What do you think?
Rate this book
Dostoevsky
Gide's brilliant study of the great Russian novelist. This is a fine portrait which throws light on both subject and author, and it has been long missed by admirers of either. Gide's mind is at its sharpest, most penetrating and positive and this analysis reveals him at his critical best. It cannot be said that the public for this will be large, but it will be choice and enthusiastic.
187 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1923
23 people are currently reading
598 people want to read
About the author
André Gide
908 books1,732 followersDiaries and novels, such as
The Immoralist
(1902) and
Lafcadio's Adventures
(1914), of noted French writer André Gide examine alienation and the drive for individuality in an often disapproving society; he won the Nobel Prize of 1947 for literature.
André Paul Guillaume Gide authored books. From beginnings in the symbolist movement, career of Gide ranged to anticolonialism between the two World Wars.
Known for his fiction as well as his autobiographical works, Gide exposes the conflict and eventual reconciliation to public view between the two sides of his personality; a straight-laced education and a narrow social moralism split apart these sides. One can see work of Gide as an investigation of freedom and empowerment in the face of moralistic and puritan constraints, and it gravitates around his continuous effort to achieve intellectual honesty. His self-exploratory texts reflect his search of full self, even to the point of owning sexual nature without betraying values at the same time. After his voyage of 1936 to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the same ethos informs his political activity, as his repudiation of Communism suggests.
Chinese 安德烈·纪德
André Paul Guillaume Gide authored books. From beginnings in the symbolist movement, career of Gide ranged to anticolonialism between the two World Wars.
Known for his fiction as well as his autobiographical works, Gide exposes the conflict and eventual reconciliation to public view between the two sides of his personality; a straight-laced education and a narrow social moralism split apart these sides. One can see work of Gide as an investigation of freedom and empowerment in the face of moralistic and puritan constraints, and it gravitates around his continuous effort to achieve intellectual honesty. His self-exploratory texts reflect his search of full self, even to the point of owning sexual nature without betraying values at the same time. After his voyage of 1936 to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the same ethos informs his political activity, as his repudiation of Communism suggests.
Chinese 安德烈·纪德
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
Read
February 28, 2016First published in 1923 but delivered as a series of lectures in 1922, André Gide's Dostoïevski reveals to the reader almost as much about Gide as it does about Dostoevsky. But for those who know Gide's work well, this is hardly a surprise, for few writers are more autobiographical than Gide was, even in texts that were not explicitly labeled as autobiography. This is not to say that one can learn nothing about Dostoevsky from this little book, but when I read it, I see Gide's enthusiasms and obsessions everywhere.
But let's back up a little first. In 1922/23 Gide (1869-1951) was the éminence grise of La Nouvelle Revue Française, which dominated Parisian intellectual life; he was getting ready to write the groundbreaking Les faux-monnayeurs; and he had already risen from the huge pack of also-rans to the heights of literary recognition by Tout Paris. On the other hand, Fyodor Dostoevsky was, at least to Western Europe, an also-ran; little from Dostoevsky's hand had been translated into French or English (much more had been translated into German). Unable, at least at the time, to read him in the original, Gide had gathered translations of various texts into three languages and read them religiously. And he did so because he saw in Dostoevsky a rare greatness that he felt compelled to communicate to others. Indeed, in the Preface to these lectures Gide asserted that the three greatest sources in which then contemporary Europe could "slake her strange new thirsts" are Dostoevsky, Ibsen and Nietzsche, with Dostoevsky possibly the greatest of the three.
As so often happens when one great writer analyzes the work of another great writer, Gide saw in Dostoevsky's work his own interests and obsessions, either through actual recognition or through projection, and left out the rest. This is why one should be cautious when reading this text: not all aspects of Dostoevsky's multiform work come to notice, and unless one knows both Gide and Dostoevsky well, one cannot easily distinguish which part is actually Dostoevsky and which is Gide.
So Gide, the Protestant moralist who agonized about his relation to God for much of his life and obsessed about his own psychological constitution - itself, by his own telling, torn and deeply self-contradictory - for all of it, lauds Dostoevsky precisely for examining man's relation to self and God. He also enthuses about the convincing multi-sidedness, indeed internal inconsistency,(*) of Dostoevsky's characters, that they are not reduced to symbols and that Dostoevsky's great themes are not reduced to abstractions (both of which, one could make the case, occurred in some of Gide's texts; this he knew himself and reserved the label "novel" for only one of his works: Les faux-monnayeurs). In a lovely passage Gide contrasts Dostoevsky with Balzac, whose chief concern, according to Gide, was the perfect consistency of his characters. He goes on to say that Balzac painted like David and Dostoevsky like Rembrandt.(**)
One begins to see, therefore, that Gide was a perceptive critic, certainly in matters of particular interest to him.
In these lectures and accompanying essay he quoted heavily from Dostoevsky's writings and mined his letters for information about his life and attitudes,(***) from which, among other things, emerges a picture of the immense effort of fashioning and re-fashioning of texts that Dostoevsky exerted for years at a time, despite his perpetually dire financial situation. This Gide, himself a consummate craftsman, deeply appreciated.(4*)
I'm not going to try to summarize the many aspects of Gide's reading of Dostoevsky, how he contrasted him with the rest of then modern literature, and how he worked in his own views of our relation to self and God, but I shall repeat that this text is Janus-faced: both Dostoevsky and Gide peer from these pages.
(*) Which is part of the reason why Dostoevsky's characters, even when quite extreme, seem to ring true to me. The finesse, the subtlety of Dostoevsky's presentation of his main characters proves that their inconsistencies are not the result of authorial sloppiness or stupidity but of well thought out intention. None of us, not even the most rigorously self-contemplative of us, is consistent. How that was an agony to me as a young man... No longer.
(**) Apparently these remarks raised the ire of some loyal Frenchmen, for in one of the later lectures Gide returned to the point in order to defend his position in more detail and to pat back down some ruffled feathers.
(***) And pointed out that his letters - written only when he had to, never for pleasure - were formless, lengthy and manifested "a rich confusion." Gide quoted a passage where Dostoevsky wryly wrote that if he ever is sent to Hell for his sins, he will certainly be condemned to write ten letters a day.
(4*) He himself spent twenty years writing and re-writing his last work, Thésée. Though it is written beautifully and has been termed by some the summation of Gidean concerns, the few passages where the myth was truly reimagined were too few to place it among his best works. In my opinion.
But let's back up a little first. In 1922/23 Gide (1869-1951) was the éminence grise of La Nouvelle Revue Française, which dominated Parisian intellectual life; he was getting ready to write the groundbreaking Les faux-monnayeurs; and he had already risen from the huge pack of also-rans to the heights of literary recognition by Tout Paris. On the other hand, Fyodor Dostoevsky was, at least to Western Europe, an also-ran; little from Dostoevsky's hand had been translated into French or English (much more had been translated into German). Unable, at least at the time, to read him in the original, Gide had gathered translations of various texts into three languages and read them religiously. And he did so because he saw in Dostoevsky a rare greatness that he felt compelled to communicate to others. Indeed, in the Preface to these lectures Gide asserted that the three greatest sources in which then contemporary Europe could "slake her strange new thirsts" are Dostoevsky, Ibsen and Nietzsche, with Dostoevsky possibly the greatest of the three.
As so often happens when one great writer analyzes the work of another great writer, Gide saw in Dostoevsky's work his own interests and obsessions, either through actual recognition or through projection, and left out the rest. This is why one should be cautious when reading this text: not all aspects of Dostoevsky's multiform work come to notice, and unless one knows both Gide and Dostoevsky well, one cannot easily distinguish which part is actually Dostoevsky and which is Gide.
So Gide, the Protestant moralist who agonized about his relation to God for much of his life and obsessed about his own psychological constitution - itself, by his own telling, torn and deeply self-contradictory - for all of it, lauds Dostoevsky precisely for examining man's relation to self and God. He also enthuses about the convincing multi-sidedness, indeed internal inconsistency,(*) of Dostoevsky's characters, that they are not reduced to symbols and that Dostoevsky's great themes are not reduced to abstractions (both of which, one could make the case, occurred in some of Gide's texts; this he knew himself and reserved the label "novel" for only one of his works: Les faux-monnayeurs). In a lovely passage Gide contrasts Dostoevsky with Balzac, whose chief concern, according to Gide, was the perfect consistency of his characters. He goes on to say that Balzac painted like David and Dostoevsky like Rembrandt.(**)
One begins to see, therefore, that Gide was a perceptive critic, certainly in matters of particular interest to him.
In these lectures and accompanying essay he quoted heavily from Dostoevsky's writings and mined his letters for information about his life and attitudes,(***) from which, among other things, emerges a picture of the immense effort of fashioning and re-fashioning of texts that Dostoevsky exerted for years at a time, despite his perpetually dire financial situation. This Gide, himself a consummate craftsman, deeply appreciated.(4*)
I'm not going to try to summarize the many aspects of Gide's reading of Dostoevsky, how he contrasted him with the rest of then modern literature, and how he worked in his own views of our relation to self and God, but I shall repeat that this text is Janus-faced: both Dostoevsky and Gide peer from these pages.
(*) Which is part of the reason why Dostoevsky's characters, even when quite extreme, seem to ring true to me. The finesse, the subtlety of Dostoevsky's presentation of his main characters proves that their inconsistencies are not the result of authorial sloppiness or stupidity but of well thought out intention. None of us, not even the most rigorously self-contemplative of us, is consistent. How that was an agony to me as a young man... No longer.
(**) Apparently these remarks raised the ire of some loyal Frenchmen, for in one of the later lectures Gide returned to the point in order to defend his position in more detail and to pat back down some ruffled feathers.
(***) And pointed out that his letters - written only when he had to, never for pleasure - were formless, lengthy and manifested "a rich confusion." Gide quoted a passage where Dostoevsky wryly wrote that if he ever is sent to Hell for his sins, he will certainly be condemned to write ten letters a day.
(4*) He himself spent twenty years writing and re-writing his last work, Thésée. Though it is written beautifully and has been termed by some the summation of Gidean concerns, the few passages where the myth was truly reimagined were too few to place it among his best works. In my opinion.
June 26, 2022
Odličan prikaz Dostojevskog iz drugog ugla, sa snažnim prikazom i grupisanjem svih njegovih likova, povlačenje paralele između njih, ali i sa lociranjem autora i njegovog ličnog glasa u sopstvenim likovima.
Jako mi se svidio osvrt na dan kada je Dostojevskom pročitana smrtna kazna, pa je odmah zatim pomilovan i odlazi u zatvor u Sibir. Pisao je kako je sve to imalo uticaja na njegovo stvaralaštvo i čemu je tada stremio. Moram priznati da nikada nisam o tome razmišljala, iako sam sva njegova djela pročitala, odnosno, progutala odavno.
Knjigu sam nedavno kupila na sajmu, smatrajući da će biti odlična rekapitulacija opusa mog omiljenog pisca i nisam se ni sekunde prevarila. Ne bih je preporučila nekom ko nije pročitao sve knjige, prije svega jer mislim da je potrebna sva ta podloga za ovu knjigu, te bi bilo teško pratiti ove likove i njihov međusobni odnos, a drugo - prepuna je spojlera.
Uglavnom, knjige ovog tipa me natjeraju da pročitam sve ponovo, tako da - Dostojevski je u najavi za jesen.
Nema autora koji je bio uže ruski i univerzalnije evropski. Baš zato što je bio tako naročito ruski mogao je da bude i tako generalno ljudski, mogao je da dirne svakog od nas na tako poseban način.
Jako mi se svidio osvrt na dan kada je Dostojevskom pročitana smrtna kazna, pa je odmah zatim pomilovan i odlazi u zatvor u Sibir. Pisao je kako je sve to imalo uticaja na njegovo stvaralaštvo i čemu je tada stremio. Moram priznati da nikada nisam o tome razmišljala, iako sam sva njegova djela pročitala, odnosno, progutala odavno.
Knjigu sam nedavno kupila na sajmu, smatrajući da će biti odlična rekapitulacija opusa mog omiljenog pisca i nisam se ni sekunde prevarila. Ne bih je preporučila nekom ko nije pročitao sve knjige, prije svega jer mislim da je potrebna sva ta podloga za ovu knjigu, te bi bilo teško pratiti ove likove i njihov međusobni odnos, a drugo - prepuna je spojlera.
Uglavnom, knjige ovog tipa me natjeraju da pročitam sve ponovo, tako da - Dostojevski je u najavi za jesen.
Nema autora koji je bio uže ruski i univerzalnije evropski. Baš zato što je bio tako naročito ruski mogao je da bude i tako generalno ljudski, mogao je da dirne svakog od nas na tako poseban način.
October 31, 2021
بررسیگسترده داستایفسکی توسط آندره ژید از آیینه نامه ها و آثارش..
در نامه های داستایفسکی ویرانی،تاصل و تکرار میبینیم و در واقع با انسانی ترین وجه مردی فقیر،درمانده،کسل و بیمار رو به رو می شویمکه پیامبر ادبیات نام دارد و بزرگترین اثارشچنان نوشته شده اند که شاهکار های ادبیات جهان نام گرفته اند.
خواندن یک نویسنده با شناخت وی به عنوان یک انسان و شرایط زندگی اش به ما کامل ترین اگاهی را از جهان فکری و زندگی وی می دهد،در واقع با شناخت فرد داستایفسکی آثارش را نیز بهتر می فهمیم و آشناتر درک می کنیم
دید داستایفسکی به جهان را می توان در این جمله از مسیح دید:
"آنکس که می خواهد زندگی خود را نجات دهد،آن را از دست خواهد داد،آنکس که حیات خود را فدای عشق بر من کند،آن را حقیقتا زنده و پویا خواهد ساخت"
داستایفسکی اعتقاد به اتحاد افکار در انسان عالی روسی و متفق ساحتن جریان های فکری و عقیدتی در اندیشه ای واحد با منشا روس داشت..چرا که جهت گیری ها و تفرقه ها را از شناخت نادرست حقیقت می دانست،اینکه این حقیقت چیست نیز خود موضوع دیگری ست،در نگاه من جهان ایده ال داستایفسکی،جهانی ست اگاه و متحد اما با شفقت و روح مسیح،انسان هایی که سعادت معنوی و روحی را بس فراتر از سعادت فردی و مادی سازند،عین گفتار مسیح که انسان ها زندگی خود را وقف بر عشق کنند...
اما تنها جلوه این اتحاد در روسیه را داستایفسکی با مرگ خویش روشن کرد،زمانی که تمام گروه ها و احزاب جدا افتاده و مخالف،در همراهی تابوت وی با اندیشهای ملی در شور شوق متحد شدند.
وگوئه می نویسد:همانگونه که تزار ها اراضی روسیه را یکحا به گرد آوردند،این پادشاه اندیشه در همانجا قلب روس ها را به گرد آورد.
داستایفسکی در خلق اثارش نیمه خوداگاه است،هرگز نمی داند که خود کاملا کیست و به شناخت خود در خلال اثارش و پس از پایان ان می پردازد.
در واقع داستایفسکی هرگز در صددجستجوی خود برنیامده،بلکه خود را از سرپا ناشناخته در اثارش ریخته،در هر یک از شخصیت های کتاب هایش گم شده،به نحوی که در هر یک از ان ها ذره ای از او را باز می شناسیم،در واقع نامه هایش که ناشیگری شدید او هنگامی که راجع به خودش حرف میزتد در مقابل فصاحت اثارش که اندیشه های او را شخصیت های افریده اش بیان می کنند..گویی که اثارش حاصل پیامبری انسان است،پیامبریکه نه قاصد پیام اسمانی ست بلکه پیام اور انچه است که انسان خود در درون دارد.
داستایفسکی،پیامبر انسان
در نامه های داستایفسکی ویرانی،تاصل و تکرار میبینیم و در واقع با انسانی ترین وجه مردی فقیر،درمانده،کسل و بیمار رو به رو می شویمکه پیامبر ادبیات نام دارد و بزرگترین اثارشچنان نوشته شده اند که شاهکار های ادبیات جهان نام گرفته اند.
خواندن یک نویسنده با شناخت وی به عنوان یک انسان و شرایط زندگی اش به ما کامل ترین اگاهی را از جهان فکری و زندگی وی می دهد،در واقع با شناخت فرد داستایفسکی آثارش را نیز بهتر می فهمیم و آشناتر درک می کنیم
دید داستایفسکی به جهان را می توان در این جمله از مسیح دید:
"آنکس که می خواهد زندگی خود را نجات دهد،آن را از دست خواهد داد،آنکس که حیات خود را فدای عشق بر من کند،آن را حقیقتا زنده و پویا خواهد ساخت"
داستایفسکی اعتقاد به اتحاد افکار در انسان عالی روسی و متفق ساحتن جریان های فکری و عقیدتی در اندیشه ای واحد با منشا روس داشت..چرا که جهت گیری ها و تفرقه ها را از شناخت نادرست حقیقت می دانست،اینکه این حقیقت چیست نیز خود موضوع دیگری ست،در نگاه من جهان ایده ال داستایفسکی،جهانی ست اگاه و متحد اما با شفقت و روح مسیح،انسان هایی که سعادت معنوی و روحی را بس فراتر از سعادت فردی و مادی سازند،عین گفتار مسیح که انسان ها زندگی خود را وقف بر عشق کنند...
اما تنها جلوه این اتحاد در روسیه را داستایفسکی با مرگ خویش روشن کرد،زمانی که تمام گروه ها و احزاب جدا افتاده و مخالف،در همراهی تابوت وی با اندیشهای ملی در شور شوق متحد شدند.
وگوئه می نویسد:همانگونه که تزار ها اراضی روسیه را یکحا به گرد آوردند،این پادشاه اندیشه در همانجا قلب روس ها را به گرد آورد.
داستایفسکی در خلق اثارش نیمه خوداگاه است،هرگز نمی داند که خود کاملا کیست و به شناخت خود در خلال اثارش و پس از پایان ان می پردازد.
در واقع داستایفسکی هرگز در صددجستجوی خود برنیامده،بلکه خود را از سرپا ناشناخته در اثارش ریخته،در هر یک از شخصیت های کتاب هایش گم شده،به نحوی که در هر یک از ان ها ذره ای از او را باز می شناسیم،در واقع نامه هایش که ناشیگری شدید او هنگامی که راجع به خودش حرف میزتد در مقابل فصاحت اثارش که اندیشه های او را شخصیت های افریده اش بیان می کنند..گویی که اثارش حاصل پیامبری انسان است،پیامبریکه نه قاصد پیام اسمانی ست بلکه پیام اور انچه است که انسان خود در درون دارد.
داستایفسکی،پیامبر انسان
June 21, 2020
.
ژید به عنوان یک فرانسوی به داستایوفسکی می نگرد. این اختلاف جهان ها بسیار به شناخت فرانسه، روسیه و داستایفسکی کمک می کند.
.
ژید به عنوان یک فرانسوی به داستایوفسکی می نگرد. این اختلاف جهان ها بسیار به شناخت فرانسه، روسیه و داستایفسکی کمک می کند.
.
June 1, 2022
"إن آثار دوستويفسكي تكاد تخلو من الأعتباطية -بالمعنى الحالي للكلمة-، فكل رواية هي نوع من إقامة الدليل أو المرافعة، أو هي ضرب من التبشير. وإذا كان ثمة ما نأخذه على هذا الفنان المدهش فهو مبالغته في العناية بالبرهان. إن دوستويفسكي لايهدف قط إلى التأثير في آرائنا، بل الى إضاءة الطريق أمامنا، وإلى توضيح بعض الحقائق الخفية التي تبهره هو، والتي تبدو له -ولنا في ما بعد- ذات أهمية بالغة.إن الحقائق المجردة، أو تلك التي تبعد عن المضمون الانساني، ليس هي أهم ما يستطيع العقل الانساني التوصل اليه، فأهم منها تلك الحقائق التي تتصل اتصالا وثيقا بالانسان، أي الحقائق السرية........."
أنديه جيد الكاتب والناقد الفرنسي الكبير يكتب عن دوستويفسكي، إنه ايضا أحد طلاب دوستويفسكي ويشهد له بالعظمة والانفراد، يضعه في مرتبة عالية خاصة مع كل من بيتهوفن والرسام رامبرانت، يكتب كتابه العلمي الذي هو عبارة عن مقالات ومحاضرات باسلوب دقيق مرتب، لكن مع ذلك لايحاول أن يخفي عواطفه الجياشة وإعجابه عند التعبير عن آرائه، ولهذا كله جاء كتابه ممتعا وثريا مع اسلوبه العميق ومصطلحاته الدقيقة.
كذلك فإن الترجمة كانت مرتبة وأنيقة، يظهر عليها العمل الدؤوب والجهد الجهيد، فقط كانت بعض عناوين روايات دوستويفسكي مختلفة عن الطبعات المشهورة المعروفة، فمثلا رواية الروح الخفي التي وردت كثيرا بالذات في الكتاب عرفت بعد البحث انها نفس رواية (العذبة) و(الوديعة) في ترجمات أخرى.
أخيرا أنوه ان الكتاب بالطبع يحتوي الكثير من النصوص المقتبسة من روايات الكاتب، مثل نصوص من (المسكونون)أو(الشياطين)، (المراهق)،(الجريمة والعقاب)، (الابله) و(الاخوة كارمازوف)، لذلك هو لايصلح لمن لم يقرأ هذه الروايات وينوي قراءتها.
June 13, 2020
.
استراخف میگوید که ترقیخواهان «از نژاد سیاستبازانی هستند که پیشرفت فرهنگ روسی را نه از طریق توسعه حیاتی سرمایه معنوی ملی، بلکه از طریق به تحلیل بردن عجولانه آموزشهای غربی امکانپذیر میدانند.»
استراخف میگوید که ترقیخواهان «از نژاد سیاستبازانی هستند که پیشرفت فرهنگ روسی را نه از طریق توسعه حیاتی سرمایه معنوی ملی، بلکه از طریق به تحلیل بردن عجولانه آموزشهای غربی امکانپذیر میدانند.»
May 2, 2016
مقالات ومحاضرات للحائز على نوبل آندريه جيد جمعت في هذا الكتاب. تقريباً، يمكن القول أن التحليلات والاقتباسات والملاحظات التي بناه آندريه هنا استقت أكثر مادتها من رسائل دستويفسكي. ولأن طبيعة الرسائل نفسها مفككة وغير مترابطة، فستكون قراءة الكتاب مُشتِتَة بعض الشيء. على كل حال، لا يعني هذا أنه لم يتعرض لروايات دستويفسكي. ملاحظات الكاتب وتحليلاته للروايات أعجبتني للغاية، خصوصاً مقارناته بين فيدور ونيتشه، وأن كتابات دستويفسكي مسيحية إنجيلية مهما شطحت بشخصياتها وأفكارها، وهو يشدد على هذه الناحية، ويقول بأن فيدور دستويفسكي أكثر الناس بعداً عن الكاثولوكية وأقربهم للمسيحية. في المجمل، كتاب جيد.
August 11, 2020
مقاله درجه یک و مفصلی بود
اگه داستایوفسکی خون هستید ( که اگر نیستید از زیان کارانید) حتما بخونیدش و سراسر لذت ببرید
اگه داستایوفسکی خون هستید ( که اگر نیستید از زیان کارانید) حتما بخونیدش و سراسر لذت ببرید
September 14, 2017
Wow. Gide is a friggin genius. I had read Dostoevsky in my early 20s and this totally rekindled my desire to read him once again. The book is an incredibly insightful summary of some of the key ideas that drove Dostoevsky and some of those key ideas behind his books like karamazov brothers and crime and punishment. The morality that drove Dostoevsky really came out in the book. This was a series of lectures that Gide gave at a dramatic art school in France in 1922. Here are some of the best bits:
- For whoever will save his life shall lose it but whosoever will give his life for my sake the same shall save it. This is the sacred text to which over many decades Gide succeeded in attaching the most diverse and even diabolic meaning.
- Never mind how fertile an ideal imported from abroad, it can only prove to be of genuine use if our national life arises and without pressure from without makes the idea grow up naturally and practically to meet its own needs , needs which have been recognised by a practical experience. No nation on earth Or society with a certain measure of stability has been developed to order on the lines of a programme imported from abroad.
- True greatness can be touched and handled and looses nothing when seen at close quarters. The better your are acquainted with it the more you admire it. It bends out of goodness of heart to its inferiors and returns to. It's own level with effort. sometimes it lets itself go neglecting and surrendering its natural advantages ever ready to recover them And put them to use.
- Their literary creator who seeks himself runs a degree of risk - the risk of finding oneself. His greatest dread is no longer insincerity but inconsistency. The true artist is never but half conscious of himself when creating. He does not know exactly who he is. He learns to know himself only through his creations.
- To lose courage is to sin, work ever more work con amore therein lies real happiness.
- (When in prison in Siberia Dostoevsky wrote to his brother) - send me the Koran and Kants critique of pure reason and if you have the chance of sending me anything not officially then be sure to send Hegel.
- For if humility be a surrender of pride humiliation on the other hand but serves to strengthen it.
- We shall soon see the excess of hatred to be nothing other than love inverted.
- Habit Is everything even in love says vauvenargues and you remember la rouchefoucauld's maxim : how many men would never have known love if they had Never heard of love.
- Yes convention is the great breeder of falsehood. How many are forced to play their life long part strangely foreign to themselves and how difficult it is to discern in ourselves a feeling not perviously described and present before us as a model. Man finds it easier to imitate everything than to invent something.
- In his eyes it is the intellect which individualises and which is the enemy of the kingdom of heaven.
- What can mankind accomplish? What can one single man accomplish? The question implies the terrible apprehension that man could have been other than he is, could have accomplished and could yet accomplish greater things whereas he is content to take his graceless ease at the first halting place without thought of crowning his progress.
- The mind does not act it conditions action.
- There are seconds—they come five or six at a time—when you suddenly feel the presence of eternal harmony in all its perfection. It’s not of this earth, I don’t mean by that that it’s something heavenly but only that man, as he is constituted on earth, can’t endure it. He must be either physically transformed or die. It is a clear, unmistakable sensation. It is as though you were suddenly in contact with the whole of nature, and you say, “Yes, this is the truth.” When God was creating the world, He said, after each day’s creation, “Yes, this is the truth, it’s Good.” It’s not elation, really, it’s simply joy…. If it lasted for more than five seconds, the soul wouldn’t be able to stand it; it would have to disappear.
- Dostoevsky - the only person who taught me anything about psychology said Nietzsche.
- For whoever will save his life shall lose it but whosoever will give his life for my sake the same shall save it. This is the sacred text to which over many decades Gide succeeded in attaching the most diverse and even diabolic meaning.
- Never mind how fertile an ideal imported from abroad, it can only prove to be of genuine use if our national life arises and without pressure from without makes the idea grow up naturally and practically to meet its own needs , needs which have been recognised by a practical experience. No nation on earth Or society with a certain measure of stability has been developed to order on the lines of a programme imported from abroad.
- True greatness can be touched and handled and looses nothing when seen at close quarters. The better your are acquainted with it the more you admire it. It bends out of goodness of heart to its inferiors and returns to. It's own level with effort. sometimes it lets itself go neglecting and surrendering its natural advantages ever ready to recover them And put them to use.
- Their literary creator who seeks himself runs a degree of risk - the risk of finding oneself. His greatest dread is no longer insincerity but inconsistency. The true artist is never but half conscious of himself when creating. He does not know exactly who he is. He learns to know himself only through his creations.
- To lose courage is to sin, work ever more work con amore therein lies real happiness.
- (When in prison in Siberia Dostoevsky wrote to his brother) - send me the Koran and Kants critique of pure reason and if you have the chance of sending me anything not officially then be sure to send Hegel.
- For if humility be a surrender of pride humiliation on the other hand but serves to strengthen it.
- We shall soon see the excess of hatred to be nothing other than love inverted.
- Habit Is everything even in love says vauvenargues and you remember la rouchefoucauld's maxim : how many men would never have known love if they had Never heard of love.
- Yes convention is the great breeder of falsehood. How many are forced to play their life long part strangely foreign to themselves and how difficult it is to discern in ourselves a feeling not perviously described and present before us as a model. Man finds it easier to imitate everything than to invent something.
- In his eyes it is the intellect which individualises and which is the enemy of the kingdom of heaven.
- What can mankind accomplish? What can one single man accomplish? The question implies the terrible apprehension that man could have been other than he is, could have accomplished and could yet accomplish greater things whereas he is content to take his graceless ease at the first halting place without thought of crowning his progress.
- The mind does not act it conditions action.
- There are seconds—they come five or six at a time—when you suddenly feel the presence of eternal harmony in all its perfection. It’s not of this earth, I don’t mean by that that it’s something heavenly but only that man, as he is constituted on earth, can’t endure it. He must be either physically transformed or die. It is a clear, unmistakable sensation. It is as though you were suddenly in contact with the whole of nature, and you say, “Yes, this is the truth.” When God was creating the world, He said, after each day’s creation, “Yes, this is the truth, it’s Good.” It’s not elation, really, it’s simply joy…. If it lasted for more than five seconds, the soul wouldn’t be able to stand it; it would have to disappear.
- Dostoevsky - the only person who taught me anything about psychology said Nietzsche.
November 27, 2022
1947 yılı Nobel Edebiyat Ödülü sahibi André Gide’in, titiz ve detaylı incelemesiyle Dostoyevski’yi kendi kelimeleriyle resmettiği “portre”, yazarla ilgili bilinmeyenleri ortaya koyuyor, okurda yazarın düşün dünyasına dair kavrayış sağlıyor.
Kitap incelemesini okumak için: artfulliving.com.tr/edebiyat/andr-gid...
Kitap incelemesini okumak için: artfulliving.com.tr/edebiyat/andr-gid...
Read
December 26, 2019DNF
I don’t understand anything Gide is writing, and I can’t be bothered to figure it out.
I don’t understand anything Gide is writing, and I can’t be bothered to figure it out.
July 1, 2021
ممتع 🌹
May 18, 2022
First published in 1923, at a time when Dostoevsky had yet to be rediscovered by the West, French author André Gide’s observations about the great writer are fascinating (and revealing about Gide as well). It’s far from a complete account, but there are plenty of gems to be found, such as Gide’s observation that Dostoevsky’s characters “group and arrange themselves always on one plane only, that of humility and pride.” Of special interest also were a sampling from Dostoevsky’s letters, including the one he wrote on December 22, 1849, the day his death sentence was stayed by the Tsar at the last minute, and another he wrote five years later which described in detail the journey he and his fellow prisoners took to Siberia, as well as the brutal conditions he found there.
Gide helps reveal the many bitter ironies about Dostoevsky’s life – the fact that despite his delicacy in childhood, he was drafted into the military, whereas his more robust brother Michael was rejected. That after his first four years in exile, when he wasn’t allowed to correspond with anyone, he spent six years pleading with his brother to write him, and to send him books – but never heard a word. “He wept when he bade me good-bye. Has his feeling towards me grown cold? Has his character changed? That would be a grief. Has he forgotten all the past?” he wrote a friend in 1856. That in the last year of his life, despite winning over public opinion, he was still struggling with attacks in the press, writing “For what I said in Moscow [his speech on ‘Pushkin,’ now revered], just look how I’ve been treated by almost the whole of the press: it is as if I were a thief or had embezzled from some bank or other. Ukhantsev [a notororious swindler of the time] is less foully abused than I.” It was during these final years, shortly before he died at just 59, that he would lament “the weakening of his memory and his imagination,” and yet it was at this time that he still produced his masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov, which is as inspiring as it is humbling.
All of these aspects of his life seem to have fueled his self-doubt as a writer, his humility as a person, his awkwardness around others, and his submissiveness that seemed to channel Christ (e.g. still believing in the Emperor’s kindness after 10 years of exile). They were all facets of a genuinely vulnerable person. He was a man who knew pain, poverty, physical affliction (his epilepsy), and mental obsession (his gambling), and yet through it all he was generous to those around him and remained an optimist, both in Russia and in humanity. He resisted the Westernization of Russa, famously feuding with Turgenev, instead believing that Russia could help heal the party passions that were dividing Europe. And remarkably, during his exile, after having lived in frigid conditions with meager provisions for four years, he wrote, “Brother, there are very many noble natures in the world.”
There is such depth of feeling and authenticity in his work not because it is perfect precise and tidied up, but because it reflects the contradictions in people and remains gloriously messy. As Gide expresses it, he himself was a man of contradictions: “Conservative, but not hide-bound by traditions: monarchist, but of democratic opinions: Christian, but not a Roman Catholic: liberal, but not a progressive … he is of the stuff which displeases every party.” And yet Dostoevsky never tried to fit a mold, and said “The hardest thing on earth is to remain yourself.” He was raw, pure, natural. And thus, “with him there is no attempt to straighten or simplify lines; he is at his happiest in the complex; he fosters it.”
I liked how Gide rather poetically expressed the craft in Dostoevsky’s writing. “Balzac paints like David; Dostoevsky like Rembrandt,” he writes in the preface. In one of the lectures that were transcribed for the book, he says “In one of Stendhal’s novels, the light is constant, steady, and well-diffused. Every object is lit up in the same way, and is visible equally well from all angles; there are no shadow effects. But in Dostoevsky’s books, as in Rembrandt’s portrait, the shadows are the essential. Dostoevsky groups his characters and happenings, plays a brilliant light upon them, illuminating one aspect only.”
In a thought-provoking way, Gide also compares Nietzsche’s reaction to the Gospels as one of jealousy leading to the Superman, with Dostoevsky’s which is one of submission. In Dostoevsky, he writes, “the will to power leads inevitably to ruin,” whereas in Nietzsche it’s the opposite. In Dostoevsky, rationality and the mind are “demonic,” he says, and that “Dostoevsky’s heroes inherit the Kingdom of God only by the denial of mind and will and the surrender of personality.” That may sound antithetical to progress or what an atheist intellectual like me may buy into, but if I think of the “mind” in this context as ego, which in turns leads to competitiveness and internal suffering, I see the wisdom that I’ve always found in Dostoevsky.
There were many bits here and there that didn’t ring true e.g. Gide saying the influence of WWI upon literature was “nil,” or that jealousy might not be felt if people hadn’t read of it and expected themselves to feel that way, or subscribing to Mme. Hoffmann’s view that Russian mistrustfulness stemmed from “consciousness of his own insufficiency and proneness to sin,” or stating that “with physical well-being, mental activity is in abeyance.”
However, there is also wisdom in Gide’s anecdotes, such as this one from Walter Rathenau, who had been asking about Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution. “His answer was that naturally he had suffered at the horrible abominations practiced by the revolutionaries. ‘But believe me,’ he added, ‘a nation learns to know itself, as a man his own soul, only by passing through the depths of his suffering and the abyss of his sin…And America has not yet gained a soul because she refuses to accept sin and suffering.” I thought that was incredibly prescient, given America’s refusal to truly atone for its two original sins, slavery and genocide.
This is certainly not the final word on Dostoevsky, but it was a pleasure to read the insights from an aficionada in the literati nearly a century ago.
Gide helps reveal the many bitter ironies about Dostoevsky’s life – the fact that despite his delicacy in childhood, he was drafted into the military, whereas his more robust brother Michael was rejected. That after his first four years in exile, when he wasn’t allowed to correspond with anyone, he spent six years pleading with his brother to write him, and to send him books – but never heard a word. “He wept when he bade me good-bye. Has his feeling towards me grown cold? Has his character changed? That would be a grief. Has he forgotten all the past?” he wrote a friend in 1856. That in the last year of his life, despite winning over public opinion, he was still struggling with attacks in the press, writing “For what I said in Moscow [his speech on ‘Pushkin,’ now revered], just look how I’ve been treated by almost the whole of the press: it is as if I were a thief or had embezzled from some bank or other. Ukhantsev [a notororious swindler of the time] is less foully abused than I.” It was during these final years, shortly before he died at just 59, that he would lament “the weakening of his memory and his imagination,” and yet it was at this time that he still produced his masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov, which is as inspiring as it is humbling.
All of these aspects of his life seem to have fueled his self-doubt as a writer, his humility as a person, his awkwardness around others, and his submissiveness that seemed to channel Christ (e.g. still believing in the Emperor’s kindness after 10 years of exile). They were all facets of a genuinely vulnerable person. He was a man who knew pain, poverty, physical affliction (his epilepsy), and mental obsession (his gambling), and yet through it all he was generous to those around him and remained an optimist, both in Russia and in humanity. He resisted the Westernization of Russa, famously feuding with Turgenev, instead believing that Russia could help heal the party passions that were dividing Europe. And remarkably, during his exile, after having lived in frigid conditions with meager provisions for four years, he wrote, “Brother, there are very many noble natures in the world.”
There is such depth of feeling and authenticity in his work not because it is perfect precise and tidied up, but because it reflects the contradictions in people and remains gloriously messy. As Gide expresses it, he himself was a man of contradictions: “Conservative, but not hide-bound by traditions: monarchist, but of democratic opinions: Christian, but not a Roman Catholic: liberal, but not a progressive … he is of the stuff which displeases every party.” And yet Dostoevsky never tried to fit a mold, and said “The hardest thing on earth is to remain yourself.” He was raw, pure, natural. And thus, “with him there is no attempt to straighten or simplify lines; he is at his happiest in the complex; he fosters it.”
I liked how Gide rather poetically expressed the craft in Dostoevsky’s writing. “Balzac paints like David; Dostoevsky like Rembrandt,” he writes in the preface. In one of the lectures that were transcribed for the book, he says “In one of Stendhal’s novels, the light is constant, steady, and well-diffused. Every object is lit up in the same way, and is visible equally well from all angles; there are no shadow effects. But in Dostoevsky’s books, as in Rembrandt’s portrait, the shadows are the essential. Dostoevsky groups his characters and happenings, plays a brilliant light upon them, illuminating one aspect only.”
In a thought-provoking way, Gide also compares Nietzsche’s reaction to the Gospels as one of jealousy leading to the Superman, with Dostoevsky’s which is one of submission. In Dostoevsky, he writes, “the will to power leads inevitably to ruin,” whereas in Nietzsche it’s the opposite. In Dostoevsky, rationality and the mind are “demonic,” he says, and that “Dostoevsky’s heroes inherit the Kingdom of God only by the denial of mind and will and the surrender of personality.” That may sound antithetical to progress or what an atheist intellectual like me may buy into, but if I think of the “mind” in this context as ego, which in turns leads to competitiveness and internal suffering, I see the wisdom that I’ve always found in Dostoevsky.
There were many bits here and there that didn’t ring true e.g. Gide saying the influence of WWI upon literature was “nil,” or that jealousy might not be felt if people hadn’t read of it and expected themselves to feel that way, or subscribing to Mme. Hoffmann’s view that Russian mistrustfulness stemmed from “consciousness of his own insufficiency and proneness to sin,” or stating that “with physical well-being, mental activity is in abeyance.”
However, there is also wisdom in Gide’s anecdotes, such as this one from Walter Rathenau, who had been asking about Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution. “His answer was that naturally he had suffered at the horrible abominations practiced by the revolutionaries. ‘But believe me,’ he added, ‘a nation learns to know itself, as a man his own soul, only by passing through the depths of his suffering and the abyss of his sin…And America has not yet gained a soul because she refuses to accept sin and suffering.” I thought that was incredibly prescient, given America’s refusal to truly atone for its two original sins, slavery and genocide.
This is certainly not the final word on Dostoevsky, but it was a pleasure to read the insights from an aficionada in the literati nearly a century ago.
December 14, 2019
Free download available at Project Gutenberg
I made the proofing of this book for Free Literature and it will be published by Project Gutenberg.
I made the proofing of this book for Free Literature and it will be published by Project Gutenberg.
February 2, 2017
André Gide -escritor francés y Premio Nobel de Literatura en 1947– nos presenta, a través de una serie de artículos y conferencias que hizo en vida, su retrato de Dostoievski, el gran escritor ruso que llevaría a cabo grandes obras como Crimen y Castigo o Los Hermanos Karamazov.
Según lo que nos cuenta Gide, Dostoievski no escribirá por placer. Para él la correspondencia, de hecho, es aburrida y no le inspira nada. El autor suele escribir acerca de todo pero a la misma vez tiene la impresión de que no cuenta nada, lo cual es curioso porque cuando le leemos da la impresión de saber muchísimas cosas, de mostrarnos aspectos ocultos de la vida que no hemos podido llegar a ver. La escritura epistolar es desde luego reveladora acerca del carácter de Dostoievski; pareciera que leemos a alguien cercano y humilde acerca de lo que le rodea e incumbe. Dostoievski es así, al menos es como así nos lo muestra Gide.
Dostoievski tenía la convicción de que con más tiempo y libertad siempre habría podido escribir más; cabe decir que una parte de su obra la escribió estando preso en Siberia. De hecho, lo encarcelaron porque consideraban su profesión, la de escritor, como algo antigubernamental. Hay cierto cariz autobiográfico, en el fondo siempre lo hay, en las cartas que escribe a sus seres queridos. Habla de sus libros y de su manera de trabajar. El autor escribe sobre Rusia y sus compatriotas, cosa que se puede ver a lo largo de su trayectoria literaria. Y eso que, paradójicamente, era una persona apátrida y universal.
Gide escribe sobre Dostoievski como si lo hiciera sobre un amigo: atenta, inteligente y honestamente. Para Gide, el autor ruso está lleno de contradicciones, de síes y noes, de nuncas y siempres. Le gusta comparar a Dostoievski con Rembrandt o Beethoven, pues lo considera como a uno de los autores más prolíficos y con una agudeza de pensamiento extremadamente extraordinaria. Para André Gide, los personajes sobre los que el autor escribe son irresolutos y casi irresponsables. Además, sus libros, resuenan íntimamente en su interior y los siente cercanos ya que reflejan la vida como tal. Son libros que laten, que tienen alma, mente y corazón propio. Reflejan humanidad. Debido a esto, no es de extrañar que no sólo a Gide, Dostoievski fuera un psicólogo, sociólogo y moralista de la palabra.
André Gide no se molesta en hacer una biografía detallada de Dostoievski, simplemente nos muestra anotaciones, ideas y pensamientos sobre su vida y su obra. Gide no se anda con rodeos, es directo y a través de él aprendemos lo justo y necesario sobre el protagonista. Nos hace querer leerlo, saber de primera mano sobre lo que escribe. Dostoievski era una persona espiritual, con una gran fuerza interior y unas ganas inmensas por expresarse. Los diversos fragmentos de las obras de Dostoievski que se nos muestran aquí nos sitúan sobre la calidad con la que el autor escribe. No hace falta que hayamos leído algún libro del autor, Gide nos lo introduce de manera amena y plena, nos hace querer saber más sobre los personajes de las diferentes novelas que nos muestra.
Se nos muestra también a un autor político que no supo acertar con la sociedad que le acontecía. Los escritos sobre esto se pueden ver en el libro de artículos Diario de un escritor, donde expresó sus ideas sociales y políticas. El autor del que hablamos produciría la mayor parte de su obra de noche y, según Gide, lo que más importa en un libro de Dostoievski, al igual que en una pintura de Rembrandt, es la sombra. Con ello Gide nos muestra los diferentes fragmentos que reflejan esto. La psicología de las novelas del autor es pura y es la esencia misma sobre la que trascurren todas las historias. André Gide se identifica con el escritor ruso, lo considera un igual pero también un genio de la palabra.
Estamos, sin duda, ante un libro necesario e introductorio sobre las obras e ideas de Dostoievski, indicado tanto para los que no lo han leído aún como para aquellos que ya se han adentrado en sus páginas.
Según lo que nos cuenta Gide, Dostoievski no escribirá por placer. Para él la correspondencia, de hecho, es aburrida y no le inspira nada. El autor suele escribir acerca de todo pero a la misma vez tiene la impresión de que no cuenta nada, lo cual es curioso porque cuando le leemos da la impresión de saber muchísimas cosas, de mostrarnos aspectos ocultos de la vida que no hemos podido llegar a ver. La escritura epistolar es desde luego reveladora acerca del carácter de Dostoievski; pareciera que leemos a alguien cercano y humilde acerca de lo que le rodea e incumbe. Dostoievski es así, al menos es como así nos lo muestra Gide.
Dostoievski tenía la convicción de que con más tiempo y libertad siempre habría podido escribir más; cabe decir que una parte de su obra la escribió estando preso en Siberia. De hecho, lo encarcelaron porque consideraban su profesión, la de escritor, como algo antigubernamental. Hay cierto cariz autobiográfico, en el fondo siempre lo hay, en las cartas que escribe a sus seres queridos. Habla de sus libros y de su manera de trabajar. El autor escribe sobre Rusia y sus compatriotas, cosa que se puede ver a lo largo de su trayectoria literaria. Y eso que, paradójicamente, era una persona apátrida y universal.
Gide escribe sobre Dostoievski como si lo hiciera sobre un amigo: atenta, inteligente y honestamente. Para Gide, el autor ruso está lleno de contradicciones, de síes y noes, de nuncas y siempres. Le gusta comparar a Dostoievski con Rembrandt o Beethoven, pues lo considera como a uno de los autores más prolíficos y con una agudeza de pensamiento extremadamente extraordinaria. Para André Gide, los personajes sobre los que el autor escribe son irresolutos y casi irresponsables. Además, sus libros, resuenan íntimamente en su interior y los siente cercanos ya que reflejan la vida como tal. Son libros que laten, que tienen alma, mente y corazón propio. Reflejan humanidad. Debido a esto, no es de extrañar que no sólo a Gide, Dostoievski fuera un psicólogo, sociólogo y moralista de la palabra.
André Gide no se molesta en hacer una biografía detallada de Dostoievski, simplemente nos muestra anotaciones, ideas y pensamientos sobre su vida y su obra. Gide no se anda con rodeos, es directo y a través de él aprendemos lo justo y necesario sobre el protagonista. Nos hace querer leerlo, saber de primera mano sobre lo que escribe. Dostoievski era una persona espiritual, con una gran fuerza interior y unas ganas inmensas por expresarse. Los diversos fragmentos de las obras de Dostoievski que se nos muestran aquí nos sitúan sobre la calidad con la que el autor escribe. No hace falta que hayamos leído algún libro del autor, Gide nos lo introduce de manera amena y plena, nos hace querer saber más sobre los personajes de las diferentes novelas que nos muestra.
Se nos muestra también a un autor político que no supo acertar con la sociedad que le acontecía. Los escritos sobre esto se pueden ver en el libro de artículos Diario de un escritor, donde expresó sus ideas sociales y políticas. El autor del que hablamos produciría la mayor parte de su obra de noche y, según Gide, lo que más importa en un libro de Dostoievski, al igual que en una pintura de Rembrandt, es la sombra. Con ello Gide nos muestra los diferentes fragmentos que reflejan esto. La psicología de las novelas del autor es pura y es la esencia misma sobre la que trascurren todas las historias. André Gide se identifica con el escritor ruso, lo considera un igual pero también un genio de la palabra.
Estamos, sin duda, ante un libro necesario e introductorio sobre las obras e ideas de Dostoievski, indicado tanto para los que no lo han leído aún como para aquellos que ya se han adentrado en sus páginas.
November 1, 2017
Kundera was right: André Gide is one author who understood Dostoevsky, both the writer and his work. Gide himself was also a novelist, that seems significant.
In the first chapter, he presents Dostoevsky’s letters—letters badly written, with little regard for style, ideas unorganized but ‘rich in confusion.’ Here Dostoevsky almost seems like an ordinary writer . . . ‘a fellow mortal, sick, poor, toiling without respite, and strangely lacking in . . . eloquence.’ But then he toils without respite, until each page becomes the ‘expression of his very being.’ ‘Nothing helps us better estimate the distance between a work and its creator,’ writes Gide.
Gide then slowly works through Dostoevsky’s ideas or beliefs, which I can’t summarize here even if I wanted to. Of course in so short a book, you one can’t have everything. I wish Gide had covered more ground in explaining Dostoevsky’s “craft,” but it’s hard to complain.
In the first chapter, he presents Dostoevsky’s letters—letters badly written, with little regard for style, ideas unorganized but ‘rich in confusion.’ Here Dostoevsky almost seems like an ordinary writer . . . ‘a fellow mortal, sick, poor, toiling without respite, and strangely lacking in . . . eloquence.’ But then he toils without respite, until each page becomes the ‘expression of his very being.’ ‘Nothing helps us better estimate the distance between a work and its creator,’ writes Gide.
Gide then slowly works through Dostoevsky’s ideas or beliefs, which I can’t summarize here even if I wanted to. Of course in so short a book, you one can’t have everything. I wish Gide had covered more ground in explaining Dostoevsky’s “craft,” but it’s hard to complain.
June 17, 2013
بطبيعتي، لست من هواة كتب السير الذاتية، أو التي تتحدث عن الأشخاص.. ولكنني من حين لآخر أعمد إلى قراءتها... مشكلة هذه النوعية من الكتب أنها لا تعطي المكتوب عنه أو عنها حقه /ا.. وخاصةٍ عندما يكون المؤلف من بلد آخر.. أو زمن غير الذي عاش به الشخص المكتوب عنه...
أشهر روايات دوستويفسكي الجريمة والعقاب
وأفضلها مريم الأزلية..
وهو برأيي، تأثر بالسنوات التي قضاها في السجن (وربما حسب اعتقادي ساعده على كتابة الجريمة والعقاب)، وبعدها السنوات التي خدمها في الجيش في سيبيريا... ومرضه، وحظه العثر، و... و... كل هذه العوامل صاغت منه رهافة الإحساس ودقة الوصف... أمجد فيه أنه بعد سنوات السجن، أصبح أديباً مميزاً.. حيث لو كان شخص غيره لسعى للانتقام ولأصبح مجرماً حقيقياً
أكثر ما أعجبني من أفعاله، أنه عندما كان في السجن، كان أكثر ما طلبه من أخوه عن طريق الرسائل هو الكتب، وأصر عليها أكثر من مرة...
كم سجين عندنا يمارس القراءة؟؟!! نحن من هم خارج السجون لا يقرأون فكيف من بداخله...
يمكن قراءته
أشهر روايات دوستويفسكي الجريمة والعقاب
وأفضلها مريم الأزلية..
وهو برأيي، تأثر بالسنوات التي قضاها في السجن (وربما حسب اعتقادي ساعده على كتابة الجريمة والعقاب)، وبعدها السنوات التي خدمها في الجيش في سيبيريا... ومرضه، وحظه العثر، و... و... كل هذه العوامل صاغت منه رهافة الإحساس ودقة الوصف... أمجد فيه أنه بعد سنوات السجن، أصبح أديباً مميزاً.. حيث لو كان شخص غيره لسعى للانتقام ولأصبح مجرماً حقيقياً
أكثر ما أعجبني من أفعاله، أنه عندما كان في السجن، كان أكثر ما طلبه من أخوه عن طريق الرسائل هو الكتب، وأصر عليها أكثر من مرة...
كم سجين عندنا يمارس القراءة؟؟!! نحن من هم خارج السجون لا يقرأون فكيف من بداخله...
يمكن قراءته
November 22, 2014
I really prefer Gide as a critic, even if I don't always agree with his opinions. And this one is probably my favourite book by him. It's not perfect but I think Dostoevsky's mysterious aura makes it difficult to grasp the essence of his writing and this text is close enough.
Happy birthday, Andre Gide :)
Happy birthday, Andre Gide :)
October 30, 2015
ثمة افكار في هذا الكتاب لا تستحق الاهمال ,, كمدخل لعالم "دوستويفسكي" يبدو رائعا ,, كاتب لطيف واسلوبه بسيط في طرح ما اراده -ان استثنينا شروده عن الموضوع الرئيس في بعض الفصول-
January 11, 2023
Andre Gide'nin Dostoyevski derlemesi olan bu kotap, tüm okuduğum eserleri gözümün önünden tekrardan geçerken, çok güzel bir okuma yaşadım kendi adıma, ne güzel yazmışsın hep Dostoyevski, ne güzel anlatmışsın tüm bunları Gide***
Kitap için hissettiğim durum Gide'nin de kendi içinde yaşadığı tedirginliklerin tercümesini ifade eder gibi yani sanki kendi takıldığı tüm durumları anlatırken kendi tereddütlerini yansıtıp cevaplarını bulmuş gibi Dostoyevski de ya da bu durum sadece benim kendimce hissetmelerim :))) Tanrı inanışı, içimizde yaşanan ikilemler yada iyilik kötülük teması içinde toplumsal yaşanmışlıklar.
Dostoyevskinin eserlerine dokundurmalarla ilerleyen yazar kendi içinde dönem yazarlarıyla da kıyaslar ki Balzac ve Dickens örnekleri kıyaslamaların da aynı düşüncedeyim şaşırtmayan Dickens ile yine toplumsal dokundurmalar içindeki İnsanlık Komedyası ile Balzac... Ve daha nice edebi yönden eser ve yazar örnekleriyle edebi şölen içinde okuma ayrı bir zevke ulaşıyor...
Tüm önemli sevdiğim kitaplarındaki karakter tahlilleri ve kendi yaşadığı ruh yansımaları kendi adıma tekrardan hatırlamak ayrı bir tad verdi, iyiki külliyat bitmek üzereyken görmüşüm bu kitabı ve okumuşum, benim için başka 1anlam taşıdı, külliyatta son kitap kalmışken bitince ayrı Zweig Dostoyevski biyografi kitabında hatırlamayı şimdiden iple çekiyorum. Özellikle Gide'nin de vurgu yaptığı son an kısmı hep etkiledi, etkiliyor ve de sonuna kadar etkileyecek, külliyat bitse de kesinlikle ikinci defa kimi okumak istersin deseler, Dostoyevski derim*** Çok severek, edebi zevke doyarak okudum. Herkese sağlıklı mutlu huzurlu keyifli okumalar dilerim...
Kitap için hissettiğim durum Gide'nin de kendi içinde yaşadığı tedirginliklerin tercümesini ifade eder gibi yani sanki kendi takıldığı tüm durumları anlatırken kendi tereddütlerini yansıtıp cevaplarını bulmuş gibi Dostoyevski de ya da bu durum sadece benim kendimce hissetmelerim :))) Tanrı inanışı, içimizde yaşanan ikilemler yada iyilik kötülük teması içinde toplumsal yaşanmışlıklar.
Dostoyevskinin eserlerine dokundurmalarla ilerleyen yazar kendi içinde dönem yazarlarıyla da kıyaslar ki Balzac ve Dickens örnekleri kıyaslamaların da aynı düşüncedeyim şaşırtmayan Dickens ile yine toplumsal dokundurmalar içindeki İnsanlık Komedyası ile Balzac... Ve daha nice edebi yönden eser ve yazar örnekleriyle edebi şölen içinde okuma ayrı bir zevke ulaşıyor...
Tüm önemli sevdiğim kitaplarındaki karakter tahlilleri ve kendi yaşadığı ruh yansımaları kendi adıma tekrardan hatırlamak ayrı bir tad verdi, iyiki külliyat bitmek üzereyken görmüşüm bu kitabı ve okumuşum, benim için başka 1anlam taşıdı, külliyatta son kitap kalmışken bitince ayrı Zweig Dostoyevski biyografi kitabında hatırlamayı şimdiden iple çekiyorum. Özellikle Gide'nin de vurgu yaptığı son an kısmı hep etkiledi, etkiliyor ve de sonuna kadar etkileyecek, külliyat bitse de kesinlikle ikinci defa kimi okumak istersin deseler, Dostoyevski derim*** Çok severek, edebi zevke doyarak okudum. Herkese sağlıklı mutlu huzurlu keyifli okumalar dilerim...
July 25, 2024
4.5 gide provided fascinating readings of dostoevsky’s works following a specifically southern european geneaoloty. his reading of dostoevsky’s russian-ness is particularly fun and productive.
some notes:
- gide argues that there are often radial syntheses of chaotic, and often contradictory, ideas in dostoevsky’s writings and personal beliefs, and this made him unpalatable for european readers, among which clarity, certainty, solidarity are highly valued in literature dealing with morality and faith. (this point is quite interesting because precisely this paradoxical characterization echos traditional chinese dialectics, namely the coexistence of the opposites, within which christianity was never apart of). this concern also extends to dostoevsky’s own oscillating political positionality.
- gide says that dostoevsky treats his characters always as humans, never archetypes. couldn’t be more well said - dostoevsky’s maticulous sculpting of human souls appear in numerous articles i read on modern day psychiatric/psychotherapeutic institutions, as a criticism of their preoccupation with categorization and generalization.
- the discussions on eros and jealousy (or lack thereof), which i usually ignore in dostoevsky’s works, are superb (no kidding, the frenchmen know best).
- kirilov > ivan karamazov
some notes:
- gide argues that there are often radial syntheses of chaotic, and often contradictory, ideas in dostoevsky’s writings and personal beliefs, and this made him unpalatable for european readers, among which clarity, certainty, solidarity are highly valued in literature dealing with morality and faith. (this point is quite interesting because precisely this paradoxical characterization echos traditional chinese dialectics, namely the coexistence of the opposites, within which christianity was never apart of). this concern also extends to dostoevsky’s own oscillating political positionality.
- gide says that dostoevsky treats his characters always as humans, never archetypes. couldn’t be more well said - dostoevsky’s maticulous sculpting of human souls appear in numerous articles i read on modern day psychiatric/psychotherapeutic institutions, as a criticism of their preoccupation with categorization and generalization.
- the discussions on eros and jealousy (or lack thereof), which i usually ignore in dostoevsky’s works, are superb (no kidding, the frenchmen know best).
- kirilov > ivan karamazov
August 16, 2023
Zanimljivo kako jedan francuz kojeg je Vatikan stavio na listu zabranjenih pisaca zbog svojih kontraverznih stavova o religiji i društvu piše o jednom od najgenijalnijih rusa ikada, čoveku od koga je i Niče učio. Dosta paralela između likova i ličnosti Dostojevskog i dosta prostora je ostavio Dostojevskom citirajuci delove njegovih pisama, koja on nije pisao tako rado. Žid nije napisao klasičnu biografiju, već skicirani portret Dostojevskog kroz njegove prepiske sa ljudima.
Sjajna paralela izmeđ detinjstva u kome je bolešljivi dečak poslat na izdržavanje vojnog roka, nakon toga osuđen na smrt, pa pomilovan i poslat u Sibir na izdržavanje kazne. Bez ljubavi, prošao kroz smrt brata, žene u istoj godini, koz bedu, i uvek pisao zbog dela iskreno ne zbog novca (diskutabilno, ali to sam navodi u pismima). Svaki njegov lik ima neku njegovu crtu ličnosti. Verujući čovek u konstantnoj potrazi za Bogom, gde pronalazi sebe. Takođe jedno jako zanimljivo poređenje sa Ničeom.
Jedina zamerka pisma su trebala ići nekim hronološkim redom i neka od njih su morala biti u celosti citirana, isečci nisu bili dovoljni da bi osoba koja nikad pre nije čitala biografije Dostojevskog mogla ispratiti tok njegovog života.
Sjajna paralela izmeđ detinjstva u kome je bolešljivi dečak poslat na izdržavanje vojnog roka, nakon toga osuđen na smrt, pa pomilovan i poslat u Sibir na izdržavanje kazne. Bez ljubavi, prošao kroz smrt brata, žene u istoj godini, koz bedu, i uvek pisao zbog dela iskreno ne zbog novca (diskutabilno, ali to sam navodi u pismima). Svaki njegov lik ima neku njegovu crtu ličnosti. Verujući čovek u konstantnoj potrazi za Bogom, gde pronalazi sebe. Takođe jedno jako zanimljivo poređenje sa Ničeom.
Jedina zamerka pisma su trebala ići nekim hronološkim redom i neka od njih su morala biti u celosti citirana, isečci nisu bili dovoljni da bi osoba koja nikad pre nije čitala biografije Dostojevskog mogla ispratiti tok njegovog života.
January 23, 2018
A dull but useful overview of D-dog's life and works. Would recommend to the interested only.
March 17, 2022
俄罗斯语言和文化中罪恶和痛苦的同一; 陀氏人物的坐标: 谦卑与高傲(基督和福音书在尼采身上引起嫉妒，而在陀氏身上引起谦卑); 陀氏笔下人类精神的三个层面: 知识，爱欲，以及超出爱欲的层面(我暂且称之为造神/渎神导向的某种敬神)
October 20, 2024
دریچه جدیدی از فهم آثار داستایفسکی و آشنایی با شخصیت این نویسنده بزرگ رو تجربه کردم
August 30, 2025
Varlık Yayınları, Semih Tiryakioğlu 1968
January 25, 2012
nowhere did gide say that pushkin obviously would have humbled himself before dostoevsky's epic beard!
seriously though, i get that in critical essays one must present a tide of quotations. however, gide would go pages deep in the eternal husband or the possessed before coming to a squat paragraph of interpretation then continue on quoting away. it was ok. there were some really great quotes. but those were mostly outliers in an otherwise parred essay of a cannonized author.
seriously though, i get that in critical essays one must present a tide of quotations. however, gide would go pages deep in the eternal husband or the possessed before coming to a squat paragraph of interpretation then continue on quoting away. it was ok. there were some really great quotes. but those were mostly outliers in an otherwise parred essay of a cannonized author.
April 27, 2016
اي شىء يخص دوستويفسكي رائع :)
April 25, 2017
3 1/2 stars
December 31, 2016
This book had nothing new to offer to me when I hadn't deciphered except for Gide's love and passion for The Possessed and Dostoevsky in general
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews