Joyce Carol Oats is one of our leading authors. In addition, to writing short stories and novels, she is also known for writing literary criticism. Here is one example. What makes sense to you? Find at least one idea and post it. We will all comment on each other's ideas.
what a fun summer we will have.
Although I had a hard time really understanding everything that she said about the development in the novel, because of course I have not read it all. However, i did really like the way she mentioned how Dostoevski's writing is plain and the things that most authors usually elaborate on and "make pretty" he does not. The moral questions that Dostoevski raises seem to arouse from the simple thought of the narrator and/or the characters in their dialog. And then after he poses these questions he sort of leaves them for the reader to form an opinion on and then returns to his simple narration. This is one of the few stylistic things about Dostoevski's writing that I have noticed and appreciated so far.
I agree with you-- I kind of like that Dostoeveski leaves questions unanswered, because it forces the reader to think about certain topics and doesn't try telling you what you should think. Although sometimes I find this a little irritating and I wish the author would finish what he started.
This lady obviously has a lot of respect and appreciation for both the author and the novel he's written. She speaks so highly of the book, as if it were one of the best pieces of artistic literature in existance. In fact, her exact words are, "for it is clear even upon a superficial first reading that this novel is like a few other great works; it seems almost a novel in the making, a novel as it is being written, in the very process of being imagined.
She describes many details about the book, such as its dreary length and intricate yet well-planned plot. The book is divided into 12 mini-books, which is also mentioned. Brothers contains many psychological and religious references as well. However, the novel contains some problems. While these problems are not due to the author's doing, they are still confusing to the reader. The novel contains, as Joyce puts it, "a series of mocking antitheses." One can only wonder if they were added consciously or not.
Joyce also speaks on narration. It sometimes seems as if the narrator is speaking for the author, and other times the narrator is omniscient.
Joyce continues droning on in her article, citing dialogue and both minor and major details about the book and the characters within.
Sounds exciting =/
One thing she talks about is the understanding of the 'bizzarre' family
I agreed with this, because while reading the book, you can tell how dysfunctional the family is.
The brothers don't even really keep in touch with each other, which seems odd for people who are supposed to be so close to one another.
She talks about how intricate the summary of all the sons at the beginning of the book is,
and that was something I noticed about this book right away.
The author goes to great lengths to make sure you understand how each character's mind works, however odd that might be, because it is necessary to know this to understand the plot of the book.
I, too, had a hard time deciphering what point she was trying to get across. However, I got that she cannot quite figure out what Dostoevsky himself wanted to do with the novel and what sound he truly wanted it to have. Still, she goes back and forth between compliments of the work and criticisms of the work. It was pretty difficult for me to follow her.
In her article, Oats explains much of the symbolism in the novel. According to her, everything has a significant place/meaning in the plot, even the characters. I agree with her, although I might not have found some of the symbolism she pointed out by myself. It is obvious early on in the book that the story is complex. The Joyce Carol Oats article might have made more sense or have been easier to understand if we had already read the entire novel, not just two parts of it.