What I was saying. I am one of the only writers who doesn’t try to describe my personages psychologically. I describe them only through their actions, and that is what makes them so much more complex.
You can describe every thought they might have, but you’re bound by the inadequacy of language. What I do is that I describe them – not through language, but – through actions, and that makes the reader experience the fourth dimension, which we talked about today.
That is to be found, especially in The Idiot and The Brothers Karamazov
\Dostojevski
I must admit I have yet to read any of your work, however, you have ignited a spark which is not easily satisfied. But not only is my knowledge limited when it comes to your work , I still have to grasp the true nature of existentialism.
SvarSletHaving been at work I feel that I have somehow been disconnected from the pool of thoughts that was created the last time we met - But I am also certain that this blog will not only enable me to refind this but be the catalyst for much more creative and rejuvenating thinking. But in my current state of excitement it not only ends here - I believe this future exchange of thoughts and ideas to be something that allows me to explore some of the, in my opinion, deeper mysteries of life - which makes me feel more alive than ever.
In short, I believe this to bring me back to the surface.
\The Underground Man
It is peculiar that you call me an existentialist. Actually I am not considered an existentialist normally, but I actually find myself dealing with some of the same topics as especially the French existentialists, Sartre and (he is also an absurdis, and that is where we really are a like) Camus.
SvarSletAnd I too, look forward to the communication that is to be done in this blog. That will help us keep in touch, even when I move to London.
\Am I still Dostojevski?
Well, I am not sure what you are - as I said, I have yet to read any of your work, though I have just started on your "The Underground Man" and from what I have already read, I understand what you mentioned about you describing your thoughts through people and actions rather than describing them explicitly.
SvarSletbut what exactly do you mean by Direct "og" indirect psychology of personages?
Actually a great questions. When I think about it might have been a mistake to entitle the post "Direct "og" indirect psychology of personages?"
SvarSletFirst of all, it is
Direct and indirect psychology of personages?, and second, it is actually
Direct and indirect describtion of the psychology of personages?
Do you see where I am going - i believe you will if you are to read The Underground Man.
Right now I have just started reading the Brothers Karamazov. It is just wonderful. I am already looking forward to it yet again.
To continue my existentialist reading I went to the libary to pick up some works of Sartre, Camus, and Exupery. Dostojevskij is going french.
\Dostojevski
The necessary changes have been done :-)
SvarSlet\Dostojevski
and then you cannot even spell description right..
SvarSletlets just assume there is some hidden meaning in the mistake, and it therefore was made on purpose.
Well yes, Direct and indirect descriptions of the psychology of personages, does indeed make sense, since Dostojevski does that a lot in his The Underground Man. but it is the "part" psychology of personages which annoys me -
In the Underground man, The Underground Man, describes other characters - The direct man and the intelligent man - directly - however, by doing so, dostojevski also indirectly illustrates his own and deeper thoughts through the testimony of his narrator "the Underground Man" - Have you read this one?
But in my opinion it is not so much the "psychology" that is of interest - in my opinion, the narrator uses to different mindsets to make his point of the dilemmas of being intelligent - it is as though that these different mindsets converge to create the point - or rather move the reader toward the deeper questions of the story.
But I actually believe you meant something a bit like it, though the meaning of what I just wrote is probably not to obvious,I just decided to let the title and my initial disagreement with it be the inspiration for this comment.
when I write deeper philosophical questions, it is because I have yet to figure out exactly what I believe Dostojevski message is - since I have yet to finish reading the book.
\The Man of Acute Consciousness