LOL, I'd not heard that RLS quote on the book. I quite agree with him.
I haven't read "The Man Who was Thursday" yet, but it's on my To-Read list.
As to the suffering: He seemed to present a contrast between the suffering *before* the "conversion" and *after* the conversion. The previous suffering was self-inflicted, and could not be ended without open confession. Later suffering would come from external sources, and Raskolnikov (sp?) could take comfort from the fact that, at least, his actions were just. Previously there was no such solace.
Oh yes, there is of course a difference between the "before" and "after" suffering. It's holy suffering, external misery embraced and patiently born, that the Orthodox seem to like. I wonder how much the author was influenced by the extreme suffering he himself went though? The poor fellow had a very tough life, though that may be part of what allowed him to write what he did.
I need to think more about the "conversion," if you want to call it that. So little is said that it's slightly difficult to know exactly what the author is conveying and what different people are reading into it.
Comments 3
LOL, I'd not heard that RLS quote on the book. I quite agree with him.
I haven't read "The Man Who was Thursday" yet, but it's on my To-Read list.
As to the suffering: He seemed to present a contrast between the suffering *before* the "conversion" and *after* the conversion. The previous suffering was self-inflicted, and could not be ended without open confession. Later suffering would come from external sources, and Raskolnikov (sp?) could take comfort from the fact that, at least, his actions were just. Previously there was no such solace.
Reply
I need to think more about the "conversion," if you want to call it that. So little is said that it's slightly difficult to know exactly what the author is conveying and what different people are reading into it.
Reply
Well said. Which is why I didn't care for it. I have enough delirium in life as it is. o_O
Reply
Leave a comment