"Rather than go preaching to people about what they ought to be, show them through your own example. Carry it out yourselves in practice, and everyone will follow you."

- A Writer's Diary, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Volume II

Diary of a Writer by Fyodr Dostoevksy responses.

i.

It does happen sometimes that a person commits a villainy and praises himself for it, elevating his villainy to the level of a principle, and claiming that l’ordre and the light of civilization are precisely expressed in that abomination; the unfortunate one ends by believing this sincerely, blindly and honestly.

Reading A Writer’s Diary made me think of a story one of our old roadies once told me about his friend, who was Bob Dylan’s guitar tech. An acquaintance of the guitar tech brought his ten year old to a Dylan concert and afterwards, backstage, asked the tech if the boy could meet Dylan. The tech said, “Son, do you like Bob Dylan?”, to which he nodded, and the tech said, “Then you don’t want to meet Bob Dylan.”

I found it incredibly difficult to stomach Dostoevsky’s anti-semitic rants, and to a lesser degree some of the other chauvinistic and reflexive pieces. It is very hard to connect the compassionate and penetratingly humane novelist with the facile and dangerous conclusions he comes to as a polemicist. I am never eager to mistake the artist for the art and vice versa, but it’s a bit harder when the subject matter of both relates to philosophic, social and religious beliefs. How do we see the compassion, forgiveness and Christian love he champions in his characters in this light? This is not a rhetorical question. I mean, how?

I did a little tour of the internet, like “Dostoevsky, antisemite, wtf???”, and he definitely has many apologists; it is tempting to join them and explain it away as a disease of the time, of Czarist Russia, of Russian Orthodoxy. Or, given the kind of joyful, jousting character some of these pieces have, maybe he is just a pundit, a Tucker Carlson of the 19th century, trying to stir up a little trouble and keep the big guys on top. Some of the logical fallacy of his reasoning belongs to the Fox News truthiness–he hates them because they are parasitical usurers, but when confronted with the fact that most live in penury, he claims that is their punishment for being Jews. It’s as though he doesn’t care what he is writing.

But his argument is too defensive to be simply that–it has an ontological justification that depersonalizes the Jewish people and treats them like an infection in the cultures they inhabit, the very kind of “dispassionate” reasoning led to the Nazis less than a century later.

It’s hard to believe that the guy who wrote Demons about the toxic spread of uncompromising and ruinous dogma would have no sense of the violence of his words.

ii.

Meanwhile, genuine equality says: "What do I care if you are more talented than I, more clever, more handsome? I'm glad for it, rather, because I love you. But though I may be less important to you, I respect myself as a person; and you know this and respect me yourself, and I am happy with your respect. If you, through your abilities, can bring me and everyone else a hundredfold more benefit than I can bring you, then I bless you for it; I marvel at you and thank you, and in no way do I hold my awe for you as something shameful; on the contrary, I am happy that I am grateful to you, and if I work for you and for all in so far as my feeble abilities allow, then it is certainly not to try to balance my account with you, but because I love you all.

This Diary Excerpt shows the political views of Dostoyevsky given the time period in which Dostoyevsky lived and his own personal moral reasoning. The excerpt raises many questions and talks about many concepts regarding morality, criminality, christianity, and political change.  The excerpt seems to start off with a level of anti semitic tone to it with the first excerpt stating that the Jews ``Drained the Blood of the Russian People”. From the beginning, It seemed that this excerpt and diary was a reflection on Dostoyevsky political and ideological views at the time. In the first several pages he talks about the concept of christian identity and how the English Possess a certain level of ‘christian duty’ that he seems to critique and admire at the same time. He continues to talk about his prison experience and keeps bringing up his personal moral reasoning through the perspective lens of what it means to be a christian and what the true “Christian identity” is in the mind of Dostoyevsky He continues to reflect on his childhood memories and on the concept of criminality and moral reasoning as well as reflecting on the state of Russia's rapid modernization. This concept relates back to Demons in a way in which both these diary excerpts and Demons reflect on a country that and people which rapidly are forced to adopt modern and western ideals and structures. Yet still possess deep rooted antiquated values and Dostoyevsky reflects on this through these excerpts as well. Dostoyevsky exemplifies his moral reasoning through the story of this peasant hanging his wife. It seems to be a common theme of Dostoyevsky using violent and gruesome allegories to portray moral reasoning and christian identity almost in a cynical and fearful way. It seems as though Dostoyevsky definitely values some of the old premodern Russian Values while at the same time calls out the pre modern Russian Society of Elitism and Serfdom.

iii.

In some ways, it’s a rather unknown book for Russian people. As in, they know this writer like they know their politicians, someone so incredibly close to their perspective and morality, and yet not at all. Colloquially, in my conversations with family, it seemed that nobody could fathom a reason to read it. The sentiment largely being that he was crazy, he was sick, yes, he was a genius, but at the price of sanity… all the while protecting him dearly. The mention that this work is what established his identity as a prophet versus mere novelist, with the ugliness of his views, could not be reconciled with the beauty of his work. “This is the arrogance of people who don’t understand… you only need to read his books to understand him” was how the conversation ended with my mother.

I got through his first entry with the help of a notebook and pencil to take notes. It is quite condensed, difficult to read… it has the heaviness of trying to get through an unknown religious text. Aside from the parables, the grammatical structure of these blocks of words is heavy, dense, the feeling of the mind being dragged across a string of words adding to the experience of his incredible sadness. English is definitely simplified.

And yet, it is perhaps Dostoevsky’s most optimistic work for it speaks to a sense of optimism in what the future holds - the children.

“Conscious implies suffering, but I do not wish to suffer, since why should I consent to suffering?”

Dostoevsky’s belief that there is nobody to blame, that it all just is, points to the idea of true enlightenment. Mind guides the path of life. I am moved by his strange compassion and the vastness of his faith. His faith is bigger than the Church, but also in his people. He is a terrible anti-semite… reflexive and aggressive… but defending with it the idea of Russia’s greatness. It reminds me a bit of Putin’s speeches at times.

 Initially, seeming somewhat proud of appointment as editor of The Citizen, Dostoevsky goes into this sort of weird talk about China. In China, receiving his appointment would have been much grander. They know just what to do in China because everything has already been planned in almost 200 volumes for a thousand years. Then, the strange description of how it would have gone down in China.

iii.

He would be acknowledged in this grand, formal, ceremony with the highest officials present. He would step away proudly, having just been deemed and thusly recognized as great. He would then be handed a bribe by the third so and so of the third so and so, and then he would put out the best publication ever? Because whatever he could possibly write would have already been determined since it has all been planned. And he’s been bribed. It would be great because, in Russia, it’s much better to know nothing at all, and this way he would have to know nothing at all. He would be praised and recognized and celebrated and whatever.

This, I think is a joke. A joke that demeans his position A joke that demeans China, a joke that demeans Russia; it’s funny, but it is a joke that strips the entire subject of any meaning. Satire? It’s an epic statement of insecurity and raises the question: if this is his sentiment, especially after seeming genuinely proud, then what is his goal in taking this position?

I would surmise, that Dostoevsky has been struggling with his place in Russian society. He wants to be well received, he wants to be recognized, he wants to communicate with the people in a real way through his genuine work. Now he is in journalism. The position is a joke to him, but what is the one thing he is getting? Recognition and respect from the people, but judging by the joke, it doesn’t seem that he respects himself—not the position, and not the type of recognition.

This moment feels like a real crucial moment in Dostoevsky’s life and in his career as a writer. To know that after this, The Brothers Karamazov is to follow, is almost unbelievable to me. Although The Brothers Karamazov also starts with a bit of an insecure introduction, he does state his purpose. It’s not befuddling; it’s an expression of hope that he is successful in expressing his hero as a hero. It’s very strange to look at the evolution of these works—we’re often given a peek into the mind of the writer before each reading.In my humble opinion, I reckon that The Brothers Karamazov is the most masterfully composed novel I have ever read I suppose that would bring me into discussion of the polyphonic novel… and more.

iv.

Okay so here's something wild and probably a little incoherent...

I've decided to share my notes when I began to read Diary of a Writer. They make very little sense, which I kind of enjoy, and they seem to be mostly quotes that resonated with me/thoughts on those quotes, but at least it's something I can add to our discussion pages. Clearly after a while, I faded away from writing notes. Perhaps because they only made sense to me. :)

‍

Pg 6 There I would have no choice but to write clearly, so that I’m not sure who would read me. Here, if you want people to read you it’s better to write so that no one understands.

“What if I’m the one who’s ignorant in fact?”

Another thousand years of sober thought (Russia in terms of China’s history) Similar to me and my thoughts on America.

Ancient fable, comforting thought...

Pg 10

And yet the surprising thing now is that they do not convict the accused but acquit them consistently, this is also an exercise, almost even an abuse of power, but in one direction , toward an extreme, a sentimental one, perhaps — one can’t tell.

The truth stands higher than your pain. Pg 13

Now is precisely the time we must tell the truth and call evil evil; in return we must ourselves take on half the burden of the sentence.

“The environment is to blame” for everything.

But still, these ideas float about in the air; there is something pervasive about an idea…”

Pg. 15

Some ideas exist that are unexpressed an unconscious but that simply are strongly felt.

The whole energy of the life of the People consists in the striving to bring these hidden ideas to light.

A crime a misfortune and the criminal unfortunate.

But now, unfortunate ones, accept these alms of ours; we give them that you might know we remember you and have not broken our ties with you as a brother

And had we encountered them, we would have acted as you did. Who is to blame? The environment is to blame.

Pg 16

Reminds me of Pytor S

On page 17-23, you can see how Dostoevsky Cretes a character through truth. His creation being from the man who beat his wife.

Theses obsvervations, fact and fiction intertwined.

“Just imagine it.”

Pg. 27

Astonishment

Pg 116

“Devils and spiritualism”

I feel like I’m reading a diary that legit questions, observes and evaluates … almost everything. Of course there’s a concentration throughout about, well, what he writes about: spiritualism, crime, punishment, worship, character analysis

But from this he actually ends up making a clear point. That is life. These are the main focuses of a life. And especially of a writer who is fascinated with life, living, and the consequences of being alive.

v.

“…debauchery that does not even spare the final moments of consciousness!”

Dostoevsky can be characterized as a man who is both physically and mentally unwell. His physical condition causes psychological symptoms. He hallucinates. Bakhtin told me so. I was glad that he had told me because

In moments of text—in introductions, novels, or short stories— wherein the reader might so much as suspect that they are looking at a hallucination recounted; moments where a character in a novel bears a suspicious resemblance to the self-conscious, secretly jaded and nearly defeated, yet innocent and pathetically hopeful Dostoevsky that writes the introductions. I do wonder if Dostoevsky knew just how naked he was getting when he wrote sometimes.

I already wrote on Dostoevsky’s proud announcement that he would be newspaper editor, which preceded a sad, but, yes— funny, satirical imagination which is sad. Sad because that was a moment of nonfiction. and we’ve been following this Human journey by witnessing the progression of the contents of his heart and mind as expressed in his work and exposed by his own voice.

What difference does it make to know that the author is physically and mentally unwell? Well, maybe in many cases it would make no difference. If the subject were, Dogs, let’s say. But look at the subject matter Dostoevsky is grappling with. How else could I characterize Dostoevsky’s goal other than to say his writing aims to provide a road to salvation? The man is hurting, he knows that we all suffer, and he writes to find and show a way to peace. Knowing that Dostoevsky is unwell, knowing that he has “reason enough” to curse existence, but that he chooses, through his creative efforts, to care to save the soul of man, is painfully beautiful.  

I have not been able to shake my thoughts on Bobok. I was staring at those pages all cockeyed thinking, “uh, this seems like a psychotic episode.” A hallucination. It’s in a piece like this that I feel the pain, inner turmoil, insanity of the author. It is also in a piece like this that I see how easily Dostoevsky could have turned the other direction toward absurdity and nihilism. He could have easily thrown his hands up.

Ok, so, we have this person, “that person is not [Dostoevsky], but someone else entirely.” In other words, the person is Dostoevsky, but not he is ‘not himself,’ as we might say. Semyon’s question to ‘Ivan’ sets ‘Ivan’ off on of those unsettled kind of tirades that could sort of damn the world and creation if it wanted to. He says that he is not offended but does remark that, “humor and elegance of style are disappearing nowadays, and abuse is taken for witticism.” Okay, Ivan, you’re not offended, but abused. Anyway, his thoughts and hopeless statements, “everything is so muddled now that you can’t tell a fool from a clever man,” what’s the use in trying, right?  

“bobok, bobok, bobok! What is this bobok? I must find some distraction.”

‘Ivan,’ joins the funeral procession of a distant relative. He’s insecure in his attire, feels apart from the crowd, and decides not to attend the Litany, why join a group who would only receive him under special circumstances? He takes rest in the cemetery, and he begins to hear the dead speak, he converses with them.It turns out that these souls remain ‘alive,’ in a certain way, for two to three months, and then, “bobok.”

They argue, make fun of, and label one another just the same as the living. They know that their moment of consciousness after death is limited and they’re still just bullshitting. At a certain point, they mostly agree that they would like to “abandon [their] sense of shame,” but they had better wait until tomorrow. Yes, they all wish and are eager to finally do away with shame and bare themselves as they could never do while living—but why not tomorrow? Sounds just like the land of the living. ‘Ivan’ sneezes. The dead stop talking.

Upon discovering that there could possibly be some hope for reconciliation of the trouble within ones’ soul, some hope for exposing the true contents of our souls with one another after death, some hope for finding even a brief moment of harmony, Ivan’s takeaway is that there is no hope, that after we fully die, all that remains are six buttons, “bobok.”

So, Dostoevsky Ivan, awakens from this hallucination with a sneeze. The conclusion of this story doesn’t contain a seed of hope, maybe a hope for hope, but no true hope. To know that THIS mind managed to pick itself up and to produce The Brothers Karamazov—a masterpiece that shows the problem and the solution, the question and the answer—is unfuckingbelievable. Dostoevsky, himself, in continuing his work, is an image of faith in action. Active love in spite of suffering.

vi.

I am still having a difficult time mentally reckoning the nonfiction sections of Diary of a Writer with the nine novels of Dostoevsky’s that I have read in the last two semesters. I had previously attempted to write three different blurbs to post on the discussion thread and found myself unable to form complete thoughts on it. This is from the most coherent:

“Reading Diary of a Writer was quite an experience. While I find the humor in his novels pretty apparent, I found it more difficult to discern in the nonfiction parts of Diary when he was being serious and when/if he was totally exaggerating. It was fascinating to recognize some of his characters so clearly in this work — I could see Alyosha, Ivan Karamazov, Prince Myshkin, and Kirillov in specific sections — and it was disturbing to read of his antisemitism written out so blatantly. His repeated insistence that he did not feel hatred toward Jewish people, though, greatly reminded me of the stance taken by transphobic/homophobic people today, with their insistence of, ‘Yeah, they’re all groomers and pedophiles, but I’m not prejudiced! It’s just the truth!’ That sort of defensive justification of stereotypes being a true aspect of marginalized identities is still remarkably prevalent in the current expressions of prejudice, and reading it in Dostoevsky’s voice (which, stylistically, is bizarre to get used to after all the carefully crafted voices of each of his novels’ subjects) it was more disconcerting than I thought it would be...”

Having now read The Adolescent in addition to the assigned books, I can see a sort of pathetic parallel between the way that Dostoevsky and Arkady Dolgoruky talk about the people to whom they set themselves opposed. In both cases, there is a combination of deeply rooted, thought-out prejudice and reactionary, knee-jerk energy in the way that they present their arguments — it feels SO teenage in the way that both litter their ideas with perpetual contradictions and amendments.