This is an archive of past discussions about Fyodor Dostoevsky. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is there any evidence of this? Gogol's writing reflects a more ontological symbolism through a fusion of the fantastic with reality. I don't feel like ANY of Dostoevsky's writing (especially late period) has this kind of symbolism; he uses exclusively epistemological metaphors in his discussions of class and religion. Not to mention their differing opinions on the contemporaneous Russian social system. If Gogol is mentioned as an influence, there needs to be some reason behind it that someone can talk about. I feel the opposite way about Soren Kierkegaard's inclusion, given his modern acceptance as the founder of Christian Existentialism, and Dostoevsky clearly discusses Christian Existentialist issues at length (i.e. The Idiot).
Gogol was HUGE for Dostoevsky. Read Poor Folk if you want proof of this, or better yet Frank's biography. Gogol must be mentioned. Also, I changed the crap about Dostoevsky having an abusive father because it's just not true; oh yes, he had them fan him while napping, the horror! Once again, read the definitive biography by Frank.
Also, in Notes from Underground the narrator mentions going mad and declaring himself king of Spain- which if I remember rightly is a Gogol reference? PLus the explicit one in Notes, where Gogol is mentioned by name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.76.69 (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No title
Googled "Fyodor Dostoevsky" and "Fyodor Dostoyevsky": 22,800 hits and 13,400, respectively. Hence "dostoYevsky" is a redirect. Koyaanis Qatsi
Good enough for me! On the story of his "execution", it seems to me that he was about to be hanged rather than shot, but I don't feel certain enough to change that in the article. Also I may have read somewhere that the last minute reprieve was pre-planned. Eclecticology
The execution was to be by shooting and not hanging. He didn't actually face the firing squad though - he was in the second group to be executed and the reprive came when the first group was being aimed at. You're right though that the reprieve was probably pre-planned - it wasn't all that uncommon for the Tsar to show mercy in this way for added drama.Parsley
Interesting. I don't know anything about the man's life, though I'm not averse to looking it up. Koyaanis Qatsi
I've made a couple of changes. Thus far, the only mention I've found of the exact type of "execution" was that of a firing squad, so I left that alone. It was planned ahead of time; seemingly, they hadn't intended to execute him. I have some more information that I plan on including later when I dig up my other sources. AmonZ
I've changed "Bibliography" to "Major works" because a complete bibliography would be huge and unwieldy - see http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/bibliography.html. This new heading is supposed only to cover the books of his which are best known or most critically acclaimed. For this reason I removed some works, e.g. "Bobok", which I don't think satisfy either category. Of course the matter is to some degree subjective and I'm sure there are people who are better qualified than me to edit the list. Lfh
I deleted the phrase about being pardoned. In the usual English legal usage, to be pardoned is to be completed forgiven for the crime. This is not consistent with having the sentence commuted to hard labor. It's possible he was pardoned after serving some time, which would mean reducing his sentence term and restoring any legal rights lost as felon. It may also be the Russian legal system was quite different, but in any case different wording would be needed to not be misleading to English-language readers. Loren Rosen
Was he really devastated by the death of Maria? I seem to recall reading that it was a fairly loveless marriage after the return to St. Petersburg. Also, I think it's worth amending to make clear that the army service following his release was compulsory(i.e. part of his sentence) and his return to St. Petersburg occured only after petitioning the Tsar for permission. Parsley
Frogus: I think the sentence " (rare dissenting voices include Vladimir Nabokov, Henry James and, more ambiguously, David Herbert Lawrence)" is confusing - in what way do they dissent?? Does this mean that they have not been influenced at all by Dostoevsky, or does it mean that they claim not to have been, or just that they don't like him or what??
I have reverted the edit "Sometimes thought to be a founder of existentialism". It's far more accurate than saying he's merely an existentialist, for it's hard to see if Dostoevsky ever considered himself one. Mandel 17:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Netochka Nezvanova
Netochka Nezvanova links to an article about some software artist, not about the book.
Dosteovsky's Mother
I remeber reading that his mother died of Consumption, and this was the basis for so many of his female characters to have this disease. Anybody know more about this?
Well, according to the last version of this his mother died of AIDS. I just took that out, but I don't know how she actually died.
The section entitled "Influence" is ambiguous and strange. It states many things, but never goes on to elucidate them, and it seems to be merely the viewpoint of the writer, rather than general critical consensus. Why, for example, and in what way, is Dostoevksy "a writer of myth" like Melville? How has he influenced expressionism? How has he influenced Kafka, Hesse or Proust? The wording is somewhat bombastic but unclear. What can - for instance - "the corrosion of human life in the process of the time flux" mean? And then there's the problematic "only Dostoyevski has engendered fully dramatic novels of ideas where conflicting views and characters are left to develop even unto unbearable crescendo". All in all, either the writer should clarify what he or she has written, or this section must be rephrased. Mandel 06:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Seconded. I really think the "writer of myth" part ought to be cleared up, and the comparision to Melville elaborated upon.
On this point compare Kafka's 'The Trial' with 'Crime and Punishment'. I don't see the link with Melville. I don't think he was a writer of myth. There are many comments by Dostoyevsky to the effect that what he was writing was real life, and not 'fantastical', in the sense of being unrealistic. Similarly, although Proust enjoyed Dostoyevsky I don't think this comes through in Proust's writing (also true of Joyce). Thus Joyce's comments are more an endorsement than anything else. His influence on Nietzsche is perhaps understated.
Concerning the idea that D.'s characters were more symbolical than actual, I think you have to remember that however much his novels are philosophical, they come from a philosophy that put individual will as its centrepoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Consistent spelling?
Even though other resources may vary in the details of the Romanization of his name, I think we should pick "Dostoevsky" and stick to it rather than having it three different ways throughout the article.
No account of Dostoyevski's life would be complete without mention of his compulsive gambling. One anecdote tells of D savaging Turgenev in a novel, shortly after Turgenev helped to keep the money starved D afloat. In another anecdote, D was supposed to have completed Crime and Punishment in a mad hurry in order to cash in on an advance promised D by his publisher. (Crime and Punishment, despite its obvious merit, does have something of a dime store detective novel in places, don't you think?)
I'm tempted to include some of this in the article, but I'd like to solicit reactions on how much of this is verifiable and worthwhile..
--Philopedia 6 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
It's verified. I read the story of him getting the advance on C and P after he'd run out of money in Germany in a book for a project 5 or so years ago. Sorry it's not more concrete but I have seen repeated mention of his excessive love of gambling. I think it's worthwhile. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
Dostoevsky's own obssesion with gambling led to him writing The Gambler much from first-hand experience. Mandel05:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
is D's imprisonment really a turning point ?
Dostoevsky abandoned his earlier liberal sentiments and became deeply conservative and extremely religious.
This is an old saw that people keep repeating. But is this really true ? D. was not really more religious after than before his prison years ; I believe he still had doubts afterwards. The change in political ideas is more obvious, but should not be exagerated. He was not a die-hard socialist before and did not become a supporter of slavery and authoritarian government after. Am I wrong ?
D himself thought it was a turning point. Certainly it was for him as a writer. MEMOIRS FROM THE HOUSE OF THE DEAD was what made his reputation! ThePeg 2006
It is most definitely a turning point. Prior to Dostoevsky's imprisonment, he was essentially a Westernizer; after his release, he became a clear Slavophile. But not only that, many of the themes he explores draw heavily on his experiences with the Tsarist "justice" system. I can't even imagine what his writing would have been like without that. --Todeswalzer|Talk12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's easy to illustrate your book with pictures, but that doesn't mean you were thinking of the same pictures when you wrote the words. 'The Insulted and Injured' is more similar to his pre-prison work rather than 'Notes from Underground', for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Short Stories
Added Dostoevsky short story section. It is important. Any summaries would be laudable. The other thing is that White Nights (a short story) has a link to a thing about Russian nights ... how do I create a new page with the same link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byUAAC (talk • contribs) .
"Dostoevsky himself, however, described his underground man as an example of nihilistic ideas taken to the extreme whose reprehensible personality is a vivid argument for the need for faith and Christ in the modern world (see the forward to the new translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky)."
I own this mentioned edition as well as the book of Dostoevsky's letters. I have yet to find such a comment coming from Dostoevsky. Can anyone help?
LoveMonkey05:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I own this edition as well, and I recall reading something to that effect in the forward. Incidentally, this page needs more on Dosteovsky and religion. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well yes I am going to let the cat out of the bag (metaphorically of course) the Underground man is not nihilist he's is a pyrrhonian. The pyrrhonian thought in the West (which is not as clearly a Greek/Hellenistic based society as say Russia) would be very easly "misunderstood" as a belief in nothing which is what nihilism is in it's essence. Pyrrhonianism is skepticism to the conclusiveness of human interruption. As a pyrrhonain the Underground Man is still searching for the truth and is unsatisfied with the "swallow" truth that the world has accepted. Unlike the some he has not yet found the truth and he does not addressed the potential for truth within the realm of spiritual or religious exercise or practice from either an ascetic or aesthetics one. talkLoveMonkey12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Dostoevsky himself, however,"... in the context of the opening paragraph the above quote seems to argue that Dostoevsky thought his underground man not existentialist. Depending how you define "existentialism" this may be true. However, it may be helpful to refernce another major school of existentialist thought, namely Kierkegaard (Denmark 1813-1855) and Christian Existentialism, whom indeed provided a "vivid argument for the need for faith and Christ in the modern world." Also of course Kierkegaard and his philosophy were contemporary to Dostoevsky.
??????? My question is where Dostoevsky stated that the underground man is an "example of nihilistic ideas taken to the extreme". No where in the intro from Pevear is such a statement made nor is such a statement made in any of Dostoevsky's letters to his brother Micheal. From the intro itself Pevear stated that Dostoevsky never went back even though he had the option and changed back whatever censor or edits that Russian censor applied to Notes From the Underground. As for Existentialism- I personally think no one even mildly sane would try and deny that Notes is THE manifesto of Existentialism and is also the first piece of fiction to be Existentialist. Taxi Driver the movie or not.
LoveMonkey15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Please come here and talk whomever posted that Dostoevsky stated that the Underground Man was a nihilist. Please. Pretty Please.
LoveMonkey14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
atheistic socialism
Can anyone post where dostoevsky stated that he was critisizing atheistic socialism and not socialism? Please show me where dostoevsky made such a distinction. In his words, works writings.
LoveMonkey01:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a scene in the brothers karamazov where Ivan and the monastery priests are debating about the role of the church in government. One of them mentions that the aristocracy of France is not afraid of atheistic socialists, but christian ones. I don't know if D. agreed with that, or if it means he preferred one system over another, but it's related to what you were saying.Silvdraggoj18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think anyone interpreting Dostoevsky through his novels needs to be especially careful, since virtually all of them are highly polyphonic. After reading all of his major novels, however, it is my opinion that Dostoevsky wasn't just against "Atheistic Socialism," but all forms of it. His concern was that socialism threatened to rob the individual of free choice: by claiming that utopia was possible, socialism advanced the notion that all human actions could be reduced to "rational self-interest" and that the government had but to scientifically determine what that self-interst was and then apply it on a massive scale. This is an argument that I think he makes especially well in "Notes from Underground." His problem with atheism as being essentially "non-Russian" just made this version of socialism that much worse. --Todeswalzer05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Something needs to be changed here. You can't label Dostoevsky an "archconservative" and you can't claim that he abondoned every liberal sentiment after he left Petrashevsky Circle. That's just ridiculous. For example, his novel "The Uncle's dream" is a scathing satire of Russian society. No "archconservative" would have ever written something like that.--Sokrat300022:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You really must read or reread diary of a writer. Sokrat.
Also you seem to have missed his letters this is from the dostoevsky fan website..
Letters of Fyodor Michailovitch Dostoevsky to his Family and Friends..Translated by Ethel Colburn Mayne for the Macmillan Company.
From the Reminiscenses of A.P. Milyukov
1848-1849
starting with Page 275
//
Dourov's circle included many fervent Socialists. Intoxicated by the Utopias of certain foreign theorists, they saw in this doctrine the dawn of a new religion, which one day should remodel the world on the basis of a new social order. Everything that appeared in French on the question was discussed hotfoot by us. We were always talking about the Utopias of Robert Owen and Cabet, but still more, perhaps, of Fourier's phalanstery, and Proudhon's theory of progessive taxation. We all took an equal interest in the Socialists, but many refused to believe in the possibility of practically realizing their teachings. Among these latter was, again, Dostoevsky. He read all the works of the Socialists, it is true, but remained wholly sceptical.
Though he granted that all these doctrines were founded on noble ideas, he nevertheless regarded the Socialists as honest, BUT FOOLISH, VISIONARIES. He would say again and again that none of these theories could have any real meaning for us, and that we must find our material for the development of Russian society not in the doctrines of foreign Socialists, but in the life and customs, santified by centuries of use, of our own people, in whom had long been apparent far more enduring and normal conceptions than were to be found in the Utopias of Saint-Simon. To him (he would say) life in a commune or in a phalanstery would seem much more TERRIBLE than in a Siberian prison. I need not say that our Socialists -stuck to their opinions.
LoveMonkey16:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it proves that he opposed socialist concepts of society but it doesn't make him an "archconservative". If someone argued fervently for the interests of the aristocracy and the upper class I'd call him an archconservative but this is surely not what Dostoevsky did. But I agree that he seems to have opposed socialism in general.
Any objection from your side against specifying the term "deeply conservative" as an opposition to nihilism and socialism (and not just atheistic socialism as you pointed out)?--Sokrat300021:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Frank's biography refers to Dostoevsky as a Private Second Class after his initial release from prison, and has a chapter heading 'Private Dostoevsky'. I've therefore changed his rank in the text, but do change back if you have an authoritative alternative source (translation of Russian ranks is obviously not straightforward). --Marginalistrev17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made some further changes to the biography section in line with the second volume of Frank's biography (covering 1850-9). Most should be uncontroversial, for instance date changes and a bit more detail on his marriage. Perhaps more controversial is filling out the paragraph which covers his change in beliefs, particularly the description of his 'conversion experience' in prison. I think this accurately reflects Frank's view, but there may be more recent scholarship which contradicts and / or deepens his analysis. --Marginalistrev08:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the meaning of 'conservative' of course. While D. did not agree that the social situation was the best it could be, he did think that positive change could only be achieved by a natural process - not by some socialist reordering of society. I think you'll find 'conservatives' who believed in each of these views singly and both jointly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
link
Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry
probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?
please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah?20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"Cultural references" section
It is unimaginable that anything could be less relevant to a person who wants to read about Dostoevsky than such things as the fact that a character in Family Guy reads Crime and Punishment in one episode.
It seems to me that this section should either change its name to "Pop Cultural References"; be radically changed so as to include only such cultural references as are actually in any way significant, such as the quote from Nietzsche which is already there, or, say, the fact that Freud wrote on Dostoevsky and declared him to be "not far behind Shakespeare"; or it should simply be removed.
I've been wondering about that too. I think there's precedent to split it off into its own article (there are some other similar articles like List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange). That way the more notable references/comments (by Nietzsche, Freud) can stay on this page, and other less notable references can go to the list. Any objections? --TM11:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed all pop culture references (as most are cruft, barely notable/relevant) leaving Nietzsche's comment in the trivia section. Should anyone want to see the list to create an article or whatever, the version of the article with the list can be found here. --TM21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Universal writers
Not really a beef to do with D himself but the list of 'universal writers' is a bit wierd. I've added Tolstoy who surely is more universally recognised now than Hugo who doesn't have much a reputation anymore internationally. Even the French aren't that sold on him now. Shouldn't Charles Dickens be included as well? He remains a universally admired author and he was an immense influence on Dostoyevsky who loved his work. ThePeg 2006
I'd say remove all the examples, but leave the link to universal world authors for those who want to see some examples, and simply having the sentence read: "By common critical consensus one among the handful of universal world authors, Dostoevsky has decisively influenced twentieth century literature, existentialism and expressionism in particular." This leaves the debate to who qualifies as a universal world author to its respective article rather than here, where the examples don't serve much of a purpose anyway. --TM13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
I've done a cleanup of the biographical section of this article: Wikifying it, copyediting it, and stylediting it for NPOV. Someone with a better grasp of literary theory than me needs to have a go at the works & influence section. At the moment it reads like an essay or a review and is not suitable for an encyclopedia, though there is a fair bit of interesting information. Could definitely do with some more references throughout, too. I've marked a couple of specific places, which I hope is helpful. -- TinaSparkle18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"anti-semitism"; shouldn't there be more about it?
I just started reading "Summer in Baden Baden" by Leonid Tsypkin which deals (in part) with Dostoyevsky's anti-semitic ideas. So, I looked up the Dostoyevsky page and I was surprised not to find even a reference to them. Even Tsypkin himself was bewildered as to the roots and character of these ideas so I wasn't really expecting to find any useful information or conclusions. But, I mean, it seems really problematic to me to have a biography of Dostoyevsky that doesn't at least mention the fact that he wrote about Jews using particularly horrendous language. And also maybe refer the reader to the Tsypkin book and the Susan Sontag introduction which provides some context.
"Particularly horrendous" language? Do you mean that statement in the context of our times, or his? I of course make no attempt to excuse any kind of discrimination, but I don't find his representation of Jewish people to be much worse than anyone else who lived in the same time and place as he did. As such, I don't think it warrants any extensive exploration here. If we want to apply our moral standards to those who lived 150 years ago then we'd have to have a section on Lincoln's page expounding his racism, since he "certainly didn't think" blacks were in any way equal with whites. On the other hand, someone like Richard Wagner most definitely warrants such a section. Was Dostoevsky even remotely close to Wagner in terms of their views of Jews? I hardly think so.
Just because there wasn't a public outcry when an author used anti-Semitic slurs or racial slurs 150 years ago doesn't mean that it was OK and right for those authors to say that. It's almost like saying that slavery was OK because it happened long ago at a time when it was accepted. While it's understandable to put his anti-Semitic comments in context of a greater anti-Semitism during his time in Europe, to completely absolve him of it merely because he lived during those times by not even mentioning it in his article is absurd. Just like the fact that Jefferson owned slaves while writting the Declaration of Independence is noted in his article, it should be noted in this article about anti-Semitism. And it's not like anti-Semitism was recognized as "normal" during Dostoevsky's time. There were those during his time who didn't think badly of Jews, so to excuse Dostoevsky's anti-Semitism by saying something like "well, it's OK, everyone was anti-Semitic," is just strange and doesn't provide any sort of understanding of Dostoevsky. Putting his statements "in the context" of his times is the only way to go about it, but to not even mention his anti-Semitic views is not right in the context of our times. And, by the way, Lincoln's views should also be in his article. Think forward to 200 years in the future. Would you want racist statements written by authors now be dismissed as non-consequential. I surely wouldn't. And let's not try to debate the degrees of anti-Semitism between anti-Semitism, such as between Dostoevsky and Wagner. That's like debating who was worse, Hitler or Stalin in their anti-Semitism. (RossF1817:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
"That's like debating who was worse, Hitler or Stalin in their anti-Semitism." No its not. Its like debating if Wagner or D was worse in their 'anti-Semitism'. Wagner&Dostoevsky =/= Hitler&Stalin. Please. Let's not get into hyperbole, stick with facts. What do you define as anti-semitism? Think. BTW, using cardboard-character racial stereotypes in an off-hand comment when your whole nation is steeped in that particular bigotry, may show that one's anti-whatever does not stem from any personal convictions or driving motivations. There is a huge difference between Wagner and Dostoevsky. Read bios on both, and also, read the chapter in book 10 of Brothers Karamazov, the conversation between Kolya and Alyosha--pay careful attention to the comment about killing 'Germans'. That pretty much sums it all up.--Rivka-bat-Chava03:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I like how you ignore every point I made to focus on my Hitler/Stalin comment and then accuse me of ignoring the bios of Wagner and failure to read Brothers Karamazov. Well, personal attacks aside, having a person who is no more racist or anti-Semitic than any other person in the country at the time doesn't change the fact that the person is in fact anti-Semitic or racist. Anti-semitism is a fairly well defined concept. You also contradict yourself by claiming that Dostoevsky was only anti-Semitic because he grew up in the wrong time in the wrong country so too speak, but then you say that his "anti-Semitism doesn't stem from any personal convictions or driving motivations." Your first point doesn't correspond to your second - if you use the excuse for his anti-Semitism as having grown up in anti-Semitic country, you admit his anti-Semitism and make an excuse for it. If, on the other hand, you argue that his anti-Semitic characterization of characters doesn't stem from any personal confictions or driving motivations you say that he is not in fact anti-Semitic. You can't have both. He is either anti-Semitic and its not his fault, so to speak, or he is not anti-Semitic (despite having grown up in a anti-Semitic country) and just characterizes Jews in such a way without having any personal convictions or driving motivations. Also, Dostoevsky's hatred for Germans, Poles, or any other race doesn't mean that he was not anti-Semitic. Remember, he died well before World War II, when Germans did all the autrocities on the Jews. So, if you suggest that his comment about Germans somehow goes to demonstrate that he is not anti-Semitic, I don't think the timeline matches. At that time, if he hated Germans, it was for other reasons, which just shows that Dostoevsky, while a brilliant writer, hated a lot of peoples and that should be noted in the article. Remember also, although you naturally have to acknolwedge the pervasive anti-Semitism in Russia at the time he lived in a lengthy discussion about his anti-Semitism, that's a defense that doesn't absolve him of the act.--RossF1809:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear RossF18--my apologies for your perception of being personally attacked. I am sorry. I wasn't saying he wasn't anti-semitic. Actually, what does anti-semitic mean? What does it mean? Every age has its particular bigotry, and 200 yrs ago that was very much racial/ethnic bigotry. In our age there are many more such bigotries and blindnesses, some of other things not ethnic. Not one of us is free from various bigotries, or innocent. Yes, "all are responsible for all." I am not saying that if a whole age has a particular bigotry, it was 'ok'. It is not. But it is more understandable why a man of that age may be blind in that particular bigotry. My comment about reading Wagner and Dostoevsky's bios--I am sorry. I did not mean to impugn that you were ignorant. I meant that before judging men's souls--it is worth the time to plough through a few 600 page books and spend a month staring into the night pondering and thinking and trying to understand. About Kolya and Alyosha's comment about Germans, I did not mean that D's dislike of Germans/Poles/etc. somehow made him not anti-semitic. I did not mean that at all. Read the conversation. The point being, disliking a nation and its ideology (as Alyosha does) does not mean one wants to 'strangle them all' (as Kolya does). In other words, disliking a people group (however unfairly), and wanting to destroy/degrade them are two radically different things. One may lead to the other, but so may many other things. For example, I am assuming anti-semitism is 'the unforgivable sin' because it led to the Holocaust. (as opposed to say, anti-Britishism, anti-Germanism, anti-Polishism) But here I think several false dichotomies have been drawn up: was the holocaust more due to cranks who negatively stereotyped other nationalities in novels---or more due to the schoolteacher who taught his young pupils that men are merely beasts that may be sacrificed by the Supermen to forward the future Utopia? Also, I am not being all-or-nothing. I am not saying that one is either darkly evil or innocent and pure as a newborn baby. There are gray areas. And we are all gray. Yes, we should condemn evil, and reject both the bigotries and injustices of their times--and of our present times. But remember: "One cannot ask too much of a human soul, one should be more merciful..."(BK, book 7, chptr3)Rivka-bat-Chava (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
RossF18: You wrote above that "... having a person who is no more racist or anti-Semitic than any other person in the country at the time doesn't change the fact that the person is in fact anti-Semitic or racist." I agree, in part, with what you've written, but I disgree with your ultimate conclusion. Our job in producing an encyclopaedia is to include only the most relevant information. Dostoevsky's views on Jews, therefore, should only be included here if they are distinguishing in some respect -- for example, if it motivated his writing, his actions, etc. Because I don't see any evidence to suggest that he was either more or less anti-semitic than his contemporaries, I don't see why his views on this issue are relevant to the article.
Let me put it another way. What do you suppose Dostoevsky thought about two men or two women having a relationship? I'm certain he would have thought it repulsive, but does that mean we should have a section in the article on "Dostoevsky's homophobia"? Unless he makes an explicit point of expressing this view in his writing, then the answer is clearly no. That isn't an excuse for his ignorance on the matter; it's just a statement that his opinions were not extra-ordinary enough to warrant being mentioned in an encyclopaedia. That's what I mean when I wrote above that we shouldn't be applying today's standards to people who lived 150 years ago: to do so is nothing but revisionism, and it is intellectually dishonest. --Todeswalzer|Talk00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Several points in reply. First, while I agree that many of Dostoevsky's contemporaries were also anti-Semitic (but hardly all), Dostoevsky's stature as one of the greatest Russian authors makes no mention of his anti-Semitism (a brief mention that's already in the article should suffice) seem like we're trying to hide his anti-Semitism because of his stature in the literary community. Second, while I do not really have the time, at the moment, to find you an "explicit" example of Dostoevsky's anti- Semitism, I do not mean to give the impression that I just want to put in a reference about Dostoevsky's anti-Semitism as a comment on his personal moral character. Instead, there are, in fact, passages in which Dostoevsky expresses his anti-Semitic views. For an author who is so widely read and who has anti-Semitic views actually in his writings, to see no mention of this in the article dealing with his writings is not in the spirit of an encyclopedic article. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it almost sounds like you think I'm trying to put Dostoevsky down as a person for his anti-Semitic views and trying to slander him in the encyclopedic article. You're quite right that such things have no place in an encyclopedic article. But when an author who is so widely read today by modern readers with present sensibilities and then have no mention of Dostoevsky’s views on anti-Semitism that he actually expressed in his writings is a bit odd for an encyclopedic article.
Again, this discussion was started when there was nothing mentioned at all in the article about Dostoevsky’s anti-Semitism, and I am not trying to have anything more added other than a paragraph that’s there now. I’m just saying that that paragraph should remain. Last, I disagree with you statement that “Dostoevsky's views on Jews . . . should only be included here if they are distinguishing in some respect -- for example, if it motivated his writing, his actions, etc.” Dostoevsky is not like his contemporary authors that are not as widely read. Again, Dostoevsky is a world renowned author and despite the fact that you don’t see “any evidence to suggest that he was either more or less anti-Semitic than his contemporaries” doesn’t mean that his views on this issue are not relevant to the article. Quite the opposite, I would argue, especially because he wasn’t just anti-Semitism at a cocktail party or just in his private life, but actually included it in his writings. The silence on the issue of his anti-Semitism in his writings in an encyclopedia article about him and his writings conveys that his views are not out of the ordinary presently and we have not moved away from these sensibilities in 150 years – i.e., silence conveys assent. Disagree or agree with me on this issue, I’m not arguing for a lengthy discussion since that’s more for discussion groups and book clubs, but a brief mention is warranted (as with all monumental authors who held such out-of-step sensibilities). --RossF18 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Anti-Semitism" section
Doing some final exam review, and wanted to post his feelings about Jews, this is brief, but more information is at this link: http://community.middlebury.edu/~beyer/courses/previous/ru351/studentpapers/Anti-semite.shtml
Perpetuated blood libel ideas in his texts. Joseph Frank calls Dostoevsky a “guilty anti-Semite.” He struggled with his opinion about Jews, but by denying anti-Semitism it seems that his ultimate feelings were not classically anti-Semitic, more-so insincere. His opportunistic anti-Semitism bolstered in his famous writings perpetuated anti-Semitic feelings in the world, for which he feels guilty for later.
---reply I read the link. Really. The whole characterization of Alyosha being 'discredited' is inane. Yes, Alyosha is shown as completely ignorant of the Jewish people: but he neither defends them nor accuses them. Take into account all the real anti-semitism in Russia at the time (Pogroms, etc.), and is it any surprise the Alyhosha, a 20 year old novice with no education, is completely ignorant about the Jews? In fact, if he had been anything else, it would have been unbelievable. As for Alyosha 'calmly listening to Lise' when he should have been defending Judaism, that was the last thing going on in the story! As for 'calmly listening'--it had nothing to do with tacit condemnation of Judaism. Alyosha is watching his former and only love talk about how she rejects his religion and how much she loves evil for evil's sake (and shortly thereafter tries to seduce Alyosha's brother). And really, compared to the whole climate of the nineteenth century Russia, its actually a wonder that Dostoevsky WASN'T any more 'anti-Semitic' then the status quo.--Rivka-bat-Chava00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hypergraphia
This article [1] claims that Dostoevsky suffered from Hypergraphia -- a brain disorder giving a constant impulse to write. Somebody should add it to the article, but I dont have the time to fit it in somewhere. Robinoke00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Contradiction in the Early Life Section
3rd paragraph:
"many people make the error of assuming that the father figure in The Brothers Karamazov is from Dostoevsky's own father. In fact, letters and personal accounts show that they had a fairly loving relationship."
4th paragraph:
The figure of his domineering father would exert a large effect upon Dostoevsky's work, and is notably seen through the character of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, the "wicked and sentimental buffoon" father of the three main characters in his 1880 novel The Brothers Karamazov.
I was just about to post the same contradiction. It seems pretty obvious that it was written by two different hands. It would be great to have citations that support each assertion, mainly the first one, which seems to be against the common "assumption". Nazroon08:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the portrait's gone again and I would really like to know who removed it and why. A lot of terrible portraits of great people have been done, but this isn't one of them; it belongs in the article. --Todeswalzer|Talk18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Influenced by ??
I wonder if I'm the only one to be a bit bemused by the list of people said to be "influenced by" Dostoyevsky? I'm not usually comfortable with the inclusion of such a list anyway; it usually turns out to be a means by which people who admire a lesser talent seek to give their chosen hero more status than they deserve by linking his or her name to a greater one, on very flimsy evidence. And in an article on a particular artist, the names of the people who influenced him are surely vastly more important than a list of people who once read a book of his.
But even given those reservations, this list is downright silly - if Bob Dylan has created any monumental works of literature, I've somehow overlooked them. Unless anyone objects I'm intending to clean the list out. --Stephen Burnett13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so I took a hack at it. I added Cervantes to the list of influences and included an internet article from a reliable source to back this up. Also, given Cervantes' works and importance in world literature, I doubt anyone would think he's just a small time author I'm trying to glorify. Also, I sorted all the influencing authors, influencing philosophers, and influenced "people" alphabetically by last name since they seemed to have no order whatsoever before. If somebody disagrees with this, please do find a better order.Bernalj9022:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We should Wittgenstein to the number of people influenced by Dosotyevsky. There are references in Norman Malcolm's memoir to conversations that Wittgenstein had with him about Dostoyevsky's work, and he went to express views that have at least a family resemblance to Dostoyevsky's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Uncited Claims
I am removing the uncited claim that Dostoevsky is of Polish descent, because Dostoevsky is derived from Dostoev, a city in Lithuania, and the claim is false.
Also removing the claim that he died confronting death in a blinding snowstorm. It is common knowledge that he died of a lung hemmorage
I happen to agree with the anonymous user who removed the uncited claims. How about we add them back in if someone finds a citation? What's more, every source I can find seems to confirm that he died of a lung hemorrhage -- not from disappearing in a snow storm. --JayHenry20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Christian Influences
I know it is easy for people to overlook the influence Christianity had on Dostoevsky's work, as he is incredibly talented at giving alternative viewpoints to his own beliefs, i.e. The Grand Inquisitor, however, I think more emphasis must be given in this regard, for as much as I'd like to believe that Dostoevsky was not a avid Christian, it simply is not true. The inclusion of this portion of Dostoevsky's life seems glossed over in the article, would anyone be willing to perhaps add a section on this matter. I'm certainly not an expert, but I could scrounge up some sources on this if need be. Also, his relationship with the Staretz Amvrosy should be included as well.
To say he was not an avid Christian is idiotic. The Grand Inquisitor is proof. He despised the Catholic Church, the section was written because he was so devoted to the Orthodox Church. It was written as a way to distance Catholicism from God, Christianity was very dear to him. Why else would Alyosha be his hero? Just because he didn't quote the Bible, doesn't mean that his humanism didn't stem from Christianity. Read between the lines and study the man more, you're either very ignorant or you're just beginning
I don't believe that Dostoevsky would hold Dickens in such high esteem as to call him an influence... this is just my intuition though...
is there any source for this citation?
Yep, it's true - after Dickens was translated into Russian his books were a major influence:
Among English writers Dostoevsky admired Shakespeare, Sir Walter Scott, Byron, and in particular Dickens ... In his Omsk prison Dostoevsky read Pickwick Papers and David Copperfield. His letters and notebooks are full of references to Dickens, and they share an interest in such major subjects as the city, children, crime, and the suffering of the innocent. Oxford Companion to English Literature 5th Edition, Margaret Drabble (Editor) OUP 1985. I don't have time to work this into the article myself, but anyone who wishes is welcome to use it. --Stephen Burnett00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for including a reference; however, I think a more substantial connection needs to be established demonstrating how, exactly, Dickens' writing influenced Dostoyevsky's. The statement that "... they share an interest in such major subjects as the city, children, crime, and the suffering of the innocent" doesn't seem to me to be very revealing. Many authors who lived during the Industrial Revolution(s) were also preoccupied with such things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they all "influenced" each other. Given the state of Russia at the time Dostoyevsky was writing, I hardly think he needed much influencing to be driven to write about the things he did. --Todeswalzer|Talk22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Intro paragraph
In re: "...is considered[citation needed] the greatest prose writer of Russian literature, far beyond his close contemporary Leo Tolstoy."
What?? This is downright nonsense! There are MANY who consider Tolstoy superior to Dostoevsky. I am not one of them, but this very subjective and demonstrably false statement has no business being in this article. The "citation needed" superscript does not adequately remedy this problem. Please amend this paragraph. --216.73.249.18719:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Why Tchaikovsky?
Why is there a separate section in this article about Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky? The relationship (if that is the appropriate term) between these two figures is so tenuous and irrelevant that the inclusion of this section is simply mind-boggling. Can we please remove it or at least try better to justify its presence? --68.173.15.5701:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this section is much too long compared to the rest of the article, and D's relationship with the composer cannot have been more important than with Leo Tolstoy, Nietzsche, or any other philosopher heavily influenced by his work. The section should be cut down and added to an "Influences" section. Silvdraggoj22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not leave it, and wait for someone to include articles on Dostoevsky's relationships with other key figures that have been mentioned (toltstoy, nietchzsche, etc). This way the article becomes expansive, which is the bestter choice, so long as it is organized and cited properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.161.68.2 (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Even so, I'm not sure what this section is doing in this article in the first place. I don't think Dostoevsky has much at all to do with Tchaikovsky at all, except that they were both Russian and approximate contemporaries of one another. You might as well include a section "Dostoevsky and Rimsky-Korsakov," for example. At any rate, I could think of dozens of more Dostoevsky-relevant people, Tolstoy and Nietzsche aside, who could have such a section within this article. --216.73.249.19519:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This section is riduculous. The whole thing should be balanced with respect to the relative importance of different sections. How can existentialism take up as much space as tchaikovsky? With regard to this comment:
"Why not leave it, and wait for someone to include articles on Dostoevsky's relationships with other key figures that have been mentioned (toltstoy, nietchzsche, etc). This way the article becomes expansive, which is the bestter choice, so long as it is organized and cited properly."
For the expansion to give commensurate importance to the other sections we'd be looking at at the rest of the article being as long as the brothers karamazov! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Demons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Idiot.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot09:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This section of the article is misleading. In the first place, 'Rebellion' is not a "paper" that Dostoevsky wrote. It is the title of a chapter in The Brothers Karamazov (Book 5, Chapter 4). In addition, it was Dostoevsky's character Ivan who "asks the question..." and "makes the point..." It's a brilliant passage and is probably ok to leave in the article, but the way it is currently framed implies that Dostoevsky himself came to the same conclusion as Ivan. In actuality, Dostoevsky envisioned Book 6 as well as the novel in its entirety as a response to Book 5--See Volume 5 of Joseph Frank's seminal biography. As this section of the article stands now (the last section with any substantial amount of text), it implies that this one chapter is Dostoyevsky's definitive statement concerning god/God. It does not do justice to the depth of Dostoevsky's thought.
If anyone has more editorial skills than myself this section may be worth editing. Thanks and Best,
I took a shot at making the corrections you were right to point out but I feel it still needs expansion. Something along the lines that Ivan argues noone can forgive those who torture children and Alyosha's response that Jesus can, that love, mercy, forgiveness, etc is the answer. --TM08:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The "fanatical aversion to Poles"
A short section with generalistic and sketchy details and rather messy phrasing. Can somebody provide clear examples of this and better explain why it is important? D. J. Cartwright08:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to be summaraized into perhaps one sentence, cited, and moved up to the previous section about Dostoevsky's influence. As it stands now, although the claims might likely be valid, without citation, the writing style is a bit like "ranting" (no offense to the writer of the passage). --RossF1813:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What worries me about the new sourced version of the section is that it is a word for word copy of the unsourced version added previously by the same editor and the language remains polemical ("fanatical aversion", "hatred", "offends the eye", etc). In addition, since all the links are dead (at least for me), I can't verify the claims at present. (If someone else can access the articles please verify the content and perhaps provide relevant quotations.) Once, or if, it is properly sourced the whole section could be reduced to its ultimate point: that Dostoevsky illustrated Polish people negatively because he perceived them to adhere to Western European ideals, rather than the pan-Slavism Dostoevsky promoted. I think this would fit well after the description of his anti-Semitism in the influences section. Thoughts? --TM01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
How's this for a start to a paragraph after the ant-Semitism bit in Influences: "The pan-Slavism that contributed to Dostoevsky's evident anti-Semitism, arguably also lead to his dislike, or even hatred, of "French, Germans, and Poles". Joseph Frank even argues that Poles are portrayed more negatively than Jews in Dostoevsky's novels. [5] However, critic Nina Perlina states that Dostoevsky was "able to portray appreciatively the traditional Polish characteristics of individuality and national pride". [6]. Razvan Ungureanu argues that Dostoevsky, in The House of the Dead, "defends Russian colonialism through a portrayal of the Other [Poles] that is belittling and even factually incorrect". [7] As is largely the case for his anti-Semitism, Dostoevsky's negative views and literary portrayals of foreigners, particularly Poles, are founded on his fervent Russian nationalism." I know it doesn't flow well (this person argues, this person argues, etc.) but I think it's better than what was there before. I still think it could be shortened to one sentence but I feel this is a more accurate summary of what the three sources present. --TM02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Only thing is where does As is largely the case for his anti-Semitism, Dostoevsky's negative views and literary portrayals of foreigners, particularly Poles, are founded on his fervent Russian nationalism." sentence come from. There is a quote mark at the end of the sentence, but there is no opening quote and no source. Once you source that, you can include that sentence. Other sentences work fine. --RossF1814:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Dostoevsky's notion of rebellion
I took out this section because it doesn't cite page numbers to any of the quotes. Otherwise, it would be fine. --RossF1815:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Dostoevsky, in a chapter of The Brothers Karamazov entitled Rebellion, has the atheist character Ivan Karamazov ask his religious brother Alyosha:
Imagine you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, […] but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect of those conditions?
Dostoevsky's character makes the point that if there is a God, he is unjust and immoral for making innocent children suffer even if it is to make the world a better place. Ivan further states that the moral thing for a person to do would be to reject God’s bargain (The suffering of children to make the world a better place) and give back their ticket of existence: “I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible”.
My guess is that the article doesn't cite page numbers because... well, what page numbers would you cite? The book was written in Russian in 1880, and it's not as if pagination is the same in every version. In the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation it's 245. In the Avsey translation it's page 308. Neither of these are the precise translation above, and listing the information by chapter actually made it easier to find the information than if it had been included with a page number. Just for fun... I happen to have a Русская классика edition. On page 253 we have Dostoevsky's own words:
<<представь что это ты сам восводишь здание судьбы человеческой с целью в финале осчастливить людей, дать им наконетц мир и покой, но для этого необходимо и неминуемо предстояло бы замучить всего лишь одно только крохотное созданьице, вот того самого ребеночка, бившего себя кулачонком в грудь, и на неотомщенных слезках его основать это здание, согласился ли бы ты быть архитектоом на этих условиях, скажи и не лги!>>
Ideally, perhaps the article would quote from a particular translation, we'd use chapter names, and page numbers, and include in the references which translation it was? --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Khozyaika
In 1847, Dostoevsky wrote an small novell called "Hhozyaika", sometimes translated as "The Landlady". Does anyone have information about this work?
Thanks.--Nauki10:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A Great Idea, we should standardize one translation of his works. I vote for the recent Pevear and Volohonsky translations. They are PEN award winners, Volohonsky is a native Russian speaker, Pevear native English, and critics such as Joseph Frank have stated that they are the most accurate, the most faithful to the original, indeed it is his 'unless otherwise noted' choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahakaya (talk • contribs) 05:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dickens, an influence?
I don't quite buy this one. A citation would be handy. Dickens was only a decade his elder, and it doesn't seem likely that he would be strongly influenced by an Englishman. Can someone look into this?--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I failed to notice the external link for 'writer'
I propose complete deletion of the list of influences. Reasoning:
The data contained in the infobox regarding influences may be acceptable in school textbooks for lower grades, in order to make the importance of an author more easily presented, and even then, they are used when the influence is not only obvious, but crucial. Leopold Mozart, father of W. A. Mozart doubtlessly influenced his son's musical creativity, as well as many classical composers influenced Ludwig van Beethoven, etc. As I met the same problem regarding classical composers on my home (Croatian) Wiki, and afterwards literary authors as well, thanks to translating diligence of a member, I will present the reasons I presented there.
Such labeling and simplification, since it pushes too much information into one single category which can later be perceived in different ways (who was whose creative ideal, who taught whom, or who influenced whom relatively marginally, or merely who liked whom), and can and usually does lead to wrong conclusions. The fact that it is very hard, if at all possible to verify, doesn't give it more sense either.
A few more examples, the influence of Ludwig van Beethoven is immense, and on nearly all classical composers of the 19th century and later. Should then all those composers be listed as influenced by Beethoven? The list would be too long and absurd. Another musical comparison as I saw on Croatian Wikipedia - W. A. Mozart was listed as a major influence on F. Chopin. While Chopin indeed admired Mozart as his musical idol and ideal, his own music is purely romantic in form and content, and Mozart's influence cannot be discerned in music. This article's list is likewise senseless: authors are put together seemingly with no criteria in choosing them; authors who liked to read Dostoevsky's novels and admired his genius but whose work had no visible impact on their style - should they be listed and why are they listed? Even T. S. Eliot has a long list of influences, which is rather ironic, considering his concept of tradition as inseparable to every poet: "the most individual parts of his (the poet) work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously" (from his essay Tradition and the Individual Talent. Hence, there is a whole tradition behind every artist, but I digress too much.
Briefly, reduction of complex artistic and creative interrelations to formalized listing of names almost always is arbitrary and leads to misconception. My apologies again for so many musical examples, but I think that the comparison stands.
Generally, the simplified classification using the infobox, if it's being used at all, should contain only exact and verifiable data. Filling them in with questionable content stylistically brings the article to the brim between the quality necessary for an encyclopedic article and quality one sees in info+fun pages of newspapers. The content that requires additional explanation will be given its place in the body of the article where it will not be misinterpreted or overly simplified. This, if accepted, should be applied to all articles that contain such content. Rosier (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A similar objection was encountered regarding the same "Influences/Influenced" lists on philosopher infoboxes. I offered the following solution:
I've often wondered at the usefulness of these lists myself, and I agree with the rationale behind the original proposal to remove these lists from the infobox. I might also add, too, that the term "influenced" is far too ambiguous to be useful: every serious philosopher must, in one way or another, respond to or elaborate upon the ideas proposed by all major figures in philosophy, past and present, and so their own ideas are shaped -- or "influenced" -- by those figures. But is it really helpful to say that any given philosopher was influenced both by Hobbes and Locke? Or Plato and Aristotle?
I don't think so. And for that reason, I would suggest replacing the "influenced/influences" sections with a "Tradition" or "School" section. So, for example, in the article on Camus one could put "Tradition: Absurdist", even though such labels can't exactly capture all the proper nuances of the individual's philosophy (but that's what the article is for!). And even though there's bound to be debate over precisely what term to use here, I think that debate is almost entirely one of refinement: I don't think anyone will seriously argue that Camus doesn't belong to the Absurdist/Existentialist "school" in the way we're currently arguing over who may or may not have influenced him, and whom he in turn may or may not have influenced. --Todeswalzer|Talk22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a poor article on a great an important writer. I will work on it soon. Joseph Frank's now complete biography is an excellent source of reference material for those who want to be met to the punch and fix this up. Please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahakaya (talk • contribs) 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hemingway, Moveable Feast
Hi -- I think saying Hemingway cites Dostoevsky as a "major influence" in A Moveable Feast is an overstatement. Hemingway praises D., but he's notably chary of giving credit (even where it's due) in terms of influence. I think this needs to be revised. (Can get you all refs to D. in AMF if you like.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.130.194 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
