The first entry in a series.
Michael and I, at my request, watched The Ice Storm this weekend. I had seen one of the strangest scenes from the film before, but not the film in its entirety. I’m not going to talk much about the movie – I think it suffered from its “artistic sensibility.” Sure, it was pretty, but did it mean anything? Did I feel anything? Did the snark make me laugh? Did the attempts at depth feel unassuming? Did I understand anything about the characters? No is my answer to all these questions. Plus the music really irritated me.
Without going off on a tangent about “indie” films, I’d like to point out that the only way to make a compelling film (or story) is to make compelling characters – not just craft a stereotype and then have a climax where that character makes one act in opposition to the stereotype they assume. That’s not depth, that’s lazy writing. Beauty of craft is not enough to make up for not having anything to say.
Well, there’s a scene (stupid, insubstansial scene to establish a character’s affection for a secondary character) of a roundtable discussion (presumably at a college) where they’re discussing Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground. Insert my inward groan here, as the secondary character goes on some discussion about religion and free will that’s trite, and in retrospect, pretty true to my collegiate experience in terms of the depth most students had to offer.
It reminded me that there are probably books we should all read. I think Notes from the Underground should be on that list. It’s on my list.
Dostoevsky is a difficult writer to read. At least, he was always difficult to me. His writing is complex and philosophical – he is less concerned with writing a compelling story and more concerned with writing about philosophy. But in order to write about philosophy, he crafts complicated, absorbing, often contradictory characters and delves into their minds (indie movie writers, take note). Dostoevsky’s writing is a beginning to psychology for me. He came before Freud, before psychoanalysis and yet he is absorbed in the content of mankind’s brains, the thought-processes that accompany people’s behaviors.
I could go on and on about Dostoevsky – about the contradictory nature of his work reflecting the contradictions in his life, about his faith in the redemptive qualities of mankind, most frequently represented by religion for him. But that’s not the point. Forget the intellectual tomfoolery surrounding the man and read him. Let yourself really drown in his characters and his unending attention to the mind of mankind. You don’t have to be a scholar, or a writer attempting to look smart by referencing the man’s work.
Notes from the Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky is a pretty short read, and is available for under $5 in Signet Classics paperback. Or you can read it online for free here (and plenty of other places, too). Since it’s free, you have no excuse not to read it.
Post a Comment