I just finished the audiobook of The Brothers Karamazov and I found this video and Dr. Pfau's knowledge very satisfying. I'm a bit concerned that I didn't hear the proper telling of the story since Constance Garnett was the translator, but even so, it was fantastic. I didn't expect it to have so many quirky and funny characters. I'm not sure what I think of the women being used as comic relief; the ladies came off as frivolous creatures but I enjoyed them. Thank you for posting this conversation for everyone's enjoyment.
Yes his comments about the translator were a suprize, I found the language in English flowing sensecmaking r with rich vocabulary and the narratior brought each character to life
I read Dostoevsky when I was 16 or thereabouts so evidently a great deal of it I couldn't really understand. But enough to be fascinated by the depth of his characters and their amazing capacity to feel and think the unthinkable . Anarchism atheism materialism all furiously confronting the old order. Diffent ideas perhaps but similar to our contemporary predicament
I have not yet accomplished it.. yet it’s such a work I would say , it’s written not only big perspective, just so closely the social issue, everyone says Ayusha as a hero but I would prefer to say his brother Ivan ..thanks
Precisely that latter that u listed is a kinda proof that he was concerned whit those ideas before he even started. He didn’t just invent it as he wrote.. I also read Nitsche Leatter and his consistent mentions of Dostoyevsky… And I do agree Dostoyevsky and Nitsche go together….both see similar things emerge n Russia-Germany…nowadays they are worldwide phenomena
I’ve just started watching this lecture and there are 2 points that need to be clarified: 1. “Dostoyevsky’s father was abusive”. That is not as simple. Dostoyevsky’s father has never beaten his children (which was the norm back in those days). Fyodor also wrote to his brother that they will never be as good of people as their parents were. Overall, his father was very demanding in terms of education but also loving and he spent a lot of time with children educating them. It was later reported that he was abusive to his peasants, but as I understand his children generally didn’t experience it. 2. “Dostoyevsky’s father was killed by his own serves”. Also not as simple. Exact cause of his death is not known and nobody was convicted of his “murder”. Murder by peasants is only one of the theories. Source: Dostoyevsky: A Writer in His Time by Joseph Frank, one of the most prominent scholars of Dostoyevsky.
I understand his style because he is finding a way of cognitive connectives...to fill in those gaps ....those gaps were so much crowds us... between each other and various .. condition's...yet still when writing you must take all this into consideration with your culture..and frameworks..and devised interplays...of politcal and religious dynamics..and ofcourse social securities...and when we may agree to let our guard down.....or keep some social status...may depend on many factor's...contained for Athority...or in resecpt of anything or not....as an individual as well dealing with others there may be more then meets the eye and taking in considerations of mental levels and those under oppressions or more freedoms may not predudice anyone...is something you may be able to measure....but as for myself on this google internet formats ....i would say its compartmentalizing...for an added factor on top of All this ...which is grossly unfortunate.....as double jeapordy or fueling peoples blind spots...
I actually think there were quite a few times where he had weak characters portray ideas that he opposed, most notably Rakitin and Kolya. Having a child call himself a socialist is a humorous strawman.
