Scan barcode
roxanamalinachirila's review
2.0
Ah, Julia Kristeva. A number of years ago, working on my BA dissertation concerning intertextuality, I came across some of her writings (she is, after all, the one who coined the term) - the idea that all texts are created from other texts appealed to me, and fit my studies at the time. I never got around to reading more of her work, somehow, but I did notice when she was accused of being a communist collaborator a few years back, although it seemed to be empty smoke.
Dostoyevsky, on the other hand, I've known for (slightly) longer. After high school years of endless, empty praise for purple prose classics, I picked up "Crime and Punishment" on a whim and was shocked to discover he was readable and exciting. It was the first time I got an inkling that great books could truly be great.
Naturally, Kristeva writing about Dostoyevsky appealed to me.
„Dostoyevsky, or the Flood of Language” is short - the book is barely over 100 pages, of which Kristeva's work take up 65. It is, however, dense.
Kristeva goes through Dostoyevsky's works on theme by theme, rather than book by book, discussing Christic themes, female characters, sensuality, patricide with a love for the source text and a seemingly endless string of short quotations at hand.
Her writing style is one that some scholars I know adore, and others hate: highly allusive, assuming great erudition on the side of the reader, unwilling to offer concessions to those who struggle to follow. You either know what she's talking about and enjoy the references and ironic twists of phrase, or you don't.
At rare moments, she's unusually personal, not only in the introduction when she references her first encounters with the author even while her father attempted to persuade her she would not "like" him (it seems we both vividly remember encountering Dostoyevsky for the first time), but also later on, such as when she refers to Dostoyevsky as "Saint Dosto".
Her psychoanalytical approach is also visible throughout, standing out in the way she discusses patricide, sex, death, and more. How much one is willing to agree with her depends, I suppose, on how much one agrees with psychoanalysis in general, but it's still interesting to see Dostoyevsky's work from that perspective.
One problem I've found with her approach, however, is that it's sometimes hard to tell what Dostoyevsky's approach and what's Kristeva's interpretation of Dostoyevsky (especially if, like me, you haven't (re)read some of his books recently). For example, has Raskolnikov committed matricide in "Crime and Punishment", even in a figurative sense? I don't recall him having a filial connection to his victim, even on an emotional level, but right now I doubt myself. Or is it simply Kristeva's psychoanalytical interpretation that any woman old enough to be one's mother symbolically takes the place of the mother?
Her explanation of wordplay in the original Russian, however, I believe has a firmer footing, as she discusses authorial choices such as the naming of Raskolnikov.
What I entirely disagreed with, however, was Kristeva's determination to bring Dostoyevsky into contemporaneity, referencing Facebook and digital communication as a parallel to the author's polyphonies, or saying one of his characters had a "me too" moment. While I firmly believe that there can be parallels between old works and modern times, I believe they're parallels: they may look similar, but they have no meeting point. We can draw similarities, and we can ponder on our lives while inspired by a book written long ago, but the book itself is not a quasi-prophecy simply because we find it relevant - yet Kristeva's comments often strike me as trying too hard to bring a contemporary relevance to them by making them into just such quasi-prophecies.
But do books need to be contemporary in some sense to appeal to us and remain relevant? My answer to that would be no. It's up to each generation to see how it wishes to look at a story; and the story will, thus, always be new in some way, without being tied to that particular interpretation.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Columbia University Press for offering a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Dostoyevsky, on the other hand, I've known for (slightly) longer. After high school years of endless, empty praise for purple prose classics, I picked up "Crime and Punishment" on a whim and was shocked to discover he was readable and exciting. It was the first time I got an inkling that great books could truly be great.
Naturally, Kristeva writing about Dostoyevsky appealed to me.
„Dostoyevsky, or the Flood of Language” is short - the book is barely over 100 pages, of which Kristeva's work take up 65. It is, however, dense.
Kristeva goes through Dostoyevsky's works on theme by theme, rather than book by book, discussing Christic themes, female characters, sensuality, patricide with a love for the source text and a seemingly endless string of short quotations at hand.
Her writing style is one that some scholars I know adore, and others hate: highly allusive, assuming great erudition on the side of the reader, unwilling to offer concessions to those who struggle to follow. You either know what she's talking about and enjoy the references and ironic twists of phrase, or you don't.
At rare moments, she's unusually personal, not only in the introduction when she references her first encounters with the author even while her father attempted to persuade her she would not "like" him (it seems we both vividly remember encountering Dostoyevsky for the first time), but also later on, such as when she refers to Dostoyevsky as "Saint Dosto".
Her psychoanalytical approach is also visible throughout, standing out in the way she discusses patricide, sex, death, and more. How much one is willing to agree with her depends, I suppose, on how much one agrees with psychoanalysis in general, but it's still interesting to see Dostoyevsky's work from that perspective.
One problem I've found with her approach, however, is that it's sometimes hard to tell what Dostoyevsky's approach and what's Kristeva's interpretation of Dostoyevsky (especially if, like me, you haven't (re)read some of his books recently). For example, has Raskolnikov committed matricide in "Crime and Punishment", even in a figurative sense? I don't recall him having a filial connection to his victim, even on an emotional level, but right now I doubt myself. Or is it simply Kristeva's psychoanalytical interpretation that any woman old enough to be one's mother symbolically takes the place of the mother?
Her explanation of wordplay in the original Russian, however, I believe has a firmer footing, as she discusses authorial choices such as the naming of Raskolnikov.
What I entirely disagreed with, however, was Kristeva's determination to bring Dostoyevsky into contemporaneity, referencing Facebook and digital communication as a parallel to the author's polyphonies, or saying one of his characters had a "me too" moment. While I firmly believe that there can be parallels between old works and modern times, I believe they're parallels: they may look similar, but they have no meeting point. We can draw similarities, and we can ponder on our lives while inspired by a book written long ago, but the book itself is not a quasi-prophecy simply because we find it relevant - yet Kristeva's comments often strike me as trying too hard to bring a contemporary relevance to them by making them into just such quasi-prophecies.
But do books need to be contemporary in some sense to appeal to us and remain relevant? My answer to that would be no. It's up to each generation to see how it wishes to look at a story; and the story will, thus, always be new in some way, without being tied to that particular interpretation.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Columbia University Press for offering a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
katecthompson's review
Brilliant but I need to have read more than one Dostoevsky book to appreciate it
More...