Works, such as the novels Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons(1872) .
Many literary critics rate him of the greatest of world literature and consider multiple highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He also well acts as a philosopher and theologian.
啸芯蟹褟泄泻邪 = Khozayka = The Landlady, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
The Landlady is a novella by Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky, written in 1847. Set in Saint Petersburg, it tells of an abstracted young man, Vasily Mikhailovich Ordynov, and his obsessive love for Katerina, the wife of a dismal husband whom Ordynkov perceives as a malignant fortune-teller or mystic.
The story has echoes of Russian folklore and may contain autobiographical references. In its time The Landlady had a mixed reception, more recently being seen as perhaps unique in Dostoyevsky's artworks.
After the reclusive and bookish scholar Vasily Ordynov is compelled to leave his apartment he wanders aimlessly through Saint Petersburg, contemplating his despair over a loveless life, his childhood and his future.
Through this distraction he finds himself within a church, where he notices an old man, Ilia Murin, with his young wife, Katerina.
His fascination for the couple, particularly Katerina, causes him to contrive further encounters, with the intention of securing a lodging at their home.
He becomes their house guest. The gloomy Murin is a perceived Old Believer, with powers of clairvoyance that have perturbed his neighbours and the local police, and which appear to control his wife.
Katerina implies that Murin was her mother's lover, that she might be Murin's biological daughter, and that the pair ran-off together after he killed her father.
There is an unresolved suggestion that Murin caused the death of Katerina's fianc茅 during their escape.
"Mire, se帽or: 隆El d茅bil no aguanta la soledad! Prueba a darle todo, y 茅l mismo vendr谩 y todo te lo devolver谩; dale medio reino para que lo gobierne, prueba, 驴y qu茅 crees? Enseguida se meter谩 dentro de una bota y se quedar谩 ah铆 escondido, acurrucado. Dale la libertad al d茅bil y 茅l mismo se atara y te la traer谩 de vuelta. 隆A un coraz贸n est煤pido no le sirve la libertad! 隆No tiene car谩cter para vivir con ella!"
Ten铆a ganas de releer a Dostoievski, pero no quer铆a tomar una de sus sus novelas magnas, de cientos de p谩ginas puesto que no tengo mucho tiempo libre y es por ello que decid铆 releer "La Patrona", su tercera novela escrita en 1847, cuando el genial escritor ruso promediaba los veintis茅is a帽os. Dostoievski hab铆a escrito ya algunos cuentos y dos novelas. Hab铆a pasado del debut glorioso e inesperado con su novela "Pobres Gentes", de ser la nueva promesa de las letras rusas al desencanto y el fracaso debido al rechazo y la incomprensi贸n de su segundo libro, "El Doble". Digamos que Dostoievski se encontraba en un impasse, pero segu铆 apostando a escribir puesto que confiaba f茅rreamente en que su modo de vida ser铆a como novelista e intentar谩 a toda costa consagrarse aunque le lleve d茅cadas. "La Patrona" pertenece a esa etapa en donde posicionamos tanto al autor como a algunos de sus personajes en el estad铆o de un "so帽ador". Luego de su exquisita nouvelle, "Noches Blancas", el autor dispon铆a de sentimientos apaciguados que ser铆an interrumpidos por su detenci贸n dos a帽os m谩s tarde por formar parte de un grupo revolucionario que intentaba atentar contra el Zar y que lo llev贸 a un simulacro de ejecuci贸n y su posterior deportaci贸n como prisionero a Siberia durante cuatro a帽os. Saldr铆a por las puertas de esa prisi贸n otro Dostoievski marcado a fuego por los sufrimientos de la vida y volcar铆a todo ese bagaje psicol贸gico en lo futuros personajes c茅lebres de sus novelas m谩s extensas. Pero volviendo a esta novela, Dostoievski crea una historia en donde el tri谩ngulo Ord铆nov-Murin-Katerina oscila entre el delirio m铆stico y el ardor amoroso. Ord铆nov, el personaje principal es un pariente cercano del narrador de "Noches Blancas", un so帽ador que no encaja en la sociedad, que vive s贸lo y desamparado y condicionado a no poder establecer v铆nculos afectivos con las personas. En una iglesia se encontrar谩 con la bella Katerina y Murin, un viejo de caracter铆sticas terribles y facciones mal茅volas y su inter茅s har谩 que les alquile un rinc贸n (ni siquiera una habitaci贸n) en el edificio en el que viven. A partir de all铆 se suceder谩n situaciones que acercar谩n a Ord铆nov con Katerina pero que en forma directamente opuesta har谩 que Murin intervenga para torcer la naturaleza de la historia. Como en toda novela de Dostoievski, los estados febriles, el delirio, el deseo y las pasiones m谩s tormentosas nos har谩n eclosi贸n en estos tres personajes que parecen pose铆dos, hechizados. Las relaciones entre Ord铆nov y Katerina anticipar谩n a aquellas que encontraremos m谩s adelante en otros libros como por ejemplo entre Sonia y Rask贸lnikov (quien al igual que Ord铆nov, sufrir谩 postrado los peores cuadros de acceso febril y delirio) de "Crimen y Castigo" o entre Vania y Natacha de "Humillados y Ofendidos" y que ya hab铆amos vivido con el narrador y Nast茅nka de "Noches Blancas". Su atracci贸n a Katerina es muy fuerte pero choca contra Murin. Es que no comprende qu茅 fuerza ata a esa extra帽a pareja ni cu谩l es el poder de hechizo o embrujo que Murin utiliza en Katerina. Tanto Ord铆nov como el lector disponen de muy pocas pistas para acercarse a la verdad. Tambi茅n es necesario comentar que la novela roza por momentos pasajes existencialistas, conflictos espirituales, ensue帽os inalcanzables y en otros casos la presi贸n psicol贸gica impuestas por Dostoievski en los personajes ser谩 casi insostenible. "La Patrona" es una novela corta pero muy intensa que atrae (y confunde un poco al lector a veces) y que tal vez no es de las m谩s conocidas de Dostoievski y podr铆a decirse adem谩s que en esa 茅poca tampoco le gener贸 a 茅l la posibilidad de recuperar todo aquello que hab铆a perdido luego del fracaso de "El Doble", pero lo que s铆 sabemos es que de una u otra manera y conjuntamente con sus escritos subsiguientes, le abri贸 una peque帽a puerta de acceso al inmenso talento literario que disfrutaremos m谩s tarde con sus novelas m谩s gloriosas.
On my journey to finish off all Dostoevsky's works, I picked this up today, which became my 11th novel/novella out of the 16 which he wrote in his lifetime. I was aware of the fact that this is perhaps his least celebrated works and is normally criticised. This made it difficult for me personally as I did not want to read anything by him which I might end up not liking. Most importantly, I pondered, will I be able to admit to myself that I did not like it? That means, would I eventually lie to myself? After all he himself has famously quoted 'Above all do not lie to yourself!' (Apologies for my tedious sense of humour)
Any case, sorry for my delirious ramblings (sometimes I wonder whether this overthinking paranoia is why I feel so connected with Dostoevsky's characters or reading too much of his works has turned me into this), I did read it (listened to it) and found it extremely unique and thrilling. There was an air of mystery throughout this short work which made me restless to unravel the truth, which as expected was obscure and subjective to the reader's purview.
I think it is a very misunderstood work of his genius. I normally relate to Nietzsche's quote which goes Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. And I think this goes a long way for Dostoevsky, not just for this novella but also in general. In particular to this novella, with context to both my personal and the public opinion, I might say it is a successful failed experiment . Also, I might add, this presumably was Nietzsche's first acquaintance with Dostoevsky and his reaction was positive.
It deals with gothic elements, mysterious psychological behaviour, the forever battle between the weak and the strong, and (surprise) a delirious protagonist. It ends with many, supposedly, unanswered questions which leaves the reader wondering and pondering for more. There are obviously two reactions to open endings, it might leave the reader in awe or it might make him/her frustrated for the obscurity of the text. I think most readers fall in the latter while I found myself in the former. There are no explanations given for the mystic elements involved which makes it gothic, but if you are fluent (an exaggeration) with his later works, I think you might be able to get the meaning of it (existential reminder: Is there any meaning to anything though?)
The writing specially was extremely beautiful and some of the lines, as expected in any Dostoevsky novel, would remain imprinted forever, for instance, 'Give a weak man his freedom, he will bind it himself and give it back to you. To a foolish heart, freedom is of no use.' Grand Inquisitor much?
Here I must add, I did not own the physical copy and hence listened to this story narrated by a YouTube channel, called Hippias Minor, the narrator's reading skills were amazing accompanied by insights on the chapters as well as the novella (some of which I have even related in this review). This really enhanced the understanding of the various remarks which would have been otherwise missed.
Yes, if Dostoevsky wouldn't have written what he wrote later, the meaning wouldn't be that coherent. I think once you become acquainted with an author, your subjectivity resonates with their view point. This subjectivity resonates differently with everyone, and the more you read him, the more you understand from the narrow context of your own comprehension. In this subjective approach, you tend to absorb the various intricacies of a misunderstood work in a much better way. For instance, reading the same book for the second time might completely change your view of the book, based on your own thoughts and the increased acquaintance with the author. This in turn definitely helped me appreciate it more.
What makes this stand out would be its uniqueness compared to Dostoevsky's other works. I wish it was longer though, the length did not let the work to be fleshed out as much as it could have. It is promising, but perhaps a hundred more pages would have worked better.
Dostoevsky was in his mid-twenties when he wrote this and it is quite apparent in this as well as his other earlier works, how the mature and post-Siberia Dostoevsky is waiting to spring out through the incoherence of the inexplicable parts. It feels as if he wanted to convey so much more but was unable to do so. But we, the future amateurs, who are aware of the later works, could easily comprehend which complements his earlier works much more. Obviously, if not for his later works, these pre-Siberia works would have been lost in the midst of the unknown by now, which compels me to quote Bukowski,
against the wall, the firing squad ready. then he got a reprieve. suppose they had shot Dostoevsky? before he wrote all that? I suppose it wouldn't have mattered not directly. there are billions of people who have never read him and never will. but as a young man I know that he got me through the factories, past the *, lifted me high through the night and put me down in a better place. even while in the bar drinking with the other derelicts, I was glad they gave Dostoevsky a reprieve, it gave me one, allowed me to look directly at those rancid faces in my world, death pointing its finger, I held fast, an immaculate drunk sharing the stinking dark with my brothers.
It is obviously not his best work, but an unpolished unique portrayal of the genius waiting to come through.
The Landlady is a love story by Dostoyevski. It is not the content we are accustomed to. And this is because this short story was written before his exile in Siberia.For which he is very grateful because this experience changed his whole way of thinking and wtiting. And this is proved by reading books he wrote before and his exile. What I liked in this book is the language. Also I could say that the characters have traits which are developed deeper in his later works. Other than that, I wouldn't say that I was astoshed by that book.
Nem sei que lhe diga Sr. Dostoi茅vski, mas isto desta vez n茫o correu l谩 muito bem...
N茫o me dou bem com tamanha profus茫o de l谩grimas, nem com este dramatismo opressivo e sofrimento irremedi谩vel. Faltou-lhe a caracter铆stica e oportuna comicidade a que nos habituou.