What do you think?
Rate this book
Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics
During his time in Leningrad, Bakhtin shifted his focus away from the philosophy characteristic of his early works and towards the notion of dialogue. It is at this time that he began his engagement with the work of Dostoevsky. Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Art is considered to be Bakhtin’s seminal work, and it is here that Bakhtin introduces three important concepts.
First, is the concept of the unfinalizable self: individual people cannot be finalized, completely understood, known, or labeled. Though it is possible to understand people and to treat them as if they are completely known, Bakhtin’s conception of unfinalizability respects the possibility that a person can change, and that a person is never fully revealed or fully known in the world. Readers may find that this conception reflects the idea of the soul; Bakhtin had strong roots in Christianity and in the Neo-Kantian school led by Hermann Cohen, both of which emphasized the importance of an individual's potentially infinite capability, worth, and the hidden soul.
Second, is the idea of the relationship between the self and others, or other groups. According to Bakhtin, every person is influenced by others in an inescapably intertwined way, and consequently no voice can be said to be isolated. In an interview, Bakhtin once explained that,
In order to understand, it is immensely important for the person who understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative understanding—in time, in space, in culture. For one cannot even really see one's own exterior and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirrors or photographs can help; our real exterior can be seen and understood only by other people, because they are located outside us in space, and because they are others. ~New York Review of Books, June 10, 1993.
As such, Bakhtin's philosophy greatly respected the influences of others on the self, not merely in terms of how a person comes to be, but also in how a person thinks and how a person sees him- or herself truthfully.
Third, Bakhtin found in Dostoevsky's work a true representation of polyphony, that is, many voices. Each character in Dostoevsky's work represents a voice that speaks for an individual self, distinct from others. This idea of polyphony is related to the concepts of unfinalizability and self-and-others, since it is the unfinalizability of individuals that creates true polyphony.
Bakhtin briefly outlined the polyphonic concept of truth. He criticized the assumption that, if two people disagree, at least one of them must be in error. He challenged philosophers for whom plurality of minds is accidental and superfluous. For Bakhtin, truth is not a statement, a sentence or a phrase. Instead, truth is a number of mutually addressed, albeit contradictory and logically inconsistent, statements. Truth needs a multitude of carrying voices. It cannot be held within a single mind, it also cannot be expressed by "a single mouth." The polyphonic truth requires many simultaneous voices. Bakhtin does not mean to say that many voices carry partial truths that complement each other. A number of different voices do not make the truth if simply "averaged" or "synthesized." It is the fact of mutual addressivity, of engagement, and of commitment to the context of a real-life event, that distinguishes truth from untruth.
When, in subsequent years, Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Art was translated into English and published in the West, Bakhtin added a chapter on the concept of carnival and the book was published with the slightly different title, Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. According to Bakhtin, carnival is the context in which distinct individual voices are heard, flourish and interact together. The carnival creates the "threshold" situations where regular conventions are broken or reversed and genuine dialogue becomes possible. The notion of a carnival was Bakhtin's way of describing Dostoevsky's polyphonic style: each individual character is strongly defined, and at the same time the reader witnesses the critical influence of each character upon the other. That is to say, the voices of others are heard by each individual, and each inescapably shapes the character of the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_...
First, is the concept of the unfinalizable self: individual people cannot be finalized, completely understood, known, or labeled. Though it is possible to understand people and to treat them as if they are completely known, Bakhtin’s conception of unfinalizability respects the possibility that a person can change, and that a person is never fully revealed or fully known in the world. Readers may find that this conception reflects the idea of the soul; Bakhtin had strong roots in Christianity and in the Neo-Kantian school led by Hermann Cohen, both of which emphasized the importance of an individual's potentially infinite capability, worth, and the hidden soul.
Second, is the idea of the relationship between the self and others, or other groups. According to Bakhtin, every person is influenced by others in an inescapably intertwined way, and consequently no voice can be said to be isolated. In an interview, Bakhtin once explained that,
In order to understand, it is immensely important for the person who understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative understanding—in time, in space, in culture. For one cannot even really see one's own exterior and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirrors or photographs can help; our real exterior can be seen and understood only by other people, because they are located outside us in space, and because they are others. ~New York Review of Books, June 10, 1993.
As such, Bakhtin's philosophy greatly respected the influences of others on the self, not merely in terms of how a person comes to be, but also in how a person thinks and how a person sees him- or herself truthfully.
Third, Bakhtin found in Dostoevsky's work a true representation of polyphony, that is, many voices. Each character in Dostoevsky's work represents a voice that speaks for an individual self, distinct from others. This idea of polyphony is related to the concepts of unfinalizability and self-and-others, since it is the unfinalizability of individuals that creates true polyphony.
Bakhtin briefly outlined the polyphonic concept of truth. He criticized the assumption that, if two people disagree, at least one of them must be in error. He challenged philosophers for whom plurality of minds is accidental and superfluous. For Bakhtin, truth is not a statement, a sentence or a phrase. Instead, truth is a number of mutually addressed, albeit contradictory and logically inconsistent, statements. Truth needs a multitude of carrying voices. It cannot be held within a single mind, it also cannot be expressed by "a single mouth." The polyphonic truth requires many simultaneous voices. Bakhtin does not mean to say that many voices carry partial truths that complement each other. A number of different voices do not make the truth if simply "averaged" or "synthesized." It is the fact of mutual addressivity, of engagement, and of commitment to the context of a real-life event, that distinguishes truth from untruth.
When, in subsequent years, Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Art was translated into English and published in the West, Bakhtin added a chapter on the concept of carnival and the book was published with the slightly different title, Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. According to Bakhtin, carnival is the context in which distinct individual voices are heard, flourish and interact together. The carnival creates the "threshold" situations where regular conventions are broken or reversed and genuine dialogue becomes possible. The notion of a carnival was Bakhtin's way of describing Dostoevsky's polyphonic style: each individual character is strongly defined, and at the same time the reader witnesses the critical influence of each character upon the other. That is to say, the voices of others are heard by each individual, and each inescapably shapes the character of the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_...
334 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1963
133 people are currently reading
2,987 people want to read
About the author
Mikhail Bakhtin
102books302followersVery influential writings of Russian linguist and literary critic Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in 20th-century poststructuralism and the social theory of the novel included
Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works
(1929, see Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky) and
The Dialogic Imagination
(1975).
This philosopher, semiotician, and scholar on ethics and the philosophy of language. He on a variety of subjects inspired scholars in a number of different traditions of Marxism, semiotics, and religionand in disciplines as diverse as history, philosophy, anthropology, and psychology. Although Bakhtin acted in the debates on aesthetics that took place in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, scholars rediscovered his not well known distinctive position in the 1960s.
This philosopher, semiotician, and scholar on ethics and the philosophy of language. He on a variety of subjects inspired scholars in a number of different traditions of Marxism, semiotics, and religionand in disciplines as diverse as history, philosophy, anthropology, and psychology. Although Bakhtin acted in the debates on aesthetics that took place in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, scholars rediscovered his not well known distinctive position in the 1960s.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
March 26, 2018
Bu kitap bize Dostoyevski'nin edebi gücü ve özgünlüğünün kökenlerini mi gösteriyor yoksa Bahtin'den kitap nasıl okunur dersi mi veriyor ve aslında hangisi daha önemli kafamda deli sorular. Dostoyevski meftunları okur zaten ama edebiyatı, metin okumayı dert edinen herkese de tavsiye ederim.
October 16, 2018
Phew... I think I burned a billion brain cells to gain a billion brain cells. This is the toughest book on literature I ever read. Bakhtin is definitely a philosopher first and then a literary critic. And like all philosophical arguments, one has to persevere through the plateau of abstractness and all the asides an argument can tangent off to, before returning to the conclusion of a 'point.'
There is much to admire in Bakhtin's passion and interpretation of Dostoevsky's poetics. He certainly has a gift for categorizing, analyzing and qualifying the types and modes of dialogue and rhetoric of Dostoevsky's characters. Much of the analysis is based on the protagonists from the shorter works: The Double, The Gambler, Notes from the Underground etc.; of course, when necessary, mentions from the novels are also cited. This made the book more accessible because the material itself is remarkably dense at times, so confining it to a handful of texts really helped me to stay focused on the explanations. It definitely helps to read the novellas mentioned above and the short stories before reading this treatise.
What fascinated me the most was how Bakhtin formalized � academically and philosophically � the style of speech and thought in Dostoevsky's characters. As a reader of Dostoevsky, I know exactly what Bakhtin is getting at. However, other than in academics or as he eloquently defines it: metalinguistics, I can't imagine how much relevance such formalism can be to the general Dostoevsky reader. That is not to say that I didn't gain a new appreciation for the genius of Dostoevsky (ad infinitum), and a richer understanding of how his style carries on throughout his writings and the powerful effect it has in establishing the polyphonic voice. But so much technical insight may also spoil the sheer joy of reading Dostoevsky and discovering his magic. At least don't read this book until you've read enough Dostoevsky (if even possible) for pleasure first.
There is much to admire in Bakhtin's passion and interpretation of Dostoevsky's poetics. He certainly has a gift for categorizing, analyzing and qualifying the types and modes of dialogue and rhetoric of Dostoevsky's characters. Much of the analysis is based on the protagonists from the shorter works: The Double, The Gambler, Notes from the Underground etc.; of course, when necessary, mentions from the novels are also cited. This made the book more accessible because the material itself is remarkably dense at times, so confining it to a handful of texts really helped me to stay focused on the explanations. It definitely helps to read the novellas mentioned above and the short stories before reading this treatise.
What fascinated me the most was how Bakhtin formalized � academically and philosophically � the style of speech and thought in Dostoevsky's characters. As a reader of Dostoevsky, I know exactly what Bakhtin is getting at. However, other than in academics or as he eloquently defines it: metalinguistics, I can't imagine how much relevance such formalism can be to the general Dostoevsky reader. That is not to say that I didn't gain a new appreciation for the genius of Dostoevsky (ad infinitum), and a richer understanding of how his style carries on throughout his writings and the powerful effect it has in establishing the polyphonic voice. But so much technical insight may also spoil the sheer joy of reading Dostoevsky and discovering his magic. At least don't read this book until you've read enough Dostoevsky (if even possible) for pleasure first.
April 28, 2023
O carte fundamentală, un reper în exegeza prozei lui Dostoievski.
Cîteva extrase:
„Viaceslav Ivanov a fost primul care a descoperit principala particularitate structurală a universului artistic dostoievskian... Să afirmi un eu străin nu ca pe un obiect, ci ca pe un alt subiect - iată principiul pe care se bazează concepția despre lume la Dostoievski� (p.14).
„Afirmarea unei alte conștiințe drept un subiect egal și nu drept un obiect reprezintă postulatul etico-religios care determină conținutul romanului dostoievskian (catastrofa conștiinței decuplate)� (p.15).
„Departe de a oferi un suport sigur în fața faliei dialogale pentru o a treia conștiință care apreciază lucrurile monologic, romanul dostoievskian este construit în așa fel încît opoziția din dialog să rămînă insolubilă� (p.26).
�...spiritul unic în devenire, chiar și sub formă de imagine, îi este în mod organic străin lui Dostoievski. Universul său este eminamente pluralist� (p.39).
„Nu devenirea, ci coexistența și interacțiunea alcătuiau categoria fundamentală a viziunii artistice dostoievskiene. Scriitorul a văzut și a conceput universul său cu precădere în spațiu, nu în timp. De aici și profunda sa atracție pentru forma dramatică� (pp.40-41).
„[Merită remarcat] profundul personalism al lui Dostoievski. Marele scriitor nu cunoaște, nu contemplă, nu figurează ideile în sine în înțelesul platonician, sau existența ideală în accepția fenomenologilor. Pentru el nu există idei, gînduri, teze în sine, ale nimănui. De asemenea, și adevărul în sine Dostoievski îl prezintă în spiritul ideologiei creștine, îl arată întruchipat în Hristos, deci ca pe o personalitate avînd relații reciproce cu alte personalități� (p.46).
„Moartea în accepția ei tolstoiană lipsește cu desăvîrșire din lumea lui Dostoievski. El n-ar fi descris moartea eroilor săi, ci crizele și cotiturile din viața lor, adică viața ajunsă la un prag� (p.103).
„Pentru lumea lui Dostoievski sînt caracteristice asasinatele (descrise în orizontul ucigașului), sinuciderile și demența. Cazurile de moarte naturală apar numai rareori în operele sale și îndeobște autorul se mulțumește să le aducă la cunoștința cititorului� (p.103, notă).
„Aceste principii fundamentale monologice depășesc cu mult limitele creației artistice; ele stau la baza întregii culturi ideologice din timpurile moderne� (p.111).
„Gîndul omului devine gînd autentic, devine idee, numai cînd vine în contact viu cu gîndul altcuiva, întrerupt în vocea altcuiva, adică în conștiința altcuiva exprimată prin cuvînt. În acest punct de contact al vocilor - conștiința se naște și trăiește ideea� (p.121).
„Ca să folosim un paradox, Dostoievski nu gîndea în idei, ci în puncte de vedere, în conștiințe, în voci... La Dostoievski, două idei înseamnă doi oameni, deoarece nu există idei ale nimănui, și fiecare idee reprezintă omul în totalitatea lui� (p.129).
„Genul romanului își trage rădăcinile cu precădere din trei surse: epopeea, retorica și carnavalul� (p.150).
Cîteva extrase:
„Viaceslav Ivanov a fost primul care a descoperit principala particularitate structurală a universului artistic dostoievskian... Să afirmi un eu străin nu ca pe un obiect, ci ca pe un alt subiect - iată principiul pe care se bazează concepția despre lume la Dostoievski� (p.14).
„Afirmarea unei alte conștiințe drept un subiect egal și nu drept un obiect reprezintă postulatul etico-religios care determină conținutul romanului dostoievskian (catastrofa conștiinței decuplate)� (p.15).
„Departe de a oferi un suport sigur în fața faliei dialogale pentru o a treia conștiință care apreciază lucrurile monologic, romanul dostoievskian este construit în așa fel încît opoziția din dialog să rămînă insolubilă� (p.26).
�...spiritul unic în devenire, chiar și sub formă de imagine, îi este în mod organic străin lui Dostoievski. Universul său este eminamente pluralist� (p.39).
„Nu devenirea, ci coexistența și interacțiunea alcătuiau categoria fundamentală a viziunii artistice dostoievskiene. Scriitorul a văzut și a conceput universul său cu precădere în spațiu, nu în timp. De aici și profunda sa atracție pentru forma dramatică� (pp.40-41).
„[Merită remarcat] profundul personalism al lui Dostoievski. Marele scriitor nu cunoaște, nu contemplă, nu figurează ideile în sine în înțelesul platonician, sau existența ideală în accepția fenomenologilor. Pentru el nu există idei, gînduri, teze în sine, ale nimănui. De asemenea, și adevărul în sine Dostoievski îl prezintă în spiritul ideologiei creștine, îl arată întruchipat în Hristos, deci ca pe o personalitate avînd relații reciproce cu alte personalități� (p.46).
„Moartea în accepția ei tolstoiană lipsește cu desăvîrșire din lumea lui Dostoievski. El n-ar fi descris moartea eroilor săi, ci crizele și cotiturile din viața lor, adică viața ajunsă la un prag� (p.103).
„Pentru lumea lui Dostoievski sînt caracteristice asasinatele (descrise în orizontul ucigașului), sinuciderile și demența. Cazurile de moarte naturală apar numai rareori în operele sale și îndeobște autorul se mulțumește să le aducă la cunoștința cititorului� (p.103, notă).
„Aceste principii fundamentale monologice depășesc cu mult limitele creației artistice; ele stau la baza întregii culturi ideologice din timpurile moderne� (p.111).
„Gîndul omului devine gînd autentic, devine idee, numai cînd vine în contact viu cu gîndul altcuiva, întrerupt în vocea altcuiva, adică în conștiința altcuiva exprimată prin cuvînt. În acest punct de contact al vocilor - conștiința se naște și trăiește ideea� (p.121).
„Ca să folosim un paradox, Dostoievski nu gîndea în idei, ci în puncte de vedere, în conștiințe, în voci... La Dostoievski, două idei înseamnă doi oameni, deoarece nu există idei ale nimănui, și fiecare idee reprezintă omul în totalitatea lui� (p.129).
„Genul romanului își trage rădăcinile cu precădere din trei surse: epopeea, retorica și carnavalul� (p.150).
May 5, 2008
Bookmarks have essentially become meaningless as I now have one in just about every page. Time to buy a second copy just to mark-up! Bakhtin and Dostoevsky. Really, need I say more?After a few years away I'm working through all my Bakhtin books again. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics is full of Bakhtin's big ideas: his basic theory of the polyphonic novel, the reasoning for why Doestoevsky is its chief practicioner, but also poetics and ideology in general and what we now refer to as Bakhtinian topics: dialogism vs. monologism, chronotopes, carnivalesque, heteroglossia, and so on. The book is less systematic and structured than it might seem at first glance. A bit of a mess actually. But, in my view, and echoing the work itself, that mess is also a big part of its allure: ideas running amok are more ripe for assimilation and appropriation than a monologic system that is assembled brick by brick. As Wayne C. Booth (The Rhetoric of Fiction) eventually concedes in his argumentative introduction: "In any case, I can think of no critic in recent years...who more effectively performs that essential task of all criticism: prodding readers to think again about critical standards as applied to the various canons and anti-canons those standards lead to." [xxvii] So, engage.
October 27, 2011
If you love Dostoyevsky this is a must read. Actually, if you love fiction at all, this is a must read. After Bakhtin you will still love it, but you will understand far better why.
February 25, 2022
"The character in his novel is treated as ideologically authoritative and independent; he is perceived as the author of a fully weighted ideological conception of his own, and not as the object of Dostoevsky’s finalizing artistic vision....Dostoevsky, like Goethe’s Prometheus, creates not voiceless slaves (as does Zeus), but free people, capable of standing alongside their creator, capable of not agreeing with him and even of rebelling against him. What unfolds in his works is not a multitude of characters and fates in a single objective world, illuminated by a single authorial consciousness; rather a plurality of consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with its own world. Dostoevsky is the creator of the polyphonic novel. He created a fundamentally new novelistic genre."
May 21, 2022
بوطیقای داستایوفسکی
میخائیل باختین
زنده یاد “جعف� پوینده “ب� باختین ارادت بسیار داشت و کتاب “سودا� مکالمه، خنده و آزادی� از او ترجمه کرده بود .با توجه به آشنایی نسبی به آثار داستایوفسکی، به سراغ کتاب دیگری از باختین به نام “پرسشهای� از بوطیقای(صنعت شعر) داستایوفسکی رفتم و یادداشت زیر، مرور کوتاهی از این کتاب و معرفی سبک ادبی داستایوفسکی است:
باختین معتقد است که در عصر حاضر رمانها� داستایوفسکی ،تاثیر گذارترین گونه رمان در غرب است. بنظر او سبک نوشتن داستا…گفتما� مدار است و این درخشانتری� ویژگی آثار اوست.سبک نگارش او کارناوال گراست، نمایشی بدون تماشاچی و تماشاخانه. در کارناوال همه از موقعیت یکسان برخوردارند، سوژه حاکم نیست، سخن تک گفتارانه نیست و از شخصیت ابژه در آن نشانی نمی بینیم.
مزاد
ویژگی آثار داستایفسکی استفاده از “مزا� “اس�. “مزاد� گفتگو قهرمان با خویشتن است، دو ارزش متفاوت، یک جان در دو بدن. “مزاد� مفهوم من از منظر دیگری� و از منظر خود است. “مزا� “د� قهرمان نفوذ می کند و زخم های او را لمس می کند.( گالیادکین پس از طرد از مهمانی رقص با کسی مواجه میشود که “مزا� “اوس� و با او از رنجهای� می گوید و می شنود) عذاب وجدانها و تاثیرات اجتماعی، سیاسیِ افراد در قالب “مزاد� ارائه میشود. “مزا� “میتوان� همسو یا خائن به قهرمان داستان باشد، حتی شیطان هم “مزا� “اس�.
داستا …ا� “سخ� خطابی� نیز استفاده و ابژه را خطاب میکند که قادر به شوراندن و برانگیختن است.
“گفتگوها� متضاد “نو� دیگر تکنیک در آثار اوست و زمانی بکار می رود نمیتوان دیگری را زیر نفوذ خود داشت. برای درک آثار داستا�.بایستی گفتگوهای تک گفتارانه را کنار گذاشت. شخصیت های او تسلیم ابژه نمی شوند و با گفتگو خود را آشکار می کنند.
� اعتراف� نیز دیگر تکنیک نگارش توسط داستا…است� نوعی ساده نگریستن به خود در آینه، با چشمان خود و هم زمان با چشمان دیگران در تقاطع جهان بینی ها و آگاهی ها.
داستا…ا� شناخت انسان دریافت که عوامل اقتصادی،سیاسی و ایدئولوژیک با قیود خود بشریت را مادیت می بخشند. او اینکار را تجاوزکارانه می دانست و با آن مبارزه می کرد.
سخن ابژه در آثار او نیست. سخن ابژه شده یعنی حاکم شدن مستبدانه سخن مولف بر سخن دیگری، که ضد سخن چند جهتی است.او بطور مداوم سخن خود را با سخن دیگری مقایسه می کند.
تنوع گفتگوها در آثار داستا…مبهو� کننده است، گذار تند از پارودی(طنز تقلیدی) به جدل گری، سپس به روایتگری، و تغییر ان به گفتگوی پنهان و در آخر به گفتگو صریح و آشکار.
مرگ
در مقایسه با آثار تولستوی، مرگ کمتری در آثار داستا�.می بینیم. مرگها یا خودکشی اند یا قتل. تولستوی به مرگ بخاطر خودش نزدیک می شد و نه بازماندگان، ولی داستا �.هرگز مرگ را از درون تصویر نکرد. دیگرانند که مرگ را مشاهده می کنند. مرگ برای آگاهی دیگری ، یک رویداد ابژکتیو است و چیزی را پایان نمی بخشد.
کتاب باختین ، نقد ادبی آثار داستا …اس� و به اندیشه های سیاسی و مذهبی او نمی پردازد. داستایوفسکی بشدت ضد یهود بود و مسیح را فقط در ارتدکس زنده می دید. او پیرو کلیسا لائیک بود و با جزمیتهای کلیسا ارتدکس مرزبندی داشت و به کلیسا مبتنی بر گفتگو ایمان داشت. او از اروپا غربی بیزار بود و هوادار تزار و در مقابل سوسیالیسم اخلاقگرای� پیشه کرد.
او به مانند عموم مردمش ،روسها را استثنا می دانست، اندیشه ای بس کهن در آن دیار .براستی اگر او زنده بود و شاهد بمباران مهدکودکی در اکراین بود، باز هم بر استثنا بودن روسها تکیه می کرد؟l
میخائیل باختین
زنده یاد “جعف� پوینده “ب� باختین ارادت بسیار داشت و کتاب “سودا� مکالمه، خنده و آزادی� از او ترجمه کرده بود .با توجه به آشنایی نسبی به آثار داستایوفسکی، به سراغ کتاب دیگری از باختین به نام “پرسشهای� از بوطیقای(صنعت شعر) داستایوفسکی رفتم و یادداشت زیر، مرور کوتاهی از این کتاب و معرفی سبک ادبی داستایوفسکی است:
باختین معتقد است که در عصر حاضر رمانها� داستایوفسکی ،تاثیر گذارترین گونه رمان در غرب است. بنظر او سبک نوشتن داستا…گفتما� مدار است و این درخشانتری� ویژگی آثار اوست.سبک نگارش او کارناوال گراست، نمایشی بدون تماشاچی و تماشاخانه. در کارناوال همه از موقعیت یکسان برخوردارند، سوژه حاکم نیست، سخن تک گفتارانه نیست و از شخصیت ابژه در آن نشانی نمی بینیم.
مزاد
ویژگی آثار داستایفسکی استفاده از “مزا� “اس�. “مزاد� گفتگو قهرمان با خویشتن است، دو ارزش متفاوت، یک جان در دو بدن. “مزاد� مفهوم من از منظر دیگری� و از منظر خود است. “مزا� “د� قهرمان نفوذ می کند و زخم های او را لمس می کند.( گالیادکین پس از طرد از مهمانی رقص با کسی مواجه میشود که “مزا� “اوس� و با او از رنجهای� می گوید و می شنود) عذاب وجدانها و تاثیرات اجتماعی، سیاسیِ افراد در قالب “مزاد� ارائه میشود. “مزا� “میتوان� همسو یا خائن به قهرمان داستان باشد، حتی شیطان هم “مزا� “اس�.
داستا …ا� “سخ� خطابی� نیز استفاده و ابژه را خطاب میکند که قادر به شوراندن و برانگیختن است.
“گفتگوها� متضاد “نو� دیگر تکنیک در آثار اوست و زمانی بکار می رود نمیتوان دیگری را زیر نفوذ خود داشت. برای درک آثار داستا�.بایستی گفتگوهای تک گفتارانه را کنار گذاشت. شخصیت های او تسلیم ابژه نمی شوند و با گفتگو خود را آشکار می کنند.
� اعتراف� نیز دیگر تکنیک نگارش توسط داستا…است� نوعی ساده نگریستن به خود در آینه، با چشمان خود و هم زمان با چشمان دیگران در تقاطع جهان بینی ها و آگاهی ها.
داستا…ا� شناخت انسان دریافت که عوامل اقتصادی،سیاسی و ایدئولوژیک با قیود خود بشریت را مادیت می بخشند. او اینکار را تجاوزکارانه می دانست و با آن مبارزه می کرد.
سخن ابژه در آثار او نیست. سخن ابژه شده یعنی حاکم شدن مستبدانه سخن مولف بر سخن دیگری، که ضد سخن چند جهتی است.او بطور مداوم سخن خود را با سخن دیگری مقایسه می کند.
تنوع گفتگوها در آثار داستا…مبهو� کننده است، گذار تند از پارودی(طنز تقلیدی) به جدل گری، سپس به روایتگری، و تغییر ان به گفتگوی پنهان و در آخر به گفتگو صریح و آشکار.
مرگ
در مقایسه با آثار تولستوی، مرگ کمتری در آثار داستا�.می بینیم. مرگها یا خودکشی اند یا قتل. تولستوی به مرگ بخاطر خودش نزدیک می شد و نه بازماندگان، ولی داستا �.هرگز مرگ را از درون تصویر نکرد. دیگرانند که مرگ را مشاهده می کنند. مرگ برای آگاهی دیگری ، یک رویداد ابژکتیو است و چیزی را پایان نمی بخشد.
کتاب باختین ، نقد ادبی آثار داستا …اس� و به اندیشه های سیاسی و مذهبی او نمی پردازد. داستایوفسکی بشدت ضد یهود بود و مسیح را فقط در ارتدکس زنده می دید. او پیرو کلیسا لائیک بود و با جزمیتهای کلیسا ارتدکس مرزبندی داشت و به کلیسا مبتنی بر گفتگو ایمان داشت. او از اروپا غربی بیزار بود و هوادار تزار و در مقابل سوسیالیسم اخلاقگرای� پیشه کرد.
او به مانند عموم مردمش ،روسها را استثنا می دانست، اندیشه ای بس کهن در آن دیار .براستی اگر او زنده بود و شاهد بمباران مهدکودکی در اکراین بود، باز هم بر استثنا بودن روسها تکیه می کرد؟l
Read
January 9, 2022Un testo di critica letteraria che scava a fondo nella stilistica di un autore che ha scavato il fondo dell'animo umano. Pochi fanno critica letteraria come Bachtin. Sicuramente complesso e puntiglioso, ma è un saggio fondamentale per comprendere in che modo Dostoevskij ha tratteggiato i suoi "uomini vivi".
June 10, 2018
Bakhtin was only really introduced to the west by Kristeva in the late 60s but has had a profound impact on the way in which we understand and theorise texts. Here he discusses his concepts of polyphony, heteroglossia and the dialogic, ideas which have a far wider application than only in Dostoevsky or the novel.
Emerson's brief introduction and translation are both exemplary and make this text accessible without simplifying the complexities of thought inherent in Bakhtin's work.
Since Bakhtin, we have transferred his ideas into other genres beyond the novel but it's worth going back to this as a starting point even so. For anyone interested in literary voice, the socialised view of the word and language, and dialogism in a broad sense, this is essential reading.
(Read April 2012)
Emerson's brief introduction and translation are both exemplary and make this text accessible without simplifying the complexities of thought inherent in Bakhtin's work.
Since Bakhtin, we have transferred his ideas into other genres beyond the novel but it's worth going back to this as a starting point even so. For anyone interested in literary voice, the socialised view of the word and language, and dialogism in a broad sense, this is essential reading.
(Read April 2012)
January 19, 2018
«In lui ogni opinione diventa per davvero un essere vivente ed è inscindibile dall’incarnata voce umana.»
Per Bachtin il «romanzo polifonico» di Dostoevskij è interamente costituito e nutrito di dialogo. Fra tutti gli elementi della struttura del romanzo sussistono rapporti dialogici, «cioè essi sono contrapposti in modo contrappuntistico.»
In tutte le manifestazioni della vita umana cosciente Dostoevskij coglieva rapporti dialogici: e quindi ogni romanzo è un “grande dialogo�, a sua volta pieno di dialoghi tra i personaggi, e infine «il dialogo penetra all’interno, in ogni parola del romanzo, rendendolo a due voci, in ogni gesto, in ogni movimento mimico del volto dell’eroe, rendendolo mutevole e tormentandolo».
Per questo aveva una passione per le scene di massa, che permettono di concentrare in un luogo e in un momento, anche contro la verosimiglianza, Passione per le scene di massa: «tendenza a concentrare in un luogo e in un momento, spesso in contrasto con la verosimiglianza pragmatica, il maggior numero possibile di personaggi e di temi «il maggior numero possibile di personaggi e di temi».
Anche per questo torna proprio la tentazione di leggerlo ad alta voce.
Anzi, ad alte voci.
Per Bachtin il «romanzo polifonico» di Dostoevskij è interamente costituito e nutrito di dialogo. Fra tutti gli elementi della struttura del romanzo sussistono rapporti dialogici, «cioè essi sono contrapposti in modo contrappuntistico.»
In tutte le manifestazioni della vita umana cosciente Dostoevskij coglieva rapporti dialogici: e quindi ogni romanzo è un “grande dialogo�, a sua volta pieno di dialoghi tra i personaggi, e infine «il dialogo penetra all’interno, in ogni parola del romanzo, rendendolo a due voci, in ogni gesto, in ogni movimento mimico del volto dell’eroe, rendendolo mutevole e tormentandolo».
Per questo aveva una passione per le scene di massa, che permettono di concentrare in un luogo e in un momento, anche contro la verosimiglianza, Passione per le scene di massa: «tendenza a concentrare in un luogo e in un momento, spesso in contrasto con la verosimiglianza pragmatica, il maggior numero possibile di personaggi e di temi «il maggior numero possibile di personaggi e di temi».
Anche per questo torna proprio la tentazione di leggerlo ad alta voce.
Anzi, ad alte voci.
Read
January 16, 2019Mi tocca rileggere tutto Dostoevskij: non sarà certo una tortura. Tempo permettendo
November 26, 2021
probably the first bakhtin that everyone should read, though it's often glossed over in favor of the Rabelais text or the dialogic imagination text.
June 13, 2017
Not just a fantastic system for reading Dostoevsky, but a brilliant paradigm for engaging any and all narrative. A key text for the Dostoevsky scholar!
September 19, 2023
Bakhtin often imposes his concepts/classifications on, and so distorts, Dostoevsky. Eg The latter does offer authorial beliefs/resolutions (cf Frank’s biography).
March 30, 2022
Le idee centrali di questo doppio saggio sono due, fuse in un solo lavoro per comunanza di campo di applicazione: l'opera di Dostoevskij.
LE IDEE
La prima idea è analizzare Dostoevskij sotto un'ipotesi che, pare, l'autore abbia pensato per riflessione sulle impressioni destategli dalla lettura di Dostoevskij, o meglio, che la lettura di Dostoevskij gli ha permesso di centrare.
Questa ipotesi è che ciascun personaggio è un dialogo.
Un personaggio non dialoga perché ha uno strumento, che sarebbe il linguaggio, che esprime una parte del personaggio stesso.
Il personaggio è il linguaggio espressivo in quanto si esprime. Come se tutte le volte facesse appello a tutto se stesso e, nel momento della sua espressione, i rimasugli e gli scarti restassero come sospesi nell'esistenza in attesa del responso della vita all'espressione che ha da proporle.
Allo stesso modo in cui uno scultore taglia la pietra e non Chiama inconscio gli scarti,sebbene poi il giudizio sulla statua implichi il dono di una nuova pietra su cui lavorare, nuova pietra ricavata dalla statua fatta e dagli scarti fino al giudizio rimasti allo stato di eliminazione a cui la scelta dell'artista li aveva relegati.
In concreto, funziona così.
Un personaggio A ha una domanda a cui vuole rispondere DA. A si esprime rispondendo a questa domanda, generando RA.
Si introduce un B con DB, che può fare due cose:
1 una risposta alla domanda di A, DA
2 una risposta alla qualità della risposta RA alla questione DB.
Si noti che la risposta alla domanda A implica capire questa domanda astraendo da A e non implica dare una risposta anche a DB.
Non si può semplicemente dire che B ha sospeso DB o sostituito a DB DA. La faccenda non è affatto banale, siccome DA e DB possono non essere isolate, né come domande singole né come influenza (può influire anche l' ambiente, ma, anche se l'ambiente potesse, fantasticamente, costituire una risposta, andrebbe distinta dalla risposta propriamente umana, se il personaggio è umano etc.)
2 serve a ovviare l'obiezione, alla teoria di Bakhtin, che costui trascuri l'idea del doppio.
Inoltre, il personaggio, secondo la formulazione di Bakhtin, non è singola personalità, ma singolo dialogo, quindi un personaggio può essere più sottopersonaggi in forma di un sistema chiuso di domande e risposte (per esempio il diavolo di Ivan nei Karamazov).
La seconda idea del saggio è derivare il formato romanzesco e lo stile di Dostoevskij dalla traduzione della satira menippea, che a sua volta trarrebbe origine dal fenomeno rituale del carnevale, ovvero la concessione, da parte dei più ricchi, di un tempo limitato per invertire i ruoli del potere attraverso il mascheramento.
LA COMPOSIZIONE
Qualche parola va spesa sul modo in cui Bakhtin compose questo saggio.
Bakhtin scrisse dapprima un breve intervento, stile conferenza, su Dostoevskij.
A seguito delle obiezioni a questo suo intervento, alle risposte di Bakhtin e alle ulteriori elaborazioni del suo pensiero, Bakhtin ampliò il testo originale.
Da questo deriva l'apparente complessità del saggio.
Penso che per leggere questo saggio bisogna dividere bene la polemica e le idee centrali.
Le idee centrali sono ottime, ma si possono esprimere in 15-20 pagine senza problemi.
A mio avviso, tutta la vaghezza e ammirazione sproloquiata sotto il titolo polifonia può essere riassunta come ho fatto sopra. L'ulteriore lunghezza può derivare da esempi testuali.
CONCLUSIONI
Libro con ottime idee ma prolisso.
Merita. Profondo Bakhtin.
LE IDEE
La prima idea è analizzare Dostoevskij sotto un'ipotesi che, pare, l'autore abbia pensato per riflessione sulle impressioni destategli dalla lettura di Dostoevskij, o meglio, che la lettura di Dostoevskij gli ha permesso di centrare.
Questa ipotesi è che ciascun personaggio è un dialogo.
Un personaggio non dialoga perché ha uno strumento, che sarebbe il linguaggio, che esprime una parte del personaggio stesso.
Il personaggio è il linguaggio espressivo in quanto si esprime. Come se tutte le volte facesse appello a tutto se stesso e, nel momento della sua espressione, i rimasugli e gli scarti restassero come sospesi nell'esistenza in attesa del responso della vita all'espressione che ha da proporle.
Allo stesso modo in cui uno scultore taglia la pietra e non Chiama inconscio gli scarti,sebbene poi il giudizio sulla statua implichi il dono di una nuova pietra su cui lavorare, nuova pietra ricavata dalla statua fatta e dagli scarti fino al giudizio rimasti allo stato di eliminazione a cui la scelta dell'artista li aveva relegati.
In concreto, funziona così.
Un personaggio A ha una domanda a cui vuole rispondere DA. A si esprime rispondendo a questa domanda, generando RA.
Si introduce un B con DB, che può fare due cose:
1 una risposta alla domanda di A, DA
2 una risposta alla qualità della risposta RA alla questione DB.
Si noti che la risposta alla domanda A implica capire questa domanda astraendo da A e non implica dare una risposta anche a DB.
Non si può semplicemente dire che B ha sospeso DB o sostituito a DB DA. La faccenda non è affatto banale, siccome DA e DB possono non essere isolate, né come domande singole né come influenza (può influire anche l' ambiente, ma, anche se l'ambiente potesse, fantasticamente, costituire una risposta, andrebbe distinta dalla risposta propriamente umana, se il personaggio è umano etc.)
2 serve a ovviare l'obiezione, alla teoria di Bakhtin, che costui trascuri l'idea del doppio.
Inoltre, il personaggio, secondo la formulazione di Bakhtin, non è singola personalità, ma singolo dialogo, quindi un personaggio può essere più sottopersonaggi in forma di un sistema chiuso di domande e risposte (per esempio il diavolo di Ivan nei Karamazov).
La seconda idea del saggio è derivare il formato romanzesco e lo stile di Dostoevskij dalla traduzione della satira menippea, che a sua volta trarrebbe origine dal fenomeno rituale del carnevale, ovvero la concessione, da parte dei più ricchi, di un tempo limitato per invertire i ruoli del potere attraverso il mascheramento.
LA COMPOSIZIONE
Qualche parola va spesa sul modo in cui Bakhtin compose questo saggio.
Bakhtin scrisse dapprima un breve intervento, stile conferenza, su Dostoevskij.
A seguito delle obiezioni a questo suo intervento, alle risposte di Bakhtin e alle ulteriori elaborazioni del suo pensiero, Bakhtin ampliò il testo originale.
Da questo deriva l'apparente complessità del saggio.
Penso che per leggere questo saggio bisogna dividere bene la polemica e le idee centrali.
Le idee centrali sono ottime, ma si possono esprimere in 15-20 pagine senza problemi.
A mio avviso, tutta la vaghezza e ammirazione sproloquiata sotto il titolo polifonia può essere riassunta come ho fatto sopra. L'ulteriore lunghezza può derivare da esempi testuali.
CONCLUSIONI
Libro con ottime idee ma prolisso.
Merita. Profondo Bakhtin.
December 9, 2015
Thank goodness for this, Bakhtin. Now I can revise that Dostoevsky paper with even more decency.
January 18, 2021
Selam kitapçokseverler. Bu bölümümüzde "Son sözü kendisi söyleyen geleneksel romancıların tersine, Dostoyevski sessiz köleler yaratmaz, yaratıcılarının yanında durabilen, onunla aynı görüşü paylaşmamaya muktedir olan, hatta ona karşı gelebilen özgür insanlar yaratır" diyen göstergebilimci Mihail M. Bahtin'in Dostoyevski Poetikasının Sorunları yapıtı üzerine konuşuyoruz.
Romanın Estetiği Kuramı, Sözsel Sanatın Estetiği ve Diyalojik İmgelem eserleriyle adından söz ettiren Bahtin'in, Dostoyevski'nin çoksesli romanı ve eleştiri literatüründe ele alınış tarzı, Dostoyevski'nin sanatında kahraman ve kahramanla bağlantılı olarak yazarın konumu, Dostoyevski'nin yapıtlarında tür ve olay örgüsü kompozisyonunun karakteristiklerine dair görüşleri ve roman anlatımında monolojik/diyalojik söylem ve diyaloglar üzerine sohbet ediyoruz.
Başta edebiyat eleştirmeni Caryl Emerson'un "Bahtin yazlnızca sözcükler ile yazmaz ayrıca sözcük hakkında yazar" ifadesi ve Dostoyevski'ye dair yapılan birçok edebi eleştiri hakkında fikirlerimizi paylaşıyoruz.
Keyifli dinlemeleriniz olması dileğiyle.
[email protected] üzerinden görüş ve önerilerinizi bekleriz.
October 21, 2023
Bro spent 400 pages fanboying over dostoevsky, respect 🙏
May 3, 2020
I certainly believe that this type of a book can not be read single-handedly. I mean in order to understand it, you have to ensconce yourself in a definite correlation. In other words, firstly you should have some questions, puzzles or debates in your mind, and then you'd attempt to digest this 'hard chickpea' slowly. What can I say about this extraordinary book? Infact, nothing. But let me say, Dostoevsky is a very very lucky man because of having such a reader, named Bakhtin (1895-1975). It could sound strange but I code this strong relationship between Dostoevsky & Bakhtin as something between Raskolnikov & Razumikhin; the fictitious characters of Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky.
In order to characterize of Bakhtin's position, scholars use a bunch of titles, such as philosophical, semiotic, religious, anarchist, Marxist and Russian conscience. And if you have a look at this book, you will certainly meet those titles' reverberations. For example, what does 'polyphonic novel" mean?( This question is crucial, because Bakhtin understands the oeuvre of Dostoevsky as the examples of polyphonic novels.) or is it important to understand the role of implied author in Dostoevsky's novels? What else ? What does 'heteroglossia' means? How are the debates on free will and theodicy reiterated in the novels of Dostoevsky?
To close, I remind you and myself Gadamer's approach as "the text to be understood to the interpreter's present situation". For internalizing inexhaustible energy between Dostoevsky&Bakhtin, now let's grasp a Dostoevsky novel and Bakhtin company.
In order to characterize of Bakhtin's position, scholars use a bunch of titles, such as philosophical, semiotic, religious, anarchist, Marxist and Russian conscience. And if you have a look at this book, you will certainly meet those titles' reverberations. For example, what does 'polyphonic novel" mean?( This question is crucial, because Bakhtin understands the oeuvre of Dostoevsky as the examples of polyphonic novels.) or is it important to understand the role of implied author in Dostoevsky's novels? What else ? What does 'heteroglossia' means? How are the debates on free will and theodicy reiterated in the novels of Dostoevsky?
To close, I remind you and myself Gadamer's approach as "the text to be understood to the interpreter's present situation". For internalizing inexhaustible energy between Dostoevsky&Bakhtin, now let's grasp a Dostoevsky novel and Bakhtin company.
January 14, 2016
Στο βιβλίο αυτό βρίσκουμε τις βασικές ιδέες του Bakhtin που κυριαρχούν στη θεωρία της λογοτεχνίας τα τελευταία 30 χρόνια (διαλογικότητα, πολυφωνία, καρναβαλικό στοιχείο κ.λπ.) στην εφαρμογή τους στο έργο του Ντοστογιέφσκι. Το πρόβλημά μου κατά την ανάγνωση ήταν μια αίσθηση νεφελώδους φλυαρίας, πολλά λόγια, επαναλήψεις και ταυτολογίες. Υπάρχουν μελέτες του Bakhtin πιο περιεκτικές και ευκολότερα προσπελάσιμες.
Τέλος, η μετάφραση μάλλον έκανε το κείμενο ακόμα πιο "δύσκαμπτο", ενώ παρατήρησα και κάποιες ασυνέπειες (π.χ. η "κρυμμένη πολεμική" γίνεται στις επόμενες σελίδες "κρυφή πολεμική").
Τέλος, η μετάφραση μάλλον έκανε το κείμενο ακόμα πιο "δύσκαμπτο", ενώ παρατήρησα και κάποιες ασυνέπειες (π.χ. η "κρυμμένη πολεμική" γίνεται στις επόμενες σελίδες "κρυφή πολεμική").
August 29, 2018
it was a very good book but unfortunately i cannot give it five stars because it seems that the author was confused. Dostoevsky did not write poetry.
April 27, 2019
"Affirmation (and nonaffirmation) of someone else’s “I� by the hero � this is the theme of Dostoevsky’s work."
(“Утверждение (и неутверждение) чужого «я» героем ��� тема произведений Достоевского.�)
"� according to Dostoevsky an idea can and must not only be understood, but also “felt�"
( “� по Достоевскому, идею можно и должно не только понимать, но и «чувствовать»�)
"Dostoevsky never created his idea-images out of nothing, he never “made them up� � he was able to hear or divine them in the reality at hand. Dostoevsky neither copied nor expounded these prototypes in any way; rather he freely and creatively reworked them into living artistic images of ideas �"
(“Достоевски� никогда не создавал своих образов идей из ничего, никогда не «выдумывал их» � он умел их услышать или угадать в наличной действительности.
Достоевский вовсе не копировал и не излагал эти прототипы, а свободно-творчески перерабатывал их в живые художественные образы идей.�)
"Imagine a dialogue of two persons in which the statements of the second speaker are omitted, but in such a way that the general sense is not at all violated. The second speaker is present invisibly, his words are not there, but deep traces left by these words have a determining influence on all the present and visible words of the first speaker. We sense that this is a conversation, although only one person is speaking, and it is a conversation of the most intense kind, for each present, uttered word responds and reacts with its every fiber to the invisible speaker, points to something outside itself, beyond its own limits, to the unspoken words of another person.
…] in Dostoevsky this hidden dialogue occupies a very important place and is very profoundly and subtly developed"
(“Представим себе диалог двух, в котором реплики второго собеседника пропущены, но так, что общий смысл нисколько не нарушается. Второй собеседник присутствует незримо, его слов нет, но глубокий след этих слов определяет все наличные слова первого собеседника. Мы чувствуем, что это беседа, хотя говорит только один, и беседа напряженнейшая, ибо каждое наличное слово всеми своими фибрами отзывается и реагирует на невидимого собеседника, указывает вне себя, за свои пределы, на несказанное чужое слово.
…] у Достоевского этот скрытый диалог занимает очень важное место и чрезвычайно глубоко и тонко разработан.�)
"� the word is not a material thing but rather the eternally mobile, eternally fickle medium of dialogic interaction. It never gravitates toward a single consciousness or a single voice. The life of the word is contained in its transfer from one mouth to another, from one context to another context, from one social collective to another, from one generation to another generation. In this process the word does not forget its own path and cannot completely free itself from the power of these concrete contexts into which it has entered."
(“Слов� не вещь, а вечно подвижная, вечно изменчивая среда диалогического общения. Оно никогда не довлеет одному сознанию, одному голосу. Жизнь слова � в переходе из уст в уста, из одного контекста в другой контекст, от одного социального коллектива к другому, от одного поколения к другому поколению. При этом слово не забывает своего пути и не может до конца освободиться от власти тех конкретных контекстов, в которые оно входило.�)
"The motifs “I didn’t know that,� “I didn’t see that,� “that was revealed to me only later,� are absent from Dostoevsky’s world. His hero knows and sees everything from the very beginning. This is why it is so common for heroes (or for a narrator speaking about a hero) to announce, after a catastrophe, that they had known and foreseen everything in advance. “Our hero shrieked and clutched at his head. Alas ! That was what he had known for a long time would happen !� Thus ends The Double. The Underground Man is constantly emphasizing that he knew everything and foresaw everything. “I saw everything myself, all my despair was as clear as day !� exclaims the hero of “A Meek One.� It is true, as we shall soon see, that the hero very often hides from himself what he knows, and pretends to himself that he does not see what in fact is constantly before his very eyes. But in such cases this characteristic trait stands out all the more sharply."
(“Мотив�: я этого не знал, я этого не видел, это раскрылось мне лишь позже � отсутствуют в мире Достоевского. Его герой все знает и все видит с самого начала. Поэтому-то так обычны заявления героев (или рассказчика о героях) после катастрофы, что они уже все заранее знали и все предвидели. «Герой наш вскрикнул и схватил себя за голову. Увы ! Он это давно уже предчувствовал». Так кончается «Двойник». «Человек из подполья» постоянно подчеркивает, что он все знал и все предвидел. «Я все видел сам, все мое отчаянье стояло на виду !» � восклицает герой «Кроткой». Правда, как мы сейчас увидим, очень часто герой скрывает от себя то, что он знает, и делает вид перед самим собою, что он не видит того, что на самом деле все время стоит перед его глазами. Но в этом случае отмечаемая нами особенность выступает только еще резче�)
"Everything in Dostoevsky’s novels tends toward dialogue, toward a dialogic opposition, as if tending toward its center. All else is the
means; dialogue is the end. A single voice ends nothing and resolves nothing. Two voices is the minimum for life, the minimum for existence.
…]
The basic scheme for dialogue in Dostoevsky is very simple: the
opposition of one person to another person as the opposition of “I�
to “the other.�"
(“Вс� в романах Достоевского сходится к диалогу, к диалогическому противостоянию как к своему центру. Все � средство, диалог � цель. Один голос ничего не кончает и ничего не разрешает. Два голоса � минимум жизни, минимум бытия.
…]
Основная схема диалога у Достоевского очень проста: противостояние человека человеку, как противостояние «я» и «другого».�)
"� out of every contradiction within a single person Dostoevsky tries to create two persons, in order to dramatize the contradiction and develop it extensively."
(“и� каждого противоречия внутри одного человека Достоевский стремится сделать двух людей, чтобы драматизовать это противоречие и развернуть его экстенсивно.�)
"Where others saw a single thought, he [Dostoevsky] was able to find and feel out two thoughts, a bifurcation; where others saw a single quality, he discovered in it the presence of a second and contradictory quality. Everything that seemed simple became, in his world, complex and multi-structured. In every voice he could hear two contending voices, in every expression a crack, and the readiness to go over immediately to another contradictory expression; in every gesture he detected confidence and lack of confidence simultaneously; he perceived the profound ambiguity, even multiple ambiguity, of every phenomenon. But none of these contradictions and bifurcations ever became dialectical, they were never set in motion along a temporal path or in an evolving sequence: they were, rather, spread out in one plane, as standing alongside or opposite one another, as consonant but not merging or as hopelessly contradictory, as an eternal harmony of unmerged voices or as their unceasing and irreconcilable quarrel. Dostoevsky’s visualizing power was locked in place at the moment diversity revealed itself � and remained there, organizing and shaping this diversity in the cross-section of a given moment."
(“Та�, где видели одну мысль, он [Достоевский] умел найти и нащупать две мысли, раздвоение; там, где видели одно качество, он вскрывал в нем наличность и другого, противоположного качества. Все, что казалось простым, в его мире стало сложным и многосоставным. В каждом голосе он умел слышать два спорящих голоса, в каждом выражении � надлом и готовность тотчас же перейти в другое, противоположное выражение; в каждом жесте он улавливал уверенность и неуверенность одновременно; он воспринимал глубокую двусмысленность и многосмысленность каждого явления. Но все эти противоречия и раздвоенности не становились диалектическими, не приводились в движение по временному пути, по становящемуся ряду, но развертывались в одной плоскости как рядом стоящие или противостоящие, как согласные, но не сливающиеся или как безысходно противоречивые, как вечная гармония неслиянных голосов или как их неумолчный и безысходный спор. Видение Достоевского было замкнуто в этом мгновении раскрывшегося многообразия и оставалось в нем, организуя и оформляя это многообразие в разрезе данного мгновения.�)
"Dostoevsky had the seeming capacity to visualize directly someone else’s psyche. He looked into someone else’s soul as if equipped with a magnifying glass that permitted him to detect the subtlest nuances, to follow the most inconspicuous modulations and transitions in the inner life of a man. Dostoevsky, as if passing over the external barriers, observes directly the psychological processes taking place in a man, and fixes them on paper �"
-- V. Kirpotin, as quoted in “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics�
(“Достоевски� обладал способностью как бы прямого видения чужой психики. Он заглядывал в чужую душу, как бы вооруженный оптическим стеклом, позволявшим ему улавливать самые тонкие нюансы, следить за самыми незаметными переливами и переходами внутренней жизни человека. Достоевский, как бы минуя внешние преграды, непосредственно наблюдает психологические процессы, совершающиеся в человеке, и фиксирует их на бумаге…�)
"Dostoevsky forces his hero to contemplate in the mirror. We see not who he is, but how he is conscious of himself; our act of artistic visualization occurs not before the reality of the hero, but before a pure function of his awareness of that reality."
(“Достоевски� заставляет самого героя созерцать в зеркале.
Мы видим не кто он есть, а как он осознает себя, наше художественное видение оказывается уже не перед действительностью героя, а перед чистой функцией осознания им этой действительности.�)
(“Утверждение (и неутверждение) чужого «я» героем ��� тема произведений Достоевского.�)
"� according to Dostoevsky an idea can and must not only be understood, but also “felt�"
( “� по Достоевскому, идею можно и должно не только понимать, но и «чувствовать»�)
"Dostoevsky never created his idea-images out of nothing, he never “made them up� � he was able to hear or divine them in the reality at hand. Dostoevsky neither copied nor expounded these prototypes in any way; rather he freely and creatively reworked them into living artistic images of ideas �"
(“Достоевски� никогда не создавал своих образов идей из ничего, никогда не «выдумывал их» � он умел их услышать или угадать в наличной действительности.
Достоевский вовсе не копировал и не излагал эти прототипы, а свободно-творчески перерабатывал их в живые художественные образы идей.�)
"Imagine a dialogue of two persons in which the statements of the second speaker are omitted, but in such a way that the general sense is not at all violated. The second speaker is present invisibly, his words are not there, but deep traces left by these words have a determining influence on all the present and visible words of the first speaker. We sense that this is a conversation, although only one person is speaking, and it is a conversation of the most intense kind, for each present, uttered word responds and reacts with its every fiber to the invisible speaker, points to something outside itself, beyond its own limits, to the unspoken words of another person.
…] in Dostoevsky this hidden dialogue occupies a very important place and is very profoundly and subtly developed"
(“Представим себе диалог двух, в котором реплики второго собеседника пропущены, но так, что общий смысл нисколько не нарушается. Второй собеседник присутствует незримо, его слов нет, но глубокий след этих слов определяет все наличные слова первого собеседника. Мы чувствуем, что это беседа, хотя говорит только один, и беседа напряженнейшая, ибо каждое наличное слово всеми своими фибрами отзывается и реагирует на невидимого собеседника, указывает вне себя, за свои пределы, на несказанное чужое слово.
…] у Достоевского этот скрытый диалог занимает очень важное место и чрезвычайно глубоко и тонко разработан.�)
"� the word is not a material thing but rather the eternally mobile, eternally fickle medium of dialogic interaction. It never gravitates toward a single consciousness or a single voice. The life of the word is contained in its transfer from one mouth to another, from one context to another context, from one social collective to another, from one generation to another generation. In this process the word does not forget its own path and cannot completely free itself from the power of these concrete contexts into which it has entered."
(“Слов� не вещь, а вечно подвижная, вечно изменчивая среда диалогического общения. Оно никогда не довлеет одному сознанию, одному голосу. Жизнь слова � в переходе из уст в уста, из одного контекста в другой контекст, от одного социального коллектива к другому, от одного поколения к другому поколению. При этом слово не забывает своего пути и не может до конца освободиться от власти тех конкретных контекстов, в которые оно входило.�)
"The motifs “I didn’t know that,� “I didn’t see that,� “that was revealed to me only later,� are absent from Dostoevsky’s world. His hero knows and sees everything from the very beginning. This is why it is so common for heroes (or for a narrator speaking about a hero) to announce, after a catastrophe, that they had known and foreseen everything in advance. “Our hero shrieked and clutched at his head. Alas ! That was what he had known for a long time would happen !� Thus ends The Double. The Underground Man is constantly emphasizing that he knew everything and foresaw everything. “I saw everything myself, all my despair was as clear as day !� exclaims the hero of “A Meek One.� It is true, as we shall soon see, that the hero very often hides from himself what he knows, and pretends to himself that he does not see what in fact is constantly before his very eyes. But in such cases this characteristic trait stands out all the more sharply."
(“Мотив�: я этого не знал, я этого не видел, это раскрылось мне лишь позже � отсутствуют в мире Достоевского. Его герой все знает и все видит с самого начала. Поэтому-то так обычны заявления героев (или рассказчика о героях) после катастрофы, что они уже все заранее знали и все предвидели. «Герой наш вскрикнул и схватил себя за голову. Увы ! Он это давно уже предчувствовал». Так кончается «Двойник». «Человек из подполья» постоянно подчеркивает, что он все знал и все предвидел. «Я все видел сам, все мое отчаянье стояло на виду !» � восклицает герой «Кроткой». Правда, как мы сейчас увидим, очень часто герой скрывает от себя то, что он знает, и делает вид перед самим собою, что он не видит того, что на самом деле все время стоит перед его глазами. Но в этом случае отмечаемая нами особенность выступает только еще резче�)
"Everything in Dostoevsky’s novels tends toward dialogue, toward a dialogic opposition, as if tending toward its center. All else is the
means; dialogue is the end. A single voice ends nothing and resolves nothing. Two voices is the minimum for life, the minimum for existence.
…]
The basic scheme for dialogue in Dostoevsky is very simple: the
opposition of one person to another person as the opposition of “I�
to “the other.�"
(“Вс� в романах Достоевского сходится к диалогу, к диалогическому противостоянию как к своему центру. Все � средство, диалог � цель. Один голос ничего не кончает и ничего не разрешает. Два голоса � минимум жизни, минимум бытия.
…]
Основная схема диалога у Достоевского очень проста: противостояние человека человеку, как противостояние «я» и «другого».�)
"� out of every contradiction within a single person Dostoevsky tries to create two persons, in order to dramatize the contradiction and develop it extensively."
(“и� каждого противоречия внутри одного человека Достоевский стремится сделать двух людей, чтобы драматизовать это противоречие и развернуть его экстенсивно.�)
"Where others saw a single thought, he [Dostoevsky] was able to find and feel out two thoughts, a bifurcation; where others saw a single quality, he discovered in it the presence of a second and contradictory quality. Everything that seemed simple became, in his world, complex and multi-structured. In every voice he could hear two contending voices, in every expression a crack, and the readiness to go over immediately to another contradictory expression; in every gesture he detected confidence and lack of confidence simultaneously; he perceived the profound ambiguity, even multiple ambiguity, of every phenomenon. But none of these contradictions and bifurcations ever became dialectical, they were never set in motion along a temporal path or in an evolving sequence: they were, rather, spread out in one plane, as standing alongside or opposite one another, as consonant but not merging or as hopelessly contradictory, as an eternal harmony of unmerged voices or as their unceasing and irreconcilable quarrel. Dostoevsky’s visualizing power was locked in place at the moment diversity revealed itself � and remained there, organizing and shaping this diversity in the cross-section of a given moment."
(“Та�, где видели одну мысль, он [Достоевский] умел найти и нащупать две мысли, раздвоение; там, где видели одно качество, он вскрывал в нем наличность и другого, противоположного качества. Все, что казалось простым, в его мире стало сложным и многосоставным. В каждом голосе он умел слышать два спорящих голоса, в каждом выражении � надлом и готовность тотчас же перейти в другое, противоположное выражение; в каждом жесте он улавливал уверенность и неуверенность одновременно; он воспринимал глубокую двусмысленность и многосмысленность каждого явления. Но все эти противоречия и раздвоенности не становились диалектическими, не приводились в движение по временному пути, по становящемуся ряду, но развертывались в одной плоскости как рядом стоящие или противостоящие, как согласные, но не сливающиеся или как безысходно противоречивые, как вечная гармония неслиянных голосов или как их неумолчный и безысходный спор. Видение Достоевского было замкнуто в этом мгновении раскрывшегося многообразия и оставалось в нем, организуя и оформляя это многообразие в разрезе данного мгновения.�)
"Dostoevsky had the seeming capacity to visualize directly someone else’s psyche. He looked into someone else’s soul as if equipped with a magnifying glass that permitted him to detect the subtlest nuances, to follow the most inconspicuous modulations and transitions in the inner life of a man. Dostoevsky, as if passing over the external barriers, observes directly the psychological processes taking place in a man, and fixes them on paper �"
-- V. Kirpotin, as quoted in “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics�
(“Достоевски� обладал способностью как бы прямого видения чужой психики. Он заглядывал в чужую душу, как бы вооруженный оптическим стеклом, позволявшим ему улавливать самые тонкие нюансы, следить за самыми незаметными переливами и переходами внутренней жизни человека. Достоевский, как бы минуя внешние преграды, непосредственно наблюдает психологические процессы, совершающиеся в человеке, и фиксирует их на бумаге…�)
"Dostoevsky forces his hero to contemplate in the mirror. We see not who he is, but how he is conscious of himself; our act of artistic visualization occurs not before the reality of the hero, but before a pure function of his awareness of that reality."
(“Достоевски� заставляет самого героя созерцать в зеркале.
Мы видим не кто он есть, а как он осознает себя, наше художественное видение оказывается уже не перед действительностью героя, а перед чистой функцией осознания им этой действительности.�)
August 17, 2024
Literary critic Bakhtin, both in this monograph and in the Dialogic Imagination, a collection of four essays, is at his very best. These are examples of what a GOOD literary critic does—advance generous, cogent, and intelligent arguments about literary works of art. And bonus points: he clearly LOVES Dostoevsky and his novels—unlike, say, the postmodernist literary critics, with their hectoring, suspicious self-importance that makes you wonder why they ever wanted to analyze literature at all. I'm not saying Bakhtin is always an easy read, but he's not like Butler or Foucault using a bunch of abstruse prose to cover up less-than-revelatory ideas. Bakhtin's most famous contribution is to argue that language in works of fiction can be though of as representing different kids of social speech, and the very best literature exhibits "heteroglossia," the mixing and overlapping of these different forms of speech to particular ends. You'll never read Dickens, Austen, or anyone else the same way again!
November 15, 2019
#شعريةدوستويفسكي
#ميخائيلباختين
عدد الصفحات : 410
الكتاب الثالث والتسعون لعام 2019
كتاب في نقد وتحليل أعمال دوستويفسكي الروائية، قوامه خمسة فصولٍ فقط إنما جاء الشرح فيهنَّ مطولًا ومستفيضًا، بالإضافة إلى تحليلاتٍ نقدية لعددٍ هائل من ا��نقاد. فرأيت أنه مهمٌ لكل من أتمَّ أعمال الروائي دوستويفسكي الأدبية.
في الفصل الأول تحدث عن " رواية دوستويفسكي متعددة الأصوات في ضوء النقد الأدبي" وكثيرًا ما كنت قد أشرت إلى هذه النقطة المميزة في رواياته، إذ يجعل إحدى الشخصيات تتبنى رأيًّا ما ويدفعه لحشد كل الآراء والأدلة والدوافع المنطقية في سبيل تدعيم فكرته، ثم يأتي بشخصيةٍ أخرى تدحض كل ما جاءت به الشخية الأولى ليمسي القارئ تائهًا ما بين رأيين وفكرتين مختلفتين منبعها عقل دوستويفسكي وحده! وهذه سمة مميزة كما أشار عدد من النقاد في أدب دوستويفسكي، ليس من خلال حوارات الشخصيات وحسب بل من حيث السرد أيضًا وشكله وتشعباته. لينتقل نحو ميزة السيكولوجية وتحديد أبعادها. وقد قال أسكولدوف عن رواية الجريمة والعقاب والتي هي لدي الرواية رقم واحد أمام جميع ما قرأت من روايات : ( الجريمة في روايات دوستويفسكي هي بمثابة الإخراج الحياتي للمشكلة الأخلاقية من وجهة نظر دينية. أما العقاب فيعد الشكل الذي يجسد حلّها. ولهذا السبب فإن كليهما يشكلان أيضًّا الثيمة الأساسية في لأعمال دوستويفسكي الإبداعية). أما انجلجاردت فقد قسّم الرواية عامةً لثلاثة برامج وهي الوسط والتربة والأرض، مشيرًا أنه دوستويفسكي وحده من استطاع الوصول للأرض ( العمق) في بناء شخصيات الرواية. بالإضافة إلى نظريات وبحوث العديد من النقّاد أمثال لونجارسكي وجروسمان وكيربوتين وشكلوفسكي الذي وضعها باختين وناقشها أيضًّا.
في أحدى النقاط من الفصل الأول أشار باختين إلى سمة الأبطال المتعددين والشخصيات الكثيرة والمزدحمة والتي أحسب أنه يقصد رواية الشياطين. لتكون تلك النقطة ممهدة للفصل الثاني الذي وضعها تحت عنوان " البطل وموقف المؤلف تجاه البطل في إبداع دوستويفسكي " ليبين سمات البطل وخصوصيته الفردية والإجتماعية ، وصولًا لتقرير مصيره بنفسه( البطل) كما في مستوى الوعي الذاتي الهائل والتكشّف لبطل شخصية مذكرات قبو، فنجد أن هناك صراع خفي يتصاعد نحو الوضوح والقوة ما بين المؤلف ( دوستويفسكي ) وأبطال شخصيات رواياته. وهذه إحدى أهم النقاط التي أبرزها باختين بكثير من الأدلة من روايات دوستويفسكي نفسها. سواءً حوار ميشكين و وأجلايا في رواية الأبله أو حوارات راسكولينيكوف في الجريمة والعقاب ومواقفهم. وحتى أيضًا في بعض أعمال ليف تولستوي.
أما في الفصل الثالث فقد جاء عن الفكرة عند دوستويفسكي، وبدأ بشرح نمطية الأفكار واضطلاعها على الشكل المونولوجي للعمل الأدبي بوظائفها الثلاث، أساس الرؤية مبدأ اختيار المادة ومبدأ نبرة الأحادية الأيديولوجية لجميع عناصره. أمّا في تحليله لفكرة دوستويفسكي فأنه يرى قدرته في تصوير فكرة الغير. ومدى قدرته على الغوص في العمق النفسي .
انتقل باختين في الفصل الرابع إلى شرح الخصائص الصنفية والتكوينية والمحورية في أعمال دوستويفسكي من حيث الرواية متعددة الأصوات بكونها تملك أساس تكويني محوري فهي تجمع الرواية السيكولوجية ورواية الحياة اليومية والسير الذاتية. وقد شرح عدة أنواع أدبية مختلفة كأدب المغامرة والمنطق الكرنفالي وأدب الكوميديا وأدب الحوار السقراطي، في إشارة منه إلى سمة من سمات أعمال دوستويفسكي السيكولوجية. وقد استطرد كثيرًا بشرحه وجلب عدة آراء وتحليلات لنقّاد وفلاسفة. وقد ذكر نوعين من الآداب القدمية بعصر الرومان لم أسمع بهما من قبل وهما الدياتريب والسوليلوكوي الذات يكونان الادب المينيبي نسبةً للفيلسوف مينيب، ولا انكر أن هذا الفصل قد أربكني كثيرًا بزخم المعلومات والمصطلحات والتعريفات الخاصة بها وخصائصها. لدرجة أني استثقلته جدًا. فهو يحتاج إلى خلفية معرفية بأولئك الفلاسفة ونهجهم قبل قراءة تحليل عناصرها وسماتها وتاريخ تأثيرها على الأدب وصولًا لعصر دوستويفسكي، بإشارة منه إلى إطلاع الأخير على تلك السمة في عددٍ من المؤلفات لشيكسبير وفولتير. ليعود أخيرًا إلى تحليل خصائص أدبه من رواياته العديدة، كلقاء راسكولينيكوف لسونيا أول مرة وقراءة الإنجيل، ووصفه بأن مذكرات قبو هي جوهر الفلسفة المينيبية. وحادثة الحانة في بين إيليوشا وإيفان في رواية الإخوة كارامازوف. والروح الكرنفالية عند الأمير ميشكين، والعديد العديد من المشاهد من مختلف رواياته.
وجاء الفصل الأخير شارحًا أنماط الكلمة النثرية لدى دوستويفسكي، والأصوات التي أنكرت عليه تلك النبرة في أعماله وحوارات الشخصيات والمؤيد لها. وقد شرح باستفاضةٍ في علم اللغة، وطبيعة الحوارات وعدد أسماء عددٍ من الرواة وكتّاب القصة وكيفية استخدامها للغة والكلمة سواءً كانت غيرية أو مباشرة ( على لسان المتكلم) في نقل الأفكار الخاص بهم للشخصيات. ليعود إلى شرح تلك الخصائص في روايات دوستويفسكي كمذكرات قبو الأبالسة( الشياطين) والجريمة والعقاب، وقد أعجبني هذا الفصل جدًا فقد شرح لي تلك الروايات وأضاء جوانبًا لم تكن واضحةً لي. كنظرة إيفان لإليوشا كارامازوف وكيفية توزيع الشخصيات فيها وفي رواية الأبله.
في النهاية الكتاب من الكتب التي أثرت بي جدًا وأسهمت في توسعة نظرتي لروايات دوستويفسكي وأظنني إن قررت يومًا إعادة قراءتها ستكون نظرتي أشمل وأعمق لجوانبها المتعددة.
#إيمانبنيصخر
#ميخائيلباختين
عدد الصفحات : 410
الكتاب الثالث والتسعون لعام 2019
كتاب في نقد وتحليل أعمال دوستويفسكي الروائية، قوامه خمسة فصولٍ فقط إنما جاء الشرح فيهنَّ مطولًا ومستفيضًا، بالإضافة إلى تحليلاتٍ نقدية لعددٍ هائل من ا��نقاد. فرأيت أنه مهمٌ لكل من أتمَّ أعمال الروائي دوستويفسكي الأدبية.
في الفصل الأول تحدث عن " رواية دوستويفسكي متعددة الأصوات في ضوء النقد الأدبي" وكثيرًا ما كنت قد أشرت إلى هذه النقطة المميزة في رواياته، إذ يجعل إحدى الشخصيات تتبنى رأيًّا ما ويدفعه لحشد كل الآراء والأدلة والدوافع المنطقية في سبيل تدعيم فكرته، ثم يأتي بشخصيةٍ أخرى تدحض كل ما جاءت به الشخية الأولى ليمسي القارئ تائهًا ما بين رأيين وفكرتين مختلفتين منبعها عقل دوستويفسكي وحده! وهذه سمة مميزة كما أشار عدد من النقاد في أدب دوستويفسكي، ليس من خلال حوارات الشخصيات وحسب بل من حيث السرد أيضًا وشكله وتشعباته. لينتقل نحو ميزة السيكولوجية وتحديد أبعادها. وقد قال أسكولدوف عن رواية الجريمة والعقاب والتي هي لدي الرواية رقم واحد أمام جميع ما قرأت من روايات : ( الجريمة في روايات دوستويفسكي هي بمثابة الإخراج الحياتي للمشكلة الأخلاقية من وجهة نظر دينية. أما العقاب فيعد الشكل الذي يجسد حلّها. ولهذا السبب فإن كليهما يشكلان أيضًّا الثيمة الأساسية في لأعمال دوستويفسكي الإبداعية). أما انجلجاردت فقد قسّم الرواية عامةً لثلاثة برامج وهي الوسط والتربة والأرض، مشيرًا أنه دوستويفسكي وحده من استطاع الوصول للأرض ( العمق) في بناء شخصيات الرواية. بالإضافة إلى نظريات وبحوث العديد من النقّاد أمثال لونجارسكي وجروسمان وكيربوتين وشكلوفسكي الذي وضعها باختين وناقشها أيضًّا.
في أحدى النقاط من الفصل الأول أشار باختين إلى سمة الأبطال المتعددين والشخصيات الكثيرة والمزدحمة والتي أحسب أنه يقصد رواية الشياطين. لتكون تلك النقطة ممهدة للفصل الثاني الذي وضعها تحت عنوان " البطل وموقف المؤلف تجاه البطل في إبداع دوستويفسكي " ليبين سمات البطل وخصوصيته الفردية والإجتماعية ، وصولًا لتقرير مصيره بنفسه( البطل) كما في مستوى الوعي الذاتي الهائل والتكشّف لبطل شخصية مذكرات قبو، فنجد أن هناك صراع خفي يتصاعد نحو الوضوح والقوة ما بين المؤلف ( دوستويفسكي ) وأبطال شخصيات رواياته. وهذه إحدى أهم النقاط التي أبرزها باختين بكثير من الأدلة من روايات دوستويفسكي نفسها. سواءً حوار ميشكين و وأجلايا في رواية الأبله أو حوارات راسكولينيكوف في الجريمة والعقاب ومواقفهم. وحتى أيضًا في بعض أعمال ليف تولستوي.
أما في الفصل الثالث فقد جاء عن الفكرة عند دوستويفسكي، وبدأ بشرح نمطية الأفكار واضطلاعها على الشكل المونولوجي للعمل الأدبي بوظائفها الثلاث، أساس الرؤية مبدأ اختيار المادة ومبدأ نبرة الأحادية الأيديولوجية لجميع عناصره. أمّا في تحليله لفكرة دوستويفسكي فأنه يرى قدرته في تصوير فكرة الغير. ومدى قدرته على الغوص في العمق النفسي .
انتقل باختين في الفصل الرابع إلى شرح الخصائص الصنفية والتكوينية والمحورية في أعمال دوستويفسكي من حيث الرواية متعددة الأصوات بكونها تملك أساس تكويني محوري فهي تجمع الرواية السيكولوجية ورواية الحياة اليومية والسير الذاتية. وقد شرح عدة أنواع أدبية مختلفة كأدب المغامرة والمنطق الكرنفالي وأدب الكوميديا وأدب الحوار السقراطي، في إشارة منه إلى سمة من سمات أعمال دوستويفسكي السيكولوجية. وقد استطرد كثيرًا بشرحه وجلب عدة آراء وتحليلات لنقّاد وفلاسفة. وقد ذكر نوعين من الآداب القدمية بعصر الرومان لم أسمع بهما من قبل وهما الدياتريب والسوليلوكوي الذات يكونان الادب المينيبي نسبةً للفيلسوف مينيب، ولا انكر أن هذا الفصل قد أربكني كثيرًا بزخم المعلومات والمصطلحات والتعريفات الخاصة بها وخصائصها. لدرجة أني استثقلته جدًا. فهو يحتاج إلى خلفية معرفية بأولئك الفلاسفة ونهجهم قبل قراءة تحليل عناصرها وسماتها وتاريخ تأثيرها على الأدب وصولًا لعصر دوستويفسكي، بإشارة منه إلى إطلاع الأخير على تلك السمة في عددٍ من المؤلفات لشيكسبير وفولتير. ليعود أخيرًا إلى تحليل خصائص أدبه من رواياته العديدة، كلقاء راسكولينيكوف لسونيا أول مرة وقراءة الإنجيل، ووصفه بأن مذكرات قبو هي جوهر الفلسفة المينيبية. وحادثة الحانة في بين إيليوشا وإيفان في رواية الإخوة كارامازوف. والروح الكرنفالية عند الأمير ميشكين، والعديد العديد من المشاهد من مختلف رواياته.
وجاء الفصل الأخير شارحًا أنماط الكلمة النثرية لدى دوستويفسكي، والأصوات التي أنكرت عليه تلك النبرة في أعماله وحوارات الشخصيات والمؤيد لها. وقد شرح باستفاضةٍ في علم اللغة، وطبيعة الحوارات وعدد أسماء عددٍ من الرواة وكتّاب القصة وكيفية استخدامها للغة والكلمة سواءً كانت غيرية أو مباشرة ( على لسان المتكلم) في نقل الأفكار الخاص بهم للشخصيات. ليعود إلى شرح تلك الخصائص في روايات دوستويفسكي كمذكرات قبو الأبالسة( الشياطين) والجريمة والعقاب، وقد أعجبني هذا الفصل جدًا فقد شرح لي تلك الروايات وأضاء جوانبًا لم تكن واضحةً لي. كنظرة إيفان لإليوشا كارامازوف وكيفية توزيع الشخصيات فيها وفي رواية الأبله.
في النهاية الكتاب من الكتب التي أثرت بي جدًا وأسهمت في توسعة نظرتي لروايات دوستويفسكي وأظنني إن قررت يومًا إعادة قراءتها ستكون نظرتي أشمل وأعمق لجوانبها المتعددة.
#إيمانبنيصخر
August 2, 2020
TL;DR: This is a great book if you want to have a better understanding about Dostoevsky's themes and motifs; you just have to do your homework first.
At the risk of sounding pretentious or condescending, I would say this book is not for the layman; and you should have more than a novel or two by Dostoevsky under your belt to grasp what Bakhtin is saying here:
Bobok
The Dream of a Ridiculous Man
Poor Folk
Crime and Punishment
Devils
The Idiot
Notes from Underground
and of course . . .
The Brothers Karamazov
Chapter 1 is Bakhtin's description of his well known theory of the, "Polyphonic Novel" and sets the stage for everything else. A must-read.
Chapters 2-3 seemed more academic and, to be honest, Bakhtin seemed to be preachy and rambled on an on about nothing in particular, but still had its bright spots.
Chapters 4-5 however, made up for it, because it helped congeal my own theories about Dostoevsky and I remember thinking to myself, "Oh yeah. Dostoevsky IS like that. Right on."
I found Bakhtin's discussion of Dostoevsky's dialogue especially thought-provoking, albeit a little over-analyzed. I am hard pressed to find any dialogue in Dostoevsky's works that is just sitting out there for no reason. There is always an efficient purpose in his dialogue, and I was reminded of this while reading this book. In fact, Dostoevsky was very conscious of how dialogue revealed the world of each of his characters, and seemed to take pride in his efficiency of purpose. It was fun to see this come to life.
As a former Lit Major 25 years ago, this book was like being, "re-acquainted with an old friend" and it was nice to "geek out" with the deep literary analysis provided by Bahktin here.
I recommend this book highly.
At the risk of sounding pretentious or condescending, I would say this book is not for the layman; and you should have more than a novel or two by Dostoevsky under your belt to grasp what Bakhtin is saying here:
Bobok
The Dream of a Ridiculous Man
Poor Folk
Crime and Punishment
Devils
The Idiot
Notes from Underground
and of course . . .
The Brothers Karamazov
Chapter 1 is Bakhtin's description of his well known theory of the, "Polyphonic Novel" and sets the stage for everything else. A must-read.
Chapters 2-3 seemed more academic and, to be honest, Bakhtin seemed to be preachy and rambled on an on about nothing in particular, but still had its bright spots.
Chapters 4-5 however, made up for it, because it helped congeal my own theories about Dostoevsky and I remember thinking to myself, "Oh yeah. Dostoevsky IS like that. Right on."
I found Bakhtin's discussion of Dostoevsky's dialogue especially thought-provoking, albeit a little over-analyzed. I am hard pressed to find any dialogue in Dostoevsky's works that is just sitting out there for no reason. There is always an efficient purpose in his dialogue, and I was reminded of this while reading this book. In fact, Dostoevsky was very conscious of how dialogue revealed the world of each of his characters, and seemed to take pride in his efficiency of purpose. It was fun to see this come to life.
As a former Lit Major 25 years ago, this book was like being, "re-acquainted with an old friend" and it was nice to "geek out" with the deep literary analysis provided by Bahktin here.
I recommend this book highly.
July 30, 2015
Nemalo me lecnuo zaključak Nikole Miloševića, pisca predgovora beogradskog Nolit izdanja ovog Bahtina, koji tvrdi da je Bahtinova pogreška u polaznoj točci njegovih razmišljanja te da je teorija polifonijskog romana primjer kako se od jedne pogrešne točke može napraviti naizgled maksimalno uvjerljiva intelektualna konstrukcija.
Da ne ulazim u ta razmišljanja, reći ću da ova izrazito iscrpna i sadržajna Bahtinova analiza (i sinteza) zaslužuje, smatram, mjesto na književnoteorijskom Parnasu već zbog same analize utjecaja menipeje i, prije svega, "karnevalizma" (osjećaj svijeta koji oslobađa od straha, maksimalno približava svijet čovjeku i čovjeka čovjeku, vesela relativnost, u njemu nema trunke nihilizma ni prazne lakomislenosti i plitkog boemskog individualizma...)
Da ne ulazim u ta razmišljanja, reći ću da ova izrazito iscrpna i sadržajna Bahtinova analiza (i sinteza) zaslužuje, smatram, mjesto na književnoteorijskom Parnasu već zbog same analize utjecaja menipeje i, prije svega, "karnevalizma" (osjećaj svijeta koji oslobađa od straha, maksimalno približava svijet čovjeku i čovjeka čovjeku, vesela relativnost, u njemu nema trunke nihilizma ni prazne lakomislenosti i plitkog boemskog individualizma...)
December 13, 2017
The first time through I took this as a manifesto for an artform yet-to-come. Bakhtin's polyphonic novel - wherein voices and ideas exist in endless, unresolved, ever-evolving dialogue with each other - seemed like an essential development that was still just out of reach.
On my second reading I became convinced by his readings of Dostoevsky, particularly those towards the end of the book that deal with the linguistic shifts in his work wherein contradictory positions are anticipated, integrated, or else twisted into something new.
I look forward to taking this back with me to Dostoevsky now, and to how my own responses may develop from there.
On my second reading I became convinced by his readings of Dostoevsky, particularly those towards the end of the book that deal with the linguistic shifts in his work wherein contradictory positions are anticipated, integrated, or else twisted into something new.
I look forward to taking this back with me to Dostoevsky now, and to how my own responses may develop from there.
November 19, 2019
I had to read a fragment of this book in order to write an article but I just couldn't put it down. There are so many ideas that might help me understand literature better.
I think that Bakhtin's writing resemble Dostoevsky's one (maybe it's just my impression), one great and mind-twisting idea follows another without too much of a structure.
Wow, haven't read a scholar's book with such a pleasure in a while.
I think that Bakhtin's writing resemble Dostoevsky's one (maybe it's just my impression), one great and mind-twisting idea follows another without too much of a structure.
Wow, haven't read a scholar's book with such a pleasure in a while.
February 25, 2019
چقدر سخت خوندمش اونم به خاطر امتحان خلاصه که گذشت اما به جان کندن.در مجموع چقدررر حرفاش و تکرار کرده بود!
تئوری در خلا شکل نمی گیرد جناب باختین خودت تنهایی تئوری دادی و دوختی و پوشیدی و نگذاشتی موافق و مخالف پیدا کنی،بلکه این همه تعصبت تعدیل بشه!
تئوری در خلا شکل نمی گیرد جناب باختین خودت تنهایی تئوری دادی و دوختی و پوشیدی و نگذاشتی موافق و مخالف پیدا کنی،بلکه این همه تعصبت تعدیل بشه!
June 20, 2015
One's understanding of Dostoevsky is never complete without Bakhtin
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.