completely separate until Book 10 when a boy named Koyla Krasotkin comes onto the scene who seems to be in both groups at once as he tests for himself exactly what thoughts and actions are permitted. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky uses Book 10 and Kolya to introduce the idea that the “free thinkers” and the “free doers” are one in the same in that they are wondering who will punish those who go beyond “what is permitted” and by extension sets up an argument between moral and legal punishment throughout the rest of the novel.

Dostoevsky’s beliefs and philosophies are reflections of the Russian philosophies from his era. He incorporates many of his own opinions and beliefs into his work in Crime and Punishment. Dostoevsky’s insight affects the novel as he integrates his views into his characters.

Many of Man's struggles are usually the result of societal standards, control, and punishment. These struggles are present in both One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Crime & Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Through setting and internal monologue, both authors depict the effects of the brutalities of communism on Man's spirituality.

The novel ‘Notes From the Underground’, written by philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky, is a narration of ideology and life experience written by a male character who calls himself the underground man. The underground man’s ideology is a personalized application of Kierkegaard’s existentialist theory to his life. It is my belief that the underground creates this ideology after learning of his imminent death from liver disease in order to prove to himself that his life was successful and

He says “ Children can be loved even at close quarters, even when they are dirty, even when they are ugly (Dostoevsky, pg. 95). Ivan believes children are innocent and have no knowledge of what evil is. I have to say I agree with him on that. Most children believe everything is beautiful and safe in a way they can be pictured as nieve. Ivan continues to tell Alyosha that even though these children are innocent they too suffer horribly on earth and believes it is due to their fathers sins. Alyosha seemed confused with his brother and couldn't grasp what his brother was actually trying to say. Ivan went on talking about a boy who was eaten to death in front of his mother because he accidentally hurt the paw of one of the Generals blood hounds. After saying this Ivan Tells Alyosha “I think if the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness” (Dostoevsky, pg. 96). “Just as he did God, then?” (Dostoevsky, pg. 96) observed Alyosha. You see, Ivan's whole discussion was that if children who are innocent suffer terrible torcher then is their really a God. A loving God who can allow such a horrible thing to take

From declaring he wanted to become a Napoleon to wishing for financial independence to murdering for his own sake, he rattles off various motives, showing his obsessive rationalization (394-397). By presenting his conflicting intentions, Dostoevsky exhibits the chaos within Raskolnikov’s mind.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Notes from the Underground (1864/2008) comes across as a diary penned by a self-described “spiteful” and “unattractive” anonymous narrator (p. 7). The narrator’s own self-loathing characterized by self-alienation is so obvious, that he is often referred to by critics as the Underground Man (Frank 1961, p. 1). Yet this Underground Man is the central character of Dostoyevsky’s novel and represents a subversion of the typical courageous hero. In this regard, the Underground man is an anti-hero, since as a protagonist he not only challenges the typical literary version of a hero, but also challenges conventional thinking (Brombert 1999, p. 1).

Imperial Russian society during the time of serfdom was characterized by constantly changing social order. The society experienced a complex social change at the threshold to emancipation. It was undergoing many changes with increasing westernization and serfdom culture that gave rise to formation of new classes (raznochintsy) during the nineteenth century. Many authors have reflected and emphasized this component of change in the structure of pre-emancipation Russian society. This paper will examine how two writers: Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev, in their novels, Dead Souls and Fathers and Sons depict the society’s constantly changing nature through the relationships between their characters and the development in their beliefs and ideas. Although both the novels explore societal change during the pre-emancipation of serfs, the emphasis of change is different in both the novels. In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev oversees shifting values prevalent in the society. He explores the shift in generational values by depicting the difference in beliefs of characters like Bazarov and Nikolai. On the other hand, in Dead Souls Gogol focuses on issues of morality in society. He depicts a struggle for morality and portrays a corrupt society through the landowners and the protagonist, Chichikov, in his book.

In this paper, I plan to explain Dostoevsky’s criticism of Western Individualism. Dostoevsky’s first criticism resides in the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it, “which is presented by the character Alyosha (Dostoevsky 3). Allowing this character to discuss this topic, along with the commentary of Ivan, demonstrates their mindset to solely focus on their own lives, opposed to caring for others. This leads to them living for the now, and not focusing on how their decisions will affect their future or others. Dostoevsky disapproves of this notion because living by this mentality encourages the guidance of logic, which is dangerous because it could tell you to kill yourself. From Dostoevsky’s Eastern Orthodox background, he believes that the only way from living from this situation is to deny it. By denying this way of living, the focus toward life will not be directed toward yourself, but toward the way you can impact the environment around you. Ivan clearly does not believe in these values, due to his intentions to commit suicide at the age of thirty. As said before, living by the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it” leads to death, and Ivan indulges in this to the fullest (Dostoevsky 3).

“Nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.” –The Grand Inquisitor” “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” - Father Zosima. These two quotes voice the polarized philosophies that impregnate the book, The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan, the second of the three sons, and Zosima, the old monk, are huge commentators on the question, “Is the burden of free will to much for a human to bear?”

     Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “Dostoevsky, the only one who has taught me anything about psychology.” The two writers share many similarities and differences. Dostoevsky clearly had an effect on the thinking of Nietzsche. The two would be considered both philosophers and psychologists. Both writers became prominent in the late 19th century in Germany and Russia respectively. Dostoevsky was noted for his Russian literary classics and would be responsible for a flowering of late 19th century Russian literary culture. His Russian contemporaries include Leo Tostoy and Anton Chekov. Dostoevsky’s most famous works include The Brothers Karamozov, The Idiot, and Crime and Punishment.

Through Raskolnikov’s exemplification of the impracticality of this principle\, Dostoevsky makes his greatest point in Crime and Punishment. His commentary on the subject seeks to discredit the theory in the circumstance of an individual “superman” by displaying Raskolnikov as a character who is difficult for readers to identify with because of his inanity. Even Raskolnikov’s name is a symbol of nihilistic ideas, the word “raskol” meaning schism in Russian, illustrating the shift from an older school of thought (social utopianism) to a darker philosophy: nihilism and utilitarianism. Raskolnikov seems to fluctuate back and forth between the two philosophies, acting on one and then mentally chastising himself for it, immediately and almost erratically changing his mind. This symbolizes the more human side of him struggling