What do you think?
Rate this book
Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time [ABRIDGED]
Hardcover
Published January 1, 2009
2 people are currently reading
14 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Frank
88 books142 followersJoseph Frank was professor emeritus of Slavic and comparative literature at Stanford and Princeton. The five volumes of his Dostoevsky biography won a National Book Critics Circle Award, a Los Angeles Times Book Prize, two James Russell Lowell Prizes, and two Christian Gauss Awards, and have been translated into numerous languages.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 19, 2024
For those wishing a deep, personal understanding of Dostoevsky and all of his major works (as well as the unique historical circumstances underwhich he wrote them), this biography can't be rated highly enough. Years ago I stopped counting the number of books I've read at 1,000 and this is easily #1 for a biography and top 5 overall. The only reservation I had on it was whether to go for the full set or accept this abridged version. While I would never discourage anyone from the full set - this version does an outstanding job of getting everything important into one volume. In fact, the author effectively repeats several of the most salient points by the end of it. I've written extensively on Dostoevsky, with Frank's help. Here is a brief sample:
Many view Dostoevsky as the world´s greatest novelist and he influenced innumerable others including James Joyce (who was as a child before him) and African American authors such as James Baldwin (1924-87). D also influenced philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80). In this bio, the autor wrote:
No modern writer rivals D in his willingness to tackle the “accursed questions” of life, the grandeur of his presentation of the eternal Christian dilemma (How could God, presumably of love, create a world where evil existed?) - the fierceness of his attack on the presumed goodness of God, on the one hand, and his attempt to counter it with the Grand Inquisitor on the other. These pages bring D into the company of Greek and Elizabethan tragedy, of Dante, Milton and Shakespeare, rather than of fellow novelists, who rarely venture into such exalted territory. Each of his central characters is elaborated on a richly symbolic scale influenced by some of the greatest works in Western literature, among which The Brothers Karamazov now takes an undisputed place.
Einstein put D “above the world`s greatest mathematician” and added: “D gives me more than any scientist, he is a great religious writer who explores the mystery of spiritual existence.”
Nietzsche admitted: “D was the only psychologist that I had something to learn from,” and “he ranks among the most beautiful strikes of fortune in my life” (but not for reasons Dostoevsky would have hoped). Some of the world’s greatest philosophy professors admit to being afraid to criticize Nietzsche on account of his unusual intelligence. Nietzsche's quotes about Dostoevsky are astounding when you consider their vociferous core disagreements—which really speaks to the intellectual range and the value of Dostoevsky’s work.
Nietzsche and D were both authors, philosophers, and psychologists. Most posit that Nietzsche was more philosophical and D was more psychological (which is noteworthy as D’s work preceded Freud and Jung). They recognized suffering in everyone and that everyone has a personal responsibility to do something about it. They both acknowledged humanity was ailing, and moving away from Christianity. But Nietzsche was anti-Christian. Consistent with the anti-religious arguments by D´s rational character Ivan (who was also full of vanity and intellectual arrogance), Nietzsche stated: “God is dead. He remains dead and we killed him,” and went on to articulate that: there are no eternal truths (not even objective reality), everything is relative (subject to a particular perspective), and every philosophy put forth previously is irrational.
Like the ancient pagans and some others outside Christianity, Nietzsche saw the poverty and humiliation of Christ as weaknesses—whereas Dostoevsky viewed these core strengths.
To better navigate a changing and deeply damaged world Nietzsche advocates making ourselves Gods and creating a new morality. D thought this incredibly dangerous and, as he feared, future totalitarian rulers seized on pieces of Nietzsche’s philosophy useful to them. How fascinating it would have been to hear what D thought of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885) had he lived long enough to read it!
D believed order had value and our ideas needed to be anchored in something; namely, “the teachings of Christ which are foundational to freedom, dignity, and equality.” For him, this was best represented in Russian Orthodoxy. He thought utopias were not only impossible but, as a concept, dangerous. He hoped society could get back in touch with unchanging truths (e.g., the value of compassion and humility). Unlike Nietzsche, D believed it was impossible to create new values but necessary to fully connect with the existing values instilled in each of us by God.
Dostoevsky died at age 59; Anna was only 34 and never remarried. Only two of their four children survived childhood. Many assume Dostoevsky died of epilepsy, but the cause was a lung disorder worsened by his chronic emphysema (he chain smoked). His last journal entry contemplates “the extent (to which) man has worshiped himself....” Next to his wife, just before his death he asked for his kids and had the parable of the prodigal son read aloud (the themes of repentance and forgiveness were emblematic of his life). Many of D’s bitter intellectual rivals attended his funeral where he was likened to a prophet. It was later said:
He had become a revered, symbolic figure who stood above the merciless battle of ideologies. His works had raised all the burning issues of the day far beyond the limits of narrow partisanship. While D was being pilloried in the liberal and radical press, the presumably left-wing students were receiving him with open arms; and the reason...was that he always spoke “openly and boldly” in all directions, not worrying what would be said about him. The youth welcome the discernment of the heart, everything straightforward and unservile.
Amidst the grinding poverty of mid-18th century Russia, this little epileptic man, who had an exceedingly difficult family background, was blessed with a heart and mind as deep as the ocean—but was forced to spend 10 years in the coldest part of Siberia. Despite suffering abuse from serfs who represented the vast majority of the population, he venerated them his entire life. To the last, he genuinely had hope for humankind. Despite everything, including the deaths of several of his children, he overcame addiction, developed deep faith, inspired others, gave and received love, and found meaning and even joy. The resounding upshot is: so can you.
NOTE: the above is a partial review, if u want the full one please email me at: aramia1@live.com and I will send it to you.
Many view Dostoevsky as the world´s greatest novelist and he influenced innumerable others including James Joyce (who was as a child before him) and African American authors such as James Baldwin (1924-87). D also influenced philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80). In this bio, the autor wrote:
No modern writer rivals D in his willingness to tackle the “accursed questions” of life, the grandeur of his presentation of the eternal Christian dilemma (How could God, presumably of love, create a world where evil existed?) - the fierceness of his attack on the presumed goodness of God, on the one hand, and his attempt to counter it with the Grand Inquisitor on the other. These pages bring D into the company of Greek and Elizabethan tragedy, of Dante, Milton and Shakespeare, rather than of fellow novelists, who rarely venture into such exalted territory. Each of his central characters is elaborated on a richly symbolic scale influenced by some of the greatest works in Western literature, among which The Brothers Karamazov now takes an undisputed place.
Einstein put D “above the world`s greatest mathematician” and added: “D gives me more than any scientist, he is a great religious writer who explores the mystery of spiritual existence.”
Nietzsche admitted: “D was the only psychologist that I had something to learn from,” and “he ranks among the most beautiful strikes of fortune in my life” (but not for reasons Dostoevsky would have hoped). Some of the world’s greatest philosophy professors admit to being afraid to criticize Nietzsche on account of his unusual intelligence. Nietzsche's quotes about Dostoevsky are astounding when you consider their vociferous core disagreements—which really speaks to the intellectual range and the value of Dostoevsky’s work.
Nietzsche and D were both authors, philosophers, and psychologists. Most posit that Nietzsche was more philosophical and D was more psychological (which is noteworthy as D’s work preceded Freud and Jung). They recognized suffering in everyone and that everyone has a personal responsibility to do something about it. They both acknowledged humanity was ailing, and moving away from Christianity. But Nietzsche was anti-Christian. Consistent with the anti-religious arguments by D´s rational character Ivan (who was also full of vanity and intellectual arrogance), Nietzsche stated: “God is dead. He remains dead and we killed him,” and went on to articulate that: there are no eternal truths (not even objective reality), everything is relative (subject to a particular perspective), and every philosophy put forth previously is irrational.
Like the ancient pagans and some others outside Christianity, Nietzsche saw the poverty and humiliation of Christ as weaknesses—whereas Dostoevsky viewed these core strengths.
To better navigate a changing and deeply damaged world Nietzsche advocates making ourselves Gods and creating a new morality. D thought this incredibly dangerous and, as he feared, future totalitarian rulers seized on pieces of Nietzsche’s philosophy useful to them. How fascinating it would have been to hear what D thought of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885) had he lived long enough to read it!
D believed order had value and our ideas needed to be anchored in something; namely, “the teachings of Christ which are foundational to freedom, dignity, and equality.” For him, this was best represented in Russian Orthodoxy. He thought utopias were not only impossible but, as a concept, dangerous. He hoped society could get back in touch with unchanging truths (e.g., the value of compassion and humility). Unlike Nietzsche, D believed it was impossible to create new values but necessary to fully connect with the existing values instilled in each of us by God.
Dostoevsky died at age 59; Anna was only 34 and never remarried. Only two of their four children survived childhood. Many assume Dostoevsky died of epilepsy, but the cause was a lung disorder worsened by his chronic emphysema (he chain smoked). His last journal entry contemplates “the extent (to which) man has worshiped himself....” Next to his wife, just before his death he asked for his kids and had the parable of the prodigal son read aloud (the themes of repentance and forgiveness were emblematic of his life). Many of D’s bitter intellectual rivals attended his funeral where he was likened to a prophet. It was later said:
He had become a revered, symbolic figure who stood above the merciless battle of ideologies. His works had raised all the burning issues of the day far beyond the limits of narrow partisanship. While D was being pilloried in the liberal and radical press, the presumably left-wing students were receiving him with open arms; and the reason...was that he always spoke “openly and boldly” in all directions, not worrying what would be said about him. The youth welcome the discernment of the heart, everything straightforward and unservile.
Amidst the grinding poverty of mid-18th century Russia, this little epileptic man, who had an exceedingly difficult family background, was blessed with a heart and mind as deep as the ocean—but was forced to spend 10 years in the coldest part of Siberia. Despite suffering abuse from serfs who represented the vast majority of the population, he venerated them his entire life. To the last, he genuinely had hope for humankind. Despite everything, including the deaths of several of his children, he overcame addiction, developed deep faith, inspired others, gave and received love, and found meaning and even joy. The resounding upshot is: so can you.
NOTE: the above is a partial review, if u want the full one please email me at: aramia1@live.com and I will send it to you.
Displaying 1 of 1 review