Since I have fully immersed myself into an abundance of literature classes, I cannot seem to escape comparing books between classes. While reading Candide I couldn't help noticing the difference in styles used by the authors of Candide and Brothers Karamazov to describe suffering. As we discussed in class, Voltaire uses a very sarcastic, cynical tone to describe events in an almost fairytale-like story. He also seems to flit from story to story without much thought. However, Dostoyevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov, portrays the story in a very honest and at times dramatic tone. He relays every part of the story in a very detailed, concise manner. I cannot decide which style I appreciate more. Voltaire uses satire to soften the effects of the suffering (just like Jeremy Crews always tries to make me laugh in the worst situations). He attempts to answer some very important questions about suffering in a light-hearted way. He approaches it with optimism. Dostoyevsky, however, creates scenes which get at the heart of the reader. I would challenge one to read the Brothers K all the way through and not be emotionally affected by at least one sentence. Anyone who could do so must have a great talent. But maybe that talent is simply a heart of stone.
But enough of talking about a book that we don't read in this class. We'll get to Dostoyevsky later ;)
One thing that really stood out to me was Candide's perspective of sin or wrongdoings. He seems to be a little skewed in his ideas. There are several places that hinted towards this but the best example is in Book Sixteen: "If I have committed a sin in killing an Inquisitor and a Jesuit, I have made ample amends by saving the lives of these girls". There are other references to his purity, however he has taken lives. He wants to justify himself, however he killed out of instinct. So this causes me to question the depth of his purity.
Comment on Nick Hampton's:
I understand what you mean about always being optimistic. I think that it's important to find a balance between not allowing suffering to completely ruin your life and still being realistic about its effects. The greatest example I can think of in this is Job. He admitted that his situations were terrible, but never once cursed God.
I love Dostoyevsky's style--it's heart wrenching and methodical. It's very realistic. In Candide, the whole lot of suffering just seems so absurd that I cannot take it seriously. None of it seems to impact the characters too much except that they complain about their lives all the time! I don't feel like I even see them struggle with why things happen as they do, or even what to do about it. It's like they just go from one thing to the next, hoping to meet Cunegonde again someday, living in the past. When I read Crime and Punishment I saw and was able to somewhat fathom the depth and darkness of Raskolnikov's suffering. Truly heart wrenching--made me question more than anything I've ever read before.
ReplyDelete