Dostoyevsky

To improve my English, first published in the language. - Thanks for reading.

Marcelo Souto

For the literary critical thinking, the work of Dostoyevsky is decomposed into several autonomous mutually contradictory philosophical theories, defended by heroes dostoievskianos, where the author is regarded as one of the greatest innovators in the field of art form. His philosophical concepts not included in the works, but the exposure of characters is more engaging, where the voices of the author and the characters are confused and becomes a peculiar synthesis of all these ideological voices. In Dostoyevsky, it creates controversy, learn and develop ideas that come to finished systems.
For the consciousness of critics, the value direct and full of words of the hero discards the plan monologue and causes immediate response, as if the hero was not the subject of the author's word, but word of his own vehicle, equipped with full power and value. The peculiarity was observed by WB Engelgardt, which reads as follows:

"In examining the Russian criticism on the works of Dostoyevsky, it is easy to understand that, except few exceptions, it does not exceed the level of intellectual heroes of the favorite writer. Not that she dominates the field handling, but it is a matter that dominates entirely. She is still learning with Ivan Karamazov, Raskolnikov, Stavróguin and the Grand Inquisitor, is embroiled in contradictions in which they engage, holding up perplexed in the face of the problems that they do not resolve itself and tilting them to revere the complex emotions and distressing " .

Obviously you can not explain this peculiarity of the critical literature on Dostoyevsky only by impotence methodology of critical thinking and consider it complete artistic transgression of the will of the author. Such a critical approach to literature as well as the design does not prejudice the readers, we always discuss with the heroes of Dostoyevsky, in fact corresponds to the basic structural peculiarities of the works of author. Like in the Prometheus of Goethe, Dostoyevsky does not create slaves dumb (as Zeus), but free people, able to put up side by side with its creator, to disagree and even his revolt against him.
The multiplicity of voices and consciences and inamissíveis independent and authentic voices of polyphony plenivalentes are the key peculiarity of the novels of Dostoyevsky. It is not the multitude of characters and destinations that in a world one goal, the light of a consciousness of the author, is developed in their novels. It is precisely the multiplicity of consciousness that equipollent and their worlds here are combined in a unit of event, maintaining its imiscibilidade. Within the artistic level of Dostoyevsky, its main characters are, in fact, not only objects of the author's speech, but the very subject of this speech directly significant. For this reason, the speech of the hero does not end in any circumstances in normal features and functions thematic pragmatic, and does not constitute proper position in the expression of the author. The conscience of the hero is given to the other, the conscience of others, but at the same time was not objetifica, do not quit, you do not become mere object of consciousness of the author. In this sense, the image of the hero in Dostoyevsky is not the image of common heroic aimed at the traditional novel.
Dostoyevsky is the creator of the polyphonic novel, a genre essentially romantic again. For that his work does not fall within any limit, is not subject to any of literary historical regimens that are usually applied to European events of the novel. His works mark the emergence of a hero whose voice is structured in the same way that structure is the voice of the author in the novel common. The voice of the hero on himself and the world is as full as the common word of the author is not subject to the objectified image of the hero, a characteristic, however, neither serves as the interpreter of the voice of the author. She has exceptional independence in the structure of the work, as soasse next to the word of the author, line up in a special way with her and with the voices of other plenivalentes heroes.
The image of polyphony and counterpoint only indicates new problems that were present when the construction of the novel goes beyond the limits of the unit monologize usual, as well as in music, new problems arose when exceeded the limits of a voice. It is worth saying that the materials of music and romance are different too so you can talk about the analogy somewhat higher figure, which is represented by a simple metaphor. However, this metaphor is that transform the end polyphonic novel, we could not find the more appropriate and can not be forgotten the origin of metaphorical terms.
The problem of polyphony was raised with great accuracy and comprehensiveness of A. V. Lunatcharsky in the article "The mnogogolósnosti Dostoievskovo" (About the multiplicity of voices in Dostoyevsky). Lunatcharsky shares the view of the polyphonic novel, assuming that MM Bakhtin could not only establish the immense importance of the multiplicity of voices in the novel by Dostoyevsky, the role of this multiplicity of voices as most important characteristic of his novel, but also determine with accuracy the immense autonomy and plenivalência of each voice, developed so formidable on Dostoyevsky. The author also points out correctly that all voices that are really essential role in the novel are beliefs or views on the world. There are still to be said that the drama is by nature a strange authenticates polyphony: can have many different plans, but may not have many different worlds, admits only one and not several reference systems. In essence, there are in each drama plenivalente only a voice of the hero, while the polyphony requires a multiplicity of voices plenivalentes the limits of a work, because only under this condition are possible polyphonic the principles of construction of the whole. The unprecedented freedom of voices in the polyphony of Dostoyevsky, impressing the reader, follows precisely the fact of being limited in essence, the power of Dostoyevsky on the spirits he awakened.
Dostoyevsky had the gift of great sounding dialogue of his time, or in times more accurate, listen to his time as a great dialogue, it captures not only the isolated voices, but first and foremost the relations between the dialogical voices, the interaction dialogue between them. He also auscultated the dominant voices, recognized and shrillness of the season, that is the dominant ideas, major (official and unofficial), as well as voices still weak, still not entirely clear ideas, ideas latent not yet heard by anyone except by him and ideas that just beginning to ripen, embryos of future conceptions of the world.
In the dialogue of his time, Dostoyevsky auscultated also the echoes of voices, ideas of the past, both the nearest past, how much farther, trying to listen to voices ideas of the future, trying to guess them, so to speak, at the place they for the dialogue has not yet triggered a replica made of the future. Thus, at today's converged and arguing the past, present and future. Dostoyevsky never created images of their ideas from scratch, never the inventive, as the artist did not invent those who portrays. Auscultation knew them or guess them in this reality. For this we can find and show some prototypes to the images of the ideas in the novels of Dostoyevsky, as well as images of their heroes. For example, the prototype of the ideas of Raskolnikov were the ideas of Marx Stirner, exposed to the treaty "A Unique and its Characteristics," and the ideas of Napoleon III, developed by him in the book "The History of Julius Caesar", a prototypes of the ideas of Piotr Vierkhoviénsky was the "Catechism of a Revolutionary", were prototypes of the ideas of Viersílov the ideas of Tchaadáiev and Herzen. Not by far were discovered and shown prototypes of the ideas of Dostoyevsky. Please note that this is not the sources of Dostoyevsky, but the images of prototypes of ideas.
Dostoyevsky absolutely not copied or explained these prototypes, but redraw the way of artistic freedom by converting them into artistic images live from their ideas, strictly as an artist does with its prototype human. What he did, above all, was to destroy the form of closed monologize ideas and prototypes include them in major dialogue of his novels, where they begin to live a new life artistic factual.