The Art of Existence by Dostoevsky
The Diary of a Writer
First off: Happy Holidays to everyone, whatever you may be celebrating! May 2023 be a glorious year for you. If you’re into the gift of giving, please do consider going paid :) Sharing and recommending Sincere American Writing is another great way to assist! Thank you to all subscribers both free and paid!
###
I’ll probably do a longer post on Dostoevsky at some point, but for now I just wanted to post a few photos from his nonfiction collection, The Diary of a Writer. It’s a thick manifesto, a collection of diary writings he penned in the 1870s, in his mid-late 50s. He was born in Moscow in 1821 and died (at 59) in 1881. Of course he’s one of (if not frankly THE) the most important writers in all world history. A Russian author or the 19th century who shifted storytelling in as profound a way as Hemingway did in the 20th century. But Ole Dost—as I call him—remains supernaturally important to literature, past, present and future. More so, in my opinion, than Hemingway. Or anyone else.
Over the years I’ve read many Dostoevsky books—Crime and Punishment; The Brothers Karamazov; Notes from Underground; etc. Not to mention his nonfiction and short stories. Lately I’m reading his ‘fictional prison memoir’ The House of the Dead, about his four years of hard labor in prison after nearly being executed/shot (he felt; it turned out to be elaborately planned by Nicholas I, to make a glamorous, grotesque point.) He’d been arrested in 1849–just shy of 28—for his tepid involvement with the socialist Petrashevsky Circle. (He later abandoned socialism and became quite conservative and Christian.) Nicholas I was scared because of the 1848 revolutions which had erupted the year before, dethroning kings across Europe. Also, Marx’s The Communist Manifesto had been published the same year, 1848. Kings were nervous, and rightly so.
Dostoevsky’s prison memoir is fascinating on many levels. As is The Diary of a Writer. Many call Ole Dost the ‘father of psychology.’ Born 35 years before Freud, Dostoevsky had an instinctual ability to grasp deep underlying unconscious motives. This certainly must have been part of his magnificent ability to draw deep, rich, three-dimensional characters who felt scarily authentic. He grasped on a distinct level why people did what they did. His perspicacity (to use a big, fun, clunky word) was undiluted. A man of incredible insight and entrenched sensitivity. A true writer; a real artist if ever there was one.
Anyway—I’ll let the photos speak for themselves. Enjoy!
Socialism, he argues, includes the rejection of personal moral responsibility. And it supports victimhood. This was written in 1873. Yet it could be said right now.
###
Woe to the man who actually tries to meditate, listen, learn, understand. This also seems profoundly relevant to our current times: obsessed with 24-hour entertainment, constantly distracted by devices and the internet, disinterested in books, engorged on TikTok.
###
In literature, understanding how to speak and knowing who you’re speaking to. Yes. Know thy reader. Audience. Method. Technique.
###
Again—relevant to today. Specifically to our current political polarization. I think of ‘spiritism’ as the religion of radicalism on both the right and left: our politics have morphed into religion. And it feels like our society is indeed infected by devils.
###
Science alone cannot save us. Moral values are needed. I love this. Again: 2022. We need both Science (reason, data, rational and critical thought) AND moral values. Not one or the other. Both.
Great post. Your use of literature--novels, biographies--to underscore the similarities with today’s cultural issues brings a new relevance in our thinking about the present. Reading your highlighted passages adds impact in the sense that we struggle with the same dilemmas, ask the same hard questions, reach the same impasses as 18th, 19th and 20th century writers. American authors or Russian, their words add texture to the big picture, express a perspective we may not have considered. And thus, we learn. And that was Old Dost’s point.
So good. So timely. And the chasm between Ole Dost's capacity for sensitivity, nuance, and three-dimensional renderings and what fills our screens and lives these days is...striking. Love this angle on things and way of presenting them, Michael!